Rants about digital arts, photography and university.

I found this article quite heavy, but interesting.  I hadn’t really thought much about how developers put things into games to really affect us, as players, on a level outside of pure gameplay.  Of course we all know that a developer will try to make the gameplay entertaining and attractive on a logical level, where things work the way we want them to, on a visual level, where we enjoy the environments, and on an interactive level, where we simply enjoy the actions we carry out within the game, but I haven’t spent much time considering what they do to make sure that a game remains exciting.  It’s one thing to say that a particular action can be fun, but it’s another to find ways to make sure a player enjoys carrying out that action one thousand times.  Steam achievements, hats, etc. seem to all be mechanisms outside the basic gameplay that allow a player to come back and keep enjoying themselves.  It gives them new goals to do the same thing.  What I find interesting is that this isn’t the same is in, for example, Assassin’s Creed, where every mission is composed of almost the same elements, but the new target is the new goal.  It’s more like the reward of getting a new weapon, or unlocking a new section of the map, or whole new city at the end of certain AC missions.  What’s different in this case is that Valve has found a way to keep these things coming, and enticing players to keep on playing indefinitely.

I’m not entirely sure what to write about this one.  It’s certainly very worrying to see these industry professionals looking so concerned about things, but at the same time, I think it’s always difficult for any small player to get into any industry that’s even somewhat well established.

There are a couple things I got out of it though.  First of all, I think it’s scary to think about the way the business seems to work.  On a purely financial level, I think it’s unfortunate that the studios are put under so much pressure from the publishers.  It would be nice to see deals where publishers showed their faith in studios and, maybe… offered them a small budget to explore different game ideas? Or something along those lines.  Essentially, I think that there are some great games out there, but unfortunately a lot of what comes out is either very normal, “seen-before”, tried-n-true stuff from a big company or really innovative, interesting, inspiring stuff from independent studios.  How great would it be if publishers would… “adopt” an indie developer, or even if they would provide some cash to a larger studio and allow them to form a team that could create a really cool game that pulled away from the usual paradigms but still had the resources to create something technically and visually awesome.

I recently had to write a brief paper about “what is painting.”

In the end, my definition used the word art, so I felt compelled to define art. Though this is often perceived as a complicated task, and I admit that under certain circumstances it may be, I didn’t find it so.  In my opinion, art is incredibly broad, and even though I’m open to a lot of things and of a very inclusive nature, I’m sure there is something out there that somebody considers to be art, that I might not.  So I decided that I would define art as: the result of a creative process which somebody considers to be art.

It’s that simple to me.

If we ask Google “define: art,” we find this:

The definition supplied by Google is even simpler, if we ignore the statement about what art “typically” is, which I find is probably numerically accurate, but not of much use.  So the definition of art, as provided by Google would then be: “The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination.”

By either of these definitions, as well as the one provided by Santiago and Wikipedia, games can be art.  Ebert, however, decides that games fitting into definitions of art still doesn’t necessarily mean that they can be an artform.

Ebert decides to take the discussion towards the goal of a game.  He suggests that the fact that you can win a game makes it differ from art.  I would suggest that winning a game is as much a reason to say that games cannot be art as it is saying an installation piece that provides its audience with goals cannot be art.  I would suggest as well that winning is just a tiny part of what is actually an overarching experience.  If you went to check out a painting somewhere and you would probably talk about this as being an “experience.”  Observing the roles of different colours, understanding the roles of different characters, exploring the rules the artist painted by and discussing the possible messages a piece might send are all things we might do (or not) when observing a painting.  To me, carrying out a game to its conclusion (if it has one), is as much a part of the game as figuring out the message an painter is expressing through a painting.  It’s one tiny little part of the experience that can be very satisfying, but it doesn’t always happen the same way and it doesn’t always mean the same thing.

On the same point, Ebert suggests that a game without points or rules ceases to be a game.  I disagree, in large part because I think that games of that nature have hidden points, rules, goals, etc.  The point is that they rely on the player to create them on their own.  I can start playing a flight simulator without any sort of “mission,” where I don’t get any “points” and where the only rules are defined by the physics engine and the type of plane I’m flying and enjoy myself in the same way I would any other game because I will start setting my own objectives, giving myself rules and awarding myself points.  It’s sort of like comparing figurative art to abstract.  They can both be art forms, even though one sets clear rules about what you’re observing and how you should observe it, whereas the other is more open to interpretation and allows the viewer to make up their own ideas about it.  Also, I’m surprised he would phrase himself in the way he has:

 it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.

See, there are many games that you cannot win, and even those where you can, the player rarely considers the “win” as the point of the game.  It’s like suggesting that writing a book with a conclusion should discard it from the realm of art, and that only open-ended books should be revered. But what I find most surprising about this statement is that Ebert tells us that he is a huge fan of film.  By his statement, I feel like it would make sense to say that every art form isn’t truly an art form, but a mere representation of an artform of a lower technical/physical/technological complexity than itself.  Thus, a film could be said to simply be a representation of a play, a play a representation of a novel, a novel a representation of a story and so on.  Of course, it doesn’t actually make sense to say that.  It’s just that his sentence doesn’t make much sense.  If anything, a game without those elements becomes a simulation, but not a representation of other forms of art.

