Quantcast


Art games aren't innovative and innovation isn't good photo

[Editor's Note: We're not just a (rad) news site -- we also publish opinions/editorials from our community & employees like this one, though be aware that it may not jive with the opinions of Destructoid as a whole, or how our moms raised us. Want to post your own article in response? Publish it now on our community blogs.]

So, the article I wrote a while ago concerning indie games and art caused quite a stir in the industry. The debate that arose from it was very interesting indeed. Some members of the industry liked it. Some members of the industry did not. Some took what I said personally, some brushed it off as the ramblings of a man who missed the point. Still others said very interesting things that, I feel, betray the underlying problem of the "games as art" argument. 

The most perfect example of this problem came from G4TV's Sterling McGarvey, who I briefly mentioned in a more humorous post. His response to the whole debate was one that, I think, truly sums up my major issue with those who defend art games. 

"I'll take a 'pretentious artsy-fartsy indie game' over creatively bankrupt bullshit any day," is what he said. 

Now, McGarvey's comment was but one of many that shared similar sentiments, but it was a perfect snapshot of the big fallacy among those who stand up for art games -- this idea that art games cannot be creatively bankrupt themselves, and that if you are against the indie crowd, you are against originality. This also leads onto a further incorrect but all-too common assumption -- the idea that because something is innovative, it is automatically good. 

No. Art games aren't innovative and innovation isn't good.

I am not against originality in gaming, nor am I against games that strive to be perceived as an artistic endeavor. I do, actually, consider all games a form of art. They're a creative expression, and they have the potential to be emotionally engaging or possess gripping narrative. I am also a big fan of originality. I love it when games are innovative, either from a storytelling or gaming perspective, or both. However, the main point of my original argument, something that I think a lot of people missed, was that many art games on the market are not all that artistic, and they're certainly not original. 

The very basis of my argument was that these "art" games all acted in the same way. They were vague with their rules, they had intentionally cloudy and obscure dialog, or vast sections of "gameplay" that were devoid of direction or compulsion in a deliberate and forced attempt to appear introspective. This, my friends, is where the real bones of my umbrage lie. My assertion is that a considerable volume of art games are no less creatively bankrupt than your average Triple-A retail first-person-shooter. 

We seem to be stuck with this incredibly false idea that indie games = originality and AAA games = uncreative garbage. This is simply not true, and I think it allows indie developers to be incredibly lazy and slapdash with their ideas, safe in the knowledge that their game will get a free pass for innovation, when all they did was follow all the other indie games out there. 

Take Edmund, for example. Edmund is a fine example of an intellectually lazy, uninspired game that has done a good job of hoodwinking its audience into believing that it is an artistic triumph. Edmund is a game about a rapist. He's the main character, and you will have to beat and rape a woman during the course of the game. Sure, that's very shocking, but is it very clever? Not really. Like many of the art games I railed against in the last column, it's really not all that innovative. The rape exists seemingly to shock for the sake of shocking. That's something that books, films and even music have been doing for years. Putting a violent rape in your game is an easy way to make jaws drop. It might be unique for a game, but in terms of art, it's practically a cliche. 

When we look at the non-rape parts of this game, we realize that it's nothing we haven't seen from a dozen indie games in the past. 8-bit visuals? Check. Retro graphics are a huge trope of the indie scene and have found their way into plenty of art games. Remind me, please, of what is so creative about that. I'm not saying retro graphics are inherently bad (you don't have to be creative to be good), but let us not pretend they haven't been done a hundred times before. Capcom, a maker of so-called "creatively bankrupt" games has exploited 8-bit visuals with Mega Man 9 and 10. So much for artsy fartsy games being more unique than the bigger boys. 

Edmund's gameplay is similarly lacking in the creativity department. Most of the "experience" is simply moving from left to right. One half of the game involves some drearily simplistic platforming as Edmund jumps over landmines, but that's about it. Like many art games, it's boring and features vast tracts of doing nothing at all. Takes us right back to The Path, The Void or even Passage and Blueberry Garden. Games where you just walk and do nothing, thrown into something devoid of interesting features and told to figure it out. Again, tell me where all this supposed creativity is. 

