Vault101:

and if its somthing you can understand ,then what is this? fucking kindergarten? true art is incomprehensible motherfuckers!

WRONG! It's only incomprehensible to you! That is brilliant art, and you plebes are just too shallow to understand! (and so am I, I just hope they don't fond out)

hahaha joking aside, while bleak sad endings can be powerful, a happy ending does not make it less "deep" somtimes its nice to feel uplifted and empowered..rather than depressed and confused

I'm inclined to agree. I like a downer ending when it's fitting to the game, movie, whatever.

I was actually kind of rooting for both Harry Potter and Voldemort to die at the end of the series. The "Chosen One" dies, and that's sad, but the good guys have a fighting chance with the undeafeatable leader of the opposition down. I felt the ending to Empire Strikes Back was appropriate. Loved the ending of Planet of the Apes (First movie, don't know about the remake). And Jurassic Bark (Futurama) is nice and touching. The first game example that comes to mind is Actraiser. For some weird reason, I was VERY touched by the fact that the people I had cared for no longer needed me. More bittersweet than bad, but still.

I also like the occasional WTF ending. I think Vanilla Sky would have been incredible if it has ended just a couple minutes sooner.

But it seems like downer or confusing endings are now being tossed on to develop artistic "cred."

There's a certain EA-published game that promoted choices whose ending pissed me off. Partially due to plotholes, but mostly due to the nature of the ending choice.

I of course, refer to Army of Two: The Fortieth Day.

What, you had something else in mind? >.>

Thing is, bad endings are like salt. They're a seasoning. Without a few of them, the good endings don't mean much. You want to sprinkle them on sparingly, or it makes the whole thing unappealing.

To be fair, though, this is kind of the downside to the "art" debate. As a medium becomes more accepted as art, you draw in douchebags. It's the ciiiiiiiircle of aaaaart...It annoys us aaaaaaaaall....

mfeff:
*Snip*

I think another issue comes from the fact that the whole 'games are art' thing has driven gamers to accept fairly generic and simplistic deconstructions as legitimate proof of the medium being meaningful in terms of commentary. Bioshock is a good example of this, gamers uphold it as some brilliant critique of Objectivism when anyone with any actual knowledge on the subject can tear it apart quite effectively. But due to most people only having a basic knowledge of it, gamers still accept it as valid simply because it makes the medium 'deeper'. As a result, developers begin to shoe-horn in terrible political and social commentary in an attempt to capitalize on that market. A good example of this is the new XCOM, where in the demo the developers go on and on about how the game will be a social commentary on the 1960s due to characters being black, female, gay, etc. I've already deconstructed the inane historical revisionism associated with this on my youtube channel, but going even down to the fundamentals further shows the simplicity: what are you trying to present? That prejudice is bad? Oh my, what a deep and intelligent analysis.

Another good example of this is the new Rainbow Six Patriots, where the terrorists are going to be American populists. Clearly they're using that to try and make it seem like their game is staying something about the modern American political atmosphere, when in reality (from what I've seen of the game so far) it's something that doesn't really affect the game that much. You could replace them with Islamic or Russian terrorists and it wouldn't matter, they're just using populism to try and make their FPS appear meaningful.

This just further encourages shallow philosophy and commentary in games and the only way to really work ourselves out of it is to expect a higher standard. But since the medium gets attacked so often people rush to protect these shallow titles as games at their finest. It's a bizarre Catch-22. Justifying the medium with weak titles further justifies the creation of these weak titles which stagnates philosophical discourse...while not backing these titles opens gaming up to more criticism.

Grey Day for Elcia:

Casual Shinji:
I'd rather play CoD or Halo than Braid any day. I play games to have fun, not to wank over "art".

You dismiss a game because people refer to it as art? That's the exact other side of the extreme you are arguing against. Why not simply take each individual game on it's own value? I think Braid is a fun platformer with great controls and a fun mechanic that is used in increasingly interesting ways. You might think it controls like shit, looks bad and tells a boring story and that would be valid. But to say "Hey, this game is art and I don't wanna be one of 'those guys,' so I'll play CoD instead," is exactly what people shouldn't do.

You are just as bad as what you argue against, only at the opposite end of the spectrum.

I think you just quoted the wrong person there, lady.

I didn't say this.

