Not much here, and a lot of the (overwrought) commentary comes off as stilted/immature:
> Rather than say something sensible like, “art isn’t defined by merit,” or, “not all art has to have a message behind it, art can simply be,” nerds insisted that the most beautiful and meaningful games were in fact works of high literature, rather than just corporate art intended to profit from nerd cultural taste, in much the same way as a Marvel film.
I also felt like the author gave a pretty limited view of the current video game scene. It seemed ironic for the article to open with a mea culpa of reopening an old argument while not actually mentioning many modern games - or grappling with the modern question of what a game even is. Ebert contended that a game ceased to be a game given certain conditions, which is silly from today’s views IMO:
> …a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film.
Even the older game selections could have been better: That Dragon, Cancer or Journey make for far more illuminating comparisons vis a vis games-as-art than some PS4 launch title, and both received a lot of press back then.
In terms of modern art games, look no further than Disco Elysium.
Fez - beautiful art, beautiful music [0], nostalgia with a modern take
Journey - beautiful game that does not center on combat
Braid - good art, great puzzles and a game mechanic that is fully realized and explored (time rewind)
Cuphead - gorgeous art, like playing a Fleischer brothers cartoon
Monument Valley - simple but perplexing puzzles wrapped in gorgeous art
One Hour One Life (and, smaller in scope but Passage) - an MMO where you spawn as a helpless baby then grow into a full adult in one hour. The game forces others to cooperate or else you die within the first few minutes [1]. Passage was one of the first games that took me aback [2].
Not sure if "memorable" is the right word for it but "addictive" and "things I play too much" are: Beat saber, Pistol Whip, Crypt of the Necrodancer (all beat games)
For nostalgia reasons: Doom, Angband, Nettreck, (original) Legend of Zelda.
Games I haven't played but have heard are good: The Witness, Legend of Obra Din, Undertale, Transistor, Night in the Woods, Dwarf Fortress
The AAA games, or their equivalent, are like blockbuster movies to me: well scripted, well animated, have lots of "game feel" but ultimately lacking in the artistry it takes to make a memorable game. AAA games can have an impact on people in that way but I suspect this is mostly due to someones first exposure to a full game which usually happens in their teen years. You can probably guess my age from the games I like for nostalgia reasons.
EDIT: added features I like about the games and some links
I’m very careful about the types of games I play. I like one-and-done experiences that lead me through a story. I avoid anything with xp/grinding mechanics, which I consider largely-exploitive.
Like movies and books, these games have a beginning and an end and a set duration between the two. Examples include Portal (1&2), Gris, Sayonara Wild Hearts, and Journey.
I have to tell you that things are very different when you're on the production side. It's easy to be idealistic about his sort of thing as a consumer, but if you do as a producer then you will go broke. And while one shouldn't be too cynical (otherwise you might just as well take up accountancy or some other line of work), it's a fact that consumers are a fickle bunch - they like novelty but not always originality.
I came across some good advice last week (aimed at designers, but relevant here): being 20 years ahead of your audience is not a recipe for success - people will just think you are strange. Being 20 minutes ahead, however, can pay off big.
For all their faults, this is something publishers understand well, and historically they have done a fairly good job of curating the authors they publish so as to support the ones that are a little too far ahead of the curve. They also look after a great deal of stuff that artists are either not good at or don't like, like marketing, accountancy and so on - so artists get to focus on what they do well rather than having to deal with the business stuff.
It's nice to think about art as being above commercial considerations, but being an artist doesn't get you out of paying rent or buying food or whatever family obligations you may have (which is why a lot of artists have precarious domestic arrangements). Even determinedly un-commercial firms like ThatGameCompany struggle with this; Journey was supposed to take one year but took three, and they ran out of money and couldn't make payroll in the third year so they had to let some people go and make others wait months to get paid. You often can't ignore commercial considerations becuas if what you want to do needs money then either you raise it or the work doesn't get made. As I've pointed out in relation to film, the costs of making even a simple one are pretty substantial.
