Flower

By Simon Parkin Published 20 January, 2009

But is it game?

Before you even launch Flower you've read everything you're going to be told in words about how to play it: "Tilt Controller to Soar. Press Any Button to Blow. Relax, Enjoy." It might not be quite so concise as Pong's "Avoid Missing Ball for High Score", but Flower's instructions are still unusually succinct and, like those displayed on the side of Nolan Bushnell's arcade cabinet, they are given outside of the game experience, in the PlayStation 3 XMB.

Once you land inside the game, you learn only by doing. For that reason, at first glance Flower appears to be the most beautiful tech demo in the world: no more, no less. You soar over Elysian fields, wheeling down through Zelda-green tall grass and then back up again into a SEGA blue sky. The camera fisheyes to take in a perfect pastoral world in glorious widescreen, one without evidence of man or animal.

It's the experience of a dream, a game in which you play not as a space marine or a plumber or a busty archaeologist, but as a gust of wind. Your disembodiment is profound because this is a game played almost without touch. Rather, you tilt the controller to direct yourself around the scene, the only clue to your presence the petals that are swept up into the air with your passing. The control of movement is as sublime as any we've felt on PS3, and, free of a character to move and all the messy physics that a body imposes, the result is the purest of interactions between gamer and game.

But once you've grown accustomed to the bright, hyper-real idyllic environment, and once you've satisfied your appetite for flying around unfettered, loop-de-looping unseen beneath the clouds without so much as a reticule in sight, a single question dominates: um, so what now?

'Flower' Screenshot 1

Flower now has a European release date in mid February, just in time for Valentines. Aw, etc.

Then you start to notice the results of your actions: the particle effects and whooshes that fire every time you fly close to a flower and sweep up its petals. And then you notice the arrangement of those flowers on the ground, their placement not random enough for nature; as purposeful and ordered as crop circles. And then, when you trigger all of the flowers in that formation you see the bursts of energy and change that tear across the ground, sprouting new life and colour below. Ah. So there is a game in here after all.

It is, in fact, a game of vibrant cause and effect: you start small, scooping up a single petal into your breeze before scooping up more and more into your conga line of confetti, until it flutters back tens of metres. In one level each group of flowers you open triggers a new gust of wind, one that powers a wind turbine high above. Trigger all of the interactive spots in a field and you might tear off down a gulley, snaking through rock formations while desperately trying to steer over new petals and pollen to add to your train. Each petal you collect triggers a sound sample, notes fluttering over the sparse piano to create a intertwining soundtrack, a freeform marriage of sound and interaction just as mesmerising as that first heard in Rez.

The three stages we've played so far, despite their lack of a HUD or scores or gauges or explicitly defined goals - all of the things we've come to expect from the medium - do have a game-like structure. There are inputs you must make, actions that you must trigger and a path of interactions that must be followed to progress and so, underneath the sparse top layer there is still a traditional, if slight, game arrangement. Viewed unfairly this sparseness will be seen as a lack of content and ideas as much as a stripping away of the medium's tropes: style over style over substance. And viewed too generously, it will result in the kind of exultant prose and breathless recommendation from critics that will put too much burden on its delicate shoulders, ensuring a backlash hits before the game's even out.

It is also a game with aspirations to Art, something that will no doubt count against it. Despite the textless, subdued presentation, the message of the game rings loud, clear and also a little unsubtle. The game opens in a dreary urban scene, a wilted flower standing on grey, miserable window ledge looking out across wet streets, traffic lights smearing colour in rain droplets in the middle distance. Centre the camera on the flower, and you'll be transported to a level, the implication that you're playing inside the flower's dream of its former life in the countryside. Complete the stage and, when you return to the sepia shop window, the flower has now straightened its stem, the further implication being that it has taken strength from this memory.

You'll already know whether that's the kind of meta-narrative that makes you weak at the knees or weak at the stomach: Flower's divisiveness is assured. Many will accuse the game of pretentiousness, which is a word that's now irritatingly synonymous with anything that's ambitious, unusual and different. Flower is not pretentious: it is ambitious, unusual and different.

'Flower' Screenshot 2

We're encouraging everyone to avoid the word 'pretentious' with Flower, but developer thatgamecompany doesn't make things easy with the blurb: "a medium to explore emotional chords uncommon in video games".

The strength of videogames - their glorious, wonderful, compelling strength - is in providing us access to impossible experiences. Flower presents an impossible experience: something that could never be felt outside of a videogame. It's wonderfully abstract and yet wholly tactile at the same time.

The strength of the game is in its wholesale embrace of its fragility: the confidence to be an art game without apology, the courage to be textless, the strength in focusing on a subject matter with such feminine overtones and association on a platform that has neither. This is interesting. This is unusual. Only a bonehead would deny its existence is a good thing for videogames. But whether the result makes for a good videogame is another question. And whether that question even matters here is yet another.

Flower is due out exclusively for PS3 on 12th February.

Picture of Simon.

About Simon Parkin

Simon Parkin is an author and journalist on video games. A regular contributor to Eurogamer since 2005, his work has also appeared in Edge, The Telegraph, Gamasutra and Boing Boing.

Read more articles from Simon by visiting the Simon Parkin archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (157) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Pro_Gamer #1 3 years ago

    Wow. A game with flowers. How awesome....
    Edited by 1 at 20/01/09 @ 11:35

  • Goffee #2 3 years ago

    PSP version please!

  • DFawkes #3 3 years ago

    Looks better than expected. Wow, I managed to find the space bar! Take that Professional Gamer!

  • X201 #4 3 years ago

    Has it got trophies?

    ;)

  • Widge #5 3 years ago

    For some reason it reminds me of Fluid (loosely) on the PS1. That had a vague music creation thing to it but the crux of the game was just 'flying' around pre-rendered environments making noises. I loved it though.

  • Widge #6 3 years ago

    Pro_Gamer is more of a Killzone 2 kind of guy, so I can see why this wouldn't appeal

  • jonsaan #7 3 years ago

    Most Wanted.

  • uglygamer #8 3 years ago

    Sonys answer to Mario?

  • Darkedge #9 3 years ago

    sounds interesting and very very pretentious - if it's a good experience however, I think i'd love it.

  • absolutezero #10 3 years ago

    I think im looking forward to this so much because it looks like its going to be what I thought all the Pixeljunk games should be. Relaxing experiences with no time limits, no energy bars and little to no frustration. It just looks wonderful.

  • HarryPalmer #11 3 years ago

    Sounds awesome

    /wants

  • Dizzy #12 3 years ago

    Reminds me of Nights... and that is a good thing.

  • Pro_Gamer #13 3 years ago

    Widge, I just don't find a game about *flowers* appealing. This is NOT what PS3 gamers deserve.. o_0

  • ZuluHero #14 3 years ago

    "But is it game?"

    No its a plane!

    /coat

  • kendoji #15 3 years ago

    Sounds incredible. Exactly the kind of fresh thinking that the industry needs.

  • Kryon #16 3 years ago

    It looks super, thanks for asking.

  • Quine #17 3 years ago

    Price?

    1080p?

  • kangarootoo #18 3 years ago

    "Widge, I just don't find a game about *flowers* appealing. This is NOT what PS3 gamers deserve.. o_0 "

    So what DO PS3 owners deserve? Games that are always about guns? I love shooters as much as anyone, but I also like new things. If the only games available on the PS3 were shooters, what would be the point of owning one (the XB360 has more of them).

    If this is fun to play, and reasonably priced, its probably a win for me. I'm man enough to say I quite like flowers and blue skys and stuff... errr, just, you know, whilst I'm outisde having a cig in between bouts of shagging and strangling rabbits and stuff.

  • mowgli #19 3 years ago

    /throws dead meat into cage

    Why are most of the top ps3 games, all so void of any game play? MGS, Heavy Rain, this.... Maybe it would make sense to just buy a bluray player on it's own.

