Art and Shmups

[320x240]

After reading Skykid's review of Guwange I got thinking about what is meant when someone uses the word art in refering to a shmup. Is the art in Guwange to be found in it's movie sensibilities or in the way it pulls of the actual gameplay - or perhaps in the way those two parts blend together?

Makers of doujins and (especially) alternative games seem to hold the former view...

[moozooh]

When I read "art" in a game review, I usually expect it to be about artwork/drawn art. Otherwise, an assertion of the game's exceptional quality.

[Skykid]

... Otherwise, an assertion of the game's exceptional quality.

This is on the right track.
If you've ever played Guwange, the care and precision that permeate every aspect of the game's design make it a very rich affair. It's difficult to say it's art as in an 'art-work' - but as a highly artistic endeavour, I believe as a project its nothing short of an outstanding effort.

I'm glad someone read the review though - what did you think?

[sven666]

umm.. where can i find the review?

[Skykid]

In the 'reviews' section.

I love you Sven.

[Röb]

I think art refers to all aspects of a game , the grafx design , but also the sound and the gameplay just as much . If everything comes together perfectly then its game - art !

[kengou]

For most games I tend to think that when a review mentions the game as art (not the specific artwork, drawings, etc.) then the game conveys a feeling or message particularly well and in a clever way. Take the most common example, Shadow of the Colossus, if you play the game, you notice that it really provokes emotional responses during gameplay. This is due to a lot of things about the game, including the actual gameplay itself, the literal art style of the environment and colossi, and other factors. Compare this to something like Quake which is rarely considered art in the same way. It's an action-filled fragfest that's lots of fun, but it doesn't offer anything in the same way of emotional response as Shadow of the Colossus (I suppose this is debatable but hopefully you see my point).

Now take a look at shmups in the same regard. I would definitely say that the gameplay and overall design of many shmups qualifies as art. The way that the scoring, weapons, bullet patterns, ship and enemy types all come together and intermix in that perfect way in some really exceptional games can seem like pure gaming bliss when you play it (at least for some of us, I hope) because all of those elements just come together and make an amazing experience.

[Zebra Airforce]

what did you think?

Well, you could've evaluated the scoring system in more detail (it is the meat of the game, after all).

[FIL]

Spidercat is a work of art in itself.

[Skykid]

what did you think?

Well, you could've evaluated the scoring system in more detail (it is the meat of the game, after all).

Hey, first of all thanks for the feedback!

As I mentioned to Gaijinpunch, who gave me a hand when I had questions regarding the factual evidence behind the creation of the game, I purposefully played down over-detailing the game mechanics in the review.
How many amateur reviews have you read where its like trawling through a four page guide book? That's what the strategy section is there for (as you pointed out with your handy link!)

To me, it's less of a review if you dwell on the game mechanics too much - so instead I did my best to touch on all elements, but devote a larger proportion of the review to what I felt makes the game so standout, and so special as a whole - rather than go all 'this-is-how-to-play-the-game.'
People who endeavour to pick it up will find out all of the intricate details as they devote time to it - thats part of the joy of delving into Cave games.

As it stands, I trimmed it down over and over, and still I'm unhappy with its length - I wish it was shorter. I was just suprised how much there was to say about the game and its background, I just hope the important aspects (such as just how brilliant a piece of work it is) came across properly.

Kengou: Great examples there with Shadow of the Colossus, we're on exactly the same page in our thinking on the topic of game's and 'art.'

[Zebra Airforce]

Well, it's not that I think you should've been relaying scoring strategies or anything, but rather that you explain if the system is fun or irritating or boring or whatever you feel about it. That's always my favorite part of a review.

[Hulkcore]

I'm glad that someone mentioned shadow of the colossus because that is the first thing that I think of when I think of a game as a work of art.

While there are as many definitions of what art is as there are people in this world, for my own purposes I define art as a creative act in which the choices are made to convey a particular idea, emotion, or thesis that goes beyond mere entertainment. That is, the entertainment value is not the distraction that the work provides, nor the vicarious experience, but in the experiencing the emotions that the art brings out in me.

It's rare that games accomplish this feat in my opinion. Obviously, this is based on everyone's opinions, but I have found few games that I would consider "works of art". Shadow... being one of them because every minute detail of that game expresses loneliness and sadness. The graphic tone of the images, the barrenness of the spaces, the sparseness of the audio, the lethargy of the collosi, all were carefully designed to evoke emotion.

I don't know what I think in relation to Guwange about whether or not I consider it art. It certainly gets closer to it than any other shmups that come to mind.

[Skykid]

Well, it's not that I think you should've been relaying scoring strategies or anything, but rather that you explain if the system is fun or irritating or boring or whatever you feel about it. That's always my favorite part of a review.

