The Power and Limits of Destiny
The Uncharted series has won many awards over the years, and audiences have been kind and numerous. And if you have been paying attention, you may have noticed the language fans of the series often use to describe the quintessential Uncharted experience: cinematic, epic, awe-inspiring, well-written, immersive, expertly paced, emotional. The same has been said of Heavy Rain, parts of the various Call of Duty titles, and most recently, of The Walking Dead.
Listen carefully to this praise, for it is the sound of people using same vocabulary that one might apply to film or literature. On closer inspection of these qualities, it turns out that Destiny mechanics bear much of the responsibility for their effect. The reason for this is simple: Destiny mechanics are designed to achieve a specific result, not an iterative one; and this means they can convey a specific meaning in much the same way books or films do.
Think of Nathan Drake wandering deliriously through the desert, or climbing a precariously hanging train, or dangling from an airborne cargo plane -- each of these moments has a single outcome specially designed, crafted, and paced to convey a specific effect.
Not surprisingly, these moments are often conceived and executed in a manner roughly equivalent to a filmmaker's. So one obvious question here is this: Is there a fundamental difference between Uncharted's interactive narrative and, say, Raiders of the Lost Ark's passive narrative? Is mere interactivity enough to distinguish one from the other?
My own feeling is that -- from a narrative standpoint -- there isn't much daylight between the two. The fact of Uncharted's interactivity does not endow players with any additional phenomenological insights into Drake's character or experience. The idea that players feel a symbiotic relationship with the characters they are driving is a seductive one, but it does not hold water if the engine powering their trip is built from Destiny mechanics. Drake remains a designed character, existing apart from the player's inputs.
Only Agency mechanics give players the possibility of true freedom and responsibility. And after 12 years of writing and designing games, time and time again I have come to find that players almost always have an intuitive understanding of the difference between pre-written narrative and emergent narrative. All too often I have heard the complaint "I loved the gameplay, but I hated the character I was playing." Such a statement would be tantamount to the player hating himself if true identification was achieved. But this rarely happens.
This "interactivity conundrum" is further complicated by the fact that the player's inputs are abstracted from their effects on screen. Completing a quick time event to execute an action bears no resemblance to actually experiencing that action -- the player is simply overcoming challenges using buttons that trigger outputs that resemble real-world effects. This disconnect rarely diminishes the joy of our game experiences, but it means that we cannot fall back on the notion that interactivity alone is what makes games unique.
Chose Your Own Adventure books and narrative-heavy board games like Fury of Dracula offer many of the same choices that video games do, only with slower processing speeds. So from an aesthetic standpoint, Destiny mechanics are actually pretty old school, despite being dressed up in new digital digs.
But Destiny mechanics appeal strongly to an art critic's sensors because they contain much of what we have already been trained to look for in traditional art forms. These signs have been familiar for centuries -- authorial intent, meaning, symbolism, polemics, narrative, subtext, etc. Nowadays, when a critic spies a poignant or well-constructed Destiny mechanic, he pounces. It has pushed a button primed by centuries of earlier established forms.

To take a relatively recent, and critically lauded example: the "Looking for Jason" sequence at the beginning of Heavy Rain. Here the player controls Ethan Mars, a contentedly married father of two who spends the last few moments of his earthly happiness searching a crowded mall for his missing son, Jason. The player maneuvers Ethan through streams of tight crowds, calling out for the lost boy as he goes. Eventually he makes his way outside just in time to witness his son's death beneath the wheels of a speeding automobile.
The sequence is upsetting, well-paced, and a good attempt on the developers part to let players experience a truly tragic moment, as opposed to a hyper-stylized action set piece. But as in any film or novel, this segment is a pre-destined affair. The mechanics available allow the player a pinch of Agency (walking and shouting mostly), but for the most part this scene is an elaborate march towards Destiny. Here, the range of player inputs is extremely limited, so there is almost no room for expression via the mechanics. The player cannot save poor Jason, or sacrifice Ethan, or leave the mall and grab a coffee at a nearby café, no matter how hard and fast he walks.
It is a textbook application of Destiny mechanics in action -- the scripting, the dialog, the mise en scène. The player's actions are incredibly constrained, the experience is tightly controlled, and the designer's message is absolute: Jason must die, and Ethan must feel guilty. This holds true throughout the game, and even when Heavy Rain's story branches into multiple paths we are still aware that these branches have been predetermined and their number is finite.
Therefore, despite promises of "player choice," Heavy Rain's designers are still firmly in charge, and all these dramatic moments -- despite their interactivity -- are no more or less effective than a film or a book of the same quality, and may be judged accordingly. For my part, I found Heavy Rain overly maudlin with far too many implausible narrative conceits, but the experiment was worthwhile.
For my money, Telltale's The Walking Dead series succeeds where Heavy Rain fails, simply because it has a better script and better direction. But again, these are games built almost entirely from Destiny mechanics, and we should not be surprised if one of them happens to deliver a credible and emotional narrative experience. This is what destiny mechanics are best at. We should only be puzzled as to why it doesn't happen more often.