Foolproof:
And yet, Mad Men gets hailed as a visionary series for showing just that, so maybe the bar for art isn't so high in other areas.

o called greatest movie ever made is about how William Randolf Hearst had an ego. Anyone who knew anything about the guy coulda told you that. A simple message doesn't mean its not art.

I'm not saying that games aren't art. This is what I'm talking about, how weak philosophy in games is justified under the 'art' logic. What I'm saying is that games like Bioshock shouldn't get a free pass in terms of legitimate philosophy or social commentary just because they're touching on weighty subjects. I've had gamers say that 'Bioshock proves Objectivism is wrong' which is such an inane comment that it really illustrates how far the medium has to go to tackle subjects in a more complicated fashion. The problem is that accepting such simplistic interpretation continues to produce more simplicity. Developers insert poorly constructed commentary in an attempt to appear 'deep' when in reality it's quite shallow. This does not help the medium, it in fact stagnates it. Yes, other forms of media do this as well, and I criticize the hell out of them too. That doesn't justify gaming for doing the same thing.

Citizen Kane is more then just Kane's ego. It's a character study, a slow analysis of how events shaped who he was and how he destroyed himself. That's the ultimate focus of the work, not that he simply had an ego. Mannerisms, line delivery, and shot work are all used to portray that story effectively, i.e. all the things that cinema conveys well. Games have to focus on this, taking what they're good at and successfully merging gameplay and story to produce a compelling experience. This is how you advance the medium, not ham-fisted philosophizing.

Starik20X6:
I get Jo-Blo's message (if people don't already call him Jo-Blo they totally should) but the way he comes across when conveying that message makes me want to kick his pretentious teeth down his throat give him a stern talking to. Then I see this and laugh:

I was going to post that video, but I'm hours late. Oh well.

Blow has a knack for stating the obvious in a pretentious manner.

It seems he could also benefit from watching a few episodes of Extra Credits.

Foolproof:
No, I'm citing games that people go out of their way to miss the point of and then complain about because its trendy to. In essence, we then come to the root of the problem - people find it easy to be negative, and think it makes them special.

I think thats the biggest obstacle to gaming - it is growing up in an era when cynicism is seen as cool, as such, even a lot of its staunchest defenders will try to pretend they're insightful, relevant or remotely intelligent by attacking it, by taking things out of context, moving the goalposts, or in this case, just presenting a strawman version of the games and attacking it.

The problem with this is that you just assert that people are only being critical for the sake of perceived identity. Without providing a rationale for this assertion it's sort of hard to take your word for it.

I will admit that my own statements on the listed games were on the simplistic side. The problem with having a discussion like this is that there are so many facets you could discuss when it comes to games as art and this discussion seems to focus on very general statements . You can discuss game mechanics, you can discuss aesthetics, you can discuss writing and narrative, you can discuss moral choice systems and so on.

Funnily enough, I think it's more of a problem that people tend to be defensive about games they like because they think of it as an identity marker. So many games get away with bad aspects because people want to believe they have good taste - whatever the hell that means.

First i think, wow, his critique may applie to some games, but which statement doesn't at some point, but this one is far from being "evaluating", or "insightfull", what a proper critic can be. And then i think that Jo-Blo (i like that one) is nothing but trolling, pointing out the flaws of others to overshadow his own and then i think of Bertolt Brecht, who did the same in dramatic theatre, acting like his way of dramaturgy would be so much better than all the others, but failing miserably at developing his own and in my opinion, he never did a good play himself.
Sure some like Brecht and why not and sure some like Jo-Blo and i bet his game is playable too, but neither should nore is close to being able to act like they would be any better.

BehattedWanderer:
Oh, please save us, Jonathan Blow, a man so genius and artistic he forgot to actually make his game fun!

Took the words right out of my mouth.
Sometimes I wonder why a man who seems to hate video games so much insists on making video games.

He isn´t entirely right, Games are aren´t just shitty action movies, they can also be crappy art movies (*cough* Dear Esther*Cough*). Unfortunately they are rarely good in the story department, though there have been a fair amount of enjoyable, and sometimes amazing moments. Like watching public domain movies, for every gem there´s a 100 poorly written borefests.

Luckily most games comes packaged with a nice "skip story" button, so you can enjoy some of the things the medium is actually good at: Gameplay.

Vault101:
shitty action movies?

other way round actually

a decent action game lets me actually have some fun

a shitty action movie has a few explosions....

also action does not= shit

Good point man. Funny how the connotation of the word "action" changes when in the context of movies and then video games.

