The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Videogame Criticism?
syrion
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I've been on a little bit of a film kick lately. I subscribed to Netflix and have been reading film criticism extensively to build my queue. It's an area where I was woefully ignorant; my experience has been more in the direction of literary criticism. Something striking about the 20th Century's "new art" is that it inspired significant theory and criticism very early in its life, even in the silent era. This was arguably the period when film was most like early video games: constrained by technology and the viewer's experience. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything remotely similar for video games. "Criticism" refers to "reviews" in the gaming community, and the most respected reviewers are equivalent to the commercial movie reviewers who go on promotional junkets and write exactly what the publicist from Miramax tells them.
Am I missing something, here? I would like to be wrong, since I think a healthy base of theory about a medium is part of what drives experimentation in that medium, but I don't think I am. Even simple things like the concept of "progression," "challenge," "atmosphere and design," et cetera aren't defined except when they happen to overlap with film techniques (which, of course, is when the game is most ungamelike).
Also, feel free to use this thread to discuss elements of "theory" that you haven't seen discussed elsewhere. For example, in relation to the concept of "progression," you might note the use of breadcrumb rewards in Half-Life 2 or the reliance on tricks subverting convention in games like I Wanna Be the Guy and the original Metroid.
You can also call me a pretentious idiot if you'd like, I don't mind.
Morninglord's List
* Narrative:
(Someone light the Evil signal)
* Expressing a theme in an interactive medium:
(I believe the animation touches Monger was discussing could fall under this, but it's a bit broad as a term)
Possibly immersion, or maybe put that as a seperate term?
* Control and gameplay design:
Fluidity.
Weight, or cost/benefit "balance" (this term needs serious work, I don't like "balance")
* Challenge and reward
Failure states: failure state subcategories outlined so far Character Death, Wasting Time.
(The second term is terrible)
* Player Psychology:
Player/Developer relationship
Developer Intent (Not sure about this)
Am I missing something, here? I would like to be wrong, since I think a healthy base of theory about a medium is part of what drives experimentation in that medium, but I don't think I am. Even simple things like the concept of "progression," "challenge," "atmosphere and design," et cetera aren't defined except when they happen to overlap with film techniques (which, of course, is when the game is most ungamelike).
Also, feel free to use this thread to discuss elements of "theory" that you haven't seen discussed elsewhere. For example, in relation to the concept of "progression," you might note the use of breadcrumb rewards in Half-Life 2 or the reliance on tricks subverting convention in games like I Wanna Be the Guy and the original Metroid.
You can also call me a pretentious idiot if you'd like, I don't mind.
Morninglord's List
* Narrative:
(Someone light the Evil signal)
* Expressing a theme in an interactive medium:
(I believe the animation touches Monger was discussing could fall under this, but it's a bit broad as a term)
Possibly immersion, or maybe put that as a seperate term?
* Control and gameplay design:
Fluidity.
Weight, or cost/benefit "balance" (this term needs serious work, I don't like "balance")
* Challenge and reward
Failure states: failure state subcategories outlined so far Character Death, Wasting Time.
(The second term is terrible)
* Player Psychology:
Player/Developer relationship
Developer Intent (Not sure about this)
syrion on
0
Posts
All of the concerns of politicians and "experts" and psychologists...all of that serves as a form of critique on games as a media form. Yes, it's mostly negative. But it definitely isn't in the review vein that you had mentioned. What it does offer though is a basis of critical thinking since the biggest concern, at least that I can see, is that games, by their nature, influence behavior in a far greater manner than "passive" entertainment.
What is interesting though, is that I believe that the theories of critical thinking about games are still being hashed out. Games are a very immersive and interactive medium. As such, theories that apply to movies, books, and music are a little off when it comes to games, like you said.
I would say that, since the audience of games is getting older, the thought that critical thinking can be applied to games will become more prevalent. Once games are no longer seen as only a kids thing, but an entertainment for anyone thing, the examination of them will expand and will no longer be seen as a waste of time.
A theory/concept that I've seen debated over and over is how best to get a player engaged in the game. Do you go with a silent protagonist (HL/HL2/Portal) or with a verbal one (MGSx/Halo)? Do you go first person or third person?
Seriously, I tend to have enough to say that I'm not even sure where to start yet.
All right, people. It is not a gerbil. It is not a hamster. It is not a guinea pig. It is a death rabbit. Death. Rabbit. Say it with me, now.
