Gravitation

Lovely;
It would be great if you wrote some of those definitions down, though.
Indeed, this game, more than Passage, makes you, erm... what you just said :P

Not that anyone asked me, but (not having seen it) I'm gonna vote Nay on video reviews, as they are less accessible, quotable, convenient, etc.

It's very challenging to play a game well and narrate more or less in synch while not saying "uh" or "you know" or any other speech ticks one might have, so I won't be doing this often. But it was a fun experiment, like the game itself.

...at the same time. I did it once, and it was horrible. If I need to do it again, I'll have someone play the game(s) while I talk, so each of us can concentrate on what we're doing.

But, you know, you probably could record the gameplay video, then record the soundtrack afterward.

Yeah, I mean, now that you have the capability to make videos of playing your game...Now you can use all those video editing tricks like voiceovers and scripted narration and, you know, editing! :P

In all seriousness, I like the discussion of "flow and phantasm". It's a dichotomy I haven't really thought about before. I'm not entirely sure Gravitation works, but it was a good try at least.

Dear Sir:

You have addressed nothing, nor cleared any confusion about the debate between critique and review.

This is a review because it concerns itself with how the game is played, not what it offers on a grand scheme of the nature of games and art.

First and foremost - the nature of art can be unlocked with small words as well as large words. It is unnecessary to use large words as a way to improve your argument when there is a lack of argument in the first place.

Using large words for defense of a bad and/or non-existent argument does two things:
1. You're going to lose your audience, which is apparent in the first post in response to this game review.
2. The audience you haven't lost can see through a review posing as a critique with large words and say 'This guy is full of shit and has no idea what he's talking about.'

Since you've broke out the big word dictionary for this review, I'll counter with large words in response in a haughty tone since it is obvious you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the nature of art, regardless of what the discussion of art is pertaining to.

A note on the 'agency' point - when looking for art within any context, a piece of work and its impact should be considered on a large scale. 'I' does not exist in this context as 'I' can feel any way that it chooses. It does not matter if you feel like you have 'changed' the game or how it changed you, it matters how the game has changed the face of gaming overall.

You used the word 'constituent' erroneously. "I was separated from my kid, right? It was a constituent to that penalty..." 'Linked' would have been a good choice, but better still a smaller set of words such as "I was separated from my kid and they docked me some time as a penalty."

"...the aesthetics suggest that I'm really just insulated from connecting with my son." You're suggesting that the beauty of this piece is that you are disconnected from you son? That statement makes absolutely no sense.

I'm not going to touch "...thematic implications to the system..." at all because your implication is incoherent.

Your use of phantasm is the best misuse of words in the entire review, though. The word phantasm deals with either ghosts or an unsound mind, where I can't see any ghosts in the game but I can see an unsound mind trying to argue a point that you've missed entirely. Jacque Derrida (a major philosopher in the deconstruction theory) would say that all words carry weight to them prior to your own use of them and you have to mind the weight of the word when using it in a new definition.

In short? Try again.

No publisher will take a bath on this game if people don't like it.

I'm glad you liked the theory, I'd like to write a book of criticism using that theory, but I'll start here perhaps.

I'm the geek that thinks there's a distinction between reviews and games. Patrick is the geek that did this video review. We view things differently, and personally I agree that "phantasm" is an odd term for what Patrick is trying to get at (although I do think he's trying to get at something meaningful). Don't attack him for my sins -- I'm perfectly comfortable being attacked for mine, and indeed, since I'm a snarky, snide, and frequently unpleasant person, I understand and accept that getting slammed back is simply something that happens when you're snarky, snide, and often unpleasant. Which won't change my essential nature, of course, but I like to think I can take criticism with good grace. Still, direct it where it's due.

really great review, very well done.

Great review, I quite enjoyed the format. I agree that the word "phantasm" might not be perfect, but you did a great job of explaining what you meant with it. Thanks.

Dear Sir (Costik): I know you're the geek with the initial article about games and art and not the author of the video article above...but I won't pass up the chance to keep this art/games discussion going, eh?

I assumed that 'Bringing This Games/Art Debate Down to Earth' was an extension of your discussion by him. That’s why his piece got a response.

I agree that Patrick is after a meaningful concept; however, I think 'phantasm' is too abstract of a word/concept to use under in order to describe what he's after.

Quote from the video - phantasm: "The patterns of the game feedback and change you as a person. A lot more subjective..."

While I cannot give you a term that would better describe what Patrick is after - phantasm is “the word” to describe the effect until he or someone else comes along with something better - I think it would be best to label the distinction between the effect on a single person and a group of people.

Single [phantasm] - the effect on a singular person that changes the method a game designer designs in such a way that he tailors his work to fit that change. Example - noting a change that takes place between one game to another game in response to someone else’s work.

