surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Sorry you didn't dig Dear Esther, Jimothy. I couldn't disagree more. I found it an engaging, beautiful experience (there's that word again, huh?) that kept me involved and very unbored the entire time, all three times I've played through it.
Then again, I also disagree when you say there's no place for games that could have been films or books. I'm perfectly fine with that. Very interested in the concept, in fact, and that's exactly what I dug about Dear Esther. I felt like maybe I was seeing the birth of a new medium, and that was exciting. It absolutely was a book in game form, and I found that worthwhile and interesting.
Also, you just didn't get it.
Then again, I also disagree when you say there's no place for games that could have been films or books. I'm perfectly fine with that. Very interested in the concept, in fact, and that's exactly what I dug about Dear Esther. I felt like maybe I was seeing the birth of a new medium, and that was exciting. It absolutely was a book in game form, and I found that worthwhile and interesting.
Also, you just didn't get it.
I just must not have a lot of imagination, as I don't think I've ever been "immersed in a game world." So yeah, I say screw all of those art games. Screw Journey, Dear Esther, Ico, Limbo, etc (don't screw braid though, that game actually had legitimately fun gameplay even if you don't appreciate the "artistic appeal")
Jim, I just want to say that you have fucking offended me and my Mass Effect experience by spoiling the fact that there is a third game. I am only halfway through the second one, and foreknowledge that there is a third installment has ruined my ability to experience Mass Effect 2 in a vacuum. Use spoiler tags when referencing the existence of new games. Asshole.
Great Jimquisition, about a subject rarely spoken about in the right way. Now, I LIKE walking around in "virtual museums" (somewhat interactive films are okay by me, like interactive books, comics or crossovers like that), and that may be a difference between us, yet every game doing that could do more and be a real, fully interactive video game without compromise, I'm sure of that.
I feel like categorizing oneself as an "art" game is pretentious in and of itself, and somewhat defeating of the title. Silent Hill, for instance, is a series that was defined as art by many people within the industry, while the developers never projected it as anything more than a survival horror experience with a focus on story. Truly "artistic" games simply spawn out of their own success in the medium.
I hate the bit.trip games. If I wanted to sit through archaic game design because "art", I'd...well, I wouldn't ever want to. Which is why I fucking loath those games.
THANK GOD FOR JIM STERLING!!!
But seriously, I couldn't agree more with you. This kind of game usually bore me to death, and are way, way, way, way pretentious.
Art lesson time: it's not the creator that defines what is and what isn't art, it's the other people, the society. And sometimes something that's art today isn't art anymore tomorrow. Or something that is art for you isn't art for me.
More important that art objects, videogames should be videogames.
And I think it's a medium that is far far far FAR away from reaching it's full potential of diferents ways to express ideas and experiences. Let's take for example Hideo Kojima. The man uses some really heavy cinema language on his famous MGS series, but at the same time he does stuff only possible within the video game medium, like the creative pre-psycho mantis battle mind reading, the very battle, and the depressing end of the final battle from MGS3.
And let's not forget Eternal Darkness sanity system.
But seriously, I couldn't agree more with you. This kind of game usually bore me to death, and are way, way, way, way pretentious.
Art lesson time: it's not the creator that defines what is and what isn't art, it's the other people, the society. And sometimes something that's art today isn't art anymore tomorrow. Or something that is art for you isn't art for me.
More important that art objects, videogames should be videogames.
And I think it's a medium that is far far far FAR away from reaching it's full potential of diferents ways to express ideas and experiences. Let's take for example Hideo Kojima. The man uses some really heavy cinema language on his famous MGS series, but at the same time he does stuff only possible within the video game medium, like the creative pre-psycho mantis battle mind reading, the very battle, and the depressing end of the final battle from MGS3.
And let's not forget Eternal Darkness sanity system.
Bang on about "I'd rather watch a film or read a book" if a video game won't engage on the level of interactivity. The point of a game is to play and interact instead of observe and be told. Which, under that definition, I find that Noby Noby Boy is probably the finest example from the current generation of games.
This is a pretty fascinating Marxist look at "art games." Art game developers essentially take the same path with their commodity as mainstream publishers would take their commodity - recreating familiar experiences for consumers in order to secure profit.
I love me a story in a game, but I want to love the world, too. If anything, a better story makes me want even more to interact with the world it is in. Without that, a game really does suffer.
