Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
September 30, 2014
arrowPress Releases
September 30, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


Analysis: On Aging, Death And Games
Analysis: On Aging, Death And Games
January 11, 2010 | By Emily Short

January 11, 2010 | By Emily Short
Comments
    14 comments
More: Console/PC



[In her new Gamasutra column, writer and designer Emily Short refuses the 'pretentious' label often assigned to games like Home and The Graveyard, and examines the efficacy of art games now and in the future.]

I hate the word "pretentious" in art criticism.

I understand why people use it. Often we call something pretentious when we think the artist might be concealing a lack of meaning or vision behind obscurity, jargon, or a set of conventions currently hallowed by the art establishment. It's a way of saying "I don't get this, and I don't know that there's anything to get" that shifts the blame (if blame even applies in so subjective an area as one's response to artwork) onto the artist rather than ourselves.

Two things I don't like about this approach. First, it operates from an instinct of contempt. Labeling an artist pretentious assumes the worst about someone whose motives aren't knowable.

Second, it says nothing, nothing at all, about the work itself. It's all about the artist.

Two Edges

Recently I've played two games about old age and the approach of death that have been tarred as "pretentious", as well as boring and ungamelike: Home, by Stephen Lavelle, and Tale of Tales' The Graveyard, from last year. ("Pretentious" citations for The Graveyard: 1, 2, 3; for Home, with some discussion, 1.)

I consider these two works edge cases when it comes to criticizing games. Home is very brief and lacks just about everything that might make it appealing on aesthetic grounds. The graphics are the retro-pixellated stuff that has become obligatory for certain kinds of Art Game these days. The dialogue, such as it is, is not especially riveting.

Nonetheless Home does have gameplay, and the meaning of the work arises procedurally from the rules rather than from any exterior framework. It uses its interactivity to express the helplessness of an elderly man as he tries to feed himself, use the toilet, and sleep when he needs to.

The player is allowed to try to satisfy these needs, but the timing is such that he will not be able to, and instead will lose control over each function in turn. It's an intentionally frustrating play that spirals into failure and predictable death, with the interactivity giving the player just enough space to struggle against that frustration.

On an adjacent edge is The Graveyard, which has virtually no gameplay. The interaction consists of steering an old lady who walks very slowly towards a bench. Then she sits down (not thanks to anything you do, mind), and a song plays. You can perhaps make her stand up and walk out again, or not.

The only real exercise of choice you have is to end the game prematurely without seeing all of the content. Even that option may be taken away in the event that the old woman dies, which she may do at random if you have the game's full version rather than the demo.

The Meaning In Limitations

To the extent that interaction matters in this work, it is to emphasize constraint: the degree to which the woman is limited in speed and agility, the degree to which the player cannot even control the full range of her limited abilities. But even this matters very little. Tale of Tales has done its best to discourage the player from even thinking the game might be more interactive than it is. Pressing ESC during play will bring up a complete walkthrough that describes everything that is possible to do in the game, lest the player be tempted to try to explore or leave the prescribed path in any way.

On the other hand, The Graveyard is the product of great craft and care in the environment. Though it is in black and white, there is a kind of lushness about the visuals, and the soundscape of animal sounds and fading urban noise is meticulously constructed and evocative. Tale of Tales excels at atmospheric work.

Both Home and The Graveyard are exploring what can be done to express emotions and states not commonly found in games. The positive reviews they've received by and large applaud them for this. I share this admiration. (I've now written up two other works by Tale of Tales, both of which I found to some degree frustrating, so it's perhaps curious that I was excited when I saw the promotion for The Graveyard that allowed me to download the full version for free.

Clearly there's a disconnect here between my enjoyment of these works while playing and their long-term value for me. Perhaps I will feel the same about The Graveyard, though of the three it is plainly the slightest in both duration and significance.)

At the same time, I found both pieces unsatisfying, in related ways. I would like to explore why, though with the word "pretentious" off the table.

The Challenge In Art

Home is very simple. It takes only a couple of minutes to play, but that is much longer than it takes to grasp the game's message: that dying is slow, horrible, and undignified, and that our attempts to mediate the process for the elderly may make things even more undignified by stripping them of any agency.

