Designing games that enrich the life

[VaderSB]

Ok, guys, let's talk about some heavy conceptual indie things, not about how to increase the amount of orgasms of a housewife playing another match3 clone by fine tuning the action-reward gameplay chains. Just kidding - I don't want you to feel that I'm trying to bring some elitist attitude towards some kinds of games like casual games.

First of all, what kind of games I'm talking about. The games that enrich your life, that provide you with positive emotions, that provide you with enthusiasm in solving your life problems or achieving your life goals. The games that make you better. The games that help you grow. Ok, it's difficult to pack all these features in one game, but it's possible to have some part of them.

Let's remember that the games are a form of art. And there is a common opinion that the purpose of art is to make you a better human.

Ok, maybe this sounds a bit too theoretical, so let's continue with examples.

There are a lot of obvoius ones. First, good examples. Let's take some other art forms like music or movies. I bet everyone can name some movie that had influenced him, provoke him to think over his life and maybe even caused some life changes. In other words that movie made some difference in his life. Music is another obvious example - most of us have some favorite music bands to listen during the work, doing excercise or just relaxing. All these art pieces help us to live. Sometimes art help us to cope with emotions. Sometimes it helps us to believe that we're capable of doing some amazing things in our lives.

Now the bad examples. There are some art 'products' that doesn't help you in your life. Actually they are ruining it. I guess everybody heard of guys who wasted thousands of hours on something like World of Warcraft. They don't have a social life, they don't care about their career, their families are suffering from their _addiction_. Surely it's an extreme example, but it's good in defining the problem with such products. We can name examples from other art forms, like tv-series. I heard that casual games are winning over tv-series as a form of spending free time for housewifes. And it's not surprising, as playing another match3 is a similiar experience - something like mental masturbation. You spent a couple of hours playing match3 and all you feel that you just wasted these two hours and gained nothing. You can say that it can be used as a stress reliever but it's a bad tool for this job. It's not about coping with stress. It's about running away from your life problems instead of solving them. Escapism. I'm not going agitate against this kind of products. There are plenty of them and there will be plenty of them. But it's just like a fast food. Many eat it, but it's still unhealty.

So I would like to talk about the games that are 'healthy food'. Is it possible to design such games? What guidelines should we use?

Oh, I need to state clearly, I'm not talking about some kind of self-help/personal development products. You see, when you're listening to Rammstein in gym and achieve your new personal sport record there is nothing in Rammstein of a self-help product. You won't find something like "improve your sport results!" on their album cover. Their art helps you just because it is the very nature of this piece of art.

So what are the possible guidelines?

*First of all these games must not be addictive. I know this sounds a little weird as we all are TOO used to games that ARE addictive. But actually it's not a must! You listen to your favorite music and it makes your day WITHOUT being addictive.

*One game session must be short. Something like 5mins-50mins. And there must be a sence of completeness after the game session not an urge to 'play-it-just-one-more-time'. That doesn't have to be SO strict but as with your favorite song. You may enjoy it a couple of times at once, but I doubt you'll listen to it 20 times in loop.

*High replayability is a good option. On the other hand - linear games ('storytelling' ones) are also possible.

*Competing with other human beings is a good option. Even if it is just through a highscores table.

*The game can raise some serious questions. Life and death, human relationships, world hunger, terrorism, etc. Something to think about.

*The game can help you to relax. But there is a fine line between relaxation and escapism. If you take a meditation as a classic form of relaxation you will notice that in meditation guidelines there is a point that you should keep your eyes open during the meditation to acknowledge the world around you. Not to run from it.


Ok, as I already mentioned most of these guidelines are not a must, but just are options for designing a game.

The important point is that these games must not be boring. They must be what they are - the games. Rammstein helps you to lift 100kgs without being boring, also as WoW ruin the life without being boring, too.

I believe that this approach to designing games brings just amazing possibilities. There are a lot to explore as currently we have just a rare examples of games that follow some of guidelines I've mentioned. And I believe it's possible to find more guidelines and rules that will help to design such games.

Let's find them! After all, if anybody should open this new page in computers games history, it's definitely us - independent developers!

[papillon]

Music can definitely be addictive (and break the brain worse than games... play a game long enough and you'll start dreaming it, listen to a song too much and you may have it in your head nonstop while awake)

Some people make lasting friends or romances through online games, and most people's lives are not ruined by them.

Just because YOU say that casual games are masturbation and escapism rather than relaxation doesn't necessarily make it so. Doesn't mean they aren't either, but you're not making your case.

Your rules for what would be a 'good' game seem arbitrary and bizarre.

Honestly, I have no idea what you're trying to get at.

[cliffski]

quite a few people who played kudos told me the game had made them sit and evaluate their life, especially the extent to which they took the time to stay in touch with their friends. I like the idea of games that give you something to think about when the PC is switched off. Hopefully Democracy does that too. I wish there were more games that aimed to do the kind of thing you describe.

[Mikademus]

Why such hostile reply? The OP is passionate and idealistic, and from this comes both horrible and wonderful things.

Games are at their best art. Art at its best elevates humanity into something better. Art is easily corrupted into something vulgar; mainstream eagerly corrupts art into repetitive mediocrity; and capitalism rewards mass-marketability by reduction to the least-common-denominator, actively debases humanity.

What's wrong with the idealistic drive to create rich, innovative Games of Art (lacking a better term), to attempt to use games as a medium to improve life and humankind, and to try to find principles behind such a thing (even though perhaps impossible)?

And all you who want to reply "Impractical, I'm in it for the money" etc, can't you agree to let those with other opinions have their say without knee-jerkedly ridiculing them at first post? Bah.


----------

I too have dreams of creating a game that is though-provoking, alluring, stimulating and basically makes you (in some way) a better person; games that invokes other sensibilities than hostility and aggression, and features other paraphernalia than weapons of increasing massiveness.

I personally think Lucasarts and some of (then) Sierra On-Line's adventure games fit the idea of Games of Art, games that improves the people playing them, or enrichens their life beyond the act of playing. Other games that have had that impact on me have been Richard Garriot's Ultima games.

[papillon]

I don't mean to be hostile, I just *really* don't understand what he's talking about, other than 'these games are terrible and eat the souls of their players'.

I'm an adventure/RPG fan, I am all about games being art and having meaningful stories. Of course, the OP seems to be anti-RPG, with that 'short game sessions' thing. Nor are these games about competing with other humans. I find that competitive games are more likely to have a negative impact on your life, but obviously he feels differently. I just don't know why.


And all you who want to reply "Impractical, I'm in it for the money" etc, can't you agree to let those with other opinions have their say without knee-jerkedly ridiculing them at first post? Bah.


Now who's being kneejerk? :)

I can also appreciate that Chuzzles is a particular *kind* of art and a very different kind than Planescape Torment. :)

[Tom Cain]

I have two opinions to contribute that I hope will further your discussion. These occur to me whenever I come across a serious discussion like this.

1. Games are art, but not like movies are art. Most games are art like Monopoly is art. This is why no one ever truly recreates the "movie experience" as a computer game but recreating the "board game experience" is simple. I don't think what you'd like to achieve is a matter of figuring out the correct formula. I think it's a matter of choosing the correct medium and games are generally a poor medium for it. Which leads to:

2. Art doesn't generally move people, stories move people. This is why movies are on the list of successes. If you removed the story element from movies it wouldn't meet your objectives. For example, sculpture is an old, revered art form, yet most people are completely unmoved by it. Story is universally moving across all cultures, and true story artists can affect masses of people. Games have proven to be a poor medium for telling stories. Your best bet is adventure and RPG games which have story as a strong component. When people list games that moved them, it's almost always an adventure or RPG, and it was really the story within the game that moved them rather than the game itself.

I think the best chance games have of affecting people the way you'd like is social interaction, specifically massively multiplayer games. This is a component that games have almost exclusively. People can form and continue meaningful relationships with others, and they do this, again, by storytelling with each other. Maybe by creating a "meaningful" social sandbox for them to interact within will best accomplish your goals.

