Art vs. Fun

I don't think games are good at exploring the human condition. It's not what I look for in a video game. Just like I don't listen to music for the storytelling, or look at sculpture to learn about history. Video games are good at fun. They CAN be used to do other things, and I enjoy these sorts of experiments (usually on the smaller scale, such as the recent Flash game "You Only Live Once"), but in general I think mediums have strengths and weaknesses, and are best when utilized accordingly.

This is quite incorrect. Games are some of the most powerful tools in a psychologists arsenal in any attempt to explain or describe human behavior. This doesn't mean video games are necessarily good at this sort of thing, obviously, but it doesn't mean they are necessarily useless either.

Yes, human behavior isn't the 'human condition,' but you have to take a shockingly dim view of science to not admit the causal link.

I got a good smile out of that. Thanks, Patrick.

EDIT: The hell!? You literally only live once!? Gonna kill you, Patrick!!!

I don't get why there would need to be a "vs". Whether it's music, TV, movies or games some works are meant to be pure fun, and some are intended to have a greater meaning. As a viewer, we don't have to choose between Crank and The Wrestler; we can enjoy both. As a gamer, I can enjoy Splosion Man (pure fun) and RPGs, which commonly have some of the least 'fun' gameplay, but can offer far more interesting rewards in the form of choices that (ideally) require consideration of consequences and morality.

Since video games are still in their infancy, much of the current focus is on the technology and simplest expression of the medium: reflex and coordination testing. There's no reason for that visceral style of game to ever fade away. But we're already seeing much grander attempts to make the player think and feel as they play, and there's no reason for that to stop when the technology and skill being used to make games is only going to improve over time.

But we still recognize Tom Waits is an amazing musical storyteller, and your average painting of Jesus still tells a fascinating tale of how people once saw their savior. Just because it's not what one expects from the medium doesn't preclude people stop exploring what the medium is capable of doing. We still haven't seen the medium's Citizen Kane, but we're at least slouching towards it's Birth of a Nation or Great Train Robbery. I don't see the medium getting much further than it has, but I'm glad someone's trying. Why in the hell not?

Because it’s what’s next.

I can’t fault people for wanting to live in a future where video games are more than just adolescent power fantasies and simulations.

Christ, is there a subject out there more utterly fucking boring, yet impossible not to chip in on, then the whole games/art thing?

Seems to me these arguments are usually fuelled by people having over-specific ideas about what art is supposed to be and what it's supposed to do, and then demanding games jump through hoops to prove that it can do things other, more traditionally artistic, media can do in the hope of being seen as worthy. The games that really, really want to be legitimate art tend to be tiresome stodgy intellectual exercises (does Passage really matter to anyone except as a piece of ammunition to be used in these discussions?).

Games are something different. Instead of awkwardly trying to create profound explorations of the human condition or trying to match the achievements of other completely different artforms, designers should just carry on following their instincts and making the games they want to make as best they can. History can decide if it's worth anything.

If someone can give me a clear definition of art and what constitutes as art then maybe I'll chip into this conversation. Until then I'm out.

Framing it as "art v. fun" is not really a good way of going about this. Instead of commentators asking the established big game devs to make "art games" that "speak to the human condition," they should realize that, like Justin said, we probably don't really even have our THE BIRTH OF A NATION yet in the video game medium. At this point it should simply be about evolution, a gradual growth.

Jaffe basically says the developers simply don't have the confidence that these "art" game ideas will work as full games, which makes sense, because the people who make these five-minute "art" games on the internet haven't even done that yet. So what needs to be done, and what is actually happening, is these devs have to experiment a LITTLE and make games that are familiar enough to get folks onboard but different enough that maybe they'll learn something from the experience. Evolution.

That's why, to me, games like ALANA WAKE and HEAVY RAIN and, to a lesser extent, SPLINTER CELL CONVICTION are the most exciting prospects on the horizon. I'm excited both by what these games can provide on their own as well as what they could inspire. These are games that could be jumping-off points to territory that would satisfy all fronts: games that aren't masturbatory fantasies for the sake of being masturbatory fantasies that have compelling (better than "fun") gameplay.

This discussion would be helped if more folks in the gaming community had brains, though. We live in a world where gamers champion 50 CENT: BLOOD ON THE SAND for being competently made rather than decry its absurdly inappropriate and offensive (for the wrong reasons) content. For those who didn't play that one: it's a bit like CRANK, if Neveldine and Taylor were actually endorsing all the activities taking place in the movie.

And herein lies the problem, any discussion like this requires an agreed upon definition of terms. For instance, where is the line between video game and interactive art installation?

I imagine even this would be contested.

There are no relevant, exclusionary terms that can be agreed upon. It's why the argument comes up again and again, because you can argue endlessly on what qualifies as art when no one has a functional and exclusionary definition of what art is. It's one giant debate, and there is no methodology for resolving it.

