3 ms·

It's not an exaggeration at all. I didn't say Portal, Psychonauts, Killer 7 (which I'm ashamed to say I haven't played), or Shadow of the Colossus aren't inter

by bendotc 18y ago

It's not an exaggeration at all. I didn't say Portal, Psychonauts, Killer 7 (which I'm ashamed to say I haven't played), or Shadow of the Colossus aren't interesting or innovative, although your inclusion of Zelda, Final Fantasies, and Half-Life 2 makes me think that you're confusing "entertaining" and "artistically interesting." And I'm not looking down on games that are "just" entertaining. Portal was an extremely fun and funny game. What does Portal say about the human condition and how does it use the mechanics of videogames to convey that meaning? In what way is this use of the mechanics new and exciting? I'm not going to get into a full discussion of the ramifications of Bioshock here, but they're not hard to come by. The game is far from flawless, but that's not the point. The point is that it uses the medium in a way that is fundamentally more purposeful than most games that people consider to be "great." * Herein, a reference is made to a MASSIVE Bioshock SPOILER * When Ryan reveals that the protagonist has been under Fontaine's control the entire time, and you look back at all the instances where your conditioning forced you to do something, it calls into question the very idea of freedom and choice in games. Because, while the game didn't compel you to perform those actions, the system (of the game rules and genre conventions) was set up so that you had to (unless you wanted to stop playing there, the meaning of which is the subject for another discussion). This forcing of your hand is itself a commentary on Objectivism and capitalist societies which put freedom first and foremost, but systematically pushes everyone to fill the economically "best" niche, a concept Ryan refers to as "the great chain." To reinforce this connection, you'll notice that the protagonist has a tattoo of the chain on his wrist. His wrists are literally chained by "the great chain" which in this case is a metaphor for the game's rules. * SPOILERS over * Now, before anyone tells me to get a life: I have a life. I make videogames. Before you tell me that the game designers didn't intend this and I'm reading too much into it: I don't care about authorial intention. Lots of people have made art that they themselves didn't understand. If you doubt that, look for homosexual undertones in Victorian literature. Aside from that, I welcome responses.

