The Art of the Game
Is There Hope for the Medium?
I think it’s safe to say that this is a question that is going to be debated for at least the next 30 years: “Can video games be art?”
It’s something I’ve given a lot of thought to over the years, and it was something I already wanted to talk about even before Roger Ebert made his latest volley on the ongoing argument. This just makes it even more relevant since people are once again thinking about the subject and getting very passionate about it.
Starting From The Basics
It’s beyond the scope of this piece—or any short piece, for that matter—to tackle the Very Large Question of “what is art?” If critics, philosophers and other thinkers have been unable to resolve this question for the last several centuries, I sure don’t think I’m going to be able to do it now. Nevertheless, some kind of working definition is required if any meaningful discussion is going to take place. While my all time favorite definition of art comes from Amiri—nee Everette LeRoi Jones—Baraka, when he said “Art is whatever makes us proud to be human,” the eloquence of the sentiment is a bit too broad for what’s going on here.
I’m going to try and keep it simple (meaning that this is still open to massive debate) and try and define a few characteristics of art that everyone can agree on. I think one thing most people can safely swallow is the notion that art is evocative. Whether it evokes emotion or thoughts/ideas, it tends to draw some kind of reaction from its audience. If we look at something that people universally hail as a work of art, like, say, Edward Munch’s The Scream, people will either cite the emotional weight of the piece or its commentary on the existentialist condition, or simply say it looks like a scary bald guy who’s watched Home Alone one time too often. But in each case, the one thing The Scream does is provoke or engage the viewer, it’s a difficult work to ignore, and it’s managed to filter into the awareness of society without the benefit of advertising or comprehensive marketing campaigns. Another critical element for something to qualify as a work of art seems to be—however dubious—consensus. If a majority of people, or even just influential figures within a society deem something “artistic” it becomes recognized as such. Most people regard the Mona Lisa as art, but not the average Family Circus cartoon strip in the newspaper. Part of that is reinforced by mechanisms of existing society telling us so, and the other is simply our own innate reactions when we look at the two and compare for ourselves. Lastly, there seems to be some element of skill involved on the part of the artist. Whether it is an understanding of paints and compositions, mastery of limbs for dance, or grasp of the nuances of language for writing, most people generally agree that a work of art is such because the person who did it has created something that most people can’t do casually or easily.
Now for me, it gets interesting. Games seem to generally follow points one and three, but not point two; consensus. So my question is WHY?
How Pop Culture Becomes Pop Art
I’m of the opinion that anyone that is willing to look at a little history will see that the road map for games becoming an art has already been laid out. We see the history of games evolving into an art form played out by other art forms which have only become considered art forms themselves within the last 100 years or less. The most recent example of this “promotion” is the comic, or as the less intellectually secure like to refer to it as, “the graphic novel.” Comics, at least in the format that we understand them, have only been with us since the 1920’s. At first they were considered a distraction, an entertainment for the juvenile set. Eventually, as their popularity grew and the pioneering creators got more comfortable with the medium, they attempted to expand the possibilities of this sequential visual art, and broaden the scope of their stories beyond science fiction thrillers and superheroics. As a result of tackling themes such as crime and horror, comics eventually became demonized and were actively persecuted in the 50’s (at least in America) by the conservative element. So enraged by the rising “deviant behavior” and sexual content of comics was “old guard America” that a professional doctor, Dr. Frederic Wertham, became a public crusader against comics, even going so far as to write a book called Seduction of the Innocent that jump started a wave of negative public sentiment against comics. Despite the fact that he believed that comics were in no way art, he attributed to them an ability to influence and shape feelings and thoughts that is generally associated with art. It’s a striking parallel with today as Jack Thompson attempts to regulate the content of video games, and potential presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has made it clear on numerous occasions that she believes games bear more watch and control.
But in the case of Wertham versus comics, the result was comics became marginalized for decades into the corner of a sanitized, intellectual pablum for children. It would only be in the 80’s with break out titles such as Alan Moore’s The Watchmen, Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns and Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman that comics would be regarded as serious literary efforts. Now the writers and artists of comics are highly respected, and comics are even entering into study in university. Rock music had similar beginnings, initially thought of as a dangerous, corrupting influence on youth, until critics themselves—in particular Lester Bangs of Creem and Rolling Stone—took it upon themselves to look at rock not merely as noise, but legitimate artistic statements.
However, I think that it is in film that games have their closest parallel. Film, like games, is heavily reliant on technology to advance the medium. Film became a viable technology in the late 19th century, and in the beginning, its technological limitations made it crude, crippled and more of a novelty than anything else. Gradually, the technology improved, as sound and color made their appearances. A side of effect film’s growing power was that film directors became bolder and more ambitious in their storytelling on film. But for the most part, film’s first 30 years were in the “cultural ghetto”; it was thought of as merely a more technological version of “Vaudville” a cheaper, mechanical replacement for live acts meant to amuse the masses while the literati and other intellectual sophisticates appreciated true art such as opera, concerts and theatre. This all changed as a result of the directors—such as Orson Welles with his breakthrough film Citizen Kane in 1941, and critics such as Francois Truffaut and the Cahiers du Cinema magazine in the 50’s took a much more serious and critical look at film and in the span of 50 years, film went from a distraction for the ignorant, unwashed masses to an entirely new art form that combined the art of narrative from literature, the art of performance from the stage and the art of sound and melody from music. What it brought to the table that was entirely new was the ability to play with composition, motion and time, something all the “traditional” arts of the time could not do because they lacked film’s technological foundation.
Which now brings us to games, which, as Roger Ebert is fond of pointing out, is NOT art, despite the striking parallels in the developmental history of forms like Comics, Rock and Film. And that once again brings me to the question, WHY?
Negative Space
There is a trick in visual arts where artists attempt to look at a piece by defining it not by the shape it holds or the space it occupies, but by the ABSENCE, the shape around the shape, the darkness and shadow in the wake of a shape. It’s called “negative space” and it’s an interesting exercise to apply this kind of thinking to video games. Instead of asking why games can be or are art, what is about them that is NOT art?
Roger Ebert has already made his views known on this. He’s ceded that anything can be art, but in his own words, “games could not be high art, as I understand it.” I am not going to attack Roger Ebert in this piece. I have an enormous amount of respect for him as a person, and as one of the most influential film critic in recent decades, but I am going to use his initial line of reasoning as the jumping off point for this exercise in “negative space” for games.
