Just some more collected, unsorted thoughts with a view to talking about stuff with a further view to actually making stuff at some point.

I draw strong parallels between art and games. I think games will be important to art but can't really put my finger on why.

I see art as a dialogue and as such as being similar to games. There are rules, they might not be explicit, but there are meaningful and unmeaningful (I know that's not a word but 'meaningless' isn't what I mean) 'moves'. And these moves depend on the context the game/language provides and upon the preceding moves within the given game. So an art piece which is a game too acts as a unit of dialogue within an artistic discourse but at the same time can contain within it another such discourse, or can provide a space for that broader discourse. Which to me is really interesting.

Quick tangent – I think it's a bit of a problem to treat games as sort of monolothic. A game from genre A could well be utterly dissimilar to a game from genre B but have a lot in common with a film. In other words, the only thing games really have in common is being called games (a bit like art, I guess). And 'games' are generally thought of as unproductive (again, along with art), which is wrong to me.

http://www.artificial.dk/articles/artgamesintro.htm

This is an interesting article from a while back. But there are some things I disagree with.

“And what commercial computer games are lacking in artistic thought, they undoubtedly possess in craft and an impressive use of the technology. Another discussion is, whether it is good art or bad and I must admit that I find most commercial games inferior as art.”

The writer goes on to talk about those art-games which either output something of aesthetic value or use the form of a game to make a (broadly speaking) political statement. I've left out those which 'map' games or game code because I think that's a separate (though related and very interesting) activity.

Personally I think it's a shame that mass market games shy away (why they do that is a whole other stream of babble) from their artistic nature. To me, something that gets tens of thousands of people (altogether – 30 or so in a particular instance) from all over the world to cooperate and collaborate on some abstract (and 'unproductive') task is absolutely amazing. I find a lot to think about there. And I think it's telling that perhaps the best example of that, CounterStrike, was made by amateurs and distributed for free.

And then there are games which create virtual worlds to act within. Say, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for example. When I play a game like that, I act within a moral code. Maybe not the same one I use in real society, but I still devise and follow one. There's no rational reason for that, so why do I do it? Probably the same reason I want a happy ending in a film. Though in a game it's more interesting because I am the agent. I find that line of thought far more interesting than a sledgehammer game + message approach which gains little from being a game and could just as well be a written statement.

I'd be interested to look at something which is neither inferior as art nor inferior as a game.

I could probably babble on for a few more posts but I'll stop there and see what people think.

In this world of abundance, the problem
today is really about separating the
signal from the noise. Whether it's games,
art, music or even food. In each field,
there're usually one or more golden ages
where there's a lot more signal than normal
and people remember them for it. The golden
age for computer games has come and past
IMHO. The old PS2 gem that's been occupying
me recently is Rez. If you own a PS2, I
encourage you to try find it and play it:
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/rez/

.rex

If you've been following the games
industry or have friends in it, like
I do, then you'll know that they are
struggling with coming up with new
ideas and not new sequels. With the
rapidly increasing costs of production
of games these days (running into multiple
millions), publishers and studios are
afraid to bet on new and untested ideas.
Games have become mainstream, just like
movies. Good and original games are
getting harder to come by.

.rex

I'm very tired so excuse my slurring.

I'm not much concerned with the fate of the gaming industry. It'll do very well (in $ terms) churning out the same old shit, same as hollywood does. I don't play games very often at all. And when I do it's more just to see what they're like - see what their point is, than to play through them for enjoyment.

It's a shame that games get classified as 'entertainment' (like in that article you linked). That's not to say they shouldn't be entertain*ing* necessarily, just that labeling them as such cuts them off from being so much more.

Commercial companies aren't good at innovation because they won't take risks. And rightly so, given the context they operate under. And they're culturally barred from really pursuing the art in their games because of our cultural notion of what art/not-art are all about.

P2P will shake things up. I know very few people who actually buy games anymore. Same as when games came on floppies, really. Hopefully this trend will continue.

(semi relevant link: http://gglabs.com/mad/fmfs-2.html )

Regardless of what happens in 'the industry', I think if art  and games meet it's going to be elsewhere.

I was sort of dipping in and out of meaning games in general and computer games in particular in my post because I think that's a connection that gets a bit overlooked. Computer games aren't *really* very much like other entertainment media but they are very much like games. They get seen as being akin to entertainment media, and as a result they get pushed in that direction, and that's a real shame. It forces  the games to take on a more passive role than really suits them. Concentrating on their broadcast nature rather than their dialogue nature.

Good games will come through collaboration. Hardcore programmers are already collaborating to make games but by and large I wouldn't say they were much good. They often just mimic industry games.

What is necessary is for those people who understand visual and artistic language (i.e. people like the people here) to get together with those people who really understand code, ideally. Failing that for the people who understand both (people here again) to do it. I say 'ideally' and 'failing that' not because I doubt the skills of 'digital-artists' but because I think the programmers will bring something unique. I don't know what it is because they're the experts, not me, but I'm sure it's something important.

The trouble with this sort of collaboration is that (in my opinion) it requires strong leadership. It tends to be one person who has the good idea and to me it seems it's always better if they retain overall control. They'll be open to suggestion, argument and so on of course but it must be recognised that they have the vision - the overall view of what this thing should be and that ensures cohesion. Processing is a very good example of this - the creators have firm overall control of the direction but (of course) welcome help. I think the project would be significantly weakened were that not the case. Design by concensus doesn't work with this sort of thing (which is why games from big companies are getting worse).

But that way of working requires real humility and lack of ego, and that's rare (particularly amongst artists, I'd say).

I'll no doubt wonder what the crappity smack I was going on about when I read this on waking. I hope it makes some sense.