It is challenging to create art around a direct message of this kind and have the result seem like anything but propaganda. And Home is not even very strong propaganda. The most effective procedural propaganda works by presenting the player with what at least appears to be a valid simulation, and allowing the player to discover the rules embedded inside that simulation and to draw his own conclusions.

Home, by contrast, tips its hand from the start. The situation is obviously rigged; it is plain that we will never be able to save the old man; there is no point in struggling very hard with the game nor in replaying to try to achieve a better outcome.

By using the extremely basic graphics, Lavelle is presenting Home to be read in context with other entries in the same aesthetically minimal genre of art game -- most notably, Passage and The Marriage. Works in this genre tend to offer some universalized observation about human existence. The format of Home thus offers us a clue about what kind of content we may expect from it, but in practice it lacks the slow reveal of those other works.

The Graveyard does not have a message in the same way. It is more about presenting observations (here is what an old woman looks like; here are what her thoughts might be, presented as song). Instead of being blunt, it is vague, allusive, and obscure. We may hunt for a significance, but we have no way of being sure we've found one. There is not a story as such.

Nonetheless, the presentation of the game -- the black and white images, the deliberately sluggish controls, the fact that a complete walkthrough is built into the instructions -- all indicate that we should expect to read this game differently than we read other games. But it does not (in my opinion) succeed in leading the player toward an alternate mode of engagement.

But, to my mind, Tale of Tales is saying to the player, "here, you figure out how to play this work in such a way that you get something out of it!" -- and in doing so, is abrogating one of the designer's responsibilities, which is to offer the player a way in. The most interesting part of the work is the song, which becomes, in the absence of interaction, a quirky music video starring a computer-generated 3D grandma.

So both games involve formal choices that encourage the player to read and understand them in some alternative, not-mainstream-gaming way, but yield deficient or ambiguous rewards when they are so approached. (In my opinion.)

The Short Shelf Life Of Conceit

A second point: both rely too heavily on the conceit of interaction denied. There is a tendency in some art games to derive the artistic impact from refusing to let the player change things, from the conflict between what the player wants to achieve (and thinks he might be able to achieve) and what the designer has chosen to allow. At its simplest, the gimmick is to get the player to try to do something impossible, and then wait for him to give up.

But the more art games do this, the less effective the technique is -- especially in works that identify themselves formally with an art game movement. I might feel much differently about Home had it been the first game I ever met in which the rules were deliberately stacked against me. I might even feel differently if it had been dressed as a casual game, with perky cartoonish graphics and a reasonable degree of polish: that's a game genre in which I still expect to be able to win.

But with its graphical style, it didn't stand a chance of misleading me. Art games have their own conventional styles, just as commercial games do, and it is possible to be lazy or careless in choosing to share those conventions. Home falls into this trap.

The Graveyard is less derivative, but still suffers from the non-surprise of its constraints and limitations.

This is what happens when a medium ages. What used to be surprising loses its power. (Compare: "Pulp Fiction" viewed in 1994 vs. "Pulp Fiction" viewed today.) We either have to find some new audience expectations to subvert, or use interactivity to an aesthetic effect that doesn't require the audience to be surprised.

(Disclosure: I played free copies of these works. Home is free, and The Graveyard I downloaded when it was offered without charge as a Halloween special. I have had no commercial dealings with the authors of either.)

[Emily Short is an interactive fiction author and part of the team behind Inform 7, a language for IF creation. She also maintains a blog on interactive fiction and related topics. She can be reached at emshort AT mindspring DOT com.]


Related Jobs

Raven Software / Activision
Raven Software / Activision — Madison, Wisconsin, United States
[09.30.14]

Sr. Gameplay Engineer - Raven
CCP
CCP — Reykjavik, Iceland
[09.29.14]

Director, Performance Marketing
Nintendo of America Inc.
Nintendo of America Inc. — Redmond, Washington, United States
[09.29.14]

Software Business Development Manager, Licensing
Respawn Entertainment
Respawn Entertainment — San Fernando Valley, California, United States
[09.29.14]

Senior Animator










Comments


susan kuchinskas
profile image
Thanks for an insightful and thought-provoking critical review -- as well as turning me on to these games.

