Zero Punctuation - TTLG Forums

Papy on 21/12/2008 at 10:46

Quote Posted by Ostriig

No more than the act of watching a movie or reading a book doesn't constitute, in itself, art. Yet films and literature represent forms of art.

Oh... so when you talked about "personal expression", you meant personal expression of the team making the game (including focus groups)? So I'd like to know how can a developer really express himself if the game mechanic is really about letting the player express himself?

Anyway, as I already said, up to now I never saw a single video game I could really consider as "art". Some had interesting style, some were obviously made to express a political or social comment, but none had significant artistic value. At best, the artistic value was only a flash submerged into a long and mediocre form of entertainment. I remember being in awe in front of some paintings or sculptures, I remember having strong feelings after reading a book or looking at photographs, some music can overwhelm me, but emotions in video games were always extremely limited. The medium has probably a lot of potential, but for now it's just that : potential. I'm not saying I never felt anything while playing any video games, but it was never enough to make me consider the game as art. (Of course, I played only a very limited subset of games, so maybe I just missed them. Could you give me some example?)

BTW, I would certainly not consider all films and literature as having artistic value. In fact, most have none whatsoever.

Quote Posted by BlackCapedManX

See, what you just did here is say "an RPG is a game where you play a role, because of this an RPG is a game about winning and losing."

Obviously you didn't understand a single thing of what I was saying. There are two ways to view a role playing. The first, is the "having a tea party with imaginary friends" or acting kind of role playing. You are the one in control and you do whatever you want simply because you feel like it. You cannot win or lose, you cannot fail because there are no goals or rules, except the one you choose yourself. Most of the time, these games are really about imitation.

The other kind of role playing is when you put yourself into someone else's shoes. That does not mean you imitate that person, it means you put yourself into an equivalent situation as this person. With this kind of role playing, your goal is exactly like in real life : you try to adapt and find solutions to succeed. The goal of the game is not to pretend you are a secret agent and do what you imagine a secret agent do, it is to achieve a goal as if you were a secret agent, that is using his abilities and restrictions. You do not control much of the world around you and you rarely do what you want to do. You can make mistakes and you can fail. It's up to you to guess what you should do to achieve your mission. They are both called role playing, but they have very little in common. Personally, I have absolutely no interest for the former and love the later.

You said role playing was an "experience"... To me, imitating is not an experience since there is nothing to discover.

Quote Posted by BlackCapedManX

If talking to characters was about "unsolving the puzzle of the rules of the environment" (or however the hell you'd like to describe whatever convoluted thing it is you're describing,) then why bother to replay the game?

I rarely play a game fully more than once, unless I want to explore the video game from a technical point of view. The reason is I have no interest in looking at myself acting, so seeing what I would look like as a pacifist or a sociopath would be extremely boring to me.

If a game could create a simulation of a world, then I guess could try playing different role (as in "imitating") to look at the NPC reactions, but I would view this as simply playing with a simulation and not really as role playing (in the sense of putting myself into a different situation).

Quote Posted by BlackCapedManX

but the design of most sports has really simple standards for who is the winner and who is the loser (as compared to say, an RPG where you can "win" the game, but other than that it's about the actual playing and experience, and not who's best.)

Most boardgames are also about winning and losing. Playing FreeCell is also about winning and losing, even though there is no competition. Winning and losing is strictly related to rules, not to the number of players.

As for RPG (particularly pen and paper RPG), most do have a clear standard for winning : survival and completing the goal of the mission. Of course P&P RPG real reward is more social interaction than completing the mission, but that's obviously not the case with single player computer RPG.

Quote Posted by BlackCapedManX

Where did you come up with the idea that anyone thinks they're making art when playing video games?

That was a sarcastic comment. It is illogical to think a game which is really just a tool to let the player "express" himself is about art. A developer could still cram some of his ideas into this tool, but this will always fail as art. Either the developers speak, or the player speak. Trying to make a compromise is a very bad idea for art.

Quote Posted by BlackCapedManX

which I believe is because TES has its roots in D&D style gaming, where pretty much all abilities relate to how you kill monsters, so regardless of your intent, you level and aquire abilities based on encounters, rather than say, avoiding encounters

This way of playing is a sign of a DM who just don't get it.