As a writer myself, I certainly have a soft spot for Destiny mechanics. So many moments from my years of playing games still thrill me when I think about them: Yorda reaching out to Ico as he leaps back across the slowly retracting bridge; Choosing to save only one of two equally interesting characters in the Walking Dead; the insult sword fights in Monkey Island; Every damn puzzle in Braid and Limbo. These moments are poignant because they have a clever designer pulling the strings, and sometimes a writer like me adding a little spice to the scene.
|
If we go on calling games art, we may go down a road that is all about look and narrative, but that's not something that defines gaming in it's core mechanic. Games are interactive, therefore much more a form of design rather than art. That's what it unique and separates it from other media.
And you could piss on the Fountain, that's a use, sort off.
"Games are interactive, therefore much more a form of design rather than art"
For crying out loud, plenty of artworks are interactive.
The thing is, that's not entirely true. There is no real fully agreed upon definition of what art really is, and you'll find different definitions wherever you go; architecture is widely considered to be art, despite it's inherently practical applications.
Furthermore, the purpose of a game is for it's audience to experience it, not to complete some actual task. Because of that, we can't really say that a game has any more use than a painting; it's only application is in regards to itself, it's interactivity only an invitation to the player to experience the game more fully. As such, a game certainly fits the criteria of "art for arts sake."
One might argue that the designation doesn't fit, because games are often used, more and more, for practical real world purposes, such as physiological benefits, training, learning, and so on. But I feel like this doesn't take away from the artfulness of games in general, although the argument could be made that those particular ones perhaps don't fall into the category of art; an appropriate analogy would be of a drawing and a map. Both part of the same medium, pencil on paper, but one certainly wouldn't discount the drawing as art simply because the map exists.
Journey, as most games are, is a drawing, not a map. And so it is a work of art.
Fashion is regarded as an art form, even though it also serves the function of protecting us from the elements.
So no, I don't think art and function/interaction are mutually exclusive.
Jesper Juul wrote a lovely and brief exploration of "Progression" vs "Emergence":
http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/openandtheclosed.html
After contacting Jesper about his paper, he was kind enough to point me to an article written 30 years ago touching on a similar subject:
http://www.erasmatazz.com/TheLibrary/JCGD/JCGDV1/ProcessIntensity/ProcessIntensi
ty.html
Had I known about these papers beforehand, I would have certainly included them in my article. As it is, it is my hope that the terms Agency and Destiny are sexy enough to spark new discussions in this old and excellent debate.
Not to take away from the many virtues of your article! In fact, my intent in saying that some "games" are better understood as "digital interactive art" was actually to call out the impositional titles.
I definitely think a huge part of the issue is the overloading of "game." I continue to worry that we'll lose ahold of the core concept as reflected in other fields' terminology, and have greater trouble discussing formalist qualities, if we overbroaden the term.
On the subject of "Digital Interactive Art", I agree in theory, but as a matter of practicality I think we have already lost the fight. I can't imagine a scenario where someone asks "Where's Darby today?" and the response is, "He's at home playing Not-Games."
It's a situation akin to the debate over whether or not Joyce's "Ulysses" should be considered a novel ... there is a fantastic case to be made for why it should not be, and yet because it is a work of narrative prose fiction bound between two covers, these nuances are not important for the vast majority of consumers. "Ulysses" is simply a "difficult novel" -- that's all.
So, I suppose I feel the messaging war has been lost and that we should focus on illuminating the interior structures of our videogames ... mainly because the delivery method for "Interactive Digital Entertainment" has remained pretty stable for 30-plus years: small home-bound computer devices hooked up to TVs or Monitors. These are videogames to the vast majority of people, no matter what their internal formal qualities are. And the term "videogame" also has the benefit of being short, sexy and sweet... just just as film, novel, and song are.
Also, I think the Agency-Destiny hybrid quality of most mainstream games makes this bifurcation impossible anyway. As I mention in the article, games like Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, and Call of Duty blur the line so well, it's hard to tell where the game ends and the interactive digital entertainment begins.
All of this is highly subjective, but I always try to align art with intent.
Art is any synthesised construct created for the purpose of triggering an emotional response. (... in the audience).
To further elaborate , the construct may or may not have a tangible/enduring support (such as a canvas, stone) or its support can be ephemeral (speech, gesture, dance) .
Intent of the creator does come into play in a big way.
Games are not ruled out as art.
Activities inside a virtual world are not ruled out as art.
It all comes down to creator intent and emotional response in the audience; the platform is more than viable to sustain art.
Then again this is just an opinion :P.
I attended the California College of Arts and Crafts (now called the "California College of the Arts" (*more on this later)). In one of my classes the teacher asked us to come up with a definition for "art". I came up with:"Art is the manipulation of an item by a human being for the simulation of one or more of the senses". The teacher must of liked the answer because I received a good grade for the definition.
Recently I heard someone define "art" as something that has no other purpose other than to exist. Once you interact with it, it is no longer "art" but a "craft". A movie is art. You just sit there and watch it. But if you go see The Rocky Horror Picture Show and start throwing toast, the movie is now a craft because you are now interacting with it. Which would mean that games are crafts, not art because you interact with the game. But....