I love me a story in a game, but I want to love the world, too. If anything, a better story makes me want even more to interact with the world it is in. Without that, a game really does suffer.
Having gone to Art School for a short stint....I definitely see where Jim is coming from. I think when it is boiled down to the goodies, no too art games are alike, and there are a few that the message is powerful enough to excuse...well excuse pretty much everything else. However, having said that, many hide behind these supposedly deep messages as justification for poor...well everything else.
Artists love to toss around this intellectual words and phrases and their fellow peers tend to agree with them because they themselves do not want to be seen as "stupid" or just not getting it. I have experimented with this myself while I was in art school. I would use words such as the human condition and metaphysical. Words that transcend and what have you. I would then compare to times when I used simple digestible words. Without a doubt, when I used incomprehensible words, my work was far better received. Even if I used the SAME artwork. I would watch kids go out, get drunk, do drugs, procrastinate their work, and throw some shit together on the last night or day, only to have it praised to the highest degree. Told they must have spent long hours/days/weeks thinking of their work. Bullshit.
I would have reviewers sit in on panels reviewing my work and all that was necessary to get a possible review was to get the majority to accept your viewpoint. Then the minority would flip their assessment because "oh now I see". More like, now you see that you are in the minority...thus your opinion my be seen as lacking.
Artists love to toss around this intellectual words and phrases and their fellow peers tend to agree with them because they themselves do not want to be seen as "stupid" or just not getting it. I have experimented with this myself while I was in art school. I would use words such as the human condition and metaphysical. Words that transcend and what have you. I would then compare to times when I used simple digestible words. Without a doubt, when I used incomprehensible words, my work was far better received. Even if I used the SAME artwork. I would watch kids go out, get drunk, do drugs, procrastinate their work, and throw some shit together on the last night or day, only to have it praised to the highest degree. Told they must have spent long hours/days/weeks thinking of their work. Bullshit.
I would have reviewers sit in on panels reviewing my work and all that was necessary to get a possible review was to get the majority to accept your viewpoint. Then the minority would flip their assessment because "oh now I see". More like, now you see that you are in the minority...thus your opinion my be seen as lacking.
Holy English errors!!! Did not mean to capitalize Art and School. Also meant to say no "two" art games are alike, instead of "too". Damn phone.
Not to pick a bone with one throwaway remark, but did you just diss books? Like, in general?
If you don't like reading, why would you bother playing a game that admits its all story and no interaction? Not all games have to appeal to every set of interests to be good games. I know I don't have any particular interest in NASCAR, so when I rarely play a racing game I don't complain about how there's no involved backstory for the models who say rev your engiiiiines. That'd be silly.
If you don't like reading, why would you bother playing a game that admits its all story and no interaction? Not all games have to appeal to every set of interests to be good games. I know I don't have any particular interest in NASCAR, so when I rarely play a racing game I don't complain about how there's no involved backstory for the models who say rev your engiiiiines. That'd be silly.
Hear hear, mister Sterling. Just because you present your mundane trash in a beret while brooding does not make the trash you present clever. I think a clever game like Portal, is probably as hard to pull off as a scary one. In literature, a good story is crap without sharp writing. On the big screen, a good story swallows moose testicles without proper cinematography. Those assets are crucial for their mediums. For videogames, that asset is interactivity that draws you in.
@Joe
I like to think I know how to distinguish genius from lack of talent though. I'm sure I don't have a 100% success rate, but I'm at least aware of the distinction and make the effort. Sometimes something really is as deep and meaningful as it tries to be, though. I think if we worry too much about being fooled, we tend to miss those occasions.
I like to think I know how to distinguish genius from lack of talent though. I'm sure I don't have a 100% success rate, but I'm at least aware of the distinction and make the effort. Sometimes something really is as deep and meaningful as it tries to be, though. I think if we worry too much about being fooled, we tend to miss those occasions.
Taste and opinion are subjective. I have not played Dear Esther, but there are many who did enjoy it.
That being said, more variety in terms of gameplay ideas within the scope of art games as a genre is a valid argument, and that I do support Jim.
That being said, more variety in terms of gameplay ideas within the scope of art games as a genre is a valid argument, and that I do support Jim.
I was actually thinking about this the other day when playing ME3. Shep was running through a forest while having a dream and I was like, "Oh, I bet all of gaming media is going to say how brilliant this is."