Oh, and that guy that wrote that essay on MGS2.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
The "critical thinking" is what I mean by criticism. As an example, technological needs dictated that games scroll in only one direction when they were first introduced. Mario began at the left and scrolled to the right. Metroid used a trick to inform us that its world was different: the player had to discover the location of the morph ball by going against his own instincts. Even today, it's more natural to us to proceed from left to right, and there are very few games that subvert it, I Wanna Be the Guy being one example of a game that does. Does that have implications?
An idea: in graphic design and film theory, motion to the right and upwards is considered "progressive" and positive, while motion down and to the left is regressive. In a two-dimensional side-scroller, could motion to the left and downward make the game seem more ominous, or more negative?
one thing that I've had on my mind recently is the fact that most writers for games think there's an overlap between movie narrative theory and game narrative theory. There shouldn't be.
It's a weird connection, i assume mostly because they're both on a TV. But a game is a very different beast to a film.
Let's take, for example, HL2 and Bioshock. These have both been vastly praised for their incredible story.
This is in no way true. The story in these games are awful.
But the narrative is a different thing, and the narrative is largely impeccable, and communicated through an entirely different method. Little cues, atmosphere, the style of an illustration; often things you don't even conciously notice. These elements create an atmosphere, and one far more potent than if you had been presented with a cutscene explaining how these places were fucked up.
Characters may bear relation to the archetypal characters that occur in most forms of narrative. there is the establishment of normality, the shattering of that, and then the return to a normality at the end. But what many games do not realise is characters are not always related in cutscenes, or not through the avenues that many writers believe. The style of animation, intricacies of voice acting, small lines delivered.
This is not to say that cutscenes do not have their place. I think the Kain/Soul Reaver games are fantastic, and that's a story that could not be told through valve's style. But I do think that gaming is a hugely different medium and that difference is only really seen by a few.
Most of the first novels actually were pop trash, but as they started to get serious people started thinking, 'oh hey, this is actually art, isn't it?'
Give it a bit of time and we'll see the same thing. I can't find the preview the NYT did for Bioshock anymore, but it read just like a book review. Marginal discussion of gameplay except to show you how you fit into the story, and most of the focus was on how it was essentially a distopian... novel in video game form.
There's also the issue of how radically different the dynamic of the game is from the medium of film. People don't know how to react to that yet, and writing about it as though it is art is incredibly difficult. We're still not very good at writing about music for god's sake.
game criticism goes on for sure, but it's not quite in the form that it would be for literature or art - you're not going to see essays published in a quarterly journal. it goes on in forums like this, and in blogs, and blogs responding to those blogs, and on podcasts. i think it's more communicative than criticism for other mediums - it often presents itself as a discussion, rather than a statement. perhaps this is because it's new, and people are uncertain, or because there's such a great need for this discourse that it bubbles up in conversation even when the margins of an essay page haven't been set aside for it.
I've always felt that this motion was ingrained in us due to the way our language works. We read from left to right. So, to "move forward", we move right. We are constantly bombarded with items/displays that ingrain an attention that moves to the right. It is possible that in other cultures, where language/words work differently (Japan, Israel, etc) that this convention is reversed. Perhaps examining how such cultures view this motion would yield interesting insights?
As to whether or not it would feel more negative or ominous, I've never considered that. It would feel off, however. So, I would say it is possible.
I'm not an expert in the history of movies and the different eras of movie making alongside the levels of criticism within that industry, but I'm pretty sure one of the biggest obstacle that the movie industry had to overcome first was the notion of it being able to be art (I hesitate to say "being art", since it's the medium that has the capability of being art, not every movie is a work of art, like how not every painting is considered a work of art).
It's something that video games have not been able to transcend successfully yet; it's definitely happening, but video games have not overcome that barrier, which is why in my opinion, there is no massive pool of theory and criticism. That is however, not to say that there is no theory or criticism, I'm sure if one were to look around, there will quite a few books on video game programming theory, narrative theory and art theory. The abundance of these books must imply that there is a criticism behind them, it's just not explicit.
I don't want to turn this discussion into a 'are video games art' discussion, but for the ones interested, I've written a paper on the very same topic on whether video games are art, and I've attached it in the spoiler. It is still a work in progress, and the 3000 word limit means its limited in scope and perhaps depth, but as a introduction to the relationship between video games and art, I like to think it's adequate.
