Seriously? You can almost win an award for THIS?!

[The_Echo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Graveyard_%28video_game%29

i could make that game in one day and it gets nominated for an innovation award? what's so innovative about making an old lady walk through a graveyard?!

are the standards for indie gaming so low that they would nearly award THIS with an award? Seriously.

are there ANY indie games out there that blur the lines between AAA and indie? because so far i dont see any innovation in the indie scene.

Indie games are ALL ABOUT innovation. Usually in the way it tells a story, since, you know, indie developers don't have any money to do what triple-A studios can. That's what The Graveyard did. It set up an atmosphere and attempted to elicit an emotional response from the player. The Path did a similar thing, as all you can do is walk around in that, too.

And how is it innovation to make an indie game closer to what you find a hundred times over at your local GameStop? That's not innovation. That's fitting in.

so.... they're innovating by refusing to move to the third dimension or severly limiting what they do in it? c'mon, Grand Theft Auto was more innovative than any indie game i've ever heard of (besides Minecraft).

You don't need the best graphics to tell a great story. Chill out. 3D isn't innovative--it's just an aesthetic. Every genre can be made in 2D and 3D, there's no difference besides how it looks.

Your ideals of a good video game are highly shallow.

tell me... what have indie games done that AAA games haven't already done before (and better)?

Given off a legitimate atmosphere, completely immersing the player, telling a story in different-than-normal ways. And I'm just talking about Amnesia: The Dark Descent there. First horror game--in my opinion--to actually be scary. And it was an indie dev team that did that! Who'd've thunk?

Oh, and of course a lot of indie games are really fucking fun, (Castle Crashers is a prime example) but a lot of triple-A titles are just the same shit we've seen before, unfortunately. Indie developers don't have much money, so they don't use a lot of money in their games, and so they don't have as much stake in the game, which allows them to try different things that bigger studios would be too afraid to because it might not go over well with their audience. Methinks you need to play a few more indie games. (Games like Sleep is Death are very innovative; this one in particular uses two players to come up with the story and how it gets told. Jason Rohrer makes some interesting games.)

 

[Azaraxzealot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Graveyard_%28video_game%29

EDIT: I guess all of this brings about a more glaring question... do you play games for yourself or for the developer? Because this seems like a game the developers really made for themselves and we are supposed to interact with it and feel EXACTLY how they want us to. I play games to have fun and escape from reality for a while, i don't play games to feel emotions, that's what movies and books are for.

i could make that game in one day and it gets nominated for an innovation award? what's so innovative about making an old lady walk through a graveyard?!

are the standards for indie gaming so low that they would nearly award THIS with an award? Seriously.

are there ANY indie games out there that blur the lines between AAA and indie? because so far i dont see any innovation in the indie scene. it seems to be just a bunch of sidescrollers and mario knockoffs.

i have yet to play a GOOD 3d indie game, or at least one that i would indeed enjoy for more than 2 minutes before i got bored and went back to Red Dead Redemption or Saints Row 2.

i really want to know if there are any 3D 3rd-person indie sandbox games out there... it seems like they are incapable of that (or even just good 3rd person in general).

and before you all go "SUPER MEAT BOY AND LIMBO!" on me, i played (and hated) both those games because i have no degree of patience for platformers, which it seems like every indie game is a variation thereof (or a Contra/Asteroids knockoff)

EDIT: Forgot about Minecraft and Mods. Because Minecraft is the only exception and everything else that's not a 2d sidescroller, run-n-gun, space shooter game is a mod.

Ugh. Just ugh. Its ART. You know art? The paintings you see in museums that are being slowly replaced with technology as a reflection of our modern culture? The graveyard was nominated because its art, not as a game. God forbid people use computers, humanity's greatest invention, for something else than boobs and explosions.

why is it when anyone says "this game sucks" to an indie game that gets some praise automatically people assume that individual is a twitchy, hardcore Halo or CoD player that spends all day making insults usually involving the fucking of someone's mother?

seriously. it's not like i want games to be like japanese games, i just want games to have a lot of DEPTH and REPLAY VALUE. something indie games don't seem to offer... (minecraft being the exception)

 

[Azaraxzealot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Graveyard_%28video_game%29

i could make that game in one day and it gets nominated for an innovation award? what's so innovative about making an old lady walk through a graveyard?!

are the standards for indie gaming so low that they would nearly award THIS with an award? Seriously.

are there ANY indie games out there that blur the lines between AAA and indie? because so far i dont see any innovation in the indie scene.

