After reading Ian Bogost’s article titled “Persuasive Games: The Proceduralist Style” I couldn’t help but have a few questions. \u00a0Maybe it was my unfamiliarity with the rhetoric and vocabulary being used to describe his concept, but I felt that Bogost’s article needs a bit of unpacking before I can attempt to provide any commentary on it.<\/p>\n
First of all, the concept of a Proceduralist Style is in reference to games that lie between the categories of the abstract genre (Tetris) and that of the “concrete” or realistic games (SimCity). \u00a0This quote describes the difference the best:<\/p>\n
“Games like Go\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0Tetris<\/em>\u00a0are abstract; if they have any aboutness, it is limited to the experience of the system itself. One can make representational claims about these games (as Janet Murray did of\u00a0Tetris<\/em>\u00a0in\u00a0Hamlet on the Holodeck<\/em>), but only in an overtly metaphorical way.<\/p>\n By contrast, games like\u00a0SimCity<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Madden<\/em>\u00a0are concrete; they deal very clearly with specific subjects and activities, in this case urban planning and American football.<\/p>\n Proceduralist games sit between these two poles. Their systems characterize some aboutness that is not an accident of genre or convention, but one deliberately selected — often from personal experience.”<\/p>\n Ok so creators of Proceduralist games want there to be real, concrete activities or subjects, but these stem from some abstract personal experience or emotion. \u00a0Therefore, Proceduralist games suggest a artistic medium in which people “play” a game that doesn’t necessarily have a set goal or rules, and then see how they feel about it. \u00a0I guess for me, the best way to think about it is that Proceduralist games attempt to entice some form of deeper introspection, internalization and\/or analyzation of the games themes that aren’t present in more “concrete or abstract” games, like those mentioned previously.<\/p>\n Now of course this is exactly what art attempts to do, bring about a reaction to a piece and cause the experiencer to interact with it on a deeply personal level. \u00a0This is obviously an extremely generalized definition for art, but it holds within it the basis of the question being asked I think. \u00a0Mainly, is it possible to call Proceduralist games art because of their ability to bring about this experience with it’s audience that is comparable to other media and forms of contemporary art, or socially accepted form of artistry. \u00a0My answer to that question…..who knows….our notions of constitutes are are ever changing from generation to generation. \u00a0So whose to say what is art and what isn’t…<\/p>\n Read the full article here: ArtGames<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" After reading Ian Bogost’s article titled “Persuasive Games: The Proceduralist Style” I couldn’t help but have a few questions. \u00a0Maybe it was my unfamiliarity with the rhetoric and vocabulary being used to describe his concept, but I felt that Bogost’s … Continue reading