Slashdot Mirror
Revenge Of The Highbrow Games
simoniker writes "In the follow-up to last month's popular 'Where's Our Merchant Ivory?' feature, The Designer's Notebook author Ernest Adams responds to the wealth of feedback submitted by further examining what a 'Highbrow Game' might be, and categorizing the potential audience for such a product." From the article: "Several people pointed out that much of what we see as high culture achieved that status because it's old. Longevity imbues a work of art with respectability regardless of its original purpose — and of course, time tends to weed out the inferior works. For every Mozart there are dozens of classical composers who went to their graves and are forgotten."
"Great Works" in video games will come about as a result of natural evolution in game design. Right now, we're strongly focused on visual aesthetics -- we haven't yet achieved photorealism, so every step towards that is exciting. (That's not to diminish the importance of gameplay -- but I liked UT2004 over UT because it was prettier, for one.) But once we achieve that goal, gamers will say, "hey, it's time for something new." Designers will likely branch out and try to create interesting games in other ways -- compelling unrealistic/surrealistic aesthetics; new and interesting modes of gameplay; and (why not?) attention to "serious subject matter with cultural implications."
But I don't think we're through with the "flash" phase yet. Photorealism is still new and interesting to most of us -- and players still buy games for their graphical splendor. Once that stops happening, developers will really start experimenting -- after all, how else are we going to get your money?
(BTW, did anyone see Ernest Adams talk in Worcester yesterday? I missed it, but it must have been great.) _______________________________
Dejobaan Games - Bringing you quality video games for over 75 years.
Indie Superstar - A video webcast bringing you news about games you won't hear about in mainstream media.
We're indie. We're working on our 14th game.
I'd consider all the hardcore flight sims & turn-by-turn strategy games to be the equivalent of 'highbrow' gaming.
It isn't for everyone.
It isn't light weight.
You have to invest a lot of time/money/mental energy
etc
OTOH, you can claim that they're very narrow niches... but that is what 'highbrow' stuff is nowadays. Though normally something has to be expensive to create exclusivity.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Isn't this an oxymoron? 'Highbrow' all but screams "serious" to me, but a game taken seriously is no longer a game.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
A "highbrow" game may not have the lasting power of a piece of classical music. Furthermore, can a game not be highbrow but still have longevity? I'd argue that Ms. Pacman will have longevity. I'd wager that 200 years from now, there will be as many Ms Pacman fans as there are currently fans of any popular piece of classical music. Is Ms. Pacman highbrow? Hardly.
I think defining a highbrow game would be easy if you compare it to highbrow books:
1) Does it mostly appeal to people with graduate degrees (especially to the point where the feel compelled to write papers about it)?
2) Do players of the game look down on all other gamers? Do other gamers feel like players of the game are priggish nutjobs?
3) Does it sell at WalMart, Target, Toys R Us? (If so, it's automatically disqualified.)
I can think of examples of games that meet one of the three qualifiers (#1: text-based Adventure, #2 Eve Online, #3 lots), but I can't seem to think of a single game that meets all three.
Here, I'm going to grump a little about another underlying assumption this guy seems to be taking axiomatically, which is that there are no games that have been high-brow yet. Be sure you understand what an "axiom" is: It is something you take as given to be true and bend the rest of your argument around. Axioms can not really be "wrong". The question is, does the implications of the axiom correspond to the real world in a useful or enlightening way?
My problem with taking this axiomatically is I think it sort of ends up begging the question he's trying to pose. If he actually took the time to formulate a definition of "high-brow", he could almost certainly find a game that matched the definition, which would wreck his point. Odds are, it would be one of the games he mentioned. Instead, he seems to simply take it as given that there have been no truly high-brow games.