To Ebert’s way of thinking, games are NOT art, because, in his own words, “I believe art is created by an artist.” His criteria for defining art—which is eminently sensible considering he is a film critic—is invested in the auteur, in authorial control, in having a “central intelligence” as it were, that directs the audience to a deliberate, conscious conclusion. The interactive element of games, since games are about choice (or at least the illusion of choice) defeats this purpose since it takes control away from the author/storyteller, and puts it squarely in the hands of the audience. He uses the example of a typical gamer being in control of a Romeo & Juliet game and says, “If next time, I have Romeo and Juliet go through the story naked and standing on their hands, would that be way cool, or what?” In other words, messing around with the intent of the author destroys the art.
Another way that games might not be considered art (in particular if you are looking at Ebert’s notion of high art) is that games are not “serious” and are instead “fun”, at least the ones that do well commercially. There is nothing “fun” about the Sistine Chapel’s vaulted ceilings with their breathtaking paintings by Michelangelo. There is nothing “fun” about the novel To Kill a Mockingbird and there is nothing fun about Wagner’s The Ring of the Nieblung opera. That doesn’t mean that these works aren’t enjoyable, but there is a difference between enjoying an inspiring novel, a controversial film, a classic ballet and “having fun by playing a game.” Or, at least, the critics are willing to make such a distinction, in the same way that Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings films are considered “summer movies” instead of “serious cinema.” Or a typical Marvel or DC monthly comic compared to Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman series. The fact that games are fun would seem to exclude them from being art.
But the one area that games might not be considered art compared to other, more traditional media is one that may almost be on the mark. Unlike literature, painting, cinema and even to a certain degree, comic books, games are, by and large, NOT political. In this sense, the still heavily commercial aspect of gaming causes publishers to avoid anything that might be considered politically controversial or challenging. While games may occasionally involve the mention of “A” or “The” government, and sometimes even wander into certain timely themes in regards to politics, they have never examined, attacked, criticized or questioned the state of politics and society in the same way as Picasso’s famous Guernica painting, or Joseph Heller’s Catch 22. Even mainstream giant Marvel comics wasn’t afraid to examine the rightness or wrongness of the American presence in Vietnam with their 80’s comic book series The ‘Nam. This isn’t to say that games are totally apolitical. Games such as Deus Ex certainly have touched on political themes (though never at the expense of gameplay) and future titles such as Mirror’s Edge are willing to explore very relevant questions such as “is it worth it to sacrifice personal freedom for domestic security?” The difference, is, like science fiction television, it tackles these questions through the veneer of a “genre entertainment” rather than take the question head on. Most recently David Jaffe, of God of War fame, had a game in development shut down, possibly because of the subject matter. Codenamed “Project Heartland” the theme of the game centered on being an American soldier during a time when America was being invaded by the Chinese. While players were expected to be patriotic and shoot obvious Chinese invaders, they were also asked, in the name of their government, to execute potential foes in the form of Chinese-Americans who may or may not have been innocent. This, apparently, may have been too much for the publishers to swallow when they had consumer sensibilities as their priority rather exploring the nuances of domestic security.
So now that it seems like games are Not Art because they are not a controlled project by an artist, not “serious” enough like other high arts, and not political, what CAN be done to get games to be considered art?
Changing of the Guard
I think that most people would agree that any argument for something’s artistic merit has a large component of opinion and personal perception involved. And perception or opinion is largely determined by the fashion or consensus of a particular generation, such as the belief that certain women are witches and must be burned, which is no longer held as a viable opinion today, or the belief that black people are only fit to be slaves and are subhuman, which is also no longer held as a fashionable opinion today. So what do these things all have in common?
The chief ingredient is, I believe, time. In the simplest possible terms, people that don’t believe or understand the potential of games will grow old and die. When that happens, games as art is going to be a much more receptive concept. It happened with comic books. People who are now in positions of power at all levels of society have read—and enjoyed—comic books, and you’d be hard pressed to find anyone that would want to actually ban a comic because of its corrupting influence. Regulate its access to minors if the subject matter is inappropriate? Absolutely, but then that applies to any medium. The same goes for film. No one in their right mind is going to try to control the content of cinema, they simply want to make sure the right content gets to the right audience. Even rock music has become much more greatly appreciated as a musical form now that that the generation that grew up listening to it is now in power. Jack Thompson, Florida lawyer and biggest detractor of games, would never try to ban rock music, a musical form he grew up with. He DID however, earlier in his career, try to ban rap music, despite the fact that it mostly addressed the same themes and concerns as the rock he grew up with; however it was new, and unfamiliar and that made it an enemy.
This will probably be the single biggest, inevitable factor in games coming to be appreciated as an art form. There are still plenty of people that remember a time before video games, and not only would they prefer to go back to those times, they are in positions of power to stave off the proliferation of games with their decisions and political policy. But they will grow old and die. And they will be replaced eventually by a generation that has grown up on Atari, Super Nintendo, or perhaps the Xbox 360 in the years to come. When that happens, games as art will be a much easier proposition to swallow, likely because some media will have arrived, such as true neural-interface virtual reality simulations that will make the immersive appeal of current games absolutely pale in comparison.
I think another thing that will be required for games to come into their own as an art form is another time-related factor. The videogame, like film before it, needs to stop evolving technologically and start evolving conceptually and ideologically. Right now, I liken games to be in the same state as film was when it first discovered sound; we just got into the “talkie” era of games where they mirror reality to a much closer—but still distinguishable—degree. For films, one of the key features that finally let the medium really take off was when people no longer worried about technological barriers such as sound and color interfering with the creative process. Games have their own similar hurdle, and right now the bulk of the game industry’s technical resources are chasing after the holy grail of photorealistic graphics. It’s all anyone can think about or talk about. The very first thing that a critic or average gamer will look at is the graphics and judge how “realistic” they look. Until the industry can stop obsessing about trying to fool the human eye into thinking “that’s real,” they will never divert the intellectual and financial resources required to fully exploit what games are capable of. I personally believe, however, that this photoreal quest will likely end within the next 15-20 years, if not sooner. When that happens, when people look at a game and simply think “Okay, that looks real,” where does that leave developers? When EVERYONE wins the best graphics contest, what’s left? They will be forced to innovate on their design, their gameplay, their compelling stories, their engaging characters, their unique experiences, their level of interaction. They will be forced, in other words, to rely on the art of game design, rather than the nitty gritty craft of it, as they still do today.