In the end though, I think the fact is that Ebert is considering these games from a particular point of view: that of someone who hasn’t played them, somebody who doesn’t seem to understand what they can do and somebody who doesn’t seem to understand that any medium can be used to create art.

If Ebert had seen/exprienced this, maybe he wouldn’t be so categorical about denying games a place in the art world.  However, I personally think that even commercial games can be art.  As long as somebody out there made a decision to make a videogame as an artwork, rather than as purely as a game, I would consider it to be art.  In the same way that even though people initially used cameras in a context that was not considered artistic, photography is definitely considered to be an artistic medium now.

This is a really interesting issue.  When I think of the news, my first source is the internet.  This is often laid out a bit like a newspaper, with relatively long articles peppered with images, here and there.  Every once in a while, there’s a videoclip of some sort that’s relevant to a part of the story.  The disappointing thing is, unless it’s a subject that I’m already interested in, affects me directly or really touches my heart, the vast majority of the time, I’ll end up reading a couple paragraphs, checking out the photos and the captions and watching the videoclips.  And I only get through the videoclips if they manage to cram a bunch of content in there and switch through it quite fast.

The truth is that, while I do like keeping up to date with some news, I know that there’s other news out there that I should learn about even if it’s not at the top of my priority list.  I just find it hard to get through sometimes.  On the other hand, I know that if getting through a news article could get me some kind of reward, and it didn’t take quite as long, I might end up getting through it anyway.  I think this should be the goal of newsgames.  The article points out that it’s often difficult to come up with an enticing story about a issues that deal heavily with numbers and statistics.  Instead of showing footage of a stock exchange, it might be interesting if news companies put out games that let people experience the numbers, or associate them with a situation.  I definitely know some people who can quickly figure out and understand numbers when it has to do with the number of HP drained per time unit on an opponent by a fireball vs the rate at which they’re losing HP from a poison vs the rate at which they can use healing spells with the amount of magicka they have left.  Why don’t we try to plug news situations into situations like that (but with graphics/stories relevant to the news) on a regular basis?

So here are the main things I got out of this.

• Storytelling elevates video games beyond their mechanics.
• Throughout video game development, we seem to constantly move back and forth on the idea of storytelling.
• Publishers are out of touch with their audiences.
• We haven’t yet mastered the art of storytelling through video games in the way we have with books and movies.

I think those are all very important and interesting points.  I think that the story is definitely a very effective means of pushing a video game beyond the envelope created by its mechanics, however I don’t think that it’s the only way of doing so.  I think the way that a particular mechanic might be implemented can alter a game in fairly extreme ways as well.  One can change the whole idea behind a game by simply altering the environment.  In a way I guess that altering the environment is a way of modifying the story, but it’s not necessarily doing so directly.  I do think that adding/altering the story of a game can have a profound impact on the way the player feels when they play, though.

I find it fascinating to think that we’re going back and forth on the idea of stories and how much effort to put into them.  I feel like stories are such an obvious component to implement in a game that the focus on it would be relatively constant.  I wonder if it might be because video games can implement so many different media into one small package that the people making them get distracted by all sorts of different components whenever there are breakthroughs in any of those fields.  The obvious example being the reference to the 90s games which focused so much on 3d.  This ties in very well with the idea that the publishers are out of touch with the audience.

I think this is one of the ways that we can tell that video games are a form of art.  When you go see a Renoir in a museum, you don’t (necessarily, though some might…) think “Oh. Well. Those techniques are outdated.”  People can still enjoy them.  It’s the same with writing, and drawing and making music: as artforms, the works produced in these media are timeless.  When people think about an old blender or radio or printer they don’t (generally) enjoy it for what it is.  Some people might collect these old technologies and find them fascinating or interesting, but they (generally) can’t view them or use them for hours on end, exploring them and trying to figure them out in a way that one might with a video game.  Publishers might not understand that the product they are publishing is a form of art.  They might think of it purely as a new technology.  For that reason, they might be more focused in putting out a game with the latest graphics instead of one that might really capture its audience through its story and commentary on society.

I think that it’s interesting that video games, which allow us to mix and match so many different media together, are behind on the storytelling front.  At first it seems like it would be easier to tell a story, when you can merge so many different things together, but in the end I guess the added complexity really makes that a challenge.

The music of bioshock is definitely an interesting topic.  I have previously been quite impressed by music in games like Fallout 3 and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.  I had also enjoyed the music of Bioshock, but had never really thought about it from a cinematic perspective.

As one reads through this article, it becomes clear that a lot of thought has gone into the music choice in Bioshock.  It really does echo the environment and enhances the mood.  The lyrics, too, echo the story in a really interesting way.