unalone 18y ago
Hopefully nobody here will tell you to get a life. We're on a site called Hacker News, discussing artistic merit in video games. So it's good. I have a different view of art than you do. I don't think that art must necessarily illustrate the human condition. Do Bach's cello suites make any sort of commentary whatsoever? Not to the untrained eye. They're just expertly crafted pieces of music. That, to me, is the core of art: not necessarily a statement about humanity but the practice of honing your ability with a craft. You can have the best idea imaginable but if you can't tell it well then it's not art. I'm certain that BioShock DOES mean to do what you think it does. It absolutely attempts those route literary devices and it does a pretty good job of that. However, I would not for an instant call BioShock art, because it is not a movie. Its purpose is not primarily to tell a story. Its main role is to be a good game. And at that, it fails. It's fairly monotonous and while it has great ambience, the gameplay doesn't distinguish itself much. The story doesn't tell itself WELL. There were a few interesting moments from what I've played but that was it. In my mind, the primary method of art in a game is that of the game itself. The best artists are the ones making the most fun games. That doesn't necessarily mean greater themes: Zelda is very black-and-white, for instance, in terms of story. However, a game doesn't require a story if it does its job well. Zelda doesn't, and yet THAT is what I consider to be the highest art. It's a beautiful, memorable game. Portal? That's as close to sublime as you get. It DOES have a story, and it has a good one. And no, it doesn't have themes, any more than A Midsummer Night's Dream does. Which is to say, you can see themes in it, because they're there in both of them, but the main thing about each one is that they're enjoyable without focusing on the themes. Shakespeare isn't great because he told themes: he's great because every line he wrote was beautiful and absolutely fit whatever he was writing. The components have to fit together. That's what makes a good game. Half-Life 2 has a story, and it tells the story well. The story is incredibly well-written, too, and it's told in the game brilliantly. The gameplay is surprisingly emotional: you get very involved in the gunfighting because of how slowly it develops. You feel extremely in the game. That's art. That's what gaming is all about. Final Fantasy? It always tries to tell a story. And the stories are usually very thematic. I think it's slightly going downhill, but the one I mentioned (II/IV) was sublime. The graphics, music, gameplay was all very simple, but it was beautiful. It was evocative. The soundtrack in particular is stunning. The story was not particularly complex, but it was emotional and told itself well. That's art at its best. When I played it at 8 or 9, it changed my life. It made me want to become a game designer. You're in the mindset that all mechanics have been done, and so art is just doing an old thing in a new way. That's silly! We're at the phase in video games where NOTHING has been done. We're like cinematographers in the 20s. We can do ANYTHING and it's new, and so we don't have to worry about exhausting old ground. Portal is art because it created a new game mechanic! It's something that was never done before. And not only does it MAKE the mechanic, but it polishes it considerably. It's tight, it's exciting for the entire game, and it's new. Art. And Nintendo? They're making the greatest art of them ALL. I look at them like I look at the early silent films: they don't use an involved story, because they're busy focusing on technique, style. Every Mario game adds new ideas. It keeps on redefining the platform genre, adding new things to do. That's art. Nintendo takes the craft that Miyamoto started as a boy and continues to refine and perfect it. It's why I'd argue that of my favorite games, Nintendo's made about half. A handful of Zeldas, a few Marios, even Animal Crossing, Wii Sports, and every Super Smash Bros. They're not "literary" but they don't have to be. They don't need symbols. They're all about incredibly fun and radical new game ideas, and they're all the highest form of art. tl;dr - BioShock's story isn't good enough to be considered literature, and it has mediocre gameplay. I think art means making fun games above everything, and BioShock is a big fail for that, even if it is pretty.
- bendotc 18y ago
  Okay, first, I just want to thank you for your excellent response. I'll admit, I don't think art must necessarily illustrate the human condition. I think good art often does, but it can also just be something that evokes an emotion. Of course, lots of things evoke emotions, so that's obviously necessary but not sufficient. I agree that the expert exercise of craft can be quite enjoyable, but that too is not sufficient to be artistically interesting or else all skilled workers would be artists (and if you feel that way, we really aren't talking about the same thing when we use the word "art"). This is already a debatably overly-limited definition of art, but my point was to unpack the idea that art does have various motives, goals, and effects on the viewer, as well as many ways to achieve them, and that is a fine thing. However, I wasn't trying to debate what is artistic and what I not. I was saying that for those of us interested in games as art, Bioshock is an exciting game, and it's exciting because it does something new and it does it well. I don't understand how you can get out of what I said that I think Bioshock's story is what makes it art. To say "ahh yes, but it's not a movie!" is to miss the entire point, (which may very well be the fault of my writing). The point is that it controlled me and I enjoyed it. The point is that it told me I was a slave AND IT WAS RIGHT. Because of things I DID. And it did it in a way that only a game could, not a movie or a book or a song. I said Bioshock was interesting and I stand by that because it did something that none of the games you've cited do: the rules of the simulation and the rules of narrative played together to make meaning that as key to the game that couldn't be made in strictly simulation or narrative forms alone. You say the "gameplay doesn't distinguish itself much," and if you mean the combat and other kinetic elements don't particularly stand out, I don't entirely disagree, but that's missing the point. When you say that Bioshock's story isn't well told, however, that's something I disagree with strongly. I wish I had time to discuss each of the games you listed, because we agree on some points and disagree on others, but I don't, so I'll try to address some of the themes I saw. You defend some Nintendo games for being something other than literary, and you and I are in agreement that that's not required to be interesting. Too many people think that a game has artistic merit if and only if it has a good story. There are a whole lot of good games without a story, or with a terrible story that they tell well (e.g. Half-Life 1). This isn't the point. However, story and how it's told is important stuff in a lot of these games. But how do games tell stories? Like literature and movies, games have character development and pacing, but there are also aspects unique to each medium. Literature has the craft of writing, movies have framing and mise en scene. Games have other means of telling stories, and we're still figuring some of them out. Bioshock tells its story and evokes something in the player in a way I haven't seen before. That's why I said initially that it's one of the most exciting games out there. It's exciting because it's trail-blazing. It's exciting because it uses this to be an indictment of its own genre conventions. Finally, you write, "I think art means making fun games above everything," a statement that honestly makes me rather sad. There are plenty of great things to do in terms of making fun games and finding new ways to make fun games. However, you make the analogy of games to film: do you think Citizen Kane was a fun movie? Should Kubrick have worried more about making Paths of Glory more fun? I don't think fun is bad, but to limit our definition of a good game to what is fun is to put on blinders. tl;dr - Good literature isn't about plot and neither is BioShock. Good literature and BioShock, however, both use their medium well, and BioShock is exciting because it shows us a new way of doing things.