I'm not certain that this "highbrow" adjective he's trying to develop is a useful distinction. (Note: The entire purpose of an adjective is to provide a useful distinction, between the nouns that possess the distinction and those that don't, with the obvious extension into fuzzy logic.) It splits the set of all of the thousands of existing games into two sets: "Lowbrow", containing all of them, and "highbrow", containing none of them. At the moment, this is the very definition of a useless adjective, and if nothing has met his bar yet (with the possible exception of a currently-unattainable technology component), nothing is going to.
(Note: While he doesn't state that he is using this axiom, I infer it from the previous paragraph; the best way to explain his tossing out every game in existence is that he axiomatically assumed none of them meet the bar. He claims it's because we're not there yet; I'm disputing this claim and claiming he stacked the deck from the get-go.)
One CS student VS 893 DOS games: Let's play oldies
... "Smart people, who enjoy using their minds when they play. These are the people who appreciate the serious simulations. If intelligence were the sole criterion, it would make all puzzle games highbrow; but they have to be aesthetically appealing or innovative as well." ...
;-)
Nothing like a serious frag session smashing the bits out of your opponenets after day's sitting around coding. As intellectually devoid as possible. People's preferences do not lie with their capacities or relics of their own past. ie education, career goals. Perhaps familiy upbringing matters more. Dentists I know, least intersting introspective people I know, play a variety of role playing games. My roleplaying game is programming. My recreation is a bar, a FPS game, morning out on the blades, a kung-foo class, interesting book.
I don't like to be pigeonholed , doubt anyone else is too.
ALSO: nothing is worse then a game that makes you feel stupid. Even if you are an intellectual, and like women with nice bodies, jumping puzzles sometimes aren't they way to go!
This guy's an ass.
2c
"Highbrow" carries a snobbish negative connotation. I don't think I want any "highbrow" games.
Chess.
They sell Chess sets at WalMart, Target and ToysRUs and that has to be the perfect eaxmple of a higbrow game. WalMart and Target also sell Opera and Classical CDs, that doesn't diminish from them at all.
Not that you necessarily were, don't be such a snob. It doesn't have to be scarce (usually artifically) and expensive (see last) to be special.
I always figured that "highbrow" and "lowbrow" were essentially corrollaries of socioeconomic class, having little to do with actual artistic merit. It's just the elites getting to be tastemakers and defining what is and isn't highbrow. If that's the case highbrow games will only come into existence when some niche of gaming becomes accessable only to the upper class.
So expect to see them sometime after the Playstation 3 comes out.
I think the term you're looking at to satisfy #1, #2, and #3 is "interactive fiction." Players of pedantic text adventures may not look down on others, but I assure you, connoisseurs of interactive fiction, of the literary type produced by Adam Cadre , Emily Short , and Zarf , among others, most likely look down on all other "gamers," and are probably scorned in kind by WoW players! And not nobody is selling IF at Wal-Mart...
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
Oh come on, clearly text adventures/interactive fiction fit all three. Not for sale anywhere, disproportionately academic base, and, well, I can look down on you if you wish...
Perhaps you aren't familiar with the "video games" all the kids are playing. Video games combine pictures and sound to create an experience. This ain't the baseball of yore.
Additionally, the concept of art serves only to boost the egos and reputations of artists and art critics while detracting from the works themselves.
Chris Crawford tried for a "highbrow" commercial game with "Balance of Power" in 1984-1986, an "Un-war" game about thermonuclear cold (and hot) war. He wrote a book about it later, and this experience lead to the founding of the first (that I know of) newsletter for computer game designers, and then to the founding of the Computer Game Developer's Conference, still running today.
