famousringo said:
Actually, I don't think that artistic values are blended into game rules. I think they are instrinsic to the rules themselves. I feel like this is where we differ and why both our views are correct, for you art is in the rules for me it can never be.
Let's take multiplayer games as an example. There are quite a few ways to get multiple players in a game.
A competitive rule set is a very common way to get multiple player together. Monopoly is a good example. You can cut mutually beneficial deals, but the ultimate goal is the complete domination of the game board and all other players. I know people who hate competitive multiplayer, and it's because of the negative emotions it evokes. They don't like being dominated by the winner, the sense of isolation that comes from being alone against all opponents, or the sense of failure that comes with losing.
So a co-operative rule set suits them better, like in the Lord of the Rings board game. In this game the players start with equal abilities and a common goal. This builds a sense of comeraderie and friendship in the face of adversity. Unlike in a competitive game, players are willing to 'die' for the greater cause and show their loyalty to the group.
Then you've got the traitor rule set, which you might be familiar with if you've attended one of those murder mystery party games. (Quite familiar with Bang, Catan, and Munchkin lol) It's co-operative but with a twist: One of the players is not on the team. This instills a tension and a paranoid suspicion, as the other players need to co-operate with each other while being wary of the traitor/spy/murderer in their midst.
Just a few examples of multiplayer rules, each with different emotional implications. (This is another area where we differ on our definition of art. In my definition of art, it can stimulate emotions and the end goal of an art piece could be to stimulate said emotions, Shostakovich 7 goal was to let out all Shostie's anger from Stalin's period of reign. However, even though the goal of an art piece can be to stimulate for me an art piece doesn't have to stimulate emotions but must stimulate senses (I actually count a 7th sense for art because our minds have the power of imagination). Take the piano piece 4 minutes and 33 seconds. This is a very famous piece because it's actually absolute silence from the performer for 4'33''. There is no emotional stimulation, when Cage wrote this piece the idea was that any sound could be music. Cage has also said this was his most important work, but according to your definition his piece wouldn't be art. On their own, these rules might look like just a method or a device, like a literary device. It's how you put together these rules that creates an experience that the players interpret, just as a reader places his/her own interpretation on a poem.
I hope it doesn't seem like I'm picking on you, (not at all I haven't had a good discussion in a while) this is just a subject of much interest to me, and you're offering the most substantial material on the 'games aren't art' side of things.
|