Matthew on 21/12/2008 at 17:30

Quote Posted by Papy

As for RPG (particularly pen and paper RPG), most do have a clear standard for winning : survival and completing the goal of the mission. Of course P&P RPG real reward is more social interaction than completing the mission, but that's obviously not the case with single player computer RPG.

Oh, what?

Thirith on 21/12/2008 at 17:38

Quote Posted by Papy

Most current schools of thought on art will acknowledge that while craft can be inherent in a work, its artistic effect consists of an interplay between the work and its audience. You may not agree with this, but if you're wholly dismissive of the idea to the point then we have such different starting points that there's little to no point in the two of us discussing this. YMMV with the other participants in this thread.

Toxicfluff on 21/12/2008 at 17:54

First of all, I'd like to register the fact that this many instances of the word "art" in a few paragraphs makes me choke at the pretentious sound of it all. I'm also going to try and avoid the question of what the ratification is for something being, or not being, art. That's a windy discussion and way above the head of a middling dilettante such as myself. I may swear in frustration as it is.

Papy, I agree with you up to the point that I've never played a game that I'd really consider art either.

But I disagree that the interactive aspect is what precludes this. I'm on Ostriig's side here -- I reckon it's the only decent foothold gaming has got on the clamber up to wider recognition as art. It's the only thing that other, maturer mediums don't have. There's no doubt that the current definition of fart would need to be expanded for this to happen because even in the current climate of postmodernism that pervades middlebrow upwards - much like discussions about art, I suppose - art still is generally taken in my experience to be a dictatorial, one way experience, orchestrated by the artist/s towards their intent and received by the audience, if not necessarily decoded by them.

Quote Posted by Papy

Through the choices given to the player, the way the choices are presented, the repercussions and the world in which they.. err.. repercuss. How is this variable selection of elements so inferior in principle to the random splatters of Pollock or the cut ups of Gysin? Thinking about it, there's probably some statement being made about the rejection of logic or systematisation or codification by those kinds of artists and that kind of art, I wouldn't know. Nonetheless, on the level of experience I don't see games as being on infinitely more treacherous ground here.

Anyway, I don't see why having the unwashed participant instead of the chin stroking beholder of fucking cuntybastard art debases it so much, in itself. The container, the context and fashion in which you participate is, or at least can be, entirely wrought by the imagination and thought of other people, and what else is arseradish zitherbanging art made of?

The problems, as as I see them, lie elsewhere. First of all, as you touched on with your focus group comment, there's commercial viability. Still, this only doesn't apply to all games -- hollywood vs indy springs to mind as the most prominent general parallel. Even in the less commercially minded indy world, in terms of the demands they can place on time, skill and resources the entry level for many kinds of games is very high compared to a lot of other mediums, and this naturally pushes them towards the commercial side of things, in my opinion.

There's also the matter of intent -- other mediums have a head-start here, being considered an artistic in themselves, so a film intended to be art presents no formal problems being considered so. Games are foremost intended to be games, and if their, uh, gameness isn't appropriate for the tag of crusty bumbiscuit art, you have an immediate problem. And that's where development needs to occur. As it is, I do see gameness being the biggest problem needing the greatest amount of development. The repetitious, stringent and parsimonious systems of interaction in games seem extremely opposed to the spirit of art, but they're a tough nut to crack because of the resource costs of breaking free of them.

In the short term, I see the easiest route being some variant of the adventure game -- because it's the most conventional form, basically just being an interactive narrative. But I'm sure there are many other ways that just haven't been imagined yet, just like it's always hard to imagine a new genre of music. And when they are, it'll be hard to imagine why they were hard to imagine.

Blast away, I'm well out of my depth here.

Bakerman on 22/12/2008 at 09:48

In my opinion... that song was brilliant.

ZylonBane on 22/12/2008 at 16:31

Quote Posted by Matthew

Oh, what?

He's saying that some people treat tabletop RPGs as party games.

No pun intended.

BlackCapedManX on 25/12/2008 at 02:40

Quote Posted by Papy

The goal of the game is not to pretend you are a secret agent and do what you imagine a secret agent do, it is to achieve a goal as if you were a secret agent, that is using his abilities and restrictions. You do not control much of the world around you and you rarely do what you want to do. You can make mistakes and you can fail. It's up to you to guess what you should do to achieve your mission.

