Art Games

[Matt]

Wasn't sure where best to put this. I was going to do a First Play for the title I played yesterday, but then thought it may be best grouping all these games together as it's a very interesting "movement".

I got Braid recently, and like many have really enjoyed it. I've been reading Jonathan Blow interviews and blogs for a while, before I even had the game, as I find him a fascinating individual. I'm full of admiration for his accomplishment, but also he is forthright and speaks his mind, which not many devs do.

During these articles, he talks about the bigger picture of Art Games beyond Braid. It's quite fascinating, giving games "meaning", and getting the player to really think about what they're doing. There are a few games he references, so I started with the most recent, called Gravitation by Jason Rohrer. There are other games such as Passage, The Marriage, and Stars Over Half Moon Bay which I have yet to play.

My experience with Gravitation was, to reuse the word yet again, fascinating. I won't tell you what it's about with a massive Spoiler warning, please give it a try knowing nothing going in. I will tell you what I've taken from the game, which is strange as it's only 5 minutes long - but afterwards it had me thinking, in a way no other game has before. I'm not sure why. It's made me re-appraise how and why I play games, and this particular case, why I done things the way I done them.

This is all spoilered, PLEASE don't read until you've played it!

->Open Spoiler<-

So where to start.... I'm bound to miss something here, so reserve the right to edit this to get my thoughts complete.

You play a ball game with your kid, and it opens your eyes. You're seeing more of the world, and you are both happy. But not you can see more of the world, you want to get "higher". So you leave your kid and start jumping, to the lowest platforms. Then you see your first star - you're literally Reaching For The Stars. So you collect a few stars, which fall back to Earth as Ice. But you're missing your kid, you view and ability to reach new heights are diminishing in isolation. So you go back to your kid. There are now Ice Stars on the ground. Your kid does nothing when he first sees you, feeling neglected. You push the Stars in to your house, where they go up in smoke - you're worked and are pumping your rewards in to your house. While pushing, the kid wants to play again. But you're too busy pushing the stars in to your house, so the ball isn't returned. When I was done, I returned to the ball game with the kid. All was well, I had my vision restored.

So I set off up again. Knowing my new found power, I jumped higher, more confident, taking the faster route to the Stars. I collected a few which were previously unreachable, but again my vision shrunk and I could no longer jump as high without the love of my kid. So I went back down, put the Stars in to my house again, before finding the time to play the ball game.

Yet again I set up high. I got very high, but could only get a couple of stars before I needed to return home. But this time, the kid was gone. The ball was left on the ground, a reminder of what I'd left behind to reach the Stars. I put the stars in to my house, but it was pointless. I had no one else around me. There were no rewards left. I couldn't play the ball game, I couldn't jump any higher than the first platform, and my world vision was really limited.

It wasn't pleasant. I was isolated. All alone. With just a house and the ball.

It made me reflect on modern life and reappraise what is important to me. What a game!

[peeveen]

But is it 60fps?

I've played Passage, and I guess I failed to see the point.

I'd hesitate to call it an "art game", but "A Mind Forever Voyaging" is a very enjoyable game-that-isn't-really-a-game. It's a text adventure, but there is barely any standard puzzle stuff in it, mainly just narrative that you encounter as you move around. Extremely good stuff.

Oh, and "Photopia" as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photopia

[Phar]

Never heard of Gravitation but I'll give it a go later, sounds interesting. Just checked out the games site, gets bonus points for having a Linux version.

Also theres a link on that site which takes you to Arthouse Games, theres a game on there called Fez which looks ace. Cheers for the thread Chain, I'll have to try a few of the other games you mentioned.

[Matt]

But is it 60fps?

Are you going to put that in every thread I make?

Needless to say, it's not important in a game where reflexes don't come in to the equation.

I'll check out the title you mention. I think Art Games is the right phrase. Good art makes you think, be it painting, music, writing, film. "Art" sounds kinda pretentious, but I'm willing to go with it.

[Ish]

I've given that a go and read your spoilered comment. I do have a question for you (and I've asked this about certain pieces of art):

If you'd come across the game on a random download site without the "art house" context what would your opinions have been? Would they have been different?

Edit: interesting post by the way.

[Matt]

I've given that a go and read your spoilered comment. I do have a question for you (and I've asked this about certain pieces of art):

If you'd come across the game on a random download site without the "art house" context what would your opinions have been? Would they have been different?

Edit: interesting post by the way.

A very good point. Obviously I went in expecting "something". I didn't know what at all. At first I was like, "OK... er... well I'll see what happens". It was only when

->Open Spoiler<-

the kid had gone that I thought a bit more about what I was doing (which is probably the point). By that time it was too late (again, the point). I then actually quit the game, because I couldn't go any further, I was done (again!).

Then I went to bed (was late) and thought about the game, coming up with my thoughts above.

There's a possibility I only gave it more thought afterwards because it's an "Art Game", but I'm not sure. There's no way of knowing. If I'd stumbled on it, I may well have thought it was a piece of **** unfinished title and not given it a second thought.

