What exactly is it that we do? - Part 1

#1 2 In order to overcome the mental blockades that have been built up in the era we grew up in, we need to redefine what the limitations of the artform are. Here's my thoughts...please add yours if you've got any....

Whatever everyone thinks about CompArt, there has to be a definition that is accurate and realistic and that sets mental frontier boundaries for our artform. I've read tons of "videogame theory" articles and the consensus always seems to be that there is no definition possible for CompArt....which is ludicrous. It's advantageous to set these boundaries because then we can explore to the limits of possibility with a sense of direction. For instance, with oil paints, all you have is the pigment in your paint to work with. Sure, you can use texture and color themes and balance to communicate your message, but at the end of the day painting is limited by the wavelengths of light that are absorbed/reflected by whatever pigments you're working with. But this also means that you can create anything that the pigments allow you to....which is exactly what has given us Picasso and Dali....This is an example of a good frontier definition for oil painting, I think

A bad example of a definition for CompArt would be that it must be fun. Sure, if you walk into an investor's meeting with any publisher today, you will have to convince them that your CompArt is fun, first and foremost. But this is only because we are in the "Fun Era". I'm not saying that CompArt shouldn't be fun, but fun doesn't have to be it's main definition. Once we move past this era, publishers will change their measuring sticks.

What is CompArt, then? Well, first, what is a movie? A good frontier definition might be that a movie is a sequence of images and sounds that collectively only communicate audially and visually. This is a frontier definition from a communicative perspective. Pretty accurate. Yet, the art of making movies has been explored enough over the last 100 or so years that we have come to believe that anything that can be visualized mentally can be put on a screen, and that this isn't as limiting as it seems. In fact it's liberating. We also have come to know that compelling movies come in several forms, few of which would be considered "fun", most of which have their own classification at the local Blockbuster....

What if we take a frontier communicative perspective when trying to define what CompArt is? Well, we know it can do anything a movie can do cause it communicates in both those senses, but it can also communicate through one more sense, feeling, because of vibrating controllers. But what else? Well, I guess we have this magically interactive thing we call "gameplay", but isn't gameplay really just two-way communication between director and listener?

So, that's 3 senses as well as 2-way communication possible in CompArt. Nothing less, nothing more.(well, almost...there's always accessories) But one could argue that there's more possibility here than any other artform ever known....and yet CompArt is barely taken serious enough to be called "Art" by our judicial system. Whose fault is that? (Ours)

#2 (Side note: It's been my experience that thinking like this has helped me to expand the possibilities of what I think CompArt can be, and maybe it can do the same for you, but even still I just want to try and urge everyone to rethink things in general. There's a lot of reasons why we do the things we do, and ways to change them, but it always starts with enlightenment through reflection....)

So, maybe you'll say I've just flabbered on about stuff that's obvious, but I would say that it's not. Name the last game you played or heard of that wasn't designed around the basic premise of reward for the sake of reward or fun for the sake of fun?

With CompArt, we have the chance to let people experience things they never could imagine experiencing before, like living through the holocaust in a concentration camp or being stranded on a desert island. In fact, I have a classification of games I've been working on that I call Experientialism where the focus is on experience rather than fun....but I'll save that for another posting....

Anyways, I'd love to hear from everyone what you guys think about these ideas. I think we can liberate ourselves from the shackles of creative stagnation if we just try to step out of the box for a second and reevaluate everything we think we know about CompArt....and then maybe one of us will be responsible for starting a truly new era of videogames that breaks all the historical molds....till we end up with true CompArt that fulfills the potential of the mediaform....

#3 Imho it relates more to money than lack of creativity.. why risk trying a new idea and pumping money in when a Tomb Raider 23 or some bland football game with a David Beckham badge on will sell bucket loads regardless. the mobile game market is quite interesting in that respect, you have fresh ideas and innovative games being produced by indies and small companies whilst the big bucks on the other with Activision, THQ etc doing there usual thing of producing the same rehashed stuff badged up with expensive franchises.

#4 It's not about money. It's about frontierism. It's about working 80 hours a week and feeling like you didn't work at all cause you know you're touching the world with art.