(authors of critique cannot discuss how the game affected them as the critique’s author should be a transparent narrator to the truth they’re after. A game designer, however, can discuss this for the critique of his own work because he is the source of the art. Authors of a game review can discuss single phantasm since there‘s more wiggle room in a review that doesn’t exist in a critique.)

Group [phantasm] - the effect on a group of people that changes the way that they game. Patrick himself says that single phantasm is subjective where it is measured only by its creator. Group phantasm can be measured in some quantity. Think of all the games that revolutionized game play in some major quantity where all of the gamers switched from the old way to the new way in response. Example - a brilliant game that sets the standard for all the other games to follow, regardless of major or minor company/creator releasing it.

Single phantasm is for interviews and biographies. Group phantasm is for the discussion of art and games. By this definition, group phantasm identifies major change from one movement to define what is/isn‘t art in this field.

However - I did send you an email of discussion/dialogue and never received a response. A public response to a related post was a spot check to see if that email was read at all.

What the hell does FWIW mean?

Dear Sir (Patrick): I’d dig writing a book critiquing art/games, too. It’s definitely a subject to be explored that hasn’t even been touched yet. Costik’s post on the lack of critique in gaming was brought to my attention by a friend; if there’s a call to action, there’s a market for it and a need to at least define some basic concepts to lay groundwork for further discussion and discourse.

Also - if my definitions of single phantasm and group phantasm don’t fit what you had in mind, then clarify. That’s part of the groundwork work to be done since experts in this discussion don’t exist yet since the topic hasn’t been touched. I may run my mouth but I am not an expert on this subject (or any other subject, for that matter) and a reply would keep the discussion going.

Discussions eventually turn into books, right? Right. :)

(my apology for being such an ass initially)

Further Discussion: http://playthisthing.com/response-costiks-lack-critique-post

...but it didn't really work for me. As other commenters have said, more editing would proabably help. 9 minutes is, unfortunately, too long for me to spend on a review and the pace of the critique being tied to the pace of the game doesn't help matters. Also I miss being able to skip back and recap on arguments in my own time. Still, kudos for trying something new, I'd hate it if you didn't try new formats every so often.

[Edit]
On the game criticism thing: You guys have read Steven Poole right? His book and Edge columns (all of which are now available free online) constitute some of the best non-review video game journalism/ analysis I've read.

I appreciate the criticism of my critism, I'm trying to avoid the pyramid scheme of specialized language and subjective impression that art criticims generally amount to in the past (remember the prices paid for modern art in the 80s?).

I'm about to give this another shot. I like the challenge of doing it in one continous take, because it makes the critique partially a performance.

The format is interesting and useful to demonstrate theories. However, the sound balance betwen in-game music and the speech was not very good and I missed a lot of what was said. Also, the level of language was very "un-leveled" (if you can say that). Big theoretical words mixed with "oh fucks" and such. Indeed, editing would be better. :)

As for "phantasm", would "fantasy" be the word you are looking for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_(psychology)

Being a native french speaker, that's the meaning I got while listening to the video ("fantasme" in french means "fantasy" in the imaginative, projective way).

I don't give much importance to words in general, though I do understand that a good choice of word is critical when trying to make a point. One thing I do give a lot of credits to though, is constructive criticism.

Hidey,

I find myself in a bit of a disagreement with you, though not a particularly radical one. I find the personal aspects of the film fairly legitimate. The medium itself conveys an important point: that the way to ultimately understand it is "to play the shit out of it." That game looks really boring to me. I'm not going to download it, I'm not going to play it. I need a reproduction of the playing experience to understand any criticism of it. This makes the medium, including the "ums" and "ahs", all useful.

I agree with you that the structure and content of the game does not necessarily DETERMINE the mental content of the player, but they almost certainly shape it. Most people agree on the different meanings between winning and losing (loosely, some people play to win, others play for other reasons). Games provide us with a structure, which sets up the initial tensions. You can't opt out of that experience without failing to comprehend the game.

The symbols that are laid into this structure (your son, your wee wifey, et c) are a bit more complicated, obviously. You're right, and the critic admits, that no one need FEEL UPSET that their SON is DEAD. But people will experience loss that their 'son' is generically 'gone.' The game, therefore, both asks you how you feel (how do you play?) and suggests how you might feel (how it plays you).

There are a few tensions in the criticism though. The "phantasm" in the game is something of a homunculus (hee hee, I'm sorry: this is shameless). By that I mean, it has only the appearence of an actor, "the other player" as it is described. It is actually a wind-up toy, and the agency belongs with its maker. It's actually similar to Marx's concept of "commodity fetishism," whereby things aquire social being at the expense of their makers. So while I do like and defend the FORMAT of the criticism, I find it a bit mystified.