My main point is that a game is not "original" or "innovative" just because it has an arbitrary amount of dollars in its budget. A game like BioShock, for all its AAA production values, has more originality in it than something like Edmund or The Path. It tells a great story, and has some really cool and rare gameplay. I wouldn't call BioShock creatively bankrupt. I wouldn't even call Halo creatively bankrupt, and that game is a landmark in the "FPS space marine" genre, henceforth regarded as the most over-saturated genre of them all. I don't personally like Halo, but it told an original tale and featured a rich universe full of history that a lot of fans really got into. I think that's more clever than a game with no backbone to its premise whatsoever.

Then we come to the second fallacy, the idea that innovation is somehow a mark of quality. I already addressed this issue a while ago, but it's worth reiterating once again. Innovation should not get a game a free pass. Just because something is original, that does not automatically make it brilliant. The idea may be genius, but if the execution is off, then you need to be honest enough to say the game failed. Again, I bring up The Void, with its wonderfully bleak atmosphere and haunting premise, juxtaposed against its unclear gameplay, lack of direction, and its need to punish players for the crime of needing some unique mechanics explained properly. 

Taking a page from the Triple-A playbook, Mirror's Edge was regarded as a hugely innovative title, and many people overlooked the fact that it didn't actually work properly and players frequently died through no fault of their own. Mirror's Edge is a fine example because it demonstrates not only that a major publisher's games can be innovative, but that innovation is not always great. It's the ultimate example of the falsehood that surrounds art game debates.

Heavy Rain is another fine bit of evidence. When I criticized the game and gave it a less-than-perfect review, there were plenty of naysayers on Destructoid and around the Web who accused me of hating innovation. There is a very poor Web site called Criticosm that pretends to be a place where people can review reviewers, but is really just another outlet to bitch about review scores. That Web site provides a huge amount of resources for anybody interested in people who are completely wrong about videogames.

"He obviously wants a steady diet of no-brainer cookie-cutter games that follow every conceivable cliche," writes one whiner, regarding my Heavy Rain review. "When a new and innovative game like Heavy Rain comes up, which by the way happens very rarely, he kicks it in the shin, and when gaming companies evaluate financial performance, they are discouraged to try anything new and we get our next portion of bland and generic games."

This is a beautiful example of this sheep-like mentality surrounding so-called "innovative" games. For a start, Heavy Rain is not unique. Like most "artistic" games, it provides an illusion of innovation. It's essentially Dragon's Lair for adults, and the story is not that unique when compared to movies. It's not often done in games, I grant you, but Quantic Dream did nothing that hasn't been done in the world of art before. However, my main criticism of Heavy Rain is that its story was badly written, and for a game built almost entirely around the plot, it needed to be picked apart. It wasn't because the game was innovative that I was so unforgiving. It's because it was not as brilliant as it thought it was, in spite of its innovation.

Claiming that a critic "hates innovation" is simply an easy way out. It's very easy to make that claim and feel like you've made a point, when really you've done nothing other than betray your own ignorance with a presumptuous and false knee-jerk reaction. I am pretty sure that no videogame critic exists who hates a title just because it is new, and despises all games that try and do something different. Nobody sits there, deliberately defecating on games like Heavy Rain because they want nothing but first-person-shooters on the market and go out of their way to destroy any other type of title. The critic who hates innovation is more of a boogey man than anything else, a nice fictional beast upon which gamers can paint the faces of their least favorite reviewers. 

So we come to the title of our editorial, "Art games aren't innovative and innovation isn't good." Am I saying that all art games are unoriginal and that all originality is bad? No, I am not. What I am saying is that an art game, by itself, is neither inherently original nor unoriginal. Likewise, innovation, by itself, is neither good nor bad. You can't simply say art games are original, because there are plenty that toe the line and copy each other. You can't say innovation is good because plenty of innovative games have failed, either tied up and lost in their own ambition or placed in the hands of developers not skilled enough to do the unique idea justice. 

In the same way that a knife can be put to good or evil purposes depending on who is holding it, a game can be great or terrible depending on who makes it. It's not about the genre, or the budget, or the fact that it turns established gameplay ideas on its head. A bad game is a bad game, and I think it's intellectually dishonest to act like big budget games are incapable of being unique while art games are original and wonderful by no merit other than the type of game they are. Let's judge these things on their own merits. That's what I did during my last editorial on the subject, before everyone else pulled out their tar brushes.