I say screw the corporate structure. Don't even worry about it. (well, I understand if you have a family to support. I don't mean to knock that.)

Cause it's about starting a new era, not about making a quick buck.

That comes after you start the new era, and believe me, if you do this by doing something risky but possible with enough passion, then you will be the first person they (investors) call when they realize that a new era has begun.

We (garagegames.com) have the tools and talent (and money) to do this. You can't argue that. There's no doubt this community could yield CompArt that could touch the world. I know this because I work with people from this community and because I see the visual and technical quality of games being produced.

We have the power to create CompArt that moves people. CompArt that could shift the way that people see themselves and the world around them. CompArt that teaches about the richness of culture, about the evils of greed and corruption, about the value of friendship, about the great minds of history, even. CompArt that makes us laugh at ourselves and makes us wake up tomorrow realizing we take our lives for granted.

And I think it is a miscalculation to think we could make an impact by creating CompArt that even compares to commercial "videogames". We can't. At least not an impact much bigger than recouping the money we put in and entertaining the daring gamers. But we can impact the world in a different way. We can push the limits of the artform.

I mean, seriously, who else is there to start the new era other than us?

#5 I think its a mistake to name something that doesn't exist.
Also, I rarely play with art. I dont really interact with art. I admire art, I look at it, I even listen to it. But I dont play art.
Which is pretty much a fundamental flaw in calling a game CompArt.

There is nothing wrong with using Computer Games (or Video Games, although usually its Console Games and Computer games these days) as a term. I also think fun is a good thing to work towards. Boring wont interest me. I dont care if boring sells or if fun sells. I make games that *I* want to play. If everyone would just make a game that THEY want to play and not what they think we want to play, things would be better. "By gamers for gamers"

#6 But gamers don't make games. Developers make games, and the longer you work with making games the more it changes your attitude to games, and it changes your idea of a good game. I don't think things would be especially good for gamers if all developers made games that developers wanted to play. Actually, I think that would be quite terrible for the average gamer.

And as for the "Citizen Kane of videogames"... I hope that I'll never live to see the day. I think that is a boring movie, critically acclaimed but nowhere near as popular among ordinary people. I'll watch any derivative hollywood action movie any day rather than movies like Citizen Kane.

I don't agree that "we should take it as our responsibility to discover and rigorously use words that will throw down the shackles of connotation weighing down on us as artists". I don't consider myself an artist. I make games. For me, a game means a way of having fun. In my experience, whenever someone tries to make art of it, it takes away from the fun.

I hope that videogames stay fun, and that noone ever gets around to making art out of it. The thing I've always liked with videogames, is the "fun for the sake of fun".

Shayne: Why do you feel that it is necessary to make videogames into a respected art form? Why can't they just be videogames, and evolve as videogames?

#7 Sebastian, I'm not really sure how to respond. If you think that the games you've played your whole life are not a form of art, then I will never get through to you, and that's fine. Though I think the modelers and programmers and designers of the latest game you've been playing would be offended if they heard you say that....

Anyways, I'm not trying to sway your desires. I'm looking for people that share mine because I know there must be several that do, if even not dominant in this community right now. You can keep believing that the only thing possible through CompArt is "fun", and I know many people will agree with you and that's why the production of "videogames" is and will continue to be a multi-billion dollar industry.

But I know there are people out there that understand the concepts of "compelling and intriguing" and that want to experience something that is "compelling and intribuing" no matter what because they realize that "compelling and
intriguing" can exist without the domination of fun.

And you saying that "art can't be played" should help us realize the reason people like you can say that CompArt isn't art is because we as developers are not being responsible with the mediaform.

#8 What a great question, Corre...

Well, there's probably several reasons why I bring up the idea of pushing the limits of CompArt, but the most overriding thing is that it's gotten in my head and I can't get it out. haha

I don't know, man. I mean. I look at this world. I see legalized murder in the form of manufactured international wars. I see exploitation of labor the world over. I see an obsession with consumerism that is destroying us like it destroyed the Romans and Greeks. I see the stripping of freedoms and liberties by governments that claim divine righteousness. I see the needless discrimiation between poor and rich and different colored people of different nationalities. I see a lot wrong with the world.

