Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Broose]

So I was looking at the Winners and Finalists for the Indie Games Festival. I was surprised from what I saw, specifically in the "Innovation" section. I think whoever judges these things has forgotten something important about games: the point is to have fun. If your game contains profound insight into things, then that is great. But if that is the whole game, then it really isn't much of a game anymore. It is modern art.

Between.

"A networked game for two players about consciousness and isolation."

I tried to figure out more about this game, but all I would see were some vague descriptions that didn't mention gameplay, or anything else that makes, well, a game. So I just played it. You basically take these colored blocks, and combine them to make different colored blocks, and then put them onto a wall. The music thing was kinda cool, but I quit before I ever made the wall. I was somewhat confused. This was just a regular, plain game. Why was it put here?

So, I checked out some others.

Coil.

"Coil is an experimental "art" game that plays out more like a song or painting then an actual "game". I was basically trying to create an experience that put the player into an open minded space and let them question not only what the game was about, but what a game can actually be."

I played this one, too. Nothing interesting, at all. What the hell is so great? I may not be DEEP enough, but I am pretty sure this really sucks.

The Graveyard

"The Graveyard is a very short computer game designed by Auriea Harvey and Michaël Samyn. You play an old lady who visits a graveyard. You walk around, sit on a bench and listen to a song. It's more like an explorable painting than an actual game. An experiment with realtime poetry, with storytelling without words."

This is the one I'm mad the most about. You are an old lady, walking slowly to a bench. You sit on the bench. A song plays. You get up from the bench. You walk out of the cemetary. The game is over. Why would anyone make this? If you are going to do something like this, make a short film. The saddest part about this is that there is a trial and full version of the game. In the full version, sometimes while listening to the song, the old lady just dies. So, basically you spend a minute of walking, and sit down. A cutscene plays. If it is the full version, you might just die, leaving the rest of the game a cutscene. Otherwise, you do another minute of walking, and the game tells you to buy the full version, so you can die next time. This is not even an explorable painting. That might be cool. I don't even know what to call this.

How do you feel about art in video games?

[Mephisto]

"Artsy" games aren't bad if the creators don't have their heads stuck up their rears over the whole "art" concept. The Knytt series is a good example. It was fun. It was nice to look at.

[Broose]

"Artsy" games aren't bad if the creators don't have their heads stuck up their rears over the whole "art" concept. The Knytt series is a good example. It was fun. It was nice to look at.

Yeah, what I meant was games that used things like that to cover up the fact that the game actually sucks.

[G-Flex]

So I was looking at the Winners and Finalists for the Indie Games Festival. I was surprised from what I saw, specifically in the "Innovation" section. I think whoever judges these things has forgotten something important about games: the point is to have fun.

You totally lost me right there. Seriously, what makes you think you have the right to prescribe a purpose to any form of art?

The point of most games is to have fun.

The point of games (or rather, art of ANY form) in general is, well, whatever the creator decides it is, or whatever people can get out of it.

If there's a point to a "game", it's that it's an interactive experience. That's really the only requisite criterion I can think of, although the term is a bit murky.

I've played many games which serve more of an artistic purpose than a gameplay-oriented purpose, and I'm glad I did. The interactivity element of a game gives an artist interesting tools to play with concerning the artistic experience.


Obviously, an artsy game can be just as pretentious and terrible as artsy anything else. That doesn't mean they all are, obviously.

[Gunner-Chan]

Sometimes a game just tries to tell a story. Also let's not turn this into an art flame fest okay guys? ♥

[Granite26]

read this

So... the short version is that a video game is a medium, just like a painting or a movie or a book.

Video Games are never going to enter into their own until they are appreciated as another artistic medium.  One of the movements in art is minimalism.  The minimal aspect of a game is interactivity.  Another aspect of this is that you'll never know what a game is capable of until people explore the extremes.

If I remember correctly, the point of the old lady game was that you diddn't have a choice.  You just... plowed on through it.

In short... a game that innovates, and does good things exploring 'innovation' is not necessarily a good game, even if it adds amazing new concepts to the language of gaming.  These games should be being judged on their ability to say new things through the language of gaming (innovate), not the quality of the game in first place.  That would be bad for innovation in general, even if it would mean 'better' games one in raw 'goodness'.  Think giving an award to the game that gives you +1 on all future rolls versus the game that scores the highest on the roll.

My bit anyway

[Broose]

So I was looking at the Winners and Finalists for the Indie Games Festival. I was surprised from what I saw, specifically in the "Innovation" section. I think whoever judges these things has forgotten something important about games: the point is to have fun.

You totally lost me right there. Seriously, what makes you think you have the right to prescribe a purpose to any form of art?

The definition of a game is an activity engaged in for diversion or amusement. While they could be called games, they were not made to be used for diversion or amusement. They were made to express art. My point is these games are not games. They are interactive art.