So no, art games are not innovative and innovation is not good. Not on their own.








More gaming stories around the web. Got news? Submit yours to tips@destructoid.com

Jim Sterling serves as reviews editor for Destructoid.com, head of the Podtoid podcast, and produces a number of news stories, original features, one-of-a-kind videos. With his passionate argumentative style, controversial opinions, harsh delivery, and dedication to brutal honesty Sterling is a name that you can't help but recognize. Likes PS2, iPod Touch, Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid, Dynasty Warriors 3 Meet the rest of the team



Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:

Comment with Facebook





Click connect and comment instantly!

Comment with Dtoid





New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds

231 comments | showing # 1 to 50
prev
next 50 comments

Diverse's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:06
Diverse
Here we go again
Dan CiTi's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:07
Dan CiTi
I hate innovation too. We only need one game to exist: Pokemon SoulSilver...and I guess HeartGold too.
Brandon Kelly's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:07
Brandon Kelly
Yeah but theyre good because all the cool kids like em
Rammstein's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:08
Rammstein
*Before* I read this, just let me say this: I love you. You are why I keep coming back to DToid every day.

*reads article*
Monodi's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:08
Monodi
you are just trolling Rev, right?
wedgewu's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:08
wedgewu
This might be the first time I'm 100% on board with what you're saying.
Marar Patrunjica's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:09
Marar Patrunjica
You're saying that halo has innovation but the void does not because its... hard

Please stop trolling just for the controversy
Boatz's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:10
Boatz
Very good read. In the end, its all about the fun, right? And if a game isn't fun because its trying to be innovative, then its failed as a game.
KingSigy's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:11
KingSigy
Don't feel bad, Jim. One of the most creative AAA games last year, Borderlands, was not a game I enjoyed. I actually kind of loathed it. It took two ideas, RPGs and Shooters, and slammed them together instead of trying to create pure elements of both.

You don't hate innovation, you're just a purveyor of quality; a perfectionist. That's not a bad thing, because who should have to pay good, hard earned money on games that suck?
Doc lulz's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:12
Doc lulz
I am sure that this article will have at least 800 comments the next time I take a look
Perfidious Sinn's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:12
Perfidious Sinn
8 bit rape? And that's actually a real video game?

What were they thinking?!
Grimspoon's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:13
Grimspoon
Glad someone is saying these words.
bVork's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:13
bVork
I'll take a creative game that reaches for the stars and falls short over a solid well-worn retread any day. Alone In The Dark is actually one of my favourite games this generation despite its many shortcomings, simply because it tries so many new and interesting things. To me, a lot of the appeal of gaming is the joy of exploration - which can be anything from literal exploration of a well-realized world, to becoming engaged in an enthralling story, to discovering new and interesting game mechanics that I have not seen before.
Tarvu's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:15
Tarvu
Yeah pretty much, a game is good if the developers make a good game. Jim Sterling is Captain Obvious is Jim Sterling?
Letters numbers and spaces are ok's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:15
Letters numbers and spaces are ok
CaveStory was a sub-par side-scroller, obviously you guys think that it deserved top ten games of the decade even though all it was was artsy-fartsy. Gratz, it was done by one guy, it is amazing he did it, etc, etc... doesn't make it a good game.
TheDRMaster's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:16
TheDRMaster
What Brandon Kelly said. I don't want my indie cred to be ruined.

:3 Outstanding writeup.
ICLHStudios's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:16
ICLHStudios
I agree completely with this, it also reminds me of when people claim a game is good or bad simply because of the premise, such as when people keep complaining about how MMOs need to change and cite the traditional fantasy setting as one of the main flaws of the genre, as if all the problems would be instantly solved if there were no elves or magic. The gameplay of the game itself is so much more important than the premise or even the basic mechanics, some amazing games have been made from some amazingly uninspired mechanics, just look at some of the simple platformers out there, so much variety from just moving and jumping.
AceFlibble's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:17
AceFlibble
That was a perfectly reasonable, well-written and well thought out article that has a solid point and makes it in a mature and intelligent way.