And should that happen, they will start to seriously think about what I think is the irony of Roger Ebert’s argument. Once again, no disrespect to the man, but I believe his criticism of the interactive nature of games is, in fact, the greatest strength that games will have going for them in the future.
This is exactly what happened to film, back in the day. Film finally got its legs when it stopped worrying about what was technologically possible, and started actually playing to its technological strengths. Film had something to offer that no traditional media could replicate; points of view. Unlike traditional media such as literature or the stage, which had to suggest to an audience what they were supposed to pay attention to, film could simply focus on whatever was relevant. Film had a new arsenal of tools its disposal, the close up, the long shot, the dissolve, the fade, the split-screen, time-lapse photography and slow motion. This extra sense of control gave film an ability to shape its narrative in a way that literature, dance, music or theatre could not. But it only became possible when the directors embraced the possibility of film, rather than slavishly ape the stage, as they had done in the past. The early pioneers of film simply dropped a camera in front of a scene and let the film run as the actors performed the way they would have on a stage. Once film broke away from the “stage paradigm” and explored what their own medium was capable of, free from worry about whether it was “as good as a play,” cinema as an art form really began to take shape.
Games still need to do this. Right now they are in exactly the same place, wanting to be “as good as movies” when they are NOT movies, and shouldn’t aspire to be. Like film before it, there are many valuable lessons to be learned from the preceding art form, the fundamentals of story, of character, and new lessons such as pacing and cinematography, but these lessons are not being utilized in the service of game’s greatest strength which is still not thoroughly understood or appreciated. Games are interactive. Games are the first medium that can engage the player with situation, choice and consequence. All other traditional mediums are passive and games are the first truly revolutionary medium in that they can “play” or interact with their audience, rather than simply ask them to absorb whatever the game has to offer.
This may fly in the face of all conventional wisdom, particularly Roger Ebert’s observation that games make the player the artist, thus negating any artistic vision on the part of the creators. But there was once a time when conventional wisdom stated that jump cuts, time transitions and switching camera angles on the fly would confuse an audience, who would be unable to keep up with the sudden changes in view, having been accustomed to seeing things from a single, continuous point of view. That conventional wisdom obviously died decades ago, and I think in time the current thinking will too. Games have a unique opportunity, a profound opportunity to affect art. Audiences of the past would come away from a work of art having been deeply affected by what they saw or heard. A game is the first medium to affect the audience because of what they DID, and I think this is a very, very special commodity in a world that otherwise asks people to simply digest and absorb. Games ask the audience to observe, react and counter-react.
So what can games do then to advance themselves? How can they become art?
Well, if we go waaay back to the start, with my basic working definition of art being something that provokes a reaction, and we get a new generation of critics more open to the medium behind it, I think that games can finally start getting noticed as valid works of art by doing what they do best; letting people DO stuff in a way that makes them think, debate and be inspired.
One of the chief ways they can do this is to focus more on choice and consequence, something that is often lost on games when you try to get to the more subtle levels. Right now, the majority of games (adventure games largely excluded) is a simple interactive play out of “kill or be killed.” But if I may be allowed to almost completely discredit myself at this point, I think one way that games could take a massive leapfrog in the “artistic merit” department is they do the unthinkable and get very, very geeky; games need a “dungeon master.”
Back in the day, during the late 70’s and early 80’s, the traditional pen and paper roleplaying game inspired legions of geeks/nerds (who would then go on to become multi-millionaires) by providing a very primitive sort of “virtual world” in that the world and its choices were presented to them by the oldest form of communication in the world; speech. A dungeon master would create an adventure for these players to experience and at every step of the way would describe the action, moderate combat, take on the role of non-player characters and oversee the well being of the adventurers during their journey. Despite the fact that there was no high powered computer pushing millions of polygons around per second, in the hands of a good dungeon master, these traditional pen and paper RPGs were far superior to the digital ones currently available on a store shelf for one simple reason; players could do anything. Because a living person was present and overseeing events, the dungeon master could observe any action being taken by the players and react to it, even if it was something totally unexpected, such as a player coming up with a novel solution to an obstacle the dungeon master had expected them to resolve through combat.
Right now, the limitation games face is that players must have their activities funneled, simply because it is human game developers that must shape world, define a plot before hand, and, like film, direct the players towards a controlled conclusion with planned set-pieces here and there for them to experience. This is quite unlike an massively multiplayer online role-playing game where the very nature of playing with others can make events unpredictable and never play out the same way twice. The problem with MMOs is that this is a playground with fixed rules and little to no supervision, thus forcing developers to take out as much consequence as possible in order to make the game “fair” for all. In a controlled, single-player game, players can destroy a fortress. In an MMO, the fortress can never be destroyed, otherwise other players are denied a chance to have the experience for themselves.
But in the traditional pen and paper RPG, the dungeon master, the all seeing, all powerful god of the world, could affect change at his or her whim, depending on the circumstances. The best dungeon masters didn’t just take their players through an adventure, they had the adventure with them, going off on new tangents based on the input of the player, taking off in entirely unforeseen directions because a player decided to take another path entirely. At every step, an intelligence is at work, telling the story for AND WITH the player. Games currently do not have this because the burning ambition right now is to make a “real time” girl so realistic the sweat on her skin glistens when she does her completely gratuitous strip-tease in a cut-scene.
I think a game with an “AI Dungeon Master,” one that was given the power to control the world and was intelligent enough to respond to every decision, would be one thing that would really make people sit up and take notice of games. This is not to say there must be a disembodied voice intoning or describing every action and calling for a saving throw roll. What I am thinking of is simply something capable of generating logical, interesting consequences for whatever the player can think of. This does not mean I believe every game should be a sandbox style game such as Grand Theft Auto. It just means that within the context of a game’s “plot” or “story” the players should not be limited by anything illogical, such as artificial contrivances like being able to lift huge objects with a gravity gun, but be blocked by a locked door, or being unable to traverse a barrier more than three feet high because that can’t be jumped and somehow, climbing is impossible.
This “dungeon master” AI should also inhabit whatever manner of creature inhabits the game. It should be able to react to what players say rather than give canned responses, as very good DMs in reality do. The magic of a good, traditional pen and paper RPG is the surprises that come out of a DM working with the players to HAVE an adventure rather than be subjected to one. If the game industry could just stop paying attention to graphics, and start paying attention to the nuances of a world where every choice is available, but every choice has a consequence, then I believe the art will evolve naturally from this new, untried territory.