And I've become convinced that CompArt is a communication tool more powerful than any that has ever been beholden for changing the world. I really believe this. I know it sounds a little ridiculous now, but I don't think it'll sound so ridiculous once it's happened...

...and btw, I know Citizen Kane isn't a "pop" movie, but seriously, the impact that it has had on the way that movies are made now, even "pop" movies, is so much more impactual than you would think. I mean, before Citizen Kane, people didn't really think that movies could be anything else other than "fun", but Citizen Kane proved them wrong. In fact, if you understood the context, you'd know that Citizen Kane was a real social commentary on the monopoly of major media and would know that it's impact was so heavy that it ruined the career of the genius that created it even though it was the first truly important movie made....

...but I don't know why I say it. I think the world is a little f'ed up and that we can do something about it and someone should be saying this....

#9 And also...

I'm not saying don't make "games". I love designing games and creating fun for people. I think entertaining people is important and improves people's lives because it let's them escape the harsh realities of life.

I'm just saying make CompArt, too, cause it could change their lives and maybe help dissolve the harsh realities of life....

#10 I think the problem is in the very definition of Game itself (actually, in lack of proper definition).

Right now there are two general ways how people percieve and developers come to game as a product: one is taking as a starting point literature/cinema which is mostly linear storytelling medium (emphasis on "story" thing).

The other is taking as a starting point "playing" aspect, coming from sport, boardgames and/or children mind or reaction games.

Now, I'm setting foot in rather murky territory: these two can be incorporated into each other (and quite often should be), *however* - one of them always dominates. It is possible to create shooter or platformer with perfect story, however, the driving force will always be the *Play Aspect*. Story is just a set of illustrations. Why? Well, because:

* Player performed actions have nothing to do with interacting with story.
This is partly due to limitations (technical mostly) of possible gameplay methods (sorry for lack of better term). Right now we have what - couple of possible methods? Shooting objects. Moving objects. Combining objects. Not really too Kane-ish, I think we can agree on that.
Main driving force of cinema and literature is communicating between "objects": reader-author; reader-character; character-character;
Current state of tech mostly allows "interact" us with barrels or energy-spitting aliens.

This could possibly change when tech would allow us to *speak* with "objects" (recognize speach, recognize thousands of words and combinations of words, AND...they All Have To Make Sense To "Object" otherwise its simply not worth it!)

Your problem with Kane-example is that you are trying to apply linear storytelling methods to medium which's strength is NON-linearity. (aliens shoot at player as they see fit, not following some un-interruptable sequence, which would be bore)

I can see what you really wish to achieve - you'd like games to trigger emotions. The best games can trigger now is "I got them!!!", which doesnt compare well with contemplation about meaning of life triggered by (good, I guess) movie or book.

And adventure games or story's branching would be bad conter-argument, because it's a patching of bad concept.
Dialogues are not (again, mostly) a gameplay itself. Gameplay is hitting cobolds with my Wet Strength+1 Stick, or solving the puzzle.
Right now, dialogues are merely a tool for getting information or, in best case, creating different environment for actual gameplay (if I say bad things to this guy, he'll attack me, if i say good things, he'll give me Wet Stick +2 Strength and open door to next level)

Story is just a motivation/excuse device for actual gameplay, whatever it involves.
And, before I get linched by writers if there are any, I'm not trying to bellittle writing - motivation/excuse has to be written and fed well, it is important, it just is less important than actual gameplay which is why we buy games.

#11 And also...

I'm not saying don't make "games". I love designing games and creating fun for people. I think entertaining people is important and improves people's lives because it let's them escape the harsh realities of life.

I'm just saying make CompArt, too, cause it could change their lives and maybe help dissolve the harsh realities of life....

