|
Abstraction of Instantial
Assets. Their focus on meaning in mechanics notwithstanding, proceduralist
games do not reject graphics, sound, text, or even story entirely. But when
they do include such things, these games tend to reject verisimilitude in favor
of abstraction.
Part of the reason for this is practical, as these games are
often created by one or two people. But a more important reason is aesthetic:
reducing the player's obsession with decoration underscores the experience of
processes, while still allowing image, sound, and text to meaningfully clarify
the fiction of the game's theme.
Although one common method for abstraction is two-dimensional
rendering (as is the case in Braid, Passage, and The Marriage), not all proceduralist games adopt this perspective;
an example of a 3D proceduralist work is Mike Treanor's Reflect,
a game about the movement of creatures small and large. Treanor's low-poly 3D
rendering style de-emphasizes the visual fidelity in favor of the experience of
movement.
When it comes to story, procedural works tend to employ metaphor
or vignette instead of narrative. Daniel Benmergui's The Storyteller
offers an instructive example: a story is told by means of the causal
relationships between different characters, at different times, in accordance
with their position on a triptych-like stage.
No matter the level of abstraction, proceduralist works don't
mistake higher abstraction with lower production value.
Where image, sound, and
text is present, it is carefully selected and incorporated into the system that
forms the rest of the game -- the time-reversible background particles in Blow's
Braid; the expressive six-pixel eyes
in Benmergui's I Wish I Were the Moon);
the logarithmically scaled distortion of past and future vision in Rohrer's Passage. Such assets are always tightly
coupled to the gameplay itself.
Subjective Representation.
Games like Go and Tetris are abstract; if they have any
aboutness, it is limited to the experience of the system itself. One can make
representational claims about these games (as Janet Murray did of Tetris in Hamlet on the Holodeck), but only in an overtly metaphorical way.
By contrast, games like SimCity
and Madden are concrete; they deal
very clearly with specific subjects and activities, in this case urban planning
and American football.
Proceduralist games sit between these two poles. Their systems
characterize some aboutness that is not an accident of genre or convention, but
one deliberately selected -- often from personal experience.
At the same time, proceduralist works are not as clear about
their representations as are other games. There is an ambiguity of both form
and signification in these works.
Another example of the style, Bernard Schulenburg's Where is My
Heart
demonstrates both of these aspects. The game deals with "the complication
of family life" by distributing success among three abstract characters
and jumbling an intricate platformer world about the screen.
From the perspective of form, proceduralist artgames tend to
combine concrete, identifiable situations with abstract tokens, objects, goals,
or actions. Consider, for example, the blocks in Rohrer's Between (previously discussed in
this column),
which are abstract objects that also play a role in a concept or set of ideas
about the gulf separating individuals.
From the perspective of signification, proceduralist works deploy
a more poetic and less direct means of expressing the ideas or scenarios their
processes represent. Braid poses
questions about doubt, forgiveness, time, and regret, offering the player an
opportunity to pursue the question, "what if I could go back," in
different ways.
However, the answers to these questions are not presented as
definitive solutions discovered automatically through mastery of the game's
system.
In this sense, proceduralism shares some of the values of Expressionism in art, especially as both relate to the subjective interpretation of emotion.
|
Even in the art world, the same exact type of art is re-classified based on the era or the artist's associates. What was DADA in 1915 was Fulxus in 1965, and what was Pop Art in 1965 is just plain contempory today.
From an intellectual perspective, I appreciate what the author is trying to say, but in general it seems a little tiny bit pretentious. Just my opinion.
I can't stand it when people throw around "pretentious" in the context of art and art discussion. It should be a corollary to Godwin's law in the context of art: call something pretentious and you forfeit any hope of being taken seriously.
Tom, you're not being a dick about it—in fact you're being refreshingly civil—but there are very passionate people out there who vehemently hate and mock whatever it is they deem pretentious. If they're talking about paintings they say something like, MY KID COULD PAINT THAT SHIT!—when talking about games it's, GAMES NEED TO BE FUN, FVCK ALL!—and, you know, that is fine, whatever, but there is no value to that kind of dismissiveness. It helps no one.
I don't really get it. It seems that they feel threatened by the conversation that they don't understand, or ... something, I dunno. Saying that they're simply "threatened" smacks of cheap Freudian bullshit but I lack an alternative way of describing the aggression. It makes me think of Sarah Palin and her Real American snowbilly glorification of stupidity and damnation of nuance and thinking in general. Pretentious is one of those magical show-stopper labels that camp relies on.
I don't think we need the opposite extreme either: purple academia and fruity bullshit that sees things that are not there. These things could be dubbed pretentious, but this article doesn't deserve that.
If Gamasutra isn't going to entertain some of these lines of conversation, I don't know who is. I do think "proceduralism" is not a good way of framing that unique something that games offer to the arts, but I have nothing better to suggest in its place.
Having said that, I have to agree with Stevan. I'm not sure "Proceduralism" is going to stick. Personally, it doesn't fit right - I keep auto-defining it as 'a movement for general procedurally created content' or some such.
While I like to think that my columns are generally free of unnecessary affectation, I'm also not sure that there's anything so wrong with a bit of complex noodling about our medium's aesthetic state. Perhaps, even, we could use a dose of highbrow snobbery.
@Stevan, David
I appreciate both of your comments; they give me things to think about.
I considered using the additionally complex "procedural expressionism" but felt it both overly complicated and perhaps too specific. As I was just saying in an email conversation, There are lots of things that are "real" but not Realist. There are lots of things that are expressions but not Expressionist. There are lots of things that are cuboid but not Cubist.
To Stevan's point specifically: I didn't intend to characterize this style as the *only* thing games might offer to the arts, but rather one, possibly one among many.
It's funny, I've had several conversations today about this article and all of them have focused on this term over any of the specific points. I'm not griping; it's just interesting.
However, I'm not sure games are limited to simulating systems. If I'm reading the article right, there's an implication that all art-games have to be "about" something, that they must be "rhetoric", that they must communicate. I don't think that's necessarily a limitation of the medium or a requirement. A lot of early modern abstract art isn't "about" anything at all (such as the urinal you mention, or some of Kandinsky's or Mondrian's work, as I understand it). It shouldn't be impossible for a game to be considered artistic without it needing to inspire thought or reflection or to carry some kind of important message. After all, not all art fits that description.
I'm actually trying to suggest just the opposite: that "artgame" is an overly generic category to be of much use. "Proceduralism" is one style of artgames; there are surely others (extant, but undefined), which might characterize abstract games or other sorts of games.
games will be it's pornography.
I think the debate on pornography as art still going on as well?
Games/interactive content are the same way like comics - a weird sort of 'new' media that, while having and sharing similar parts is in itself a something that needs to eventually be defined in context of itself.
"To Stevan's point specifically: I didn't intend to characterize this style as the *only* thing games might offer to the arts, but rather one, possibly one among many."
Well, I didn't mean to say that that specifically was the *only* thing games might offer to the arts, but that *only* games have these qualities. That is to say, not much of movies' and paintings' potency comes from the audience's or spectator's agency. Interactivity and didactic simulation, empirical understanding of synthetic truths (in the somewhat-antiquated Kantian sense) belong to games alone.
How's that for purple academic onanism? Where's my cake?
But in the end I wonder if a new "ism" is even necessary. Looking over the common traits listed in the article, I see that they are and have been common concerns to artists working in more established media. Introspection, unslick presentation, the artist-object-subject trinary: these have been around, especially in works that set themselves outside of the mainstream entertainment industries.
I get your clarification. However, I'd also clarify that the kinds of works I am calling proceduralist are, at least to an extent, minimalist in their procedurality -- which is not to say that they try to use the minimum processes possible, but rather that they aim to make the very distinction between media you are describing evident.
@Victor
I don't think I agree that the works discussed above emphasize choice and open-endedness. In fact, they seem to go rather against the grain of many games' tendency to offer "openness" and "creativity." There is certainly openness in the interpretation, but that is a different type than I think you are referring to?
As for "process," is that concept not implied by "procedural," while also maintaining the linkages to computation?
And as for the "ism" question, I think that it can be rhetorically useful if nothing else. Framing our discussions of game art (or "artgames" or whatever) in more specific terms seems like a promising direction.
I would have to agree, especially considering it's the *limitations* in these games that define what they're about. You will eventually die in "The Passage" regardless of what you do. If you could circumvent death, the meaning would be lost.
Most mainstream games are about removing limitations. I think the greatest example of this is Oblivion. It is a go-anywhere, do-anything game where you can join every faction and max out every skill regardless of where you started from. And certainly every mainstream game refuses to present death as an obstacle. This is with good reason, as the game would be no longer entertaining. But it's a key difference that really exemplifies the difference in purpose.
Consider Mark Nelson's split of abstract mechanics, concrete representation, thematic (real-world) references, and player input. I can imagine how a designer might choose any subset of these as the elements with which to make their point. "Proceduralist" style might be the one that focuses mostly on abstract mechancs and a bit on concrete representation, but abstracts thematic mappings and input.
There is another style of games that tries to cram all of its meaning into the thematic mappings (via provocative skinning) while importing the other element wholesale from other games. We don't really have a name for this common style, but it certainly exists.
Consider some new style that, instead, was all about making a point with the player input element. An example might be a rock-paper-scissors game played with hand-tracking cameras. The abstract mechanics, concrete representation, and thematic mappings would be smoothed over with abstraction or imported from some other game, leaving the audience with the focus on how they twist their hand to expressively out-paper the opponents paper gesture. We can snag some nifty name like "inputicist" or "controlular", but then we'd be competing with ourselves when we go to name the style that uses an intentionally synergistic combination of input _and_ mechanics to make its point.
Indeed, the "do anything" concept has become increasingly popular, and I appreciate the counterpoint these games offer.
@Adam
Very interesting comments, thanks for sharing them.
It's just that simple.
The article itself seems to want there to be proceduralism. One point that really bothered me was the mention of Sim City and Madden. Those are so far removed from defined 'proceduralist' games that they provide little discussion for comparison. How about Metal Gear Solid 2 or Civilization compared to the proceduralist games? Both provide systems that unveil truths about the player in and outside of what the article defined as "player gratification" as well as the narrative. What about Shadow of the Colossus or Katamari Damacy. These seem to lie on the edge of proceduralism... or perhaps bridge a gap. To better understand the view of the article. I'd like to know why the games I mentioned do or do not make the team for proceduralism.
It's my thought that most of them do. It's also my thought that proceduralism is wrong. The only stylistic (another lame word) emergence I notice is the return to pure or 'old school' game mechanics which in turn has shifted the focus TO game mechanics. Tons of games, lots of wacky new mechanics, FOR the sake of wacky new mechanics. I condone the broadening of horizons and smashing of boxes, but, like the term 'art,' 'wacky' or 'fresh' mechanics, do not a good game make nor an interesting message send. When a good game, like a piece of GOOD art, combines all the aspects-mechanics,message,experience,ect-into one unified body , it is then special. I think this is what the games have in common. I'd like to know what I'm missing from the article if I'm wrong in that respect--how Braid is different from Metal Gear or Katamari.
To finish up my rant on art...
@Aaron Knafla
If you're not being facetious,
You're just stating the obvious, except that I'd give you the dirtiest look you've ever seen for the 'profit' comment.
Video GAMES are about entertainment. You're dang right they better entertain. But don't hold games back! Like movies, you may just want to go see Shoot 'Em Up or Die Hard, but good movies exist, as with games, that provide the thrills and also the message. The great even have the two work for a unified purpose.
"There is another style of games that tries to cram all of its meaning into the thematic mappings (via provocative skinning) while importing the other element wholesale from other games. We don't really have a name for this common style, but it certainly exists."
While SotC didn't import its gameplay wholesale, its thematic depth definitely lies in the presentation that creates moral ambiguity. I think another game that fits into this category is BioShock--the story does help explain the genetic modifications, but the gameplay itself is not what furthers the story.
As for Katamari, I think that game is another beast entirely. Neither its gameplay nor presentation attempt to evoke anything beyond entertainment. This isn't a judgment of the game as "shallow", just as the drive for "artgames" isn't about being pretentious or overly-serious. It's about finding a new purpose for the gaming experience, a realm of expression beyond what has been done before. It isn't a difference in importance, it's a difference in purpose.
In my opinion, the statement "video games are about entertainment" is as limiting as the old-school idea of what art was about before Realism. The typical reaction to a new movement is ridicule and disbelief. The Realists were scoffed at, the Impressionists laughed at. That's the typical human reaction to change.
What defines "good" art or games? What is good to you might do nothing for someone else. I like seeing movies that have neither thrills nor a direct message (some indie films do this well). Why do you think this conversation has made you react so strongly?
...Daikatana? LOLOLOLOLOL.
