Castle Paradox :: View topic - Leroy's Locked review

Castle Paradox

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Gamelist Review List Song List All Journals Site Stats Search Gamelist IRC Chat Room

Leroy's Locked review
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Castle Paradox Forum Index -> The Arcade

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner

Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA

Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:26 pm Post subject:

This is a pointless discussion, since you haven't decided on what "art" means before arguing whether something is it or not. My two cents, though, is that since games combine music, visuals, cinematography, and interactivity, they have the capacity to be in their own right art to a degree that nothing else is. That said, that is merely a capacity. I see SCHMP as more of a science experiment than a work of art, but it also features very focused gameplay and other artistic aspects. The difference is marginal if it exists. _________________ Slime Salad :: Independent Game Design

The Drizzle
Who is the Drizzle?

Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 432

Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:33 pm Post subject:

Quote:

My two cents, though, is that since games combine music, visuals, cinematography, and interactivity, they have the capacity to be in their own right art to a degree that nothing else is.

I agree. At least if the game combines art with its interactivity. I never said games couldn't be art. I was just saying that not all games are. Like tic-tac-toe and tag.
_________________
My name is...
The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah...

Iblis
Ghost Cat

Joined: 26 May 2003
Posts: 1233
Location: Your brain

Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:06 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Art is undefinable.

First off, this is incorrect. In a moment I will offer you my definition of art (what I said earlier was not a defition of what art is, but an explanation of what art does). Second, if you don't know what art is then you have no business saying what art isn't.

And, my definition of art. It's still a work in progress, and I've never exposed it to argument before so I imagine there will be a few holes.

1) Art is produced by conscious effort, it cannot be an accident. Accident can be involved, but after that happens the artist must consciously use that accident for their own purpose. So, if a painter accidentally knocks a bunch of paint onto a canvas somehow, that is not art. But if they take the result of this and manipulate it, it can become art.
2) Art has a purpose. It does not need to be specific, but it needs to exist. There has to be some reason that the artist is creating it. If someone paints a picture that has no meaning or purpose behind it and calls themself a modern "artist" then they are a liar. If a game designer just slaps a bunch of stuff into their game for no reason, it is not art because they have not put any thought into what they want it to be.
3) Art is creative. An artist has to actually create something in order for that thing to be art. The creation has to happen both conceptually and physically. So, the artist has to create the art to some degree in their mind (without doing this it is impossible to achieve the first two criteria) and also create it in reality. Also, if nobody involved is coming up with any ideas then it probably isn't art. For example, building a ladder might fit the first two criteria but there's probably no real original thought going into it. Now, this doesn't mean that the artist has to be involved in every aspect of the art's creation. A director probably doesn't physically piece together the film strips when the movie is being put together, but it is still the director's (and many other people's) work of art.

(#3 was editted heavily because it was foolish, and #4 was removed because it was unecessary)

That's all that comes to me at the moment, but I'm sure this will change as the conversation goes on. That is, unless the mods lock it. Really, if this gets locked that means the admins are retards. This is a good conversation.

Quote:

I'm not saying that games are incapable of being art, I'm saying that games are not always art.

Nobody has claimed that all games are art. Stop arguing against points no one here has made.

Quote:

And I don't think that Pain and Suffering was exactly a source of "pain."

He never said it was meant to cause pain, he said it was meant to "be a pain." This would be about the same thing as being annoying.

Quote:

If you were trying to make a source of pain and suffering for the player, then I argue that you weren't trying to make a game

For what reason?

Quote:

Art is often interpreted entirely differently from the intent of the artist. It isn't necessarily determined by the motive and mindset of the artist.

Why are you defining art by how it is interpreted? Why is this a better criteria than the motive of the artist?

Quote:

*shrug* It depends on your definition of praise.

My definition says that "It knew what it wanted to do and it did it" is better praise than "I enjoyed the gameplay."
_________________
Locked
OHR Piano

Last edited by Iblis on Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:52 pm; edited 3 times in total

Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner

Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA

Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:16 pm Post subject:

Then consider yourself praised, sir.

The Drizzle
Who is the Drizzle?

Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 432

Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:32 pm Post subject:

Quote:

2) Art has a purpose. It does not need to be specific, but it needs to exist. There has to be some reason that the artist is creating it. If someone paints a picture that has no meaning or purpose behind it and calls themself a modern "artist" then they are a liar. If a game designer just slaps a bunch of stuff into their game for no reason, it is not art because they have not put any thought into what they want it to be.

A lot of people would disagree with you. There is quite a large following of the "art for art's sake"-ers out there who believe that art shouldn't have meaning, it should just be. In fact, that you think that modern art (at least some of it) isn't true art, then this difference in opinion with others would be just another example of how difficult it is to place a definition on art.

Quote:

4) Art is subject to criticism. This differentiates it from philosophy and science because those are subject to argument and evidence. The difference is that argument and evidence are based on logic and physical reality. Criticism is based on more subjective things like emotion, personal experience, convention/archetypes, and I could go on. Of course, I doubt I have to say this but in this context I'm refering to formal criticism, which is a different thing from, say, critiquing someone's behavior (although, I do imagine a person could make some kind of "behavioral art" if they tried).

What's the difference between criticism and being subject to argument and evidence. What's the difference between the two? A lot of art criticism includes both argument and evidence.

When I say undefinable, I mean that there is no single definition of art. People's opinion's of what is and isn't art are vastly difference. "Piss Christ" by Serrano is a good example. A lot of people say it's art, a lot say it isn't. If art were so definable, there wouldn't be such a debate.

Quote:

(although, I do imagine a person could make some kind of "behavioral art" if they tried)

There's actually tons of this around.

Quote:

Nobody has claimed that all games are art. Stop arguing against points no one here has made.

Uncommon said, "to say that a game is not a work of art is an ignorant statement." I started that conversation out of no where, I guess, yeah, but I already knew a few people are of this opinion.

Quote:

He never said it was meant to cause pain, he said it was meant to "be a pain." This would be about the same thing as being annoying.

My mistake. I misunderstood.

Quote:

This is a good conversation.

I agree.
_________________
My name is...
The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah...

Iblis
Ghost Cat

Joined: 26 May 2003
Posts: 1233
Location: Your brain

Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:10 pm Post subject:

Quote:

A lot of people would disagree with you. There is quite a large following of the "art for art's sake"-ers out there who believe that art shouldn't have meaning, it should just be.

It doesn't necessarily have to have meaning, but I would claim that it does have to have purpose. Even if the purpose is just to be different from other art, like a lot of modern artists seem to do, that is still a purpose. I'm not sure that it's a good one, but that's a different discussion altogether.

Quote:

What's the difference between criticism and being subject to argument and evidence. What's the difference between the two? A lot of art criticism includes both argument and evidence.

Actually, come to think of it, this part was unecessary anyway, so I'll be removing it. There is a difference between criticism and argument and evidence, but it's pretty subtle. Criticism does use argument and evidence, but it can use other things as well. A critic might refer to their own emotional reaction, for example.

I might re-introduce this part of the definition when I can find a way to make it more clear, but right now it's muddy and useless.

Quote:

When I say undefinable, I mean that there is no single definition of art. People's opinion's of what is and isn't art are vastly difference.

There is no single definition for a lot of words. But they are still definable. No definition is more "correct" than the other because art is a human concept that doesn't have an absolute definition. However, there is a such thing as a useful or useless definition. Saying things like "art is undefinable" or "art can be anything" don't have any use. They don't tell us anything.
_________________
Locked
OHR Piano

The Drizzle
Who is the Drizzle?

Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 432

Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:04 pm Post subject:

Quote:

But when people say art, they are talking about one thing, not one word with multiple definitions. People all define are differently and some people's definitions will be comletely different from others. And you're right, no one's is better than anyone else's. I guess it's pretty subjective. But I think that starting by saying that "art is undefinable" is pretty useful. It sets up in advance that the subject is somewhat blurry. It is something that we'll all think about differently, so I think it's important to preface our conversation by saying this.
_________________
My name is...
The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah...

Iblis
Ghost Cat

Joined: 26 May 2003
Posts: 1233
Location: Your brain

Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:33 pm Post subject:

Quote:

But I think that starting by saying that "art is undefinable" is pretty useful. It sets up in advance that the subject is somewhat blurry.