See, this is where you an I differ wildly on assessing the same evidence, I look at a game like DX and I say "hmmm, I'm offered more total choices than I can utilize in any one game, obviously the designers intended for me to follow through with one set of choices, and play a certain type, then follow through with another set of choices and play a different type." I can see where your argument is valid in a game like TeamFortress, or Battlefield, where you choose a class and then must work within the restrictions of that class, but in DX and especially more traditional RPGs like TES, you choose what those restrictions are, and you shape the experiences of play as you see fit.

You're looking at the game as "okay, I'm a secret agent, I have these skills and only so many skill points over the course of the game, how am I going to get from start to finish?" I look at the game and say "intelligently, the designers decided it would be boring if I could become proficient at rifles, pistols, missile launchers and swords in one go, hence becoming ridiculously overpowered, so I have to choose what I'm going to use for this play through, but that doesn't make any of the choices (or choosing none of them at all) less valid, and while I may personally be disposed toward sniping, it doesn't mean the other choices won't be interesting in subsequent plays."

I would assume that your view is less typical of a DX gamer, and mine is more typical (I could be wrong, but that's the vibe I get,) and based on the comments of the developers I think my views are more inline with their intents (illustrated by the fact that their follow up game was specifically designed to allow the player to kill no-one or absolutely everyone depending on player choices.) If we're at an impasse here, than any further discussion will get us nowhere (and will likely dissolve into "I'm right you're wrong" stupidity.)

Quote Posted by Papy

You said role playing was an "experience"... To me, imitating is not an experience since there is nothing to discover.

Again, this seems to be an irresolvable difference of opinions. I play games because I want to do something interesting (hence experience,) seemingly you would play the same game to accomplish whatever problems it presents. In a high-minded metaphor, you drive down a road to get to where it goes, and I drive down a road to see what's in the countryside. Once there you'd be done with your journey, whereas I might try driving a different road to see different sights, or drive the same road in hopes of seeing something different than I saw before (I use this particular metaphor because this actually what I do while traveling.)

Quote Posted by Papy

I would say that in a well crafted game the intent is not to see what the player looks like as such and such a personality type, but rather how the game world reacts to different player types. In this way I get bored very fast with purely objective based games, but exploring different social reactions becomes almost obsessively necessary for me.

Quote Posted by Papy

If a game could create a simulation of a world, then I guess could try playing different role (as in "imitating") to look at the NPC reactions, but I would view this as simply playing with a simulation and not really as role playing (in the sense of putting myself into a different situation).

Again, driving our differences home, I view different play throughs as constructing a character, but I'm an fervent story teller, so I want build fascinating character types, who react in a consistent and holistic manner, and exploring the actions of these character types is what drives me to play games (I guess what I find boring is merely playing to accomplish something the given task, as that has a typical and predictable outcome, which I tend to envision in a "why bother in the first place" manner.)

Quote Posted by Papy

This way of playing is a sign of a DM who just don't get it.

True, but D&D has been built around combat as the main substance of the game, so if you take the mechanics of the game outside the input of particularly skilled gamers, it's pre-disposed toward an almost purely combat based system of progress. Since this has laid the ground work for many games since (there are video games that use purely D&D rule sets) it often only combat that offers rewards for players (which in older computer RPGs led to a mindless system of leveling which was interspersed between sections of actually playing the game, and now that's been extrapolated to a wider range of activity where, especially in MMORPGs, "grinding" takes up the mass of gameplay time... I find this especially dull, to the point that I've never had a lasting interest in nearly any MMORPGs, because the reward system is often based on particularly un-innovative activity.)

Nameless Voice on 26/12/2008 at 00:34

Quote Posted by BlackCapedManX

(illustrated by the fact that their follow up game was specifically designed to allow the player to kill no-one or absolutely everyone depending on player choices.)

Um, Templars in power armour? Who explode if you try to knock them out?
It is possible to play the game without killing anyone (I've done it), but the later levels really made me feel like the developers didn't consider it a valid gameplay choice any more. Maybe I was just worthless at sneaking in IW.

