GAME JOBS
Contents
Pursuing a Video Game Masterpiece
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
June 6, 2013
 
LeapFrog
Associate Producer
 
Off Base Productions
Senior Front End Software Engineer
 
EA - Austin
Producer
 
Zindagi Games
Senior/Lead Online Multiplayer
 
Off Base Productions
Web Application Developer
 
Gameloft
Java Developers
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
June 6, 2013
 
Tenets of Videodreams, Part 3: Musicality
 
Post Mortem: Minecraft Oakland
 
Free to Play: A Call for Games Lacking Challenge [1]
 
Cracking the Touchscreen Code [3]
 
10 Business Law and Tax Law Steps to Improve the Chance of Crowdfunding Success
spacer
About
spacer Editor-In-Chief:
Kris Graft
Blog Director:
Christian Nutt
Senior Contributing Editor:
Brandon Sheffield
News Editors:
Mike Rose, Kris Ligman
Editors-At-Large:
Leigh Alexander, Chris Morris
Advertising:
Jennifer Sulik
Recruitment:
Gina Gross
Education:
Gillian Crowley
 
Contact Gamasutra
 
Report a Problem
 
Submit News
 
Comment Guidelines
 
Blogging Guidelines
Sponsor
Features
  Pursuing a Video Game Masterpiece
by Paul Walker [Design, Interview, Console/PC]
41 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
May 10, 2013 Article Start Previous Page 2 of 4 Next
 

"Interactivity gives games a distinctive artistic potential that lots of games have exploited in interesting ways," Dr. Tavinor continues. "Games like Skyrim, BioShock and Grand Theft Auto IV have employed this interactivity to allow for a type of player-generated content, where the player's own role in the work of fiction is the subject of interpretation. BioShock employs the technique to generate a moral dilemma concerning how one treats the Little Sisters in the game, and this allows the game to make some sophisticated observations about altruism and politics. Grand Theft Auto IV has a pivotal moment where the player must make a decision that seems decisive of Niko's character in that work. Red Dead Redemption, both in its initial ride into Mexico section and in the final scenes, is another case where this interactivity is expertly wielded. In each of these cases, the onus is put on the player to perform the actions that ultimately generate the meaning of the artistic work."

If we are to properly understand how games function as art, it seems that we require a distinctly different mindset to that with which we would normally approach any given work of art. Looking for intrinsic meaning, as we are accustomed to do, is perhaps erroneous in a medium where the audience plays such a direct participatory role. Grefsrud argues that this role makes video games unique in the way they generate meaning.



"[In comparison to other mediums] games enable a different and more sensual form of co-authorship that eschews the authorial control of the author and the voyeuristic control of the spectator in favor of a negotiation that is meaning rather than yields meaning," Grefsrud explains. "The mode of agency that the player exerts, coupled with the way agency modulates systems outside the player's direct control, is the art."

An inevitable question now asks itself: if a video game's "meaning" is negotiated between the game's designer and the player, does this not limit the artistic potential of the medium? In other words, is it really possible to eschew the kind of consistency that complete authorial control offers and still produce a work with maintains artistic value? Dr. Tavinor is quick to acknowledge that the interactive nature of video games provides such a challenge.

"The problem as I see it is that the freedom that is so valued by gamers is somewhat inconsistent with the careful structure and determinate nature that you find in much good art," he says. "In a game such as Red Dead Redemption, if you give the player the freedom to do what they want in the world they may act badly, arbitrarily, or in ways otherwise contrary to the narrative or greater meaning of the game. This is actually the basis of one of film critic Roger Ebert's charges against games. He says 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. Though Ebert has taken a lot of flack over this, and though he is probably wrong about the artistic status of games, he has something here: interactivity does compromise authorial control and reconciling this is a challenge to game design."

