by Azaroth | August 21st, 2007
It just struck me to write about it a little. I suppose I’m bored. But I’m kicking at this can on the move, so stay with me here. Even though I don’t think I ever plan out anything I write. It’s a blog people, come on.
Yeah, it’s a big topic. Especially among game designers. Especially among the ones who like to think that what they do, and what their colleagues (sometimes) do, is art. Can you blame them?
The answer is no. Anyone creative wants to think that what they’re doing, what they’re devoting a significant portion of their ever so short life to can somehow, in some way, be considered art.
But whereas painters want you to consider THEIR work art, game designers just desperately want you to consider games in general as a type of art. Like I said, it’s a pretty big topic. And I’m not here to break down why they are or aren’t. Art is anything that’s created by people, really. I can pile up a bunch of grass and call it art if I want. If I take a picture of it or paint it, then the picture or painting becomes art. Art can be a creation, a process, or a creative reproduction or representation of that creation. It’s often a display. A game is all of those things. It’s a creative display (interactive, even) of creations and processes. And it’s a hell of a lot of work.
So really, why doesn’t the mainstream public consider a game as “art”?
Well, it’s simple. If the only “paintings” you were ever exposed to were mass reprints of various paintings of something incredibly pedestrian like, I dunno, porches… and, of course, the odd 3D computer generated “seeing eye” picture, or whatever the hell those things were back in the early 90s – you wouldn’t really see why they should be considered art.
Well, here’s the thing. What are 99% of people who are exposed to games actually exposed to? Madden ’08? NHL ’08? NBA LIVE ’08? CAR RACERING? CAR racering w/ I beet hookers? Car racering w/ I beet hookers in the ’80s? Car racering w/ I beet hookers as a black guy?
Seriously though. Even games like KOTOR. I popped it back into the Xbox over the weekend. I remembered having fun. I remembered, for the most part, wrong.
Let’s face it, the game is highly celebrated amongst gamers. But what is it? Generic gameplay slapped together with a bad story and a whole lot of voice acting?
Yeah, I said bad story. That might sound strange, because as far as games go… KOTOR had a fantastic story. But really folks, why do we have to lower our expectations to such a level when playing video games? If I read that story in softcover, I’d go around kicking people in the nuts until someone figured out a way to give me the last 48 hours of my life back. In a video game, it’s wild, it’s crazy, it’s amazing. But overall, it’s unexpected.
That’s why games aren’t considered art. There’s too much generic plock. Our “best” games, that anyone sees — and I say this as though I’m speaking to all of my fellow gamers and game developers collectively, knowing full well that this post bounces around the walls of the dark, bottomless pit of the blogosphere — are little more than generic gameplay mashed together with poor quality stories.
In fact, there’s so much glue out there that it’s dragging the image of the “art” down as a whole. As an example, I sure as hell didn’t consider food any kind of art when I was growing up eating pizza pockets and hotdogs. Now every asshole who drowns shit in olive oil and creme fraiche has a TV show, a biography, and a hell of a lot of money. People flock to them for their product. Anyone with half a brain got sick of factory processed frankenshlock a long time ago.
While these things are obviously more expensive to produce than paintings, food, or pictures – barrier to entry certainly isn’t everything. Programs like Multiverse for instance, will likely only ever end up facilitating the creation of a whole lot of REALLY BAD “MMOs”. And the higher a budget goes, such as with World of Warcraft, the better (and more generic) a game gets. Polish seems to count for everything these days when we’re talking about video games. Da Vinci, I doubt, ever decided against painting the top right hand corner of one of his works so that he could get it to the printer faster and print off 10,000 copies to sell to the local peasants. That’s a problem with games, and where games, again, somewhat mirror food, I suppose. Most independent restaurants are terrible and quickly fail as well. But Da Vinci did well for himself regardless, and so does Batali.
Will the bargain bin fill so high with shitty games that it bursts – and people begin seeking out creativity? Or does the necessary budget of creating a video game masterpiece versus a culinary masterpiece prevent this from ever happening? Is the budget->quality ratio so fixed that it will ultimately prevent games from ever being truly seen as art? Can creativity only truly ever shine through when the cost of entry (and completion) is ridiculously low, leaving the main barriers to greatness creativity and intelligence? Or do we have to simply deal with hungrily devouring the odd gem that comes down the pipe of mainstream game production every once in a while.