It seems like a lot of people in this conversation and the one last month are taking this very personally. Last month there was widespread backlash against all things "highbrow". While some of the comments were valid, it seemed to get so emotional that I can only imagine that some people felt insulted by the implication that the games they liked were "lowbrow". I suppose I understand the feeling, but it seemed to lead away from discussing some of the more interesting aspects of the topic. Highbrow can certainly be defined in different ways and I can think of two that, in their definitions, suggest why they might be seen frequently in *modern* video games: First, looking at highbrow as needing a certain degree of intellect or education to be able to play successfully, I think that this is a problem that sophisticated technology just isn't needed, and possibly isn't even suited, to solve. Look at a very difficult crossword puzzle or Sudoku or some other number puzzle. For a certain kind of problem-solving, these can be some of the most challenging games out there. Could faster processors or better 3D rendering make this kind of game more challenging? I don't think so. Chess is probably another example, after a chess computer that was built that could beat the best human player (even if it is just by "brute force" and without finesse, there really isn't anywhere to go. For the most part, in fact, the application of newer and faster technologies to computer games has allowed them to become more and more immersive in way that seems to stimulate our "animal brains" much more than our intellects. Mind you, I love a good animal-brain game, but I don't kid myself about what it is. When such games do have an element of puzzle-solving or strategy to them, that's usually not dependent on the most technologically-advanced part of the game. Second is the notion of winning, which is such an important part of game playing. Even for ongoing RPGs, there is an accumulation of some kind of status, whether it is points or gold or something else. "Highbrow" entertainment, whether it is literature or film or some other genre (I'm sure I could make some analogy with music if I thought about it long enough, involving dischord and polyrhythm or some such...), at its best, involves a degree of moral and emotional complexity where the happy ending (in the traditional, or in the massage sense of the term) is not the goal and there may not be clearly identifiable "good guys" and "bad guys". I'm not saying that a great "highbrow" film can't have a happy ending or good guys, but they often don't. I think this is a direct contradiction to how games motivate players to succeed at them. An exception, though some might argue that the very aspect that makes it an exception shows that it is not a "game", would be something like Second Life. Because there is no official goal of the Second Life environment it is not subject to the simplification of the human condition that a winning-oriented game might be. So, that's what I think. Dis away!
I'm just sayin'.
Which can predict the future rather than just simulate the past. Economically, militarily, socially. That would be a masterpiece.
Deleted
I guess im just a low rent gamer, if I had to define HighBrow gaming I would describe it as gaming were fun takes a backseat to realisim. I can remember back in the early days of gaming I had a friend who was the "Highbrow" sort, he would spend hours and hours playing "Reach For the Stars" getting angry at his computer and spouting on and on about how such and such political this and money that. I on the other hand became totally obsessed with a game called "Star Control" his was all about managing resources and mine was about pretending your Han Solo smuggling, making contact and usually battling it out Omega Race style (ships movement was based on inertia, a bit confusing for newbies but great fun once you learned how to bank and drift). He nearly had ulcers over his game which he declared as vastly superior, mine just brings back warm smiles. In his later divorce, part of the Irreconcilable differences defined in the proceeding was his unhealthy obsession with his games. I think in way turn based strategy for him was a way to feel that he was in control of something, in real life he was low rank grunt who was usually in trouble more than not.
I have a friend now that is obsessed with Flight Sims, he has a special chair, dual thrustmaster controllers and pedals, a triple monitor display and half the time he is nutty enough to wear a flight jacket while playing. I think he is half insane but he enjoys it. I think the bottom line is how you approach gaming it you obsess to the point were its a tedious job then you need to get out and get a life. If you look at it as a hobby and remember its supposed to be fun I dont see any problems.
Will Wright's Spore ( http://spore.ea.com/ ) looks like a decent step in the direction of "highbrow". There's a definite potential for deep intellectual stimulation, you could have a serious discussion about the philosophical implications and themes, and it appears it will be a master work of video game art.
http://nerdcartoons.com/
The "art" of the game should be defined by its gameplay design, not its story or graphics. We're talking about the artistic merits of a new medium. Video game stories would still be judged by writing standards, etc...
Street Fighter II should be viewed as a masterpiece in game design. Infinitely playable, and it can be different things in different players hands.
