Wanda and the motherfucking Colossus

[CE]

Damn, you got me again.

Games are interactive, but not just for the sake of being interactive. If that were the case, there'd be no difference whatsoever between a videogame and the physical games (chess, baseball, rock-paper-scissors, etc) that humankind has been playing for centuries. Games are an interactive medium.

Bullshit.

Baseball and Chess are interactive mediums, as you can transfer ideas and attitudes through them. For example, let's say you were given a chess set from the 1800s where the pawns were all represented as slave boys, the queen as some southern white girl, and the king as a plantation owner. You could talk about the symbolism in said chess board, and it would be no more or less a part of the game then similar symbols are used in video games.

The fundamental difference between video games and other games is the technology, which allows a player to enter a simulation of the world, where they can do things they would normally not be able to, such as running a city, being a pro sports star, or saving a princess from a dinosaur. Video games are no more artistic then any non-electronic games -- they just allow for more possibilities.

To continue this discussion, I feel we are going to need some definitions that clearly deliniate what particular terms refer to. I noticed that GG! considers sports and videogames to be two disjoint sets, whereas I view sports and video games an two partially intersecting sets. Here's my definition for terms that I consider important. Many definitions are inspired from discussions I had with Chris Crawford three and a half years ago.

Toy:
Something you can experiment with with no lasting negative consequences. The worst thing that can happen when playing with a toy is that you break the toy.

Game:
A toy with a goal in mind. When you achieve the goal, you win the game.

Video game:
First of all, a video game is not neccesarily a game. It is a toy that is aided by technology to allow the player to do things he normally could not do (due to money, time, expertice, or whatever). Like most things, there are things that are more video game-like than others. For example, Simon is less video game like than FlightGear.

Art;
Boy, this one's a toughy, since humans are so damn artistic. The best definition I've heard is essentially:
The deliberate creation of a new language with which to describe reality.

Any comments on the definitions?

[Popcorn]

Baseball and Chess are interactive mediums, as you can transfer ideas and attitudes through them. For example, let's say you were given a chess set from the 1800s where the pawns were all represented as slave boys, the queen as some southern white girl, and the king as a plantation owner. You could talk about the symbolism in said chess board, and it would be no more or less a part of the game then similar symbols are used in video games.

Bullshit. A novelty Simpsons chess set is exactly the same as customising your character in PSO. It's nothing but an amusing personal touch, a novelty. A good game knows exactly what you're going to be thinking when it puts you in any position, and having Marge instead of a Queen has nothing to do with any of that. Narrative-driven video games like Ico push you through a specific experience with a beginning, middle and end, like a book or movie; but chess is simply a game for the sake of being a game.

[Green Gibbon!]

The one thing you're neglecting to consider is the presence of aesthetics set by a person or collaboration of people. I'm not going to argue about the definition of "art" because it's something that is inherently impossible to define, but one obvious thing that separates, say, paintings from sports is the element of human creation. Now, you can't separate paintings from videogames by the same criteria. In football you have a set of rules to follow, but there's no variation whatsoever in the presentation of those rules. There are no visual dynamics, no story, no music... it's just raw competition. With videogames, of course, you have all of these dynamics to consider, and to what extent you focus on each is a matter of judgment on the part of the creator. Basically, there is the constant factor of composition, something that no sport or board game has.

In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that the term "game" in "videogame" is not at all an accurate description. They're interactive works. Sometimes these can involve game dynamics in the traditional sense, but to what extent they incorporate these is completely open, if they choose to incorporate them at all. You basically pointed this out in your own vaunted definition.

[CE]

Probably the most interesting thing about this discussion is the different perspectives. I am a programmer by trade, and I just happen to find the things that I'd work on -- the mechanics and their interaction -- the most important parts of a video game. There is no doubt in my mind that my job choice and the the parts of a game I find most important are tightly related, and no doubt, your job choice (or hobbies) and the parts of a game you find most important are also tightly related.

But anyways...

Yeah, whatever, but why is a lack of total non-linearity bad?

Because the player only gets to ride the rollercoaster, not design it.

Who cares more about the rollercoaster, the person who designed it or the person who rode it?