  • YobRenoops #20 3 years ago

    I shall give this a go as I enjoyed Flow and I like to blow and it just may grow when I shoot my bow at a crow so it falls below.

    *edited because I realised it was time to rap....
    Edited by 2 at 20/01/09 @ 11:58

  • Syrok #21 3 years ago

    @X201: Yep

  • VicViper #22 3 years ago

    I bought a PS3 for stuff like this, oh and wipeout HD and valkyeri (?) chronicles, Sony always gets the games that are slighty different to the norm.
    Slighty more out there stuff that is in many ways vastly more entertaining than your gears of war and halo's (Don't go mental now I own them too). Having seen the videos of this in motion the release can not come soon enough.

  • VandelayIndustries #23 3 years ago

    Ahh, It'll be a nice counterpoint to all the bloodshed in the likes Killzone 2, Fear 2 and Resi 5.

  • stepneg #24 3 years ago

    It looks and sounds like magic carpet without the fun

  • dryden555 #25 3 years ago

    but it is worth whatever money they want for it? it seems much like a tech demo.

  • mowgli #26 3 years ago

    @ disk... why?

  • DiscoMonkey #27 3 years ago

    halo killer

  • bionutz #28 3 years ago

    mmm. dunno. it might be an overblown thing like little big planet.
    wait and see.

  • Chufty #29 3 years ago

    Why do people think that if something doesn't appeal to them, it has no place existing at all?

    Someone could make a killing selling brain cells to some of EGs readership.

  • menage #30 3 years ago

    I love this most of the time, shame I never touch it after one night. I've bought to many of these things that I never check again to even bother with it.

    Great for pretentious reviewers who only have to play it once or twice and give it an opinion, not so great for me as a gamer who actually has to buy it.
    Edited by 2 at 20/01/09 @ 12:43

  • captainrentboy #31 3 years ago

    Looks lovely, but ultimately, to me anyway, it sounds a bit shitty.
    I think it would keep me interested for around 10 minutes, and then I'd want to shoot something in the face...

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #32 3 years ago

    Simon Parkin, didn't you used to present Childrens BBC from the broom cupboard?

  • wonton #33 3 years ago

    nope, its an interactive screen saver

    /reads review

  • HuggyAtHome #34 3 years ago

    "I just don't find a game about *flowers* appealing. This is NOT what PS3 gamers deserve.. o_0"

    Well people like you don't "deserve" to play it you narrow minded fool - everybody else will no doubt really enjoy something different. What, pray tell, do PS3 gamers deserve??
    Edited by 1 at 20/01/09 @ 13:01

  • Pro_Gamer #35 3 years ago

    What, pray tell, do PS3 gamers deserve??

    Er, something other than an interactive screensaver perhaps??

  • guernican #36 3 years ago

    And not a single mention of PixelJunk Eden in the review. That must have been tough.

    It's still a mystery to me why so many people should assume that if something isn't interesting to them, it shouldn't be of interest to anyone. Heaven forfend that humanity has become so self-obsessed. It's obviously the fault of all those nasty video games.
    Edited by 1 at 20/01/09 @ 13:13

  • Goodfella #37 3 years ago

    But there are games other than 'interactive screensavers', which apart from anything this game isn't anyway.
    Edited by 1 at 20/01/09 @ 13:12

  • canIdoyabombsforya #38 3 years ago

    Pointless game for grannys and girlfriends? oh wait...its on the PS3, thats alright then. Wow, looks impressive.

  • wonton #39 3 years ago

    Erm, I was kidding, trying to make a point about jumping to conclusions before actually playing the game or even reading the text.

    Nevermind.

  • Widge #40 3 years ago

    "It's still a mystery to me why so many people should assume that if something isn't interesting to them, it shouldn't be of interest to any"

    /font size 72

    THIS

  • NegativeZero #41 3 years ago

    So regardless of what you do, it blows? :p


    I'm really looking forward to this personally. It's nice to see a developer try and make a game that's actually relaxing to play.

  • Doctor_What #42 3 years ago

    All games are just interactive screensavers, so that's really bloody irrelevant. The real question is how satisfying they are to interact with:

    The Call Of Duty games are decent on a minute-to-minute basis, but after a couple of hours you feel like you've got shell-shock, so for me that's not a very satisfying experience on most days.

    MGS4 bored me to tears with the cutscenes, but the actual gameplay was excellent - the balance of the two wasn't satisfying to me.

    Gears Of War became very dull as the amazingly polished minute of gameplay was repeated over and over again until the awfully written plot ended. It was okay, and moderately satisfying, but not superb.

    Linger In Shadows was cheap and gave about an hour of interesting and new-feeling interaction. I did find that satisfying.

    Bioshock has an interesting story, reasonably fun AI, and a great looking world to explore. It might not have had the best gameplay, but it was satisfying.

    LBP has such a sense of fun that I found it satisfying...

    But they're all just interactive screensavers! You press buttons and things happen. Woo! I find it amazing that so many gamers kid themselves that they are truly playing anything that wasn't pre-ordained by the game's designers. They're sequences of events set up for the player to go through, all the player does is complete a less-or-more complicated sequence of interactions to make the game move onwards.

    Flower, judging by the article, is immensely satisfying to control. The movement gets you around in a fairly novel way, which makes it stand out a lot. Would you say that it was more interactive if you were using the sticks to control your movement rather than tilting the pad? I noticed on the POP thread that people thought that the game was non-interactive because you had to press a single button to make the Prince move around. How is this different to holding R1, pressing up on the left stick, and pressing X? Just because the interface is more complicated it doesn't mean that your interaction with the world is any more complex.

    In very nearly all games you simply move from one objective to the next, you could claim that the movement is the game, but really it's just dressing to make you realise how little influence you really have on the world. Flower sounds like it's stripped out the dressing, and I find the prospect very refreshing.

    {If you want to talk about console wars (yawn) then this is the kind of artsy game that makes me love PSN much more than XBLA. There are some good games on XBLA, but if I want something thoughtful or arty then PSN has a far wider range of choices along with the normal retro shooters, puzzlers, and suchlike.}

  • kangarootoo #43 3 years ago

    @squarejawhero

    "kangarootoo equates sex with violence?"

    Hmm, well I would do if I was actually the machistic meathead I was mocking. I guess my humour is a little dry for textual delivery.

    Read my post again, but imagine I put on the voice of a blokey chav for "errr, just, you know..." onwards.

  • kangarootoo #44 3 years ago

    "Why do people think that if something doesn't appeal to them, it has no place existing at all?"

    In a nutshell, stupidity.

    (well ok, maybe not, but that is how this thread makes me feel :) )

  • Slipstream #45 3 years ago

    Yeah this looks very nice. I hope it lasts alot longer than ReZ, which was good back in the day, but recently buying it on my 360 has shown the game has not aged well at all...waste of points >.

  • kangarootoo #46 3 years ago

    @Doctor_What

    All good points.

    I raise an eyebrow whenever I see a post stating "this is not a REAL game", as if the word real means something other than "not imaginary".

  • Widge #47 3 years ago

    Obviously this needs ctrl-V-ing until comprehension kicks in:

    "Why do people think that if something doesn't appeal to them, it has no place existing at all?"

  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife #48 3 years ago

    Originality in game design should be applauded not condemned - it's a rare thing to find a developer trying something new and different so when it happens gamers should be excited that it's pushing the whole artform forward. Without developers like this we wouldn't have any of the genres that exist today.

  • Vanmunt #49 3 years ago

    It's perfect for the audience of pretentious fawning fops

    I thought this thread was about Flower, not Braid.

  • UncleLou #50 3 years ago

    "Why do people think that if something doesn't appeal to them, it has no place existing at all?"