While conceding this challenge exists, Dr. Tavinor sees a unique potential in this tension between authorial control and player freedom. "Ambiguity is often a valuable aspect in traditional art," Dr. Tavinor explains. "Good song lyrics, for example, are often open and vague enough that they can support multiple interpretations. Interactivity compounds this because of the potential for putting the player in an ambiguous position that they must themselves reconcile. I suspect that we are only seeing the beginning of what game artists will eventually make of this potential for interactive involvement."

As a game designer, Blow is unconcerned about the prospect of losing authorial control of his works and would prefer to embrace the potential for ambiguity and divergent experiences. "I don't really conceptualize games as trying to tell a story or send a message," Blow tells me. "At least, not if the kind of message you are talking about is one that can be stated: 'The moral of the story is, always look before you leap,' or whatever. That kind of story is for children, and it's useful in that kind of role, but reasonable adults deserve more."

"The kinds of things I want to do are multidimensional and nonlinear, fields of ideas for the mind to wander through and be drawn toward things to which that particular mind is inclined", Blow continues. "So this nonlinearity and natural divergence of interpretations is just great. Although, clearly, the divergence of interpretations is true for any work of art or actually for any concrete fact about the world!" 

 
Article Start Previous Page 2 of 4 Next
 
Top Stories

image
Microsoft's official stance on used games for Xbox One
image
Keeping the simulation dream alive
image
A 15-year-old critique of the game industry that's still relevant today
image
The demo is dead, revisited
Comments

Ramin Shokrizade
profile image
I don't treat games as art, I treat games as dopamine delivery vehicles, and that is much of the focus of my work. For companies that depend on commercial revenues I think any attempt to think of their work as art can send them down the wrong path. I do believe there is a need for public or patron sponsored art in games, but in these situations the focus is not on commercial success.

Sean Hayden
profile image
So a game developer is basically just a less efficient version of a drug dealer, then? : P

Ramin Shokrizade
profile image
The scalability of software development, and our ability to safely, legally, and easily stream into every household in the world clearly points to the superiority of the efficiency of our product :)

Lance Thornblad
profile image
Heisenberg, is that you? :)

E McNeill
profile image
Dang, Ramin, that's a shame. You don't see a difference between an extrinsic injection of dopamine and a feeling of fiero for a genuine job-well-done? You don't see media effects beyond pleasure and lack thereof? You're too smart to waste yourself on such a narrow worldview.

Pallav Nawani
profile image
That's the occupational hazard, I suppose.

Ramin Shokrizade
profile image
@E McNeill: I do like to stop and smell the roses when I'm unplugged from the net. But when I'm at work, it's my job to translate what you call "fiero" into quantifiable and reproducible models for success. I'm happy if you want to play Oracle to my Architect and call my approach narrow, as long as the end result is games that are better than what we have today. If we can get the failure rate on games down, we can go back to making our games more artistic like they used to be as budgets on both ends will go up and games will become more immersive again.

Games that fail commercially, in an artistic way, don't get sequels and that translates to unemployed game devs. Again, this begs the need for public or patron funded games that can focus on the artistic and educational power of interactive media without worrying about the bottom line and the specter of pink slips.

Andy Mussell
profile image
actually, 'dopamine delivery vehicle' seems to me like a pretty good definition of a work of art

E McNeill
profile image
Ramin: I appreciate commercial necessity, and I like your emphasis on building a more robust games industry. I just think that industry size and profit should not be our only values. I strongly believe that media shapes our culture and ourselves; the pervasive and narrowly-focused pursuit of commercial success (or, as part of that, "dopamine delivery") risks media effects that are harmful, or that miss out on the good that art can do.

I'm not asking for game makers to give up on making money and instead produce inaccessible artsy games. I'm just asking that they consider some of the higher purposes that our medium can pursue: empathy, insight, earnestness, truth. More like The Wire than Honey Boo Boo. More like Braid than Slotomania.

I don't think we're really much opposed in our viewpoints. I'm guessing there's a lot that you wouldn't want to put into a game, even if it could be proven to increase sales. If those limits are the negative concerns, I'm just putting forth the positives: some artistic choices are worth sacrificing for.

