This is/was something of a responce to this post, but then things got out of hand and I kept writing and writing and then it wouldn't all fit in the comment box and it got all off topic, so I'm throwing it up here!


Gauger wrote: "I think one could argue that a painting could be high art, even if it compels you to stop looking at it, but I opine that the looking is as much a part of the experience of the painting as what the painting itself portrays. If one is not looking at a painting, one is not experiencing it. The same goes for games. The minute I stop wanting to play a game, my experience with the art of it is crippled."

You could make the argument that it's possible for a piece of art, be it a book or a painting or a piece of music, be shocking or repelling in some ways and cause you to want to look away or stop it, but also compels one to look, read or listen further.

Or, in the case of stopping and not looking back again, there's certainly been art that is meant to shock.. to have a person see it once, then look away, never to see it again, the initial shock value being the only intended effect/result. Even if you're not actively looking at it, the memory of it could be considered part of the artistic intent and emotional effect it has on the viewer.

So if there was a truly artful game that made you want to stop playing it at a specific point as its intent, you could say your experience with the art of it was complete.. as long as it was designed that way, anyway. For example, you might reach a certain point in the game and something truly horrible happens. Then the game stops everything asks you to choose between two simple things: To stop or to go on. If implemented correctly and built up to well enough with emotional involvement to seriously give the player pause as the tradegy befalls them and about half of the audience does stop there, they'd be given a satisfactory ending and left to wonder what would have happened had they gone on. I would hope they'd be left wondering with lingering doubts for a least a while after they had put the game away. That sort of interactivity is exactly what games can do, as opposed to books or other media.

(Of course, most gamers would just save before the decision and do both, with the ingrained notion of finding/reaching the 'true, proper' ending, thus ruining the effect.)

As for an artistic game that tries to shock the audience, I imagine a gristly scene of gore to disgust/repel a player (as opposed to give them a visceral thrill, as it seems that's the only use for gore these days), perhaps in a crime scene you come upon as a cop.. the desire of wanting to capture and see the prepetrator of the foul act brought to justice being the hook for the rest of the game.

Anyway, now I'm struck with a concept for a murder mystery sort of game. A detective story. You play the police detective, of course. You're thrust into your role with a nasty murder crime-scene and left to try and hunt down the killer with the old flatfoot routine and basic forensics like fingerprints and blood types. Nothing too CSI fancy. Anyway, my sudden idea was that after ages of searching and digging and hunting for clues and all that jazz, you realize you're never going to catch the killer. The case will go unsolved. Maybe throw it into a game that has other, solvable, cases, to make the game seem less 'cheap', overall. With the one unsolvable case, the artistic merit comes in it forcing you, the player, to realize that good doesn't always win and things aren't always resolved. (but lack of closure sucks!) You tell your police superior you're giving up the case and it all ends.

Of course, I just had another idea while writing that.. once you give up the case, an alternate mode of play is opened while the other is closed and you play as the criminal and must evade the police endlessly, in a reflection of what when on during your investigation as the police.

Would that qualify as an artistic game, if produced with enough style and well-balanced story telling? As long as it doesn't jerk you around too much, I think it would be compelling without being traditionally 'fun'.

(This Part 2 was also written at about 6 in the morning after being up all night, what is wrong with me? I bet I'll come back and see that it makes no sense to me later.)