[chriscaffee]

The first line of this post wasn't articulated well, and I assume this is where GG! is getting the implication that I don't think games can be art:

<I>"I've never really viewed videogames as an art form."</I>

While this statement implies that I don't think of games as art, it doesn't imply that I don't believe games cannot be art. In either case, both implications are wrong and it was a poor sentence to begin with. What I would like to ammend it to is as follows:

<I>"I've never really looked at whether games are an art form or not."</I>

This more accurately reflects my belief that games can be/are art, but I just don't care. The rest of the original post follows:

<I>That isn't to say they aren't, but I've always looked at them just as any other type of game. They have a set of rules and if the rules are balanced and "feel right" then the game ends up being fun. Maybe I'm speaking from a position of ignorance, but that's just how I feel.</I>

[Green Gibbon!]

That is how most people feel, unfortunately. People don't care about "art", they want immediate gratification. This applies not only to videogames, but also to movies, books, music, and whatever else you can think of. That's why there's so much utter shit in the mainstream, and it's a killing blow in the realm of videogames, because costs are so expensive and development so complex, there isn't much room at all for an independent or experimental market. It's mainstream or nothing, and until that changes, games will never evolve into the realm of fine art.

[chriscaffee]

Well, I don't see games as an art form, but that doesn't mean I like the mainstream shit games that come out. Honestly I play about 10-20% of the games I actually own, and I don't own very many games.

[Green Gibbon!]

Well, I don't see games as an art form

Of course not, because people like you don't give them the chance to be.

[-wyvern]

Problem is that many games get labeled as art, not because they are artistic, but because they are awesome. This isn't a bad thing (I'm not sure it's a relevant thing either) but it is something that erroneously places games like Halo (awesome) in with games like Gregory Horror Show (artistic).

Oh, and I define art as " A means of conveying emotion and feelings as opposed to direct information ". So, yeah.

[Popcorn]

Who cares more about the rollercoaster, the person who designed it or the person who rode it?

The player is never going to be designing the game. The role of the player is simply to exist within the game's own limitations, and limitations there must always be.

[Green Gibbon!]

Problem is that many games get labeled as art, not because they are artistic, but because they are awesome.

That's actually a pretty thin, hazy line. Just because it appeals to the mainstream doesn't necessarily mean it isn't "artistic." I'm not venture over there right now.

Incidentally, though, how is Gregory Horror Show? I never played it, but I was really curious...

[CE]

That's a conclusion that too many gamers make. You need a story in ALL games. Because the story influences so many things: settings, art, goals. Without a story, you don't really have a template to build on. Players will feel directionless and apathy. If you take away a story from an RPG, all you have left is an MMORPG without other players - and as Fable has recently proven - that's a recipie for disaster.

Even a game like the Sims is build around stories - the players make them up as they go along, but a chain of events that tells a tale is ultimately what gameplaying is all about. How personal the story becomes is up to a combination of the game designer and the player - but it still must exist - even if it's the most simplistic thing.

It feels impersonal if there's no story.

That's pretty much what I was trying to get across, but a whole lot clearer. When I said "ditch the story", I left out "as a traditional narrative". To truly engage the player in an interactive medium, the medium must be, well, interactive. In contrast, a traditional narrative is one sided, with the narrator having complete say in everything that happens. This is exact opposite of interactivity, akin to having a movie with no video. But this type of design persists because we still do not have a firm grasp on other ways to tell stories. Unfortunately, this means most story based games either feel like a story with a game tacked on or a game with a story tacked on.

[CE]

The player is never going to be designing the game. The role of the player is simply to exist within the game's own limitations, and limitations there must always be.

So what you're saying is that if when playing Super Mario Bros, you found the most enjoyable thing to do was glitch out the game, then you should not exploit those glitches as that is playing the game the "wrong way." This attitude completely nullifies any power in interactivity, since the player is now supposed to be a purely passive entity.

[Popcorn]

So what you're saying is that if when playing Super Mario Bros, you found the most enjoyable thing to do was glitch out the game, then you should not exploit those glitches as that is playing the game the "wrong way."

I'm saying that you shouldn't complain when there are, per se, no glitches. A game is what someone made it, and you have to conform to what it is-- not by any moral standing or whatever, but because that's the fuckin' game, by definition. If you're not playing Mario Bros, bugs and all, then you're playing something else.

Incidentally, though, how is Gregory Horror Show? I never played it, but I was really curious...

