https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxdw5GnoMK4
I like it!
Just wish I had the same passion I used to have for video games, after I hit mid 30s I just stopped playing. Anytime I start to dabble again I can't help but feel anxiety from having spent so much time on video games in my youth and late adult hood.
“Art with game tropes” implies that “regular games” aren’t art. Which I disagree with. We may not have gotten Shakespeare yet, but writing was an artistic medium before him just as games are one before its version of him.
And whether a particular piece of software is a game is also not clearly defined. This has been a big argument several time, see the one over Gone Home and walking simulators.
Others later down argue over Minecraft and “a win state, fail state, and scoring systems”. Minecraft did not have any of these for a long time, but it would be unconvincing to say that it only become a game after it gained them.
~"A young man awakes alone in a train carriage, he has no memory of his past. He soon arrives in Unthank, a strange Glasgow-like city in which there is no daylight and whose disappearing residents suffer from strange diseases, orifices growing on their limbs and body heat fading away"
There's a huge amount of art I find vacuous, much of it tradtional media like painting, no need for it to be AI generated. Be open to learning about it, and if you still don't like it then that's fine. Theres's a bunch of stuff that's non-traditional like Alvin Lucier, Gustav Metzger, Hans Haacke, as well as generative sound installations by people like Brian Eno. I don't think gatekeeping art ever works - that's part of its fun! The only thing that does really get to me is the huge amount of dirty money sloshing around the art world, but that's more about ethics than aesthetics.
I see games as a form of human expression just as writing, movies, painting, etc. They many be newer (video games certainly are) and they may be in a categorically different medium (human agency) than the others, but they're still art. And maybe one day soon someone will produce a game worthy of being called Art with a capital A.
I agree with you about half-way. The process of making the art isn't important. It's why songs that have amazed the world have taken anywhere between 7 hours and 7 years to produce. The outcome is informed by the life that produced it. To reiterate, the life that produced it is the most important. It's a connection to their humanity.
> I don't think gatekeeping art ever works - that's part of its fun!
You're also right, but this is primarily a dimension of taste. When I say AI has no place in art, what I am really getting at is it will have no place. I believe people will see it for what it is, and what it says about the people who use it.
I think indie devs are already pretty empowered with the number of small game engines, etc., given the quantity - and quality - of stuff they're putting out (just look at itch.io).
How is a Steam achievement a score? A score is a scalar value not a Boolean one. And arguably it is not part of the game but part of Steam. You won't get Steam achievements of any game if you get it from another store. But using the Store achievement definition, Jeremy's games also qualify because they have Steam achievements (most games on Steam do have the achievements even those that fall outside of your definition of game).
And I don’t know if you’re aware, but a vast amount of Sims players use the game to build and decorate houses and then play out stories in them. The Sims dying is not. A lose condition, but the final page of their story.
I never said that steam achievements were a score. Please try to read my posts. I thought it would be obvious that they represent a success state. I also note that you ignored the fact that Harvest Moon literally has an ending.
Also, I don’t know why Jeremy’s games qualifying is relevant. I never said they don’t.
If Steam Achievement is not a score, is Harvest Moon not a game then? Same thing about crafting and building games.
And having an ending is not synonymous with a success state or a failure state. I think it's clear that your definition is not a valid one as many games don't fit it
Just because many people choose not to engage with the mechanics doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
By this logic getting hit is a failure state, taking fall damage is a failure state, another player scoring points is a failure state, not actively getting points is a failure state.
If you restrict failure states to only mean things that end the game, then games like Dark Souls do not have any failure states, since in Dark Souls you always respawn when you die. Most other modern single player games would also not have any failure states, since they also let you respawn as often as you like.
Further, if you remove the achievements from games they continue being games. GTA without achievements is still a game. Remove the entire XBox and PS trophies system and all their games still remain games.
It was absolutely a game at that point, ask anyone who played it. Being blatantly unfinished doesn’t matter, it would have remained a game even if he never ended any of those features.
If you weren’t told it was an alpha game you’d have no way of knowing. It sold a million copies while in alpha/beta, more than most other games ever made. The distinction between “alpha/beta test of game” and “game” is a distinction without a difference, especially for all the people buying it.