The Secret Dancer is a "game" commissioned by Tate Kids, an initiative by the Tate Galleries to interest children in art. It was directed by Martin Percy, and is currently up for a Webby Award (god help us).
In part, The Secret Dancer is a charming short film in which Degas's The Little Dancer, a statue, comes alive and is pursued by a security guard working at the Tate. When I say "charming," I mean it; it is well conceived, well acted, touching, and has a little frisson of encounter with the fantastic. As a short film, it is admirable.
It is apparently a "game" however, because at various times an alert pops up on the screen instructing you to "click on the Little Dancer". If you do so in time, the movie continues. If you fail to do so, you lose (with a short ending clip showing your loss). There is one additional bit of "interaction:" a "jigsaw puzzle" in which you must reassemble a torn-up note left for you by the Dancer.
Now, in part this is a reflection of the fact that "interactive video" is, always has been, and will for all time to come be a stupid idea. True interaction requires multiple paths, the inherently linear nature of filmed video means that algorithmically determined outcomes are infeasible, and therefore we get a branching structure -- which, because of the explosive nature of branching and the high cost of filmed video means that virtually all trees of the branch must be culled. In other words, we end up with a video version of the lamest of choose-your-own-ending books -- a single linear path with "you lose!" cul-de-sacs off to the sides.
Or to put it another way, this product, whatever its merits as a film, exhibits an utter ignorance of, indeed a willful contempt for, the techniques of the ars ludorum and the power of the game as a form. If film were the more novel form, I would now, pace Ebert, start to pontificate how film will never be an art, because it cannot match the explorative, variable, challenging character of the game, and every attempt by film to approach the game's strengths in any degree always fails.
Which serves, I trust, to point out the vapidity of Ebert's claims. But in the case of The Secret Dancer, we are left with the question: What in God's name made you think that forcing people to click occasionally improved your little video? This does not deliver anything like a plausible game, and simply breaks the immersiveness of the movie.
I'll have you know that
I'll have you know that Space Ace and Dragon's Lair were awesome!
And certainly we are past the point where any such thing would ever be impressive.
Still, one thing I do miss in all the 3D is live action and hand-animated cutscenes in point & click adventure games and the like. That stuff was a really nice touch, and I'm not sure that doing the cutscenes in the game engine adds anything over those (except for being cheaper).
I suspect that, since this
I suspect that, since this was made on behalf of an art gallery, it's coming from the mindset of Museum Interaction.
I think the idea is that Studies Have Shown that museum-goers, and particularly children, become more engaged with a subject if they're required to interact with it. Deep, meaningful interaction is better, of course, but any interaction whatsoever -- however trivial -- is better than none at all. If you've got a block of text to deliver, it's better to split it into two, put one half on a hinged lid, put FIND OUT MORE... at the bottom and make people lift the lid to read the second half. Weakest possible form of interaction. In no way a game. Deeply lame. But interaction nonetheless. And your lab-rat reaction does affect your degree of involvement with the text.
And this is a standard technique of the ars ludorum, no? The sensation of agency can be provided without its actual substance. Obviously it helps if the player does have real agency, but in most games there's still a good degree of consensual illusion going on.
Does it say it's a game? I
Does it say it's a game? I haven't checked myself, just asking in case someone can already cite where it says that.
Yes, it does
Greg isn't confused. The page title, the site section heading, and options to "Play the game in HD quality" clearly signal they consider it a "game" rather than a "film". Which is unfortunate - as a movie it would be an entertaining moment of magical realism, but as a game it's irritating.
I wasn't saying anyone was
I wasn't saying anyone was confused. It maligns someone if you check the facts?
Anyway, on topic, I wonder is it a bad game, or just slutty use of english? Using a word, in this case 'game', to accept anything as being a game (that's why I said slutty - as in not being selective).
~~~
Philosopher Gamer Blog
My latest short game - Bullet Prose: Have No Part
Yep, agree it's not a game
Hi!
I'm the Editor of the Tate Kids website. Just wanted to drop in and say thanks for the article and the comments on The Secret Dancer. I agree with some of your points, definitely. It's not a 'game' and it's not a 'film' (it's quite cut-scenesque) so I was stuck on where to physically locate it on Tate Kids. The truth is it sits in games because that section receives more traffic. I couldn't create a section called 'interactives' as my users wouldn't have a clue what that meant, ha!
SJ