Also, you have to remember that since most people who play games are fucking idiots, those people demanding big-budget, full-length "art" games don't really know what they're asking for. When people say they want a game that "explores the human condition," they're really saying they want someone else to figure out what that means and how to do it.

"Your goal is to explore the human condition. GO!"

"Press X to Gain Insight"

This is dictated by a very particular perception. I think GTA3 explores the human condition just fine. Some people stick to the missions, other people go for 100% completion, others just drive around in a taxi. Me, I commit as much wanton crime and chaos as possible before being gunned down in a 6-star inferno. It seems to me like a far more legitimate exercise in human action and free will than some moderately clever puzzles and dumb poetry as in Braid.

Level up! You have achieved space baby zen!

Rez is such an awesome game.

GTA IV doesn't so much explore the human condition as reflect the player back at himself.

What separates games from movies (and what prevents them from doing what movies do) is the element of interactivity. I think the closest games can come to reflections of "the human condition" is in presenting the player with a multitude of choices, and allowing those choices to influence the game. Fable II comes to mind.

The problem with this movement is that they want games to do things that games simply aren't very good at. They're using movies and books as models for what games ought to attempt. The problem is that games are almost diametrically opposed to what movies and books are at their core. Movies and books are static; they put you in the position of observer. You can relate to characters and situations, but not influence them. The creator has complete control to create a compelling story and character journey. A game has to give over control to the player (unless it's a Final Fantasy "game"; don't get me started). This necessarily results in a loss of depth.

Unless and until some developer finds a way to make things like "character arc" into playable game mechanics (and no, even RPG's haven't really pulled this off yet), games will never be the narrative and exploratory tool that movies and novels are. They can reflect the player through choice, but artistic depth is problematic at best.

And incidentally, Mr. Burch, if you want to be taken seriously in an art discussion, maybe rolling your eyes at Citizen Kane isn't a great choice.

But the biggest problem with his rant is that he insists that games can be about anything (his examples include eating breakfast and taking your daughter to school for the first time), but he gives no concrete examples of how a game would be about these things. In order to be a game, it has to bring the element of interactivity. Otherwise, it's a cut scene, and therefore falls into the category of cinema. When somebody can explain exactly how eating breakfast and taking your kid to school can be made into compelling gameplay, then there will be a case. Until then, it's wankery.

While I'm not nearly as excited for Heavy Rain as you are, I think this is an accurate statement. Burch talks about exploring the human condition like there's a precedent, or like people are somehow intentionally avoiding it. No one has used "game," and by that I mean underlying game, stripped from any combination of cinema, story, audio, or visual art, to explore the human condition yet. Multimedia art installations like Passage are just that. Wasn't GTA IV proclaimed a masterpiece by everybody outside of Yahtzee and a few people here on the boards? And even then, most detractors liked the game world, music, texture, and story. The only thing that didn't feel like an evolutionary leap in GTA IV was the actual game. I know we disagree on this part, but for me, the relationship system was a failed attempt to provide mission-external immersion. I didn't like hanging out with Roman outside of GTA IV "work hours" for a lot of the same reasons I don't like playing The Sims. It's clever, but I'd hesitate to call it a bold step toward humanistic games.

Well, what was the cinematic equivalent of Mario 3, Captain Blood, the System Shock series, the Half Life Series, Final Fantasy 6/7, Grim Fandango, Ico, Katamari Damacy? It seems stupid to me to dismiss all the existing gaming landmarks just because they don't cover equivalent territory to cinematic landmarks. And what's this obsession with 'exploring the human condition'? This idea that every work of worthwhile creativity should aspire to be some poe-faced portentious meditation on the nature of existence or whatever strikes me as a bit silly. And the popular idea that the title 'art' should only be applied to serious and 'worthy' works, rather than just objectively describing the products of creative impulses whether good or bad, has been nothing but trouble if you ask me.

Whenever this topic pops up over and over I feeling like saying to the gamers of the world "welcome to the 'what is art?' debate that's been going on for the last 150 years or more'"

The world of respected art can't agree on terminology and concrete definitions, so I don't see how the gaming world is going to crack that nut for them.

I look at the evolution of the video game narrative the same way I look at the evolution of the kicking mechanic in Madden. They’ve made it more visually impressive, added a bit more fidelity to the actual mechanic, but it’s fundamentally the same top-down system it’s always been.

Exactly. I actually took a philosophy class last semester on this subject. One of the best classes I've taken in my college career.

Was it one of those classes where the professor is like "Everything is art because nothing is art!"? And everyone leaves dissatisfied with the education they just paid for.

Not quite. It was actually pretty entertaining. Just looked at a lot of different theories and what not. The professor was actually pretty critical of a lot of modern art.

I'd have to agree with all of this post. I think a big problem a lot of current games have is that they try to act too much like movies. They'll have to find some way to explore these "deep themes" through actual gameplay before I'm going to buy video games as a new art form.

I also agree with the rebuttal saying that most of the attempts to explore deep themes have either been sad sack 14-year-old poetry on some fun puzzles like Braid or have just been boring as shit.