The article also makes me think about other games I’ve played, because I don’t think I’ve ever thought about the music in as deep a way as the article does.  Off the top of my head, I can’t think of other games that work as well as Bioshock with the lyrical content and the ironic tones, but I’m sure there must be some.  If anything, I think GTA: Vice City might be close, but it’s less about the music and more about the radio stations and their presenters.  There’s a bit of irony in the lyrical content as well though.  I’d have to go back to it and play some more.

If anything, I’m quite certain I’ve never played a game that uses select music tracks as a sort of narration tool, even though the lyrics might be relevant to the game.

It’s interesting to note how Oblivion mirrors The Lord of the Rings. I had never really thought about that connection, even though it’s quite obvious.  The towers in Oblivion quite clearly mirror the landscape of Mordor and the environment of the entire game pretty much goes hand-in-hand with the imagined aesthetics of Middle-Earth.  It does, however, more explicitly depict the 19th century-like world that it represents.

The article suggests that it’s odd that one would spend the time and effort to create a character personalized to the extent that is possible and never see the character’s face in game.  It does go into the experience this offers players that are fans of the genre, but personally, I didn’t even really know what the genre was about when I first played Oblivion and I still enjoyed the level of control in the character creation.  I think it helps to create a relationship with the digital model, knowing that it’s personalized to such an extent that it’s unlikely that anybody else playing the game has a character that is exactly the same.  Also, I think the fact that the main character isn’t fleshed out is a good thing.  It allows the player to feel like they are the character, instead of controlling a character.

The discussion of the landscape makes a lot of sense.  Part of the appeal of games like Oblivion is that the environment is so vast that the player really develops a relationship with it through exploration.  The fact that it is so immersive and that it is split up into two distinct worlds creates an interesting dynamic where the player feels excited about seeing new parts of the world.  The fact that the player almost seems to play against the landscape of Oblivion is also quite satisfying.  There are, in a sense, boss battles within the world of Oblivion, but once an Oblivion gate is closed it truly does feel more like the gate and the world on the other side were the opponents, rather than the characters within them.  The commentary against the industrial landscape is pretty obvious too.

I don’t know why we look at any sort of change in technology, or in my case art, as aberrant.  I think changes in videogames, as in any other medium, are just a form of evolution and aren’t necessarily good or bad.

To say that one form or aesthetic is better than another doesn’t really make sense to me, especially in the realm of arts and entertainment. In reality, these things are incredibly subjective and can’t be evaluated in such strict terms.  As video games progress, we probably will see mainstream games increasing their use of high resolution models and textures, reaching for the apex of realism, whilst others will push the technology in other directions, focusing on the mechanics and dynamics of the game, using the hardware to process interaction rather than aesthetics.

We will probably also see changes in the interfaces we use.  That isn’t to say that the NES’s old, gigantic joystick is a bad thing, or even its regular game pads, it just means that we’re capable of doing other things as well, and that these new technologies may or may not be fun and interesting to use.  I personally don’t mind playing Mario on a d-pad and two buttons, but who knows, I might find it fun to do the jumping for real every once in a while.

Conservative and progressive viewpoints are pretty much irrelevant, in my opinion, when it comes to art, games and entertainment, if for no other reason than people wanting new, interesting things and companies wanting to turn a profit. Just because the kinect is out and the wii fit is replacing your gym doesn’t mean you have to throw out your N64.  I still love playing Super Smash Bros. for N64, regardless of how much “better” the new consoles are.

I’ve found myself emotionally impacted by games a few times.  Most recently, I’ve been quite distressed by Skyrim on a couple occasions.  The first was when my housecarl Lydia got killed in battle. When I noticed, I restarted from my previous save and made sure to tell her to stay back so that I could attempt to take our opponents out on my own.  This has also happened when either my dog, Vigilance, or my horse have been killed.  Every time, I feel guilty for not protecting them.

So the idea seems to be that theory allows for practice which in turn refines theory.  And experimental practices inspire re-theorizing and turning new practices into common ones, where the new theory succeeds.  It’s all mildly confusing, but very logical.

I like the idea that MIT students are talking about using games in the classroom to master the content of their curriculum.  I also appreciate the fact that the article discusses the idea that a person is not turned into a psycho killer through games, and associates it with the fact that nobody has been turned into a scientist or anything else through the medium of gaming.  In that context, however, it’s also interesting to see what aspects of gaming can be applied to altering a person’s mind within the frame of a classroom.  The fact that gaming is a sort of simulation would allow for concepts taught in class to be experienced in a real-world-like environment.

It’s interesting to consider the implications of a game as a social environment and the idea of illuminative tensions.  I personally find the idea of collaboration versus competition to be a very interesting topic, but the analysis of offline vs online gameplay is also fascinating.  In the end, they’re somewhat interrelated, though, in that web-based gameplay fosters collaboration, whereas offline play is more conducive to competition, in that the person is always playing against the game/programmer.