Hacker Cinema
4 comments on Hacker News
Not much here, and a lot of the (overwrought) commentary comes off as stilted/immature:
> Rather than say something sensible like, “art isn’t defined by merit,” or, “not all art has to have a message behind it, art can simply be,” nerds insisted that the most beautiful and meaningful games were in fact works of high literature, rather than just corporate art intended to profit from nerd cultural taste, in much the same way as a Marvel film.
I also felt like the author gave a pretty limited view of the current video game scene. It seemed ironic for the article to open with a mea culpa of reopening an old argument while not actually mentioning many modern games - or grappling with the modern question of what a game even is. Ebert contended that a game ceased to be a game given certain conditions, which is silly from today’s views IMO:
> …a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film.
Even the older game selections could have been better: That Dragon, Cancer or Journey make for far more illuminating comparisons vis a vis games-as-art than some PS4 launch title, and both received a lot of press back then.
In terms of modern art games, look no further than Disco Elysium.
Fez - beautiful art, beautiful music [0], nostalgia with a modern take
Journey - beautiful game that does not center on combat
Braid - good art, great puzzles and a game mechanic that is fully realized and explored (time rewind)
Cuphead - gorgeous art, like playing a Fleischer brothers cartoon
Monument Valley - simple but perplexing puzzles wrapped in gorgeous art
One Hour One Life (and, smaller in scope but Passage) - an MMO where you spawn as a helpless baby then grow into a full adult in one hour. The game forces others to cooperate or else you die within the first few minutes [1]. Passage was one of the first games that took me aback [2].
Not sure if "memorable" is the right word for it but "addictive" and "things I play too much" are: Beat saber, Pistol Whip, Crypt of the Necrodancer (all beat games)
For nostalgia reasons: Doom, Angband, Nettreck, (original) Legend of Zelda.
Games I haven't played but have heard are good: The Witness, Legend of Obra Din, Undertale, Transistor, Night in the Woods, Dwarf Fortress
The AAA games, or their equivalent, are like blockbuster movies to me: well scripted, well animated, have lots of "game feel" but ultimately lacking in the artistry it takes to make a memorable game. AAA games can have an impact on people in that way but I suspect this is mostly due to someones first exposure to a full game which usually happens in their teen years. You can probably guess my age from the games I like for nostalgia reasons.
EDIT: added features I like about the games and some links
[0] https://music.disasterpeace.com/album/fez-ost
[1] http://onehouronelife.com/
[2] http://passage.toolness.org/
I’m very careful about the types of games I play. I like one-and-done experiences that lead me through a story. I avoid anything with xp/grinding mechanics, which I consider largely-exploitive.
Like movies and books, these games have a beginning and an end and a set duration between the two. Examples include Portal (1&2), Gris, Sayonara Wild Hearts, and Journey.
I have to tell you that things are very different when you're on the production side. It's easy to be idealistic about his sort of thing as a consumer, but if you do as a producer then you will go broke. And while one shouldn't be too cynical (otherwise you might just as well take up accountancy or some other line of work), it's a fact that consumers are a fickle bunch - they like novelty but not always originality.
I came across some good advice last week (aimed at designers, but relevant here): being 20 years ahead of your audience is not a recipe for success - people will just think you are strange. Being 20 minutes ahead, however, can pay off big.
For all their faults, this is something publishers understand well, and historically they have done a fairly good job of curating the authors they publish so as to support the ones that are a little too far ahead of the curve. They also look after a great deal of stuff that artists are either not good at or don't like, like marketing, accountancy and so on - so artists get to focus on what they do well rather than having to deal with the business stuff.
It's nice to think about art as being above commercial considerations, but being an artist doesn't get you out of paying rent or buying food or whatever family obligations you may have (which is why a lot of artists have precarious domestic arrangements). Even determinedly un-commercial firms like ThatGameCompany struggle with this; Journey was supposed to take one year but took three, and they ran out of money and couldn't make payroll in the third year so they had to let some people go and make others wait months to get paid. You often can't ignore commercial considerations becuas if what you want to do needs money then either you raise it or the work doesn't get made. As I've pointed out in relation to film, the costs of making even a simple one are pretty substantial.