Joshua Sterns
profile image
I would love to see some of the mechanics mentioned for Home and The Graveyard in commercial games. Perhaps a recurring dream in a horror/thriller, or something similar to the nuke scene in Modern Warfare 1.

Michael Samyn
profile image
Thank you, Jeffrey, for that insightful and witty remark. We often forget that art is all about thrills.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

Adam Bishop
profile image
I also hate the word "pretentious", which is levelled completely inaccurately at virtually any work of art that isn't content to be mindless entertainment. Emily is completely right that it's a ridiculous complaint to level as a general rule since it requires attempting to guess what the person who made the game was thinking while they made it. The attack "it's pretentious" adds nothing to a discussion except for the speaker's vitriol.

Mike Engle
profile image
The label used ("game" or otherwise) really isn't all that important apart from the user expectations (and Emily's wise to spend much of the article explaining how each game establishes those expectations.)



I'm still not sure what to think of games like these. They're almost never fun, so my natural instinct is to want to avoid them, but at the same time I can't help feeling like they teach more important lessons than I'm getting from other games.



(As for "pretentious", a delightfully cynical friend of mine recently said: "I usually find the word 'pretentious' to be synonymous with the phrase, 'Over my head.'" There's a certain truth to that.)

Tim Carter
profile image
I guess if it doesn't involve puzzles, or space marines blowing up aliens, it's "pretentious".

Emily Short
profile image
@Jeffrey: I'm happy to discuss the merits or demerits of art -- indeed, I just did. I just don't find "pretentious" to be a statement about the art at all; it's a statement about the artist/viewer relationship.

William Armstrong
profile image
Personally, I find "lazy or careless" and "less derivative" (but derivative none the less) to be harsher terms than 'pretentious'. At least with 'pretentious' there's a chance for the phrase to backfire, reflecting poorly on the critic as Mike Engle suggests above.



While use of 'pretentious' does address the artist rather than the work, there is (believe it or not) people who intentionally utilize a style that is not their own to make themselves appear to be part of a group they are not; considering Ms. Short paints both "Home" and "The Graveyard" as derivative, I wouldn't take 'pretentious' off the table just yet (though I do agree it is a term thrown around far too often). Just because a game is labeled as 'art' and it's designer an 'indie artist' doesn't mean we should be less critical (as if games-as-art is a delicate flower we mustn't crush out before it has a chance to bloom). Bad games are still bad even if they're 'artistic'.



Remember that Game Design is an emerging medium, and a lot of people want to be a part of the game (pun intended), even if it means hitching a ride on the coattails of others. Blatantly derivative games *SHOULD* draw the ire of critically thinking gamers, and though it is overplayed and a bit caustic, it's not entirely unfair or unreasonable to level 'pretentious' at targets that deserve it.



Having played "Home", I myself feel it oozes with that too-familiar "look at me, I'm being artistic!" vibe, as does the majority of Lavelle's work. It treads heavily over the foundation laid by the games that came before it, and sticks very carefully to the 'established rules' (monochromatic pixel-art, single-word title, depressing overtones).



It's very obvious after 2 minutes with "Home" what Lavelle wants players to do; play it like any other game, bond with the character, and feel sadness when you can't save him (or guilty when frustrated). However, because it sticks so closely to the established style and because its writing and mechanics are not very well done, of the people who even bother with these kind of 'games', few will allow him to lead them by the nose. I would imagine those who do are simply trying to give him a chance to prove their suspicions wrong. I get the designer's meaning and intent, but it still comes off as a poorly done imitation.



I cannot comment on "The Graveyard" as I have not played it as of yet.

Joe Cooper
profile image
Home is the very definition of art. It is a game, and its own mechanics communicate a statement. That is art expressed through a game. We can even call it game art. Or an art game.