But "art is undefinable" is not a blurry statement in any way. It is an absolute statement that says an attempt to define art is impossible. What you seem to be going for is more like "the definition of art is a subjective matter." This is an entirely different statement from "art is undefinable."
_________________
Locked
OHR Piano

The Drizzle
Who is the Drizzle?

Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 432

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:08 am Post subject:

I meant that art is a blurry subject. What I mean by "undefinable" is that it means different things to different people, so it's definition is kind of in constant limbo. So yes, the definition of art is subjective. _________________ My name is... The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah...

LeRoy_Leo
Project manager
Class S Minstrel

Joined: 24 Sep 2003
Posts: 2683
Location: The dead-center of your brain!

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:47 am Post subject:

My defense in light of the original topic:

Iblis wrote:

Quote:

"This would be more considered a demo, though."

Like Unc mentioned, this really doesn't make much sense. A demo is unfinished. Locked has a beginning and an end. I do not intend to add anything to it. It is in every sense a complete game.

I swear I looked over this several times before I submitted it, and I did NOT see that line in there. If I had, it would have been removed immediately, slapped on a cutting board and chopped julian style...

Iblis wrote:

Also, why was one screenshot good and the other full of noise? Really, this game only has 10 colors in it (excluding the menu). If whatever program you use can't handle that then you might want to get a new one.

I noticed this. Something happened to the file that made it lose some color information. I should not have overlooked it, though.

Iblis wrote:

Quote:

Besides, there is a story there. There's someone locked in a house and they can't get out. "No real story." That's crap.

I'm sure that what Leroy meant was that there isn't any backstory. You don't know who she is or why the house is locked up or why the various stuff is hidden.

Bingo.

Sorry for the hubbub. You know, whoever accepted this (Unc) didn't really HAVE to submit this to the public yet. I really can still revise this.
_________________
Planning Project Blood Summons, an MMORPG which will incinerate all of the others with it's sheer brilliance...

---msw188 ---
"Seriously James, you keep rolling out the awesome like gingerbread men on a horror-movie assembly line. "

Uncommon
His legend will never die

Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 2503

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:20 am Post subject:

The Drizzle wrote:

And I don't think that Pain and Suffering was exactly a source of "pain." If you meant it to cause pain, then that game went in a different direction than your intent. If you were trying to make a source of pain and suffering for the player, then I argue that you weren't trying to make a game, you were trying to make a tool for pain and suffering. At worst, the game was annoying. And lots of games can be annoying, like logic games and what not. But we still voluntarily subject ourselves to them because they entertain us (though they can fail at this).

This actually proves my point more than it debunks it. The purpose of the game was to be particularly not entertaining, but it's still just as much a game as Wandering Hamster. A game is more of a medium then a thing that should be required to always be a source of entertainment. That's limiting the medium and is stupid.
I just think it's funny that you ask for a game that isn't meant to entertain, and when one is supplied for you, you try to argue that it isn't a game.

The Drizzle wrote:

Uncommon said, "to say that a game is not a work of art is an ignorant statement."

What I meant is it's ignorant to say that a game cannot be a work of art. Poor wording on my part.

Leroy_Leo wrote:

You know, whoever accepted this (Unc) didn't really HAVE to submit this to the public yet.

I don't reject reviews because I disagree with them. That's bias, and it's unacceptable in this job. Since I didn't have any legitimate reason to reject it, I accepted it.

The Drizzle
Who is the Drizzle?

Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 432

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:45 am Post subject:

Uncommon wrote:

What I meant is it's ignorant to say that a game cannot be a work of art. Poor wording on my part.

I never once said that. In fact, I quote myself:

The Drizzle wrote:

There is art involved in some cases. But not all.

Uncommon wrote:

This actually proves my point more than it debunks it. The purpose of the game was to be particularly not entertaining, but it's still just as much a game as Wandering Hamster. A game is more of a medium then a thing that should be required to always be a source of entertainment. That's limiting the medium and is stupid.
I just think it's funny that you ask for a game that isn't meant to entertain, and when one is supplied for you, you try to argue that it isn't a game.