#12 Nauris, you make solid points. But I think that you are looking at the level above what you should in order to arrive at a definition of what CompArt is. You seem to indicate that there is some kind of technical limitation to the kind of intriguing patterns we can create as interactive directors, be it linear or non-linear, but I would argue it is a mental limitation rather than a technical one because it's simply a matter of creating definitions or "verbs" between ideas or "nouns".

I also think you might be incorrectly associating linearality with storytelling, and non-linearality with "gameplay", when there is no real link. For instance, every time you play through Civilization you "live a story" even though I think you would call Civilization a rather non-linear game. Also, if you've ever played Wing Commander, I'm sure you would agree that a strong story can in fact be non-linear.

I think the thing here is that you are not looking at the level of "experience". The only limitation that we have as directors is that whatever we create must be an "experience". But again, while that is limiting in some respects, I think it can also be liberating to realize this.

This means as listener, you can be anything that us as directors want you to be. You can be an ant, living in an ant colony, having to fullfil your responsibilities with your brethren and maybe guard against insect invaders and other ant colonies. This could be a community/online multiplayer game that really dived into the realism of ant culture. I would play this game, and I think you'd find lots of people that would, if it was well-made of course, even though I don't think this would fit too well into the "fun era" definitions. This game might even give you an appreciation for the life of tiny insects, which I would consider enlightening.

Now, what about a CompArt production we can call Ronald Dumsfeld. In this experience you could be the head of the pentagon who came to power by riding the coattail of a cokehead-alcoholic with a golden name. Once in power, you could manipulate industries if bribed, invade inferior nations with a superior army, manufacture intelligence in the name of national security, and decide which nations to blackmail into allowing you to break international treaties. Maybe you can even try to take away the civil liberties in the name of national security. The purpose of this CompArt would be to convince you that this life will lead to you being the most evil man of the beginning of the 21st Century. I would play this game, and yet I don't know if I would call this "fun".

I'm just saying we can't even start to talk about this unless we believe that, seriously, we really can create any experience that we can think of as long as we're willing to believe it's possible.

#13 Computer games already are art. Some are good art and some are bad art. A game doesn't necessarily have to be fun to be good art. And a game can be bad art and still be fun.

#14 Shayne, I seem to understand what you're trying to say. Also, I admit, that technical limitations do not play important role in this discussion.

However, I tend to disagree about possibility of "non-linear" storytelling. Wing Commander (for example) offers just story-branching. it has nothing to do with non-linearity IMHO.
The problem is - if "director" wants to tell a Specific Story, with opening act, middle and final climax, it ought to be linear. Paper Legacy so to speak. Branching is again patching of concept which will not be a winning link of gaming evolution. Just my 2 cents, of course.

Now, there IS possibility of "living a non-linear story", as you indicated with Civilization example. Also, in my point of view, it is the only way it should be in the games: certain amount of elements, to be combined in many combinations. But it is not a Kane-ish story, mostly because Civilization is kind of a Black Box - even devs do not know all the possible scenarios Player may encounter, while Citizen Kane is a *specific* story, written, polished, directed, played and edited in order to achieve *specific emotions*.

Games should not try to mimic this approach. We should instead focus on various little blocks which form our Big Black Box at the end.
These blocks are rather primitive now- we have blocks representing power and combining them we get tools for conquering enemy (various units, armies etc, using your Civilization analogy).
Could there be blocks representing love, friendship etc? Theoretically, yes. Practically, I dont know.
Problem appears that, again, we do not play with love or friendship, we play with tanks and spy units. Love doesnt fit in here, if system does not allow you to win using such an element. And this is what Games are about - Win. Accomplish. Conquer.
Books or movies may be about just watching, enjoying, but not games.

Ok, I hope I did not sound too murky. :)

#15 Nauris, I know what you're saying about non-linearality and all that. But I think you're still looking at it from a director's perspective, and many of us, including me, make that mistake.

