Beyond Puzzles

There's no doubt that the gamer hobbyists fell in love with both Portal and Braid, two games which focus largely on puzzles as the centrepiece of their gameplay. This isn't surprising,
since the hobbyists tend to be strong on strategic skills, and puzzle solving by any means but trial-and-error falls into this general area.

My question: to what extent can either of these games be enjoyed outside of the dedicated gamer niche?

My immediate feeling is "not even remotely". After all, isn't this precisely the reason that the adventure game niche collapsed? Because the players in the mass market didn't enjoy (or couldn't solve - it amounts to the same thing) the difficult puzzles. Corvus' thoughts on Braid's narrative elements are also apposite in this regard.

If these games can't be enjoyed by more than a small proportion of people, we probably shouldn't hold them out as exemplar cases of "games as art" unless we have no interest in games being taken seriously as an art form by the populace at large. Are there any games yet which might work in this wider context? (I know my friends over at Tale of Tales are trying!)

What do you think?

Update: There was some misconstrual of my position here. To clarify: I am not claiming that it is necessary to art that it attracts a large audience - this is clearly not the case. What I am claiming is that something which can only be enjoyed by a minority of people has a problem with its claim to artistic status. See the comments for further discussion of this point.

Comments

[brog]

Novels that are widely regarded as great works of art aren't necessarily expected to be accessible to the general population. Conversely, novels that do appeal to the broadest segment of the population are often considered to be trash.

To call a game fine art I would not require it to be enjoyed by people who (in the analogy) have not even learnt to read.

[isaac]

I've gotta say I agree with broq here. As well as in the worlds of literature and film, in the world of visual art there is certainly no expectation of relevance outside the world of 'art hobbyists' and academia.

I don't think art and accessibility are at often ends of the spectrum, and certainly 'what the hobbyists gamer wants' is not art, but just making a game that can be enjoyed by all people is an altogether different quest from the pursuit of Art.

[Mory Buckman]

For entertainment, it matters whether the average Joe off the street would like it. For art, not so much. I enjoy modernist paintings, and I have no illusions about how small their target audience actually is. For that matter, how many people really go to classical concerts these days? Or modern dance performances, which can be beautiful? Good art is good art, and it doesn't matter how big its audience is.

[nongames]

Funny you mention this. I always remember a passage from Game Architecture and Design (by Rolling and Morris) where one of them, discussing Grim Fandango and, consequently, adventure game mechanics, suggests that there should be a "I give up" button that allowed the player to skip puzzles and, if so he wishes, play the game as a movie.

Plus, joining the discussion, like many others here, I don't think popularity is necessary to legitimate art.

[Chris]

Dear all,

There seems to be a fundamental misconception about what I am asserting here: I am not claiming that it is necessary to art that it attracts a large audience - this is clearly not the case. What I am claiming is that something which can only enjoyed by a minority of people has a problem with its claim to artistic status.

So I am not saying (to pick up Chico's wording) that popularity is necessary to legitimize art - but I am claiming that specialist skills (like puzzle solving) undermine the claim to art.

To give an absurd analogy: it may be art to create a musical track that can only be heard by dogs, but until the dogs can speak we will struggle to validate such a claim. :)

Let me put this another way.

It is certainly the case, as Mory asserts, that modernist art has a small audience. But in principle, *anyone* could learn to enjoy modernist art. Similarly, it may be the case that more people read Harry Potter than Cervantes' Don Quixote, but in principle *anyone* could read Cervantes and find the artistic value of it.

But I am expressly claiming (and you may object to this claim!) that the same is not true of a videogame that relies upon puzzles as the core of its play, such as Portal and Braid. I don't believe (but could be proved wrong) that anyone can learn play these games, and if this is so, then I feel the claim to artistic status is damaged by this problem.

More than that, I think the claim that such games qualify as art is flawed, and this for several reasons, but principally because if I look at great art in other fields - painting, sculpture, literature, theatre, music, dance - there is a commonality to the claim to greatness that occurs in some kind of aesthetic space - call this the capture of the human condition, if you like. So to assert games as art, wouldn't we expect them to meet the same standards?

My claim, I suppose, is that while creating artistic allusions around puzzles (Braid) is interesting and certainly qualifies as art of some kind, this is insufficient to put to bed the claim to artistic legitimacy which games are struggling towards. And Portal's claim is, I believe, even weaker.

The players who have the skills to solve a game dependent upon puzzles love these games because (in part) it pushes their buttons: they get the emotional reward of fiero (triumph over adversity) for overcoming those puzzles. And I suppose my accusation is: if not everyone could get to that experience (fiero), the claim to art is weakened, and furthermore that the claim that something whose principle appeal lies in its ability to produce fiero from solving puzzles is validly art (or "high art", or however you want to qualify) is deeply flawed.

The Rubik's Cube, for instance, is not generally held to be art, let alone great art, although it is a source of fiero.

Similarly, sport, while an important part of culture and a key source of fiero, is never asserted as art (I believe). If games are going to rely on the delivery of fiero as their claim to legitimisation in artistic terms it will be easy for culture at large to discuss games in the same way that sports are (a priori) excluded from consideration as art, per se.

So what I am trying to do here is not undermine the claims that games have created interesting artistic expressions - I believe they have done this many times and in many different ways. But until there is a game that can do so in a manner that demands a comparison to great art in other fields, we will always be the whipping boy of the various media. And this may require a game that can be played by *anyone*, or else the claim to legitimacy will always haunt us.