    I think kangoo already answered this.

    I see the en-vogue argument of the feeble-minded has also already been brought up: it's pretentious.

  • menage #51 3 years ago

    @ Doctor What

    "But they're all just interactive screensavers! You press buttons and things happen. Woo! I find it amazing that so many gamers kid themselves that they are truly playing anything that wasn't pre-ordained by the game's designers. They're sequences of events set up for the player to go through, all the player does is complete a less-or-more complicated sequence of interactions to make the game move onwards. "

    That's comparing movies with toothpaste commercials. I know what I'd rather watch. Hey you watch moving images, Hooo. Bit simplified isn't it?



  • dahsif #52 3 years ago

    "a medium to explore emotional chords uncommon in video games"

    PRETENTIOUS!

  • VicViper #53 3 years ago

    @farticusmaximus

    I disagree that this is gameplay free, though that implies that I can define gameplay in a correct sense, theres a goal, a structured method of progress and control based on what the article has said. Using that criteria that is gameplay if you use that to descibe any game. Rez HD has maybe three buttons and the analouge stick more complex than flower but yet still has a structured method of control and progress and a goal.

    I'll admit when I first seen this I thought ok thats going to be rubbish but the more I see and read the more interesting it seems as some different for once. Why the PS3 is failing? not down to games like this, not that flower is going to sell systems, I would attribute that too being over priced for too long (I did just buy my PS3 there on sunday) and not really having that games to bringthe sales.

  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife #54 3 years ago

    That's comparing movies with toothpaste commercials. I know what I'd rather watch. Hey you watch moving images, Hooo. Bit simplified isn't it?

    Not really. "Hardcore" gamers - that laughable breed who think playing Halo, GTA and PES makes them some sort of 'pure' gamer - often like big budget games that are undeniably fun to play but to many a long-term gamer are just pretty versions of games we played years ago and which were rock-hard.

    Take Gears Of War for example (which I'm currently playing through). It's mechanics are pure Space Invaders yet when you can die and restart where you left off over and over. Erm... that's not hardcore, that's as easy as it comes! Hardcore is 3 lives, no life bar and a vertical learning curve.

    Now games like this, Braid, World Of Goo, Little Big Planet, hell, even Wii Fit are pushing the boundaries of what gaming is, what it means to be a game, deconstructing old, staid models and trying new things never seen before. Not all may work, not all may be compelling to you but there is a large group of gamers who embrace them as the breath of fresh air they are.
    Edited by 1 at 20/01/09 @ 14:04

  • Goodfella #55 3 years ago

    I see farticus is on his soap box again, spewing forth his unique brand of rhetoric and hyperbole.

  • Stoatboy #56 3 years ago

    But can you run over a dandelion and break its petals off?

  • VicViper #57 3 years ago

    @evilfoxhound

    Ah youre falling for the trap there waiting for a counter "so all you think games are is killing stuff"

    People expect games to be:
    Marines killing stuff, Race Cars killing stuff, Killing stuff killing stuff, Jumping and killing stuff, solving puzzels and killing stuff, Completing Dialouge trees and killing stuff, Small cuddly animals killing stuff, cyber pets killing stuff, flying planes and killing stuff

    Oh and tennis

  • Goodfella #58 3 years ago

    And I see you are drooling like a goon at what the rest of the gaming world are pointing and laughing at.

    Pray tell where I mentioned anything about the game? My first and only post was directed at your predictable rants.
    Edited by 1 at 20/01/09 @ 14:16

  • TripSkyway #59 3 years ago

    Nice write up, looking forward to trying this now.

  • beckyh #60 3 years ago

    Is there blood in it? j/k :-)

    This intrigues me just like "Linger in the Shadows" intrigued me. Unfortunately I didn't like Linger in the Shadows.
    If the price is right (less than £3.50) then I might buy it just to check it out. But much more than that and I definitely will not bother.

  • Dizzy #61 3 years ago

    >I thought this thread was about Flower, not Braid.

    Seriously dude. STFU. Braid is a awesome created game with amazing hand-crafted puzzles.

  • polaris70 #62 3 years ago

    But is it realistic? Can you crush the flowers in your hands? You better be able to break its petals off.

  • Farzlepot #63 3 years ago

    I'm not sure whether to praise it for its innovation, or criticise it for its propensity towards egotism. Regardless I find myself eager to play it just to find out what it's like.

  • menage #64 3 years ago

    @Pac-man

    I agree on that point completely. i don't give a crap about being hardcore either. I can just as well play Some DS wiggle game as well as Gears.

    The fact I was adressing was more to do with the "all games are interactive screensavers" bit, which is the same as saying Romeo and Juliet is on the same level as Hustler magazine. because they both contain letters and are printed on pages. It's true off course. But a game like Flower is certainly not the same thing as Gears (and I'm leaving whicg one is Hustler or R&J in the middle here, everyone has their tastes). The medium doesn't define the content or purpose.

    Also a screensaver is to save sreens, games are games. Interactive screensavers are pretty pointless. better to switch your screen off.
    Edited by 2 at 20/01/09 @ 14:27

  • crispyduckman #65 3 years ago

    My PS3 is full of demos and odds and ends (with the exception of MGS4, LBP and Uncharted). I don't really mind that and, assuming its cheap, I'll probably get Flower to add to the collection. However, no matter how innovative and interesting Flower is, games like this just don't help to justify the massive expense of the console.

    Flower should be a sweet added bonus of owning a PS3 and not the main attraction - I'm pretty sure that's why there's so much negative comment in this thread. If the PS3 had loads of killer titles (excluding dodgy 360 ports), I'm sure everyone would be more positive about titles like Flower adding to the mix.

  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife #66 3 years ago

    @ menage

    You are making a quality judgment that I'm not making though. You say this is games as what a toothpaste commercial is to cinema or Hustler is to literature.

    I'm saying that actually it's an equally valid and imho more interesting than that. So, to use your analogies, if Gears Of War is The Matrix, this is a Cassavetes film. If GTA is Romeo & Juliet, this is an Italo Calvino novel.

  • menage #67 3 years ago

    @Pacman

    No, I'm saying that it's not fair to compare every game with an interactive screensaver ( which is downgrading it immensely). I'm not judging the content of this game, casual games or some hardcore game, that's subjective. But purpose and content define a medium/game in the end, not the way it works on a basic level (pixels on a screen, pressing buttons, that's the same thing as saying Romeo and Juliet is the same crap as Hustler because you can flip pages)

  • UncleLou #68 3 years ago

    And I see you are drooling like a goon at what the rest of the gaming world are pointing and laughing at.


    Christ. I really have no problem with people not interested in stuff, but when they try to force their narrow-minded view on everyone else, it becomes quite obnoxious. The hostility some people have towards anything that they can't quite pigeonhole is frighening.

  • Goodfella #69 3 years ago

    And your response was equally as predictable, serving as much use all your other completely pointless posts.

    Pointless maybe but certainly not narrow minded, blinkered and full of irrational hatred towards a business/console.

  • Shrike #70 3 years ago

    Have to say I agree with farticusmaximus. If there's anything wrong with the internet nowadays, it's all these damn beat poets. I can't play Halo online because I'm so sick of 60 year old hippies talking in long unbroken sentences and calling me a square.

  • DiscoMonkey #71 3 years ago

    Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction.

    This sounds like a sandbox environment where you fly around collecting petals and colouring the landscape. With an focus on aesthetics and mood.
    A bit like classical music is still music and entertainment even though it doesn't involve jumping about with a hundred other sweaty people in a small room.

  • darc #72 3 years ago

    Between this and Heavy Rain I'm going to have to buy a PS3 this year. Price cuts please!!!

  • ps3owner #73 3 years ago

    10/10

  • Goodfella #74 3 years ago

    Stuck up fanboys?