It's pretty cool, but ultimately unfulfilling. I only got a couple of hours into it, but it turns out I was, like, only two hours way from finishing it anyway... you can pick it up really cheaply these days (it was originally released as a budget title), so I'd recommend checking it out if your curiosity ever intensifies. But, you know, 'curio' is the right word for it.

[chriscaffee]

Of course not, because people like you don't give them the chance to be.

Does it even matter whether we attribute a concept like "art" to a game or not? Does it change what it fundamentally is, just because we label it?

[Green Gibbon!]

But this type of design persists because we still do not have a firm grasp on other ways to tell stories.

There's only one way to tell a story. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It may have multiple endings and different ways to achieve those endings, but ultimately, you will still have to come to one of the conclusions that the writer, designer, or artist decided you would be able to come to.

A game environment does not absolutely have to be "your" world. It can be somebody else's world that you're simply exploring. In fact, it always will be, regardless of how much freedom the player is allowed. The confines are there, if you get rid of them, you do not have a structure. What I'm saying is that it does not matter whether you have 50 different conclusions or only 1 conclusion and 1 path to get there. Where the game designers choose to place those borders is utterly irrelevant. There are linear games and there are so-called "open-ended" games, but neither is innately superior to the other. It absolutely baffles me how you can find this point so difficult to grasp.

Does it even matter whether we attribute a concept like "art" to a game or not? Does it change what it fundamentally is, just because we label it?

I don't know, you tell me. By saying you don't consider games "art", you're the one who's suggesting you have some solid notion of what "art" entails. By that very attitude you are placing "labels" on what you believe a videogame, in particular, should entail. The whole point of this debate is that by placing these limitations on what defines a videogame, you are closing your mind to potentially different experiences. The medium, by nature, is phenomenally versatile, and becomes moreso as technology advances. But just because that technology is there, does not mean that it absolutely has to be used. It's like lens flare in Photoshop. It's great that the option is there, but it should be considered an element in the composition, not something that must be integrated simply because it is possible to do so.

[Popcorn]

Incidentally...

http://www.gamiko.com/showthread.php?t=2618

Over at the Gamiko forum, Dock dug up some photos demonstrating the design philosophy of Ico, from the initial concept to the final product. It's very interesting, even to those who don't like the game.

[Green Gibbon!]

I need to stick my nose back in Gamiko. After I finish this senior project stuff and (theoretically) become a bit more settled, I should join again.

[Popcorn]

I got kind of bored of all the intellectuals. I prefer to hang around here abusing people and acting all eletist to people who can't fight back properly.

[chriscaffee]

By saying you don't consider games "art", you're the one who's suggesting you have some solid notion of what "art" entails.

Let me make a distinction here. I never said games were not art. I said I don't look at them as I would art, just like I don't look at food as art. I'm sure food can be art, but to me it is first and foremost a thing to eat. And if the food tastes bad, I don't care what artistic merit it has, I'm not going to eat it.

If it's delicious and has great aesthetics, then that's just dandy, but aesthetics in the end don't change the flavor of what you consume. I wouldn't buy a game just because it has awesome graphics or good music. Similarly, I wouldn't buy a game purely on it's artistic value either.

[Green Gibbon!]

But then you are saying you don't think games are art, which implies that you do indeed have some solid notion of what art is and that games don't fit under that spectrum. Not only did you not respond to my argument, you're completely contradicting yourself.

[chriscaffee]

<I>But then you are saying you don't think games are art, which implies that you do indeed have some solid notion of what art is and that games don't fit under that spectrum.</I>

Now I see where you got that idea from. The first line in my second post is not intended to imply what it did. I have amended it. For the record, I believe that games can be art, but it isn't something that I take into consideration when playing them or deciding to purchase them.

<I>Not only did you not respond to my argument, you're completely contradicting yourself.</I>

My mistake. I did contradict myself, however, the contradiction was actually in my second post, that you originally quoted, not the subsequent posts (or my original post) that actually reflect my thinking. My mistake. I put no limitations on what art can and can't be and what a game can and can't be in regards to art.

[Green Gibbon!]

CALL ME EMPORER WHEN YOU SAY THAT, CUDCODDLER

[chriscaffee]

Yes your excellency, I'll just do that from now on.

[Green Gibbon!]

I DIDN'T TELL YOU YOU COULD SPEAK