Helios said:
Succinctly put, my friend. I would agree with just about everything you said. The act of playing a game is indeed a form of performance art where an emergent story (that is guided by the plot) is created based on player actions. "Did the player walk up the ridge? If so, what does that mean? Does it symbolize anything? Is an event-state changed as a result of this exercize of player agency? If so, what is changed? How will the player react to this? etc." Improvisional theater (and, to a degree, any kind of role-playing) similarly creates it's story through performances, often based around a central concept or theme. I have not played Heavy Rain so I'm not a good judge if it qualifies as a game or not. If it is not a game, what is it then? Interactive fiction/drama? I think if the game has gameplay - that is, the game progresses as a result of the input of a player acting as an agent in a goal-oriented system - then I would consider it a game. The question is thus, does the 'ineractive events' of Heavy Rain count as gameplay? |
I think you have touched on something here. And this would answer Roger Ebert's comment that "games are not art". It may be possible that games could end up being qualified as "art" under the category of performing art. Say there is a series of activities that are scripted in some way, but allow flexibility. You then involve the auidence to be involved with them, and their actions can create outcomes that are unexpected. The experience would never be the same twice. Now, is this experience art? Heavy Rain would fall more under the scripted side, but how about something more open-ended (like LittleBigPlanet or a sandbox game)? How about a game where you end up allow people to create content and it is reused and reinvented? And, on a more meta-level, how about the case of forums like this were videoclips are used and reused to make points, and the end result is something that is a work. Is all this art? I would say there is a case that it can be.
On the gameplay front, I would say the gameplay is likely low, or lower than normal videogames, BUT it is still there. The entire experience can be praised as great entertainment, and a fine work of art. However, in this, maybe one can say also the gameplay (engagement in the mechanics of interaction) would be low, so it doesn't have great gameplay, but is a great experience. And this could be acceptable. Also, it could end up being not for everyone. And I would say trying to produce too many Heavy Rains could possibly bankrupt the industry as they try to do something that is both a game and a movie (of sorts) and need to script and manage everything the player would go through, even if the player only sees a small percentage of it.