The bottom line is that if you are a listener experiencing Wing Commander, the game responds to your success or failure when you're talking back to the computer and it doesn't matter to the listener that it's a branched story-line or not. Branching is only one of several ways to create this "experience", but all that is important is that the experience is driven by listener input and director's preparation and the experience is immersive and intriguing. I think as designers we get so caught up in creating feedback loops and emergent behavior and balanced scenarios, all because we think they are more "evolved" than simple branching, that we loose sight of the only thing that is important....the experience of the listener. I would argue, and I ask anyone who reads this to try and come up with a stumper, that any "experience" that can be verbalized can be turned into CompArt, no matter how far-fetched or realistic or eduational or sensational or story-driven or non-story-driven. Anything. Or at least anything that can communicate through the 3 CompArt senses and that prepares for 2-way communication. And I would also argue that anything that can be verbalized can be intriguing, and the only reason why it wouldn't be intriguing is because the artists communicating the idea don't communicate it well enough. After all, entertainment is all about presentation, not content. I just don't think there's ever been anyone that's realized this yet that was in a position to do something about it with respect to CompArt....until now, with the development of a CompArt independent movement.....

Also, I always hear these arguments about how CompArt is so different than books or movies and I think it's ridiculous. The only thing that's different are the connotative forces behind what we currently define each as. Seriously, they are all simply mediaforms that communicate through symbols, and the only real difference between CompArt and movies or books is that with CompArt the director can "listen" to the listener. This is revolutionary. We take it for granted as developers and as a society. Nothing even close to this has ever existed before...a mediaform that allows for real-time feedback. Amazing.

Another good example of CompArt....you are a Cherokee Indian born into a tribe. (my great-great-grandfather was cherokee) You go through all the rights of manhood that a native american indian would have gone through and build a sense of pride in your life and tribe. Then out of nowhere, your lands are invaded and raped by some foreign white men and you are expelled by force off of your lands, needing to survive against all odds. Imagine the impact this CompArt could have on the way the listener sees Indians. And I know it could be done in a way that is intriguing yet respectful. Equivalent productions could be designed to portray all the equivalent wrongs that have been done to peoples throughout history.....

Seriously, I think if you start to think about it enough, there are possibilities that go beyond the current concepts of "gaming" that are not only as intriguing, but more intriguing! And after all, in another 20-30 years, all those old fogies (lieberman) who never played videogames will be dead and people like you and I will be old enough that we won't be interested in just getting our "fun" fix out of CompArt...we'll want to be moved by ideas the way that we're moved by ideas in other mediaforms...

#16 It seems to me that there are some contradictions between how you describe CompArt the examples that you list. CompArt would seem to need a 'virtual world' of sorts so that the user/player can experience the depth and freedom you are describing. But your also expecting the user to take away from their experience a certian viewpoint (at least in the two examples you listed). If you are simply trying to 'reach' people with a viewpoint, that is fine, but if you want to have them come to their own conclusions (like many art forms allow you to do) their has to be more freedom involved.

For example your Rumfeld scenario could be looked at from a totally different point of view which instead of leading the user to the view that he was evil could leave them with the feeling that he was a great man or is could be somewhere in between. It's all about how you create the game.

#17 Peter, I never made the contradictions you pointed out. All three CompArt examples I wrote of are simply "experiences" and I did not make any kind of reference to how they would be implemented. I am not defining methodical limitations or even basic design principles. All of that comes later during interface and definition design.

Your point is a perfect example of the kind of limitations that developers typically place on themselves as directors of experience. In fact, the only limitations I noted, and I believe I said this at least 3 times, is that CompArt (and the subset "videogames") can only symbolically communicate through 3 senses and allow for listener feedback. That is it. It can do nothing more, though it more often than not does a lot less. Frankly, I think the whole "freedom" argument is worn out and ridiculus. It is simply a matter of perspective, and not a very relevant one. The only people who have ever talked about gamers wanting more freedom are developers who can't understand why their games aren't selling. If you look at the types of games that are made today and what sells and what doesn't, you will find that there is no requirement of "freedom" for gamers to purchase and enjoy a game. Metal Gear and Medal of Honor and Devil May Cry being three glaring examples.

It is the experience that matters. It is being a criminal just excaped from jail able to steal cars to do jobs and kill those that get in your way. It is having to decide which technology to research and develop in anticipation of what your enemies might do. Whether or not a listener feels "free" or not is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the greatness of a game. All that is required is that he or she feel immersed...as is the case with all media. Again, you are not looking at CompArt from the side that is important, the listener's side.