The video game industry has come a long way since its introduction over three decades ago, and in this time, it has evolved from simple, iconic 8-bit games such as “Super Mario Bros.†for the Nintendo Entertainment System to highly prolific games such as “Shadow of the Colossus†for the Sony Playstation 2. From simple pixel manipulating roots to epic narratives, the video game industry has changed considerably. With technology breaking new thresholds, so has video games, and now as they approach complexity never seen before, the question is whether they are art.
The debate centers around a few key questions, of what constitutes an aesthetic experience, if video games are capable of creating such an experience, and perhaps most importantly, what is art. Embarking on such an ambitious exercise requires a note of humility, since experts have been unable to reach a consensus of what constitutes art for centuries; and even as I narrow my scope to determining the status of video games as art, it nevertheless represents an ambitious task. My purpose is then, to question the current status of video games and our definitions of art, and provide insights into this new revolution in entertainment.
So let the video games begin.
What is Art?
There exist multiple definitions of art, none of which is more 'correct' than the other. It might then seem unnecessary to discuss the various definitions of what art is, or to even try to define art, since a consensus might never be reached; but the value is not in the definitions themselves, but in the myriad of them. By looking at the different perspectives of what art is, we will be able to appreciate the rapid growth of this field, the near-futility in attempting a foolproof definition of what art is. Through this, one would be able to appreciate the difficulty involved in defining a medium as art, and the multiple complications associated.
For purposes of this independent study, I have selected various definitions to explore, and while this list is not remotely exhaustible, it will provide a reasonable insight into defining art.
In What Is Art? (1896), Leo Tolstoy argues that art is a medium for feelings and emotions to be transferred to the viewer from the artist. A problem then arises as the definition encompasses not only art, but objects, such as a greeting card that many, including the “artworldâ€, do not consider art. Many objects provide with viewers emotions, even simple colors alone already create certain feelings, and if we do follow such a definition strictly, then many objects not considered art would be art as long as they evoke an emotion, quoting Tolstoy:
“Art is not a handicraft, it is the transmission of feeling the artist has experienced.â€
However, this does not render the definition entirely obsolete, since many would argue that emotion plays a vital role in art. It is also worth noting that Tolstoy argues for an 'artist' behind the transference, and perhaps hints at the importance of an artist's intention.
The school of intentionalism believes that any ideas, concepts and emotions behind a work of art is solely dependent on the artist's intentions; hinting also that what is art is also dependent on the intention of artists to create art themselves. The problem then is that every object that was not created to be art will be considered art, and the scope would render the aesthetics irrelevant, no longer having a special place in society, since even a basic picture of a flower would be accepted as art as long as it had an intention of being art behind it. Many would also argue that artists do not set out to make art; to quote renowned video game developer, Peter Molyneux of Lionhead Studios:
“Does a painter decide to make art or paint a picture? Does a composer decide to compose a piece of music or make art? Does a film maker want to make a film or art? I think they're more concerned with evoking emotions and creating something meaningful and enduring.â€
Molyneux argues that an artist does not strive to create a work of art, but instead to evoke emotions and in the process, create art. One could refute this claim by stating that artists already assume their final product to be art, and thus is essentially setting out to be making art. But it is in my belief that perhaps the importance of art lies not simply in the intention to make art, but also the intention to literally, create emotion and therefore create art.
While I have presented a few views on the definition of art, the most significant factor in determining what art is today is arguably the “artworld†and the importance of historical development behind an art form. The “artworld†is often defined as a society of recognized artists, critics and people who are generally associated with the aesthetics, a society of people that often have a vital say in what is or is not art. Arthur C. Danto believes that something can only considered art when the “artworld†is ready to accept it as a work of art, and this often happens with the presence of a historical development. This is seen in movies and movements such as pop art, and while this is not a definition, it puts into perspective the importance of society's acceptance in determining what is art. Quoting Dr. Henry Jenkins, director of MIT Comparative Media Studies on Gilbert Seldes, American cultural critic:
“Seldes shocked his contemporaries by asserting that among America's greatest contributions to arts in the twentieth century would be cinema, jazz, the Broadway musical and the comic strip. Today few would deny any of these (well, perhaps comics) entry into the most sanctified corners of the art world. Who are we then, to deny the possibility of video games attaining the status of art?â€
Although I have selected some definitions and important points to note when it comes to defining what is art, the value in this section is not in selecting any one definition, but instead to bring across the point that every definition of art has a limitation. I have also presented the importance of the “artworldâ€, and the significant role that society and historical development plays in raising a medium to the status of art. As the aesthetic world grows, definitions and the “artworld†inevitably have to grow in order to keep in perspective the countless of mediums that are vying for the status of art. The question then arises, will the growth ever stop, and more importantly for our purposes, are video games art?
