Notgames Forum

I've been meaning to share this for a couple weeks and keep forgetting:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/37891/Interview_The_Artist_is_Present_Questions_Can_Art_Be_Games.php (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/37891/Interview_The_Artist_is_Present_Questions_Can_Art_Be_Games.php)

Basically, the performance art piece titled "The Artist is Present" by Marina Abramovic has been made into a video game experience by Pippin Barr.  I personally don't relate to this type of art to begin with, but to simulate the experience in video game seems to be a fine thing to do for those that like it.  The discussion in the comments is quite lively, too - a lot of people still seem to really want to pigeon hole and then fiercely defend a particular idea of what games are.

One last thought on this - I recall now that one thing this made me think about is how "fun" is pretty much the unchallenged gold standard of successful game creation.  I feel like that is very limiting, and adherence to this standard alone will keep games in the realm of toys and throwaway entertainment.  That's not to say fun, or interest, should be ignored, but I think we need a larger toolset and a better language to describe ways these experiences can be meaningful, or engaging, other than just "fun".

This is pretty interesting, yes.

Regarding fun, I would have to say that "playthings/toys"  is something to strive for, free play being much more subversive than the strict, conformist gaming we see currently. For me, this is also a question of language: in Swedish, "leka" means to play freely, without rules, as in "leka med Lego" (play with Lego), and "spela" is the term used for "playing Call of Duty", for example. Both words are as you see translated to "play" in English, while being wholly different in character.

This entire issue is something I am looking at addressing in multiple ways when time  and workload permits.

However, I believe as well that the throwaway aspect and blind adherence to fun is suffocating the medium. What is not seen generally is that the medium must become MORE detached from the specific genres of production. I would thusly argue that both indie and AAA belongs to a very broad "genre" of 'games as fun/entertainment' and that it becomes much, much more complicated when our perspectives only allow looking at the micro-level: something being strategy, something being an FPS, something being X... They all ultimately belong to the same over-arching concept of "fun". That is, if you follow my reasoning, the precise moment when the 'art in games' and 'What the f*** kind of game is Ico?" discussions flame up, simply because these were all created in an entirely different paradigm. "Not-games" would be one very specific perspectival change/paradigm change, then.

I do agree that we need more playful games as well as more thoughtful, soulful, meaningful games. Current video games are both too strict (in their application of rules-based and goal-oriented design) and too casual (in their refusal to deal with deep beauty or meaning).