Jimquisition: The Definition of Art Games

[malestrithe]

My only line of thought regarding this is whether Crysis is an art game or not. I mean, as far as I could tell, at least the first Crysis primary intent was simply to showcase aesthetic and graphical design and the capabilities of the engine.

So does Crysis count as an art game?

If it was intended to sell a product, the Cryengine, then no. It was an elaborate tech demo.

 

[malestrithe]

Who cares?
Movies are art. But there's "art movies"
Paintings/visual static creations are art. But not all are done for art.
Books are in a way art. but there's boring books....
All games are art. But not all games are "artsy games"...

And everyone is happiest in believing they are right....

In a small, you care because of how dismissive you are of the argument and the people that make it.

 

[chiefohara]

My head hurts...

Non dictionary terms are used all the time. Shakespeare made up words so they'd sound nice for frak's sake. if the term 'Art Game' effectively communicates a certain idea then use it.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

The term "art game" leaves a rather rancid taste in my mouth, to be completely honest.

 

[OWENR22]

Needs more Virgillio Armarndio.

 

[carnex]

Problem with term "Art Game" comes from the fact that it is so vague that months can be spent in really valid discussions are some games art. Machinarium is one game that is a good example for such discussion.

And finally there are games that are not Art Games but fulfill requirements for Art Games because they are Works of Art, masterfully done strictly commercial pieces that contain many elements of art games. Mass Effect series is one of those but so is Project Firestart, Ultima 4 and even Divi-Dead (masterfully done hentai digital novel). They all play with our feelings, attach us to the characters, make us feel sucked into the world and create speciall little places for themselves in our hearts.

Finally, Comics are art form. It's just that great majority of comics are shovelware and few truly justify that connotation. Same is with games.

We have a working definition of what an art game is. It is narrow definition because it connotes a small percentage of gaming. It does not include games like Mass Effect 3, Ultima 4, or the other two because those games were designed to make money and not to elicit emotions. What matters in this argument is not the end result, but the purpose.

Sorry, but that definition works for movies, comic book, music, and in video games as well.

It's too vague and, even worse, can't be more specific. Piece that was made to make money can be Art Game, and uncompromising vision that has no hope of selling 1000 copies can be piece of crap that conveys and/or explores absolutely nothing.

Plays written by Shakespeare were written to make money. Are they not art? Much of classic paintings are made to satisfy buyers taste yet they are considered great art. There will always be arguments and we can't do anything about it.

Also, quoting Wikipedia is dumb. Simple fact checking can prove just how wrong Wikipedia can get and, far to often, is.

Let me ask you a question. If we had a "Dear Ester" style game that is murder mystery where you can just look at remains of some intricate plot scattered around island and which happened years ago and which had no conclusion (but left it to the imagination of the player) would you considered it an art game? And would you if it was same game, yet you could find out,for certain, written in stone, truth?

 

[mronoc]

I think the first thing we need to all acknowledge is that the state of a creative work as art isn't a binary, is/isn't question. Art is a spectrum, on one level a well made chair is a piece of art, on an entirely different level, all but a small minority of creative works in any medium are excluded. Clearly the broader definitions are useless in the context of this conversation, so the real question is what separates art from "high art." Personally, I like the definition of art being a work wherein the thematic message is treated as being the utmost important element, given precedence even over standard marks of quality and principles of the works medium (i.e. story structure, entertainment value, clarity, etc.), though obviously a successful work of art will employ, subvert, or disregard it's medium's principles to most effectively convey it's thematic point. The most common obstacle for games fitting this definition is the idea of games ultimately being about entertainment and engagement through challenge more than anything else. With that in mind, I tend to think of an art game as a game that uses its interactive elements to convey a specific, thematic idea.

 

[daxterx2005]

Jim acknowledged Crash Bandicoot T^T
I'm so happy!

 

[mfeff]

As an example... Prometheus is an art film... tells me nothing "about" Prometheus as a film, it does tell me quite a bit about the person making that statement.

Yes, calling something an art film does tell you something about the film you are watching.