Indie games are ALL ABOUT innovation. Usually in the way it tells a story, since, you know, indie developers don't have any money to do what triple-A studios can. That's what The Graveyard did. It set up an atmosphere and attempted to elicit an emotional response from the player. The Path did a similar thing, as all you can do is walk around in that, too.

And how is it innovation to make an indie game closer to what you find a hundred times over at your local GameStop? That's not innovation. That's fitting in.

so.... they're innovating by refusing to move to the third dimension or severly limiting what they do in it? c'mon, Grand Theft Auto was more innovative than any indie game i've ever heard of (besides Minecraft).

You don't need the best graphics to tell a great story. Chill out. 3D isn't innovative--it's just an aesthetic. Every genre can be made in 2D and 3D, there's no difference besides how it looks.

Your ideals of a good video game are highly shallow.

tell me... what have indie games done that AAA games haven't already done before (and better)?

Given off a legitimate atmosphere, completely immersing the player, telling a story in different-than-normal ways. And I'm just talking about Amnesia: The Dark Descent there. First horror game--in my opinion--to actually be scary. And it was an indie dev team that did that! Who'd've thunk?

Oh, and of course a lot of indie games are really fucking fun, (Castle Crashers is a prime example) but a lot of triple-A titles are just the same shit we've seen before, unfortunately. Indie developers don't have much money, so they don't use a lot of money in their games, and so they don't have as much stake in the game, which allows them to try different things that bigger studios would be too afraid to because it might not go over well with their audience. Methinks you need to play a few more indie games. (Games like Sleep is Death are very innovative; this one in particular uses two players to come up with the story and how it gets told. Jason Rohrer makes some interesting games.)

a lot of the POPULAR triple-A titles are the same shit over and over again, and besides, there's a good reason why those games sell... because they are FUN and POLISHED, and most often have something called REPLAY VALUE. everyone brings up "Amnesia: Dark Descent" and "Minecraft" over and over and over and over and over again as though that automatically excuses every single tentacle-rape flash game on newgrounds and every mario, asteroids, zelda, and contra knock-off that is 90% of indie game development. Seriously, you get one good game out of a thousand from indie devs, whereas even Homefront is more fun the second time through than Limbo is.

i'll probably come back to Just Cause 2 more than i will Amnesia: Dark Descent

and I'll gladly sink 100 MORE hours into fallout than spend more than 30 minutes at any given time playing Minecraft (seriously, i just can't play it for long stretches of time. too boring)

 

[Tipsythegza]

As for Root's suggestions, they are for the most part pretty weak.

From someone called Halo Fanboy, I can only take that as the highest compliment.

That made me LoL thanks.

 

[The_Echo]

snip

I agree. Minecraft is boring, but it's not for everyone. And YES, there are some completely rubbish indie games, especially if you're counting flash games. I mean, just look at the Arise series on Newgrounds. Doesn't get much shittier than that. But of course there are shitty triple-A games. Replay value? Like extra endings and shit? If I like a game, I'll probably replay it someday. THAT'S replay value. Not how much bullfuck they pile in, but how much I'm actually able to enjoy the game. I'd play Amnesia again and again because I like it. Polished? Plenty of indie games are polished. The aforementioned Castle Crashers and Amnesia, as well as Cave Story, A Game with a Kitty, Knytt, Minigore, BIT.TRIP, Hot Throttle and others. All of which are also fun, I might add.

Like I said before, I think you need to play a few more indie games. If you have an iOS device, the App Store is a great place to find indie games.

 

[re1wind]

What makes this a game?

Interactive digital medium.

Why it won an award? Subject matter.

An old lady visiting a grave [husband? friend? family? war? multiple people?] in a gravyard [alone!] with a chance of herself dying to music is the kind of subject matter that most people wouldn't touch, or intentionally think about, or make a "game" about. Its meant to make you think, to reflect on the concept of death, about old people, and done so in an interactive medium, which is more powerful than a short film.

 

[Avayu]

I can't believe we got this far into this issue without someone posting this video:
Especially important for those of you who are on about his age-old "games should be fun".