Art and the Aesthetic Experience
Dewitt H. Parker, author of The Principle of Aesthetics, defines the aesthetic experience as “sensations which are the media of expressionâ€. These sensations are as simple as basic stimulations or reactions from a work of art, such as, to quote Parker, “like the beauty of single musical tones or colors.†Although seemingly similar to Tolstoy's definition of art, Parker's definition of the aesthetic experience encompasses even the most basic of reactions, not simply emotions. Parker also notes the importance of having the sensations represent something greater, to serve a purpose such as an idea the artist could have intended. Thus, accordingly, only when there is a sensation generated alongside a purpose behind it, can it be considered an aesthetic experience. Parker also raises the importance of the purpose leading on to ideas, and eventually emotions in order for it to fulfill the criteria.
While there are other definitions of what an aesthetic experience constitutes, much of them centers around the interaction with an object and the stimulation received. However, because Parker's definition has connections to the previously mentioned definitions of art and for the sake of convenience, we will be using his definition of the aesthetic experience when critiquing video games from an aesthetic angle. In addition, most, including me, would argue that emotions and ideas play a vital role in the aesthetics, and Parker's definition nicely encompasses both elements.
However, while the aesthetic experience is arguably the most important defining point of art, it is in my belief that it cannot stand alone in determining what is art. To quote Parker:
“Sensation is the door through which we enter into the experience of beauty: and, again, it is the foundation upon which the whole structure rests.â€
Parker hints that while sensations and aesthetic experiences are vital in a work of art, they are not sufficient, for they serve merely as “the door†and the “foundation†for art; and I believe the key lies in the synthesis of sensations, emotions and intention.
Video Games as Art
In the previous section, we have discussed some of the various definitions of art, and while we have established that there is not a single definition sufficient in depth and scope to define what is art, we will be using them not as definitions but instead as perspectives towards the medium from an aesthetic angle. In conjunction with looking at video games as a form of art and the various sides of the established debate, we will look at how the element of the aesthetic experience comes into play in video games.
While some people, such as video game developer Tim Schafer are more than eager to recognize video games as an art form, there is the other side of the debate that does not believe that they are. American critic, Robert Ebert explains:
“There is a structural reason for that: video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.â€
Although it is true that video games do provide the audience with an element of control, video game developers have in mind a structure, and in a sense, have the authorial control. To quote Johm De Margheriti of video game studio Micro Forte:
“The author of the game has written some grand plot line, has created the races, the pretext of the stories... There is a structure, but it's a structure that's interactive.â€
Players might play the game in a different manner, perhaps play it backwards, or cheat, and this means that video game developers cannot be entirely sure that experience of every player is the same. For intentionalists, this immediately rules video games out, since they are not able to accurately present the ideas that the developers might have intended; but perhaps it is not the fault of the medium, but the definition itself. Quoting British journalist, Kieron Gillen:
“In games, the authorial control is in the bounds of the simulation the game creator has chosen to invent ... It's obviously not the same sort of authorial control as film, but to argue that it isn't is bizarre, strange and doesn't engage with the form.â€
Gillen thus hints that while video games do not necessarily conform very well to our definitions of art, it might not mean that video games are not art, but instead represent the need to refine our current definitions.
Video game developers do intend to provide ideas, as seen in “Metal Gear Solid†and “Zone of the Enders: The 2nd Runnerâ€, where they deal with themes of freedom, revenge and issues such as genetic manipulation. While they may serve to entertain, these examples show us how video games can be a vessel for developers to express ideas and concerns, elements many would associate with art, and to quote Richard Posner:
“Video games should be considered an art form, since they show thematic and expressive continuity with herald literature and is at least as effective as much in the popular arts that is considered protected speech.â€
The aforementioned show us the possibilities of video games being a medium to transfer ideas, but that in itself is inadequate. As mentioned before, factors such as sensations and emotions must first be present to be termed as art. On the same side of the fence as Ebert, Jack Kroll of Newsweek looks at the emotional aspect of art, stating:
“Games can be fun and rewarding in many ways, but they can't transmit the emotional complexity that is the root of art.â€
Kroll argues that video games are unable to serve effectively as the medium for the transfer of emotions (Tolstoy), and while it is arguable as to how effective video games in general are for transmitting emotions, there are a few video games that stand out from the pack, displaying the ability to do so effectively.