In general gamers are more interested/invested in games being art than other people involved in the process. Most publishers are perfectly fine with games being merely products.

I personally care more about a game being fun than "artistic". Obviously you can do both but thus far most games that try at least for me fall flat.

I'd rather play NMH, Bayo, or DMC than Braid...

Oh and I like movies like El Topo, Holy Mountain, Eraserhead etc... so even on the film front I disagree with Blows.

I'm tired of this false dichotomy of art and fun. Being artistic doesn't mean being sterile or inaccessible. You can present something deep and meaningful while having it be fun. Part of me wants to be reasonable in this debate, the other part wants to bludgeon people with my first year philosophy textbook. There is no universally accepted definition of art yet we have people arbitrarily classifying games as art or not art. (Not to say that there can't be objective standards of art)

I played Braid after hearing about it but I have to say, outside of the final level there really isn't much of a creative integration of gameplay and story. I was drawn into the writing but

I think the creative toolbox that is Skyrim could provide an excellent grounds for analysis. I think game's like Mirror's Edge produce meaning. I think games like Eternal Sonata are rich with metaphor and allusions. Honestly, given that a player makes a fair attempt at trying to play through a game, I think we could academically study and find some artistic merit in quite a lot of player experiences. (Some games would fair better than others) I don't know why either of these people think a game so limited in its scope that basically tells you its intended meaning warrants artistic exploration.

I was thinking about making a thread where we'd do a simple analysis of a cutscene, some gameplay and maybe even a loading screen to show how they could lend themselves to communicating some underlying meaning. Too many people confuse artistic with something that's overtly strange or foreign to us. I believe there's art to be found in a lot of games we already have, it's just not enough people have given time to deconstructing them the way we would a film, performance or book.

Captcha: run the gauntlet

Err, Braid did none of that. It was a repetitive puzzle game with some vague text based story plopped on the end as its artistry. That is not a good example of "taking advantage of the medium".

By his reasoning though, survival horror is probably the best the medium has achieved.

Casual Shinji:
It's not so much the games themselves that I have a problem with; If they're good, they're good.

It's just the constant yammering by indy developers and everyone else that games should be so much more then what they are now, and that to be taken seriously as a art form, yadda yadda yadda...

For a billion dollar industry, the games world has such a low self esteem.

All industries do that. Indy movie makers scream how blockbusters are crap and how thier 5000 dollar budget gorefest is the next citizen kane. Underground music artists base thie entire careers around "mainstream music is crap". There i will always be people who think they are better than others, and if not given enough attention start screaming how everyone is stupid for not looking at them.

SkarKrow:

Oh I agree, gaming is in a good shape as it is, it's the biggest entertainment market in the world these days for a reason.

Actually it hasnt beaten movie industry yet, or has it now?

Grey Carter:
Since releasing Braid back in 2006, Blow has been dividing his time between work on The Witness and vocal criticism of the gaming industry. Blow's comments are usually relentlessly self assured, vitriolic and dryly funny; his recent comments to The Atlantic are no exception.

In a profile piece entitled The Most Dangerous Gamer, Taylor Clark paints Blow as your typical grumpy genius, and Braid as the sole beacon of intelligent gaming in an ocean of mindless shooter sludge. Framed with a picture of Blow looking all austere (though the picture's effect is diminished somewhat by his uncanny resemblance to New Radicals frontman, Gregg Alexander), the piece is hilariously dismissive of gaming as a medium - my favorite line: "the form remains an artistic backwater, plagued by cartoonish murderfests and endless revenue-friendly sequels," - but that's down to Clark, rather than Blow himself. Filtered out from the smug, Blow's comments are quite insightful.

Wow. Clark is kind of a dick. Then again, I suppose it helps put Blow in a much more positive light.

"If the video game is going to be used for art purposes, then it has to take advantage of its form in some way particular to that medium, right?" he told me. "A film and a novel can both do linear storytelling, but novels are very strong at internal mental machinations - which movies suck at - and movies are great at doing certain visual things. So the question is: Where are games on that same map?"

...hang on a second. "Very strong at internal mental machinations"? Doesn't that just mean "They make you come up with the visuals in your head"? And of course "movies are great at doing certain visual things." They're a visual medium. If they didn't have a visual aspect, they'd be audiobooks.