Mr. Romero, your Doom and Quake levels were awesome, but Daikatana's first level was completely anti-fun. And as a result, I never bothered playing the other levels.
Or how about games as documentary? There have been bold strides in this direction (Peacemaker, World Conflicts, etc.), but none have quite cracked the mainstream consciousness to fulfill their potential as works of mass-enrichment. This seems like low-hanging, but very important, fruit.
Art-games or whatever you want to call them can and will exist, and people who enjoy that stuff can talk about them and make them and that's fine. If someone one day decides to pay Rod Humble $2 million for a signed copy of The Marriage...well, that's one way to steal from the rich. But c'mon. There are other much more concrete and practical issues to discuss.
So, Mr. Bogost, I'd like to see more articles about games that lie somewhere between pure-thrills and high-art abstraction.
I think the reason we're all struggling with this so much is because like Mr. Bogost said, we're game designers first artists second.
Let games be what they are. Don't try to define them. They will do it themselves.
The fact that this much debate about "games as art", "artgames", etc. itself proves that games *are* art.
I propose the only consistent thing about art (and thus the best way to define it) is that over time it gets seen differently by different people. No one is going to have this sort of epic debate over the various solutions to an algebra problem, and if video games were that cut and dry, then they would *not* be art.
But we are having this discussion (ad nauseam, I might add), so therefore they are.
(As a corollary, you could say that people caring about something being art makes it art. No one debates algebra problems as art because no one cares about algebra problems as art. But everything that eventually became "art" was because a bunch of people cared about it being "art" to the point they influenced the populace to think it was "art".)
Step 1: Declare games as art.
Step 2: Mention FF7, Rez, or Braid.
Step 3: Demand "art" be defined.
Step 4: Point out that all media can be art some day.
Step 5: ??????
Step 6: Profit.
LMAO. I think Step 5 is 'invent a new religion'
Second,
While I generally agree with the article, I find the term 'proceduralist' to be problematic. First, there is the issue of Will Wright using the word (or its base) repeatedly in describing Spore. Second, there is the problem of the word (or its base) connoting mathematics. Third, the term just doesn't capture the subtly of experience claimed by its defining characteristics as a game 'style'.
To me, All Games provide the possibility of richly poetic reflective experience. And I believe that they deliver this experience most of the time - just not to all players all the time. Games can be fantastically sublime for many, many different reasons. Narrowly defining causal relationships between "artistic" expressions in game-like shrouds is indeed the REASON the debate is tired. Art history (20th century western flavor at least) has taught us not that a continuous replacement cycle of 'styles' is relevant, but that the variation of art practice justifies the system as a whole. There are no winners, just players...
I don't think anyone would disagree on the former - game development and games as a creative piece and process are definitely artistic and require artistic ability. In this regard, I think the debate is silly - you would no more say that film is not an artform. It's the latter definition that gets swept into the form that I find silly as well - you wouldn't say that Pirates of the Carribean is any sort of masterwork of art - entertaining and pleasing but certainly not the sort of thought provoking movie of say... Shawshank Redemption. I think then we need to really try to avoid making games an all or nothing thing. The bad shouldn't be Are games art? but rather Is -this- game art or is it more simply jsut entertainment and enjoyable?
Correct, art is not a physics, it is metaphysics – or more accurately – Aesthetics.
“From the long perspective of history, the very idea that "art" means something monolithic and certain is simply absurd.”
If by monolithic and certain you mean empirical. In which case this is also true as the defining art is philosophical not a scientific pursuit.
The conversations on art and games as presented here (on Gamasutra) have me particularly confused. There is an entire field in philosophy devoted to this topic, Aesthetics. However even some of its fundamental issues are just now being brought up in popular discourse. For example the difference between an evaluative and descriptive definition of Art. While evaluative definitions are commonly accepted as being at best problematic, acknowledging even that position allows for the conversation to move forward. The question “are games art” _is_ rather tiresome, not because it’s meaningless, but because 1.) it has _does_ have pretty definitive answers when using the right tools, answers which or not so much definitive as... 2.) unmask other more interesting questions like “As an artform, do games posses qualities that exist in – a less exemplified manner – in other art forms?”
I’m in the process of going through other conversations on other articles but I figured asking here would be just as helpful. Have I missed something?
To reference Cryptonomiconm, it seems like there are a number of very smart people running very fast while a well developed speeding train is coasting along beside them.