Jimquisition: Lazy, Boring, Ordinary, Art Games

[trooper6]

Hm.

I get that some folks don't like art games. And I also agree that just because something is an art game doesn't mean that it will be great.

Being a Mac gamer, I haven't played Dear Esther, so I can't really address that game. Though Eurogamer has a really interesting article about the genre Exploration game that Dear Esther is a part of that I think is illuminating:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-03-10-when-is-a-game-not-a-game

All of that said, I think art games, like art film, is style that is not for everyone. I personally like art film and I like art games as a genre.

I loved Trauma, for example. I have mixed feelings about The Path. I like Digital: A Love Story...and so on, I'm still haunted by The Graveyard...and so on. But I understand that the genre isn't for everybody. Not liking certain experiences doesn't make you bad, or less intelligent, or more intelligent. Or whatever.

So someone doesn't like Trauma? Okay. I really thought it was fantastic.
I don't like fighting games. That's okay too.

Does this mean I think art games are above criticism? Not at all. But I think, with any form of art, that it is important to critique from within the genre...with an eye towards what its genre's values are...with an eye towards what it was trying to do.

For example, it isn't right to say: Bob Dylan sucks because he doesn't sound like Aretha Franklin. Of course he doesn't. He operates in the folk genre and worked really hard to cultivate a singing style reminiscent of Woodie Guthrie. Judge him by what is valued in the genre he works in. Or it doesn't make sense to go see a romantic comedy and complain that it wasn't scary enough. I hated it when KotOR came out and people said, "KotOR sucks because it's combat isn't as good as Halo"--because...well, duh! Different genre and different genre values.

So I think when looking at art games and wanting to fairly critique them, it is important to think about what it is they are trying to do and the genre they operate in. So The Path, which I like in many ways, suffers from some problems in the control scheme that hampers my ability to enjoy the game they wanted me to enjoy (actually, I think they need to worry about the way one controls their avatars in general). Not all games put the same value on interactivity in the same way.

So I'd certainly love to have a conversation with Jim about The Path...but from within the genre from without. This particular episode of the Jimquisition walks the line between critiquing from within and critiquing from without and I don't think it ends up walking that line successfully.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Perhaps a better example than Journey is Shadow of the Colossus. That game is 98% walking through possibly the most beautiful environment ever put on the PS2. However, there are massive statues for you to kill which creates an almost jarring switch between the peace of wandering the wilderness. It's not all walking and it's not an oversaturation of ludicrous set piece scenes.

 

[Lexxicator]

While I'm not totally agree with everything you said, Jim, you certainly got me thinking.
So, yeah, Dear Ester WAS laking in interactivity but I enjoyed playing it pretty much. Why?
Because creators of the game succeeded in their attempt to manipulate my emotional state. And that's why I played this game in the first place - to experience those emotions.
I can understand that same results could be achieved by other means (like films or books), but I don't see the reason to condemn this kind of games. They work. On a smaller scale of course, but still they work.

 

[dunnace]

The Stanley Parable is a video game parody of the "walking" games and well worth a look. It's also hilarious/terrifying.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I bought Dear Esther out of my support for The Chinese Room. I had played the original mod and Korsakovia, and I found them intriguing. I personally enjoyed them, but I definitely see where Jim is coming from. It really all depends on what you want to get out of the game. I found something I liked, but that same thing is just as easily something another person will hate.

 

[LiquidGrape]

And this is where you lose me again. I understand the fundamentals of your argument, but I'd say it is a thoroughly reductive one.

You put a lot of emphasis on the importance of not boring the player, but enjoyment and amusement are not necessarily the same thing. I adore playing games such as Left 4 Dead and Assassin's Creed for their gratification through gameplay combined with very competently realised worlds, but I also profusely enjoyed the likes of Dear Esther and The Path for the atmosphere and subtleties they evoked.
Then there are the rare successful joining of the two, best realised in Silent Hill, Psychonauts, Grim Fandango and The Longest Journey.

Now I will readily concede that occasionally, yes, overtly obfuscating "art games" will veer dangerously close to impenetrable esoterism (Tale of Tale's FATALE being a perfect, if still interesting, example), but to suggest that an unspecified amount of interactivity is what defines a game and legitimises it as an interactive experience seems awfully simplistic to me.

- Doesn't it matter just as much what the participant isn't allowed to do?

P.S

Oh, and by the way, nice work saying that childish dissenters deserve to be reduced to "c*nts", adding an entirely unnecessary gendered slant to the discourse.

D.S

 

[Robert Ewing]

I've been nagging this point for ages Jim, thank god I wasn't jaded about the issue.

Art games are to the game industry what modern art is to the art industry.

Nonsensical symbols that anybody, or anything can make while experiencing an epileptic fit. And just a bit shit, bad quality garbage.