Ah, I see where you're going now!

Yes, perhaps there's room to go expand on it. Because of the nature of this forum, and the exposure everyone has to Cave shooters, most are aware of the brilliance in the depth of the games already. I can't think of any Cave shooter that disappointed in the scoring mechanics dept.
So I suppose (and perhaps wrongly?), that I just assumed that part would be understood to naturally as rewarding as the other Cave titles, and spent more time detailing the brilliance of the game for its uniqueness in other areas.

Can definitely see your point, but I'm still a little wary of expanding it to be any larger. I don't want people to scroll down the page and thing "fuck it, I'm not reading that!"

[professor ganson]

I think art refers to all aspects of a game , the grafx design , but also the sound and the gameplay just as much . If everything comes together perfectly then its game - art !

Röb is a good example of performance art. Much more interesting artistically than Guwange or whatever.

Shmups can look and sound great, but that's about as deep as it goes. Not very.

[JoshF]

DONKEY KONG COUNTRY GFX OMG ART

[Rob]

If Dust Dragon isn't art I want to die right now.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think art refers to all aspects of a game , the grafx design , but also the sound and the gameplay just as much . If everything comes together perfectly then its game - art !

Edit: the esteemed Prof. beat me to it.

Seriously though, art is everywhere, and so is commercialism. What's the need for differentiating between the two? Art is simply a way of marketing something - your ideas, yourself, whatever. Putting your plumage on display.

[Hulkcore]

That's a very poor, misguided outlook.

[it290]

'Fine Art' is commercial art which either doesn't admit its commercial purpose outright, or refers back to it in a jaded, postmodern fashion. Either way the whole distinction is bullshit. We should be concerned with making things better, not with pretending to aspire to some higher purpose.

[professor ganson]

'Fine Art' is commercial art which either doesn't admit its commercial purpose outright, or refers back to it in a jaded, postmodern fashion. Either way the whole distinction is bullshit. We should be concerned with making things better, not with pretending to aspire to some higher purpose.

Agreed. Of course, it's still true that a lot of fine art is worthwhile. On the other hand, nearly all postmodernism is complete crap and should be avoided.

[Ed Oscuro]

Raucous applause, the crowd goes wild! it290 just took somebody to the pone zone

p.s. hulkcore you should quote who you're referring to so you can mislead me into thinking that there's something flawed with my statement, which often causes me to dig a pit as I try to explain something over and over instead of recognizing that there's nothing more to do

'cuz I don't see any argument in your post, which is kinda necessary if you're going to critique stuff

[Rob]

p.s. hulkcore you should quote who you're referring to so you can mislead me into thinking that there's something flawed with my statement, which often causes me to dig a pit as I try to explain something over and over instead of recognizing that there's nothing more to do

Common ENFP behavior.

[it290]

On the other hand, nearly all postmodernism is complete crap and should be avoided.

I actually don't agree with this point. For example, here is an awesome
piece of postmodern art:

[Ed Oscuro]

Common ENFP behavior.

Common troll behavior.

[Rob]

Are you really that sensitive? Pronounced Fi.

[kozo]

I too liked the review, Sky. Keep it up.

[Hulkcore]

Seriously though, art is everywhere, and so is commercialism.

This is a true statement, though the logic that follows is flawed, i.e.:

What's the need for differentiating between the two?

Because they are different things perhaps? There's all sorts of absurdities with this logic. "There's humans everywhere, and insects too, why differentiate between the two?" This would be the poor part.

Art is simply a way of marketing something - your ideas, yourself, whatever. Putting your plumage on display.

This is opinion stated as fact. I tend to think that it's a poorly informed and misguided opinion, though I don't necessarily blame you for having it. You're certainly entitled to it, and you're far from being alone in it. I simply disagree.

My argument is that art, in my mind, is a form communicating ideas, emotions, etc... To say that all art is commercial, to me, is the same as saying that all talking, all conversation, are simply trying to market something - your ideas, yourself, whatever. But that's not true, or at least its a poor choice of analogies. Art, in my opinion, asks only to be understood, not to be sold.

EDIT: also, I'm not a troll, I simply read more than I post

[Hulkcore]

'Fine Art' is commercial art which either doesn't admit its commercial purpose outright, or refers back to it in a jaded, postmodern fashion. Either way the whole distinction is bullshit. We should be concerned with making things better, not with pretending to aspire to some higher purpose.

Sweeping generalizations FTW!

Also, you seem to misunderstand the term commercial art.

commercial art
–noun
graphic art created specifically for commercial uses, esp. for advertising, illustrations in magazines or books, or the like.

By pointing this out I mean to show that getting paid for creating a work of art is not commercial art. Creating a work of art with the express purpose of selling something else is.