BlackCapedManX on 26/12/2008 at 07:03

I mean, cloak and thermal masking making parading unseen through the game jokingly easy. But my point was really that throughout development the game was highly toted as allowing the player to choose if the wanted to avoid conflict totally in the game, regardless of how well that was pulled off.

Papy on 27/12/2008 at 08:29

Quote Posted by Thirith

while craft can be inherent in a work, its artistic effect consists of an interplay between the work and its audience.

I partially agree (depending on how you view the relationship between the artist and his audience), but the act of giving me a pen and a blank sheet of paper, so I can write my own story, is not "Art". A linear and heavily scripted game like BioShock has potential to be artistic (and it almost was from my point of view, the most important problem was the artistic elements were too diluted), but a game like Oblivion has absolutely no chance of succeeding as art. Somehow, the artist must understand his own creation. Any freedom he gives to the player must be controlled. Art is not something emergent, it does not happen by accident or by chance, it must created voluntarily.

Quote Posted by Toxicfluff

I disagree that the interactive aspect is what precludes this.

The problem is not interactivity, it is giving a piece of art for its raw materials instead of as a finished product. If interactivity means looking at a bronze statue from different viewing angle that's great. If interactivity means allowing the audience to melt the bronze so they can make their own sculpture then this is not about creating art, this is about supplying material.

Quote Posted by Toxicfluff

Through the choices given to the player, the way the choices are presented, the repercussions and the world in which they.. err.. repercuss.

Yes, this is possible, but the problem with that is you'll probably end up with the same problem as BioShock : something diluted. I believe the potential artistic value a game is dependent upon the average intensity of the emotion while playing. If the player spend most of his time doing unrelated things, then no matter how great the flashes of emotional moments are, in the end the overall game will be a failure as art. It's like Hollywood movies. Several of them have potential to have artistic value. Unfortunately, the pointless but mandatory car chase, explosions and sex scenes simply ruin what is interesting.

If people were willing to accept to pay $60 for a two hours game (so there is no filling), then maybe creating art would be possible using this method. Obviously, that's not the case for now.

Quote Posted by Toxicfluff

other mediums have a head-start here, being considered an artistic in themselves

The head-start is only true for people who do not accept the possibility of video games as art, which is not my case. Yet, there is still no game I consider as art.

BTW, unfortunately my English level is very low (I rarely use English outside the Internet) and I must admit I have a lot of difficulties understanding what you wrote. Of course I won't ask you to change your way of writing and use a more limited language just for me, but I hope you won't take offense if I don't respond to some of your comments... it's just that I prefer to shut up when I'm clueless.

Quote Posted by BlackCapedManX

In a high-minded metaphor, you drive down a road to get to where it goes, and I drive down a road to see what's in the countryside.

Let me put it another way : I don't care about the road, I'll use whatever road I view as the easiest, I care only about reaching my destination. On the other hand, the destination is only a detail for you, what you really care about is choosing one road in particular and then following it.

Having said that, I understand why "your" form of role playing could be interesting. There was a game from the 80s I liked called Alter Ego that was great for that kind of "role playing" (by now it would be considered a shitty game, but we were a lot less demanding in the 80s). Unfortunately, there is two problem with your form of role playing and modern RPG. The first one is computer games' NPC cannot have real personalities nor interesting reactions due to technical limitations. There is no AI and even less artificial psychological profiles. The best you can have is one scripted event or another, nothing more. The second problem is your range of action in video games is extremely limited. Basically, you can't speak. So what's the point in your form of role playing since you can't role play? Let's be honest, your role playing choices just don't matter on the game world. They can change the action gameplay because of different attribute (whether limited by the game system or by yourself), but there is nothing interesting to see from NPC. There is no countryside to look at. Tell me... With a game like Oblivion, what does it change if you play a thief or a magic user?

Finally, I'd just like to remind you two things. First, Deus Ex was a linear game and it was designed that way. As far as the world and the story was concerned, your choices just didn't matter, except for some somewhat insignificant dialogs here and there. The idea to role play with Deus Ex in order to see your impact on the story or NPC is pointless. Second, about everyone consider IW as a worse game than DX, even though it gave more "role playing" choices to the player. Are you sure "role playing" is what people liked with Deus Ex?