by bendotc 18y ago

unalone 18y ago

Hopefully nobody here will tell you to get a life. We're on a site called Hacker News, discussing artistic merit in video games. So it's good. I have a different view of art than you do. I don't think that art must necessarily illustrate the human condition. Do Bach's cello suites make any sort of commentary whatsoever? Not to the untrained eye. They're just expertly crafted pieces of music. That, to me, is the core of art: not necessarily a statement about humanity but the practice of honing your ability with a craft. You can have the best idea imaginable but if you can't tell it well then it's not art. I'm certain that BioShock DOES mean to do what you think it does. It absolutely attempts those route literary devices and it does a pretty good job of that. However, I would not for an instant call BioShock art, because it is not a movie. Its purpose is not primarily to tell a story. Its main role is to be a good game. And at that, it fails. It's fairly monotonous and while it has great ambience, the gameplay doesn't distinguish itself much. The story doesn't tell itself WELL. There were a few interesting moments from what I've played but that was it. In my mind, the primary method of art in a game is that of the game itself. The best artists are the ones making the most fun games. That doesn't necessarily mean greater themes: Zelda is very black-and-white, for instance, in terms of story. However, a game doesn't require a story if it does its job well. Zelda doesn't, and yet THAT is what I consider to be the highest art. It's a beautiful, memorable game. Portal? That's as close to sublime as you get. It DOES have a story, and it has a good one. And no, it doesn't have themes, any more than A Midsummer Night's Dream does. Which is to say, you can see themes in it, because they're there in both of them, but the main thing about each one is that they're enjoyable without focusing on the themes. Shakespeare isn't great because he told themes: he's great because every line he wrote was beautiful and absolutely fit whatever he was writing. The components have to fit together. That's what makes a good game. Half-Life 2 has a story, and it tells the story well. The story is incredibly well-written, too, and it's told in the game brilliantly. The gameplay is surprisingly emotional: you get very involved in the gunfighting because of how slowly it develops. You feel extremely in the game. That's art. That's what gaming is all about. Final Fantasy? It always tries to tell a story. And the stories are usually very thematic. I think it's slightly going downhill, but the one I mentioned (II/IV) was sublime. The graphics, music, gameplay was all very simple, but it was beautiful. It was evocative. The soundtrack in particular is stunning. The story was not particularly complex, but it was emotional and told itself well. That's art at its best. When I played it at 8 or 9, it changed my life. It made me want to become a game designer. You're in the mindset that all mechanics have been done, and so art is just doing an old thing in a new way. That's silly! We're at the phase in video games where NOTHING has been done. We're like cinematographers in the 20s. We can do ANYTHING and it's new, and so we don't have to worry about exhausting old ground. Portal is art because it created a new game mechanic! It's something that was never done before. And not only does it MAKE the mechanic, but it polishes it considerably. It's tight, it's exciting for the entire game, and it's new. Art. And Nintendo? They're making the greatest art of them ALL. I look at them like I look at the early silent films: they don't use an involved story, because they're busy focusing on technique, style. Every Mario game adds new ideas. It keeps on redefining the platform genre, adding new things to do. That's art. Nintendo takes the craft that Miyamoto started as a boy and continues to refine and perfect it. It's why I'd argue that of my favorite games, Nintendo's made about half. A handful of Zeldas, a few Marios, even Animal Crossing, Wii Sports, and every Super Smash Bros. They're not "literary" but they don't have to be. They don't need symbols. They're all about incredibly fun and radical new game ideas, and they're all the highest form of art. tl;dr - BioShock's story isn't good enough to be considered literature, and it has mediocre gameplay. I think art means making fun games above everything, and BioShock is a big fail for that, even if it is pretty.

