Jimquisition: The Definition of Art Games
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
Potter Stewart gave the above statement with regards to pornography, but I think the "I know it when I see it" rule applies equally well to art games. Just because it is difficult to express a concise and accurate definition for something doesn't mean there isn't a consensus on what that something is.
Potter Stewart gave the above statement with regards to pornography, but I think the "I know it when I see it" rule applies equally well to art games. Just because it is difficult to express a concise and accurate definition for something doesn't mean there isn't a consensus on what that something is.
Not that I've watched the video - I can't stand Jim's affectedly histrionic whiny voice. But Art game is not a genre. If that's the only thing that can be said about it then it's going to be a pretentious load of shite. Ok, maybe "pretentious load of shite" is a genre as there are games that meet that - limbo for instance.
Isn't Braid a platformer puzzle game with time manipulation mechanics? When Braid first came out it was loved solely on its game play and puzzle accomplishments. Jonathan Blow was angry at this perception and went on a personal crusade to redefine the perception of his own game. If he hadn't, I believe our definition of the game would be quite different.
Thus enters linguistics (which I stated in a prior post). Words are simply to tools to communicate concepts to one another. "Art" is a word, and a very broad word. Similar to words such as "God" "Love" and "Life". These words are so broad that their context can be completely different from one statement to the next.
You are arguing the contextualization of a subject based on the words used to define it. And since "art" is one of the broadest words in the English language. The contextualization possibilities are so broad that you have almost limitless interpretations to each statement surrounding said word. Therefore this entire debate is subject to limitless interpretations and arguments for either side. Thus you will always get stuck in a unending debate that simply cannot be won.
So this is in short, a waste of time.
Thus enters linguistics (which I stated in a prior post). Words are simply to tools to communicate concepts to one another. "Art" is a word, and a very broad word. Similar to words such as "God" "Love" and "Life". These words are so broad that their context can be completely different from one statement to the next.
You are arguing the contextualization of a subject based on the words used to define it. And since "art" is one of the broadest words in the English language. The contextualization possibilities are so broad that you have almost limitless interpretations to each statement surrounding said word. Therefore this entire debate is subject to limitless interpretations and arguments for either side. Thus you will always get stuck in a unending debate that simply cannot be won.
So this is in short, a waste of time.
I think you mean "accepted" rather than "excepted."Lawnmooer said:
Anyway, back in reality; "Art Film" is a highly contested term. It's mostly rejected. Film scholars and critics almost universally reject the term. The average movie-going public typically reject films that are categorized this way.
Basically, the "art film" is dead. There was a bit of a fetish for it in the 80s and 90s, and films that weren't made to be "art films" have later been re-labeled as such. If you want to see the way society considers "art films," just look to Seinfeld's depiction of "Rochelle, Rochelle" or Arrested Development's "Les Cousins Dangereux."
Nobody takes "art films" less seriously than people who make great art. Jean-Luc Godard, Fritz Lang, Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Welles weren't trying to make "art films" - they just made films.
Wow. Jim "Art games are pretentious twaddle" Sterling talks about art games-- and I agree with him completely. And I'm a guy who thinks The Path was the most emotionally moving thing I've ever seen done with videogame technology (Amnesia is a close second, for the record).
That said, I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Stewart's quote about the definition of pornography:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it
But here's the trouble with our term "Art Game". Gamers may know it when we see it, but does the general public? Unlike typical videogames which (amazingly enough) tend to appeal to people who like videogames, art games appeal to a different demographic. You don't have to like game play in order to like an art game. But right now, the only people who hear about art game releases are gamers. It's a bit like chicken at a steakhouse: steak lovers might not like it, but some people who hate red meat might enjoy the chicken. But as long as we call art games "games", that potential market will never be realized.
That said, I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Stewart's quote about the definition of pornography:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it
But here's the trouble with our term "Art Game". Gamers may know it when we see it, but does the general public? Unlike typical videogames which (amazingly enough) tend to appeal to people who like videogames, art games appeal to a different demographic. You don't have to like game play in order to like an art game. But right now, the only people who hear about art game releases are gamers. It's a bit like chicken at a steakhouse: steak lovers might not like it, but some people who hate red meat might enjoy the chicken. But as long as we call art games "games", that potential market will never be realized.
Best reply in the thread.Trishbot said:
But seriously, as for the argument "You know what an art game is, because you say that Gears of war isn't an art game"
That doesn't really work, the only reason people "know" what an art game is, is because of context. When you say a game like Braid is an "art game", you know that when you are talking about Braid, and therefore an "art game" must be like Braid. Then the definition of "art games" doesn't really distinctly define anything (which is the purpose of a definition).