Don't get me wrong, ME story is awesome. But I totally see your point, Jim.
Don't get me wrong, ME story is awesome. But I totally see your point, Jim.
@rossandgarfunkel
ENOUGH with this stupid "OMG U SPOIL IT JIM" meme, its been beaten into the ground, the fact that you didn't mentioned the jimquisition at all leaves me to believe you're an idiot.
I agree completely, its not just art games like you describe, I can think of that Jurassic Park game o Heavy Rain, both of them feel like I'm just going through he motions and not given a chance to immerse myself, regardless of how much controller shaking the game makes me do.
ENOUGH with this stupid "OMG U SPOIL IT JIM" meme, its been beaten into the ground, the fact that you didn't mentioned the jimquisition at all leaves me to believe you're an idiot.
I agree completely, its not just art games like you describe, I can think of that Jurassic Park game o Heavy Rain, both of them feel like I'm just going through he motions and not given a chance to immerse myself, regardless of how much controller shaking the game makes me do.
You'd think that as someone who went to art school and knows their way around a canvas I'd be in love with "art games," but aside from a handful that I adore I mostly don't like them. I find most of them boring. These games force you to stop and smell the flowers, but I already do that with every game to begin with. That's usually why it takes me longer to beat a game than most people, because I like the pause and stare at scenery and talk to NPCs. A game that forces me to do that is boring because there's nothing more.
@JohnGrisham
agreed
@JohnGrisham
agreed
"Game that Integrate me into the world are games I care about..." This is why I play games. Good Video as always.
@Tristix
I would like to think I could do. Yet, after seeing professional art critics and professional artists, people we generally believe to have the capacity to judge what is "genius", still be fooled by students who could argue a point regardless of the foundation of their point. It makes me at least wonder. Do not get me wrong, when there are "objective standards" to determining what is genius, then we can be more right than we are wrong. Even if these "objective standards" are merely subjectively determined (Think dog shows to illustrate this point).
It could be countered that those students were not, in fact, fooling, but being genuine. It is a far counter-point, but I think a person would be hard-pressed to defend someone as being genuine when even they themselves admit their insincerity towards their work.
My basic point follows, I do think there are talented people, but talent and creativity are two different aspects. Creativity is a hard beast to define and one that I do not want to "hard" define. However, with creativity there is also sincerity. Which is what I discuss in my first post. Sincerity does not follow from talent and/or creativity. A person can be talented and slap together a game, attempting to convince creativity, but lack sincerity. Which is all too common. I can have a game where you play a daughter sitting on the couch watching cartoons, where you control the volume to the TV, all the while in the background your parents fight. There I pitched a game. However, my lack of sincerity could be disguised by how much I attempt to force creativity.
I would like to think I could do. Yet, after seeing professional art critics and professional artists, people we generally believe to have the capacity to judge what is "genius", still be fooled by students who could argue a point regardless of the foundation of their point. It makes me at least wonder. Do not get me wrong, when there are "objective standards" to determining what is genius, then we can be more right than we are wrong. Even if these "objective standards" are merely subjectively determined (Think dog shows to illustrate this point).
It could be countered that those students were not, in fact, fooling, but being genuine. It is a far counter-point, but I think a person would be hard-pressed to defend someone as being genuine when even they themselves admit their insincerity towards their work.
My basic point follows, I do think there are talented people, but talent and creativity are two different aspects. Creativity is a hard beast to define and one that I do not want to "hard" define. However, with creativity there is also sincerity. Which is what I discuss in my first post. Sincerity does not follow from talent and/or creativity. A person can be talented and slap together a game, attempting to convince creativity, but lack sincerity. Which is all too common. I can have a game where you play a daughter sitting on the couch watching cartoons, where you control the volume to the TV, all the while in the background your parents fight. There I pitched a game. However, my lack of sincerity could be disguised by how much I attempt to force creativity.
I didn't mind Dear Esther when it was a source mod, since it was free. However, paying 10 bucks for what basically amounts to a short film with a walk button is just criminal.
I think that been pretentious (hipsters) is something that the whole indie game scene has a problem with.
I find it very odd that Dear Esther calls itself a game, when it's more of an exploration sim. I mean, in what we commonly know as a 'game', isn't there supposed to be a story that the player is the direct recipient of? Color me confused, but shouldn't art games be more like actual... games? I'm not saying they need intense combat mechanics or spectacular level design, but they need something for the player to munch on while they take in the atmosphere. In Dear Esther the sheer force of the environment and music accomplished this to some degree, but after a while it gets tired. (Unless you're the kind of person that can really dig into that stuff.) Even if it was just playing tic-tac-toe on rocks or something, there would at least be something for the player to play.