    Fucking hell irony overload alert, please evacuate the thread before it implodes.

  • FenderMaster #75 3 years ago

    looks pretentious

  • ronuds #76 3 years ago

    There's nothing wrong with this type of "game" or whatever you want to call it, but let's see what the final bill comes to. This should be no more than a few bucks/pounds/euros/whathaveyou. Anymore than that and Sony is laughing at your bare ass after bending you over the pricker bush.

  • Widge #77 3 years ago

    yes, all games doing something a bit different = pretentious

    what should it be doing to be less pretentious then?

  • mingster #78 3 years ago

    must..crush..petals..
    needs more guns and cars.

  • ronuds #79 3 years ago

    "Now games like this, Braid, World Of Goo, Little Big Planet, hell, even Wii Fit are pushing the boundaries of what gaming is, what it means to be a game, deconstructing old, staid models and trying new things never seen before. Not all may work, not all may be compelling to you but there is a large group of gamers who embrace them as the breath of fresh air they are."

    This is as bad as the people saying this is a "non" game. Please take a reality pill and call us in the morning - there have been things similar to this for ages and ages. They're not as popular, but look hard enough and you'll find a lot of quirky little things out there to enjoy - if that's what you're after.

    But please stop with the revolutionary and all that because it's complete and utter nonsense. If this is revolutionary, then I fear we've taken a step backwards as a society.

  • DiscoMonkey #80 3 years ago

    I feel Motorstorm2 although great would have benefited from deformable daisy patches.
    And Resistance2 need blood curdling bluebell screams from any flowers shot in the forest.

  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife #81 3 years ago

    @ ronuds

    I'm honestly interested in knowing what games you think are similar to this that have been around for ages and ages?

  • ronuds #82 3 years ago

    @ Pac-Man

    It's not that there are necessarily games exactly the same, but your comment is one of the main reasons people love to hate Sony and the Playstation so much. It's NON-SENSE! Like someone else said, this is little more than a screen saver that you can manipulate manually and for that there are claims of revolutionary?

    Anyhow, there are all sorts of games you can just eff around with and not have to worry about guns or being shot or any of the above. Just type in "games" in your google search bar and I'm sure you'll find a ton. Sure, they might not have flowers and rose pedals, but they provide the same type of experience.

    I understand why you don't want anyone to take away your right to enjoy this, but enough with the revolutionary stuff. Let's just play games and call it a day - and when something that's so obviously revolutionary comes along that nobody can deny it, then we can throw the term around. Until then, let's leave it in the holster and save face.
    Edited by 1 at 20/01/09 @ 15:50

  • kangarootoo #83 3 years ago

    @UncleLou

    "I think kangoo already answered this"

    Kangoo? I think that brings the "alternative version of my username" count to about 15.

    I quite like Kangoo, it sort of has an efficiency to it :)


    "who think playing Halo, GTA and PES makes them some sort of 'pure' gamer"

    That is the sort of shit that makes me want to strangle a rabbit..... JOKE


    "looks pretentious"

    Please tell me that was sarcasm. Otherwise I can't help but picture you in the park, kicking flowers and shouting "so you think you're special do you?!".

    The waffle accompanying it might be up its own bum, I agree. But the game itself is just a game, with no pretentious text in it. All there is fields and flowers and a blue sky, and if you find that pretentious I'm not sure you can be saved (dramatic stuff, indeed).

  • kangarootoo #84 3 years ago

    @ronuds

    "but let's see what the final bill comes to"

    "Please take a reality pill and call us in the morning"

    "but your comment is one of the main reasons people love to hate Sony and the Playstation so much. It's NON-SENSE!"

    "Until then, let's leave it in the holster and save face"


    I challenge you to make a statement that stands on the strength of its factual content alone :)

    On second thoughts... you aren't a bot are you? Is this part of the turing test perhaps?

  • DiscoMonkey #85 3 years ago

    For a start you don't manipulate a screen saver.
    This is a game, it may be a small game and may not be revolutionary but it is a game. it has objectives rules and even levels.

    Is it the simplicity that makes people say screen saver?
    what about pac-man, tetris, asteroids etc, are these all screen savers now?

    Linger in Shadow i's agree is a fancy screen saver, there was no real control and could hardly be called interactive.
    Sony's self-described screensaver 'LocoRoco Cocoreccho!' is actually a game too.

  • ronuds #86 3 years ago

    "I challenge you to make a statement that stands on the strength of its factual content alone :)"

    Why should I be the only one to have to?

  • DiscoMonkey #87 3 years ago

    "Why should I be the only one to have to? "

    Cause you've been called on it.
    Every one has to be able to, but some will hide at the back of the class for fear of failure

  • DrDamn #88 3 years ago

    It's a cheap PSN title - what's the beef? Just because it doesn't have a high score table and lead you by the nose through the game?

  • Thornhillboy #89 3 years ago

    This looks lovely if its cheap. If they overprice it though, then it could be a big turn off.

  • ronuds #90 3 years ago

    "Cause you've been called on it.
    Every one has to be able to, but some will hide at the back of the class for fear of failure"

    I don't even really know what exactly I'm supposed to be giving examples of? Games similar to Flower? How about my bubble screensaver then...it has stuff that floats around and reacts to the environment. I can't control it, but same principal. If it were made into a game....I'd probably play it. For five minutes at least.

    And what about the rubber ducky thing from Sony? Oh, wait...how about the millions of flash games you can find strewn throughout the internet? Sure, graphics aren't as flashy, but many of them provide a similar type of gaming experience AND they usually cost more than they should.

  • kangarootoo #91 3 years ago

    @ronuds

    I'm just playing with you.

    I agree this is not that revolutionary under the hood, but really what is?

    My main issue here is the general cynical and dismissive attitude that a lot of people feel toward this game - its kind of saddening. We complain about the lack of originality in games, but our knee jerk default reaction to originality is to mock it.

    Usually because its not manly enough in one way or another, or because its arty. This reminds me of Sarah Palin's (thankfully) failed co-campaign, where a big part of her tack was to call Barack Obama elitist simply because he wasn't an idiot. Being clever was something to apparently frown at because it meant he didn't represent the "real man on the street" (personally, I would have thought the real man on the street would find that insulting).

    Anyway, my point is that so much of the critisism of this game has essentially been based on saying it isn't stupid or predictable enough to "fit in" with all the games we are used to - that to try and be original or thought provoking is "too arty farty". Yes they probably could have helped themselves by writing less waffly nonsense in their preamble, but once the game is up and running all there is top judge it upon is the game itself.


    Anyway, you should just be happy I missed that bit about "laughing at your bare ass after bending you over the pricker bush" when I was building my mega-list of your hyperbole :)

  • Rash' #92 3 years ago

    ronuds, please stop trying to appear all superior. suggestions that this game is innovative in design, concept and artistic direction are perfectly justified. in combination TGC have deliver another example of a game that questions conventional game design.

  • penhalion #93 3 years ago

    Only a bonehead would deny its existence is a good thing for videogames. But whether the result makes for a good videogame is another question. And whether that question even matters here is yet another.

    What utter tosh.

  • antony_williams #94 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 11:19:54 12-02-2012

  • woodyrulesok #95 3 years ago

    I'll certainly be getting this.
    Looks good.

  • Danbojones Verified Senior Staff Writer, GamesIndustry.biz #96 3 years ago

    You're all enraged by flowers. Consider the irony.

  • ronuds #97 3 years ago

    @ Kangerootoo

    I think my comments are being taken wrongly. I'm not knocking this game at all. Looks cool for people into this sort of thing.

    My issue is more with the folks who come on here and in a bad attempt to defend it start throwing out the "revolutionary" tag, which I disagree with. It's a decent looking game; take that and be happy with it instead of trying to make it into something it's not.