[electronicStar]

... play a game long enough and you'll start dreaming it, (...)
Actually the fact that you dream games is a normal thing, it's the normal way of work of the brain, when confronted with a problem, it tries to find solutions while you're asleep. It's part of the conservation instinct.
Generally you play the game better afterward, I could find solutions to adventure games or pass to the next level of arcade games after a good night of sleep.

[papillon]

and it was really the story within the game that moved them rather than the game itself.


While I haven't played either, I have heard people talk about Ico and Shadow of the Colussus in ways that suggested they managed to produce emotional reactions with visual display and gameplay elements rather than strict 'story'. Said people also go on about how rare this is. But as I haven't played them, I can't comment on how much of that is really 'story'.

I mentioned Chuzzle in particular because with all the shiny and the colors, it reminds me in ways of certain installations I've seen in modern art museums. Indeed, they did not move me. The emotions involved there were usually curiosity and 'entertainment' if that's an emotion. There's something basically 'neat' about blinkenlightzen.

It's true that sculpture, even really great sculpture, tends not to move me, unless it's associated with some event that is in itself emotional and the sculpture just serves as a focus for those feelings. Paintings are more likely to pull off an emotional reaction. Why are paintings clearer than scultpure? Paintings can have a story behind them, but so can sculptures... I dunno.

[tagged]

1. Games are art, but not like movies are art. Most games are art like Monopoly is art. This is why no one ever truly recreates the "movie experience" as a computer game but recreating the "board game experience" is simple...

Not true in my opinion, I found Indigo Prophecy to be a "movie experience". Of course it was designed that way, and it was how it came off to me. My memory even gives off the impression it was a movie more than a game :) Even with all it's short comings*, it is an experience I recommend people experience.

*3-4 hours of story cut near the end, you'll end up totally confused at one point. The promise of the demo, the first scene, never held up unfortunately but I knew it couldn't even though I wanted it too... Both were apparently due to the release being pushed, naturally.


I could find solutions to adventure games or pass to the next level of arcade games after a good night of sleep.
I do one better, I figure out problems with my code while sleeping, productivity never stops :D

[Jesse Hopkins]

I suppose a great game that also has very well done theatrics would hit the spot for something artistic. I don't see enough translation of theatrical and literary ideas - not adaptations, but original works of drama that are well made and effective. A game that sends chills down your spine (not in a survival horror way). Something truly rousing and dynamic. That would be something. Something without the prevalent goofiness or mock "epic" scope which pales in comparison to great directors' dramatic impulses. Something truly dramatic.

[ZeHa]

Well, I think these are very personal things, just like movies. There might be some indie movies that really affected some individuals, even more than some bigscreen super-hollywood-bullshit. So at first, I think it's not possible to "aim" for such a game, it's more randomly if a game really affects a player.

In my case, those were always games where I am a little dude that walks through a nice world. This is some thing of escapism, and I always loved that. Other people surely wouldn't understand what's so special about it, but for me, these are true gems and they may not affect my life obviously (like saying "okay, from now on, I will always be nice to my parents" or something :D ), but more subconciously, at least in the way of what I call "romantic" or which situations or places I search in real-life because they make me feel good.

One example for this would be "Snake Rattle'n'Roll", with its beautiful isometric and surreal world, or "Pac-Mania", or many others which don't jump into my mind when I want to talk about them :D

A very new example is "Knytt", which is just perfect for me, because I can walk through endless worlds, accompanied by moody music and the nice sound of those footsteps, and you have so much to discover. I can't say if it really has impact on my life, but in my current situation, it at least feeds my desire for "roaming around" ;)

There may be other games that affected my life in a different way, but then it might have been so subconciously that I can't really tell it. At least, there are many games that told me "you should also be a game developer"... :)

[cliffski]

art moves me, but stories rarely do. people put such emphasis on stories, especially game designers, and can get very pompous about how vital a good story is to a game. I find this irritating. Some people don't give a damn about story. That doesn't mean they don't appreciate great art. I like a lot of music, but never listen to the lyrics. I enjoyed bioshock, but skipped all the diaries and the plot, I couldn't give a damn.
People are different.

[zoombapup]

I think youre right there cliffy. I'm not a big fan of "story" in games. But I appreciate great mechanics and I like strong and clear choices.

A little anecdote to add to this mix.

I was going to the cinema a while back and didnt have a film in mind to see. In the end I went for "good night and good luck" which was a black and white film made by george clooney about the time of the McCarthy anti-communist witch-hunts in the US.

Anyway, in the film there was this subtle peice where the main character is talking to a crowd of journalists at at some conference/awards ceremony. The amazing bit about this, was that he was telling the audience of journalists to not be shallow and to question the world around them. What struck me was that the message was in fact aimed at US, the cinema audience. It was asking us to not be shallow and to question the world around us. At that point, I thought to myself "games will NEVER achieve this level of subtleness, this film OWNS games".

Of course, I couldnt help myself when I got home, I read the reviews from the public of the film and you know what? Nobody saw that. All they saw was a black and white film they didnt get. Amazing.

So as Cliff points out, people are different. Sadly, theyre almost entirely dumb too, so dont expect any of your ART to be seen as such by joe public. Perhaps one in ten thousand might actually appreciate your work as art, but unless you write in big flashing letters "THIS IS ART" I doubt you'll get many seeing it that way.

Personally, I dont care. I'm not after uplifting anyone, I'd rather just entertain them.

[cliffski]

that was an awesome film. the main dude in it was the guy who played the blind hacker in sneakers. I think its clooneys best film by far.
I'm sure a good chunk of people seeing the film did get the various messages within it, although the audience for a film about mcarthyism is fairly self-selecting.

I think games can do this. most people do not try. especially in indie game space, games get dumbed down. I weep when people ask if using the right mouse button is too complex for players. There are lots of intelligent people out there. You could become wealthy just selling a game that only people with a phd would buy, if its good enough, and they heard about it, there are lots of well educated and clever people on earth*.

A lot of clever people will 'put up with' dumbed down entertainment, whereas the dumb people just can't handle the clever stuff. as a result, we tend to think that there is a smaller market for intelligent entertainment than there really is.

nobody makes games for that market, so it seems the market does not exist. but it does. I sold 3 copies of Democracy while I slept last night.

*my wife always reminds me that well educated != clever, which is ironic, as she has a phd, and I failed my degree,

[ZeHa]

And to underline the thing that I said a few posts ago, I think it's a very personal thing WHAT someone might get off a game. It might even be something that the author didn't intend.

For example, I used to play "Worms 2" with my sister a lot, and often, we didn't play the usual "war gameplay", instead we took caved levels and tried to rescue ourselves from the water level (which starts to raise after a certain time). This was so much fun, and while we had a worm of each team somewhere right below the top, we used the other ones to either bomb away big portions of the landscape, or to commit some interesting suicides. Or sometimes we did other things, we made a flat landscape, then chose 3 teams with 6 worms each (to get the highest possible number), teleported them onto each other to build a pyramid, and then the one that is on the bottom in the middle would lay down a "holy grenade" and we had a nice worm-firework :D

In that case, the game morphes from a game into a toy, but it's fun and I think these are the things that affect their players the most. If your game can offer alternative uses, or "abuses" ;), it can be very interesting, inspiring, and impacting ;)

[Bernard François]

Funny... Yesterday I've been reading some chapters of the book 'A Theory of Fun for Game Design', and it has a lot of similarities with this thread :)
I'd recommend the book for anyone who's interested in subject of this thread.


Rammstein helps you to lift 100kgs without being boring, also as WoW ruin the life without being boring, too.


I don't know if spending hours in a fitness centrum is actually 'better' than playing an addictive game for hours. Sports/fitnessing can be as addictive as computer games, but nobody seems to see it as a waste of time.

If someone plays chess for hours and hours, few people will say it's a total waste of time.

Maybe it's just all about perception. Maybe we shouldn't worry too much about games being a total waste of time...

