The Verdict on Video Games pt.6
Friday, January 4, 2013 at 10:46AM Games as Art: The Cost
The cost of embracing the view of games as art is that gameplay involves a reduction of oneself. This is what the squeeze is all about. To better work within the gameplay system, one's own opinions, ideas, tactics, strategies, and actions are squeezed tighter and tighter to better conform to the system. And by squeezed I generally mean set aside, tweaked, and mostly deleted. Anything you think or feel will eventually be replaced with specifics of what the system can allow. There really isn't a lot of room for pride, hubris, or excuses. The measuring system (the goals and the gameplay systems) are fair and unyielding to all players.
Because video games ask this question so clearly, it's clear whether we have what it takes, or we don't. And this experience is hard to take for most people. When done poorly because of player participation or the game's design, ramming your head against a challenge over and over to find out that you're not good enough is not most people's idea of entertainment. I've said before that video games are inherently filled with repetition because learning is a fairly slow and repetitive process. Well, video games are also filled with a lot of losing. This losing doesn't just come from game over screens. It also comes from the loss of some of the weakness, unnecessary, prideful, and whiny parts of yourself. If the novelty (basically the benefits and joys of learning) wasn't such a strong and compelling experience, the squeeze most games put us through wouldn't be worth it. But, for the games designed around this aspect of video games, it is worth it in the very same way that listening to others is worth it. It changes us, and when various weaknesses are left behind, these changes are for the better. And the ideas we're left with from this transformative process is why games are art. Why games are powerful. Why games are meaningful. And why I've worked for years just to explain this clearly.
Conclusion
Ultimately, games as technology looks for games to reflect the current state of technology. Games as business looks for games to reflect each individual gamer, like a mirror, satisfying their desires with the hope that more meaningful experiences will come from doing less. And games as art is the view that requires work and looks at games to reflect both the developer and the player simultaneously in a very balanced way. Games as tech reflects and external subject. Games as business reflects the individual. And games as art reflects the developers, the world, and in doing so the player as the player quiets him or herself. Can you see that looking at video games from these views do not overlap? Can you see that one interested in pleasing oneself can't be the kind of person willing to quiet oneself in order to listen, and both can't be the type to ignore people altogether to reflect progress in technology. If you can see that these views are pointing in opposing directions like the points of an equilateral triangle, you'll understand why it's hard for a single gamers to hold multiple views simultaneously.
If you're thinking that it's possible to explore each trigon view completely and then switch to the others to gain a complete perspective on video games, you should know that each of the trigon view is its own endless pursuit. The pursuit of self satisfaction is endless. The pursuit of technology, if not endless, is hard to resolve because technology advances daily at an alarming rate. And the pursuit of art and understanding oneself through understanding others (via gameplay systems) makes every game a world unto itself. You can get lost in a quest to understand games via their gameplay systems. I've spent years diving into the design of Super Mario Bros, and I'm still not done. So even with games as art, mastering each game is an endless pursuit.
I clearly support the view of games as art. But I understand that there is much to appreciate from the other views. Also, I understand that blending these views can result in more varied, more interesting, and stronger products overall. Yes, many products that we call games these days aren't much of games at all. But instead of getting tangled up in the terms, I suggest going straight to the heart of the matter by asking what views you hold and how these views affect everything you think and love about video games. Understanding which view or views you hold is important for understanding yourself, communicating to others, and supporting the video game industry. And if you're unsatisfied with the games you play, consider if a more well-rounded viewpoint could work for you. Chances are, you're neglecting the games as art view.
I respect each view. I respect that anyone can find something to like within a very complex medium like video games. Regardless of what you're looking for, it takes work to get more complex, more varied, and more meaningful experiences out of art and entertainment. It's work whether you have to know a language to read books, you have to recognize the grammar to enjoy music, piece together scenes and characters to understand movies, or learn mechanics to understand interactivity and gameplay. Whether you want better stories, music, emotions, ideas, or whatever from games, you will have to work for it. In fact, the only problem I have with with gamer demands and complaints is when they demand from video games what they already offer and are unwilling to work for it.
I know that gameplay conveys much of the meaning that many gamers demand. I also know that gameplay systems can enhance the stories, meaning, and emotions in a game experience. I'm convinced that anyone who complains that games aren't "there" yet does not consider gameplay systems as a factor or at least doesn't understand them well enough. I know that many gamers heavily rely on non-gaming elements to make their gaming experiences more enjoyable. A little story, music, and visuals go a long way in making games more appealing and accessible to a wide range of people. But without a community and a culture to teach people what's valuable about gameplay or games as art, and without the language to describe what's great about games, most of these gamers are largely unaware of gameplay at all.
Final Fantasy Judges.
This series, The Verdict on Video Games, considers what video games are and how they have evolved as products of entertainment in a rapidly growing industry. Games cannot easily separate from a unique relationship with technology and therefore business. But the art of games (game design) is something that can be utterly overlooked, invisible, and even lost if we fail to preserve it. Even the most hardcore enthusiast, writers, critics and the like in our industry are not necessarily good at talking about gameplay. In other words the casual gamer is just as likely to miss out on quality gameplay discussions as the hardcore gamer. We only have to look at the current gaming discourse to see how far we've come and how much the trigon view of video games explains how we think, what we want out of our games, what we value, where games are going, and why gameplay is invisible to the masses.
I think that when it comes to video games, gameplay takes precedence over language, so this could be the thing that makes the world one. ~ Mizuki
Such is the verdict on video games. And as the judge for yourself, you get to make a decision on what matters to you and whether or not to express this decision. You get to consider if there's more to gameplay than you thought. You get to decide if you want to take a small step of faith in a game and put in a bit of work to see more of what it's about. You get to decide if you want to embrace the ideas of others through gameplay and its abstract concepts, function, squeeze, and structured interactivity. You get to decide if you really want to know yourself by measuring up to the challenges of gameplay.