A fiver says most of the comments skip over all that.
Blindfire's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:19
Blindfire
Creating a good game has a lot more to do with crafting something satisfying as a whole. I think one of the most irritating things about "innovative" games is that they tend to be one-note. Whatever innovative thing they're doing tends to be the main thing they're focused on, and the rest of the game elements suffer for lack of more detailed attention, which results in a less satisfying overall package. Even then, whatever innovation is being lauded still tends to feel a bit out of place or dysfunctional because the package built around it is poorly constructed.

As far as reviewing critics, I can't think of a more pointless activity. I try to think of critics in the most basic sense; as other gamers. Their opinions are no more valid or important than any other gamer. Taking time to rip them to shreds is completely unnecessary, and petty. If you don't like what they have to say, just ignore them. Write them off. Somebody you probably didn't know existed yesterday, and won't give a shit about tomorrow.
Grimspoon's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:19
Grimspoon
@Letters numbers and spaces are ok

Pretty compelling argument except for the part where you're wrong; Cave Story has exceptionally good gameplay mechanics.

Nice try though.
Mikular's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:20
Mikular
Just bookmarked this article, loved it, nice job man. Totally agree, and I admire the balls that one must presumably have to face the shitstorm incoming of all your Heavy Rain review critics, your "Indie games don't have to act like indie games" critics and such.
But regardless of the reaction, this was a really well written and enlightening article. Keep up the good work, Jim.
StumpFreak's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:20
StumpFreak
Here, here! Great writeup, Jim. I agreed with damned near every point you made in the last article and this one as well.

I hope we can get this worked out between everyone soon. I, just like all of you, love great games. Can't we all just get along?
D-503's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:21
D-503
"art games are not innovative and innovation is not good. Not on their own"
Who is saying they are?

Yeah, you can point to examples of games that aren't "innovative" or games that try to be innovative but you think fall on their face and say "Oh look they're stupid." But no one on the post you just made claimed they weren't. All you quoted was "I'll take a 'pretentious artsy-fartsy indie game' over creatively bankrupt bullshit any day," and said, "McGarvey's comment was but one of many that shared similar sentiments." Then you took it in whatever random direction you wanted.

You didn't quote anyone actually saying that they disagreed with your thesis statement, so why are you arguing it.
TheDirtyHobo's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:22
TheDirtyHobo
Not saying I disagree with the idea you're trying to send here, because I think you're right, but you really need to find a way to express your opinions without sounding like a complete jackass troll. The whole article reeks of butthurt "I can't believe people disagree with my utterly genious ideas about video games."
StumpFreak's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:23
StumpFreak
@Grimspoon

Seconded. Cave Story is effing fantastic. Can't wait to grab the Wii version.
Brandon Kelly's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:24
Brandon Kelly
There is a lot of parallel between this and the indie scene for music/art etc. People get into this mindset that indie= better and believe that they are above everyone because they are different.
I'll just say it, I personally don't like Modern Warfare 2, in fact I hate it, but there is a REASON it sold the millions of copies it did. Can you attest it to marketing, PR, controversy, and just all around limelight that it got? sure. But even when the hardcore game nerds like us are hating some pretentious indie game,you just have to look past the mentality.
Jack Barwell's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:28
Jack Barwell
If for a game to be 'artistic' it needs to overly pretentious and devoid of the whole 'game' aspect of 'video games' then perhaps art isn't something to strive for in this medium.
Sean Daisy's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:28
Sean Daisy
Shouldn't that be; "Art games aren't always innovative and innovation isn't always good"?

Because otherwise from the headline alone you're misleading that art games are never innovative and innovation is never good, which would betray the sentiments of your article.

Other than that, I agree with your article, but doubt you've silenced the haters.
Rammstein's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:29
Rammstein
After having read the article, my opinion still stands. Bravo, sir. I'm not a sycophant but god damn, man. You just eloquently worded something a lot of people have thought but have been too afraid to say!
*insert Slowclap.gif here*

I know its the popular thing to say 'Its indie, so its GODLIKE' but fuck all that noise. Its the videogame industry equivalent of those art house hippies who think they're better/smarter than everyone because they've read a book, seen a film or listen to a band that no one else has even heard of.

I'm not going to name names but DToid isn't completely innocent of this.
Dynomice's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:30
Dynomice
I don't understand the Mirror's Edge example. From where I was standing, the innovative free-running gameplay was what saved the game from its craptastic gunplay and generic-o-tron story. I admit occasionally it was a bit glitchy or the perception was off so you ended up dieing "through no fault of your own", but I see those as inevitable rough edges of a first attempt.