Games that don't learn you anything are just boring, they won't be addictive neither.

You won't play the same match 3 game level for 20 times, if the challenge doesn't rise, you get the same feeling as when you play the same song a few times.

Playing match 3 games might learn you to see appreciate subtle changes.


I weep when people ask if using the right mouse button is too complex for players. There are lots of intelligent people out there.


If someone isn't handy/experienced in using computers, that doesn't mean the person cant' be intelligent. You can still create a game which is accessible (in the way it is controlled) and challenging for intelligent people.

[Mikademus]

especially in indie game space, games get dumbed down. I weep when people ask if using the right mouse button is too complex for players. There are lots of intelligent people out there. ... A lot of clever people will 'put up with' dumbed down entertainment, whereas the dumb people just can't handle the clever stuff. as a result, we tend to think that there is a smaller market for intelligent entertainment than there really is.
The problem with going for the least common denominator is that it is always lower: that means, mass-marketing is always heading for increasingly stupidity. Now, people are adaptable, but rather than intentionally adapt, they subconsciously adapt to their environment (in this case, media). If you're always fed uplifting stuff you will become smarter, if you're always fed propaganda you will believe it, if you are always fed increasingly stupid things you will become baser.

One example if this was that someone here, a while ago, asked whether his quite nice-looking 3D beat'em-up (similar in style to Double Dragon, but 3D) could sell as a casual game, and he got the recommendation that "using two buttons is too complex" (I almost bailed out of here then).

There really isn't any point to this argument, since everyone here only ever making more virtually identical Match-3's will continue to do so, the market will continue to produce ever prettier but shallower media (games and movies), mass-market music will be ever more mainstreamed and intrinsically worthless, producers ignoring idealistic calls to improve their world, instead continuing to build and create a homogeneous mass-market --a "mainstream population"-- that will be increasingly enfeebled by being offered and consuming ever lower swill, since that's the media momentum of current society. It needn't be like that, though, but that's idealism.

Somethign that makes me a bit sad is that in movies "indie" carries a connotation of a wish to produce something of greater meaning than blockbuster megaproductions, but, from this forum it seems that "indie" games simply means ideal-less homebrews.

[ZeHa]

...but, from this forum it seems that "indie" games simply means ideal-less homebrews

Well okay, there are really a lot of match-3s and clones ;) but also there are so many idealistic games out there, or at least games that prove to be different and interesting.

[MedievalElks]

Man, what's in the water these days? Last week someone was on about games that would change the world. Games are entertainment. Frankly, if someone told me a game changed their life I would consider that person shallow and perhaps borderline psychotic.

If you want to change your life, adopt a kid or do mission work in Africa. Play games to relax and recharge.

[papillon]

Of course, 'emotionally moving' isn't necessarily the same thing as 'enriches the life', although I still don't know precisely what the OP meant by that. :) I and many other people *bawled* when first playing through the Elite Beat Agents level featuring the little girl whose father died. It's a very simple story presented in only a few pictures, but the combination of the story and the striving to 'help' with the gameplay made people cry. Just being told the story wouldn't have the same effect as playing it.

But, on the other hand, this clearly doesn't have a life-changing effect or make you think about anything much, other than maybe going and giving your family a hug.

Narcissu, another work that comes up in discussions of 'games that made you cry', has more serious issues to think about, but it's not really a GAME, it's a slightly illustrated story.

[cliffski]

Man, what's in the water these days? Last week someone was on about games that would change the world. Games are entertainment. Frankly, if someone told me a game changed their life I would consider that person shallow and perhaps borderline psychotic.

If you want to change your life, adopt a kid or do mission work in Africa. Play games to relax and recharge.

YES SIR! we better regard the medium exactly the same way as you then. I feel rightfully put in my place.
Just because YOU are only playing games where you match 3 strawberries or blow up aliens, does not mean the rest of us have to do the same.
Newsflash -> people are different.

[Mikademus]

Games are entertainment.
Games are entertainment. Movies are entertainment. Gladiator fights are entertainment. Entertainment direct popular attention. Entertainment shape minds. Entertainment need to take responsibility for the world we live in and the world we want to live in.

If you want someone to adopt an African child, make a game around that storyline, then you may help improve the world by directing popular attention in a positive direction rather than further toward phallic gawking on weapons.

Your attitude is myopic and, because you can't see that, part of the problem.

[KNau]

I find the games that approach "art" in my opinion are the ones that least adhere to the concept of "story". The more open a game is and the more freedom I have to create my own experience the more it approaches art. A game isn't about telling a story, it's more like a conversation between the designer and the player.

Interactivity and decision-making are what separate games from all other art forms. Whatever definition of "art" you come across had better hinge on the amount and quality of freedom given to the player.

For your checklist - Interactivity, focusing player action and reaction rather than a static story arc. Cutscenes and story text should be cut from the game ruthlessly.

In that sense the much maligned GTA Vice City is one of my favorites. At any time I could opt out of the "story" and just hop in a car, cruise down the beachfront and listen to the radio. I think what was missing from GTA was some sort of "meaning" or context for the whole experience.

For your checklist - Context, an overall meaning behind the player's experience. In film terms I guess it would be the "spine" or theme of the story, but since the player determines the story (or should be) then this would be what anchors the experience.

I'm reminded of Apocalypse Now and The Killing Fields as two films that were particularly "moving" (if that's the word) to me - the question is how do you create either of those as a game without a) cramming it into an existing game design framework like first-person shooters (putting a gun in the player's hand and saying "kill everything") or b) making it almost purely a passive story with occasional path choices?

I've bitched about World War II shooters before but in a way I empathize with the developers. It always seems like all they did was watch the combat scenes in Saving Private Ryan and completely forgot about the rest of that movie, the games are always so shallow. But then, how do you bring the character drama from Band of Brothers or SPR into a game without making it passive cut-scenes?

Maybe there's an exercise for you - take your favorite movie and turn the entire experience into a game design without resorting to passive storytelling (and that includes NPCs who narrate).

[VaderSB]

Unfortunately I wasn't able to reply earlier and I'm pleasantly impressed with so many interesting thoughts I see here!

I need to give some comments as I was misunderstood in some moments.

(Just for the easy understanding let's call the games I'm talking about, the games that enrich the life - Games of Art, as proposed by Mikademus.)

First of all - let's not dive into the discussion about the value of casual games and do mmorpgs ruin life or they doesn't. I used these as an examples of games that don't have the value that is a part of Games of Art. Actually this is an interesting topic, but a separate one, so let's not concentrate on it.

Papillon, I didn't want to offend anybody, so I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I really don't want to blame those who play casual games or mmorpgs, it's their choice. I just wanted to outline the difference between art in its true form and a some kind of "fast food art". You know - there is the huge difference between books of Shakespeare and Dostroevsky and between most of pulp fiction like neverending quantities or romance novels that is selling in duty-free shops and on gas stations. You see, in music school in any part of the world even after a couple of centuries you'll definitely hear about Beethoven and Mozart. Probably about Ozzy Osbourne or Aerosmith or Queen. But definitely not about Beyonce or Britney Spears. Well, I'm sorry I just dived in the discussion I wanted to avoid. :) (Btw, you're doing good job and contribute to the indie scene more than many here. Seems like you've got some influence from Princess Maker series and it's definitely a classic.)

@Mikademus. I'm totally agree that art at its best elevates humanity into something better. That's definitely an important moment in our discussion.

@Tom Cain.
1. "Most games are art as Monopoly is art". I'm more optimistic about it. You've found very interesting, fundamental problem. I believe that the strict definition of this problem is:
It's most difficult way to raise the artistic value of the game by gameplay mechanics. It's significantly easier to raise it by the content (graphics and music first of all) or by story. But the gameplay mechanics is the essence of the game - it is very important and unique aspect that defines the game as a form of art. No other art forms have such aspect. (As I typed this message I saw a new post by Knau talking about the same exact thing!)