Comics arguably jumped this chasm with Gaiman's The Sandman, which attained a hitherto unknown legitimacy for the medium (note that it did so without access to popular appeal, which it never had). The closest games have come thus far was when Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was nominated for a design award by the UK Design Museum - and even here, we are talking about a design award (the kind of thing that can be won by a novel kind of tin opener) and not something that might validate the medium's claim to artistic status completely.

Anyway, I should be working. :)

But I noticed that my original claim had been misconstrued (my fault, I suppose) and wanted to move the discussion in the originally intended direction.

Now... FIGHT! :D

[Corvus]

I completely disagree that not everyone could be taught to play Portal or Braid. Surely if anyone can be taught to read and appreciate Cervantes, than anyone can be taught to use a thumb sticks and a few buttons. In fact, I watched a person who was previously frustrated and disinterested in FPS game use Portal as a means of learning to navigate 3d environments.

But we don't currently have the same cultural pressures to become well-versed in video games as we do in literature or art. I believe it's perception that keeps games out of the realm of art, not the games themselves.

[Mory Buckman]

Very few people (relatively speaking) can play a piece of classical music. It must not be art.

You're probably going to counter and say that you can still listen to someone else playing it. Well, you can watch someone play Braid or Portal. Still art.

[Line Hollis]

Fascinating debate! The question of whether ability can be an insurmountable barrier to game appreciation will probably linger, though I'm not sure other artforms are as free of that question as you imply. If you have any suggestions on unlocking my boyfriend's latent ability to enjoy an evening of Stan Brakhage without gouging his own eyeballs out, let me know.

Which brings me to my objection to your argument: there are different kinds of artistic greatness! To continue a cinema analogy, it sounds like you're looking exclusively for Citizen Kane great, but what about the avant-garde? What about Mothlight great? It takes some practice and education - maybe even a particular character - to watch the remains of moths taped to celluloid and get anything out of it. That doesn't mean Mothlight wasn't important. There's a reason they call these guys avant-garde; they plunge forward into the unknown whether it's a good idea or not. People won't always follow them, but sometimes they discover something important out there. There'd be no MTV style without Bruce Conner, no Citizen Kane without German Expressionism.

If these creators of niche games are our avant-garde, they should be supported. We may not have a Welles yet, but every experiment brings us closer, not farther away.

[Deirdra Kiai]

"Are there any games yet which might work in this wider context?"

I can think of a handful of IF games: Galatea, Photopia, Aisle, Rameses, and Best of Three were all reasonably easy for me to pick up and experience to their logical conclusions, even though I generally have trouble navigating with text parsers.

In terms of graphical games, one that immediately comes to mind is Mory Buckman's very own Smilie. And if you don't mind me attempting to pimp my own stuff, I think DREAMING and Pigeons in the Park are my most accessible games to date.

Of course, everything I've listed in this reply is very short and intended to be completed in only a few minutes, so take that as you will...

[Chris]

Corvus: I agree that anyone can in principle learn to operate FPS-style controls. The question was: can anyone learn to solve difficult puzzles? Think about this in the context of Braid, instead of Portal, for instance. Do you think you could have *learned* to enjoy Braid's puzzles? (Assuming I intimate correctly from your posts that you didn't!)

I feel this issue goes deeper than learning. You can learn to control a game, but can you learn to *like* solving hard puzzles, especially if puzzle solving is not normally one of your skills?

"But we don't currently have the same cultural pressures to become well-versed in video games as we do in literature or art."

I agree with this, although ironically there are many more people who are game literate than are art literate! :)

But I also think we are falling short in the push for games that embody "great art" too. Games *are* art, but so are Mr. Men books. Until we have our Don Quixote, our Seven Samurai, our Hamlet, our Beethoven's 5th, haven't we fallen short somehow?

Mory: The boundary of art lies between the artist and the performer, so your classical music analogy falls down because the artists in this case are the composer *and* the orchestra.

But you have anticipated this objection and now want to claim that Portal and Braid can be enjoyed by watching someone play them. In which case, they undoubtedly *fail* in the "games as art" question because it's only a game if you *play* it. Surely you agree on this point, otherwise you'd be endorsing the substitution for cinematics for gameplay.

A movie of someone playing Braid is surely art of some kind, but it can never put to rest the legitimacy of games as an artform because it's transitioned there to another medium (one already legitimate in the eyes of the "high culture").

But to be clear, there is no doubt that Braid and Portal *are* art. But so is any game, even Bejewelled (say). This isn't actually about whether games are an artform - they clearly are - it's about whether games can *legitimise* themselves as an artform, which is to say, achieve a measure of artistic greatness. And in this regard, Braid and Portal both seem to me to fall quite significantly short of the mark.

Line: "I'm not sure other artforms are as free of that question as you imply."

I'm quite certain in this regard you are correct. One thing this discussion has brought to light (props to Brog, Isaac and Mory) is that in drafting the original post, I overlooked the role of art literacy in appreciating other artistic media, and in this regard I am duly chastened. ;)

And I also take your criticism that I am looking for Citizen Kane and not allowing for avant garde. (Although I feel this particular film has aged badly, but it is still a paradigm case because the reason it has aged badly is so many people stole from its narrative language thus making the original passée.)

I suppose I happily concede that in games as avant garde art we are already rich - Facade, The Path and so forth deliver brilliantly that promise. (Perhaps Braid too). But in the quest for legitimacy, you need that Citizen Kane. And I feel it's clear we just don't have it yet.

