Tetris, Super Mario 64, Portal

In a previous post I said that a case could be made for Tetris, Super Mario 64, and Portal all being art because of their game design alone. I’m going to argue that case now.

Tetris:

I honestly think Tetris is timeless, it’s just as much fun today as it was back in 1985. This is possible because the game seems to have barely aged. Unlike other games of its time, the core gameplay of Tetris has never been changed. There will always be falling blocks that can be rotated and stacked to makes a full line disappear. The original has been improved upon, but the many variations that have been released make only minor changes, such as allowing a player to see the next three pieces as opposed to one piece, allowing the player to rotate a piece either clockwise or counter-clockwise, rotate a piece even if it’s against a wall, adding new modes with a focus on deleting lines, or adding a timer, among others. It could be argued that together these minor changes add up, so that modern Tetris game is a far cry from the original, but I disagree because there’s one very important aspect of the game that has not been changed: The shape of the pieces. The Tetris shapes are iconic, they work in perfect harmony with each other. Each shape is built with only four squares, and between the six pieces they cover every variation that can be made with four connecting squares. A new piece cannot be added, literally. It would upset the balance that has made Tetris a timeless game, and structurally artistic. Because this is where Tetris shines as artistic: The perfect balance between its pieces. Knowing more of what pieces are coming and being able to turn the pieces different directions makes the game more accessible for sure, but the original hit upon something with the shape of its pieces that made the game consistently enjoyable yet consistently challenging and has not been improved in all the years since its release.

Defining Art: Part 2

In my first post I laid out some qualities I think games must have in order to qualify as art: I said a game would have to resonate with an audience emotionally while reflecting some universal truth of life. But those qualities only relate to “narrative art,” to a work that tries to tell a story with themes and characters and conflict and resolution. “Narrative art” is not the only kind of art there is, and I think games are unique in that they can also be artistic in a completely different way.

Emotion has been the common trait I write about. I wrote about how Braid’s theme of obsession strikes us emotionally, and how the experiences of Call of Duty 4 and Shadow of the Colossus are emotional experiences, but each of those would be worthless if they had been in poorly made games. If any of those games were unpolished to the point of frustration, would they still have the same emotional impact? I think the structure of a game goes a long way in realizing a game’s artistic potential: Good level design, good sound, good controls, good textures, no clipping, framerate, or bug issues; in other words, a well-made, polished game. Is it possible for a game to be considered art based on these traits alone? Can gameplay be artistic?