2."Art doesn't generally move people, stories move people.". Don't agree. Story is just one of means. Beethoven's Moolight Sonata doesn't have any story behind it but it excites people during the centuries. But surely we must not underestimate the importance of the story.

@Jesse Hopkins.
That's similar to what I was talking about. And indeed we have opportunities to create such games, but there are none yet (or we don't know about them?).

@cliffski.
I totally understand your frustration about such topics like "right mouse button is a hard to use". Indeed the indie scene has a lot of unexplored potential that it's unfortunately waste on neverending fine-tuning of a few basic gameplay concepts like match3.


The life-changing aspect. Actually I was talking not ONLY about life-changing games. As with other art there can be an art piece that really have fundamental effect on your life (don't know, like some book that opens you to new religion/profession/lifestyle etc), but also there can be an art piece that just brings you some motivation, inspiration. It can be thought-provoking. But effect can be soother not a life-changing one.

The part of the problem I define here is to make computer games a respectable form of art with the same level like music or literature. There can be games that are a must to play for every educated and intellectual person just like Dostoevsky or Bach are a must to at least be acknowledged with. Surely, a guy from Blizzard can be in the Top 50 most influental people in human history in Forbes magazine or something similiar, but I see him much closer to inventor of LSD not as a great artist.


As we discuss I see that this topic is really complex and fundamental. In some cases we're slaves of our own stereotypes about games, like genres, etc. But I want to say it again - we have a lot of opportunities and we, the indie scene, are the group with the highest chances to present the world with new type of games. Not a genre, but a type.

There are a lot of aspects of this problem, with some most difficult like new types of gameplay mechanics, new approaches to content and story creation and also new approaches to distribution.

So, let's bring our enthusiasm to exploring these new areas!

[papillon]

You know - there is the huge difference between books of Shakespeare and Dostroevsky and between most of pulp fiction like neverending quantities or romance novels that is selling in duty-free shops and on gas stations.


But is there really, or is this snobbery? :)

I majored in music at university, although not in a school with a very good music department, and it drove me NUTS how all the music-major-track courses wanted to talk about was Bach, Bach, Bach. Yes, Bach is great. I love Bach. But there's a whole WORLD out there beyond Bach that does hold value and they give it pretty short shrift.

Of the music courses I took during my degree:

- the vast majority were on what you'd think of as 'classical' music, starting with plain chant and going on through mozart, beethoven, etc
- *one* was on electronic music and covered some interesting and bizarre stuff from the twentieth century

I also took two "world music" courses, one on India and one on 'anything the music department doesn't cover basically' - and I was the ONLY music major in either of those classes.

People are often very rigid in their value judgments, and IMO that's part of why there's a 'can games be art?' game debate at all. To me, it seems so ludicrously obvious that games can be art that I can't believe people are seriously having the discussion - to people whose only experience of videogames is watching someone play the latest Football XXX or whatever, they probably think it's so obvious that games are not art that they can't believe we're having this discussion either.


Surely, a guy from Blizzard can be in the Top 50 most influental people in human history in Forbes magazine or something similiar, but I see him much closer to inventor of LSD not as a great artist.


People claimed movies couldn't possibly be art either when they were new. :)

Anyway, I'm not saying you need to find casual games and MMORPGs to be meaningful artistic experiences. I think most of them are extremely dull and don't play them.

It's just that I don't really understand what kind of life-enriching experience you're talking about, and I think you'll have a better time expressing your idea if you focus on what you actually want to achieve and explain WHY and HOW you feel that way instead of making statements you believe to be self-evident. :)

[tentons]

I don't think we'll have games that create epiphanies or inspiration until there's some expansion of the idea about what a "game" is. Maybe the current conception will evolve more broadly into "interactive entertainment" rather than "games" (if you must label and categorize everything), but I believe and hope that there's much more possible than what you'll find inside the limited box of current thinking.

Is MySpace a game? Does it affect people's lives?

Why is there so much mutual exclusion between forms when we can mix and mingle them in new ways beyond what's already been done? What will "games" look like in 5 years, or 10?

[Tom Cain]

I'm with Papillion, I think you need a clearer definition of the goal. Are you talking about emotional reaction or are you talking about a life-altering experience? If it's emotional reaction then I agree that different ones can be achieved through games.

But if you're talking about actually changing thought and/or behavior then I'm not sure how you intend to do it without storytelling. I have a BA in Fine Art and can tell you that most "high art" is not experienced by the average person unless they are forced to do it, is rarely appreciated, and almost never changes behavior.

A painting, sculpture, or the Moonlight Sonata can be thrilling and emotionally enriching - but so can DOOM. It sounds like you're trying to distingush between two classes of art - high vs. pop, or courtisan vs. folk - and placing most games into the pop art class, then saying that high art games would affect more change. While I agree that there's an audience for high art games, I don't see how they would affect more change than pop art games. Pop art reaches a wider audience that enjoy it, thus "pop".

And none of this has altered the world more than story art - from folklore and nursery rhymes to the Bible, Hemingway, and Shakespeare.

When you say more artistic games, do you mean more intellectual, thoughtful, and worldly important games?

[bvanevery]

I bet everyone can name some movie that had influenced him, provoke him to think over his life and maybe even caused some life changes.

Thought-provoking? Sure. Caused life changes or influences? Really can't think of one. I'm not sure movies can do that.

Sometimes it helps us to believe that we're capable of doing some amazing things in our lives.

I've been inspired by films and music. Mostly that I too can make great works of Art if I stick to my guns.

You spent a couple of hours playing match3 and all you feel that you just wasted these two hours and gained nothing.

My Mom plays lots of match-3 and similar games every day. Yes the total time can be measured in hours. But the time at one sitting is maybe 45 minutes. Then she goes and throws pots or does errands or cooks dinner or something else productive. Clearly the game for her is a form of recharging. For me it's posting in forums, as long as I'm not binging on it. I work 1..4 hours, then I goof off for 1..2 hours.

So I would like to talk about the games that are 'healthy food'. Is it possible to design such games? What guidelines should we use?

match-3. Make sure that people get bored after 45 minutes. I used to play shoot-em-ups in college for the same time interval.

I spend waaaaaay too much time whenever I play Freeciv (http://www.freeciv.org). Even my "short" games take forever. Don't design like that.

[Jack Norton]

Games like Global Warning (http://www.midoritech.com/globalwarning.html) effectively can enrich and change at least a bit of the daily life. Apart for that (which is indeed a sort educational game), no other game "changed my life", but many of them (Fahrenheit, Planescape:Torment, Fallout, etc) were awesome experiences, well above the rest...

[cliffski]

call of duty 2 changed my life. not in a huge massive way, but it definitely affected my outlook on life. the final few levels set in Berlin, given a decent PC, looked pretty amazing, and very depressing, shocking, and thought provoking, to realise you are seeing what someones home city looked like at the end of WW2. I did find myself thinking about how barbaric and destructive war is. Does that influence my life, my thought, my political opinions? yes it does. not in a huge way, but certainly in a small way.
It comes down to subject matter. Diner Dash will not change your politics, but it may actually make you more efficient in day to day tasks, as you are effectively honing production-line style thought processes and reactions.
Games do not have to have an agenda to have an effect, they just need to shine a spotlight on particular scenario or concept, and encourage the player to think about it.

[Mikademus]

Games do not have to have an agenda to have an effect, they just need to shine a spotlight on particular scenario or concept, and encourage the player to think about it.

Agreed, and this of course work in the opposite direction, too: America's Army is a propaganda game funded by just the Army. Like it or not, games, as well as movies, are text, that is, messages; messages are altering on the recipient, and propaganda are messages. Games can be propaganda and as such contribute to directing the popular awareness.

If we have games that are uplifting, elevating, educating and enrichening, then we also can also have games that are enfeebling, debasing, devolutionary and constricting. Both of these Hegelian extremes may be entertaining. Thus, entertainment is not an indicator of the greater worth of a game. However, entertainment may be a gauge of the subliminal persuasiveness of the game's message (the conveyed ideals).