1) one doesn't need a graduate degree to appreciate chess, othello, abalone, etc. i think you were mostly leaning towards the player being intelligent, thinking in three-dimensions and thinking further ahead? (speaking of which, has anyone played "space chess"? it looks really interesting)
2) i think this is fairly valid; i find myself looking down at people who don't understand games from #1 - particularly if it's someone that ONLY plays on a console because they (won't admit it, but really) are afraid of doing anything with a computer besides "burning cds," typing papers and downloading music.
3) bad bad choice of qualification, see #1
Highbrow humor is not serious. Have you ever heard of highbrow humor? If it screams serious to you then I think you are misunderstanding the word. Highbrow means intelligent. Intelligent can still be funny and fun. Lowbrow humor is aimed at the least intelligent people, everyone can laugh at a fart. It doesn't take much thought. Highbrow humor might not be funny to less intelligent people. Or some may take longer to get the joke. Sometimes humor is so highbrow it is over my head, meaning I am not smart enough to get it.
Myst.
.evom ton seod gis eht
From the article:
That last sentence bothers me. Running, climbing, and "whacking things" is general requirement for many games. That's what makes it interactive entertainment. Is it a cliché of the medium? Sure, but frankly, there's a lot of clichés that even highbrow movies and literature have as well. You could argue there are always "wasted" and "throwaway" scenes and passages, although some may argue that those are just elements of the medium.
-- jchenx
"High brow" games already exist, they are the classic games that are referenced and well-loved in the gaming culture. Think of the combat system in TIE Fighter, the great level design in the quake series, the graphic design in Super Mario Brothers, the critical success of the multilayer in Battlefield 1942 and Tribes, or the amusing antics of Sam and Max. All of these games are "high brow" within the game industry; they innovated concepts or established their genre.
There are plenty of ways to critically judge games without "intellectual" references to other mediums. Whenever a game is fondly remembered and still played 10 years after it was made, then it has probably reached "high brow" status.
To be "highbrow" or a classic, the game must have layers of appreciation. Insert oblig. onion reference here.
1) The action itself
2) References to other things in the pop-culture
3) References to things in current events
4) References to real history
5) A statement about something - even if it is trivial
6) Engaging characters
Start counting how many games have these elements and then you will have a real list.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
From the article, he mentions that adventure/interactive fiction "clearly doesn't belong", but I believe it does. Perhaps not oddball games such as the Lucasarts adventures, but I honestly believe interactive fiction is as "highbrow" as its going to get. I think no game typifies this more than The Longest Journey, the precursor to Dreamfall. The Longest Journey is a intellectualy engaging interactive fiction combining an interesting story with extensive characterization. It may involve fantasy, but more as a surreal framework for a very real, human-centric story. I don't think it should be so easily dismissed as the author seems to.
Although I would personally classify certain adventure games as highbrow, a game certain to satisfy even the hoittiest and toittiest of urbane snobs is Façade. The central form of the game centers around interaction with a dysfunctional couple. Through the course of play, you basically write out a movie script with two virtual actors, eventually concluding with one of the games several eventual outcomes. I personally don't find the gameplay very fun (trying to figure out simple sentences that the characters will understand), but the end result of a interactively crafted, single dramatic scene is quite enjoyable.
Chess is just a game, yet it is still looked at with highbrow status, because it's not for every one and requires a lot of mental strain to play.
"They said we drink horse urine and sleep with our own kin. You say it's comedy, but how can someone laugh at that?"
Am I really the only one who doesn't get why the King's Quest games would be not merely not highbrow, but "laughingly inappropriate" suggestions?
How about A Tale in the Desert?
It's pretty much a game created by academics, played by academics, so as to have something to write graduate theses in video game studies about.
The Myst series, anyone?
C17H21NO4
Nethack. ;) ).
1) It has LOTS of cultural references, mostly geeky. Lots of quotes from books and such (and the books are important! If you've read the books nethack refers to, you have an advantage over other new players).
2) No game is as complex as nethack! And people definitely think I'm nuts when I show it to them heh. Oh, and nethackers usually look down on diablo (a low quality ripoff, I mean, it's not turn based!