    It seems to be a PS3-fanboys' jerk reaction these days. Likely because the PS3 is spoken of so poorly, much of it being unustified. But either way...it doesn't need to be revolutionary to be good.

  • penhalion #98 3 years ago

    @farticusmaximus

    At last someone who noticed that this is simply a tech demo like the old demo scene from the C64 days. Hence my comment about the reviewers remarks being utter tosh.

    There is nothing innovative here. All that has happened is that the reviewer appears to be too young to know what the demo scene is and so thinks that anything they haven't seen before must be new and amazing. Sadly I suspect that a lot of the people praising flower are also too young to realise where such concepts come from.

  • DrDamn #99 3 years ago

    @Farticus
    It's not the graphics which are being touted as innovative. More the interaction, presentation and gameplay mechanics. It's not innovative but it's trying something different and it's a presumably cheap PSN title. I really don't see what the anger is about.

  • Widge #100 3 years ago

    What is happening here is people are passing judgment on a game based on someones opinions and a streaming video.

    Next up: book judging via cover analysis

  • kangarootoo #101 3 years ago

    @ronuds

    I see where you are coming from, though not everyone does I agree. I think you are getting defensive though, and in the end you are perhaps misrepresenting yourself.

    Something in what you just wrote stood out though.

    "My issue is more with the folks who come on here and in a bad attempt to defend it start throwing out the "revolutionary" tag"

    Why should anyone need to defend it, badly or otherwise. Perhaps people are coming into these pages, seeing a wall of petty dismissal, and trying to find any way they can to redress the balance.

    Some of the critisms levelled at Flower, from "flowers are teh lame" to " its more a screensaver than a game" are frankly pityful. And I'm not that surprised that in reaction to that people playing devil's advocate risk elevating the same game to a platform it does not (at this early unproven stage at least) deserve to be on.

    I bet if you were all sat in the same room, or chatting down the pub, about this the communication would be much better and chances are nobody would feel that anyone else was "not getting them" by anywhere near the same degree.

  • kangarootoo #102 3 years ago

    "What is happening here is people are passing judgment on a game based on someones opinions and a streaming video.

    Next up: book judging via cover analysis"

    +1

  • miiiguel #103 3 years ago

    Well, expect for of this shit to come from XBL and PSN. Someone wrote that 2009 will be the year that every penny counts - cheap production disguised as something else... Inovative? Hell yeah!

    Now give them your money! And praise the Lord!

  • goz #104 3 years ago

    What are a demo scene?

    Curse these young bones :(:(:(

  • UncleLou #105 3 years ago

    cheap production disguised as something else... Inovative? Hell yeah!


    Yeah, we definitely need more ultra-expensive productions that play it safe. Exciting? Hell yeah!

  • miiiguel #106 3 years ago

    "Yeah, we definitely need more ultra-expensive productions that play it safe. Exciting? Hell yeah! "
    It really depends what turns you on. I certainly could live without the Flower's and Interpol's. But hey, while I do enjoy playing "ultra-expensive" productions on my 360 I won't go crazy saying "that's what I love about the Xbox brand it brings mobile phone games to my ultra-expensive gaming lounge".
    Well, it does seem like a screen saver, same way Interpol is a mobile phone game.

  • Kenshin001 #107 3 years ago

    What a revolutionary, innovative looking game. I can hardly wait to play it!

  • DrDamn #108 3 years ago

    @Miiguel
    At least the graphics on this look nice. They didn't bother updating the graphics in Interpol. It also plays very, very badly too from the trial game. Find three birds ... no not that one that's not the one I was thinking of.

  • kangarootoo #109 3 years ago

    @retibra

    +1

  • miiiguel #110 3 years ago

    @DrDamn : Interpol is a disgrace. But as nice as this one might look, we're doing ourselves a disservice to preemptively call this art. A game that is not a game does not equal artform, automatically, imo.

    And, I'm not *pissed*, I just think is way too far out to call this art, I'm inclined to label it with the other word.

    And I know pretentiousness, after all I have a few Psychic TV albums... I wanted to be "arty" when I was a teen, you know...

  • Salato #111 3 years ago

    I find I'm increasingly more and more interested by original games like this. Really hope its good. Certainly wanted.

  • Benno #112 3 years ago

    so you cant shoot shit up? what sort of bullshit gaming excuse is this?
    Edited by 1 at 20/01/09 @ 17:52

  • DrDamn #113 3 years ago

    @Miiiguel
    I don't think its automatically art, then I don't think it's a game which isn't a game either. It's a pleasant idea for a small PSN/XBLA type title with an interesting approach. I don't see the fuss either way, it's not ground breaking & it's not a screen saver.

  • kangarootoo #114 3 years ago

    On the "is it a game front", yes it is(imo) because it has gameplay.

    Was Flow a game? In my book, yes.

    Flower has a much gameplay as Flow. And it has as least as much gameplay as Pacman, if not more.

    With that as a reference perhaps we can make some progerss.

  • kangarootoo #115 3 years ago

    typos

  • UncleLou #116 3 years ago

    And I know pretentiousness, after all I have a few Psychic TV albums... I wanted to be "arty" when I was a teen, you know...

    Explain, please. "Pretentious" is a just meaningless, criminally overused buzz word for anything people don't like or understand. Unless you explain why.
    Edited by 1 at 20/01/09 @ 18:22

  • bicky316 #117 3 years ago

    Question is - Will it be as good as the XBL fireplace?

  • miiiguel #118 3 years ago

    "Explain, please. "Pretentious" is a just meaningless, criminally overused buzz word for anything people don't like or understand. Unless you explain why. "

    Have a go with this album:
    Psychic TV - Kondole, 1989, that's pretentious, as in crap disguised as art.

    Yeah, and I dig Duchamps and Apollinaire, my incursions through the "artsy" world didn't bring only useless stuff like the previous example, I discovered loads of interresting stuff. I'm not affraid of the "mainstream" anymore, though.
    And, btw, what's your definition of the word ?, if I may ask, in the way of how can you use that word properly ?

    edit: "Question is - Will it be as good as the XBL fireplace? ", excelent question! And that one seems to sell a lot too. Shame...
    Edited by 3 at 20/01/09 @ 18:39

  • woodyrulesok #119 3 years ago

    @penhalion
    "At last someone who noticed that this is simply a tech demo like the old demo scene from the C64 days. Hence my comment about the reviewers remarks being utter tosh.

    There is nothing innovative here. All that has happened is that the reviewer appears to be too young to know what the demo scene is and so thinks that anything they haven't seen before must be new and amazing. Sadly I suspect that a lot of the people praising flower are also too young to realise where such concepts come from."

    Can I ask that assuming you are right (although I don't agree) that you don't believe 'Flower' to be of any merit because in your opinion it is only a tech demo, and being just a tech demo it should not be aloud to be seen by the general public? Do you find it an outrage that the makers might release it for money of all things and that some people might actually enjoy it?
    Where you outraged back in the day if there was some demo scene software on the tape on the front of your commodare magazine? I can imagine people writing into Zap to moan about the fucking tech demo on the tape, how dare they, I paid money for this, I want a game, Fucks sake!

  • PrivateJoker #120 3 years ago

    Farticus Maximus is still an immature whining cunt. Same old bullshit week in week out from the usual suspects.
    No one actually gives a flying fuck about your biased ill informed opinions. Do the world a favour and go suck a tail-pipe.
    You wankers have zero impact on the the games people buy or what games get made. All you do is come across like fucking losers. Go on, come and have a go cus you think it's 'cool'. I need a good laugh.

  • Ergates_Antius #121 3 years ago

    @Farticus
    If this 'game' was on any other platform it would have been torn to shreds.