Best wishes!

[Sirc]

Haha, is it me or did everyone ignore the original question? Oh well, could be because the answer is pretty clear. And that is, yes, these games can't be enjoyed outside of the dedicated gamer niche.

I agree with Corvus that anyone can learn to play Braid or solve hard puzzles (barring some kind of crippling disability, of course). In fact, it's even easier than learning to read. It's not that people are unable to learn how to play Braid, but rather that most people are lazy and would rather do something that takes zero effort, like watch a movie.

Truth is, learning in general tends to suck, and tends to be no fun (unless you're some kind of nerd). For example, take reading. Sure, reading is awesome! We're all glad we know how to read. But was it that great when you were learning how to do it back when you were 2 years old? Actually I don't really remember what my thought processes were back then, but I'm willing to bet a 2 year old would rather go play outside than learn how to understand an esoteric code. But when those kids complained? They were spanked, face slapped, chained to their desks, what have you. Because you're not allowed to be illiterate. But if those kids had had a choice, they probably wouldn't have put the effort needed to learn how to read.

And that's the thing with something like Braid. It's not that people can't learn how to play, it's just that in general they won't want to put in the effort unless they're being spanked.

And like I said, Braid is ridiculously easy to learn if you just try. After all, how did all of us manage it? Or for that matter, how did we learn to play Mario Bros. way back in the day? It's more or less the same thing.

If we change the question to "Do you think you could have *learned* to enjoy Braid's puzzles?"

We could also ask the same thing about art in other media. Sure, you can learn to read Don Quixote, but can you learn to enjoy it? Can you learn to enjoy Hamlet? Maybe you think so, I don't know. To me it seems the same as trying to learn to enjoy a game.

"The players who have the skills to solve a game dependent upon puzzles love these games"

"Fascinating debate! The question of whether ability can be an insurmountable barrier to game appreciation will probably linger"

It's not about ability, and it's not about skills. Games are made to be beaten (unless it's one of those joke games on the internet or the designer is a failure). For that reason, any game can be beaten by any person (again, barring crippling disabilities of some kind). The only difference is how much time and effort you're willing to spend. There is no such thing as an insurmountable skill barrier.

"there should be a "I give up" button that allowed the player to skip puzzles and, if so he wishes, play the game as a movie."

There's no need for this now that guides are so easily available all over the netterstreets.

[Corvus]

And as a counter-point to your personal experience, Sirc--I taught myself to read at the age of 3 and soon preferred the intellectual challenges to the physical ones.

I do think people can be trained to enjoy puzzle solving, to answer that question--particularly if the learning process is fun and the rewards are compelling. I did enjoy solving much of Braid, but the story remained unappealing and as the puzzles required more and more effort, I lost interest.

[Chris]

Chico: I forgot to comment on this "give up" function... I find this very interesting. It would totally undercut the fiero of puzzles by giving an easy-out - I think perhaps the player might have to "opt in" to such a scheme at the outset - but it's a fascinating idea.

Deirdra: I guess you were posting the same time as me. ;) I love these kind of arty mini-non-games - can I call them artlets (as a pun on applet?) :D

I enjoyed both of yours; the dialogue tree in Pigeons was entertaining, but I did wish you'd chosen to animate the *eyes* as well as the mouth (in both pieces) - the blank stares had a disconcerting effect upon me that I don't think was intended. And "Des Rêves Élastiques Avec Mille Insectes Nommés Georges" is my favourite title ever! :D

As for Smilie - wow! This really made me chuckle. I can't believe this came from the same Mory who chews me out so regularly in my comments! >:)

But (you knew there had to be one) these are more clearly identifiable as art than as a game, I feel - I cast this net quite wide myself, but even so it's hard to legitimise games as art with artlets like this that have experience and (some) agency, but lack identifiable play features beyond this.

Thanks for the links though! Much appreciated.

Sirc: no it's not just you. ;) But I wrote this to provoke discussion, so if it goes in another direction, that's great too.

I find your argument quite compelling that people *could* learn to solve difficult puzzles, but that it could be hard to do so, but I still feel that the expenditure of effort required by many people to master Braid's kind of puzzles really would be astronomical, hence my concerns.

But the reading argument falls down to some extent since many people become hooked on the power of reading - myself included. I read voraciously as a child because, well, TV wasn't very good and I grew up in the UK where it rains all the time. But this, of course, is a tangent. ;)

"Games are made to be beaten"

This claim encodes an assumption. Surely games are made to be *played*? Since the majority of players never finish the games they play (according to all studies so far conducted on this point) the idea that games are made to be beaten has some flaw in it. Although, that said, I do think perhaps that in the current videogames industry many games *are* made to be beaten - and that this could be seen as an essentially a flaw in the industry (one that reflects the over-focus on fiero).

As for the availability of guides... seriously, I get what you are saying here but how much kinder is it to the player to be their friend and not their enemy? That I *could* get a solution online to a puzzle I was stuck on strikes me as a gross flaw in any game that would drive me to that frustration.

And indeed, encapsulates why I really can't be bothered to play puzzle-driven games any more. I did this to death when I was younger, and it bores me now. Plus, I use my strategic skills more than enough at work - I want to play games that *don't* feel like work, please. ;)

Corvus: I'm coming around to this idea that people can be trained to solve difficult puzzles, and that in principle this could even be made fun.