Imagine a game where the player as revolutionary can topple an unjust government through legitimate means such as running for office, to more radical means such as full on revolution. Imagine a game where the player forges relationships with other characters that grow and change, where the character remembers things the player did, admires some actions, disapproves of others, answers some questions with total conviction and others with doubt. Imagine a game where long, sustained relationships are possible, where feelings can be hurt, old wrongs remembered, and any building, organization or individual you affect can affect you back. Imagine a game where the story that is being told is told your way, at your pace, affected by your decisions. We are a long, LONG way from having any single game or system that can accommodate the near limitless choice that an active human imagination can inflict on an environment, but I think that ultimately what games need to do to separate themselves from the more traditional media, to truly become an art, is to understand that the greatest strength games have is the ability to not just provoke an audience, but BE PROVOKED by that audience and respond, creating synergy between art and audience that no traditional form thus far can do.
Wow! Holy post Wayne. Don’t worry. I’ll read it and I’m sure it’ll be great. I just don’t have that much time right now.
It’s long, yeah, but most certainly worth the time it takes to read it. Wayne says it better than I ever could. And – if I can convince him to do so – he’ll be back with more. I’m also looking at a couple of other guest bloggers, so stay tuned.
Though, you will post yourself too i hope
Cause no-one can beat your funny appoach.
Sorry folks, this is what happens when you ask “So, what can I talk about?” and the reply is “Anything you want, as long as you want.”
It’s usually at that point that a soap box descends from the heavens with Beethoven’s 9th symphony blaring in your ears, and at that moment, there’s no turning back.
wow. That was a useful read for me. I’m writing a paper about this issue for school right now…
Very interesting article.
There’s one thing that’s bothering me, though… You seem to be putting “games as art” in a relatively distant future, making it seem like games can’t possibly be art just yet. I don’t (want to) believe that. I think the tools are already here (though the ûber-DM-AI thing sounds awesome, I don’t think it’s necessary to create a work of art) it’s just that developers still have a hard time finding the balance between depth and entertainment.
That and the fact that you can’t leave the “entertainment” aspect out altogether if you want to get published. The awesome potential of games like Fahrenheit or Bioshock got mostly wasted (this is my opinion, anyway) because the developers were trying too hard to make the game “cool”. So I agree with you there, we need a change of mentality at the top of the production chain before we can see potential unfold fully.
Only I don’t think it’s impossible for some talented developer to actually strike that precious art-fun balance that’ll allow it to get its work of art out to the mainstream… I still want to believe…
Anyway, very interesting.
I think the distinction needs to be made between games-as-art and games-about-art. There’s a sense in which, in order for something to *be* art, it can’t just borrow the artistic elements that define other mediums. A game with beautiful music, story, artistic direction and the rest is still not art if the very essence of the game – the interactivity – is some generic concept, a copy/pasted genre type that floats around separately from the meaning of the game.
I think Wayne’s absolutely right about the importance of interactivity – if interactivity itself cannot be used to present some artistic message then games can never, ever be art themselves – just a shallow medium that places boundaries around an artists’ vision by way of things like arbitrary choice. Whether or not interactivity is parasitic on an artistic message is something that really remains to be seen: in all honesty, I can’t really think of an instance of it not being so, except in a game like Metal Gear Solid 2 which is arguably artistic in its self-reflection on the form of games themselves.
Planescape: Torment, often touted as the prime example of games-as-art, is for me a great example of a game-about-art (specifically, the art of literature); an incredible novel held back by the restrictions of the medium. The game offered choice, but only insofar as it opened the possibility of missing certain conversation trees and endings. It was as simple as – the more you experienced of the game the more you came out of the game with – and how much you experienced was largely determined by your ability to navigate the logic of conversation trees and your whimsical choice of stats during character creation. Deus Ex’s focus on non-linearity made it an amazing experience, highly re-playable and innovated the FPS genre in a hugely creative way (which still no one has properly followed up on, for some reason), but it is usually remembered (especially when concerning this debate) for the political and philosophical ideas the game invoked, as found in the various texts lying around and deep, incidental dialogues JC has with other characters (or, in some cases, overhears).
The thrust of Wayne’s post seems to be an inductive point – in several past instances, new mediums were treated with disrespect before becoming accepted as art, and games could easily be the latest example of this. This argument is compelling, but of course we remember the successful mediums – there must be countless examples of mediums that both met with criticism and never went on to meet acclaim. Choose-your-own-adventure books for example; I’m sure there must have been a load of authors in the pioneering stages with high hopes. Yes, a mass disrespect for the concept of games as art isn’t proof that they aren’t art, but the reason for this disrespect is really the thing that should be targeted in arguments – and we shouldn’t be naive enough to think that the only reason for this disrespect is the disrespect itself. The burden of proof is on the games-as-art side of the debate, to show that interactivity does have artistic merit – that the creator needn’t have complete control over his story or expression to present an artistic idea.
Really interesting post, though, as has been said this debate isn’t going to be solved any time soon but who says that’s the point? I hope this post didn’t come off as too unclear – it has been a little rushed.
My idea of “art” is something new and original that we create ourselves. If I take out a piece of paper and scribble all over it, is that art? How about if a three year old kid scribbles all over a paper and gives it to you? Is that art? In both cases, I’d say yes.
If I were to design a new toy robot, then Presto!, there is art. Now throw those plans on an assembly line where other people will start building my same robot design. They are not creating art. I did.
And now let’s move to video games. I once heard a saying that “great art is not created by committee,” and I think that is true. Video games are art, but while many people contribute to that art, there has to be a single driving force behind the project. Someone who really takes charge in determining what direction the game should head. I think that what ruins a lot of games these days is that they were “designed by committee.” Everyone who produces content for a game is creating their own pieces of art. The video game as a whole is a compilation of all of these pieces, which becomes a new piece of art itself.
Nice compare and contrast with film and comics. That was spot on IMO. Although, I believe you did get a bit off track with the pen and paper rpg comparison. It might have been lost on me but I’m not sure how making a better game AI would make it any more or less an art form?
I’m sure Peter Molyneux already promised that game…
in the same way that Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings films are considered “summer movies” instead of “serious cinema.”