Now imagine this conversation:
"Tetris is a Gazorninplat game."
"What the hell is a Gazorninplat game?"
"A Gazorninplat game is a game that highlights the use of pixels."
"But all games use pixels, what do you really mean here? Are you talking about pixel art, pixel hunting mechanics, the use of pixels in such a way that their edges are seamlessly integrated and indistinguishable from the object they represent?"
"Well, yes. All of the above in varying degrees, it depends on the intent of the creators."
"But that doesn't really tell me anything useful, like if I will enjoy playing it."
Man, you just hate Gazorninplat games."
This is what people mean when they say that the word is broken.
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."
-?Justice Potter Stewart, United States Supreme Court, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964).
He was talking about Porn vs Art in film....but I think it's a quote that equally applies to this debate. You'll never get a 100% accurate definition of the term art film, but as Jim sad, we understand the concept.
-?Justice Potter Stewart, United States Supreme Court, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964).
He was talking about Porn vs Art in film....but I think it's a quote that equally applies to this debate. You'll never get a 100% accurate definition of the term art film, but as Jim sad, we understand the concept.
The definition of art, according to Brittanica...
"the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others".
Now if that doesn't include videogames then nothing qualifies as art - that definition kinda puts all videogames into the art bracket.
I think though, the term should be reserved for games that are designed to affect emotion, not just look pretty. A lot of these 'art' games are simply pretty, and that's not enough. I mean, what games sparked the most emotion in you?
Braid? - give me a break, that game is so bloody full of itself. It's a decent platform puzzler, it didn't make me think, or react - I played it and tried to complete it (and failed), but for the challenge, not because I felt any sort of sympathy or empathy towards the little geography teacher dude. Now, Harvest Moon - Wonderful Life, that game made me react emotionally more than anything else, but does that make it an art game?... probably not, going by the general trend of art games. If Harvest Moon had, say the same aesthetic as Alice, or Journey, then it would be a different story - which just cheapens the whole term 'Art game'.
So all videogames are art by definition, but if we're strict with that, and we say that emotional response must be the main goal, then a lot of art games aren't art at all, they're just pretty. Personally I'm glad that indi developers are making games like Journey in the same way as I'm glad there are games like Binding of Isaac, too many indi developers are trying to make the next Angry Birds, trying to make something unique enough to make money... I'm glad there are still indi's out there taking a risk, and making a statement, before they necesserily make money.
"the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others".
Now if that doesn't include videogames then nothing qualifies as art - that definition kinda puts all videogames into the art bracket.
I think though, the term should be reserved for games that are designed to affect emotion, not just look pretty. A lot of these 'art' games are simply pretty, and that's not enough. I mean, what games sparked the most emotion in you?
Braid? - give me a break, that game is so bloody full of itself. It's a decent platform puzzler, it didn't make me think, or react - I played it and tried to complete it (and failed), but for the challenge, not because I felt any sort of sympathy or empathy towards the little geography teacher dude. Now, Harvest Moon - Wonderful Life, that game made me react emotionally more than anything else, but does that make it an art game?... probably not, going by the general trend of art games. If Harvest Moon had, say the same aesthetic as Alice, or Journey, then it would be a different story - which just cheapens the whole term 'Art game'.
So all videogames are art by definition, but if we're strict with that, and we say that emotional response must be the main goal, then a lot of art games aren't art at all, they're just pretty. Personally I'm glad that indi developers are making games like Journey in the same way as I'm glad there are games like Binding of Isaac, too many indi developers are trying to make the next Angry Birds, trying to make something unique enough to make money... I'm glad there are still indi's out there taking a risk, and making a statement, before they necesserily make money.
I don't understand how that ever became a thing. They're action adventure games, which yeah, is a rubbish title too, but thats what they are. The only difference is that they have an ability-gated rather than level-based progression (invididual links within quest chains and stars/coin prerequisites are levels too) or a hybrid.Theminimanx said:
It is worth noting that this distinction can apply to other genres too. I'm presently trying to rack my brain to come up with a completely subversive example of an ability-gated game. They do exist, but the most subversive all end up in the hybrid category because there just isn't the breadth of common gameplay elements available in other genres. Ok, here goes: Diddy Kong Racing on the N64. Your different vehicles act as an ability-gate. Ok?
Perhaps this is indicitive of which other genres still have a lot more room for originality left in them. Then again, ability-gating tends to mesh poorly with strong storylines. Regardless, cnce all genres have an ability-gated game in their ranks, the "Metroidvania" title will more than likely evaporate rather naturally.