Which produces the obvious challenge: if Braid et al want to rely on difficult puzzles for their play, and they want to reach a wide audience (this second assumption not being a given, of course), should they not structure themselves to give adequate training to those players who need it? In the absence of this, the games are expressly choosing to fall into a niche. There's nothing wrong with that - unless you then want to apply these as paradigm cases in the "games as art" debate, which is precisely my objection.

So to be clear, my problem isn't with the games - these are great games for their players - but I do have a problem with people suggesting these are the games we should hold up as exemplars in the "games as art" debate.

We need to try harder if we want to settle this one. That, or continue to wait. :D

Best wishes!

[Sirc]

"I find your argument quite compelling that people *could* learn to solve difficult puzzles, but that it could be hard to do so, but I still feel that the expenditure of effort required by many people to master Braid's kind of puzzles really would be astronomical, hence my concerns."

Astronomical? Do you really think so? Sure, there's always going to be people who lag behind somewhat when solving Braid, and sure, some of the puzzles are quite the brain teasers, but I'm not so sure the effort required is actually as huge as you make it sound. Certainly not as much as learning to read.

I didn't know how to play Braid or solve its puzzles before I started. No one did. And I don't remember playing any game like it, so I don't think I had any "training" prior or what have you. Sure, it was confusing for the first few minutes. But I learned to play and beat it in 1-2 hours. A single, short sitting. That's all it took to master Braid. But if I wanted to learn and master how to read, say, Chinese, that would take me forever and a half. So I think the effort required to master Braid is insignificant compared to mastering how to read.

"But the reading argument falls down to some extent since many people become hooked on the power of reading - myself included."

Don't a lot of people get hooked on videogames too? :)

"Games are made to be beaten"

Ahh let me clarify. I was only saying that, regarding the assertion that there exists a skill barrier of some kind that prevents some people from beating games... when designers create challenges for their games, they test them to make sure they are humanly possible (unless, like I said, it's a joke, or the game truly is a failure). So maybe I should rephrase that as "the challenges designers place in games are created so that they may be overcome"

My thinking is this: I've never played a game I couldn't beat (granted I can't, nor wish to, play everything that comes out), and I don't have superhuman abilities of any kind. Therefore any person can beat any game.

Beating a game isn't like, say, beating one of the ultimate records in the olympics, where you could dedicate your entire life to it, and it's still very likely that you wouldn't manage it. If you commit yourself to beating a game, you will (unless you're blind, or maybe missing an arm, or maybe 90 years old with one foot in the grave).

So basically what I think is that when people say "I don't have the skill to beat this game", that's a lie. It's simply that you don't wish to spend the time required to do it.

In conclusion, there are no "skill" barriers. There are no "ability" barriers. There are only "time" barriers and "care" barriers :)

"That I *could* get a solution online to a puzzle I was stuck on strikes me as a gross flaw in any game that would drive me to that frustration."

Well, I suppose. But I still don't see much difference between having the option to give up and looking at a guide. You become frustrated in both instances (or not. You can still look at a guide before becoming frustrated if you are so inclined). What exactly is the difference? The fact that one of them is incorporated into the game and the other isn't? So therefore, if a game had a feature where you could pull up the official brady guide or whatever from the main menu, that game would not be flawed in regard to puzzles?

Anyway, haha, puzzle games aren't really one of my favorite genres but I don't mind them :)

[zeech]

I think your attempts to "legitimise" your opinion on what constitutes "legitimate art" have failed miserably.

Please take a hard look at yourself and revise your stupidity. :P Do not not cringe in your very soul when you make sweeping dismissals like "puzzles aren't art, they're challenges for fiero seekers" ?

A puzzle can be an amazing piece of mental art, even if you merely looked up the solution, you could still appreciate its diabolical cleverness, or some pun or humour embedded in its design.

Your quest for "legitimacy" is ultimately an empty one - the supposed people who grant such legitimacy do so via their own biases and snobbery.

How many TV shows have been called "legitimate art"? How many stand-up comics? Death metal bands?

In fact, if we look at "legitimate art" in established fields, a lot of it is entirely based on being commercially unfeasable, unaccessible to pretty much anyone, and serving no particular purpose.

You said yourself that games need to pander to their audience - that's probably moving away from the notion of "legitimate art". Surely then something inaccessible like tricky puzzles will elevate it's artistic status? But of course not, since games are for kids and can't be art.

[Mory Buckman]

I didn't really understand your objection to my objection, so rather than addressing it directly I'm going to clarify my own argument. Sorry.

When I sit at a (classical) concert, I am entertained but also frustrated. On the one hand, I can listen to the music and to a certain, limited extent I can get caught up in it. But on the other hand, I always wish I could be participating. I know how wonderful it can be to play beautiful music, and I don't believe the audience is getting the real experience.

Sure, you can listen to a choir sing a song, and you can marvel at the composition and the performance, but it's nothing like actually being in a choir. I was once in a kids' choir singing complex harmonies, and I can tell you it's amazing. I wanted to sing those songs over and over and over with them. If you were in an audience listening to us later, you might have been impressed but you would not have gotten the real experience.

Or take great literature. Anyone can read it. But only a few, handed the book without any introduction, are going to appreciate it, to understand the whole meaning and intent of it. The rest will have to be told. They won't get the real experience. But they will see it from a distance and be impressed.

Being recognized as legitimate art does not require that the person experiences it for himself. Some people will not put in the effort, because they don't know what they're missing. And others (I imagine) can't. So you show them.