I must disagree. The Empire Strikes Back and The Lord of the Rings are damn serious cinema. Unless it’s a documentary, it’s all fictional anyway. At the end of the day, the goal is entertainment, not a political statement, but that simply makes it all the more serious. A perfect execution of story, characters, deeper morals at the end of the day, and filmmaking techniques is a very serious job.
I almost find it sillier to waste all that effort on something almost inadvertant such as a change in world view that a film might cause in you. At least give me the most epic, dramatic, well performed entertainment before you can possibly call it a serious effort. After all, we’re watching a bunch of actors pretending. Am I supposed to take that seriously if they’re just there to deliver a message? Sounds about as believable as real politicians.
Okay, but seriously – what difference does it make at the end of the day what the point is if it didn’t get there with real style? The most enduring paintings of human existance all represent mastery of the art form first and foremost.
Maybe I should keep reading to see where you go with this point though…
I think you should seriously think about what the hell “art” really is, if it is at all, instead of thinking “is it ok to like something even if it isn’t art”.
Thanks, first of all, for the great essay.
Even though i haven’t yet found a game i could consider art – lots of the examples mentioned here and in posts before are truely great and would as well make very nice novels, but – at least to me – failed to affect my life for very much longer than the experience (of the game) lasted and this should certainly be something to expect of art.
Still i don’t see any point why fuure games could not be art. This mainly depends on the approach of the makers as well as of the customers (if we don’t look we won’t find something, worth keeping for longer than the moment).
But the existance on his debate is certainly a good thing. If games (and their content) can become the topic of serious controversy (this might exclude Mr Eberts polemics though), they can be a medium for indvidual growth/development and therefore as well art. After all it will be just a matter of time. Let’s all wait 15 years and then look at this thread again. Might make you smirk…
Sorry, don’t have time to read all the replies, but I definitely agree that it’s not only perception, but also the current game dev paradigm. Often, rather than create an experience, developers seem to want to create sandboxes – just ’simulated worlds’. While I do think that, well executed, said world could be depicted in such a way as to be affecting – such as STALKER’s wasteland, or Pathologic’s dying city – the approach of creating an alternate world first and an experience second is flawed. In contrast, games like Dreamfall create a world as a vehicle for the exploration of the themes within the plot, which is a much more powerful approach.
Great Notum!(1) That is one huge pillar of text.
Any chance of not using that evenly space paragraph layout? I find it much easier to read if spaces aren’t padded to make each line equally long, just let normal HTML word-wrapping occur.
And breaking the text up into a few more paragraphs wouldn’t hurt either.
Now I really wish I could I could say something equally grand like that, but I doubt I could without it looking like I’m rambling. Which I seem to be doing right now, crap…
For such a magnificent game play to be possible I foresee the future need of technology that artificially induce a semi-dream state, where the body is resting but the mind is conscious enough to interface with a computer that act as the Game Master. And instead of clearly defining the environment it induces the notion of an environment, cues if you will and let the mind itself fill in the blanks. I wonder how far off such a technology truly is…
(1) “Great Notum!” Exclamation I’ve been using since way back in Anarchy Online, feel free to to use/abuse it Ragnar, after all it was inspired by your world of Anarchy. and it’s politically and religiously neutral to boot.
Corum:
I think you’re right, it’s one thing I didn’t touch on with the article since it was already getting epic in size, but usually what ends up happening in any art movement is a few key individuals galvanize the whole thing and get it really evolving. At the turn of the 19th-20th century, it was artists like Van Gogh. In the 20th, it was Picasso. In film, it was the likes of D.W. Griffith and then Orson Welles. In comics, it was Miller, Moore and Gaiman. I think games do have a few key creators that are helping the medium to move along, but there’s still no equivalent to a Welles or Miller that acts as a lightning rod and really ups the ante for other creators to have to live up to. I think Hideo Kojima, and obviously Ragnar Tornquist have made some great strides, but we still don’t have The Ones, in the way the other mediums did.
brianpoetzel:
My idea for an “AI DM” is essentially just groping towards some kind of solution. I still firmly believe that interactivity is the key to some kind of artistic evolution in games, but right now, interactivity is limited to shooting things and watching Havok Physics engines take over, or talking to people and then selecting from a menu of predetermined, canned responses. So far the greatest level of digital interactivity occurs in MMOs, and that’s because it’s real people talking to other real people.
An “AI DM” is one possible way that we can bring the improvisational, dynamic qualities of “real life interactions” which simply cannot be replicated in traditional artist-to-audience mediums. If games are going to stand out as an art, they have to play to their strengths, and interactivity is it. An “AI DM” is simply one way which might facilitate richer, “non-canned” experiences and responses, and bring the same level of dynamism and unpredictability to interaction that makes MMOs so compelling when you’re with a real group. If some kind of artist theme or agenda is ATTACHED to that dynamic interactive mechanic, then that’s when I believe critics will eventually have to take a more sober, serious look at this so called frivolous entertainment.
somnolentsurfer:
Brilliant reply. Made me laugh.
Why 30 years away?! I say not more than 10 uears, video games will be considered as art!
I couldn’t read all yet, but sounds very interesting.
This “artform” requires so much more of the recieving end.
For the average teen today, most of the skills needed are learned along with traditional knowledge in school.
Computers are a natural part of their lives. This has only been so for a little over ten years, and it will be a few generations more before this group is big enough to influence society in a more general way, so the consencus will change in regards to the view on what art is and how it should be experienced.
I love Dungeon Masters, but in morpg games, it should be the term for a relative big group of people.
If there is just one “master” for each 50 players, it will be enough to make a game 1000 times more interesting than a AI controlled kill and collect game.
The masters can have a network to exchange info on the players, so individual storylines can be followed.
Most of the gameplay can still be traditional, but if you have to interact with an intelligent being, that will respond to you, before you go on a four day mission, you will be motivated in a whole other way.
When I played AO back in the day, I grew tired of the normal gameplay within a year. Most of my gametime were used to help out and organize noobs.
I made a subsidary to a large organisation and called it an academy. In days we were 10 people running it. Collecting funds and equipment, giving it to the noobs, and training them to go on group missions we would plan for them.
We had hundreds of members in weeks, who in my opinion had a much better game experience because of it. I stopped playing soon after, but would have played on if i could.
I am sure that maybe 10% of the players in some morpgs, especially new ones, are interested in this type of play, and would be even more, if they are given some kind of reward.
You should consider this in TSW. Involve a larger group of pioneer players in the storylines, the track has already been laid for something in that direction.
Asking for a DM per 50 people is bit demanding and source heavy. Most companies neither can afford nor can find quality story tellers. It also would prevent everyone having equally fun experience out of the game since DMs will vary in quality and how they conduct the game. If your DM is really suckie then you may hate the game etc. I know it is a nice idea but not a practical one imo.
It could be based on a mission/quest only basis.
As i understand it, a normal quest is maybe based on a few simple conversation trees, and some actions or obtained objects to complete it.
Instead, a team of x people could be given the same conversation trees along with more complex instructions of whereabouts and behaviour.This also helps prevent people cheating or blocking AI-characters.
A quest could then be very individual, and at the same time equal and fair to everyone. It would take only a few people to handle a quest/mission/riddle that hundreds or even thousands in time would undertake.
This is just a simple example, but already there i see the point about this being too complicated for a free-lance based element in a game, that makes it dependant on key players. Nevertheless is would make a great game inviroment, and making new ground for people to express themself more personally in a more convincing onlineworld, and thereby making a better platform for the artistics to develop their expressions.
This was a terrific read, Shoeless person! I felt myself nodding in agreement quite often.
I lol’ed at this. Then I cried, realizing the truth in it. I wonder if it is at all possible for the guardians, for any future generation of guardians, to do a leap of faith and openly accept something they don’t believe or understand, instead of condemning it relentlessly until they are no more.
On one point I disagree with you though. I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary to have a total freeform DM world in games for them to become art. Maybe that’s something for a “next step” in the evolution of art and games, but generally speaking, art (and magic) also works through the limit it imposes on the audience. You think about it and imagine things that can not be seen directly, or you simply acknowledge it’s beauty.
And personally, I think there’s lots of games on the market already that I would consider art.
I think the “is this art?” question is really unnecessary. Instead, we should be asking if what we’re creating is “good art”. I mean, if Marcel Duchamp can make art out of a urinal, then sure, anything that we claim to be art can be. That doesn’t mean that art is always good or interesting. Some games are lousy, some art galleries are.
Ragnar’s take on the future of gaming is pretty ambitious. More difficult than photorealism, I’d guess, because it’s striving for something less tangible. But hey, if that’s what you’re working on Ragnar, I’m psyched.
Wow, that was a long read
I think games can become art, it’s just that most of them doesn’t fulfill their potential.
I myself have a story to tell, and I long thought of how telling it. A movie, maybe a book, a TV series?
But I then realized that the best way would be through a PC game. In order to really understand, identify and follow a story, you have to play through the story. Not imagine or see it, play as yourself. It should have multiple plotlines, each affected by players choice. Though, since it’s really is a story that the artist cerated, all of those lines should have a main idea (or more precisely, main ideas), that the story tells.
Only when you really participate in it, affect it, and see the consequences you can see who you really are, and what your own story is. Only then can one understand the morals of the story, and really change. I think that is the real power of a story.
That is why when I play a game with a good story I really enjoy going through all the adventures. And though technology doesn’t yet allow the options for uncountable paths, I really admire good stories in games, since they bring forth the future I am awaiting for.
I agree that AI programs that can let an individual do almost anything would be amazing…however, if there’s one thing I learned from taking Intro to Artificial Intelligence, it’s that these tools are going to be hard coming.
If you’ve ever spoken with SmarterChild, you know what I mean. And to make responses that are completely spontaneous is going to be even harder. (not to mention something that remembers the context, and what was talked about a few minutes ago…) As of now, most programs consist of mostly if statements (of sorts) and while there are “fuzzy reasoning” where a program can make judgments” these judgments all have to be mapped. To map all of a humans choices and decide how to respond will be a difficult task to say the least.
Then there’s the “Expert systems” that are supposed to mimic an expert in the field. Researchers have found that while they attempt to pull information from an expert, they stumble across holes in the code where the Expert just “knows” what do to, and can’t really explain it. It’s more like intuition then actual knowledge.
The Brain is an amazing creation, and I honestly don’t see it being replicated in any decent fashion for long long time. Not on any scale you were talking about anyway.
Oblivion on the other hand, that had plenty of options, and still had restrictions. you could DO things, just couldn’t make things up. It followed the normal game situation, and by adding a massive physics engine, you could interact with the environment. Dialogs were of course limited, but I don’t know how anyone’s going to fix that short of discovering the secret of how the brain works.
Half of this post was made a few days ago. I ended up throwing up for seven hours which is what interrupted it.
The difference, is, like science fiction television, it tackles these questions through the veneer of a “genre entertainment” rather than take the question head on.
This brings an odd question: Are the game adaptations of two of Philip K. Dick’s books (Ubik & Blade Runner) now art by the transitive property? And of course the answer would be no, because Ubik was never anything but absurd entertainment in its book form, and while Blade Runner the film dealt with the question of life more so than even the book of a different name, the game had some different things to ask – mainly of you. I can still poke fun at this all the way though.
I personally believe, however, that this photoreal quest will likely end within the next 15-20 years, if not sooner. When that happens, when people look at a game and simply think “Okay, that looks real,” where does that leave developers? When EVERYONE wins the best graphics contest, what’s left?
Frankly, then we’ll be back at square one with the severely lagging art of animation. It will take development teams at least as good as the one at Pixar to bring even one game to fully realistic levels. Personally, I stopped having problems with graphics past Far Cry as long as they were well rounded. Animation is something I don’t see being solved in reasonable manner in the mainstream for a very, very long time. Probably never.
But there was once a time when conventional wisdom stated that jump cuts, time transitions and switching camera angles on the fly would confuse an audience
Sometimes, when the camera gets too shaky, too schizophrenic, or too fast for the 24 FPS motion to properly animate, I’m inclined to still agree. When it’s not gratuitously used, I can safely say I’m part of the new world, not the old one.
I think a game with an “AI Dungeon Master,” one that was given the power to control the world and was intelligent enough to respond to every decision, would be one thing that would really make people sit up and take notice of games.
The current arcitechture that computers are built on simply doesn’t allow it. At the current rate, it will be decades before we have a mainstream redesign that even remotely resembles the ability to be creative. I’d say it’s not possible, but our own brains do it, so eventually there’s some sort of composite.
Personally, I think the real destination for “games as art” lies somewhere along the path of story, which is an element that can penetrate almost any medium in any genre. What games bring to the table in a unique way is the ability to have all of film’s strength without the limitations of time. It combines visuals with depth through length (meaning time to develop things, NOT meaning endless, gratuitous grinding) in situations that just happen to also be a lot of fun. Game, set & match? I think so.
Ragnar, excuse me, but have you, um, played this… piece?
http://adamcadre.ac/content/photo201.zip
Oh my.. It was a long trip, but finally managed to read it. It’s really interesting how you think about “games as art”, and why games could not be art yet..
In my interpretation, you think that: a medium (in our case games) could be art, if it knows something that the other mediums can’t.
But is this really necessary? I don’t think that’s the only way to ‘create’ art..
What if there is already art in games, and we just don’t see it, or don’t wanna accept it?
Lovely, beautiful, and thought provoking as usual. You should send that into a magazine. And, personally, I don’t believe that seeing games as art is all that far off; I’m only 21, but my generation is what I like to call, the transition generation. We’re the generation between the people who lived without games (poor saps) and the people who play them regularly. Most of my generation has played one or more video games in our life and we’ve enjoyed it. It won’t be much longer, I think, that it’ll take for games to be taken more seriously. On top of that, I think my generation’s going to be the one to create that perfect game you described. Why? Because we’re the first generation to, consistently from the nerd to the jock, enjoy games as one culture. People that I would never pinpoint as liking games just five years ago, now play them on a regular basis and even own systems. And, because of that, between the two extremes, the people like me who have been gaming their whole lives and the people who have just started, we can reach a perfect middle of revolutinoary gaming with the skill that only comes from playing enough games to know what works and what doesn’t. A beautiful time in gaming is coming up; you can see it in Bioshock, where the first shooter and the adventure game are starting to meld. We’re the generation that’s going to change some things; and I say that proudly, with certainty, and with an eye toward the future, barely able to wait until the day it dawns.
I can’t help but noticing you refer to Hideo Kojima as a strider for game art. I find that a bit contradicting to your statements about games shouldn’t try and be like films, but embrace what makes games unique. Hideo Kojimas work is widely considered “film-like” games (atleast the MGS-series). Don’t get me wrong, Hideo Kojima makes some of the most evocative game scenes I’ve ever had the pleasure of experience, but that kinda brings me to a point I think you should have metioned: Games (as any medium) should never be treated as “do this, this mechanic and such and it will be molded as art”. Games can be everything, even more so than any art form out there. We have the ability, to do EVERYTHING that has come before us. Making figures in the sand with a stick led to drawing scenes on the cave wall, which in turn led to painting which then led to comics and so on. Games are the culmination of every art form out there and should (imho) be treated as such.
I thouroughly enjoyed this very nice initiative Ragnar, and thank you Waynes Santos for a very good article..
~B
bjorn:
That’s a good point, and I think it deserves to be addressed. Kojima has, indeed, created one of the more cinematic games with the endless intrigue and cutscenes, and that was impressive for the time, though, as the years pass, I find it less and less revolutionary as games have embraced that “aesthetic,” and done similar. What I found so intriguing about Kojima from a pure “GAME, game” perspective was how he played “with the form” if you will.
In Metal Gear Solid, Kojima did something almost theater-esque in that he broke the fourth wall. Little things like comments from the supporting characters about playing too long, to putting the dualshock on your arm to get a massage all took a very self-conscious “There’s someone holding a controller on the other side of the screen” approach that few games have attempted. I also was impressed with the entire Psycho Mantis sequence, and how the game did everything from read your game playing style, to scanning your memory card for other Konami titles, to, of course, the unheard of boss beating methodology of switching controllers so as to “fool” his telepathic ability to read your moves.
In MGS2, as confused as the story was towards the end, he once again broke the fourth wall with the way the computer actually interfered with your gameplay, such as the infamous “Fission Mailed” screens.
And while it was a slight touch in MGS3, probably one of the most unique ways to kill a boss is found in one way to handle “The End” where if you simply leave your console alone for 2 weeks (or cheat and adjust your PS2’s calendar to 2 weeks ahead) when you reload the game, the game checks your date and if too much time has elapsed, The End has simply starved to death.
Little touches like this put Kojima slightly ahead of the curve in my book, because he actually toys with the mechanics and perceptions of gameplay, and whereas most developers try to immerse gamers in a world they want you to believe is reality, Kojima flirts with the idea “This is, after all, a game” and isn’t afraid to actually take advantage of the mechanics and perception surrounding that. Silicon Knights did something similar with their Insanity Effects in the extremely underrated Eternal Darkness that didn’t get anywhere near the attention or commercial success it deserved.
Zoe01:
Your observation is very relevant. There is artistry in games of all kinds, from engaging stories to talented art design, to–in recent years–some pretty decent performances from voice actors. I just think that if games want to stand up and be acknowledged as an art form the way past mediums have, it needs to offer something that other arts don’t. Comics for example, take things a step further than traditional paintings because they are a “sequential art form” and tell a story in a visual format that no other medium does. Literature is incorporated into some way, shape or form in all narrative arts, but there’s still a difference between the writing in a game, the writing for a movie script and a good old fashioned novel. Novels still offer something that the other variants on writing can’t. And film, of course, incorporates music, art design, dramatic performance, writing, and photography, and wraps it all up with motion, camera angles and playing with time, as I mentioned in the essay. I think, from that public consensus point of view, people will have an easier time saying “yes, this is art” if it can clearly add something new to the mix and the obvious jumping off point is interactivity since none of the other forms can do that. As Ragnar himself has said, “There is art in games,” but as the Ebert versus Barker debate continues to rage, it’s obvious that that’s about as far as the current Powers That Be are willing to credit games with.
Overall amazing article that raises many interesting points.
I however have one reservation about the necessity for interactivity (read full interactivity) for a game to become an art form. If the first person within the narrative is the player or they chose who the character is, then giving them as many options as possible is the right way to go. However, limiting the player’s choice about where they can go and where they cannot can allow the player to experience what it is like to be someone else who makes different choices than they would, forcing them to take a course of action they would not initially consider (like instead of running for the candidacy, leading a revolution) It would eventually change them and teach them something about world and themselves. I do not say full freedom of action is wrong, but neither is full freedom of action a particular character (who might not think the way the player thinks).