“Shadow of the Colossus†pits the player against sixteen gigantic, colossal foes that could be found within a large, barren landscape in order to revive a princess. Literally void of any life and activity, a large section of the game is spent traveling around the planes on horseback in search of the colossi. This design feature creates a sense of loss, isolation and loneliness; providing a very strong aesthetic experience. While there is not much of a narrative, the game-play alone creates such emotions effectively, and it is difficult to argue that there does not exist the “emotional complexity that is the root of art.â€
In “Final Fantasy IXâ€, we see the developers focus a side plot on the character Vivi, exploring theme of non-existentialism. By slowly revealing figments of his past, players through the course of the game grow emotionally attached to this character, being able to relate to the different emotions that he feels. The role of emotions in these games cannot be underrated, like what we have seen in “Shadow of the Colossusâ€, and emotions such as these cannot be crafted without a high degree of authorship and intention. Some, such as Jack Kroll might argue that the emotions evoked are not comparable to the ones we see in other art forms, but the emotions within video games are as important as the role of emotions in any other medium such as film and music. It is thus impossible to dismiss the ability for video games to transmit emotions, especially when the narratives told hinge heavily on them.
It is also entirely possible to appreciate video games for their visual aesthetics, or graphics. Video games such as “Okami†which takes on a Japanese water-painting style to its graphics and “Crysis†which prides itself in photorealism show that video games are able to not only showcase different styles, they are also able to represent life accurately visually. Aurally, acclaimed video game composers such as Nobuo Uematsu is widely recognized to be an artist for his music featured in video games such as the “Final Fantasty†series. Thus here we can see even if one were to take the idea of authorship and thematic concerns away, the aesthetic appreciation of video games for its visual and aural properties is still possible.
However, it must be noted that while we have seen how video games can be used as mediums for aesthetic expression, the majority video games do not have much aesthetic merit. While such video games may provide a very strong experience, they may not be aesthetic in nature. Video game developers often do not intend their video games to be seen as art, and an important aspect of the aesthetic experience is the idea behind the sensation. While it is arguable that we can then appreciate the games simply for their form, it is unlikely that people would accept such video games that were developed purely for entertainment to be considered art, and this is perhaps one of the biggest obstacles between video games as art, the social stigma.
As we have noted, the historical development and the “artworld†plays an important role in determining what is socially accepted as art, and many people such as Johm De Margheriti believes that games are being stigmatized because of their mostly commercial nature. This social reluctance to accept video games as a form of art is an obstacle that can only be overcome through time, something that almost every art form has once been through, and this is especially difficult for a medium with the main purpose of entertainment. However, some art was originally meant to be entertainment, to quote John A. Fischer:
“Much art is not entertainment and much entertainment, for instance, amusement rides, slot machines and professional sports is not art. But some works of popular culture that by general acclimation are now regarded as important art were primarily created to be entertainment.â€
While it is evident that some of what we now consider art was originally intended to be entertainment, there must have been aesthetic value in them for them to be considered art, since not all past entertainment can be seen as art. Thus this argument alone does not hold much merit in justifying video games as art, but we have seen the capacity for video games to create aesthetic experiences, their ability to transmit emotions, as vessels for literary ideas, aspects that most people would argue that art has.
So are video games art?
Conclusion – Are Video Games Art
While we have shown above that they have the ability to be art, the greatest obstacle still remains, for society to accept them as a legitimate art form. More importantly, we have also noted that not all video games are art, while some of them have shown to have the potential of becoming works of art, a large portion of video games still cannot be considered art. However, simply because a large portion cannot be seen as art, we must not dismiss the ones that have the potential. To quote Aarom Smuts:
“While many video games probably should not be considered art, there are good reasons to think that some video games should be classified as art.â€
The question then appears to delve deeper than video games, but instead of whether it is the medium, or the content that is art. Not every painting is a work of art, not every sculpture is a work of art, not all movies are considered art, yet these mediums are in general accepted to have aesthetic merit. Perhaps then all it takes is a few good examples for a medium to be accepted as art, and maybe the same will soon be applied to video games.
So are video games art? I believe that very few of them are, but these few represent the advent of a new dimension for the aesthetics, and to quote Nic Kelman:
“Video games may not fit our most traditional definitions of art, it is true, but they just might make us reconsider these definitions whether we want to or not.â€
As for your second point about criticism and reviews, I tend to agree with you.
I should clarify. Games can be art-like. They contain many properties of art, and individual elements of a game can be art (music, for example), but taken as a whole a game is a form of entertainment. They display artistry, but they're not art.