I have not played Braid, not having an Xbox 360, but if it is as good as it sounds then you should be able to take someone who is not going to play it, and sit them down and show them. And no, they're not playing the game. It doesn't make it not a game and it doesn't make it not art. It just makes it something they're not going to appreciate. But they should still be able to recognize its artistic legitimacy just by seeing it from a distance.

[Neil]

Braid bears some resemblance (in that it uses time-related nonsenseness) to the PS Yaroze game, Time Slip. And about the same level of story, except Time Slip used no text to convey its story. :-D

I like playing with this sort of game, but I'm not into solving brain twiddling puzzles. So as soon as I couldn't easily collect all the pieces to the first (first!) puzzle in the demo I was 99% less interested in the game.

Sure I could learn to solve the problems, and in this sense I see what Sirc is saying about time and care barriers. But seriously, I play games, and these days (does it happen to all olderer gamers?) I tend to want to have more easy fun than hard fun.

It is frustrating - for when I am playing a game of a genre I am more likely to want to push through a game in, but it is hard fun rather than easy fun, I want to give up. And that annoys me. I didn't used to give up on a game when it made me sweat. But now I do.

Maybe it is also because I have more choice now - a disposable income over pocket money etc etc - and so when something starts to poke me in the eye I can (too?) easily swap to a different game.

Anyway.

Art. Yeah. Games as art? Well, yes, of course. Games as "legitimised" art? Maybe, but if not already then it will happen soon.

Braid/Portal outside their niche? No.

Simple test to see if a game will make it beyond the hardcore and the fringes of said hardcore:

Is the game on the Wii?
or
Is the game on the PC?

If not then the game will probably not hit a casual market in any amount worth "bothering about". (Caveat that smaller or indie games might still be worth bothering with here as margins are smaller and less likely to bankrupt you)

[zeech]

Oh, as a programmer I've previously worked for an artist client to code a multimedia artwork exhibit, for display at a gallery.

Heh, it might be instructive in this issue to look at the other side, the "real artists" who use game-like techniques and technology.

These people apply for and get funding from the government and universities, so OF COURSE they are "legitimate art".

Heh, when asked to describe the project, I usually said, "well, it's like a game, except its no fun and you don't know what it's supposed to mean."

All this talk of art as "something to be enjoyed" seems like its missing the point of art entirely I think.

Also, can anyone experience that artwork? No, only people who were at the gallery whilst that particular exhibition was on can experience it. The same can be said of Ice Sculptures - only people present at that particular moment can experience it. Photographs and film can be taken, but according to Chris it "moves it into another medium."

So therefore, those are not legitimate art via the same arguments?

------------------------------

I think Chris is maybe thinking a bit ass-backwards. "How can we get the establishment to recognise games as art? I think having difficult puzzles that art critics are unable to solve will damage its chances" is what he's trying to say.

[Chris]

Alright, now we're finally getting somewhere! Everyone is now advancing very compelling arguments, and I feel vindicated in the "ass-backwards" (to quote zeech) way I choose to approach this topic. :)

zeech: "How can we get the establishment to recognise games as art? I think having difficult puzzles that art critics are unable to solve will damage its chances"

This is precisely my position. But there was a reason I didn't wade in with this kind of statement, and that was because this is my *conclusion* and I wanted to hear everyone else's views without prejudicing them too overtly. The best way to do so (I assumed) was to try to form the questions, without synthesizing the conclusion. Or to put it another way: I intentionally approached this topic "ass-backwards". This is something I often do here! :D

And I'm delighted with the results - there are some great arguments formulated here by different people, and each on totally different premises.

Neil: thanks for mentioning Time Slip! I really wanted to mention this game too, but what I didn't want to do was trigger a Time Slip vs Braid debate, because that would be of no relevance at all to the matter at hand. But now it's been mentioned, I'd like to note that I appreciated Time Slip more than I did Braid, even though the latter is considerably more technically competent. But this could be considered simply a matter of taste, and I don't want to fuel a comparison as this is surely a sideline. The criticisms I've leveled against Braid and Portal in this discussion are equally valid against Time Slip.

Sirc: Really interesting arguments you advance here, but riddled with assumptions that I don't share. For instance:

"Certainly not as much as learning to read."

Actually, learning to read is not as hard as you think. Your comparison with Chinese is coming at this from the perspective of learning Chinese *having already learned another language*. Yet children in China learn Chinese with comparative ease. Because learning to read as a child is actually not so difficult. It is learning additional languages as an adult which is challenging.

And I want to make the same comparison with games. We can play more, and more easily, because we played videogames as children. Coming to this in later life is far harder - something that Nintendo are now capitalising on to a great degree.

"the challenges designers place in games are created so that they may be overcome"

Great sentence!

"My thinking is this: I've never played a game I couldn't beat (granted I can't, nor wish to, play everything that comes out), and I don't have superhuman abilities of any kind. Therefore any person can beat any game."

This assumes many things, chiefly among which is because you are not superhuman (are you sure? :> ), anyone can do what you do. But this is less than clear. For instance, I am highly skeptical that any amount of training could make me an Olympic class gymnast or a high-wire walker. Now I'm open to the possibility that I could be completely wrong - but the point is that this kind of conclusion can't be rushed too.