[ductape]

art schmart

give me guns

[G-Flex]

"Diversion or amusement" is itself kind of broad and ill-defined, though. Where do you draw the line between being entertained and indulging in art?


Really though, I think the reason that everything like that is called a "game" is because, well, there really isn't a better term for it as far as I can tell. "Interactive art" sounds kind of vague and wishy-washy. I'd probably be more liable to call them "art games" or something.

The thing is that it's hard to find where to draw the line, especially since so many of them straddle it one way or another.

[yamo]

I've heard the Chinese call the keeping of crickets in carved wood cages their "small game"

....but i kinda agree w/ op...the artsy games like graveyard are for the wine and cheese set.  bollocks.

[magellan]

So I was looking at the Winners and Finalists for the Indie Games Festival. I was surprised from what I saw, specifically in the "Innovation" section. I think whoever judges these things has forgotten something important about games: the point is to have fun.

You totally lost me right there. Seriously, what makes you think you have the right to prescribe a purpose to any form of art?

The point of most games is to have fun.

The point of games (or rather, art of ANY form) in general is, well, whatever the creator decides it is, or whatever people can get out of it.

If there's a point to a "game", it's that it's an interactive experience. That's really the only requisite criterion I can think of, although the term is a bit murky.

I've played many games which serve more of an artistic purpose than a gameplay-oriented purpose, and I'm glad I did. The interactivity element of a game gives an artist interesting tools to play with concerning the artistic experience.


Obviously, an artsy game can be just as pretentious and terrible as artsy anything else. That doesn't mean they all are, obviously.

Actually if an artist calls his piece of art say.... "book" i have certain expectations, like it being filled with pages with words on them. If he calls it performance art i expect people and things and animals to do stuff.

If those expectations are broken i will not say "I don't like this book", i will say "This isn't a book, its a toaster" 

[codezero]

Soon cows will be winning game innovation awards and Soldat will be winning innovative fashion shows.

[Kayla]

Being an artist, I'll drop my two not so worthy cents into the mixing pot.

Art for Art's sake is okay. When I make art, whether it's a picture, or a short story, or even an interactive medium, such as games, I make it for me. Sure, other people can download it, or look at it, or do whatever they want with it. But the purpose of it's creation, is because I wanted to make it. Now, if other people don't understand what it is, or feel that it's pretentious; Honestly, that's they're problem.

That said, I agree, certain things and labels have expectations associated with them. A book should presumably have words, and pieces of paper, and plots, or, themes, crescendos and such. But if someone wants to take it outside of the norm, throw a little trickball into the court, by all means. So if someone draws signography (for lack of a better word) on a toaster, to make a story. By all means, I'll consider it a book. 'Specially if when you pull the handle down and it starts toasting, it burns the rest of the story onto your toast.

That'd be sweet.

As for games, I consider them on the 'fun' line. If you want to make it an artful experience for the sole purpose of art, then, label it art. Art Games, or Interactive Art. But if you want to make a game, a videogame, or whatnot, then, make it fun. Exciting. Meaningful. This only applies if they want people to understand what it is by it's label. So back to my previous point, I don't really care what people label their art. It's their art. And they shouldn't care what people think of it either.

Just my two unmeaningful cents.

- Kayla

[Sowelu]

I was curious, so I checked those out.

Between:  Can't comment, nobody else started a game in the minutes I was waiting.  EDIT:  Okay, I played a little, but my partner must not have been doing anything because I didn't see any multiplayer functionality whatsoever.

Coil:  I've played a little of that before actually.  I thought the mechanics were interesting, if the story was a little odd.  Nothing wrong with minigames, especially ones that help you get into the story at least a little bit, and let you forget you're just playing a game with mechanical rules.

The Graveyard:  The only thing I didn't like about this is that it puts itself in your "Program Files" instead of letting you choose where to install it.  I'd say that if you're asking "why not make it into a movie", you are entirely missing the point of what they're trying to show you.  When something is a game, you're supposed to get into the head of the character better than a movie.  You're not just watching her walk along slowly, you've got some investment in the character, you can start to feel more what it's like to be that old and have to walk that distance just to sit on a bench for a while.  You're the person remembering all your various dead family.  And then all that distance back out--ultimately nothing even accomplished, but you suffered to do it because that's life, that's respecting their memory, and there's nothing else in your life to -do-.

If you're still not getting why that's interesting artistic expression, then nothing I can say will help.  That whole "Buy the full version for $5 and you can die" is kind of stupid, though.

Consider that not all games have to be masterpieces.  It's quite alright for an artist to make something that's not the best thing ever, or that's a little weird even, just to inspire a specific feeling that they want to convey.  People don't go to an art gallery, point at a picture and say "Why would anyone bother to paint that?"

[A_Fey_Dwarf]

Real video game art: http://www.kongregate.com/games/I_smell/robot-dinosaurs-that-shoot-beams-when-they-roar