It's not always about fun. There are many other emotions. This is what makes us human. Every medium that wants to be taken serious as an artistic medium can not just deal with one single emotion. That's what games like The Graveyard are for. It's not meant to be fun, it's meant to make you think, like all art.

I can see where part of the confusion stems from, though. The Graveyard has a very limited interactivity. Calling it a game is therefore not unproblematic, but I'd say it is one, for the simple fact that it is not about some old lady walking through a graveyard, it is about you being the old lady.

 

[Rhymer]

How have you not heard of Minecraft?

Minecraft sucks. It's empty and hollow. There is literally nothing there.

Minecraft is only what you make it. That's what makes it so different. What does your statement say about you?

 

[Zizzousa]

Ever since Watchmen and Dark Knight were barred from Best Picture, Daft Punk was barred from Best Original Score, and I saw Borderlands with a Game of the Year sticker at my Wal Mart, I have no faith in what gets awards anymore.

: I

And then Trent Reznor won an Oscar. Start of the long, long litany of reasons not to believe in awards. Also, what GOTY did Borderlands win? News of the World?

I like the idea of an exporable painting, but I'd never play it, because I play games for the stories and the new ideas and imaginary locations. For what it's worth, though, The Graveyard sounds to me more interesting than CoD - less shouty, more thinky. RDR and ME2 find themselves in the middle. Say The Graveyard is your 'Hiroshima, Mon Amour', RDR is a Fox Searchlight equivalent, and CoD is Avatar or 2012 or something similar, perhaps; it makes sense that way. (Hiroshima, btw, is a film about Hiroshima, told through the story of one woman's wartime affair. Slowly. Very slowly. In black and white. With lots of meaningful glances and not a whole lot of meaningful talking. See?)

 

[Spark Ignition]

games, by definition, are supposed to be fun. so if a game is not fun then it fails as a game

Whose definition?

And why should either myself as a game player or the industry as game makers stick to such a narrow and limiting definition?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/game

definitely its supposed to amuse you, see yahtzee's review of Paper Mario for more details.

You haven't answered the second question.

because if we don't HAVE a definition of what "fun" generally means, then people will just interpret it in fuck-all ways and we end up having the same situations as sects of religion arguing which is the "right" way to do it.

Set definitions are worthless, we have set definitions for how capital letters should be used yet you yourself show how easily people ignore them. Secondly you haven't answered the question, even if we need a set definition of what a game is why have one that's as limiting as one that says it must be fun?

The Graveyard is an innovative piece of art.

How is it innovative?

Thematically, it's not.
Technologically though, it uses the structure of a videogame without imposing the conventions that make it a game on it. Kind of like the Path, but without even the goal of completing a story.

As a qualifier,
innovative does not mean good. I've not even played this and to me it sounds dull, because my taste in art is wildly different from an old lady in a graveyard who maybe dies.
Innovative means it does something different from the norm, and that it has potential. Mirror's Edge was ultimately deemed a failure, but it was very, very innovative.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Hm.. Wait, what about that other Indie Horror Game where you wander through a Creepy space with a small Chance of you dying, Oh wait! The Path!
The path for one was actually scary, this just looks like A crappy debut game.
I doubt I'll ever buy this, I also doubt I'll ever buy Team Fortress Portal 2 Duke Nukem Forever and No More Heroes 2.

 

[SilverHammerMan]

Man, I just kept waiting for the zombies to show up, but nothing!

 

[GiantRaven]

The attitude of some people in this thread is shocking. Why should the medium of video games (although that term could arguably be becoming completely outdated really) limit itself to what you personally want to see? What on earth is wrong with The Graveyard, other than the fact that you don't see it's value?

If short, abstract artistic films can exist alongside Hollywood blockbusters then why can't The Graveyard exist alongside Call of Duty? Sure it may be pretentious and whimsical...but so what?

How is it innovative?

How isn't it? Can you name any other games like it?

 

[TheGroovyMule]

No one's saying they can't exist, but no one should say that it shouldn't be criticized either. Just because it's considered 'art' doesn't mean it's above critical reception. Just like if I get a monkey to slap paint on a canvas, it doesn't make it good, slapping together a game doesn't made it good either, even if they do consider it art, it's still a game, and will be criticized as such. This attitude of some people in this thread -is- shocking. God forbid we have critical minds that don't just swallow up anything considered 'hip' and 'artistic', it's no better them mindlessly swallowing up AAA titles.