And your argument about the Rumsfeld scenario doesn't hold water either. It's a perfect example of a mentality among many of us that taking a stand on a subject in art is bad or not possible, but I don't agree. If a message is not getting across, it is not the fault of the listener, it is the fault of the communicator, not understanding his audience. To think otherwise is to make excuses. If I set out to create a message and it's not getting across, it's because I suck, not because it's impossible to get the message across. That is the nature of communication....

#18 Hmm, Shayne, I understand now the viewpoint of yours. From gamers perspective it certainly looks different...BUT, only if you take "casual" or "mild" gamer as example. Because, if you just visit briefly any hardcore gamers forum dedicated to any game, you'll discover, that these people often are no less "directors" than developers themselves. They see games limitations, share exploits and quite often you'll be able to find approx. formulas how game is calculating certain aspects.
Its almost frightening :)

But, as Peter indicated, there is the problem with "directed viewpoint". Also, imho - games should be replayable. its where its strength is. great games are those which you install after 3 months and try to experience again, trying different approaches. if "directed viewpoint" isnt dynamic enough, reason for replaying the game vapourizes.

But I like your ideas and your enthusiasm. its a shame that as of now we havent really got good examples of game as artform. i believe there'll be no great breakthrough/revolution, we will simply inject small doses of innovations in otherwise "usual" games. But hey, its called evolution! :)

#19 Hmm, Shayne, I understand now the viewpoint of yours. From gamers perspective it certainly looks different...BUT, only if you take "casual" or "mild" gamer as example. Because, if you just visit briefly any hardcore gamers forum dedicated to any game, you'll discover, that these people often are no less "directors" than developers themselves. They see games limitations, share exploits and quite often you'll be able to find approx. formulas how game is calculating certain aspects.
Its almost frightening :)

But, as Peter indicated, there is the problem with "directed viewpoint". Also, imho - games should be replayable. its where its strength is. great games are those which you install after 3 months and try to experience again, trying different approaches. if "directed viewpoint" isnt dynamic enough, reason for replaying the game vapourizes.

But I like your ideas and your enthusiasm. its a shame that as of now we havent really got good examples of game as artform. i believe there'll be no great breakthrough/revolution, we will simply inject small doses of innovations in otherwise "usual" games. But hey, its called evolution! :)

#20 Hey Nauris, thanks for taking the time to really consider my ideas. And let me say that I understand your points again, but I don't think they're that relevant to the CompArt discussion, only because CompArt obviously wouldn't appeal to "hardcore gamers". They already have their fix. They don't need CompArt and probably would turn their nose up at it if it was created. But that is just a cultural phenomenon of a minor segment of the population...though it is probably a major segment of the GG.com population, and that's fine. Like I said before, I love games. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with games. I'm just saying that we can do more if we wanted to.

And replayability also is a small concern here. Bottom line, if a work of art moves someone, then they will experience it more than once, whether this experience is watching (or living through) Titanic or playing Civilization. I think you're still a little caught on the concepts of "gaming" whereas I'm trying to expand that to the concept of "experience".

I really think it's impossible to know what kind of person that a CompArt experience would appeal to because it's never been done before. I know this. But again, it's about frontierism. About exploring the possibilities of art for the sake of exploration and then seeing if a new nation rises out of it. There are hints that this kind of art would catch on if you look hard enough.

And I don't think it's a matter of innovation either. It's a matter of revolution. It's a matter of ignoring all of our tendencies to think in terms of "fun" and "replayability" and "non-linearality" because it's becoming obvious, at least to me, that this line of thinking is building walls around us. It's making us confused as to whether "videogames" or CompArt can be art. It's making us think that nothing else other than purely "fun games" are possible through the mediaform. And I think if you think about it enough, and really take it serious, you would eventually realize that it makes little sense. But again, thanks for the debate. I just wish I could convince you that the ideas you're proposing have trickled down from the corporates, who by nature lack vision.