To trot out a horribly tired example, Killer7 is a game where the star isn't any one of the Smiths, but the story that takes place around them. Weaved in between the strands of that story were some really weird shooting mechanics and puzzles. There was stuff for the player to do that moved them along in the story, and plenty to look at and absorb while you watched the members of the Smith Syndicate run along hallways.
That's not to say that items like Dear Esther don't have their place, it had fantastically designed areas, and visuals were very enjoyable; But some people need more than that.
Also, I love your new glasses, Jim. Very slick and stylish.
To trot out a horribly tired example, Killer7 is a game where the star isn't any one of the Smiths, but the story that takes place around them. Weaved in between the strands of that story were some really weird shooting mechanics and puzzles. There was stuff for the player to do that moved them along in the story, and plenty to look at and absorb while you watched the members of the Smith Syndicate run along hallways.
That's not to say that items like Dear Esther don't have their place, it had fantastically designed areas, and visuals were very enjoyable; But some people need more than that.
Also, I love your new glasses, Jim. Very slick and stylish.
I have a problem with the way "art game" is defined, like some of the other people here.
The way we define "art game" seems to be a game that puts the importance of relaying a message before the importance of gameplay and other gaming priorities. Or at least, they value it more than other genres. Does that sound right?
I agree with you, but when I think about it a different way, I'm confused. If you compare games to paintings, where a game like Metroid Prime might be Starry Night or something, then I would compare art games to conceptual art. Stuff that isn't there to be visually stimulating (or, for video games, fun-stimulating or whatever), but to be thoughtful. It's generally considered acceptable in art to make something that doesn't take sheer artistic talent, but makes some message. Conceptual art is common in museums and can sell for a lot. I don't understand a lot of it and I don't want to make an argumentum ad populum but it's considered respectable as long as it makes a point.
You seem to oppose any video game that isn't fun to play even if it makes a message. To me video games are about fun as priority number one and I know it's the same with you too. So I think maybe those sorts of things shouldn't even be considered video games. I guess they're interactive art, and a video game is ultimately defined by its gameplay. The thing is, why bother making art interactive unless there's a good reason to do so? Which, I guess, is the point of your video here.
If there's a good reason to make it interactive, the game will probably end up being fun anyway, so I guess it could count as a video game. Most often, though, I think developers make art games not because they decided a video game would be the best medium to use, but because they know there's a market, it's a genre that they can fit a new game into, and so on. Also, if you are an artist who has spent the time learning how to program a game, you probably will want to use that knowledge to keep making them. I guess they're going about the process the wrong way, trying to create something using the wrong medium simply because there's a market for it. There's a difference between trying to make a video game artistic and making an artistic video game.
The way we define "art game" seems to be a game that puts the importance of relaying a message before the importance of gameplay and other gaming priorities. Or at least, they value it more than other genres. Does that sound right?
I agree with you, but when I think about it a different way, I'm confused. If you compare games to paintings, where a game like Metroid Prime might be Starry Night or something, then I would compare art games to conceptual art. Stuff that isn't there to be visually stimulating (or, for video games, fun-stimulating or whatever), but to be thoughtful. It's generally considered acceptable in art to make something that doesn't take sheer artistic talent, but makes some message. Conceptual art is common in museums and can sell for a lot. I don't understand a lot of it and I don't want to make an argumentum ad populum but it's considered respectable as long as it makes a point.
You seem to oppose any video game that isn't fun to play even if it makes a message. To me video games are about fun as priority number one and I know it's the same with you too. So I think maybe those sorts of things shouldn't even be considered video games. I guess they're interactive art, and a video game is ultimately defined by its gameplay. The thing is, why bother making art interactive unless there's a good reason to do so? Which, I guess, is the point of your video here.
If there's a good reason to make it interactive, the game will probably end up being fun anyway, so I guess it could count as a video game. Most often, though, I think developers make art games not because they decided a video game would be the best medium to use, but because they know there's a market, it's a genre that they can fit a new game into, and so on. Also, if you are an artist who has spent the time learning how to program a game, you probably will want to use that knowledge to keep making them. I guess they're going about the process the wrong way, trying to create something using the wrong medium simply because there's a market for it. There's a difference between trying to make a video game artistic and making an artistic video game.
Mostly I'd say your right, games that call themselves art games are often stale rehashes. Games like journey, bastion, etc. are trying to add to the genre. Actually when Dear Esther originally was made it was a really cool thing, I enjoyed it. I bought the remake because I wanted to reward the developers for something that I found rather interesting that was free. I should point out it's not hard the to get the original mod for free still.
Good episode. It reminds me of two very interesting interviews that had just come out. One with Jenova Chen, and One with David Cage, both giving two views on their directions for the future of games, but both driving at the same point; A level of interactivity that keeps the player engaged with the story, or emotions.
I at least like the idea of more art games being made, because at the very least it creates awareness of them and hopefully more people will try, resulting in more people getting it right.
I at least like the idea of more art games being made, because at the very least it creates awareness of them and hopefully more people will try, resulting in more people getting it right.
Jim, whats your thoughts on the Stanley Parable or Bit Trip complete? They're arty story games and are very different.
I think you might have brushed on something there that I have possibly experienced myself.
the feeling of not giving a shit.
I think i got that feeling when 'playing' fract.
the idea that i wasn't actually doing anything worthwhile.
the feeling of not giving a shit.
I think i got that feeling when 'playing' fract.
the idea that i wasn't actually doing anything worthwhile.
So. Dear esther is like a book in terms of interaction, or lack there of. Whats wrong with that? All that says is that its not a real game because it doesnt take advantage of the abilities of videogames as an art form. Why is a book in video form with pretty graphics and a pleasant soundtrack and a nice voice over bad?
"Why is a book in video form with pretty graphics and a pleasant soundtrack and a nice voice over bad?"
Bingo. Exactly. It's not bad at all, as long as you go into it with appropriate expectations and you're ok with that.
Bingo. Exactly. It's not bad at all, as long as you go into it with appropriate expectations and you're ok with that.
I agree with you Jim, while I think games like Shadow of the Colossus is amazing, there are indeed games out there who are just pretentious art messages, just as a kid who tells you all this stuff he/she has and shows it to you, doesn't let you touch or play with them but still wants you to be awed. Fuck that.
I do like the idea of just exploring a fantasy world, going through forests, grandiose ruins and so forth with little story, as long as they're actually interactive and not just a guided stroll, but there aren't many of those.
I do like the idea of just exploring a fantasy world, going through forests, grandiose ruins and so forth with little story, as long as they're actually interactive and not just a guided stroll, but there aren't many of those.
I'm so upset and full of nerd-rage that you ended your video the way it is. I'm going to go to the biowa...i mean the Destructoid Forums and demand you to re-write this ending because there was no closure on what happened at all, even though you might make another one!
(awesome as always Jim, love the show!!!)
(awesome as always Jim, love the show!!!)
I just found out how Jonathan Holmes passes the time on long plane flights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ3dEhQusfs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ3dEhQusfs
I think that the important difference between most supposed art games, which are more like interactive art, and games like Journey and Braid, which are very much video games in the best possible sense of the word, is that those game are more aware of themselves than most other video games, the approach to design and the message conveyed through the gameplay more focused and fully realised than anything else.
So true art games are really more "video gamey" than most games, but most art games aren't games at all.
Did any of the take sense?
So true art games are really more "video gamey" than most games, but most art games aren't games at all.
Did any of the take sense?
You guys remember when we were talking about social gamers and casual gamers and deciding whether or not they were real gamers, and we decided that it was silly for us to think we got to pick and choose who got to use the title and who didn't? That applies here as well. Its silly of us to think we get to decide what can and can't call itself a game.
Completely disagree with almost everything here. Dear Esther is what it is, and it doesn't pretend otherwise. The devs made it extremely clear what kind of an experience it is from the out, and they shouldn't have to make excuses for that. You don't criticise an orange for not tasting like an apple. Same answer for The Path. You can go on about how it's pretentious and dull and trying to rip-off other games, but anyone who's played it knows that it knew exactly what it was trying to be. You either like that, or you don't, and I don't think it's fair to start calling it names if you didn't like what it was doing.
You say that playing Dear Esther made you 'want to know where the nearest exit is'. This is how you know that this product is not for you. Others will enjoy it, the vast majority in a genuine way.