    That is simply complete and utter nonsense. If this game had been released on the PC or the Wii no-one would have even blinked.
    Edited by 1 at 20/01/09 @ 18:51

  • Widge #122 3 years ago

    Pretentious seems to get slung around since Braid hit.

    I don't see this as art. I see this as possibly being a piece of entertainment, then again I'm totally against sticking things into rigid boundaries such as "game" or "art". Its like everyone sticks out a vaguely new house music sound, you've got to slap a new set of boundaries around it. No need.

    If you have a rigid set of expectations with "game" and are actively willing to argue against anything that sits outside it then you're effectively contributing to the same mentality that created the onslaught of sequels that we saw on the previous gen.

    Anything vaguely different seems to be derided on here by a population (whether or not that is geared to hardware bias I don't know). Both this and Heavy Rain have been massively attacked, and from what? Snippets. The often derided defence is also counterbalanced by an equally fanatical offence. Its like 'jesus christ, put it to one side for once'.

  • miiiguel #123 3 years ago

    "That is simply complete and utter nonsense. If this game had been released on the PC or the Wii no-one would have even noticed it"

    Fixed.

  • Widge #124 3 years ago

    Rubbish, barely anything gets past our beady eyes.

  • Canadian_Mike #125 3 years ago

    Wow, what a beautiful and innovative title this has turned out to be.

    Can wait to play this one!!!

    Good job Sony...keep the fresh games coming!
    Edited by 1 at 20/01/09 @ 19:56

  • darc #126 3 years ago

    I'm perplexed that people have such a hard time calling a game art. IMO this is absolutely art. On the other hand, I'd argue that every game on the shelves today is art. Mostly very bad art, but art. And if that's in doubt, then at least they are products filled with art ie. the creative output of artists and or skilled technicians.

    To begin with, the most applicable definition of the word is actually very inclusive:

    (noun) the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects ; also : works so produced

    Now consider a game in which artists have modeled visual elements, musicians have fashioned soundtracks, programmers have decided on motion dynamics and sensory feedback... any one part of this could rightly be called art, so how can the sum of these parts not also constitute art? Failed art lacking coherency, maybe... a boring game, maybe... but still art.

    So are we really arguing whether games can be art? Or we arguing whether games can be Great Art? How often do films, or books, or anything else rise to the latter?

  • miiiguel #127 3 years ago

    Art does not have profit in mind, so no, imo, games are not art (well, PS3 can be art then - I kid...). Nor most movies.
    Edited by 1 at 20/01/09 @ 21:11

  • Rash' #128 3 years ago

    See, the concept of art is so ambiguous and therefore personal to each individual that to discuss it we'd need a completely new thread. Ultimately we must go on the facts that are on the table to appreciate that merits of this work. I think it's clear to see that the game is distinct and ambitious in it's delivery of design, concept and artistic direction. Imo for a dev and a publisher to hold aspirations that rubbish commercial trends and think beyond conventional practice is forward thinking and innovative. The fruits of that labour are open for a different debate.
    Edited by 1 at 20/01/09 @ 21:26

  • miiiguel #129 3 years ago

    So is Fireplace, lol!

  • Rash' #130 3 years ago

    miiiguel, it is too soon to say what games have the capacity of being but certainly there have been gaming projects in the past (and no doubt in the future) where finiancial gain wasn't the primary concern.
    Edited by 1 at 20/01/09 @ 21:32

  • darc #131 3 years ago

    "Art does not have profit in mind, so no, imo, games are not art (well, PS3 can be art then - I kid...). Nor most movies."

    Not in itself, but professional artists embrace commerce out of necessity. The fact that there is associated profit does not in itself preclude someone's work from being art. That would rule out all kinds of work - visual, film, performance, etc etc etc - that you yourself consider art, surely?

  • miiiguel #132 3 years ago

    I didn't say (nor I think) that art objects can't generate profit (that'd be total lunacy), but an artist who has profit as his/her goal is not making art, is doing buisness (imo).

  • darc #133 3 years ago

    "I didn't say (nor I think) that art objects can't generate profit (that'd be total lunacy), but an artist who has profit as his/her goal is not making art, is doing buisness (imo). "

    Gotcha. But what I would say is that it is not always (in fact it is seldom) strictly an either/or proposition. The touring rock band as one example, is frequently comprised of players interested in both their artistic output and in earning a living.

    A good question to ask is: would people still be making video games if they didn't have to worry about money? For me personally, worrying about money is the only reason I'm not making video games, so there is no question.

  • darc #134 3 years ago

    "See, the concept of art is so ambiguous and therefore personal to each individual that to discuss it we'd need a completely new thread."

    I definitely agree with this, so perhaps the only thing more pretensious than calling a game "art" is insisting that it isn't (or worse, can't be) in so far as it implies we have a reliable definition of art, and are capable of making an objective qualification either way.

  • miiiguel #135 3 years ago

    "A good question to ask is: would people still be making video games if they didn't have to worry about money?"
    It is indeed a good question. Maybe, at least, they'd do it diferently? And I must say that I'm perfectly fine with video games as I know them, I don't need them to be "art", I need them to entertain me, "quality entertainment". When I crave for "food for the mind" I tend to look elsewhere.

    I don't think video-games can't ever be art, but I'm fairly certain they are not, as of today. And I'm fine with it.

    edit: and it's not like I consider it a lesser activity (playng video-games as opposed to reading a book). I'm sure I'll have a very good time playing Nuts & Bolts as from re-reading "The Eleven Thousand Rods". Different shit, diffents kicks.
    Edited by 2 at 20/01/09 @ 22:07

  • Doctor_What #136 3 years ago

    I think one thing that differentiates games from art is that art is most commonly the result of a single vision and games are mostly designed by committee. There is almost inevitably a dilution of the idea for the game, either due to the multiple people's input on the design and art, or the restrictions of coding to express the creator's goal.

    As has been said, this doesn't mean that they're not art, only that they're probably not great art.

    Personally, I've occasionally felt similar things from some games as I have when looking at a Vermeer painting or walking through a Serra sculpture. Those are rare times, but they have happened.

    ... And Flower? You know what, I think I might just play it before I start making rash judgements. I know, I'm just crazy like that.

  • UncleLou #137 3 years ago

    Have a go with this album:
    Psychic TV - Kondole, 1989, that's pretentious, as in crap disguised as art.

    Your "explanation" is even worse than I thought. Disappointingly weak. :-(

  • 3william56 #138 3 years ago

    Boneheadslol.

    Christ, what a bunch of tw*ts.

  • Knot #139 3 years ago

    Wii has Lost Wind : http://im age.com.com/gamespot/images/200... and PS3 has Flower

    Both nice windy gameplay, much ?
    Edited by 2 at 21/01/09 @ 05:58

  • Rash' #140 3 years ago

    miiguel, by defining art you've presented us with a challenge. if, by your definition, art is food for the mind then i would argue there are plenty of games that provide that sort of stimulation. the question is; is your mind open to that suggestion and all it can offer you as a gamer?

  • busboy33 #141 3 years ago

    Out of the way first -- if I had a PS3, I'd get this day one (assuming it's 10 bucks or less). I like "different games like this . . . but then again I also bought Braid and several of the XBL Community games (the Carnivale one is a great $10 game).

    Having said that . . .

    I agree with the "just because you don't like it doesn't automatically mean it's crap" commenters, but remember that works both ways: just because you do like it doesn't mean it isn't crap.

    Much as I enjoy how this game is shaping up, I can't go to "it's ART!" with the zealots. What about this is art? Someone asked what game was remotely like this that has already been released. Isn't this Katamari Damacy (or however the hell you spell it) without the bizarre asian-Lego-homoeroticism? You start small, gather up items/petals placed about, and when you get enough you move on to the next "challenge", which involves either getting more/different stuff, getting stuff under some environmental constraint, or . . . nope, that's it?