Yeah, it's downright hilarious. I never said it wasn't a game. I said maybe what you were trying to make wasn't a game, but you made a game. Even if you meant for it not to entertain, it still tries to entertain. Maybe you weren't trying to make a fun game, but you left a framework for entertainment there (puzzles, battles, etc.). The fact that it's annoying and super difficult to beat doesn't mean that it's not trying to be fun. Sometimes works of art (wink wink) can drift from their creator's intent. Puzzles can be a pain too, but they're still entertaining.

And just to support my theory, I looked up "game" on dictionary.com. Here are the first two definitions:

Quote:

1. An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.

2. a. A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules: the game of basketball; the game of gin rummy.

This is why I said earlier that perhaps what you were trying to make wasn't a game. Now you could keep throwing around the word ignorant and stupid, but I'm looking at games on their most simple level and dictionary.com seems to agree.
_________________
My name is...
The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah...

Iblis
Ghost Cat

Joined: 26 May 2003
Posts: 1233
Location: Your brain

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:04 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Even if you meant for it not to entertain, it still tries to entertain.

I cannot make any sense of this. How does the game independently "try to entertain?"

Quote:

I'm looking at games on their most simple level and dictionary.com seems to agree.

Dictionary definitions are irrelevant. You have yourself agreed that words don't have absolute correct definitions. The dictionary definition is less useful than the one I and others have claimed, because it limits the medium in a pointless way.

Furthermore, it makes no sense to say that your definition looks at games on their most simple level. If it actually did that, it would expand the scope of what we refer to as games rather than limit it. But your definition says that a lot of things I would call games are in fact not games. It isn't really simple at all. Saying that games should have to appeal to a specific emotion is extremely limiting.
_________________
Locked
OHR Piano

The Drizzle
Who is the Drizzle?

Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 432

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:34 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Dictionary definitions are irrelevant.

I don't know about irrelevant. That's a strong word. You may not consider them that valuable to the conversation, but they still contribute and are relevant.

Quote:

You have yourself agreed that words don't have absolute correct definitions.

Of course I did. Did I expect that the dictionary definition would be the end-all-be-all, that our conversation would simply end and everyone would suddenly agree with me because dictionary.com agrees with me? No. I didn't expect that at all. Obviously, "game" has different meanings to different people or we wouldn't be having the debate we're having. Right? Though I do think my definition is a little more universal than your:

Quote:

1) Being in some way valuable to the creator, either in the process of creation or in the end product.
2) Creating a valuable (not necessarily enjoyable) experience for the audience.

I personally don't think that a game's value to its creator is what games are about on their simplest level. I don't so much understand the second statement just because valuable is so vague. I'm not trying to ream you here, but EVERYTHING has value. And your two definitions describe pretty much every creative process. And I don't think that games are about the creation, I think that games are about the playing.

Quote:

Saying that games should have to appeal to a specific emotion is extremely limiting.

Entertainment and competition aren't emotions. I'm assuming you're speaking particularly of the "fun" aspect I talked about, but entertainment doesn't appeal to just one emotion. For example, movies, an obvious form of entertainment, produce a wide, wide range of emotions, and movies are meant to entertain.

Quote:

But your definition says that a lot of things I would call games are in fact not games.

Like what? I'm not saying this to challenge you, I'm saying this because I'm actually interested. Because my definition covers every game I can think of, but maybe you could sway me if something that I considered a game didn't fit into my definition.

And finally,

Quote:

I cannot make any sense of this. How does the game independently "try to entertain?"

I don't mean that games actively "try to entertain," like they're sitting around somewhere thinking "Enjoy me please." It's kind of like how a painting could try to evoke an emotion and fail for some people.

BTW, do you agree with the competitive aspect of games? Because I'm not sensing as much of a counter argument toward this as I am toward the entertainment aspect.
_________________
My name is...
The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah...

Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner

Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:40 pm Post subject:

You're talking about games in general, from badminton to Final Fantasy. That changes the argument, don't you think? _________________ Slime Salad :: Independent Game Design

Display posts from previous:

	Castle Paradox Forum Index -> The Arcade	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum