Jeremy Couillard's video games capture what it's like to be alive
artbasel.comEscape From Lavender Island is also available to play on Steam - Windows only though it seems - https://store.steampowered.com/app/2164310/Escape_From_Laven...
Should also run on Linux based on the native Steam Deck support.
> "Should also run on Linux based on the native Steam Deck support."
Yeah, it does. I've played the demo on Kubuntu desktop and it ran just fine.
getting similar vibes to LSD: Dream Emulator for Playstation 1 without the obviously shockingly grotesque and creepy atmosphere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxdw5GnoMK4
I like it!
Just wish I had the same passion I used to have for video games, after I hit mid 30s I just stopped playing. Anytime I start to dabble again I can't help but feel anxiety from having spent so much time on video games in my youth and late adult hood.
I am the same, unless I am playing them with a friend as a means of socialising, I begin to regret not having spent my time doing something more productive.
I've never heard about Jeremy Couillard's work. Using video games as a medium for intersection of digital culture and contemporary art. Quiet cool and interesting
I'm a fan, but I wouldn't really call his stuff games. More like art that uses game tropes as a tool of expression.
When I'm studying game design we spent a lot of time defining "what is a game?" While this is a good exercise, ultimately I think people shouldn't care about any label, or any is X Y questions, what matters is if you think the thing is good, if it's enjoyable etc.
What makes a game a game though? Do you necessarily need action and damage points?
That’s easy: At least one of the following: A failure state, a success state or a score.
Help me out here, I'm blanking on Minecraft's failure state, success state and scoring system?
You are aware that I said ‘at least one’, right? Although Minecraft has all three. It has a scoring system literally named ‘score’, Hardcore mode ends if you die, and killing the Ender Dragon rolls the credits.
None of those were present when Minecraft was first released to the public and wouldn’t be present for years.
Right, every single game was at one point incomplete
My point is that it was still a game before having those feature.
So what? Maybe it wasn’t a game in 2009. It was blatantly unfinished at that point, so this is hardly an issue.
Before Minecraft became a game, what was it?
Exactly what it claimed to be: An alpha/beta test for a game.
You are splitting hairs here. An alpha/beta of a game is a game too
Alpha/beta is an arbitrary line in the sand drawn by the developers. Notch could have woken up one day and decided that the state the game was in was final and call the game done.
If you weren’t told it was an alpha game you’d have no way of knowing. It sold a million copies while in alpha/beta, more than most other games ever made. The distinction between “alpha/beta test of game” and “game” is a distinction without a difference, especially for all the people buying it.
All three of those things were added in Sept-Nov of 2021. By January 2021 the game had already sold >1 million copies.
It was absolutely a game at that point, ask anyone who played it. Being blatantly unfinished doesn’t matter, it would have remained a game even if he never ended any of those features.
This is a straight-up lie. Hardcore and the Ender Dragon were added in 2012, in the patch that would become 1.0.0. Score was added in 0.24_SURVIVAL_TEST in 2009 (https://minecraft.wiki/w/Java_Edition_Classic_0.24_SURVIVAL_...). Do you have any examples that aren’t outright fabrications?
I’m not engaging further if you go straight for accusations like this
Pretty much every game (including Jeremy's) on Steam has Steam achievements
The failure state would be 0 health?
Only if you play hardcore mode, otherwise you respawn.
That's still a failure state. A failure state doesn't need to permanently end the game, just be something you try to avoid.
Hard disagree. That's stretching the definition of "failure state" to mean "anything negative".
By this logic getting hit is a failure state, taking fall damage is a failure state, another player scoring points is a failure state, not actively getting points is a failure state.
One could argue these are minor failure states, but ok, let's change it to anything that loses some amount of progress. Dying in non-hardcore Minecraft is a failure state because whatever you were trying to do was cut short, whether exploring an area, gathering resources, etc.
If you restrict failure states to only mean things that end the game, then games like Dark Souls do not have any failure states, since in Dark Souls you always respawn when you die. Most other modern single player games would also not have any failure states, since they also let you respawn as often as you like.
Ok, so Harvest Moon and similar farm game are not games. Games about crafting are not games. The Sims are not games. I could go on but I think you already realise that your definition is not valid. Btw, I am not disagreeing with the claim that Jeremy's games are video games
If all your Sims die, is that not a failure? Harvest Moon has Steam achievements. (And a ‘best ending’ category on speedrun.com.) You could go on, but if those are the best you could think of, I don’t think it would be very productive.
In the Sims, mortality only applies to adults not toddlers and below, so only a portion of them can die.
How is a Steam achievement a score? A score is a scalar value not a Boolean one. And arguably it is not part of the game but part of Steam. You won't get Steam achievements of any game if you get it from another store. But using the Store achievement definition, Jeremy's games also qualify because they have Steam achievements (most games on Steam do have the achievements even those that fall outside of your definition of game).
How is toddler immortality relevant? A failure state exists. If toddler-only households are viable, that’s just a design oversight, which is an unrelated issue.
I never said that steam achievements were a score. Please try to read my posts. I thought it would be obvious that they represent a success state. I also note that you ignored the fact that Harvest Moon literally has an ending.
Also, I don’t know why Jeremy’s games qualifying is relevant. I never said they don’t.
I am not reading your mind just reading what you write. So what is and is not obvious is something solely concerning you.
If Steam Achievement is not a score, is Harvest Moon not a game then? Same thing about crafting and building games.
And having an ending is not synonymous with a success state or a failure state. I think it's clear that your definition is not a valid one as many games don't fit it
Achievements are baubles and trinkets. They are neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be a game.
And I don’t know if you’re aware, but a vast amount of Sims players use the game to build and decorate houses and then play out stories in them. The Sims dying is not. A lose condition, but the final page of their story.
Why not? You are aware that many ticket-redemption games reward the player with literal baubles and trinkets, right?
Just because many people choose not to engage with the mechanics doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
I never said they don’t exist, I said they are neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be a game.
Don’t dodge the question: Why not?
I’m not dogging the question, it’s trivially answerable: many games don’t have achievement and are games nonetheless
Further, if you remove the achievements from games they continue being games. GTA without achievements is still a game. Remove the entire XBox and PS trophies system and all their games still remain games.
You're right, the Sims is a toy not a game. You can create games with toys but they are different
This is going to become navel gazing really fast.
“Art with game tropes” implies that “regular games” aren’t art. Which I disagree with. We may not have gotten Shakespeare yet, but writing was an artistic medium before him just as games are one before its version of him.
And whether a particular piece of software is a game is also not clearly defined. This has been a big argument several time, see the one over Gone Home and walking simulators.
Others later down argue over Minecraft and “a win state, fail state, and scoring systems”. Minecraft did not have any of these for a long time, but it would be unconvincing to say that it only become a game after it gained them.
You misassume my meaning. When I say I games are not art, I don't mean they are not as good / important than art. I just mean they are different. In fact, if anything, I think they are much more important than art.
If before I missasumed, now I don't understand. What is your meaning? What do you mean by art, and different how?
I see games as a form of human expression just as writing, movies, painting, etc. They many be newer (video games certainly are) and they may be in a categorically different medium (human agency) than the others, but they're still art. And maybe one day soon someone will produce a game worthy of being called Art with a capital A.
I agree with you. People treat art and video games are exclusive things when they are actually not.
In my view, which is mostly inspired by Huizinga's works, the game is a constructed set of rules. The main game is the culture itself, that branches into the great playing tree of humanity. The video games are not that different from any other set of rules, but they are interactive, immersive and self-governing/autonomous, which is an unusual set of qualities for a media.
You need quantifiable outcomes / performance metrics.
It's all depending on perspective
I think it's more about using those elements to explore
the premise of the game somewhat reminds me of the book Lanark (great and bizarre)
~"A young man awakes alone in a train carriage, he has no memory of his past. He soon arrives in Unthank, a strange Glasgow-like city in which there is no daylight and whose disappearing residents suffer from strange diseases, orifices growing on their limbs and body heat fading away"
It takes tremendous skill in a number of areas to produce a video game. I do wonder if with AI generated games we’ll see more of this type of work or less!
I think responsibly developed AI (read: no copywrite infringement) for automation could help the industry tremendously. However, don't get me confused, generative AI imo has no place in games, furthermore in art as a whole.
I studied for a Fine Art BA, and I don't see an issue with generative AI in art per se. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that what matters is the outcome, not the process. If someone can produce something meaningful to other people - and it might well be something like a critique of AI using AI - then what's the issue? (That's a genuine question by the way, not rhetorical).
There's a huge amount of art I find vacuous, much of it tradtional media like painting, no need for it to be AI generated. Be open to learning about it, and if you still don't like it then that's fine. Theres's a bunch of stuff that's non-traditional like Alvin Lucier, Gustav Metzger, Hans Haacke, as well as generative sound installations by people like Brian Eno. I don't think gatekeeping art ever works - that's part of its fun! The only thing that does really get to me is the huge amount of dirty money sloshing around the art world, but that's more about ethics than aesthetics.
> I came to the conclusion a long time ago that what matters is the outcome, not the process.
I agree with you about half-way. The process of making the art isn't important. It's why songs that have amazed the world have taken anywhere between 7 hours and 7 years to produce. The outcome is informed by the life that produced it. To reiterate, the life that produced it is the most important. It's a connection to their humanity.
> I don't think gatekeeping art ever works - that's part of its fun!
You're also right, but this is primarily a dimension of taste. When I say AI has no place in art, what I am really getting at is it will have no place. I believe people will see it for what it is, and what it says about the people who use it.
Someone put it really succinctly recently: with generative AI, there is a net loss of intention in the world. That's shit.
How so? I'd imagine there's a net increase of intention, owing to the way AI closes skill gaps & lowers the barriers to entry for creation.
Andy Warhol's art is just copied cans of soup or famous people photos. Jazz music is a thing because of the Jazz standards. Copying and remixing is art.
It's copyright, as in the right to copy, not copywrite as in writing copies.
I don’t quite understand your last point. Why not use generative AI? I think it could really empower indie devs for instance.
> I think it could really empower indie devs for instance.
I think indie devs are already pretty empowered with the number of small game engines, etc., given the quantity - and quality - of stuff they're putting out (just look at itch.io).
How is that an argument against making things better?
It's an argument against genML being somehow required to empower indie devs (when it clearly isn't).
I’m not sure I understand. Its not required, as is evidenced by all the amazing indie games we have already pre AI. But if it helps, why not? Maybe this way there can be even more great games.
...to be alive today, the title without the "today" means something different