Regardless, I don't think that truly matters. People walk in to a museum to see art. They go there with an open mind, ready to be taken in and ponder what they see. I think if we're going to accept games can be Art, then knowing it's an Art Game going in is acceptable.

[chopemon]

Here's another one for you, The Majesty of Colours.

This is an excellent podcast with some guys from 1up talking to Jon Blow and Rod Humble. This should be required listening for any designer.

[noobish hat]

Honestly don't know what anyone sees in this. We have enough of this pretentious bollox everywhere else, do we really need it in games? Art house games are great, but this Gravitation isn't a game. It's sacrificed gameplay in trying to get across whatever message it's trying to convey, so it fails. An art house game has to be both art and a game.

[Matt]

If you know of any other titles that can evoke this kind of thought, in others if not yourself, please let us know. All Art can be called pretentious, as you have called it. But without Art, life would be very dull.

All Art started somewhere, it's an evolutionary process. The Mona Lisa came a long time after the first cave drawings. I think seeing anyone attempting Art in games should be applauded.

[Ish]

Regardless, I don't think that truly matters. People walk in to a museum to see art. They go there with an open mind, ready to be taken in and ponder what they see. I think if we're going to accept games can be Art, then knowing it's an Art Game going in is acceptable.

Sure people go to museums and galleries specifically to see art but I find that the best art speaks to me regardless of what I know about it in advance.

That said - we have an established set of criteria for viewing, interpreting and classifying much art. We're brought up with certain expectations and most art (I'd argue) fits into that in some shape or form. I'm not sure we have that for videogames yet when it comes to treating them as art.

The trouble with games "as art" is that, for example, when I played this game I just felt that I was playing a substandard game.

I think games can be art and can say something as well as entertain (both subtly and in an in your face way) but I can't think of a game that unequivocally succeeds yet.

A game that struck me as succeeding in making me feel something recently was (of all things!) The Darkness. The section where you visit the orphanage and

->Open Spoiler<-

Jenny is killed, you see the memories etc.

. But interestingly at that point you don't have a lot of control - all you're really doing is driving the camera. And at the emotional heart of the scene control is removed from you completely. In short its a movie with limited interaction on the way to it. That said I chose to spend time with

->Open Spoiler<-

her in her apartment

earlier on and I'm sure that had some effect on how the later scene effected me - and that was fairly interactive.

Aggh. This is all really disjoint. I know what I'm trying to say but can't seem to express it satisfactorily. I'll try again later - after I've played a few games to get me out of work mode

[Brats]

Art is all about context. The whole world was thrown upside down when Duchamp took a urinal from a tip and placed it in a gallery. Since then the only thing that defines art is the context in which it is experienced. It's why Tracey Emin's unmade bed in a gallery is art but my unmade bed at home isn't.

In the case of games and other media, because they aren't limited to a single geographical location, the only thing that defines them as art is the label. If I made a game that involves a block bouncing around the screen in different colours and called it art and people belived it was art, then it is art (dunno if that makes sense). Because of that, the pretentious label always comes in because 'art' is seen as moire worthy than just entretainment (when in my mind both has different values).

Art doesn't need to actually mean anything though. I think these Art Games do purely because they are trying to do something to distinguish themselves from other games to get the 'art' label.

[Ish]

One other thing - when I think art I tend to think paintings, sculptor, video installations, movies. That sort of thing.

But given games "big thing" is interaction maybe I should be looking elsewhere - anyone got any experience of participatory theatre or interactive installations?

[Brats]

But given games "big thing" is interaction maybe I should be looking elsewhere - anyone got any experience of participatory theatre or interactive installations?

Yeah, I've been to the Tate a few times and messed around with things like light shows that change depending on the position of the viewer. There was a very similar exhibit at the Game On exhibition when it started at the Barbican. I don't remember it being called art though. See, it's all about the context.

There were also the metal slides at the Tate. No different from Butlins tbh, but because they are at the Tate, they are art.

[Matt]

I think Art HAS to mean something, on an individual basis. It must make you think. I agree about context, what some people call Art I call A Waste Of Money. But hey, what do I know, I'm no art critic.

Art games which don't "mean" anything, give an example? There are some which are artistic and full of Artistry, like say Geometry Wars, but that's a different kind of visual art I'd have thought.

Sure, Gravitation "played" pretty badly, but it had a message. I interpreted that in my own way, and gave the game a meaning that others would disagree with. It made me think about the decisions I'd taken in the game and what that means about me. Which in my books, makes it art.

[Ish]

Art is all about context. The whole world was thrown upside down when Duchamp took a urinal from a tip and placed it in a gallery. Since then the only thing that defines art is the context in which it is experienced. It's why Tracey Emin's unmade bed in a gallery is art but my unmade bed at home isn't.

Partly but I think this aspect of art is oversold by the "elite". Frankly art and the art scene like anything else is about money and power for many of those involved and promoting context helps promote closure for a significant portion of art. But then I'm an incredibly cynical git.

Anyhoo yeah I do agree to a point - after all the context doesn't have to be a museum or gallery. Those statues round London recently for example (christ I can barely remember a thing about them, senility setting in at 33... not a good sign).

I often think art means more to the creator than to anyone else, perhaps thats how it should and has to be.