3) Nope, in fact, it's rather obscure.
So, a story from Shakespeare is art, yet a game based on that same story is not? Sorry, don't buy that.
Well, I wasn't going to support my nomination since I just assumed that everyone was familiar with the franchise.
... [but] which those who like the game would claim is the main point."
from Wikipedia:
"Myst has sold over 6 million copies and held the title of best-selling computer game of all time throughout much of the 1990s before being overtaken by The Sims"
"it was also intensively criticised, mostly around the lack of "action" in the game, leading some to claim the game is boring
To address the great+ grandparent:
1) it largely appeals to geeks who are fond of the subtle and contemplative play style, and also literary types who appreciate the biblical themes.
2) Myst players look down on players of games which resort to such crass mechanics as 'action' and 'excitement', and particularly those who look up the solutions to puzzles on the internet
3) couldn't comment on where it would be sold in America. BUT you might get a sales assistant suggesting that you should only buy it if you're sure you're into "that kind of thing".
.evom ton seod gis eht
Here is my take on your points
1. (1&2) Does it require a connoisseur to appreciate
2. (2) Social perception
3. Is it expensive
4. (3) Is it exclusive
This way it encompasses a broader array of things... like chess.
To me, "highbrow" entertainment, be it literary, cinematic, musical or gaming, is that which has multiple layers that can be accessed as you gain more understanding of the work and its context. These works contain stories within stories, if you will. To continue using Othello as an example, the story can be about race relations, political intrigue, 16th-century trade warfare, the tragedy of human emotion, or a guy who goes batshit jealous and kills his wife.
I would argue that there are games that meet this definition of "highbrow." The Myst and Longest Journey series immediately spring to mind, but I'm sure there are just as many people out there that will vehemently disagree with me. As with all art, your definitions and interpretations are personal.
First rule of trauma: Bleeding always stops.
I find that Myst was rather slow for an IF (e.g. the tram maze which you had to use twice.) While this could be a side effect of wanting action, it's rather a tiredness of "grinding". Another example of slowness is the telescope at the top - if something turns much more slowly than the mouse moves, it kills paitence since there's no reason a freely rotating item should move slowly. A third example would be tracking down the five transmitters with the radio system. Holding down the mouse button causes rotation to go too quickly, while clicking makes it go too slowly.
I have nothing wrong with adventure games - however, there should *never* be trouble because of the user interface (unless such trouble is intended to be part of the game or satirizing such problems in other games), or trouble because you have to guess the author's line of thought (e.g. impersonate a guy by gluing cat hair above your lip.)
Oh yeah, I agree totally. The tram really sucked. You're right that you shouldn't have to slow down for the interface, the important bit is solving the problem. Just off the top of my head I'd say that the puzzle interfaces got better in the later games, but I haven't played any for a while so I could be wrong.
.evom ton seod gis eht
Easy to play, difficult to master. Also, it doesn't really end...it can evolve. This is especially true with the latest Simcity, where you can virutally recreate any city in the world down to the finest detail, its art.
There are a ton of games with all the things you suggested (well, except the "make love" part, good luck getting through the ESRB with that), especially in many RPGs. By the end of some RPGs, I feel a lot more connected to the characters and their story/plight/etc. than I do with many other characters on numerous TV shows and movies. It makes sense, since you can spend up to 50 game hours (and more!) with them, versus say only 2 hours with a movie character. (And that explains why there are so many people attached to video game characters, to the extend they will cosplay them, or write tons of fan fiction)
In that game, is a lot of talking and touching, sharing of experiences, and building of things (either physical or metaphysical). But in doing so, there's also a lot of the "running around" or "whacking something", because that's just the nature of a game. To get from A to B, you have to do X. With traditional medium, that X is generally passive. You just watch it unfold, or have to spend time reading.
The original author seems to suggest that having X be anything active, automatically dumbs down the experience and prevents it from being high-brow. I don't agree with that.
-- jchenx