One might ask, but isn’t what films and other non-interactive medium is for? No. First, in the game there still is choice, it just is the choices the fictional character would see as possible, not the player. Second, interactivity, or in this case the illusion of interactivity, still is more effective than sitting back and watching in that the player goes in his/her own pace and has to be initiating the action regardless of if it is his/her first choice or not: this allows the player to be more committed to his/her actions. Or are these assumptions wrong?
Wow! Brilliant article Wayne.
I found all the comments above, interesting but i think that this conversation should get back on track starting from the fundamentals about art. “Shoeless Wayne Santos” and others have made some very interesting arguments about this subject but besides the beautiful proposals for AI-DM etc (which I must admit, occupied my thoughts for quite some time before and after I run into this blog), I believe there is some conversation yet to be done and some more arguments to be proposed…
First of all I think it is necessary to counter-propose a different definition of art and what distinguishes a piece of “art” from something that its not.
In my perspective “art” as a concept is defined by someone’s need to make a statement through a media other than plain conversation itself or simple opinion writing as we do for example in this blog. “Art” is defined firstly and mostly by someones need to provoke a conversation
through a metaphor whether this is done by telling a story or creating an image, a painting, writing music or combining all these aspects into one single form -such as cinema and theatre for example- or even by adding
interactivity elements to all these above which is a common and very modern practice among young artists nowadays.
In other words what makes something “art” is the will of the creator to express feelings, thoughts (either this regards politics, moral questions culture, religion or social life), ideas or ideals using all the “tools” mentioned above. And this provokes for one and only reason: IT WAS MEANT TO BE PROVOCATIVE. It was created to be so from the very beginning.
For example lets say that Munch (using the example by Shoeless Wayne Santos) was alive today and created his famous piece “the scream” only to be used as a commercial flyer for the synonymous movie. Who would regard this
as “high art”? It would be just another flyer meant to achieve the marketing goals posed by some company for the specific movie. But Munch -at the time he created “the scream”- didn’t deliver a mere consumers product. He posed his inner feelings and thoughts about modern isolation and solely seen under this scope that piece manages to become “high art”. Because it INVOKES everyone, because it
provokes and challenges the audience to think and participate in a discussion about modern life. In other words “the scream” was created to achieve the goals,
feelings and thoughts of Munch himself. The inner need for expression through painting…
Which leaves us to our current question: Are video games an art form?
From my perspective they could be as long as someone could treat them as such. Meaning that someone or some team creates a game driven by the need of expression and communication – only. Meaning that someone takes the risk
of creating something meaningful and deep regardless the sales figures it will achieve. Meaning that the game’s content isn’t and won’t be dictated by the needs of an “industry” rather than the mental needs of their
creators…
And that’s where the whole problem takes place…
The games industry in the last 15 years has grown so much in size so today it can be compared with the movie industry. But…
Unlike making a movie where anyone can hold a camera and create,individual game production -either for fun or due to inclinations for art- hasn’t seen the same growth. The complexity and difficulties for making a game, can’t be compared (for the time being) with any other art-form therefore the project of creating a game -as an individual artist- becomes extremely difficult. Thus going into massive production -as an individual and not a company- is surely an impossible task. In our era where video and digital photo has proliferated the horizons of many young artists – think of video art projects as an on-going
reality in the world art scene – the means of creating a decent game are not yet available to the average user. This lack of creativity by the broad “art” masses leaves the industry the only “player” in the scene.
And what about the games “industry”?
Well, here applies what we can see in other domains of our life. MONEY COMES FIRST… If something doesn’t pay nobody bothers to boost it. And art, not only doesn’t pay but its risky too. You see companies are over concerned with their audiences. The broader, the better. If a subject hits a sensitive nerve -such as politics or religion- it automatically becomes a “black sheep”. No CEO of a big games company would bare the risk of having delivered a provocative piece that creates controversies.
If you add to this, that currently the audience is mostly youngsters -remember we are talking about a mere 20 year old scene- you get the whole picture. Unless (wisely said) this culture gets to a more “mature” audience that will demand a more intellectual approach, the whole thing about art and games remains a big joke (as far as the companies are concerned with it).
All these aspects make video games (as they are today) firstly and mostly products designed to create money other than a medium or an art-form created from someone or some group of people with the intention of expressing themselves through that.
Of course this isn’t or wasn’t always true. And its my duty here to hail some brilliant exceptions to the rule such as -for example- “Grim Fandango”,a product, yes, but a damn good one. Unfortunately we all know what happened to this oldie… Wins a lot of prizes, receives brilliant reviews, becomes game of the year (1998 was it or am I mistaken?) but fails to bring in the cash. Consequences? Lucas arts rethinks its policies about the adventure genre
and totally abandons it (along with other companies) for the years to come.
To conclude: as long as the first priority of a creator (company,team or individual) is ONLY to deliver a consumers product, in my opinion, video games will never become
art no matter how beautiful they look, no matter what the tools or the available technologies are. And as a matter of fact, I think that the search of graphics innovation is
totally irrelevant with what we are talking about. So, I believe that whether “the photo real quest will likely end within the next 15-20 years” or not, companies are not likely to be forced, because of that, to innovate into other areas.
After all I think that as an artist you don’t need better technology to express yourself. You just use it, if and when it becomes available to you only to expand your horizons.
To add some more arguments to that I would like to give an example: Watching closely the latest developments in the art-scene becomes clear that the demand and production of pieces of art that enclose interactivity as a main element to their structure is rising. I’ve seen more and more examples like that throughout the world at art galleries, exhibitions and art festivals. And these pieces do not need advanced technologies, stop-animation, talkie characters
photo realistic graphics or something like that to be regarded as art…
THEY USE MERE PIXELS… As long as the message is delivered and it’s OK with the artist. The same thing can be applied to games.
As a closing argument I would like to express some thoughts and wishes about the future. I believe that in the years to come this situation will inevitably change. And this change will come from below. Reliable and cheap tools will become available to the broad public thus boosting individual production. In addition to that, games will reach a certain level of quality only if the audience demands it. This blog is a good start for such a conversation to be expanded so I must thank “Shoeless Wayne Santos” and the others for their beautiful comments and proposals once more.
Other than that I have to wish and ask from anyone who is interested in researching the possibility of games as art to do so (we have the ability to make it happen on our own). Fortunately Internet gives us the ability to find and collaborate with others so DON’T YOU JUST STAND THERE AND WAIT FOR THIS TO HAPPEN!
Thanks in advance and sorry for my extremely late participation…