Loading ...
You’re making a common mistake, though, thinking of art as just in terms of story. Art is much more than story, as painting shows.
However, I think you are right in that the current commercial environment for games works against this case for games as “art”. Games are intended to be sold as commodities at a single price, meaning that you have to pander to the lowest common denominator to achieve the most sales. And, yes, cutting corners to increase profit is also another problem.
This is one reason why I’d like to see more indie online RPGs. Being able to do something unique and be able to charge enough that you don’t have to go for the lowest common denominator would help tremendously.
Anyway, I usually argue this issue in terms of legitimacy. That’s what most people are talking about when they talk about “games as art”. We mostly want to be recognized as a legitimate creative medium, not something to be relegated as a “kid’s thing”.
The issues of storytelling are a whole other issue. The brief form is that it’s much harder because you have the interactive elements. The core issue here is that you could not read all of KotOR’s story as a softcover, because there are so many story variations. KotOR is a good example of one of the better stories. Is it a classic story that you can go back to again and again? Not really, but it’s a good step in the right direction that gives you a small glimpse of what the future could be like. Again, it’d be nice not to have to water things down for the lowest common denominator.
My thoughts.
I suppose it came off a bit like I was talking about stories in particular. I wasn’t though, which is why I threw in the example of KOTOR’s gameplay.
Ever played through as a Soldier/Guardian? It’s the epitome of.. I mean, I don’t even know why they bothered to make it “live action”. You can’t disengage from a battle, and moving around serves no purpose other than getting a player unstuck from behind a mob that they may not be attacking. Other than that, you click and watch.
Other classes make use of force powers more, but in the end… so many games come down to a click&watch system, with a “use item” or “use power” button thrown in here or there. It’s all about the lowest common denominator.
I definitely didn’t mean to come off as I only meant art as stories though. There are plenty of creative games, even crafted on small budgets, that are creative in ways totally aside from stories. I don’t think a story is ever going to be the most expensive part of a game in general, anyway. Although you can point to certain things, like the massive amount of quest content in WoW or the large amounts of voice acting (and story variations) in KOTOR.
As an example, I think over on Raph’s site he’s linked quite a few small-time, but highly creative games. Paper airplane sidescrollers, urine games, philosophical flash games, etc. The thing is that none of these games will reach a mass market. These people won’t even be compensated for the time they themselves put into making the game. Whereas if a cook owns a restaurant and produces a magnificent and creative product, he’ll be successful. People will flock. He’ll make a mint.
In games, you need big time distribution and advertising. I think MMOs and digital distribution are going to chip away at this problem over the next several years a bit, though. One problem with games is that it’s a one off. No restaurant would survive without repeat business. That’s why games MUST shoot for the mass market to be successful. There’s no such thing as repeat business. If I were opening a restaurant or ANY kind of service business and you told me there’d be no repeat business whatsoever for my products, I’d change my mind immediately and spend my money some other way.
There’s where the subscription model comes in with games.
It’s just unfortunate that the norm has become such a low number. It’s creeping upward after the big crash that had UO subs going for 9.99, and I think WoW is $15 now, setting the market standard, but it’s still ridiculously low.
As far as digital distribution, maybe one day games in general can get away without EA and Sony behind them. As it is, you’ll never reach the true mass market otherwise. Most people still get their games in the store. Of course, for that matter, most people still only buy console sports games that are exactly the same as the one that game out a year before except for roster updates.
Maybe there needs to be a new distribution model that makes dinosaurs of that which stifles creativity and innovation. Why not set up a steam-like console in video game stores that burns games onto official-looking discs, where people can list their games for free (or pay for a premium spot and advertising, commercials on the screen while it’s idle, etc).
This isn’t all to say that no innovation or creativity comes in the current model that we have. There are always the gems. UO was innovative, popular, creative. It was sort of developed independently, but it was developed for a company that was owned by EA. So while big brother swept in and took the credit and the profits, would there have been any profits if not for the distribution and advertising weight that EA provided? Brian, you’re the perfect person to answer that question, because M59 was before UO. I just don’t remember seeing it in as many magazines or stores as UO.