No. No it does not.

Let's suppose I am making a film. I tell you "it's an art film"... now... your saying that:

It tells you what to expect from the movie in terms of style of film making, editing, visuals, and in a lot of art films cases, lack of story or coherent narrative. It also tells you target audience. Tree of Life is an art film. As pretty it is, Lord of the Rings was not made for the cinema snobs of the world. It was made for everyone to enjoy.

That singular statement I provided you does not sufficiently satisfy:

Style - of it's creation
editing - in it's post creation
visuals - not in the slightest
narrative - imagination land

You go on to say that Tree of Life and LotR are snobbish by this definition... or something... but what you have here is an advantage of refering back to the film and making a case using elements of...

Style
Editing
Visuals
Narrative

Your interpretation here as to which is art and which is not based on these metrics; is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE.

I think what your misinterpreting is the difference between a character driven narrative and a surrealist visualization. Because something is "surreal" does not qualify it as art, nor does having a character driven narrative on rails with the hero's journey make something "not art".

Further:

None of these elements or their delivery have been provided by saying "X is art/artistic/arty". That simple statement provides no information. Further whatever you SAY is going to be subjective and interpretive. That the interpretation is outside of anything remotely approaching "evidence" without substantiating it with either personal, outside, or constructed internal references of the film itself, the concept of "it's art" is redundant, broken, as it implies a certain flexibility of interpretation.

It requires the "work" to justify "itself". This is known as "art for art's sake".

You can argue all you want about how Lord of the Rings is just as artistic as Tree of Life, but no one will listen.

No. You can argue all you want... because I never mentioned those films. You did. Your the one making an argument, and in so doing make my case.

Same with video games. Certain people are gaming snobs and need to distinguish themselves form the rest of gaming.

But that is exactly what I said...

That it creates a category exclusive to itself from which it is beyond reproach. So your just saying what I said, back to me... for no real reason?

I said that because "art" or "game art" is a phrase or word that has gained acceptance according to this video does not sufficiently support the phrase or word as a basis of discussion. As you mentioned, inadvertently, a context; that is, it already MUST EXIST in which to be REFLECTED BACK ON.

The word "******" is in the dictionary. That does not mean I feel obliged to use it however I see fit, then argue "it's in the dictionary" as supporting "why" I said it. It requires context, and that context and it's understanding falls onto the speaker, NOT THE AUDIENCE.

And the term is not about giving one game an advantage over another, like you magic card thing implies. It's about tailoring the game to correct audience.

How does art which is subjective target an audience? This implies that an artist creates to the taste of it's audience, which is true in the sense that an artist may be contracted to work up something by request... but a general audience? This defies reason, someone creates and if someone else likes said creation I suppose it is art to them, if not, then it's not. To intentionally set out to "make great art" is the kiss of death philosophically as it destroys an audience participation, else the art is made for it's own sake by the artist for the artist, in which case any statement about it's intent is redundant.

It is what it is.

It requires no exclusive category such as the "art game", before the game is even made. There is nothing to reference back on and no information about "what it is about".

Journey may in fact "be" art. In no way shape or form does that elevate it's status one iota, this way or that as to it's merits as art, or a game. To suggest that because it falls into some category of exclusivity as being an "art game", someone attempts to justify it as being beyond reproach, is silly in debate it is broken because it does not give us anywhere to go in a discussion.

The MTG allegory holds true, as playing a "protection from color" card also breaks the game (in this case linguistic) as functionally there is no further argument to be had. It's an "I win" button, and just like mentioning Gears of War and it's artistic elements using the "I win" button, it gets called on as being "bullshit", because it is bullshit; all the way around.

To justify exclusivity as art there must be a case made reflecting on the art. This is why this shit is debated over and over and over again.

It's not about art.

It's about setting out to create art as an artist, calling the creation art, making the creation and setting the artist outside of critical analysis, simply because "art" as a term is loaded with subjective loopholes; this MAKES it broken.

Art isn't broken, that much is true. Art as an adjective is broken because it is often times abused as a dodge as to the merit of the work of the artist, who hides behind the tall shadow of "intent".