*My alma mater changed its name because of the question: "Are crafts art?" We use to kid the crafts people that crafts weren't art because the school's name says "arts AND crafts". And if crafts were art the school would be called the California College of Art. So the school changed its name to show that crafts are art. The school has been teaching art for over 100 years, so they must know something about what is "art" .
Which would mean that games are art.
I do agree with Jerry's statement: "Everyone defines art differently and it's always a good idea to keep an open mind."
typing too fast again.
But whether or not you think games are Art, it is clear they are a Thing ... a product of creativity and intelligence ... a cultural artifact ... etc. ... and therefore worthy of study and inquiry. The purpose of my article was to tackle what I -- and a number of others -- see as the central obstacle to understanding the "meaning" and "worth" of games. The article is about game mechanics -- Agency and Destiny mechanics -- not the meaning of Art in general.
Yes, I'll admit I did not read the article. And it's it because of the title. Over the past year there have been several discussions here on the topic of "Are games art/ Are game makers artist?"(and I've read them all). Then I noticed that the article is six pages long. I thought that it was an awful long essay on the topic of Games as Art.
Mr. McDevitt put a lot of thought and effort into his article. And I feel that the title of the article really doesn't clarify the scope of his work. As you can see by some of the other comments, they feel that the article is another contribution to the ongoing Games as Art discussion.
I admire your work as editor of Gamasutra. I think you're doing an excellent job of keeping the game industry up to date as to what is going on with the industry. Gamasutra is a part of my daily ritual of keeping informed. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to read every article on the site (especially articles six pages long). The titles of the article do help draw me into reading them.
BTW, what was the original title of the article?
I actually just released a platformer (Super Gravity Ball!!!) where whenever you make contact with a platform it plays a tone based on the type of platform and the current song's chord progression. It was a pretty trivial thing to do with a bit of music theory and most people probably wouldn't notice it but if you really pay attention to it, you start hearing all these cool melodies and tempos based on the player's input. The only shame was I couldn't think of enough special platforms to add more instruments for an even more robust audio experience!
Art is style.
"Games built on Agency mechanics no longer need to answer the question "are games art?" but rather "are gamers artists?" And the answer is a qualified yes."
Part of the problem in the whole game VS. art -discussion is the whole overloading/overbroadening (like another comment put it) of our terms.
What our education and history has led us to believe is, that ART has to be embodied by Objects made from ARTISTS. In the beginning of the 20th Century with the "invention" of the "abstract" painiting and the introduction of "READY-MADES" and other things, this line has been blured more and more.
Today we have "ENVRONMENTAL ARTISTS" and "PERFOMANCE ARTISTS" that have de facto abandoned this conservative approach but their raison d`etre is far from having any impact on the popular ("canonical") reception of the average art-consumer.
The ART-term is overloaded by history (as being of religious importance to the ones who prey the ART-sermon and who benefit from the absurdities of the ART-market) wheresas the GAMES-term is trivialized as a second-rate/distraction activity.
ARTISTS have to have some kind of special power/magic that has to be coming from a supernatural entity mere mortals have no access to. They are somehow CHOSEN. Itīs clear to me that this is taken directly from the ancient hero-myths, making orpheus a good paradigm of someone being perceived simultaneously as Hero/Artist.
Ironically enough an institution like the OLYMPIC GAMES of the ancient greeks might originally be conceived as a sacred ritual, thus elevating the term GAME into the regions where ART and RELIGION are dwelling, but their current incarnation is at best a political at worst a mere commercial driven sports-happening.
"...but since artists can create art with any tool they choose in which to express themselves, then it stands to reason that artists can use games for creating Art."
With this sentence you are practically strengthening my opinion that when most people talk about art they are not even aware that they create vicious definition circles like:
1.Artist = Someone who can make Art
2.Art= Something that is made by Artists
In Logic you would call that reasoning Tautology, and you should be aware of it that a Tautologiy`s Information content is zero.
The entire thrust of the article makes it clear that I am simply talking about Agency mechanics giving players a sense of "creative expression" via mechanics, which is the foundation of all artistic expression -- materials, constraints, objectives, expression.
No babies were harmed in the writing of this article, I assure you.
To use one of your own examples, it's like a zombie-shooting game, where navigation/time rewinding/portals are the player/guns and the room layouts are the zombies. That's why many of the puzzles in both of those games have many solutions, which arise from the limitless ways players can utilize the game systems.
Some very clever people have found one or two alternate solutions to some of the puzzles in these games (Portal especially) but for the most part they have very specific, pre-destined solutions, quite the opposite of games like "The Incredible Machine" or "Scribblenauts". And on the whole, I found Portal 1s puzzles had a greater feeling of open-endedness than Portal 2... In the latter game, I often found myself scanning the levels looking for that single portal-ready wall to shoot... very constrained, very destiny driven.
In general, though, your comment does highlight the hybrid nature of this problem. It's not an easy one to wrap one's head around.