    Is it beautiful? Sure. Does it look fun? To me, yeah. "Art"? Again, why? And to be clear, I don't think Braid is "art" either, but I'd have to put that further toward the "art" target simply because I have trouble claiming the Van Gogh-esque backgrounds aren't artistic (albeit in a "motel room picture quality" kind of way).

    It seems like this is being called "art" simply because (a) it's different and (b) it's "pretty". To me, that's not enough. I'm more likely to call something like Death Pit on XBL Community games "art" for being so radically different (entire game is played without any graphics at all -- all game information is either audio or tactile via rumble), but "different" and "art" aren't the same thing.

    And to the "Art isn't made for money comment" . . . pure, condensed horsesh!t. Of course artists want money -- if they didn't, why would they sell their wares?

    I do agree that games like this need to be the frosting on the PS3 cake, not the actual body of the cake itself. I'm not going to buy a system for games like these. I'll be pleasantly excited when I stumble upon something like this, but it can't be the bulk of of my "now I have to go spend $400 for this system" decision.


    off-topic . . . why doesn't EG (or anywhere else, for that matter) review any of the Community games on XBL? Sure, 99.995% of them are crap, but there are some gems buried in there, and somebody softing the turds to find the good stuff for me would be much appreciated.

  • miiiguel #142 3 years ago

    "Your "explanation" is even worse than I thought. Disappointingly weak. :-( "
    I know for a fact that my rethoric is weak, even worse in english. I failed to hear yours "explanation" of a word that you think does not exist, as far as I understood. I like to learn btw. Let me hear how the word can be used.

    "And to the "Art isn't made for money comment" . . . pure, condensed horsesh!t. Of course artists want money -- if they didn't, why would they sell their wares? "
    I didn't say they didn't *want* money I said their goal isn't money when they are creating, but maybe you were quoting somebody else as I didn't type that phrase. Entertainment is not art, that's what I think, but I do not think one is *great* the other is *lesser*, but different.
    As the example of entertainemnt vs art, well for example most Lars von Trier movies are plain "kicks in the teeth" they do not entertain me, I do not have *fun* watching them. Do they make me think, yes, a lot... and not in a linear mathematical way. I wonder if Flower has that punch...
    But hey... it's the way I see shit, I don't want to sell this, just share.


    "off-topic . . . why doesn't EG (or anywhere else, for that matter) review any of the Community games on XBL?
    They did. Two days ago. Weapon of Choice.
    Edited by 10 at 21/01/09 @ 11:11

  • miiiguel #143 3 years ago

    " the question is; is your mind open to that suggestion and all it can offer you as a gamer?"
    Oh yes, but I think the "problem" here is that I don't think an object needs to be art to be good or even essential. Most art objects leave me uneased (like the example I gave above).
    There are two games which I thought that were close to getting out of the entertainment box: Bioshock and Mass Effect. Do I like them more than the plain entertaining Halo ? Probably not.
    I need to be entertained (in a daily basis or so...) as I need to experience art, once in a while.

  • DrDamn #144 3 years ago

    For me elements of games can be considered art - but the game as a whole I'd think of more as a craft. It doesn't have some of the immediacy of what I would consider required for art. I think there are flaws in Miiiguel's argument though.

    Do all game creators have profit as their main goal? Publishers yes, but everyone on the development team? Or is it a consequence of what they produce in much the same way as a traditional artist. If an artist is commissioned to do some work then is what they produce still art? Of course it is, and that is not a million miles from what a development team does.

  • miiiguel #145 3 years ago

    @ DrDamn:
    "For me elements of games can be considered art"

    That's a good point.
    Good call, you made me think about that, and you're probably right....

  • darc #146 3 years ago

    "I don't think video-games can't ever be art, but I'm fairly certain they are not, as of today."

    That's definitely a valid opinion, then. Somewhat different than your earlier statement that games can't be art because they are developed for profit. The first game that achieves something so special, or coherent, or groundbreaking as to constitute art (in your or my or even everyone's opinion) may or may not be developed by a person or organization also interested in making a profit. (Almost certainly, there will be money changing hands, in so far as games development takes time, and is therefore costly.)

    Personally, I see art in all games, even where the whole does not strike me as a work of Art, and there have been a few titles which absolutely strike me as works of art. Sometimes they're also extraordinary games, sometimes not, but they have that undefinable something... first examples to come to mind are Shadow of the Collosus, and Loco Roco. Two totally different products, but each with a cohesiveness of elements that strikes me as legitimately artful.
    Edited by 1 at 21/01/09 @ 15:21

  • darc #147 3 years ago

    "It seems like this is being called "art" simply because (a) it's different and (b) it's "pretty". To me, that's not enough. I'm more likely to call something like Death Pit on XBL Community games "art" for being so radically different (entire game is played without any graphics at all -- all game information is either audio or tactile via rumble), but "different" and "art" aren't the same thing."

    What's interesting to me here is the insistence that a work's being different is prerequisite to its being art. Walk through any art museum and you can observe millenia of works so similar that they comprise forms. Is one still life of a an apple and a pitcher not a work of art (even it was painted by a master) simply because it is hung next to a hundred others.

    Then I consider a game like Flower, where you could arguably take a single screen capture, frame it, and hang it in a museum, and at sufficient resolution it would very likely look at home - yet we discount the possibility of its being art?

    Again we come back to Great Art, or Important Art, or art we personally like/ care about, versus "art". And then we need to clarify the questions, "are video games art" vs "can video games be art" vs "have any video games to date been art." I happen to believe the answers to these are yes, yes, and yes - though in varying degrees. But some of these questions are more easily debatable than others. (Fortunately we are all master debators here on EG... ;)
    Edited by 1 at 21/01/09 @ 15:21

  • darc #148 3 years ago

    "I think one thing that differentiates games from art is that art is most commonly the result of a single vision and games are mostly designed by committee."

    I take it you've never been in a band? ;) (Just kidding, I did read and agree with the rest of your post.)

  • miiiguel #149 3 years ago

    "That's definitely a valid opinion, then. Somewhat different than your earlier statement that games can't be art because they are developed for profit. "
    What I meant with that is, as creative process that uses "profit" as an input will create no longer "art". It'll be something that was formated to please the target, and therefor "corrupted" the artist vision.

    I stress again on the "non-hierarchical" thing of not being art does not equal bad, nor even lesser. There are bad works of art.

  • darc #150 3 years ago

    "What I meant with that is, as creative process that uses "profit" as an input will create no longer "art". It'll be something that was formated to please the target, and therefor "corrupted" the artist vision."

    I know I'm just beating a dead horse at this point, but I'd argue that many artists have created valid works of art throughout history, even when they set out as professionals to create works that please or serve others. Many of the portraits commissioned by patrons of the arts throughout European history are examples, as are the back catalog of Beatles hits, and so on.

    Worldly motivations might corrupt artwork, even to the extent of making it something less than art in some instances, but some people do function as artists even while operating in a commercial context. Nearly all those who we're fortunate enough to be exposed to do so, in order to make their sustained work possible.

  • miiiguel #151 3 years ago

    "I know I'm just beating a dead horse at this point"
    No you're not. I can evolve or at least think about what people say if they're willing to expose their ideas in a polite way, like you did.

    Edited by 1 at 21/01/09 @ 19:19

  • busboy33 #152 3 years ago

    @miiguel:

    "'off-topic . . . why doesn't EG (or anywhere else, for that matter) review any of the Community games on XBL?'
    They did. Two days ago. Weapon of Choice."

    I would reply with a withering retort, but I am having trouble pulling my foot my mouth enough to reply.
    Good call -- my bad.