[papillon]

Civ teaches us not to worry too much about pollution because we'll eventually get far enough on the tech tree to replace the bad stuff? :)

[Jesse Hopkins]

Civ teaches us not to worry too much about pollution because we'll eventually get far enough on the tech tree to replace the bad stuff? :)

What does a game like Super Mario Bros teach us? Kill turtles? Eat mushrooms? Your brother is useless?

[electronicStar]

Coming late to this thread, but now I remember the only game that really impressed me emotionally and provoked personal involvement in the story was maffia. I remember playing this game and thinking "wow this is how a game would play in the holodeck". At times I would really identify myself to a 1920s italian american in hoboken. The huge world and the feeling of freedom were the reason for that. And the music.
I remember driving out of the city and stopping in the grass next to a little river and thinking it would be a fine place for picninc with my new (in-game) girlfriend :)

[ChrisP]

Maybe there's an exercise for you - take your favorite movie and turn the entire experience into a game design without resorting to passive storytelling (and that includes NPCs who narrate).

Hmm.. The Butterfly Effect (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289879/) as a game. Now there's an intriguing thought.

[lebensborn]

Coming late to this thread, but now I remember the only game that really impressed me emotionally and provoked personal involvement in the story was maffia. I remember playing this game and thinking "wow this is how a game would play in the holodeck". At times I would really identify myself to a 1920s italian american in hoboken. The huge world and the feeling of freedom were the reason for that. And the music.
I remember driving out of the city and stopping in the grass next to a little river and thinking it would be a fine place for picninc with my new (in-game) girlfriend :)

Inbred.....................?

[bvanevery]

call of duty 2 changed my life. not in a huge massive way, but it definitely affected my outlook on life. the final few levels set in Berlin, given a decent PC, looked pretty amazing, and very depressing, shocking, and thought provoking, to realise you are seeing what someones home city looked like at the end of WW2. I did find myself thinking about how barbaric and destructive war is. Does that influence my life, my thought, my political opinions? yes it does. not in a huge way, but certainly in a small way.

But how much credit should the game or film really get for what you think? I've seen Schindler's List (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler's_List). Yes it made me sad, but it didn't tell me much about the Holocaust that I didn't already know. What did? Probably a book by Elie Wiesel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Wiesel) I read back in high school. I don't think there's anything magical about that book; rather, I read it back in high school when I didn't know very much. Pretty sure I had seen documentaries about the Holocaust long before then though. And, they were shocking. But my point is, they're far more influential when you don't know anything, when you're trying to work everything out for the 1st time.

As we get older, I'm inclined to say that each new piece of entertainment is merely an exemplar, a reminder of something. Entertainment doesn't ask us to invest much effort, so we don't. We say "Oh that's nice" or "Oh that's sad" and we move on to the next thing that captures our attention for a few hours.

When I think about stuff that has really influenced my world view in the past several years, I'm inclined to think of Jared Diamond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond)'s books "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and "Collapse." Plus a smattering of books on the history of technology and weapons development, and a pile of historical documentaries from the public library. These are scholarly materials, and it isn't just the content of the books, it's my personal engagement to them. I've been focused on the question of "how does human evolution really work?" for a long time now. I got a B.A. in Sociocultural Anthropology back in college. This just isn't entertainment. This is my personal decision to keep hammering away at an important question for a very long period of time.

Debating things with people has influenced me. I used to participate in a debate group every week at a local pub. I was the moderate of the group (i.e. supported the Iraq war) in a crowd of liberals (i.e. were against it). Eventually it wore me out being on the defensive all the time. Also the tenor of the arguments became extremely predictable. It got me interested in psychology and the Myers Briggs Type Indicators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs) because I could see that the argument - any argument - was almost solely a function of the personality of the debater. It didn't matter what the incidental details were, the "stance" and presentation was a constant. People mostly marshaled arguments that supported their personalities and previously held world views. Rarely were they persuaded to change their views.

[VaderSB]

@papillon
"But is there really, or is this snobbery?" Please, this is one more separate discussion. I'm surely agree that your negative attitude snobbery is justified as I too think that there are a lot of modern artworks are ignored as they don't have the status of 'classic' but their value is amazing. This is a separate, deep topic.

@tentons
"I don't think we'll have games that create epiphanies or inspiration until there's some expansion of the idea about what a "game is."
Very interesting thought. I want to add one detail. There is a very interesting way of expansion of the term "game". It is the way of expanding the goal of gameplay mechanics design from "action-reward" scheme to something more complex or just different. We must seek for new motivation.

@Tom Cain
"Pop art reaches a wider audience that enjoy it, thus "pop"."
Agree. But please understand that I'm not talking about the size of audience now. It's a separate topic. Also, there are some great examples how one artwork can have wide audience and be deep simultaniously. Take the Matrix movie trilogy. Hundreds of millions of people seen it. And take a look at articles at Wikipedia about these movies. There are so many complex and elagant cultural, philosophical and religious references integrated in this artwork! Surely, there are not many people even find out about these hidden details but that is the magic of real art - it's as deep as you can dive in it!

"
When you say more artistic games, do you mean more intellectual, thoughtful, and worldly important games?"
Not neccesary worldly important games. But it's possible. Here is a quote from "Art" article in wikipedia:
"The purpose of works of art may be to communicate ideas, such as in politically-, spiritually-, or philosophically-motivated art; to create a sense of beauty (see aesthetics); to explore the nature of perception; for pleasure; or to generate strong emotions."
Looks like most games concentrate on pleasure aspect, even in it's not highest form (matching 3 elements in row is a privimite pleasure. I'm not saying it's bad, but it's clearly primitive).


There are some examples of the movies as the artworks that we can use as the source of values to bring to the games.

I think a good example could be a movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfume:_The_Story_of_a_Murderer_%28film%29

I would be really amazed to see the game that could be able to provoke the similar thoughts feelings and emotions as this movie do.

There are a lot of interesting thoughts are already in this thread and we also touching the neighbor areas and problems. I guess it's difficult to cover all of this in single thread and it's also unfortunate that some people can't get some of my thoughts just because they needs more coverage I think. Guess I should consider starting a blog on these topics :)

[KNau]

Civ teaches us not to worry too much about pollution because we'll eventually get far enough on the tech tree to replace the bad stuff?

That's actually true, though. It's probably more green propaganda (you never know whose stats you can trust these days) but supposedly we could reduce humanity's environmental footprint by up to 90% just by implementing technology we already have.

Another note on Civ, I've always maintained that if anyone in the Bush administration had bothered to play Civ III they would have at least had a cursory understanding that exporting your "culture" to another continent is near impossible. Or at the very least have made preparations to combat partisans. Oh, Sid Meier - why weren't you called to testify before congress?

Civ III holds all the answers, people! :)

[Mikademus]

I think a good example could be a movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfume:_The_Story_of_a_Murderer_%28film%29

I would be really amazed to see the game that could be able to provoke the similar thoughts feelings and emotions as this movie do.:)
You should read the book instead, the movie has nothing on it.

[bvanevery]

Take the Matrix movie trilogy. Hundreds of millions of people seen it.

I'm trying to think of catch phrases from movies that have entered the popular lexicon that encode something culturally important.

From The Matrix we have the phrase, "There Is No Spoon." Usually when I use it, I mean it as a joke. Sometimes I mean it seriously, when a person has fixated on a certain view of reality. But I'm sure I'd say something else if The Matrix had never existed.

From Star Wars we have, "Use The Force, Luke," which is far more popular. It means you can get a lot done if you trust your instincts instead of mentally second-guessing yourself. It has also inspired parodies; for instance, among techies the phrase "Use The Source, Luke" is similar to RTFM.

The only important phrase I can think of, however, comes from a Nike commercial. "Just do it." This phrase has actually influenced my life.

[bvanevery]

I think a good example could be a movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfume:_The_Story_of_a_Murderer_%28film%29

I would be really amazed to see the game that could be able to provoke the similar thoughts feelings and emotions as this movie do.