I posit that the moment a game becomes art, it stops being a game.
What qualities does a work have to hold to be considered art by you, then?
http://www.audioentropy.com/
By virtue of being a game, something that is played, it cannot be art?
Shit, this is actually off topic.
On topic, I wonder the same things as the OP. I know there is discussion about value and actual criticism over gaming, rather than mere reviews, but it's not very prevalent.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
is pressing play on a dvd player making the film not art?
this is ridiculous semantics. people's definition of art varies wildly. take for instance jackass, i'd never call that art (unless you could somehow argue how it's a social commentary, but that's retarded).
meanwhile games like SotC and Bioshock have better emotional response and story-telling, than say aliens vs predator
I think of it more in the other direction (if it's art, it's not a game) but yeah, pretty much. I don't have a concrete definition of art but like the Supreme Court recognizes pornography, I know it when I see it.
Maybe I've just not seen any real art games, but I've played Braid and that's probably about as close as anyone's gotten. This is kind of OT though, what I was getting at was a reason why we have game reviewers but no formal structure for criticism like film, books, and so forth.
The important thing to consider here is that more or less every man-made object is art in some capacity. That's not really the question. The question is whether or not it's good/i] art.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Alien Vs. Predator isn't important, though.
SotC and Bioshock create atmosphere, and SotC creates emotion through music, presentation, and design but, they're both, quite overtly, games. They're puzzles, a series of encounters. They're created on a new medium, and both are artful in execution, but are they important? Because that's really what games as art arguments often comes down to. You have paintings made by a grandmother of her dog, you have Alien Vs. Predator, you have Clay Akin, then you have The Mona lisa, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, and Pavement.
Deciding weather or not something's art or not is so convoluted that, really, it's pointless. But deciding if something's important is a strong way to see if it matters. Atmosphere and story are not the only way to see if a game matters, though: Gears of War is the epitome of 3rd person shooting, it's thick and forceful, bulky and masculine, and it evokes the right kind of emotions. Despite poor characters and a light story I would say a game like that is equally as important as a game like Braid.
To me Mega Man 2 matters just as much as Prince of Persia: Sands of Time.
But I almost don't want to get into this, because it always dissolves into "WHY AIN'T THEM GAMES GETTIN CRED THE WAY OTHER MEDIA DOES" and unfair comparisons (undeveloped medium Vs. matured medium)
Then again, I'm the kind of person who describes games as "MEATY" so maybe I'm the kind of asshole who should avoid this kind of thread all together. Still, though, regarding criticism, I think I prefer the word Studies.
Also, I don't consider art and entertainment to be mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite, I think good art can often be measured by how entertaining it is. I don't know any film critic that would say the Godfather Part 2 isn't art, I also don't know any critic that would say that it isn't thoroughly entertaining. We lose some of that in older literature and art. Take Shakespeare for example, people spend so much time working through the antiqued language and references to (then)contemporary life that were obvious but not are beyond obscure, that people begin to forget that these were plays written primarily to entertain.
Wither something is art, to me, is a measure of wither a work is substantial and important with in it's medium. Once you can agree that something like say, Half-Life, is an important work with the medium of video games, then the video game community considers it art. The problem is that currently society at large does not consider video games to be a medium of any importance or relevance, and thus does not consider any work with the field, no matter how good, to be important or relevant. For the older generation games like pong were just a simple distraction, much as early experimental silent films were, the novelty of a new medium as opposed to people really working with an established medium. I believe there will come a day were video games become a form of entertainment that will be relevant to a large number of people lives and when that happens, we will have be able to have our own Godfather 2.
Not that I have watched them, mind you.
And since when is entertainment and art mutually exclusive? o_O
Let's not do the is it or is it not art thing. We don't need to go there. It's a bad place.
Yahtzee is as much a legitimate games critic as Jon Stewart is a legitimate news anchor. At the end of the day, he's just there to be funny.
The reason we don't see more criticism on the scale of that MGS2 analysis is largely due to the medium just being too young. If you look at the places where game discussion happens among people who aren't in the industry, an unacceptable amount comes from places like GAF and GameFAQs. It's not like we have something in meatspace akin to book clubs, and Internet Fuckwad Theory is going to hold true until we all start holding ourselves to some decent fucking standards. It's damn near impossible to hold a decent discussion when some random shitfucker walks into the room and starts fucking some shit all over your tables. It's even more impossible when the majority of your group decides that he looks like he's having a grand old time they'd prefer to fuck the aforementioned shit as well. Look at Denis Dyack. Dude has some decent ideas, but expressing them to GAF? The only way to reason with that kind of crazy is to punch it in the face with louder, bolder, tin-foiler crazy.
