tuco wrote:Yeah I liked that quote too, despite I do not think that the notion is necessarily the difference between art and something else. At the end its the player, audience, consumer who interprets, no matter author's intention or explanation. In this sense, its beyond author's control, thus I would not consider it as criteria for art.
Yeah, I'm happy to treat the adjective "art" as just an arbitrary identifier for a recognisable genre in games (mostly flash games). It'd be silly to suggest that what I call "art games" are the answer to "games as art." The term "art game", I think, mostly means "game as not game", or "game as neither skill, strategy nor problem solving."
There is plenty of authorial intention though. It's just that the intention is expressed in the
mechanics. Rather than the author saying "this is how I see the story starting, progressing and beginning", the author says "this is how I see the constraints on your choices within the world." Those constraints completely reflect (IMO) the worldview of the author, so there's still a lot of authorial control. And you can hate these games by saying "fuck off; those constraints do not reflect any sort of real inconsistency in life."
In Immortall, for some completely unexplored reason, the humans start randomly trying to destroy you without any regard for collateral damage. It's pretty unambiguous what the author thinks about big organisations of people (government, military) against the small farming community.
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.