What's important about it though? Reading the synopsis, it's about sex 'n' death. Sure, it looks at the world through the lens of scent, and it parodies social mores. But scent is not so remarkable if you have a dog, or hunt, or are trying to kill moths. Lots of animals have a powerful sense of smell, even if humans don't and find it mysterious.

How different is a highbrow snuff film from a lowbrow snuff film? Games have plenty of lowbrow snuff, so getting a rise out of an audience shouldn't exactly be hard. More difficult to get your Adults Only title distributed.

[VaderSB]

@bvanevery
I used the Perfume movie as an example because it's based on a novel that is respected as a modern classic. And I definitely don't mean Adult Only games. Actually, it's also a separate topic - a distribution.

I'm sorry, English is not my native language and sometimes I just don't know correct terms to describe my ideas, but I'm in a constant research! :) I think I can define the topic of this thread by saying that the goal is to make computer games as a separate form of art to be a part of High Culture as it defined in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_culture). What I wanted to say at first place is that computer games are a new form of art, and we still are scratching the surface of possibilities to bring our message to the people. These possibilities are plain exciting and breath-taking! And with computer games we have even more possibilities than are available to literature, music and even cinema. We've yet to see the future where the best games will be a part of high education. We've yet to see the day when somebody will recieve a Nobel Prize for the game, on the same terms as Ernest Hemingway recieved it for his literature artworks. (And for the guys who like offtopic - we'll definitely see the day when goverments will find out that new, future mmorpgs are as addictive as synthetic narcotic drugs and start to regulate the destribution of these games by law).

[bvanevery]

I think I can define the topic of this thread by saying that the goal is to make computer games as a separate form of art to be a part of High Culture as it defined in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_culture).

I'd call your attention then to this part of the article:
The cultural products most regarded as forming part of High culture are most likely to have been produced during periods of High civilization, for which a large, sophisticated and wealthy urban-based society which provides a coherent & conscious aesthetic framework, and a large-scale milieu of training, and, for the visual arts, sourcing materials and financing work. All this is so that the artist is able, as near as possible, to realize his creative potential with as few as possible practical and technical constraints.

Currently we really don't have any patrons. We only have indies struggling to survive, very concerned with financial realities.

[papillon]

... or perhaps, if you want high-arty games, you would be better off looking at freeware and student work?

Perhaps what's needed is to convince a lot of those promising young game design students to apply for artistic grants rather than jobs in the industry, until eventually one of them succeeeds in demanding recognition. :)

flOw could be considered an 'art game'...

[bvanevery]

Perhaps all we have to do is wait for the film / game digital production process convergence. I see an awful lot of ads for good looking games on the TV.

[cliffski]

. I was the moderate of the group (i.e. supported the Iraq war) in a crowd of liberals (i.e. were against it).

Here in the UK, this makes us almost spurt tea everywhere when reading it. Supporting that war is not a moderate stance most places outside the USA.

[oNyx]

Hm. It's a very broad and fuzzy topic. There are many different positive aspects of playing games.

Brain jogging games for example help you to improve your concentration and they also help you to score more points in IQ tests (it's not like those tests have much value, but it can surely boost your self esteem).

Another obvious thing is stress relief. Even intense action packed games can make you ease off. The human mind is indeed a mystery. :)

Well, they can consume all your attention, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Concentrating on one thing and one thing alone isn't easy for everyone. People with ADD were able to increase their attention span via games. It also helps people with chronic pain. From my own experience I would say that you can suppress quite a lot of pain with games (for a few hours, that is).

Another interesting thing is addressing traumatic memories with (safe zone) confrontation. First person war games for example can help veterans coping with their past. (Odd huh?)

Acrophobia (extreme or irrational fear of heights) was also treated like that. Well, with simulators and VR goggles and all that, but it's still sort of game-like. I think it's a pretty interesting approach. Right now it's very basic, but in the future you can for example use some user-controlled slider for the amount of realism etc.

More on that topic here:
http://w3.uqo.ca/cyberpsy/en/index_en.htm

Yes, it's slightly off topic, but it's very interesting nonetheless.

Apart from phobias and anxiety disorders there isn't anything with an equally big effect. What's left is stuff like teaching the right things (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060222/sirlin_01.shtml), teaching specific things (touch typing, languages etc), hefty brain workouts (logic mazes), and making the user reflect on their own life.

So called "edutainment" doesn't really work for the most part. There aren't many useful skills, which can be shrink wrapped in a semi-decent game.

[bvanevery]

Here in the UK, this makes us almost spurt tea everywhere when reading it. Supporting that war is not a moderate stance most places outside the USA.

The insistence of the Left and the Right that everyone be either on their side, or on the polar opposite side, is very tiring.

[Mikademus]

Oooh, international political debate brewing!

*/me does not indulge*

Anyway, found this little semi-gem:

What kind of designer are you? (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20030127/adams_01.shtml)

The author autocratically designates the "Dungeon Master" type as the ultimate designer, but he is a bit disingenuous since that's the only "player-centric" type, and he decorates it a bit with personal ideals. To tie in with this thread, I'd say that any of the Artiste, Zen Master and God styles combined with a hefty dose of player-centricism would make most interesting and probably excellent games!

[bvanevery]

I remember having a strongly negative reaction to that Ernest Adams article when it first came out. I think because he didn't leave any room for valid game design unless you were as player centric as he is. The Artiste was the only stereotype that partially fit me, and I found it obnoxious to equate "highbrow" with "doesn't care what anyone else thinks." I just don't care what the masses think. If some player wants to be a prat, and complain that the game doesn't play like Quake or whatever, I'm really not worried about pleasing him.

[MedievalElks]

call of duty 2 changed my life. not in a huge massive way, but it definitely affected my outlook on life. the final few levels set in Berlin, given a decent PC, looked pretty amazing, and very depressing, shocking, and thought provoking, to realise you are seeing what someones home city looked like at the end of WW2. I did find myself thinking about how barbaric and destructive war is.

Hence my original comment regarding shallowness. Maybe you should try RTCW so you can discover that Nazis weren't nice people.

[cliffski]

what is that supposed to mean?

[papillon]

An insult claiming that you couldn't possibly have found walking through shattered Berlin a thought-provoking experience unless you'd never thought about it before and were therefore a shallow person, I think. Which is silly, people process data in different ways and about MANY things, reading about a situation and actually seeing it (whether for real or in representation) produces a different reaction.

[bvanevery]

An insult claiming that you couldn't possibly have found walking through shattered Berlin a thought-provoking experience unless you'd never thought about it before and were therefore a shallow person, I think.

Thought provoking and life changing are not the same thing. MedievalElks' comment was about the latter:

Frankly, if someone told me a game changed their life I would consider that person shallow and perhaps borderline psychotic.

When Cliffski says Call of Duty 2 affected his outlook on life, I doubt it. I'm more inclined to believe that he experienced a "gee whiz look at the devastation" moment that reaffirmed personal values he had already long held.

[cliffski]

I thought we might be having an intelligent discussion here but its a game of pseudo-intellectual one-upmanship amongst people who really should be making games, juding by most peoples sigs.
I find this very tiring.

[bvanevery]

Cliffski, you can't honestly expect people to believe, making games like Democracy and being willing to make public comment on the Iraq war, that you are not politically engaged. And I will wager you have been so for a long time, and know lots about human history and all the atrocities in it. To say that a very recent shooter about Berlin in WW II changed your life in any way at all rings false. We know you've been intellectually engaged to such material long before.

If it did change your life, exactly what changed? Be specific. What do you think or do differently now?

Then I will ask whether the game did it or you did it. Was it something the game brought to the table, or something you were thinking about on your own accord anyways, and the game just happened to be there as a springboard for your own thoughts?

If people want games to be profound, then they would do well to understand where profundity actually comes from.