Ok, I'll admit that a direct parallel doesn't really work, but the point was merely that gaming is still in its infancy because so much of current game development is still about how to make the basic shit work.

And I was mocking the idea of "exploring the human condition." Until we actually know what games are actually good for beyond small bits of commentary and insight amidst repetitive and usually violent mechanics, setting a goal like "have games explore the human condition" is ridiculous.

We have had tastes of the possibilities, sure. FLOWER conjured up more emotion in me than any other game I've ever played, SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS is a monument to the potential of gaming, and the recently released SHATTER has some oddly touching abstract storytelling. But right now we still don't know the true potential of the medium, those hints aside.

Search the forum for the term "New Faraci Heresy" and you'll find a massive thread about this from just a few months ago.

Or just search for games as art and you'll find several huge threads. That's not a new discussion, but I don't think that's what Spike was going for in this thread (if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me). I think he was just mainly asking why do some gamers feel that games have to change into "prolonged esoteric gaming experiences" instead of just being fun.

I'd hazard an answer in saying that the most vocal "gamers" saying such are immature, idiots, or both. Just like Devin says about movies, games don't have to be dreary in order to be good. I mean, the puzzles in Braid were fun, but the story was mopey emo poetry. Hell, I'd say Tim Schafer's games come the closest to having actual good storytelling, and they're fun as hell.

You know, I think the most important thing I've learned about art as an artist is that categorizing whatever you see as "Art" and "Not Art" makes you look ignorant at best and a twat at worst. The big secret about art is that it's not the high benchmark of civilization that most people think it is. Technically speaking, a doodle you did on your fifth grade math homework is art. A giant canvas painted solid brown is art (just ask the Metropolitan Museum of Art!). A car with knick-knacks glued onto it is art. No artist ever worries about whether or not what he or she's made is art, just whether or not it's good art.

Comparing games to storytelling mediums is also faulty. Electronic games didn't even TRY to tell stories until well into their existence. For decades it was just pinball and PONG. Stories didn't come about until the late seventies with the creation of the Text Adventure, and even then it was only a facet in an ever expanding industry.

I hope that first paragraph didn't come off as confrontational. I'm just saying, calling something art doesn't really validate it more than anything else. The definition of art is constantly in flux and trying to nail down what does or doesn't fit under that title, especially something as diverse as the video games industry, is going to only give you headaches. It's like spinning your tires in the mud.

I don't think they have to change. There are good reasons to offer more diverse experiences. Commercially it's viable to add in more niche and less 'fun' experiences, but moreso through the downloadable channel. It encourages small experiments for a small price.

Rather than saying 'Art' vs 'Fun', I see a divide in 'Play' vs 'Winning'.

For instance here is Noby Noby Boy. You play a little sausage dog-thing that can stretech There's no real point but to stretch, tie yourself in knots, run around the environment, eat things and generally make a mess. It is fun, but it's hard to call it a game since you can't win. (there is a score relating to the total amount of stretching you've done, but it's not necessary IMO).

I'm happy to purchase something like this for a small price and try out. I'm glad it's being made, but I'll never stop wanting to shoot people aswell (I'm hooked on Killzone 2 right now).

Don't worry about being confrontational. Anyone who's been here a while should have pretty thick skin about this subject.

Here's another of my issues with the "games as art" movement:

How retroactive is this definition? Does it apply solely to video games, or is Monopoly art? To say that video games are art, but not board games, or card games, or roleplaying games, seems a little arbitrary to me.

And even if we're limiting the debate to video games, do we go all the way back? Is Pong art? Is there a time cutoff, or some landmark that we're calling the birth of games as art? And if so, what was the first video game that was art?

I need to know these things before we can move forward.

Well this has to be art surely...



ETA: in all seriousness tho, there was an interesting piece about this on the only gamer tv show here in Australia "Good Game", they did a piece in this weeks episode specifically on "Art Games" and what they meant for the industry:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/goodgame/video/

Just make sure you're looking at episode 26 and scroll down to "Art Games". The piece goes for about 6 and a half minutes and I found it fascinating within the context of this discussion.

I think we (in previous discussions) decided that the difference between board games and sport etc, is modern video games have a 'game part' + other stuff like a story, characters, etc.

Is a modern video game:
- A game plus some shitty story that doesn't count
- A movie plus some token interactive bits that get in the way of the story
- A unique melding of interactivity, challenge and creative purpose that makes it a new artform.

Most people come down on one of those three definitions.

And to answer your question: I think definiton applied when the creators decided they wanted it their video game to be 'more than a game'. If the guy making Final Fantasy wants to tell an actual story with his video game, it's a different situation from the guy who made Hungry Hungry Hippos.

We can argue how well it works, but for those games the story is a major aspect for both the creators and fans of that series.

Also: I'm pretty tired of dicussing this topic. I'm commenting to throw some ideas out there that may add a perspective people haven't considered. If anyone wants to tell me I'm wrong.... whatever, I don't care.