Citation: Go to tate modern in London. There is a fallen palm tree in on of the exhibitions that's worth £28,000,000. It's just a palm tree... That's fallen over... And put in a freaking art gallery...

 

[Avatar Roku]

Can anyone tell me what the scene at 2 19 is off?

The Path. This pretentious, non-interactive game that I happen to love to pieces.

Everything that Jim said about the arty games is true of this one but...I dunno, The Path clicked for me.

 

[Neonit]

isnt it how you can describe pretty much 95% of the "art"? stagnated?

its the same problem i have with musea, it was supposed to inspire, instead it limits the potential of artists. because we have established what is art, and what is not. art was supposed to reflect the ever-changing society and therefore it should never stagnate.

maybe its because we dedicated a group of people as artists instead of considering everyone as one?

im probably digging too deep into it, anyway - good ep, im rather enjoying the show.
keep up the good work

 

[Lunar Templar]

'games' about walking being art

i missed the memo ... when was this considered a good idea? when was it some one decided the 'game' part of a video game was in the way of story? did non of these twats play a GOOD art game.

but ya know what, i had a thought, a brilliant one no less.

Asura's mother fucking Wrath, is an art game.

after all 90% of it is cut scene with the bulk of game play being QTEs or throw away mob to beat down, so the 'player' doesn't need to do much, and you can get just as much out of watching it as playing it. it's also got music that is out of place, fitting for the moment, and bloody awesome all at once.

that over qualify s it for art game doesn't it?

 

[Falseprophet]

I agree with this show basically.

I like it how he's talking about game worlds that make you feel like a welcome guest as he shows Limbo. That game world HATES you and will kill you many times Great game though, and very artistic.

Limbo does make you feel welcome, in a Welcome to Die! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdAmkx8eAos] kind of way.

 

[Falseprophet]

I wish the more original, surrealistic and abstract art styles of these art games could make their way into actual gameplay experiences. I'm thoroughly sick of every other AAA game going for gritty photorealism, and appreciate games like Limbo, Journey and El-Shaddai for at least trying to mix things up.

 

[oneeyemug]

Jim was right in that all video games are art in some way.

If art is supposed to create an emotional response from the player, then Call of Duty should be considered an art game, as the multiplayer can create the feelings of euphoria, pride, or a complete loss of self-control that leads to swearing.

 

[Sirron Kcuch]

pOnd.
Just play it; don't look it up before doing so, it would defeat its purpose

 

[Steve the Pocket]

I remember when Yahtzee said that Heavy Rain can't really be called a game, but rather an "interactive storytelling experience". And I guess there's nothing wrong with making something like that, and it definitely has its appreciators. But there really needs to be more acknowledgement that it's not the same thing as a game. Most games nowadays are technically both, with developers using elements of the "interactive storytelling experience" as an easy way to make their games deeper and more compelling. It's basically what separates what you might call a "Doom/Quake clone" from a "Half-Life/System Shock clone". Only recently have they started sucking the game elements out, and that's a problem, for the same reason taking the engine out of a car is a problem.

Dear Esther, to me, gets a free pass because it was at least one of the earliest "interactive storytelling experiences" and can't really be accused of copying a popular trend, even if the money-cost remake is a bit of a cash-in.

 

[personion]

I liked Every Day The Same Dream, and I much prefer it to an Fps. I agree with you on Dear Esther though. Why do I like one more than the other? Because EDTSD gives you choice and opprotunity and has a strange atmosphere. There's nothing wrong with creating a good atmosphere in games, and while Dear Esther does this it's a bit bland, linear and there's nothing to interact with. In EDTSD there's people to talk to, things to do and choices to make. Also it's a flash game. What are you expecting from a flash game? I enjoyed it far more than other flash games as well.

 

[Yellowbeard]

Dear Esther, to me, gets a free pass because it was at least one of the earliest "interactive storytelling experiences" and can't really be accused of copying a popular trend, even if the money-cost remake is a bit of a cash-in.

I loved Dear Esther back when it looked like crap, which is why I gave them 10 bucks for the new one, but I wouldn't even call it "interactive." Especially the new one, which even removes the ability to pick up the 5 bits of clutter on the island or turn the flashlight on or off. "Storytelling Experience" is as much as I'd give it.

I don't even understand the motivation for defending it as a game. I don't need anyone to think of it as a "game" in order to enjoy it. You might call it pretentious, but I think there's a lot of pointless criticism mixed in because people think it's pretentious for a game rather than on its own merits.

 

[Carnagath]

So basically what they're saying is that in order to inject substance that doesn't go unnoticed into your game you need to not overstimulate the player, and the only way to do that is to remove gameplay? That sounds not only idiotic, but very condescending as well. I don't think I need to start mentioning all the games that had amazing atmosphere, immersion and a lasting impact on people's minds and souls, while also having great gameplay. I think we all know them. Apart from the Dear Esther devs, apparently.