The other big reason is game journalism being controlled by publishers and pretty much a joke.
All right, people. It is not a gerbil. It is not a hamster. It is not a guinea pig. It is a death rabbit. Death. Rabbit. Say it with me, now.
I guess that means we'll have to.
Now, what differentiates the form? Interactivity and the possibility of failure are the obvious ones here, but a game like Photopia is pushing it on both counts. Knytt Stories, too. So--are there any techniques that many games use that you haven't seen mentioned elsewhere?
One that I pay attention to in 3D games is the vista. Half-Life 2 makes explicit use of it. You come from within an enclosed space to see a vast, expansive area; they almost always show your ultimate goal (the citadel) or some huge event. Insomniac, the developers of Ratchet & Clank, also make extensive use of this technique. Where did this come from? It's connected to developing an atmosphere, of course. I think it's used to control the player for a moment so that important information can be conveyed. Early examples might include... hmm. The view of the temple in Ninja Gaiden; the traditional view of Dr. Wily's castle in the Mega Man games; the "bridge-crossing scene" in Final Fantasy games. They're a little different in that they're actual interruptions in gameplay instead of moments of revelation within the sequence of the game, but they remind me of similar shots in movies.
Art is always about the presentation and technique.
Edit: which for games does include how a person interacts with it.
I just feel that we put way too much credit on the player.
That's why we should first set a premise of whether video games are an art form or not, because whether it is or not will give rise to different sorts of criticism.
The simplest definition of art is that it evokes. Evoke can be operationalised as either thought or feeling.
It does not need to improve, which is the commonly thought of definition. It simply needs to evoke something. Analysis of what it evokes (either how it does so or the worth of what it does evoke) would be criticism in the sense syrion is talking about.
It is not "games is art" that needs to be set out. It is "do games evoke".
This is self evidently a yes, and wether or not you consider this evoking to be"art" entirely depends on what definition you ascribe to "art".
So if a game evokes we can criticise it. "Art" is now irrelevant.
Done. Lets move on.
Also, we're at a point in the industry where the people developing the games are more prone to dissecting the medium than the people writing about them. I still adore Warren Spector's "Reinventing the Camera" speech in relation to game engines. Beautifully done.
I'm going to miss Shawn Elliott so much.
So perhaps it's better to say that games differ from other narrative forms in that they have internal failure states.
I absolutely disagree. In addition to being the receiver of the work, the player has distinct influences on it, meaning that no two people are ever going to experience a game in exactly the same way. They define the actions, and in cases of games with silent or mostly silent protagonists, the thoughts of the main character. They're limited by what the game says that they can and can't do, but they can still act within those limitations to create a unique experience.
Take, for example, Shadow of the Colossus. The plot is pretty straightforward: The Wanderer brings a woman to Dormin to help him revive her, he goes out to slay the Colossi, and then learns that Dormin double-crossed him and ends up being killed and reincarnated as a horned infant.
The attitude of the player, however, can have a lot of impact on the mood of the narrative. If the player looks at it strictly as a game, with goals to fulfill and bosses to beat, then The Wanderer is portrayed as a rather cold and shallow character, blindly going on and doing whatever it takes without a care for anything but reviving Mono. On the other hand, a player that pays close attention to the details and begins to understand that the Colossi aren't really all that terrifying and that in a lot of ways he's the villain here, and that his body is beginning to deteriorate with each Colossus he kills. The former player probably shrugs off Agro's "death" as just something that had to happen to beat the game, while the latter can show general concern for the horse. In the end, the impatient, unconnected player is justly killed for his actions, though may be frustrated that he never ended up getting what he wanted. The immersed, understanding player will likely accept their fate and understand that they brought it upon themselves. Because the player and The Wanderer are the same person, the character in the two situations reacts with different emotions, altering the tone and meaning of the narrative.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Half-Life 2 is a great example here because Valve does a great job not only of cycling through all their functions, but pointing it all out in commentary.
-A vista can foreshadow, or give the player a sense of purpose. The first thing you see when you step out into City 17 at the beginning of HL2 is the Citadel looming over you.
-A vista can give a sense of direction or progress. The Citadel comes and goes from the horizon for pretty much the entire game, accenting not only where you've come from, but where you're going. It gets smaller the further you wander away from the city, and larger as you close in on it at the end.
