You may or may not yet have seen my Kotaku feature for this month -- it's about games as art. No, seriously! Actually, rather than kick around the "are they or aren't they" question, I decided to ask some folks doing unconventional things in games about the commercial and cultural viability of games like The Path.
There's a reason why you're so sick of the "art games" question -- we're still not sure where "that kinda thing" fits in. I agree with Ian Bogost, who when speaking to me on my "quit it with the Citizen Kane thing" column, said that what people really want is legitimacy for games, whether that comes via being accepted as "art", or through film-like "watershed" moments. Never mind that either of those seem especially likely in a broadly visible way anytime soon.
But I did my best to find out what course the people working on games that are decidedly art think their work might follow -- if you haven't yet seen it, read my feature for input from Tale of Tales, Jason Rohrer and more!
12 comments:
Now that I actually have my own notebook back I can read read articles again the way I want. I'm gonna give the writeup a revisit sometime this week, especially the wacky comments...heh.
~sLs~
I've often thought that we could look at video games now the same way we were looking at comics in the last two decades. To that end, in his second book on comic theory (Reinventing Comics), Scott McCloud argued that one of the reasons comics was failing as a "legitimate art" was because "the more innovative work--a traditional predictor of future health--had always comprised a small slice of the industry pie" and with the industry shrinking (in the early '90s), the "artistic slice" had gotten so small that it made no difference (10).
I think we can take what he says and apply it to any art form (especially the struggling ones), and if we do, it tells us that the true artistic worth of video games that "break the mold" (like the ones you mention) won't be appreciated until much later.
And in that light, we can even track a few examples: Zelda paved the way for Okami; the unconventional FPS Portal made Mirror's Edge possible; hell, even board games like Risk and Stratego gave us Civilization!
I think the "games as art" debate will be settled just as "comics as art" has been: with time.
People don't want art, not really. And that's in any media: games, film, TV, music. Why do you think the ones that get lots of money aren't the ones that do things different or are feely movies as i like to call them. There mostly brawn more then brains.
Halo 3 was a really popular game for being a generic shooter with a man in a space suit killing aliens.
So no I don't think "art" games will ever be viable for business or for people playing them. Yes people do like them but not enough.
Which depresses me actually. We don't actually know what is good. Or we don't care.
I think we're starting to move forward with the whole making games more emotive thing. The problem is, we're far too stuck in making games fun that creating moving experiences takes a bit of a back seat.
The reason The Path has been so contentious is because it isn't particularly pleasant to play; it deals with some pretty uncomfortable issues, and there isn't much of a game mechanic as such. Similarly, something like Stalin Vs Martians isn't exactly what you'd call 'fun' to play, but you can understand the satire and thought behind it. Once we remove the intention of 'fun' mechanics, we can create a more interesting experience. I mean, who actually enjoyed Requiem for a Dream, or Shindler's List? I certainly didn't, but they're deeply moving pieces.
Thanks for what was once again a well-thought out article, Leigh. It piqued my curiosity, to say the least. I tend to shy away from the majority of indie games since I'm not horribly PC-savvy, but I'm going to be making more of an effort to check out these "different" titles from now on, starting with The Marriage and The Path.
I think Ian Bogost was right to say that for gamers art = legitimacy because the answer to the question "What is art?" is "What ever the artist says is art".
I tend to like a lot of games that are "arty", but I would be wary of games becoming legitimate because with legitimacy comes stagnation and boredom. Just look at films and music. There may be good films and good music being made, but the vitality is not there any more. Music and films are in a neo-classical mode at the moment and games, thankfully, aren't.
In the 20th century saying you were into rock n roll or whatever would mean for some people you were a dubious character. Now it's become so acceptable you may as well say you enjoy walks on the beach. Gamers shouldn't worry about the raised eyebrows they get because the mixed reactions means there are still possibilities.
I think the reason we're tired of the "are games art?" question is because it will always lead to the "what is art?" question which is one of those things like abortion or something that people will never agree on.
I don't think there will be a moment - a particular game that comes out and makes everyone finally agree that "games are art." It'll gradually happen over decades as the children of today's 30-year-old gamers grow up into some kind of post-gamer generation. When they do they'll look at the medium and recast it in ways we can't even imagine.
First off, attempting not to be sycophantic but still wanting to give praise where praise is due; nice article, well cited and with an elegant path through some very relevant issues.
All I've ever wanted as a designer is to give the end user an "experience". I think it's probably the highest thing a developer can aim for. You're never going to be able to touch everybody and even the ones you do have an effect on are unlikely to be touched deeply unless they're quite susceptible to that kinda thing (suspension of disbelief and immersion are very much user-defined criteria).