You and I are on opposite sides of a currently untested (maybe untestable) debate about the capacity for different humans to acquire different skills. And it is not a given that your argument (nor mine, for that matter) must win out here - it may be that there are skills impossible to teach to certain humans. How I might prove this is rather difficult to assess, though. :)

But let's go there one time anyway, just for fun:

"So basically what I think is that when people say "I don't have the skill to beat this game", that's a lie. It's simply that you don't wish to spend the time required to do it."

What if the time required to acquire the skill was longer than the lifespan of the person? >:)

I like your idea that there are no skill barriers only time barriers, but I'm still not convinced by it. I don't believe everyone is capable of being a safe pilot, no matter how long they train. But this says nothing about the scale of the exclusion - it might be that almost everyone could be trained to be a safe pilot. Perhaps. But one exception is all it takes to disprove your claim (at least crudely), and given the vision and motion sickness problems that many people have I feel I can make this case quite easily.

Now you can claim that videogames don't fall into the same kind of class of problems as piloting planes (although I suspect you would rather dispute the pilot example itself!) - but I contend this would be a mistake. I believe there are certain classes of videogames - including those dependent upon difficult puzzles - which would be very difficult (I reassert my use of the term "astronomical!) for certain people to learn to play.

But all this said, I accept the argument from your position. Just not from my own. ;)

And either way, I'm not sure it bears on the central point of this debate. It is, however, a fascinating sideline! Thanks for driving this argument forward.

One last thing:

"But I still don't see much difference between having the option to give up and looking at a guide."

The former is more forgiving (to use Corvus' term), and as such, more suitable for a wider audience. Not to mention the latter requires more effort - it requires you to leave the game and go elsewhere. Why require the unnecessary step?

And let's not forget that most FAQs and walkthroughs are quite poor in quality, so turning to GameFAQs for a puzzle solution can be a trial and a chore in and of itself - it certainly has been for me when playing obscure games. How much nicer to just click a button and move on?

Plus, one can give up without being frustrated. These days, I do it all the time. ;)

zeech: "I think your attempts to 'legitimise' your opinion on what constitutes 'legitimate art' have failed miserably."

I wonder if that's because I have not attempted this? :) This is a narrative you seem to be deriving from my comments - although doing so has allowed you to advance a lovely argument against the opposition of games as legitimate artistic medium (the accusation of bias towards the commercial et al).

My opinion on what is legitimate art is immaterial - in fact, I have stated quite clearly elsewhen that I don't believe anyone gets to decide what is art. It's all art to me! As you correctly identify later, my question is about what constitutes legitimate art *in culture*.

And I don't think art has to be enjoyed. But it has to be experienced. Your comparison with the Ice Sculptures is apposite, I feel, since yes, these are enjoyed by a small number of people, and that's part of their appeal and identity. But *anyone* could be one of those people. And my claim is that the same is not true of Braid or Portal.

But I am open to counter arguments of the kind advanced by you, sirc or Mory. Speaking of which:

Mory: I love your account here - I hope you appreciate just how unique your perspective is here. Most people are content with the experience of the music... it takes something special to hunger for more.

I've been in choirs and bands (and theatre troops, and lighting crews...) and so I fully understand what you're gesturing at in your comment here, and I fully sympathise. But I think perhaps you sell other people short in requiring (too strong?) that they share the experience you or I might get from the participation.

That you are driven to more seems a poor reason to criticise those able to be satisfied with less. Rather, it is a reason to enjoy being you even more than you already do, because you are not only able but driven to "reach higher".

"Being recognized as legitimate art does not require that the person experiences it for himself. Some people will not put in the effort, because they don't know what they're missing. And others (I imagine) can't. So you show them."

I fully appreciate what you are saying here.

In the Louvre, they have the most amazing collection of sculptures and paintings, but the crowds from around the Mona Lisa because they know that this is supposed to be a masterwork, and they want to see it. They don't make the decision for themselves as to whether this is great art - they come to it with that presupposition.

And not wanting to knock the Mona Lisa, which is great, but there are many more wonderful things to experience in the Louvre, all of which have smaller crowds and most of which have no annoying glass case to get between you and the art!

---

In conclusion (for now at least), I accept the various arguments from different tacks that endorse the legitimacy of games as an artistic medium - but I do so because I already believe this. But I don't feel our mutual self-confidence in the medium of games suffices to put the debate to one side: we may have the anticipatory confidence that *eventually* games will be recognised as a legitimate artistic medium, but this doesn't allow culture to skip that legitimisation stage. It still has to happen somehow!

And in that battle, which is ongoing, Braid and Portal strike me as very much the wrong exemplars to be holding forth.

What should we be advancing as the exemplars, then? This, perhaps, is a whole other debate! :)

Thanks for the comments everyone! Sterling discussion.

[Neil]

Chris: "we may have the anticipatory confidence that *eventually* games will be recognised as a legitimate artistic medium, but this doesn't allow culture to skip that legitimisation stage. It still has to happen somehow!"

Well I think as you state about the Mona Lisa - telling people what they are experiencing is art is effectively legitimising it in the eyes of teh public (whomever they may be).

So if, for example, enough tabloids told the masses (again, whomever they might be) that this new game, ArtPlaceHolder: The Artening was in fact art in game form, that the job may have been done (or at least started).

As soon as the snowball starts, more and more people will think of games as "legitimate" art, and hey presto!

Games is Art.

I guess the most obviously large scale "discussion" about a game as art in recent/current news is the Space Invaders/Two Towers thing. The fact that this exhibit is eliciting the amount of discussion it does, in one sense makes it art.

[Sirc]

"Because learning to read as a child is actually not so difficult."