"The de facto reference for a video game is a shitty action movie," Blow said during a conversation in Chris Hecker's dining room one sunny afternoon. "You're not trying to make a game like Citizen Kane; you're trying to make Bad Boys 2." But questions of movie taste notwithstanding, the notion that gaming would even attempt to ape film troubles Blow. As Hecker explained it: "Look, film didn't get to be film by trying to be theater. First, they had to figure out the things they could do that theater couldn't, like moving the camera around and editing out of sequence-and only then did film come into its own."

Actually, film can contribute a lot of its early success, seeing as so many early actors got their start in theater. Even now, some of the biggest names in acting first made names for themselves on stage. Isn't it better to find a healthy middle-ground between the two rather than declaring that they have to be independent of one another?

Grey Carter:
Personally, though I agree with Blow in theory, I've aways found his criticism really only applies to mainstream titles, and even then, only partially. I don't mean to diminish Blow's accomplishments, but independent developers (and even some non-independent ones) were making intelligent games with strong authorial voices long before Braid was released, and they've continued to make them since.

I've always been baffled by the casual dismissal of pretty much any game that involves action from being in the 'art' category.

It might be a dead horse at this point, but the nuke scene in MW1 was one of the best marriages of gameplay and story that I've ever seen. You rescue the downed pilot, beating the clock, only for a force far beyond what you'd planned for to be your undoing. It wasn't like fighting a boss, beating him, and then getting sucker-punched as soon as the cutscene kicks in (and your character becomes a moron when out of your control). It gave a genuine feeling of helplessness, which is damned hard to do when you were basically a Terminator in regular combat.

Foolproof:
Can you get through without moving? No? Then there's interactivity and gameplay, and thats a goddamn retarded thing to try and counter my argument with.

No offense, but... Interactivity and gameplay? Barely. That mission is pretty much a movie where the only thing you do is moving the camera, while the actors wait for you till you dragged it to the right spot. (Though of course the level was designed expecting the player would actually do something)
Fortunately, it is pretty much the most extreme and over-the-top example there is, so I don't know if it's truly relevant.

OT: While I appreciate his love for the medium, he makes himself sound like a douche.

I like Braid, and I like what indie developers like Blow are contributing to the video game medium, but that doesn't change the fact that guys like Jonathan Blow and Phil Fish come off as pretentious douche-nozzles when they share their insights.

Oh hey look, another stuck-up indie developer who thinks he's superior because he created "Colourful Gimmicky 'Meaningful' Platformer 5" instead of "Brown Modern Shooter 6"

Char-Nobyl:

Grey Carter:
"If the video game is going to be used for art purposes, then it has to take advantage of its form in some way particular to that medium, right?" he told me. "A film and a novel can both do linear storytelling, but novels are very strong at internal mental machinations - which movies suck at - and movies are great at doing certain visual things. So the question is: Where are games on that same map?"

...hang on a second. "Very strong at internal mental machinations"? Doesn't that just mean "They make you come up with the visuals in your head"? And of course "movies are great at doing certain visual things." They're a visual medium. If they didn't have a visual aspect, they'd be audiobooks.

No, it doesn't. "Very strong at internal mental machinations" means they enable you to identify with the characters more, and see inside their heads and read their thoughts - It takes very little effort for a book to make a single detail stand out, while it's impossible to accurately portray clutter. Even great descriptions cannot convey the same amount of detail as an actual image, nor emphasize all the right things.

Casual Shinji:
I think the word 'art' should be abolished, at least when it comes to talking about videogames. I've never been more sick of hearing about the "games are art" discussion then I am right now.

At this point I'm honestly getting more annoyed with all the people claiming that mainstream games are just "shitty action movies" than with with the actual shitty action movie games themselves.

The thing people (especially those in the gaming industry) have to come to realize is - anything can be considered art. It depends on the person. Deficating in a toilet can be considered art; especially if it resembles Jesus at any particular angle.

Also, [insert here] is art is NOT, and will never be, a defense of any sort. If he hadn't committed suicide then and was subsequently tried, Hitler could've contended that the Holocaust was art - it still wouldn't have saved him from execution, much less criticism.

I can't get over how many people on here are, essentially, telling this guy to stuff his opinions (or at the very least blanking them) because his contributions are minimal.