Justin Novelline
profile image
So "games as art" can lead down the wrong path? I think our focus and even responsibility as developers should be bringing the reward/value on "artistic" games up so that patrons aren't surrounded by 1,000,000,000 "dopamine delivery vehicles".

If fast food is where the money is... do I try to make an even bigger Big Mac? Or do I scour the earth for new ingredients to cook something wonderful that no one has tasted before?

Ramin Shokrizade
profile image
E: I was an exercise physiologist before I entered the gaming industry full time in 1999. Health is really important to me, so yes there are certain lines I won't cross that seem to be routinely crossed at present in our industry. I certainly don't want to use my knowledge of human physiology to hurt people. In fact, in 2010 I tried to enter a PhD program in public health to research definitively what harmful effects, if any, modern online computer games were having on people. I had a very difficult time convincing public health schools that this line of research was relevant to them, despite the pervasiveness of game play now.

So yes while I may come across as a Dr. Frankenstein sometimes when I talk about manipulating physiology to improve revenues, I do have self-imposed constraints.

Richard Black
profile image
I think there's a quote, that I have no intention of wiki'ing right now, along the lines of if it makes you feel something then it's likely art. No in all likelihood most games you play give you little more than a rote activity to take you mind off of whatever stresses you may have from the day. Fine, granted, whatever. Then there's some things that come along and they have the potential to blow your mind.

I remember playing System Shock 2, years after it came out, on the recommendation of a friend and literally feeling the need to look over my shoulder every now and then to make sure nothing was coming up behind me. I hadn't felt that before or since but that game made me feel and gave me a visceral response I would love to happen more often. That to me is art, to actually pull me in enough to have a physical response.

On the nearly the same level Planescape:Torment was collossaly engrossing with a deep tale I was able to explore, investigate, affect, and accept in that I don't recall ever having to rotely skim through text to get to the interesting bits. It was all interesting and I felt involved. It could be considered an interactive novel or perhaps even fine literature given the mass of text involved in the story, which I still think sets precedents.

These days graphics seem to occupy 99% of development resources and as impressive as they can be I think they often fail to impress on the whole because they're not terribly engrossing. Other aspects and a cohesive overall aproach however I think can and do raise to the level of art and can affect you, whether that's what they were reaching for or it's simply a matter of an outstanding overall effort is immaterial. There are games you play just to play and wile away some hours, probably the majority of them, but there are some that compell you to play to see where they're going or just to experience them.

David Serrano
profile image
@Ramin Shokrizade

This is slightly off topic but, isn't "fiero" what holding the medium back as a mainstream form of entertainment and art? Because research continues to indicate a majority of hardcore and causal players are not motivated to play video and computer games by a desire to experience fiero. In fact, Chris Bateman found that players not motivated to play by a desire for challenge and failure will avoid games designed to create fiero. He confirmed this in the research used to build the DGD2 model:

http://onlyagame.typepad.com/Player%20Typology.digra2011.pdf

So what's the point of designers and developers pursuing a video game masterpiece if in all likelihood, the game will be unappealing and inaccessible to the majority of existing players, and to everyone in the potential audience? And if it's unappealing and inaccessible to the average person, could it be labeled as a masterpiece? As an outsider looking in, it seems like the theory that fiero is the primary motivation for playing games has become a sacred cow the development community refuses to sacrifice for the greater good. I think until they do, core and indie games will remain the exclusive playground of people who view play in radically different ways than the average person. The problem is if game developers can't convince the average person their work is a form of play, they'll never convince him or her their work is a form of art.

damon h
profile image
You've got some brilliant insights into the issue. On the other hand, talking about games as "dopamine delivery vehicles" is bound to piss certain people off. It sounds very Brave New World-ish, and I mean no offense. It's the prevalence of that sort of mentality I think, that makes people so vehement about games potential for artistry. Chris Hecker (coder, worked on Spore, went rogue) said, in an interview in Edge a few years back, that creative games aren't done for money.