Now, I better understand the thoughts, comments, and opinions of fellow gamers. Stay tuned for Critical-Casts episode 3: Trigon in which we'll listen to various statements and voices from the gaming discourse and see how the trigon view of video games helps us categorize and understand each other better.
The verdict has passed.
Reader Comments (5)
I find your articles intriguing, especially this one, because as a player, I have never experienced gameplay in the deep way that so inspires you, yet as a developer, I strive to create gameplay that other people will experience in this way. I guess I have only ever had a small taste of it myself, or perhaps only in games that I have developed, thanks to the insider information I have as the programmer and designer of this gameplay.
What has always had the most appeal to me is not well-defined gameplay challenge, but a coherent system of rules and constraints where I can achieve fluency and create within - for example, origami, Northwest Coast formline art, various musical styles. Even building with Legos, for that matter. I'm not sure where this fits in, but certainly it reflects my identity as a creator rather than a player.
At the same time, I find myself highly susceptible to immersion, such that I avoid reading fiction books because I so easily lose myself in them. The further that "games" (or interactive somethings-or-other) approach the pure story-fueled immersion that fiction books offer, away from gameplay challenge, the more strongly I respond. This is why at the same time I enjoy the company of the notgames crowd.
It is refreshing to be reminded that "games as art" can mean a heavy focus on gameplay challenge, despite the stereotype. :)
I guess under your trigon taxonomy my enjoyment of immersion in games (and books) falls under the "entertainment" view, while my enjoyment of building (in games and otherwise) possibly approaches the "art" view but not entirely. Or would it be the "tech" view instead?
Thinking about this further, I think I have a way to relate games-as-creativity to games-as-challenge in a fundamental way.
When you talk about the "squeeze", of possibilities pared down to fit the constraints of a gameplay challenge, what is implicit in this picture are the possibilities and attempts provided by the player. Without the creativity of the player, there would be nothing to pare down. So, this is nothing profound, but now we have both sides of the coin, possibilities and constraints.
To me this is a fundamental pairing, underlying all learning, problem-solving, and evolution. Possibilities and constraints, variation and selection, diversity and conformity, exploration and exploitation, expansion and consolidation, even masculine and feminine.
In the case of gameplay challenge, the constraints are implicit in the game, and the possibilities are provided by the player, who gradually internalizes the constraints until mastery is achieved.
Conversely, and this is what I just realized, in the case of creative tools, the possibilities are implicit in the game (or system), and the constraints (or ideas of what to build) are provided by the player, who gradually internalizes the possibilities until fluency is achieved.
Yes, awesome! :D I may be rusty after two years of professional game programming, but apparently I *can* still come up with overly academic theoretical ideas if I stay up late enough reading game design articles!
Amusingly enough, this may actually have relevance to my new employment at Linden Lab, aka creators of "shared creative spaces". My enjoyment of creative tools is a perfect fit for the kind of things LL is trying to create - not gameplay challenge, but its mirror image. Hmmm, I wonder what new insights this might bring...
@axcho
Incredibly insightful comment.
"I have never experienced gameplay in the deep way that so inspires you"
I always wonder how other people experience gameplay. And hearing you say this is even more intriguing.
"well-defined gameplay challenge, but a coherent system of rules and constraints where I can achieve fluency and create within"
I'm curious to better understand the distinction you make here. But I think it's something like games putting an emphasis on clearly presented rules/goals vs games with consistent interactive systems where the player can master regardless of how straightforward or clear the challenges are.
The further that "games" (or interactive somethings-or-other) approach the pure story-fueled immersion that fiction books offer, away from gameplay challenge, the more strongly I respond"
With me, the areas of story, mechanics, rules, interactions, and immersion all blend together. I see so many parts that express ideas and then how these ideas blend together, that I' do not like any particular style of delivery more than any other.
Will say more shortly...
@axcho
"When you talk about the "squeeze", of possibilities pared down to fit the constraints of a gameplay challenge, what is implicit in this picture are the possibilities and attempts provided by the player. Without the creativity of the player, there would be nothing to pare down....To me this is a fundamental pairing, underlying all learning, problem-solving, and evolution....Conversely, and this is what I just realized, in the case of creative tools, the possibilities are implicit in the game (or system), and the constraints (or ideas of what to build) are provided by the player, who gradually internalizes the possibilities until fluency is achieved."
Very perceptive! This is what I mean when I talk about meeting the designer half way. This is what I mean when I say games as art is about a double listening where the designer and player can see eye to eye.
I think you've clearly articulated why creativity, expression, understanding, learning, listening, and art as so closely tied together.
Very impressive.
Thank you! :) I'm glad I can occasionally provide you with an interesting response to your blogging!
I think the main reason that I have never experienced gameplay challenge in a very deep way is because I did not grow up playing games that focused on challenge (my only taste was console games at friends' houses) and I was not allowed to spend long enough playing to actually get good at challenge-based games (the strategy games I played on the computer were too complex for me too achieve any sort of mastery given the amount of time I spent playing).
My first real taste was probably playing N, Cave Story, and Gish once I got into indie games in college, but I did not get into these in such a deep way as someone more challenge-inclined would have (like my younger brother, who would beat N levels for me). I loved the physics and graphic design of N, despite the challenge, and I loved the story and mood of Cave Story, and the physics of Gish.
I can understand what you mean about appreciating all these aspects together - I definitely appreciated Cave Story as a masterful blend of gameplay, art, music, and story. But even with Cave Story, the number of tries it took me to defeat certain bosses felt unbalanced and detracted from my appreciation. And I never finished the game - once I got to the three final bosses with no saving or heals, I was done.