Does no one see the hypocrisy in this? We're on a forum where many individuals are encroaching on ludicrously high post counts (mostly opinionated), a vast majority demanding their opinions be considered on equal terms based on no merits, qualification or experience AND constantly weighing in on "what's wrong with the industry" despite not being familiar with it (or even the dynamics of industry altogether). This guy has a far greater foundation to make these claims then (and this is just a wild estimate) 80-90% of the riff-raff on this site.

Not to mention this guy is just echoing a very common notion. He's hardly being controversial. It's not like EVERYDAY we have people telling other people "NOT THIS THREAD AGAIN", completely oblivious to the irony of bashing repetitive topics with repetitive comments. Opinions are a dime a dozen here.

Just so you know, I never played braid, never heard of this guy.... and I giggled cause he's called blow. Still doesn't change the fact he's done more for the industry in one game from 6 years ago then most folks here have done in their entire lives. That being, HE MADE A GOD DAMN GAME. And it was successful-ish, if I recall correctly. Will I change my view of things based on his opnion? No, I'm not willing to close off other avenues of thought based on one opinion... but I'd rather sit down and listen to this guy rant about the industry, then some armchair analyst.

Ragsnstitches:
I can't get over how many people on here are, essentially, telling this guy to stuff his opinions (or at the very least blanking them) because his contributions are minimal.

Does no one see the hypocrisy in this? We're on a forum where many individuals are encroaching on ludicrously high post counts (mostly opinionated), a vast majority demanding their opinions be considered on equal terms based on no merits, qualification or experience AND constantly weighing in on "what's wrong with the industry" despite not being familiar with it (or even the dynamics of industry altogether). This guy has a far greater foundation to make these claims then (and this is just a wild estimate) 80-90% of the riff-raff on this site.

Not to mention this guy is just echoing a very common notion. He's hardly being controversial. It's not like EVERYDAY we have people telling other people "NOT THIS THREAD AGAIN", completely oblivious to the irony of bashing repetitive topics with repetitive comments. Opinions are a dime a dozen here.

Just so you know, I never played braid, never heard of this guy.... and I giggled cause he's called blow. Still doesn't change the fact he's done more for the industry in one game from 6 years ago then most folks here have done in their entire lives. That being, HE MADE A GOD DAMN GAME. And it was successful-ish, if I recall correctly. Will I change my view of things based on his opnion? No, I'm not willing to close off other avenues of thought based on one opinion... but I'd rather sit down and listen to this guy rant about the industry, then some armchair analyst.

He's the one being close minded in his assessment of the Media. Its not surprising people are similarly close minded to his "opinion".

Danzavare:
I'm tired of this false dichotomy of art and fun. Being artistic doesn't mean being sterile or inaccessible. You can present something deep and meaningful while having it be fun. Part of me wants to be reasonable in this debate, the other part wants to bludgeon people with my first year philosophy textbook. There is no universally accepted definition of art yet we have people arbitrarily classifying games as art or not art. (Not to say that there can't be objective standards of art)

I played Braid after hearing about it but I have to say, outside of the final level there really isn't much of a creative integration of gameplay and story. I was drawn into the writing but

Spoiler: Click to 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

I think the creative toolbox that is Skyrim could provide an excellent grounds for analysis. I think game's like Mirror's Edge produce meaning. I think games like Eternal Sonata are rich with metaphor and allusions. Honestly, given that a player makes a fair attempt at trying to play through a game, I think we could academically study and find some artistic merit in quite a lot of player experiences. (Some games would fair better than others) I don't know why either of these people think a game so limited in its scope that basically tells you its intended meaning warrants artistic exploration.

I was thinking about making a thread where we'd do a simple analysis of a cutscene, some gameplay and maybe even a loading screen to show how they could lend themselves to communicating some underlying meaning. Too many people confuse artistic with something that's overtly strange or foreign to us. I believe there's art to be found in a lot of games we already have, it's just not enough people have given time to deconstructing them the way we would a film, performance or book.

Captcha: run the gauntlet

I actually do agree with most of that. MGS2 has been hailed for its post modernism message. My earlier comments were more based on Blow's assessment of what passes for art and stupidity in the medium. I'd be surprised if others weren't commenting in like fashion. The games that call themselves art games aren't exactly anything I like to play. I however find a lot of great cohesive expressions of theme in the Persona games (as a quick example).

Jesus Christ, would you people get the fuck over yourselves and admit Blow has a point?