In the discourse here in these comments and in the broader press, I see a tension between ideas of "high" and "low art" that often goes unspoken. People often seem to talk about games as if they could be art, but haven't yet reached that point. Lately though, a lot of artists, writers and thinkers see the distinction between high and low as irrelevant. I'm of the opinion that a lot of these "dopamine delivery vehicles" should be considered "middle" art at least. In the meantime, I love the discourse around the issue. I don't mind all the talk and theorizing without an immediate product. Call it my critic's/theorist's bias, but I love to hear what people think even if they have nothing to show for it. One day, somebody will. Art never comes out when you want it. That's the nature of working outside business models.

Kheper Crow
profile image
Bah! This was a long article full of big words but all that was shared were egos and opinions...

I have heard opinions about games as art from many different people, but I have yet to see one person in the game industry actually talk to someone who studies ART. There are many credible sources who know way more about art than people who make statements like "business models are not a factor in art." and yet no one bothers to ask their opinions on games as an art form.

And why why why must games always exist in the pinnacle vacuum where they are the sole medium holding the reigns of interactivity? I'm sorry, games are NOT that unique! Instead of trying to isolate the medium from others try looking at the symmetry with other mediums. Jazz music is way more interactive than any video game I have ever played. Or how about *drum roll* interactive art! Yes I know it's amazing there is ART that is being created around the world, and has been since before video games, that is INTERACTIVE. There is a wealth of approaches to concepts such as agency.

The only thing holding games back is the insistence that it is a "special" medium that must be thought of and treated differently than any other medium. As with any other medium there are some unique challenges and restrictions. I would appreciate more talk on approaches to overcome these problems than floating in the sky words exalting one medium as superior to others.

Rob B
profile image
The article is littered with approaches to games design, most of which were far more helpful than belittling the industry because there are forms of interactive art. (At no point did the article talk about superiority, just the differences that existed between the major art forms it is traditionally compared to.)

Seriously, thinking about games in the ways these guys have presented is somewhat more useful than whatever the heck you are implying can be applied to games from the world of jazz...

Vin St John
profile image
Most people have experience jazz as a passive audience, even though its creation is an interactive collaboration between players. I don't think that statement is very useful in the context of this conversation.

Furthermore, I think you defeat your own point by suggesting this article didn't speak to "someone who studies ART".

Ferruccio Cinquemani
profile image
Well, the reason is that, broadly speaking, contemporary art is irrelevant. No one cares about it, the public for it is tiny and it has virtually zero impact on contemporary culture. Thanks god no one in the game industry talks to people studying art. That would be quite a waste of time.

damon h
profile image
You're wrong that the people don't study art. What about game artists? That is something you have to go to college to study, and if you do it, you study art. Ian Bogost, mentioned in this article, has a PhD in philosophy, and writes on the philosophy of art in the context of video games. You don't get a philosophy PhD without having to study some art, even if it isn't your concentration.

I also study art (I have a degree in cultural studies), and although I don't have much experience making games, I think that you're final paragraph is off-base. No medium can be reduced to another medium. Art uses individualized expression. Reducing the principles of one medium to another medium (like video games to film) will never work as a basis on which to harness its potential. Honestly, who would say that making a good film depends on understanding the principles of painting? That's just silly. I also think you're wrong that the discourse so far is one of "superiority."

Take it from somebody who studies art.

Jay Anne
profile image
I was excited by the article's title, but disappointed to see that it just talked "around" the subject rather than delving into actual design and cultural obstacles. It didn't help to hear a bunch of Blow quotes contradicting his own work. Discourse on this topic is rarely investigative in a way that actually moves things forward.

Christian Nutt
profile image
Blow seems to content to explore ideas -- at least orally -- in whatever direction it seems to make sense to take them. Then he selects the ones that ruminate best and works with those. I don't necessarily see a problem with him "contradicting" his own work, in other words.