So it is with the "games striving to be recognised as art". I very much doubt that most of the people involved in these projects have this as their end goal. They probably want to have their efforts recognised as something more than just a money spinning, graphically impressive, button pushing "game". That smacks of what nerds say about sports; "Oh, golf is just hitting a ball around a field and into a hole!".
We want games to have depth. Whether that is depth of thought, narrative or something else entirely, even though they're displayed in 2D, we want them to have more than two-dimensional.
It's a little bit like what RedSwirl said, but I wish we'd shut up about Games and Art and just work on trying to better understand the core concepts of gameplay and fun.
Making coffee is an art. Playing football is an art. Fucking is an art. It all depends on its acceptance within society.
If what we want is for games to be accepted as an art form, then sitting around asking why it isn't accepted isn't going to change people's minds. If we want people to take this media seriously, the people working in this media need to start acting as though we should be taken seriously.
That means discussing critical core concepts, treating games as more than just marketable entities, and building a background of academic study.
Unfortunately, since dev costs are so high, distribution channels so thin, and the market so unforgiving of change, I can appreciate that most industry folk don't have the time and can't afford the chance of taking risks with new ways of working.
There's a solution, but it'll take time - and take us growing up in the way we treat games and the things we argue about.
As a game, the only thing The Path really allows you to do is wander around... slowly. The more you wander, the more symbolically charged imagery you are hit with. I don't think many people want games to be art in the way that The Path is art. By that I mean interesting concepts that are not fun to play. But The Path needed to happen because it opens our eyes to other possibilities by flipping the idea of gaming upside down. I think it represents the first time that anyone has attempted to embue artistry into a "game" without any intent of making it fun to control. And the remarkable thing is that it kind of works. The thing is such an unusual curiosity, that I found myself spending several hours meandering off the path into the woods just to see what would happen even though I was constantly frustrated by my character's slow pace. I never would have thought that a game that is so utterly unenjoyable to play would be so worthwhile. It leaves an impression on you.
But, I don't think it is a model for artistic games. It is merely a doorway. It serves as an example that not every part of a game requires fun play control, but storyline also doesn't have to be told entirely through cut scenes. You can have scenes that slow you down and force you to pay attention to the details of the world. You can have scenes that don't provide you with any direction or goal and leave it up to you to simply explore. Symbolical imagery can emerge from the ether and confuse you and force you to think. The Path does all of these things and they provide you with an experience that, if integrated into a game as pieces of a larger work that was actually fun to play, might just work.
This is typically what happens in the avant garde. Some people experiment with the very idea of what the medium is about and they challenge core notions of how things can be done. The criteria for success in the avant garde is, therefore, different than what we would expect elsewhere. To succeed in the avant garde you have to break apart, disect, examine, challenge, and present anew. This then opens up new paths that can be integrated back into the mainstream. So though I think The Path is a lousy videogame, I think it is a wonderfully inventive avant garde piece that could potentially have a great impact on the gaming world. It's sort of like a genetic mutation that first seems strange and useless, but eventially is utilized and helps the whole species evolve.
I think what gamers really want though is not Citizen Kane. They want the gaming equivalent of something like Titanic or The Beatles. They want something that will simultaneously please the artists, the critics, and the general audiences. Somthing that gives us that artistic legitimacy, but still manages to be a good time. The Path won't do that, but by challenging and shaking things up, it might have offered up some ideas that will help get us there.
I am not at all suprised with the fact that this is the picture we see. The new, daring, and different take time to be accepted and become mainstream. The gaming world is not different.
The only reason why I personally would like to see more artistic games is because then I would have more games to play. I don't like clever gameplay mechanics. They don't amuse me. They are not fun for me. What is fun for me is an immersive environment where I can discover things that make me think and feel. I find that highly pleasurable.
I don't think all games should be artistic. Much like most movies are not and most books is not. But the balance is a bit off in games. We definitely need a higher proportion of games that offer a different type of entertainment. And I'm pretty sure that the discoveries made during such attempts will inspire more mainstream developers. Which may lead to games finally getting the status of "normal medium". I personally think the technology, the medium deserves it. But we'll have to wait for more artists to start using it.
That's the gist of it in the end. Games should not become art. But more artists should make games. Fun gameplay should not be lifted to an artistic level. But more games should be created with the intent of providing artistic depth.
If only because then people like me have some games to play. Because at the moment, my Wii and Playstation are gathering dust. I can only play Noby Noby Boy for so long. It's ironic that in an industry that is supposedly so commercial, from my perspective, the demand is much greater than the offer.
Post a Comment