-A vista can build context or atmosphere. Not only does the view of the remains of City 17 at the beginning of Episode 2 do almost all of the above, seeing the portal storm wash over it is not only central to the atmosphere of the rest of the episode, but it expresses to the player the current situation and its link to the end of the previous episode.
-A vista can be a function of pacing. The open view of the crumbling city in Episode 1 is the player's reward for making it through the claustrophobic underground areas. Grim though it may be, it's a breath of fresh air after being confined for so long. It serves as a release of tension, and the fact that such a view is a relief is pretty telling of the gravity of the situation to come.
All right, people. It is not a gerbil. It is not a hamster. It is not a guinea pig. It is a death rabbit. Death. Rabbit. Say it with me, now.
1)Determine what the artist was trying to accomplish
2)Determine how the artist attempted it
3)Judge whether the artist was successful
I'm really not sure if all games qualify as art worth exposing to formal criticism (although I have a pretty liberal definition of art on the whole), but really if games are to be criticized, it requires a functional vocabulary of games' "artfulness". Literature has it, film has it, but I don't really see any indication that games have it. There really needs to be a concerted, academic effort to examine games for that to happen - which means that either games as a whole will have to get more serious, or the people playing them.
This same argument, however, can be made for someone watching a movie. Take No Country for Old Men, a rather polarizing movie: some people see it only as a violent monster movie. Others see Anton and his violence as a symbolic representation of chance, or fate, and (presumably) like the movie more. What you've articulated is the "reader response" theory, and it's a valid idea, but it isn't new or limited to games.
Some books and films are very difficult as well. Its actually very similar to games, the more experience and understanding you have with a medium, the more you are going to be able to get from something like Eraserhead, Finnigan's Wake or Contra.
I get 5 points for being the first person in history to ever compare Contra to Finnigan's Wake.
"All art is quite useless."
-Oscar Wilde
With a book the words are there on the page, a static entry, and what can differ is reader attitudes and preconceptions towards the text, as well as arguments on the meaning of certain turns of phrase.
With some recent games the gameplay has enough variety that the player cannot be relied upon to follow the same gameplay path and experience the same situations as another player except in terms of funnelled moments, like cutscenes.
Indeed some games which do not fully explain the rules or options available to the player, one player may follow a simple path and declare the gameplay simple, the other may attempt a more complicated path and declare the gameplay deep.
Gameplay itself, with its powerful methods of evoking emotion and thought, can't simply be dismissed and put seperate from conventional cutscene based story devices in games of this fashion.
For some games, interpretation can be thought of as a spectrum of possible player paths, much like quantum uncertainty, so that any one interpretation or view is open to a conflicting view in a manner much, much more complicated than a book or film. All possible player gameplay paths must be considered equally valid in such a view, but only in comparison to that player. It may be that any broad generalisations to the wider playerbase would be automatically flawed.
I think the difference here, though, is that in the case of No Country for Old Men, the movie is there unchangeable and you can just take away from it what you want. In the case of Shadow of the Colossus, however, the "reader response" actually shapes the narrative. The Wanderer is how the player interprets him to be.
It's like, with a film, the response goes one way. Chigurh acts a certain way, and the audience sees that and reacts to it. In a game, it's more like a dialogue. The Wanderer acts a certain way in the opening cutscene, and the player responds and reacts to it. That reaction results in the player governing The Wanderer's actions a certain way, and these new actions further define and shape the character in the mind of the player.
The difference is subtle, but I think it's important.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
While the way a person reacts to it is important, I feel that if we're going to talk about games as art objectively we need to discuss the techniques used by the creator and the presentation he's after, and if he succeeds or not.
An analogy:
Two people arive at work.
One had to go through heavy traffic and is irritated. (Gameplay choice 1)
The other chose quiet backroads, and is more calm. (Gameplay choice 2)
The same workbased problem is given to both. (Cutscene)
Both are at work, but they will have different emotional reactions to the same situation, as a result of their experiences leading up to it.
This is not on the same level as a book, where one of the two paths (traffic or backroad) is prechosen by the author, and the readers interpretation is limited to this prechosen path.
edit: Antihippies creator presentation approach would be viewing the players avatar in the cutscene as having chosen one of the paths over the other. (In a similar manner to the consideration of canon in a universe)
But some gameplay is designed to be freely open, with no specific pathway leading up to the cutscene point other than crossing a threshold, so I think this is the right way to start thinking about it, but is also too limiting.