Jay Anne
profile image
@Christian Nutt
He says he doesn't think games should tell a story or send a message when his last game was known for its story with a message (albeit an obscured message). That makes it hard to take his words seriously. I have read that most creative people are continually in a state of self-contradicting cognitive-dissonance where they continually believe two opposing principles at once, and that is actually a source of their creativity. It sounds exhausting, actually.

E McNeill
profile image
> "his last game was known for its story with a message (albeit an obscured message)"

And what was that message? Because I'm sure Blow never said. His game's "story" goes a lot of different places, leaving us with ambiguity. You can like that or not, but it's certainly not a narrative puzzle with a neat solution. There's no "moral to the story" that the game drops on your lap, and that's all he was pushing against in the article.

Jay Anne
profile image
@E McNeill
I thought this was generally the accepted interpretation of the story, somewhat confirmed by interviews that Jonathan Blow gave.
http://www.rllmukforum.com/index.php?/topic/190136-the-story-of-br aid/

Yes, it can be ambiguous in its message, but it is a vehicle for story.

E McNeill
profile image
My understanding, from the Atlantic profile on him (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/the-most-dangerous-g amer/308
928/?single_page=true), is that there are many interpretations, and Blow has not pushed any one.

> "Braid, savvy players suddenly realize, is an allegory of the development of the atomic bomb. And that interpretation seems to be only the beginning... Not that Blow would ever actually say outright what Braid is about. Every time he’s been asked, he’s given a version of the same reply, which is that the answer is in the game, if only you’re willing to look."

Further, in saying that he's contradicting himself (since his game had an ambiguous message), you're ignoring the second half of his quote in the original article:

> "I don't really conceptualize games as trying to tell a story or send a message," Blow tells me. "At least, not if the kind of message you are talking about is one that can be stated: 'The moral of the story is, always look before you leap,' or whatever."

Vytautas Katarzis
profile image
@E:

I haven't read the article (yet), but why should Braid even have a single "message" or "true interpretation"?

I'm not really taking sides or defending anything, but every piece of art (well, and lets assume that Braid is work or art) has different meanings, or interpretations for the one who's experiencing it. I mean take for instance any poem. You can interpret them in so many ways, by just analyzing grammar or by vocabulary, and analyzing the emotions that they incite in the reader.

I think the most important aspect that any truly artistic game has it's ability to resonate with the one who's playing it (just as in any other form of art), different aspects of the game might have different meanings to different people, and I guess that what makes it art.

TC Weidner
profile image
I look at it this way. Art's gateway into a person is via the human senses. (ex.Painting uses visual, music uses hearing etc etc.) What makes gaming so interesting is that it can use a variety of these gateways all at once like the culinary arts( smell , taste, vision)

What is even more fascinating is that as tech evolves, and VR becomes reality, even more of these gateway to the senses open up to game design.

Game design IMHO is an art form, for that there is no doubt. Games can indeed make one feel emotions, think differently, learn, create, even build an alternate feeling of a time and/or place even going so far as to create virtual worlds.

As game making technology becomes more widespread into the masses, I can hardly wait to see what some aspiring artist come up with.

Val Reznitskaya
profile image
I really liked this article. I agree with Blow about the ambiguity thing - games do have very different strengths than books and film. Rather than beating the player over the head with a moral, they are strongest when they elicit introspection.

I believe "art" to be very subjective, so from that perspective, I don't think the ultimate goal should be a universal masterpiece. I seriously doubt it's even possible to make a game that speaks to every single person who plays it. (In fact, I doubt there exists a work in any medium that speaks to everyone without exception. But because games rely even more on a personal experience, I think games are at a much bigger disadvantage in this regard. I think this is part of what Ebert was getting at.)

I think the more effective games have always targeted the particular audience that would most appreciate them. But doing something like that is probably much too risky for the bigger budget titles that need to sell millions of copies to break even.