[bvanevery]

And I want to make one other thing clear, why this isn't pseudo-intellectual hair splitting. Games which affirm what we already think don't change us at all. We feel great that someone out there thinks like we do. We may say that's profound or life-changing. It isn't! It's self-congratulatory. People, especially intellectuals, exert enormous amounts of energy to keep their world views intact. "Wow, my world view really really works!" is not life changing at all.

[tentons]

To say that a very recent shooter about Berlin in WW II changed your life in any way at all rings false. We know you've been intellectually engaged to such material long before.
Why does that exclude the possibility that he thought about what he already knows in a new way because of the game? Why is that not a valid "change" to his life? And how can you presume to judge such a thing about someone based on pure conjecture about him and his experiences?

I found it very interesting that people have mentioned small ways games can affect players that I hadn't thought about before.

[bvanevery]

Why does that exclude the possibility that he thought about what he already knows in a new way because of the game? Why is that not a valid "change" to his life?

Because you have to put it in quotes. :D

How big was the change in thought? Paradigm shift or little details?

I'm seeing at least 2 competing theories on personal change:

personal change comes from fairly short works of entertainment
personal change comes from fairly long personal engagements to a body of material


And how can you presume to judge such a thing about someone based on pure conjecture about him and his experiences?

Because people who make political games and offer to get into political debates on the Iraq war in public forums are not mysterious. You might find it offensive that political activists are predictable in some ways, but it's true. You're probably offended that anyone's behavior can be predicted. Nevertheless, given certain contexts and information, it can be. We are not as unique as people would like to believe.

[Jack Norton]

Because people who make political games and offer to get into political debates on the Iraq war in public forums are not mysterious.

True, the only one here really mysterious is Mystery Studio (http://www.mysterystudio.com/)! :o

[cliffski]

Because people who make political games and offer to get into political debates on the Iraq war in public forums are not mysterious. You might find it offensive that political activists are predictable in some ways, but it's true. You're probably offended that anyone's behavior can be predicted. Nevertheless, given certain contexts and information, it can be. We are not as unique as people would like to believe.

firstly where the fuck did i offer to get into a debate? you suddenly piped up with some comment about being 'the only moderate' one because you supported the iraq war. how fucking set-in-your-opinions is that? and yet you then lecture the rest of us about how we are so politically inferior and stuck in some left-right rut unlike yourself, who floats above all debate on all topics as the holy arbiter of greater understanding.

The only reason everyone else isn't posting similar thoughts is that you are on most peoples ignroe lists.

[bvanevery]

firstly where the fuck did i offer to get into a debate?

When you said:
Here in the UK, this makes us almost spurt tea everywhere when reading it. Supporting that war is not a moderate stance most places outside the USA.

You can't seriously expect to make comments like that and not be seen as debating politics. I declined to engage you.

you suddenly piped up with some comment about being 'the only moderate' one because you supported the iraq war. how fucking set-in-your-opinions is that?

Not very, considering that the debate group only had 5 consistent members including myself.

and yet you then lecture the rest of us about how we are so politically inferior and stuck in some left-right rut unlike yourself, who floats above all debate on all topics as the holy arbiter of greater understanding.

The only reason everyone else isn't posting similar thoughts is that you are on most peoples ignroe lists.

Given the vehemence of your reaction to my comments, I'll wager you're a "Feeler" in the Myers Briggs Type Indicators. I also said you were predictable, but what did I predict about you? That you've read history books and know what atrocities are. Not much of an inference. But a Feeler would get very riled up about being labeled "predictable," even when the label is contextually correct.

Are you going to resent being put in a box, or are you going to fess up that you already thought "war sucks" before ever playing Call Of Duty 2?

[Leon]

Man, what's in the water these days? Last week someone was on about games that would change the world. Games are entertainment.


Actually, games, movies, books and every other creative form(Art) is not entertainment. They are all a lump of clay. They are nothing, until someone shapes and forms them. From there you can make a pure shoot 'em up that is entertainment, or you can make a work about politics, or one about the human condition. Games, movies and books are what you decide to do with them.

If you want to change your life, adopt a kid or do mission work in Africa. Play games to relax and recharge.

You say the only way you can make a change in your life is to do something like adopting a kid or mission work in third world countries, but there are plenty of people out there who only learned about these issues through the works of art. Also sometimes the biggest change in ones life isn't a huge responsibility like adopting a kid, but something small.

But how much credit should the game or film really get for what you think? ... But my point is, they're far more influential when you don't know anything, when you're trying to work everything out for the 1st time... We say "Oh that's nice" or "Oh that's sad" and we move on to the next thing that captures our attention for a few hours.

I think your personal opinion on life is shading your opinion of how others handle things too much. In many of your posts I see you type you didn't find X influential, how X movie/book didn't move you or change you. But just because you aren't moved to action or to change your life, doesn't mean it can not, and does not, change others.

I've read books, watched movies and played games and have gotten a completely different message/view(Or none at all) out of them than others because of different backrounds/childhood/etc.

I agree with you that the first peek at something is likely to be the most moving and influential on a person. But that's still art changing a person.

What's important about it though? Reading the synopsis, it's about sex 'n' death. Sure, it looks at the world through the lens of scent, and it parodies social mores. But scent is not so remarkable if you have a dog, or hunt, or are trying to kill moths. Lots of animals have a powerful sense of smell, even if humans don't and find it mysterious.

Perfume is a pretty weird, but interesting movie. I think it has to be watched, it's kinda tough to explain. I didn't find it that great nor did it really change my thoughts on anything, but, to each their own.

Then I will ask whether the game did it or you did it. Was it something the game brought to the table, or something you were thinking about on your own accord anyways, and the game just happened to be there as a springboard for your own thoughts?

I don't think it can be 100% the game or 100% the person. They are one and the same, I believe. Ultimately, it comes down to our own views vs the views/message shown in the art. The art must bring something thought provoking(And what is thought provoking can completely change depending on the person's knowledge/backround/culture/tons of other stuff) and we must bring our own thoughts to the table as well, for if we don't bring our own thoughts to the table then there is nothing to be changed.

I'm probably even going too far about "ideals changing". I've read some stuff that did not change my own ideals, but it allowed me to see other's points of view and better understand them. Not sure I'd call that "ideal changing".

Cliffski, you can't honestly expect people to believe, making games like Democracy and being willing to make public comment on the Iraq war, that you are not politically engaged.

Well, I don't know how it really changed Cliffski's views but he mentioned in his post that he realized he was running through someone's home. I imagine that in the big picture of war he might not have thought about what people go through after the wars are done, in rebuilding their homes, picking up the pieces and trying to find a new life. Sometimes the obvious isn't so obvious to everyone, sometimes common sense isn't so common and sometimes we can be surprised by what it is that actually moves us.


How big was the change in thought? Paradigm shift or little details?

I'm seeing at least 2 competing theories on personal change:

personal change comes from fairly short works of entertainment
personal change comes from fairly long personal engagements to a body of material


They aren't competing, though. They are two different views on personal change. There are 5+ billion people on this planet and many different people have many different views on personal changes. Different things work for different people.

[electronicStar]

Oh crap, the forums have really been going down lately.

IIRC Bvanerey you started the political comments yourself with the Iraq war, you shouldn't bring political issues and be surprised that people respond to it.
This type of problem probably arise from the fact that the forum looks more and more like a personal blog. Most of the new threads don't have any semblance of interest .
I prefered when things were kept more professional and less opinionated.
The mods can't even manage to ban a troll such as lebensborn.

[bvanevery]

Oh crap, the forums have really been going down lately.

Then do your part to bring 'em "up."

IIRC Bvanerey you started the political comments yourself with the Iraq war, you shouldn't bring political issues and be surprised that people respond to it.

I don't have any problem with people responding to my political comment. Cliffski wanted to know where he had invited a debate and I told him. It takes two to tango.

This type of problem probably arise from the fact that the forum looks more and more like a personal blog. Most of the new threads don't have any semblance of interest .