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

Oh wow...I hear crickets. For years I've just heard a bunch of people clamoring that games should be considered art... a game was made purely as artistic expression and now, beautiful silence. You want games as art, this is it. If you don't believe me go walk through an art museum, half of it is some largely BS and half realized concept with a lengthy description on the artistic vision of the artist.

You all have been monkey pawed!

I've got some more straws for you to clutch at, if you'd like.

The Graveyard is by no means the be-all and the end-all of "art games". It's simply an exploration of ideas and choices which are rarely made, and therefore interesting for experimentation.
Whether it is a failed experiment or not, I cannot say. I haven't experienced it myself.
But the sheer viscera of the reactions expressed in this thread leads me to believe that some kind of purpose may just have been fulfilled...

I don't feel like I'm clutching at straws, and it'd be incredibly short sighted to claim that this is the be-all/end-all of "art games." This would just be one herald of what I think will become a trend, "games" which have such an art focus that it is hardly a game, but as the developers say more of an interactive digital painting. It is a natural development from an outcry for games as art which is art as a game. I don't think this is bad, I think it borders on glorious that with games like this, the path, and a number of games before it, we may be witnessing a whole new type of art. I completely agree with you that it was a worthwhile experiment that definitely served a purpose, and I hope to see more like it.

The original post is mostly about how funny I think it is that gamers on this site are often upset at games which don't carry a perceived artistic quality, or angry when people see games as trivial entertainment and not artistic expression, but then games like this get railed against by so many (by no means do I mean universally). I feel it is the monkey paw or wish-master/genie scenario of getting exactly what you wished for.

This just makes me wonder how many times you hear the outcry for games to be considered art by gamers (I imagine when developers do it they are actually longing for more ability to use their own artistic talent/vision), that it is less that many of the gamers want games to be acknowledged as artful, and more they want to be smiled upon by a society that traditionally trivializes games and thus gamers are wasting their time, but would praise someone for going to museums or the opera as time well spent.

 

[Javarock]

Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress. The first is a fairly simple game in traditional 3D, the latter is a difficult and complex game in literal 3D.

No offense, but it seems a bit of a narrow-minded view. Like people who think Passage was just a pointless crappy sidescroller.

This Seriously dwarf fortress was and still is FUN. (See what I did there?))

 

[GiantRaven]

No one's saying they can't exist, but no one should say that it shouldn't be criticized either. Just because it's considered 'art' doesn't mean it's above critical reception. Just like if I get a monkey to slap paint on a canvas, it doesn't make it good, slapping together a game doesn't made it good either, even if they do consider it art, it's still a game, and will be criticized as such. This attitude of some people in this thread -is- shocking. God forbid we have critical minds that don't just swallow up anything considered 'hip' and 'artistic', it's no better them mindlessly swallowing up AAA titles.

Ah, you're right. I was being overly harsh there. I just dislike when people dismiss things as meaningless when it doesn't interest them personally. My apologies.

 

[The Human Torch]

Let's try a comparison between artsy indie games and modern art:

What about this? Do you understand this work? I'll be blunt, it wasn't drawn by a famous artist, but used by one of my favorite authors as a metaphor. Your inability to understand what games like The Graveyard represent is perfectly mirrored in this portion of the story. Don't try to dismiss something you do not understand. It not only makes you look like an idiot, it will also invite people to smack some metaphorical sense into you.

Anyway, Vonnegut to the rescue:

It is a picture of the awareness of every animal. It is the immaterial core of every animal - the "I am" to which all messages are sent. It is all that is alive in any of us - in a mouse, in a deer, in a cocktail waitress. It is unwavering and pure, no matter what preposterous adventure may befall us. A sacred picture of St. Anthony is one vertical, unwavering band of light. If a cockroach were near him, or a cocktail waitress, the picture would show two such bands of light. Our awareness is all that is alive and maybe sacred in any of us. Everything else about us is dead machinery.

Biggest bunch of nonsense I ever heard. Way too much trying to sound all deep and brooding. Life is not as difficult as those hipsters make it out to be.