Jay Anne
profile image
Totally agreed. Games as an art form will always be a niche, like comics and poetry and graffiti and interactive art installations. It has become clear that movies are the dominant cultural art form by far. There are movies that will speak to just about every person who watches them. The sooner that games realize they are inferior to movies in that way, the sooner they can become unique and beautiful in their own way.

Brion Foulke
profile image
I agree with what you said, except that I believe games already become unique and beautiful a long time ago.

Daniel Accardi
profile image
"I agree with Blow about the ambiguity thing - games do have very different strengths than books and film. Rather than beating the player over the head with a moral, they are strongest when they elicit introspection."

Although it's definitely true that games have different strengths than other media, let's not be too hasty to suggest that games are radically different, in an absolute sense, from those other media. It's equally true of nearly ANY artistic form that eliciting introspection, rather than proscribing a particular interpretation, makes for a stronger work. People have never liked having a moral shoved down their throats, and good art has always appreciated that - you can go all the way back to the Iliad and see how many unanswered questions there are. Games are just a form that has certain inherent advantages to negotiating that fact.

Val Reznitskaya
profile image
"Games are just a form that has certain inherent advantages to negotiating that fact."

I agree. I didn't mean to suggest that games are radically different - there are certainly many lessons we can learn from books and film that apply to games. But I think the key is in being careful about which lessons we apply and how we apply them.

I've seen a handful of "art" games that do beat the player over the head with a moral. I feel like some of their developers tried applying lessons from other media, but something must have gotten lost in translation.

Steven Christian
profile image
Art

Noun
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture.
Works produced by such skill and imagination.

Games are products, expressions or applications of human creative skill and imagination.
Games are art.
The end.

Dantron Lesotho
profile image
I agree with this very much.

Sam Derboo
profile image
The idea of complete authorial control is an illusion, anyway. All art is interactive to a degree. The best example may be works of architecture, which are basically also small worlds for people to walk around in and even touch stuff, depending on the curator (which in theory already makes them more interactive than a game like Dear Esther). They're even moddable, look at the Hagia Sophia.

Read critiques to any great novel, and you'll see that many critics read them in quite different ways. Those that "beat you over the head with a moral" are usually considered the bad ones (pending any other qualities that may outweigh that "flaw"). James Joyce in particular took pride in the assumption that his work posed a significant challenge to the player... ehrm, reader.

Diet Schnaepp
profile image
Art is such a big word, you might as well be an elitist about it: Thus art would be the process of introducing the new into the arts. It's no me-too business. And to decorate this standpoint with a literary reference: think of Proust, who celebrates an componist somewhere for evoking/finding/inventing a _new emotion_ through his violin play: something that has never been felt, that could never have been felt, because it's a feeling as present, as new to men as any living moment. Now that's elevating. Everyone's living in the past, living by old metaphors that aren't that true anymore because the times are changing.
Such events are not uncommon. You can reproduce them. They trickle through and form a new zeitgeist. Creators do it all the time. "Genius cult" would only mean you are obsessed by the ambition to give it at first hand.
What has that to do with story and stuff? Nothing. The debate is not helping at all. But I guess that is the jist of the article anyway.

Christian Philippe Guay
profile image
What about the other way around as well? Gaming as art? That's a very unique trait to video games.

Steven Christian
profile image
Ballet is art.

Could the playing of a sport also be art?
Or indeed, as you say, the act of playing a game..

Interesting questions..

Thomas Grove
profile image
Gaming as performance art, gamers as performance artists.

Bruno Xavier
profile image
Necessity of making money will always hold back creativity on everything, not just game dev.

Samuel Green
profile image
Yeah the title and idea of the article was nice but it didn't really go into anything. If you look at Warren Spector's extract article from earlier, that at least had some suggestions. All I see here are problems with no attempt to give solutions. Which is the same place this debate has been at for 5 years.


none
 
Comment:
 




UBM Tech