Portal couldn't have been what it was without the clunky Narbacular Drop first.
TheOrangeFellow's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:32
TheOrangeFellow
You did a terrific job completely missing the point of Edmund.

Journalism at it's finest!
Kohlstream's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:33
Kohlstream
I am glad that games like The Path and The Void exist in the sense that they are attempts at thing that games don't usually do. I agree that they are failed attempts in most respects but it shows developers who want to push the boat out a bit what works and what doesn’t. So they do have some value in that respect. I do agree with your bottom line, a shit game is a shit game no matter who makes it.

I really wanna read a response article by Rev on the subject. And was Mirror's Edge really that bad? I enjoyed it a lot.
ALT's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:34
ALT
Well written, despite your flamebait title.

I agree with the majority of what you have to say (having not played the void) but I have to disagree with you again about passage. In that instance, (a free and 5 minute long game) I think that the otherwise annoying vague mechanics (which are explained by the end of the first playthrough) are a necessity. You not realizing that your life is quickly wasting away is a great reflection on life and specifically youth. You kinda end up realizing whats been squandered only after the time has passed. That's cool, and it's cool because of the type of presentation that may be pointlessly convoluted in other 'art' games.

Anyway, aside from that, yeah I feel ya completely.
PappaDukes's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:35
PappaDukes
This was awesome. Thanks again for your defense of the non-artsy fartsy games and the whole "games are art" bullshit in general.

You're the reason I joined dtoid back in '06, and the reason I come back everyday.
Mulk Calathar's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:35
Mulk Calathar
I agree Jim.
Discarded Couch Sandwich's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:36
Discarded Couch Sandwich
Regardless of the intelectuall poop that will inevitably go down beneath this article, I'll just say that the gaming industry certainly requires the kind of guy who takes as much flack as Jim does, just for standing on the soapbox and stating his "controversial" (read: smartly written, well reasoned) opinions to a wider community. Destructoid should be proud to have you!
djvlive's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:37
djvlive
@Marar Patrunjica

the Void isnt just hard. if i just re-started the game for the 3rd time, knew EXACTLY what needed to be done and even knew EXACTLY how to do it but because my mouse button fails on me twice in a row while drawing glyphs i play through the same 2 hours of gameplay to realize i CANT make it any further and must start the game over yet again..?

thats bad programming. its lack of solid game mechanics LIMITS its own narrative. while i may be interested in the game and want to find out what happens, if i physically CANT because of its slip-shoddy design- its not a good game.

halo on the other hand wasnt terribly original but it played well enough for you to get the scope of the story from beginning to end while at least enjoying yourself during the process. yeah so it was recycled-sci-fi-cliche 101, at least i can say i had fun playing it.
Diverse's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:40
Diverse
@Letters numbers and spaces are ok: Stop talking out of your ass. No one calls Cave Story an "art game". The art game bullshit has never even infected the indie gaming scene in Japan.
Tubatic's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:42
Tubatic
I wish more people understood that Mega Man 9 and 10 are not exploiting 8-bit graphics.

Ah well.
sandorasbox's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:42
sandorasbox
You just made a lot of points I'm pretty sure no one actually disagrees with.

The original quote, the one that inspired your rant, merely implied that the dude prefers interesting games that try to be different over games that don't bring anything new to the table.

Its not that all indie/art games are innately better, or that they're not creatively bankrupt, its just that most people prefer variety in the things they enjoy. 95% of mainstream games are based on tried and true formulas.

EXAMPLE (which is totally unnecessary): I had to listen to so much classic rock radio one summer that I would gladly listen to anything else, no matter how crappy, because it was new and different. I dont consider classic rock bad, I just got sick of it, just like some people get sick of mainstream films and mainstream games.

So, uh, who actually disagrees with you?
Deny Everything's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:42
Deny Everything
I think what indie and art games need to walk away from is "it's creative and unique... so it's okay that it sucks!" Mainstream work doesn't have any shield that to defend itself from being subpar, but art games do. Creativity is not an excuse for quality.
Eficent's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:42
Eficent
The whole argument reminds me of the abstract art movement against the traditional art. Some people like to look at abstract art and think of some deeper meaning to it all. I for one think it's a lazy bunch of colors thrown together to give some illusion of being deep.