The fact that the painting of the Sistine Chapel was commissioned doesn't change the fact that Michaelangelo made a series of creative decisions about the work, expressed ideas by the decisions, and executed them with a skill that no one else could. It simply means that he got to eat and have a place to live while he did it.

Also, how are artists to go about making something better without aspiring to a higher purpose?

[Ed Oscuro]

This is a true statement, though the logic that follows is flawed, i.e.:

What's the need for differentiating between the two?

That's not "logic," it's a rhetorical question. Learn the difference.

Because they are different things perhaps? There's all sorts of absurdities with this logic. "There's humans everywhere, and insects too, why differentiate between the two?" This would be the poor part.

My analogies are more twisted than yours when I wish them to be. Why differentiate between insects and humans? Do you squash insects for fun, are you a sadist? Do you think the atoms comprising an insect's body are better than those inside a human's, do you deny that they may easily be interchanged? You leave us all without guidance as to how or when insects and humans should be differentiated, which is a very concrete problem.

The fairly obvious follow-up to this line (for my part) is to remind you of the original context of my replies; I've seen the "game art is not actually art, or is not actually commercial, or it's not a game" argument too many times already (once was more than enough, and did you see Icycalm's No More Heroes review?).

This is opinion stated as fact. I tend to think that it's a poorly informed and misguided opinion, though I don't necessarily blame you for having it. You're certainly entitled to it, and you're far from being alone in it. I simply disagree.

If it's an opinion then you'd better get to finding examples to disprove it, else you fall into the same trap. Speaking of facts (and logic), I see none there - just an overly long and unnecessary assault on an opinion. Save your words for when they're required.

My argument is that art, in my mind, is a form communicating ideas, emotions, etc...

About time you got to an argument, a sparse one, but workable! When somebody cries, is that art? When somebody talks, is that art also? Oscar Wilde's "The Decay of Lying" might amuse you; his fictitious surrogate takes the stance that art is about magnifying or clarifying man's emotions and tragedies - or, at points, that art is about bringing pure ideals into the real world and letting life deal with them, as life imitates art - "Life holds the mirror up to Art."

Of course, you would rather degrade Mr. Wilde's memory by always tying art to some vulgar "emotion" or "giddy feeling in the pit of the stomach or thereabouts," in which case I again must ask: Why not commercial work, then? It brings something intangible desired by our natures closer to the surface.

[...] is the same as saying that all talking, all conversation, are simply trying to market something - your ideas, yourself, whatever.

Yes. I suppose there's schizophrenics and the other categories of disturbed persons, we mustn't forget them.

EDIT: also, I'm not a troll, I simply read more than I post

On trolling: Didn't call you a troll. On reading: Get better at it then. Advance your arguments earlier, please.

'Fine Art' is commercial art which either doesn't admit its commercial purpose outright, or refers back to it in a jaded, postmodern fashion. Either way the whole distinction is bullshit. We should be concerned with making things better, not with pretending to aspire to some higher purpose.

Sweeping generalizations FTW!

Also, you seem to misunderstand the term commercial art.

"Commercial" isn't followed by "art" in it290's post in the way you think it is, and has a different meaning there.

Alright, here's a few arguments, just so you know what they look like.

Commercial promotion often communicates a desirable "ideal" (for example: You're ugly, you need / please use this shampoo to become beautiful) which art most closely matches of all the disciplines.

There certainly are forms of art that are not intended to be commercial (street graffiti is one, so is performance art), although there are still two problems with the "non-commercial art" idea:

Art adds value and advantage though creating distinctions, if nothing else (for example, graffiti announcing a gang's territory, or providing the artist a forum for spreading messages).
Art is not irreplacable, just as all commercial ventures can be farmed out or one gain swapped for another.
Even the creation of art by one person for their sole enjoyment comes at an opportunity cost for which the artist could have engaged in some other work and used the gains from that outcome towards providing some form of partial (at least) substitute for whatever is done in private.
Even Art that is never freed from the confines of one person's mind stands in as a replacement for a possible commercialized replacement. If I write a post, there are Forum Gnomes who would have written a vaguely equivalent one for me; if I wish to be sarcastic, Oscar Wilde may have done the penwork (and if not there is always the Internet).

Of course you're strictly accurate when you say that there is a difference between art and commercial work, although you weren't especially successful in delineating the difference, and also missed the original context of my reply (as I mentioned before) which was critically important, more or less, as everybody has their own undertakings they amuse themselves with. Perhaps understanding that I was talking about the uselessness of attempting to portion games into "artistic" and "other" chunks was not relevant to you.

[Gungriffon Geona]

and congratulations on destroying my understanding of vocabulary. I haven't seen super descriptive anally powerful use of a dictionary in awhile. GOOD TIMES to be had here.