Shrug... maybe artsy folk are just sensitive and need lazy I win buttons and broken MTG cards...

You might be an artist if your "Decks" are loaded with CoP and RoP...

 

[Nurb]

Well in the same sense all drawings regardless of quality are art, all games are art, but I think people are looking for the "high art" label for games. Or something similar to "art house" in movies.

I don't think you'll ever get everyone settled on a definition, but at least most everyone will know what you mean.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I agree with Jim. But we should not forget that art is also very subjective. For example, I think Deus Ex: HR is an art game because of how well the aesthetics and the music are so in tune with the story. Everything fits so perfectly into one amazing atmospheric experience. Same is true for BioShock 1. A lot of people will disagree.

 

[jmarquiso]

Pac-man is a stealth game. In fact one of the first. Get it right.

 

[LostintheWick]

Any developer reading me, how do you feel about this? Art film was embraced by film producers (makers), but game developers in this media feels like an entity that goes to work and home. They barely discuss their work with their consumer.

Many games are more of a product to be sold than a piece of art meant to communicate an idea, feeling, concept, etc...

With that being said. Not all games are art, in my opinion. Many are. Just not all.

I like that art is a pretty broad term that many things fall under, but I do feel like it could use a little more definition. Art is really another way of communicating one thing from one person (or a group) to another.

 

[J Tyran]

Looking at the Facebook comments it seems the idea that the term "art game" is broken and confusion about what constitutes an art game has deeper roots. People do not seem to agree on what art itself actually is.

I will not attempt to define what art is and how a game becomes art, to me the whole concept of art is driven by sheer pretentiousness and little else. Artyfarty types just seem to enjoy trying to rub other peoples faces in by claiming their particular insight about a piece of art is somehow superior (as proven in the Facebook comments) to an insight from somebody else.

Until the artyfarty people agree about what art actually there can never be a consensus about art games or the terms used to define them.

 

[upgray3dd]

Problem with term "Art Game" comes from the fact that it is so vague that months can be spent in really valid discussions are some games art. Machinarium is one game that is a good example for such discussion.

That doesn't mean the term is bad. Most genre's have weird definitions that bleed into other genre's. People still get into arguments about whether or not Silence of the Lambs is a horror movie or a psychological thriller, for example.

 

[Trishbot]

Let me clear this up for everyone.

Definition of an Art Game: Mario Paint, UDraw, and Colors 3D.

You all are welcome.

 

[The White Hunter]

I'd love to strike up discussion on a Jimquisition episode sometime, but he just keeps being so correct that I can't do it ):

 

[Azuaron]

Quote of the year: "'Art game' as a thing, is a thing, that is a thing."

I always thought the definition of art games is limited to games that you would never play otherwise.

Actually, calling something an "art game" is typically a strike against it for most gamers (myself included). I played Braid despite it being made by a pretentious twit, and I played Limbo because it came with a Humble Indie Bundle with other games I liked and I decided "Why not?" I enjoyed both because of their respective atmospheres, mechanics, and puzzles.

But you'll never catch me playing something like Dear Esther, which is a glorified indie movie anyway, even if it did happen to end up in my library through a bundle event.

I'm curious about Journey (mainly because of Susan Arendt), but as a PC gamer, I may just miss out on it, for which I'll shed a single tear.

Do you have proof that the term turns off most gamers? Or is it a situation where "most" really means "all the gamers I know, including myself?"

I am asking because I can point to plenty of games that got the arthouse label and it sold millions. Amnesia is the first on that list, so is Braid, Flower, Journey and so on. As soon as they got coverage as being artistic, their numbers soar.

Millions, eh? Do you have proof that even one of those games has sold 2 million or more copies? Because I do have proof that most gamers are more interested in games like Call of Duty: Black Ops (15 million copies between the Xbox 360 and PS3) than anything with an art label.