bendotc 18y ago
Okay, first, I just want to thank you for your excellent response. I'll admit, I don't think art must necessarily illustrate the human condition. I think good art often does, but it can also just be something that evokes an emotion. Of course, lots of things evoke emotions, so that's obviously necessary but not sufficient. I agree that the expert exercise of craft can be quite enjoyable, but that too is not sufficient to be artistically interesting or else all skilled workers would be artists (and if you feel that way, we really aren't talking about the same thing when we use the word "art"). This is already a debatably overly-limited definition of art, but my point was to unpack the idea that art does have various motives, goals, and effects on the viewer, as well as many ways to achieve them, and that is a fine thing. However, I wasn't trying to debate what is artistic and what I not. I was saying that for those of us interested in games as art, Bioshock is an exciting game, and it's exciting because it does something new and it does it well. I don't understand how you can get out of what I said that I think Bioshock's story is what makes it art. To say "ahh yes, but it's not a movie!" is to miss the entire point, (which may very well be the fault of my writing). The point is that it controlled me and I enjoyed it. The point is that it told me I was a slave AND IT WAS RIGHT. Because of things I DID. And it did it in a way that only a game could, not a movie or a book or a song. I said Bioshock was interesting and I stand by that because it did something that none of the games you've cited do: the rules of the simulation and the rules of narrative played together to make meaning that as key to the game that couldn't be made in strictly simulation or narrative forms alone. You say the "gameplay doesn't distinguish itself much," and if you mean the combat and other kinetic elements don't particularly stand out, I don't entirely disagree, but that's missing the point. When you say that Bioshock's story isn't well told, however, that's something I disagree with strongly. I wish I had time to discuss each of the games you listed, because we agree on some points and disagree on others, but I don't, so I'll try to address some of the themes I saw. You defend some Nintendo games for being something other than literary, and you and I are in agreement that that's not required to be interesting. Too many people think that a game has artistic merit if and only if it has a good story. There are a whole lot of good games without a story, or with a terrible story that they tell well (e.g. Half-Life 1). This isn't the point. However, story and how it's told is important stuff in a lot of these games. But how do games tell stories? Like literature and movies, games have character development and pacing, but there are also aspects unique to each medium. Literature has the craft of writing, movies have framing and mise en scene. Games have other means of telling stories, and we're still figuring some of them out. Bioshock tells its story and evokes something in the player in a way I haven't seen before. That's why I said initially that it's one of the most exciting games out there. It's exciting because it's trail-blazing. It's exciting because it uses this to be an indictment of its own genre conventions. Finally, you write, "I think art means making fun games above everything," a statement that honestly makes me rather sad. There are plenty of great things to do in terms of making fun games and finding new ways to make fun games. However, you make the analogy of games to film: do you think Citizen Kane was a fun movie? Should Kubrick have worried more about making Paths of Glory more fun? I don't think fun is bad, but to limit our definition of a good game to what is fun is to put on blinders. tl;dr - Good literature isn't about plot and neither is BioShock. Good literature and BioShock, however, both use their medium well, and BioShock is exciting because it shows us a new way of doing things.