  • busboy33 #153 3 years ago

    @darc:

    I agree with you about the distinctions between "great" art, "important" art, and "pretty" art (not your exact terms, but I think I'm keeping the general feel). In that sense, that may be why I am more likely to call something art that is different (although, as I'm sure you noticed in the part you quoted, I specifically stated the two were not equivilant).
    "Different" makes the issue not about "pretty" art . . . which is a debate I don'ty think video games are well suited for. Unless the game is made by a single person, there is most likely dozens of individuals working on various aspects of the visuals (deisgn, interaction, coding, testing, integration, etc.) Is the art in the coding? The texture mapping? What if the art lead's vision was modified due to game constraints?
    Even if you're dealing with a single "artist", if the qualifier is "aesthetically pleasing" then you're inviting a pandoras box of issues. If I make a photo-realistic still-life of an apple, you could just as easily make the argument that it is "pretty art" because of its hyper-detail and realism as you could make the argument that its not "pretty art" because its just mathematical processing or telling a middleware solution "draw an apple". The worst game can still take an "aesthetically pleasing" screenshot, if only for the back of the box. Does the game become "pretty art" then?

    "perhaps the only thing more pretensious than calling a game "art" is insisting that it isn't (or worse, can't be) in so far as it implies we have a reliable definition of art, and are capable of making an objective qualification either way."
    . . . if you can't define it, then doesn't that lend pursuasive weight to the side of the debate that argues against using the term? Not sure how saying "I don't think that's art" is more pretentious than saying "I say this is art" -- one recognizes the ephemeral nature of the term and the futility of defining it (a sign of humility) and the other simply assumes its understanding of "art" is universal (which implies hubris).

    I think I like the idea of "games as craft" more than "games as art" -- it certainly seems easier to conceptualize.

  • darc #154 3 years ago

    @miiguel - glad to hear it, as this is a topic I consider very interesting - both in terms of video games specifically, and the elusive nature of art generally. I was only concerned that I might be getting tiresome, by returning to the same point again and again.

    @busboy - wow, your post raises so many interesting points, I'll have to revisit this when I have a full keyboard in front of me tommorow (and hope someone is still interested LOL) vs thumbing on my cellphone to pass the insomnia. There are in fact many precedents, historical and contemporary, that challenge the issues you raise, from Rodin using student labor to work on sculptures credited to him,, to electronic musicians wrting procedural code instead of playing instruments... There is considerable room for debate outside the scope of games, obviously, which is perhaps why I struggle to find anything precluding games from being art, if not presently and frequently, than eventually or occasionally.

    Edited by 1 at 22/01/09 @ 14:43

  • kangarootoo #155 3 years ago

    This thread rocks. Polite debate for the win :)

  • darc #156 3 years ago

    Oy, I can't believe I wrote all of the above on an iPhone touchscreen. Brutal insomnia. Dragging this morning!

    I'm just going to ramble a little bit more to expand on some of that. Sorry for my verbosity, but this thread raises some really excellent questions!

    "I agree with you about the distinctions between "great" art, "important" art, and "pretty" art (not your exact terms, but I think I'm keeping the general feel)."

    Yes, that's the general feel, excepting the word "pretty". I would be careful about thinking that leads to "great art" and "pretty art" being mutually exclusive - "pretty" can be a crutch to carry shallow art, but then again great art can also be great by virtue of being pretty, or simply in addition to being pretty. This is just as likely and in fact more common than great art being jarring or ugly or challenging.

    "Unless the game is made by a single person, there is most likely dozens of individuals working on various aspects of the visuals (deisgn, interaction, coding, testing, integration, etc.) Is the art in the coding? The texture mapping? What if the art lead's vision was modified due to game constraints?"

    So yeah, getting back to the whole concept of "art by committee"... is it valid, is it possible, is it a comprimise, and so on. Very important questions, but I think if we look at art broadly we find many examples of what is commonly - even universally - considered art being developed between many individuals. Music provides the most obvious examples, and modern recorded music provides examples even more comprable to games development, in that there are typically authors working in concert with other performers, and then your producers and engineers (and further removed, developers of music technology) acting together to make the final product possible. I would agree that many of these parties are acting as craftspeople rather than artists, but if there is an integrity to the work (sometimes with intention, sometimes without, usually somewhere in the middle...) then maybe the result is art. If you own a CD that you consider art, I think you have an example. The example of Rodin using a dozen young sculptors to do his grunt work, and then selling "Rodins", is an older and more traditional example, for those who might not consider modern recorded music art.

    The matter of "game constraints" is also fascinating. All art (keeping this within certain metaphysical boundaries) is embodied and limited in form such that we can share and experience it. Achieving a quality within a form is exactly the challenge that the artist rises to, and in this we can say that all art meets with contraints, and exists not in spite of it, but because of it. In the absence of this world's contraints, we could argue that art would be unnecessary; we would simply share qualities. Salvador Dali said this improbable thing relating to constraint vs. freedom: "You know the worst thing is freedom. Freedom of any kind is the worst for creativity." In my experience as a frustrated musician with enough technical savvy to get himself into decades worth of trouble with "freedom", Dali was 100% correct.

    "If I make a photo-realistic still-life of an apple, you could just as easily make the argument that it is "pretty art" because of its hyper-detail and realism as you could make the argument that its not "pretty art" because its just mathematical processing or telling a middleware solution "draw an apple".

    Another biggie, a whole thread could spin off of this one sentence. If perfectly realistic portraiture-style painting is art, and not merely sophisticated craft, then what of casual photography? And then, yes, what of computer-rendered graphics? At what point do the artist's tools eclipse the artist, and at this point, is the soul of the art lost? Actually, I tend to lean toward traditionalism here, and not think so much of forms that stress technology over human virtuosity. But there are and long have been schools of visual artists and musicians who set their mind to using technology in innovative ways: programmers creating new visuals out of moebius algorithms, kids performing with laptops instead of instruments (sometimes turning knobs in front of audiences, and in an extreme new niche, sometimes programming live in front of audiences!) Little or none of this is art I personally care about, but it does present a healthy challenge in defining the boundaries.

    "The worst game can still take an "aesthetically pleasing" screenshot, if only for the back of the box. Does the game become "pretty art" then?"

    An interesting thing about "the worst game": a game that achieves something as a work of art might be a terrible game in terms of playability. As for the rest, I don't think that beautiful graphics alone can elevate a game to being a work of art as a whole (though that particular element may be). And here we get back to bad art vs. non-art. What of a movie that has beautiful cinematography and sound editing, but a terrible script and actors? Bad art or non-art? How about an album with one incredible song and 10 awful filler tracks. The one song is art, but the album fails as a whole; is it bad art or non-art? If a game is a superset of something artful, is it artful? If it is consistently artful, is it art?

    "...if you can't define it, then doesn't that lend pursuasive weight to the side of the debate that argues against using the term? Not sure how saying "I don't think that's art" is more pretentious than saying "I say this is art" -- one recognizes the ephemeral nature of the term and the futility of defining it (a sign of humility) and the other simply assumes its understanding of "art" is universal (which implies hubris)."

    Yes, I was partly playing devil's advocate there. I don't personally consider it pretensious to express an opinion, either way, as to whether any given game is art, but I do find it pretensious (and perhaps limiting) to make sweeping statements to the effect that games in general are not art, or can not be art.

    "I think I like the idea of "games as craft" more than "games as art" -- it certainly seems easier to conceptualize."

    It's a difficult distinction sometimes. (Then again, I also go for long stretches wondering whether there is any such thing as art...) I would say craft is more inclusive than art. But is there more to it then semantics. At what point does one's work make the jump from craft to art, and why? How do we recognize this, qualify this, can we or should we? I have no idea, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of art arising in any form.
    Edited by 4 at 23/01/09 @ 13:56

  • MoriartyL #157 3 years ago

    I registered with this site just to say:

    Mr. Parkin, this is the best piece of gaming journalism I've seen in a very long time.