Now I'm not saying that people who find abstract art are dumb. Far from it. They actually sit there and think about it all on some other level. It's just different strokes. Some people like to think hard about what happened and pull some deeper meaning from all of it. I look at them and find nothing but frustration and pretentiousness.

Just that when I'm playing a video game, I expect my reflexes and problem solving skills to be tested rather than my deeper thinking skills. Guess I'm trying to say that no one is wrong for fucks sake. People like different stuff. I've just come to my own conclusion that artsy is not a way I like to think. People will be a lot happier when they come to terms with what they like and leave other people's opinion of shit out of their thoughts and ESPECIALLY their decisions.
Super Drybones's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:43
Super Drybones
I think a lot of the problem with poor story telling in games is that they try to be innovative by having a bunch of twists and try to rope between those twists with plot to get to another twist. Bioshock did it well, Heavy Rain didn't, at least where I am in the story.
Jon Bloodspray's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:44
Jon Bloodspray
Well, I highly enjoyed this article, Mr. Sterling.
mix's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:44
mix
I read most of it but I totally agree, some indie games suck fucking balls and people ride them raw like they are a gift from the gods.
Pixel Kaiser's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:45
Pixel Kaiser
So because this article worked so well the first time, you've written it again? Nice one, Jim!
Vigilante8's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:47
Vigilante8
My biology teacher once said that evolution came through a variety of mutations across thousands of different individuals, and one of those mutations ended up being usefull for the perpetuation of the species.
Because of that, some started to believe that mutations are good things, and that something with a mutation it's good. But that's bullshit, 99,99% of all mutations that happen are actually uselss or prejudicial.


I actually don't thinked that something as "art games are not innovative and innovation is not good. Not on their own.", had to be explained...

Jim was right when he wrote the first article and now he's just demonstrating it...
Letters numbers and spaces are ok's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:47
Letters numbers and spaces are ok
@ Grimspoon

http://insomnia.ac/reviews/pc/doukutsumonogatari/ > you

@ Diverse

art games go hand in hand with indy, look at stuff like world of goo, cave story has a certain arty element to it that peopel are drawn to
Paroxysm's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:47
Paroxysm
I keep forgetting how wrong I was for enjoying Mirror's Edge.
KCalder's Avatar - Comment posted on 02/18/2010 16:48
KCalder
I would give it just a slightly different title. "Art Games aren't necessarily innovative, and innovation isn't necessarily good."

I know, what's the point of giving a half-opinion when people will listen more to a bold statement. But I think my title is closer to the opinion you express, and closer to the truth.

As in the examples you've given, yes, plenty of games and other media are rightly percieved as high-quality by the critical community despite being thoroughly non-innovative. Not hard to point to an example of a recent film for that.

I think the number one reason a gamer speaks out is because they want to tell other people how great their favorite game is. And their favorite is not often going to be selected from among hundreds of also-rans. Statistically, it's more likely to have been a high seller. It's more likely to be a younger fan's opinion than an old-timer's, because the industry is much larger now than it was. Finally, I think people identify with the game that introduced them to a particular style of game - for them, the innovator - more than the next 5 sequels, me-too knockoffs, or rereleases.

Access your inner console fanboy, and you might find that your favorite game also has an illogical system preference attached to it, too, not based on the quality of graphics, interface, load times, etc on later versions for other consoles.

So to bring it back to art games. Yes, they can be dogmatic too. But most people don't know that, and don't care. The limited release means that for most people, their first art game seems totally new to them, whatever form it may take, whether it's Passage, or You have to burn the Rope, or FlOw, or whatever. With an innovative product in hand, a new experience for them, usual expectations fly out the window. It's the same with big budget games. Somewhere out there, is a newish gamer who's never heard of Tetris, but thinks Lumines is the best puzzle game ever and so innovative compared to all these normal games.

Critics by their nature consume way more media, know more of the history and the game models that non-innovative games rely on, and it's harder to access their basic 'kid playing something incredible they've never seen before' mode. Art games, even the by the numbers ones, are more likely to do that for a long-term gamer.
prev next 50 comments

Comment with Facebook





Click connect and comment instantly!

Comment with Dtoid





New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds

Comments policy

Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?

Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!