Just because you don't get a point of discussion, or value a point of discussion, or like the way a point of discussion is expressed, doesn't make it a blog, or a troll, or whatever negative invective you wish to come up with. Responsibility for making this the best possible forum for your personal interest rests squarely and solely with you. Post something godawful interesting that everyone wants to talk about if you're so bored.

I prefered when things were kept more professional and less opinionated.

You could lead by example instead of turning things into a personality dispute.

[bvanevery]

They aren't competing, though. They are two different views on personal change. There are 5+ billion people on this planet and many different people have many different views on personal changes. Different things work for different people.

I think they are competing. In particular, I think artists have an inflated idea of their impact. They talk about the power they would like to have, rather than what they actually have.

You say people are different. I am more inclined to say they are the same. I'd like to see some metrics of personal change. Things that people actually do differently. I'd like to see some ethnographies of the form "I saw X Y Z and ever since then I...." The pattern of "Oh, wow!" and then forgetting it 2 hours later is all too common in media saturated societies.

[Dan MacDonald]

bvanevery's posts now require moderation to be posted as a result of his unique ability to pick fights with everyone in the forum.

[bvanevery]

Wow, "unique" and "everyone." No exaggerations there.

[VaderSB]

@bvanevery
"Currently we really don't have any patrons. We only have indies struggling to survive, very concerned with financial realities."
Sure, but there are indies who make freeware games. We have also some respectable open source examples like Westnoth. But the problem with society financing the games of art is in the current point of view on the games - society don't look at the games as a possible form of high art. And only enthusiasts can shift this point of view.

"Perhaps all we have to do is wait for the film / game digital production process convergence. I see an awful lot of ads for good looking games on the TV."
I hope so. But a consious efforts in the area of games of art will do a more significant difference I think.

"Games which affirm what we already think don't change us at all."
Interesting! I think this is a more broad thought, not only game-specific. You can apply it to any other form of art.


@papillon
"... or perhaps, if you want high-arty games, you would be better off looking at freeware and student work?"
I'm very glad that you've understood me, as that what I was talking about.

@oNyx
The practical values you're talking about are indeed good, but they have little in common with things I'm talking about. Although it's an interesting topic - I also saw something like "serious games initiative" with games about different social problems.


More comments on the example I posted - Perfume movie. For me personally, it's not a unique case but a representative one. I can't explain it exactly but after watching it I felt that it enriched me. Nothing global or life-changing but I felt satisfied, and this was something more than simple entertainment. And in contrast to it - after playing a match3 for a couple of hours I feel some slight frustration because of wasted time. There is a feeling that instead of being enriched I degraded a little bit. The bit is little but it (thankfully) prevents me from further playing.

[RinkuHero]

I agree with the original post, though I also agree with papillon that you need to be slightly more empirical and objective in how you approach this.

But let me say that it's great to see posts like this. This is exactly what I got into game development to do, to make games which positively enrich people's lives and positively affect them.

Yes, I want my games to be entertaining too, but simply wasting someone's time, addicting them, giving them pleasure-neuron squirts, and not affecting them other than that in any way isn't what I think we should be going for.

I haven't yet read the thread in full because I just found it, I'll probably reply again after I do.

[RinkuHero]

A few thoughts I had while reading this thread:

- I do think games can change people's lives, but that of course depends on how strong the change is. But I have seen some pretty significant changes. I once read a thread on a messageboard for the RPG Xenogears. The topic asked how the game changed your life. It was a fairly big thread, with several pages of responses. By far the most common response was that it made them question Christianity and (in some cases) caused them to become agnostic or atheist. I think that's a pretty significant change for a game to make in someone. And it happened not once, but repeatedly to many people who played it -- I think it was at least six in that thread, so who knows how many others it happened to too.

- There are studies in psychology that have found correlations between someone's favorite genre of art or story or movie or music, and their personality. I know measuring things like this is iffy, but there were correlations between different personality traits (for those familiar with the "big five" personality model, they used that) and different types of genre (mystery novels for example). Of course, correlation isn't causation. We don't know if one caused the other of if a third unknown factor caused both, but it's interesting to know that people who like the same type of art tend to have similar personalities.

- Art has influenced culture. It'd be weird to think of the Iliad *not* having any influence on ancient Greek culture, or the Three Kingdoms not having any influence on Chinese culture. Sometimes the influence is indirect, such as Dickens' or Zola's books highlighting the plight of the poor and increasing support of socialist policies in the U.K., or Uncle Tom's Cabin making people less accepting of slavery in the U.S., there are numerous times where a particular artwork is called historically important even by mainstream historians.

- One thing to keep in mind is that people often don't even recognize how art affects them. I certainly don't know in detail how all the novels I read or how all the 80s cartoons I've watched have shaped my worldview. It's not obvious. I wouldn't ever deny they've influenced me just because I can't name exactly how they have offhand. Influence is complex.

- The topic came up about stories having influence over people but not other forms (music, games, painting, etc.) -- I disagree with that. I think all of them can have influence, but it's a different kind of influence. Chess for example is a game, but I think it's changed a lot of people's lives; a lot of people say it tends to make people think more long-term, not only while playing it, but in their every day actions. Other team-based physical games like soccer or basketball can change people's lives by teaching them how to work with a team and by giving them a competitive spirit. If offline games like chess and sports can change people's lives, online games (multiplayer or not) should be able to too.

- We shouldn't really look for drastic life changes. I certainly don't expect my games to drastically change someone's life. I'd be happy with tiny minor changes and puny realizations. I doubt anyone would play one of my games and then decide to change their career or give up fast food or vow never to smoke again. That's not the type of change I'm after. I'd be happy if someone plays, say, Immortal Defense, and gets the basic idea of it, [SPOILER FOLLOWS] about a guy that continues to defend something which no longer exists and eventually invents something which doesn't exist and defends that imaginary thing from danger, and the error and yet strange nobility of doing that. Now that type of thing could influence someone in a small way, it might make someone slightly less overprotective of his or her child for example. Or it might do something else, I don't know. But I think it could potentially influence someone's life in some way.

[Mikademus]

I once read a thread on a messageboard for the RPG Xenogears. The topic asked how the game changed your life. It was a fairly big thread, with several pages of responses. By far the most common response was that it made them question Christianity and (in some cases) caused them to become agnostic or atheist. I think that's a pretty significant change for a game to make in someone. And it happened not once, but repeatedly to many people who played it -- I think it was at least six in that thread, so who knows how many others it happened to too.
Xenogears has perhaps one of the best and most through-through stories and backgrounds of any computer game. It manages to create and maintain an exciting tension between Christianity and Nietzschian nihilism, and I'd say that ANY media of such quality, whether book, movie or game, may or even will impact peoples' lives because it forces reflection and moves the "reader" out of his zone of complacency or comfort. Thus, games can fundamentally affect people, however, there's a psycho-cultural barrier to this: we're habituated to that printed texts (books) are relevant, and we're thus open to being affected by them to a higher extent than movies and games, and we're habituated to games as of quick release or non-relevant nature.

However, all psycho-social patterns (i.e. "culture") change over time, and with the melding of media forms, íf we've not impoverished everything to a pathetic least-common-denominator subset first, future X_games_X (using Jaques Derrida's "X"-notation) will be much more likely to change attitudes, perceptions and lives.

[Mikademus]

Double-posting because no-one else has written anything since my last post :P

Targeting the "art" aspect of the "games of art" concept, I've found a site focusing of experimental game concepts (http://www.experimentalgameplay.com/), and I've found a few little nuggets that are truly artistic AND fun! They are generally tests of concept rather than intended as "true" or "full" games, but well worth checking out.

F.i. these two:

Attack of the Swarm (http://www.experimentalgameplay.com/game.php?g=4)
On a Rainy Day (http://www.experimentalgameplay.com/game.php?g=5)

[VaderSB]

I've been very busy these days and don't have time for full reply, hope to do it soon.

@RinkuHero
I'm glad to see your reply here, as although I didn't have a chance to explore your game deeply but I had seen it some time ago and I think that it's pretty close to the concepts we're talking about in this thread so I'm looking forward to further discussion!