This is a good point! I don't actually remember how hard it was to learn way back then. However, you yourself say that coming into videogames as a child is also easier.

So let's see, we have two key points here: as a child, and as an adult. I think we can all agree that videogames are easier than learning to read another language as an adult (I'm assuming this, since I didn't see any objections to this particular point). The problem, then, seems to be: is there a fundamental difference between the child and the adult that causes videogames to overtake reading in difficulty? I don't know this. I think it might be what you believe since you brought it up.

I would like to note, though, that children in general seem to learn how to play videogames by themselves, while they, again in general, do not learn how to read by themselves.

"For instance, I am highly skeptical that any amount of training could make me an Olympic class gymnast or a high-wire walker."

Yes, me too! And that's exactly what I was saying in my previous post. Beating a videogame is nothing like beating an Olympic record. One is ridiculously easy to do compared to the other.

"You and I are on opposite sides of a currently untested (maybe untestable) debate about the capacity for different humans to acquire different skills."

I don't think our sides are quite so opposite. Like I said in my previous post: "Beating a game isn't like, say, beating one of the ultimate records in the olympics, where you could dedicate your entire life to it, and it's still very likely that you wouldn't manage it."

So as you can see, I am far from asserting that humans can do anything :)
My point is specifically regarding games, hence my sentence: "the challenges designers place in games are created so that they may be overcome"

It has never been my intention to broaden this to other areas. Sorry if I somehow made it seem that way. Your bringing up the pilot example seems to indicate that you thought I was trying to apply my argument to all skills.

"But one exception is all it takes to disprove your claim (at least crudely)"

I don't think so, because I've already accounted for the exceptions :) from my previous post: "If you commit yourself to beating a game, you will (unless you're blind, or maybe missing an arm, or maybe 90 years old with one foot in the grave)."

But I think this is a small part of the populace. I think that a normal, healthy person with no disabilities can beat any game if they really want to.

"What if the time required to acquire the skill was longer than the lifespan of the person? >:)"

This is impossible. There is no game that can take that long. Sure, we can theoretically think of a slave somewhere who has to work all day nonstop and therefore can't beat a videogame. But that's only theoretically. And even then it would be due to the time barrier, and not lack of skill.

"The former is more forgiving (to use Corvus' term), and as such, more suitable for a wider audience."

Ah yes, I guess that's true. Maybe a little too forgiving. Either way, I don't think the difference in difficulty between having to press a button and looking at a guide is big enough to warrant adding that feature :) maybe it is for casual gamers though, and I accept that. But who needs 'em >:O
Oh right, the industry. Darn.

"Plus, one can give up without being frustrated. These days, I do it all the time. ;)"

Yes, this was my point! You can give up without being frustrated, just like you can look at a guide without being frustrated.

"And not wanting to knock the Mona Lisa, which is great,"

If you won't, then I will. What's so great about that painting?! If you ask me it's all just hype that everyone buys into. I don't see it at all!

...maybe that's why I'm not an art critic.

[Sirc]

"The problem, then, seems to be: is there a fundamental difference between the child and the adult that causes videogames to overtake reading in difficulty?"

Whoops, I meant this the other way around. Reading to overtake videogames in difficulty as a person grows older.

[zeech]

Chris: "zeech: "How can we get the establishment to recognise games as art? I think having difficult puzzles that art critics are unable to solve will damage its chances"

This is precisely my position."

So it seems like what you're wanting is something that makes the Art establishment recognise games as art, as opposed to any philosophical definition of art. In other words, a problem of perception and prejudices rather than a problem of artistic quality.

In that case, there's three groups to think about here:

- The traditional art establishment:
To these people, games have a stigma like any mass market medium for entertainment. Breaking down the stigma is not a matter of accessiblitiy or playability, its a matter of RESPECTABILITY. In which case Braid might fail as a way to get these people to recognise it as art NOT because of difficult puzzles, but because it has cutesy graphics, for example.

It could also be a matter of age - young mediums take a while to gain that sheen of respectability. How many years did it take for Chaplin's black and white films to move from common entertainment to cinema classic?

Possibly the multimedia artists I mentioned are also chipping away at the barriers; by making "real art" that play like games, they make it easier for that culture to recognise artistic qualities in games.

- Some sort of new community of "game critics":
These are the game reviewers, commentators, bloggers etc that consider themselves keepers of the keys of "real gamers" and "games as art", seperating it out from "shovelware".
In which case Braid has already won those people over, and I doubt the puzzles has harmed its chances in any way. These people are considering the game as legitimate art, but probably you're not considering these people as legitimately able to decide that :P

- The wider community:
Hard to say, since its by definition a broad group with varied opinions. But probably most of them will consider games as legitimate art by comparing them to the forms of legitimate art that they already know. So the gameplay is mostly irrelevant (since this does not exist in other forms of art), they'd be looking for beauty, shocking themes, emotional involvement in the story, or whatever characteristics of their favorite art form is.
Also, they'd probably consider something as art when they're told it is, rather than personally experiencing it - probably most people dont really think deeply about what art means, they just "know what they like" as the old saying goes.

------------------

But again I think worrying about such matters is ultimately empty. Do great artists worry about respectability and acclaim from their peers when they do their work? Arent they supposed to just slave away at making their vision, often even ignoring their audience?

The people that -do- worry about such things are the "art academics" and people trying to survive from selling art. But gaming has a flourishing commercial sector already, and doesnt really need that sort of thing.