And there lies the problem. Would UO have been the success it was if the project didn’t have the weight of EA behind it at launch and afterward? What if it didn’t even have the Ultima name attached to it?
Who knows. I doubt it. Especially not back then, when alternative distribution was almost absolutely unheard of aside from floppy disks being passed around. I doubt that’s a viable plan.
Ever played through as a Soldier/Guardian?
Here’s the problem, though: you chose to play a Soldier/Guardian. Maybe you find that path boring, but what about someone with less manual dexterity? The may not appreciate a lot of action. So, could the game be Art to them but not to you in this case?
So, again, part of the issue here is that the player has input, which changes the experience. For most people, this is the main argument against “games as Art”, but I think it’s just another variation. You can have collaborative storytelling through much of history.
Whereas if a cook owns a restaurant and produces a magnificent and creative product, he’ll be successful. People will flock. He’ll make a mint.
Careful, you’re treading close to confusing popularity with quality (and, by extension, Art). And, restaurants are a particularly poor choice for examples since such a large number of them fail. Someone can be a superb cook but still start a failed restaurant, mostly because of business reasons. A less popular option isn’t necessarily worse. I think you’re barking up the wrong tree thinking about distribution when talking about games as Art.
So while big brother swept in and took the credit and the profits, would there have been any profits if not for the distribution and advertising weight that EA provided? Brian, you’re the perfect person to answer that question, because M59 was before UO. I just don’t remember seeing it in as many magazines or stores as UO.
UO’s main advantage, in my observation, was that it had a very big name behind it: Ultima. The Ultima games were RPGs for many people. I think that without the Ultima name and fanbase, it would not have been as big a success. I think this is also the same thing that has helped WoW: the years of games based on the same brand. We’re starting to see more of this now, as LotRO and the upcoming Stargate game (to name a few) are using licenses to gain larger userbases.
Honestly, I don’t think EA’s weight helped the game very much, other than having potentially deeper pockets than Origin might have had on its own to buy things like servers and set up distributed hosting centers. Most of the advertising was still fairly low-keyed, and the most effective stuff I saw was what the individual developers did, going to places like Usenet.
Remember that most magazines panned UO pretty harshly when it came out. It was awarded “coaster of the year” by Computer Gaming World. M59, on the other hand, was often rated higher than UO back in the early days. But, I suspect the main reason you don’t remember seeing as many M59 ads is that they weren’t as common a year after launch when UO came out. The biggest problem with M59 is that 3DO treated it like a conventional product and didn’t understand how to advertise it as an online game. So, that meant that you didn’t advertise it a year after launch. Keep in mind that 3DO was a fairly big company, too, although not quite as big as EA. That didn’t protect M59 from incompetence, though. ;)
So, to go back on topic, business and Art are not related. However, the topic of legitimacy does include some thoughts about business and success. You might want to check out an article I wrote for RPG Vault talking more about legitimacy. I think this is probably more of what you are thinking of instead of games as Art.
Have fun.
“UO’s main advantage, in my observation, was that it had a very big name behind it: Ultima.”
“Remember that most magazines panned UO pretty harshly when it came out. It was awarded “coaster of the year” by Computer Gaming World.”
Which is amusing to me, because that’s exactly backward for me. I had zero experience with Ultimas prior to UO, and I was actually drawn in initially by a magazine article. I’d take a guess and say that most people you ask who have played UO might say the same.
It’s sort of like IPY in a way. You’d assume, quite rightfully, that most people were playing because they knew of WTFMan.com and were drawn in that way. Interestingly enough, 99% of the people I ever talked to had no idea what wtfman was before IPY.
I think a name is good for a foothold, but it certainly isn’t a meal ticket. Where UO and WoW were successes on the backs of big names, other games like DDO haven’t had the same luck. In fact, I’d have bet that D&D would have been a big enough name to garner at least an amount of accounts that could be considered fairly successful. Maybe D&D is just too old. But I don’t remember LOTRO being any kind of huge smash success, and you’d THINK Lord of the Rings would be a big enough franchise to pull in big numbers, if anything is. It’s nerdy, it’s fantasy, it seems perfect.
But there’s a disconnection between its fans and people who play computer games to an extent (even though WoW has managed to bridge this gap). It’s possible that, optimally, you want a foothold that’s that not only has a well-known brand name, but one that directly applies to computer gamers. Ultima, Warcraft, what’s the next longstanding, quality computer game brand that you could turn into an MMO?