"Ooh, let's pick over the semantics and make ourselves sound smart."

No, he's making a coherent argument. Why do think you the word "cinematic" has become a buzzword in recent years? You see less focus on variation in gameplay and more focus on the visual appeal of animations, particle effects, overblown cutscenes and various other pieces of eye candy as opposed to actual depth of story or play.

God, I hate that about this culture. People with valid input are shut down because they aren't big names with huge works under their belts. What's worse is they're put down by people who have less justification in talking because they've done fuck all themselves.

That means all of you.

SanguineSymphony:

Ragsnstitches:
I can't get over how many people on here are, essentially, telling this guy to stuff his opinions (or at the very least blanking them) because his contributions are minimal.

Does no one see the hypocrisy in this? We're on a forum where many individuals are encroaching on ludicrously high post counts (mostly opinionated), a vast majority demanding their opinions be considered on equal terms based on no merits, qualification or experience AND constantly weighing in on "what's wrong with the industry" despite not being familiar with it (or even the dynamics of industry altogether). This guy has a far greater foundation to make these claims then (and this is just a wild estimate) 80-90% of the riff-raff on this site.

Not to mention this guy is just echoing a very common notion. He's hardly being controversial. It's not like EVERYDAY we have people telling other people "NOT THIS THREAD AGAIN", completely oblivious to the irony of bashing repetitive topics with repetitive comments. Opinions are a dime a dozen here.

Just so you know, I never played braid, never heard of this guy.... and I giggled cause he's called blow. Still doesn't change the fact he's done more for the industry in one game from 6 years ago then most folks here have done in their entire lives. That being, HE MADE A GOD DAMN GAME. And it was successful-ish, if I recall correctly. Will I change my view of things based on his opnion? No, I'm not willing to close off other avenues of thought based on one opinion... but I'd rather sit down and listen to this guy rant about the industry, then some armchair analyst.

He's the one being close minded in his assessment of the Media. Its not surprising people are similarly close minded to his "opinion".

Danzavare:
I'm tired of this false dichotomy of art and fun. Being artistic doesn't mean being sterile or inaccessible. You can present something deep and meaningful while having it be fun. Part of me wants to be reasonable in this debate, the other part wants to bludgeon people with my first year philosophy textbook. There is no universally accepted definition of art yet we have people arbitrarily classifying games as art or not art. (Not to say that there can't be objective standards of art)

I played Braid after hearing about it but I have to say, outside of the final level there really isn't much of a creative integration of gameplay and story. I was drawn into the writing but

Spoiler: Click to 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

I think the creative toolbox that is Skyrim could provide an excellent grounds for analysis. I think game's like Mirror's Edge produce meaning. I think games like Eternal Sonata are rich with metaphor and allusions. Honestly, given that a player makes a fair attempt at trying to play through a game, I think we could academically study and find some artistic merit in quite a lot of player experiences. (Some games would fair better than others) I don't know why either of these people think a game so limited in its scope that basically tells you its intended meaning warrants artistic exploration.

I was thinking about making a thread where we'd do a simple analysis of a cutscene, some gameplay and maybe even a loading screen to show how they could lend themselves to communicating some underlying meaning. Too many people confuse artistic with something that's overtly strange or foreign to us. I believe there's art to be found in a lot of games we already have, it's just not enough people have given time to deconstructing them the way we would a film, performance or book.

Captcha: run the gauntlet

I actually do agree with most of that. MGS2 has been hailed for its post modernism message. My earlier comments were more based on Blow's assessment of what passes for art and stupidity in the medium. I'd be surprised if others weren't commenting in like fashion. The games that call themselves art games aren't exactly anything I like to play. I however find a lot of great cohesive expressions of theme in the Persona games (as a quick example).

Which is how I think it should be. There's nothing wrong with small art-house games but I think we're selling the games industry short by ignoring the artistic merit found in games we already have. I just really dislike that people assume games don't have artistic merit just because they're not overtly labeled as 'art games'. Like with any other medium, most the art or meaning in something is only made apparent by delving deeper into it. Playing a game with a dismissive attitude towards its artistic capacity is like skim-reading a book, you'll get a vague idea of what's happening but most the meaning will be locked away from you.

You know having played braid i have to say the story of that game was bad most of it was delivered trough long boring text dump that do not make use of the potential of video games as a way to tell Story's.