The fact of the matter is, just like with movies, the general consumer population isn't interested in the arty stuff, but the reviewer population is very interested in the arty stuff so it gets a disproportionate amount of coverage. The Escapist Podcast actually covered this idea recently: if something is different from the norm, they (the reviewers) are more likely to like it simply because it is different.

Or you can listen to Yahtzee scream about brown and gray shooters on any given week, it amounts to the same thing.

Also, despite how you try to weasel around it, both Limbo and Braid only got as big as they did because someone first called them an arthouse game. That does not change no matter how many qualifiers you add to it.

First of all, I don't think I tried to weasel around anything; I recognized them as art games, then said what I liked about them (which didn't happen to include "because they tried to be good art"). I've reread what I wrote several times, and I don't see any qualifiers I added to them to detract from their categorization as an art game. Although, I did try and detract from the categorization of Dear Ester as a "game", but that's a different story.

But to the topic at hand, did they become as big as they did because "someone first called them an arthouse game"? Super Meat Boy is certainly big, and even an indie game, but I've never heard anyone call it "an art game". Same with Castle Crashers. And Legend of Grimrock. And Dungeon Defenders. And dozens of other indie games that aren't arty. Did Limbo and Braid become big because they were arty games, or did they become big because they were good games, different games, and the arty label was incidental (or even detrimental) to their success? There's no way to test this without finding an alternate universe where they aren't labeled arty; we're both just speculating here.

Especially since most art games (Braid in particular) enter the marketplace saying, "I am ART!" and we can't look at sales figures "before being labeled arty" and "after being labeled arty".

Personally (and this is definitely wild speculation), I think Braid's sales figures would have been a lot lower if Jonathon Blow wasn't obnoxious and controversial; a lot of people just wanted to see what all the fuss was about and weren't actually there for the art.

Speculation aside, let's talk the cold, hard numbers of indie games. Super Meat Boy passed 1 million sales on January 3rd. Dungeon Defenders passed 1 million in February. Legend of Grimrock made back its developer costs "many times over" in the first week, whatever that means.

Dear Esther, meanwhile, broke 100,000 on May 16th. Limbo broke 1 million in November last year. The best numbers I can find for Braid are 450,000 just on the XBox; I can't find PC or PS3 numbers. I can't find numbers for Flower. Journey is apparently PS3's fastest selling indie game, but no one gets more specific than that, and as a PS3 exclusive I doubt it has the aggregate weight of cross-platform games like Limbo.

Bastion broke 500,000 the end of last year. I'm not sure if I'd consider it an art game (but it's a good action RPG).

The only indie games I can find that actually boast millions of sales are Castle Crashers, at 2.6 million XBox sales, and Minecraft at 9 million total sales, both not art games.

And none of these can top Black Ops.

You may not have played it, but you've heard of Dear Ester because some one called it art, right?

I've heard of Plan 9 from Outer Space [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Outer_Space], but that doesn't make it good, or anything that anyone would actually enjoy (it usually tops lists of "worst movie ever made"). Hearing about something doesn't make that something something that people want, and hearing about something from a professional reviewer definitely doesn't make that something something that the general consumer wants.

I've heard of Dear Esther because it's being promoted. So once again we're back to, "Do people like it because it's trying to be good art?" or "Do reviewers like it because it's different?" If there were a thousand games about wandering around an island, would Dear Esther stand out among them, even if none of the others called themselves "art games"? I doubt it. Dear Esther has a tenth the sales that even other "arty" games are showing because all it can say about itself is "art"; at least Limbo and Braid can say they're good puzzle-platformers.

Or, to put it another way, would an arty military FPS outsell Call of Duty: Black Ops?

The average gamer doesn't want art games. They want Call of Duty: Black Ops (15 million), Mario Kart Wii (32 million), The Sims (16 million), Angry Birds (12 million paid; 1 billion free), Bejeweled (50 million sales as of 2010), and CityVille (61 million monthly players, but it's free-to-play; I wonder about its interior sales figures).

Finally, and this is kind of a tangent but I'm curious, is Amnesia (400,000 sales at the end of last year) an art game? I've never heard it called anything other than "indie survival horror".