The Case for Art

[ShannonA]

Jessica's newest column guest stars Raph Koster, Lead Designer for Verant's Star Wars: Galaxies.

It's now available at http://www.skotos.net/articles/

Shannon

[Eudaimonia]

Wow. Yes thats a nice educational and productive way of doing a come-back.

I've never taken an art class but I've flipped through the pages of a few art instruction books to recognize that one definitely required a noggin to reliably craft art.

I'm not that good of a player, easily proven by the fact that for years I never knew there was more than one island in the game of Myst. I liked the graphics and I loved the making of Myst film that came with the Myst game disc. Was it fun? Well it was just one island. *yes I know now* And no I didn't buy the sequel. There was only one island. *yes I know* But was it fun? Well yes, I bounced around the library, power plant and opened the safe. But you know one island.. *yes I know*

Was it Sierra that made that game? I don't remember and I'm not trying to make a bad comment. Because if I see ' from the makers of Myst' on a box I would believe it would contain a fine quality made product.

Does that odd comment mean I think fun should over-ride artsyness in games? No.

I like quality thats been put into a game. Even if it seems that all the other parts are not of equal good quality. For me quality is still appreciated.

I do admit occasionally trying a game based on past performance of the makers involved, but usually its an after thought like seeing a familiar developer name like 'Psychosis' or title like 'Bard's Tale'. Its because they made a game I enjoyed, be it very nice stunning design (not necessary visual) or its funness.

I think the 'playing the game the artist way' / 'playing a game designed for fun' is an 'at the time situation'.

I remember when I first saw Sim City, sitting in a hot rented top room of a gun shop at an Amiga computer meeting.

The presenter was saying how he couldn't understand why anyone would make/play this game but there it was. For me I automatically wanted to eat it up. All I saw with my mouth hanging open was pure - brilliant - fun - potential -. I wanted it even though I hadn't seen it in action. The lure of building a city of my own was to exciting to pass up. But the presenter of the club, though it was a stupid concept.

I don't know if that can be classified as art. Like I said before I'm not an artist, but it did give me this exciting thrill looking at the barren land, dreaming of what I can make of it. And maybe the maker of the game had to plant his heels so it wasn't turned into a 'from point a get to point b then end' type of game. To me Sim City had beauty in its potential and purpose to create things. So maybe it can be classified as fun inter-active art.

A good part of me feels I'd only like/play games that allowed me freedom and not some narrow confined step here then step here please and only carry what we give you. But I think that such a limited game may not exist
or
if it does
its there and ...
To quote an occassional phrase that one of my favorite magazines likes to say, (I'm optimistic enough to believe)

"that there is a there there'

of fun artsy games. And I've probably played it. : ) - a satisfied 50 month old Ultima Online account with never a GM skill might prove I have. Or maybe I don't know what art is yet. And maybe I'm still on one island. But I'm happy.

I dunno. If I find the game good I like it. If I don't like it. Um unless its not playable I don't get mad at the makers of the game. I just know the game wasn't for me and I move on. No bad thoughts. :) But if it is good. I stay and play. With lots of good happy happy thankful thoughts. : )

Thanks for the 2 articles. : )
- Eudaimonia

[Atama]

You know... I think Myst is the perfect example of art taking precedence in a game. The entire genre of "interactive cinema" that was popular in the early-to-mid 90s, some of the first CD-ROM games, emcompasses that concept entirely.

7th Guest, Return to Zork... They seemed less like games and more like eye candy. You spent most of your time gazing in wonder at flashy graphics and sounds than actually doing anything in the game. Strip away the glitz and glamor and what you had left was a game simpler than those old Scott Adams adventures.

You know what though? I really loved those games. :D Besides the novelty of watching a game unfold like a movie, it was cool to play the game just to see what you might find next. It was thrilling to find the next world in Myst, even though you might have no clue what that weird gear thingy near the river with the Celtic symbols on it might be. ;)

I think actually that what Jessica Mulligan calls "art", Raph Koster shows to be "novelty". He did mention that the "artsy" style of games are really pioneers into new styles of gaming that test new concepts, what he called "experiments". It's the novelty, rather than the artistry, that appeals to people.

Novelty can be a flash-in-the-pan kind of thing. I don't see the interactive movie style games much anymore really. But they are important, they can be successful (don't tell me Myst didn't do well), and they can test the waters for new concepts that help improve the entire gaming industry. And, in doing so, make more fun!

Though I use the example of games that show their artistry through graphics and sound, that isn't the only way to have Art in a game (I capitalized it like Mr. Koster said). Art can manifest as any kind of innovative, potentially trendy, unorthodox feature. For example, Castle Marrach can be considered very artsy because of how it tosses aside things like experience points, hack and slash, or monetary systems, and instead uses favor from those in power as both a measure of success and as a currency. That is very artsy.

You can't say it isn't entertaining either, I've been hooked on the game for almost a year now. And like alot of art, it isn't understood by many people, alot of people start the game and just don't get it. Why? It's new, different, unexpected.

By the way, I did finish Myst, after about 3 months of wracking my brain over it. That was a big accomplishment for me.

[Ninetails]

Also, let us not forget that there has been... er... one? game lately that springs to mind as having been too clever for its own good and ended dull as a butter knife to play, and that's 'Black and White'. Almost every other boring game recently has a) been a matter of taste; I thought Myst was deadly dull or b) been sufficently poorly designed on other levels that it's much more reasonable to explain it as a failure of competence than a failure due to overambition.

Further, let us not forget that a lot of the serious triumphs of the electronic gaming industry were not results of workmanshiplike
yeoman's labor on basic principles, but visionary works of
subtlety and, yes, art (System Shock 2, anyone?). A
concentration on basic principles of entertaining gameplay
results in... Diablo, or Quake 3, or Myst. These are fine games,
surely, but aren't we glad that we've got more than this?