Pretty much, "art Games" seem to be games where the creators intend it to be "art-like". It's like how one can choose to make their painting a regular portrait, or they could spruce it up with all manner of symbolism like snakes coming out of the portrait's eyes... or something.
It's pretty much saying it's highly "experimental" though when it all comes down to it.
It's pretty much saying it's highly "experimental" though when it all comes down to it.
This...
Games like Morrowind or Final Fantasy IX leave 99.999% of movies in the dust when it comes to artistic design in the whole. Such games combine graphics with music and story to provide emotions and experiences that go far beyond what other mediums are capable of. Most games have become more artistic than most movies and critics need to face that.
Of course there is ONE big difference. In all other art mediums, you simply have to sit back and enjoy the ride. Your interaction level is zero. In a game, the developers need to provide multiple choices and figure out all of the angles. Thus, games that achieve an artistic level, such as Skyrim, have to be praised even more. In the last few years, "Art games" have generally reduced this interaction to the point of being movies. I don't subscribe to the notion that Passage is better than say... Thief. Sure, it's nice that a small team, or even just one person can make a game nowadays. And of course, the limited resources do promote creativity.
But if games can be an art themselves, let's not forget that the act of gaming can be an art too. One quick browse of Minecraft movies on Youtube is enough to figure out that part.
Case closed...surg3n said:
Games like Morrowind or Final Fantasy IX leave 99.999% of movies in the dust when it comes to artistic design in the whole. Such games combine graphics with music and story to provide emotions and experiences that go far beyond what other mediums are capable of. Most games have become more artistic than most movies and critics need to face that.
Of course there is ONE big difference. In all other art mediums, you simply have to sit back and enjoy the ride. Your interaction level is zero. In a game, the developers need to provide multiple choices and figure out all of the angles. Thus, games that achieve an artistic level, such as Skyrim, have to be praised even more. In the last few years, "Art games" have generally reduced this interaction to the point of being movies. I don't subscribe to the notion that Passage is better than say... Thief. Sure, it's nice that a small team, or even just one person can make a game nowadays. And of course, the limited resources do promote creativity.
But if games can be an art themselves, let's not forget that the act of gaming can be an art too. One quick browse of Minecraft movies on Youtube is enough to figure out that part.
Any form of expression can be art, it's up to the individuals to think of something as artistic or not. Any definition of art isn't sufficient to embrace art as a whole, and a world-wide agreement on what is art and what is not is simply impossible (2 people with similar taste might not come to an agreement, let alone people at large).
"Art games" is a very generic definition, only used to define what was the "perceived" purpose of a game (trying to be "artistic" by the author's intention. As in, not planned as a game, but to use the structure of a game to convey a message, or something similar... As I said, it's very generic, and not specific at all).
It's as valid as any other definition in existance. It's not derogatory of the game it referst to, simply because it tells you very little of it (almost nothing, some would argue).
It's futile to argue semantics, unless you believe that languages are some sort of superior entities. They are not, they are just sounds to which we give an arbitrary meaning. Every word used to define something need more words to be defined, that in turn need to be defined themselves, and so on, and so on, and so on. One has to accept that there is a general understanding of the meaning of some words, even if it isn't perfectly defined, and arguing about the clarity of a statement for the sake of arguing is ridiculous, you need to have a very rigid mind to be unable to grasp that the same word can have subtle differences in meaning, that become apparent once context is given to them (if you can't do as much, you are probably unable to grasp language in any contest outside of the acadamic one).
"Art games" simply does its job to convey a very rough message, and it's useful for that alone.
"Art games" is a very generic definition, only used to define what was the "perceived" purpose of a game (trying to be "artistic" by the author's intention. As in, not planned as a game, but to use the structure of a game to convey a message, or something similar... As I said, it's very generic, and not specific at all).
It's as valid as any other definition in existance. It's not derogatory of the game it referst to, simply because it tells you very little of it (almost nothing, some would argue).
It's futile to argue semantics, unless you believe that languages are some sort of superior entities. They are not, they are just sounds to which we give an arbitrary meaning. Every word used to define something need more words to be defined, that in turn need to be defined themselves, and so on, and so on, and so on. One has to accept that there is a general understanding of the meaning of some words, even if it isn't perfectly defined, and arguing about the clarity of a statement for the sake of arguing is ridiculous, you need to have a very rigid mind to be unable to grasp that the same word can have subtle differences in meaning, that become apparent once context is given to them (if you can't do as much, you are probably unable to grasp language in any contest outside of the acadamic one).
"Art games" simply does its job to convey a very rough message, and it's useful for that alone.