[Chris]

Sirc: I think we're reached a point of accord where our only remaining point of dispute is now whether games fall into this category of activities for which there may be people who struggle to learn the relevant skills. Some empirical research might be able to put this to bed... On the basis of mine thus far, I fall on the side of them being very hard to learn for certain people - but I would stop short of claiming I have anything definitive in this regard. :)

As for the Mona Lisa, the image has become so overused now that it's hard to appreciate it. But if you examine it in the context of art history, it retains a great deal of its presence and allure.

Thanks for the discussion - and especially for synthesising your comments in this last set of notes. It brought your position very strongly into focus.

zeech: "It could also be a matter of age - young mediums take a while to gain that sheen of respectability. How many years did it take for Chaplin's black and white films to move from common entertainment to cinema classic?"

This is a great observation! But it falls down on the facts, unfortunately. Chaplin received an Oscar in 1929 for "The Circus" (Best Comedy Director); in 1940 "The Great Dictator" was nominated for a raft of Oscars - by 1949, James Agee (who lived in Knoxville, incidentally) was saying the final scene of "City Light" was "the greatest single piece of acting ever committed to celluloid".

So recognition for Chaplin's work was contemporaneous with its release, and legendary status took only a few decades to achieve afterwards.

But this, to return to my earlier point, was in a medium that anyone could enjoy. :D

I agree with your general point here, though, which is that it takes time for a young medium to attain recognition. It took seventy years for comics to reach it (The Sandman, Watchmen).

"Game Critics": Hmmm.... the community that comments on games is still, in my opinion, vastly short of the quality of criticism required to establish game criticism as legitimate.

In fact, may I boldly suggest this is part of our problem: it would go a long way towards convincing the wider community of the legitimacy of games as an artform if we had critics who could contribute commentary of the same degree as that which is currently available in film (say).

We are inundated with reviewers, but we lack great game critics. Counter-examples welcomed!

"But again I think worrying about such matters is ultimately empty."

I understand why you feel this, but acceptance as a media would dramatically transform the legal landscape for games. If we want to get past the nonsense of Jack Thompson and so forth, a strong step forward would be the establishment of the medium as legitimate art in the eyes of a wider community.

Until we get there, to reuse my earlier phrase, we will forever be the whipping boy of the creative media.

Thanks for the discussion!

[Bezman]

"the challenges designers place in games are created so that they may be overcome"

True, but they are designed to be overcome by their audience - and sometimes that audience is a small percentile of even the game-playing population.

People have differing abilities in terms of manual dexterity, reaction times, rhythmic sense and so forth.

To me, it seems that the breadth of abilities called for by games now covers nearly any ability that COULD be called for - including some that seem more innate that learned.

Of course, as soon as I start using words like 'seem', it's obvious that this is all contentions without any real basis in facts - mostly opinions and suppositions.

Regardless, consider the logic puzzles that some games are full of. Is it really a given that everyone will have the 'aha!' moment, given enough time of thinking about it?

Is it a given that everyone will reach the levels of ability to beat any game on a sufficiently hard difficulty level to 'appreciate' it?

I'm tempted to agree with the notion that learning a new skill is often a matter of time - that training can overcome ability. But if that 'training' can take months - or even years - then the fact remains that it's an inacessible form.

[Chris]

Bezman: I completely agree with what you are saying here about games now tapping into just about every conceivable skill or ability, and of course I've made my position in regard to puzzle solving quite clear. :)

That said, there are still areas we have yet to explore in games because of the lack of an interface. These include the following utterly bizarre collection of ideas:

- Games based upon real physical exertions beyond those measurable by a dance mat or balance board e.g. "Real High Jump Simulator"*
*Not for use indoors
- Games based on fine motor operations requiring greater sensitivity than the Wii remote e.g. "Crochet Hero", "Super Mario Knit-off"
- Games based on sense of smell or taste e.g. "What's that Smell?", "Find the Anchovy"

There might be more I can't think of. :)

Best wishes!

[Bezman]

Even some physical games that could maybe be measured by current mainstream controllers don't yet exist. Spinning for example, (spinning the controllers rapidly and catching them at the same height - it would have fitted in well with Samba de Amigo, maybe).

Another area that has not yet been formalised as a video game is illinx involving drug-induced, force-induced etc. disorientation. That's probably one aspect of being a racer/pilot that a videogame will never recreate.

Anyway, upon reflection, I decided that validation of games as art probably won't come from easier games, pandering to existing critics. Rather, it'll come from an increasing number and quality of videogame critics.

As far as I know, food-critics, film critics and fine-art critics are different folk. I see no reason why someone who has studied art for years would be better placed to evaluate games (excepting their visual elements, maybe).

The new medium needs 'experts' of its own.

[Chris]

Bezman: force-induced disorientation already exists in arcade games such as Space Harrier and other games with hydraulics. There's one - I forget the name - which spins all the way around. (If anyone knows the game in question, please let me know).

And yes, I think you're right: the problem is not necessarily that games are too hard (although, to be clear, it wasn't the difficulty that I was objecting to in this case but the focus on puzzles, since I see this as a limited skill set on the basis of my research)... the problem is that we do not have a culture of critics who can validate the medium by being able to express its strengths in terms that could be appreciated, even by someone who does not play games.

We need critics who can describe the genius of Tetris the way a great film critic can describe the genius of a Kurasawa film. When we have this, we will finally have arrived.

Best wishes!