You say that playing Dear Esther made you 'want to know where the nearest exit is'. This is how you know that this product is not for you. Others will enjoy it, the vast majority in a genuine way.
I played Dear Esther back when it was a mod because it had such glowing recommendations. Played through it, explored every nook and cranny, and it is truly one of the most abhorable "experiences" I've ever been through. Totalbiscuit said it best, "It's an art gallery with a story in it". If the game had given us SOMETHING to do to make it feel like there was a connection, even a fucking fetch quest, I might have gave the tiniest of shits. Instead it is a laborious adventure into nothingness with no interactivity, no real atmosphere, and no fucking story. Randomized voice clips does not a story make. There is no ARC to this story. There is no ANYTHING to this story. It's merely a drawn out idiotic piece, and I can only imagine thechineseroom is about to bring the Amnesia series to the ground.
Fuck these pretentious games that do nothing for the medium.
Fuck these pretentious games that do nothing for the medium.
Well I understand how you feel Jim but, Dear Ester is more of a piece of sculpture rather than a game. It allows people at their own pace look through the surfaces and textures.
As the viewer you are in control of looking through these environments to see different perceptions of depth that can bring different meaning to the subject of the game.
Sometimes games need to be linear with little to no influence over the game environment.
Yeah it might not be fun or even a game; but that is art and sometimes art can be very unforgiving to the mediums the choose.
Like film, I am a film major I have to deal with other people saying certain films are art. That's fine but some of those films do not have a narrative and do no make any sense plot wise or cinematography.
With that said I cannot deny that they are art, they sure might have been a waist of my time, but there are huge art critics that say they are amazing and a lot of BS.
The fact is anything could be art and I mean everything, because Art BS can and will fold to the end of time and farther.
So as my medium is continually getting pumped full of art BS it has come to my mind that as long as you can possible find meaning in something that is not intended it can be art.
and if you really want to see some film art BS you can watch:
Ernie Gehr's Serene Velocity (1970)
http://youtu.be/KYfNFtLSuv4 (you might need to loop this to get the full effect as the original is 21 minutes long)
Which is literally a 21 minute film with 4 different frames of the same shot of door down the hallway at different zoom lengths. Literally has no meaning but it must have impressed some one cause it was voted into library of congress because it was "culturally significant". The guy probably made it when he was high and has no real meaning, but so many lower minded people found meaning from it that it was important.
There were some really intelligent people that decided to make a math equation to explain this film (how can math explain films?) and were praised in France for the work.
Anyway yeah these might be really bad games, but they are art and art people use really weird scales on how they rate things. Typically I find most High Art as crud too, but that is not a good reason to dismiss it.
But then again this topic is scary and I really do not want to say any more cause I really hate "art" that is not functional.
As the viewer you are in control of looking through these environments to see different perceptions of depth that can bring different meaning to the subject of the game.
Sometimes games need to be linear with little to no influence over the game environment.
Yeah it might not be fun or even a game; but that is art and sometimes art can be very unforgiving to the mediums the choose.
Like film, I am a film major I have to deal with other people saying certain films are art. That's fine but some of those films do not have a narrative and do no make any sense plot wise or cinematography.
With that said I cannot deny that they are art, they sure might have been a waist of my time, but there are huge art critics that say they are amazing and a lot of BS.
The fact is anything could be art and I mean everything, because Art BS can and will fold to the end of time and farther.
So as my medium is continually getting pumped full of art BS it has come to my mind that as long as you can possible find meaning in something that is not intended it can be art.
and if you really want to see some film art BS you can watch:
Ernie Gehr's Serene Velocity (1970)
http://youtu.be/KYfNFtLSuv4 (you might need to loop this to get the full effect as the original is 21 minutes long)
Which is literally a 21 minute film with 4 different frames of the same shot of door down the hallway at different zoom lengths. Literally has no meaning but it must have impressed some one cause it was voted into library of congress because it was "culturally significant". The guy probably made it when he was high and has no real meaning, but so many lower minded people found meaning from it that it was important.
There were some really intelligent people that decided to make a math equation to explain this film (how can math explain films?) and were praised in France for the work.
Anyway yeah these might be really bad games, but they are art and art people use really weird scales on how they rate things. Typically I find most High Art as crud too, but that is not a good reason to dismiss it.
But then again this topic is scary and I really do not want to say any more cause I really hate "art" that is not functional.
follow