Then again, you see incredible, unforseeable flops like The Sims Online, too. So it’s a really tricky business.
Back on topic a bit more, you’re right about the Soldier/Guardian playstyle. There has to be an option for those less skilled. A Tony Hawk videogame can’t require that you can actually go out and shred a halfpipe. If you sunk money into a virtual reality game like that, you’d make no money.
It’d be a creative and innovative game, though. There’s just no place for it to be developed though, because it’d be too expensive to make and too unprofitable to sell.
The problem is, all of KOTOR’s gameplay is relatively the same. Soldier/Guardian class play is just the best example of it. But it’s all the same thing. There’s no skill option, there’s just a “magic user” style class where you press a different kind of button more often and you have to watch your “mana”.
But I’ll admit, I’m dangerous close to equating popularity with art. The problem is that in the game business, you almost have to, because of the inherent cost of creating the art. If it’s not going to be popular, it doesn’t get created. You can get a team together and sacrifice your marriages to create an innovative, creative product that won’t make any money if you want. And that does happen. But if a tree falls in a forest..?
Because, if a chef makes an incredible reduced icewine glaze fois gras with mushroom risotto – you’re right that it’s not necessarily the case that he’ll become popular. But he’ll probably get noticed, and even if he has no idea how to run a business, he can still become the executive chef at the local Four Seasons and do his thing, right.
If I make whacky, cutting edge, innovative games that don’t appeal to mass markets – who hires me? Better yet, who hires me to make THOSE games? Someone may hire me to slop out omlettes or oversee the hotdog machines at the EA Sports factory, I suppose.
Which is amusing to me, because that’s exactly backward for me. I had zero experience with Ultimas prior to UO, and I was actually drawn in initially by a magazine article. I’d take a guess and say that most people you ask who have played UO might say the same.
But, why did the magazine cover the game at all? Because of the “Ultima” name. M59 didn’t have the name to rely on, and most of the non-paid-for coverage it got was because of the relatively unusual nature of online games back then. Also, note that there is a difference between a preview and a review. Most of the reviews for UO were pretty abysmal, because the launch was anything but smooth. People used to playing traditional games weren’t as forgiving of things like connection problems, etc.
Interestingly enough, 99% of the people I ever talked to had no idea what wtfman was before IPY.
But, this isn’t the same; it’s like saying that most people didn’t know who Raph Koster/Designer Dragon was before playing UO. IPY was still capitalizing on the Ultima name, though.
Where UO and WoW were successes on the backs of big names, other games like DDO haven’t had the same luck.
Names can work against you. Consider that EQ2 did not enjoy instant success based on the EQ1 name, either. In both the case of DDO and EQ2, I think most people made assumptions about the game solely based on the game. I never played DDO, despite being a big paper RPG fan, because if I wanted to play D&D I would bring out my books and get together with my friends. DDO also used one of their newer settings for the game; I think that if DDO had been set in Forgotten Realms instead of Eberron, it would have seen a LOT more success.
And, as far as everything I’ve heard, LotRO is doing quite well. Remember, even WoW didn’t grow to 9 million subscribers overnight. Further, not every company feels the need to do a press release when another million Chinese players try out the game.
Then again, you see incredible, unforseeable flops like The Sims Online, too.
A few people foresaw that TSO wouldn’t do well. The game lacked what made the single-player game interesting: the ability to create content. The game essentially added chat and a grind to the base game and put it online. What’s worse it that you could only control one character online, whereas you could manage a whole family at one time in the offline version. They failed to capture the essence of what made the offline game so successful.
If I make whacky, cutting edge, innovative games that don’t appeal to mass markets – who hires me?
That’s why you have to strike out on your own. You also have to use a business model that doesn’t require more units to be sold to make more money. This is one of the reasons why I’m a tremendous supporter of micropayment systems. They allow people to choose to pay more per month for your game if they can afford it, at least for online games. Selling things at a flat rate means that you’ll have to pander to make money.
Of course, striking out on your own and starting your own company is very hard. You can’t just create a game and hope they’ll come. So, it’s currently difficult for a true visionary without business sense to do his or her thing. Not a new development, unfortunately.
My further thoughts.