However the phenomonally cliche pixelated art that seems to be mandatory in this genre makes a bad impression. Armstrong sums it up well when he says "it oozes with that too-familiar 'look at me, I'm being artistic!' vibe".



The word pretentious is thrown about because it looks like special effort was made to make it superficially _look_ like what an "art game" is supposed to look like.



I understand that IS a judgement of the artist, however you cannot judge art without judging the artist. To say something is poorly drawn is to say the artist drew it poorly.

Joe Cooper
profile image
Make second post, but nevermind that, I don't wanna talk about the content.

William Armstrong
profile image
Cooper,



The art style isn't the only indication that "Home" is playing on "Art Game" cliches, just the most obvious. The quality of the writing is also a dead giveaway (though not as overdone and typo-ridden as Lavelle's other game, "Mirror Stage"), as is the game's sole focus; provoking an emotional response as / in lieu of a reward. We can only play games that purposefully do this so many times before it becomes cliche as well. After failing to keep all four needs satisfied the first time, anyone with any lick of intelligence will realize the mechanics are built against them and deduce "Home" is playing up the same tired cliche.



There's no entertainment value, nor does it educate in any way (I'm pretty sure everyone is aware that infirmity isn't pretty). It serves only to evoke an emotion; that is its only purpose. However, the design is so clumsy that we're aware of exactly what kind of emotions are being evoked before we feel them, before the character develops (or declines, as it were) and before we've had any chance to bond with him via the game's dialog. "Home" 'tips its hand' (as Ms. Short puts it) in such a blatantly obvious and predictable manner that it's nearly insulting.



We then know exactly what we're playing; another game that has set out to conjure a specific feeling, but the designer lacked the ability to do so in a subtle or meaningful way. Instead, it comes off as the work of an individual trying to be deeper and more thought-provoking than he is capable of (or willing to work for), the very definition of pretentious.



Like I said in my comment above, it's not entirely unfair or unreasonable to level 'pretentious' at targets that deserve it. I feel "Home" merits just such a response, but only in the midst of a greater critical analysis.



Glib responses and quick comments from anonymous sources should generally be ignored. Considering that the citation provided for "Home" consists solely of such comments (as does the first citation for "The Graveyard"), I'm wondering why the article couldn't simply have been "The internet is full of nameless idiots who make incendiary statements" instead, though it obviously takes aim at more than just the given examples. Nothing against Ms. Short or the article she's crafted; it was a good read and has spurred a worthwhile discussion.

David Boudreau
profile image
"Home" screwed with my monitor's standard setting, _after_ exiting/uninstalling it so I was left with a bad impression- however I think there is a salient point of merit worth mentioning for game developers:



The time and effort to manufacture the game compared to playing the game are much more in balance (it usually takes much more time/effort to make than to play games).



EDIT: Incidentally, as it turns out, you can actually take less time/effort to REVIEW/critique the game and possibly offer more than what a player can get out of actually _playing_ the game- though, the experience of playing it itself is arguably still of some value.



"Pretentious" seems like a fair word choice to me for criticism of art/art games, although I wouldn't use it for Home because at least some of my basic requirements are there: It tells a story by having the player experience it directly. Virtiol or not, I mean, did anyone ever see that film "My Kid Could Paint That"?

Michael Samyn
profile image
@ John Smith

Sorry for the late reply.

You said: "if the authors really did want to get the message out that "Hey, being old sucks" you'd think they'd want to do it in a way that impacted a lot more people".



But what if the authors didn't have such a simple message? What if they chose their medium exactly because it is the only one that they felt they could deal with the subject matter in? What if their "message" was incredibly complex? What if there was no message?



It's a popular mistake to think of an artist as somebody who expresses their ideas in a round-about way. To think of works of art as riddles that need to be deciphered. You cannot judge art "American style", by comparing what the author meant with what he did. Because you do not know what the author meant. You're only guessing. And chances are the author doesn't really know either. Otherwise there would not be much point in making art in the first place.



In my experience, art is a form of research. Not just for the creator, but also, and especially, for the spectator/player. It's a playful thing. But it's not a game.


none
 
Comment: