@ http://grandtextauto.org/2008/02/24/pvp-portal-versus-passage/

#10 Dave Says:

February 25th, 2008 at 2:06 am

I have to say, the main point of this article–Passage is a better game than Portal–feels to me like exaggeration for shock value, and little else, trying to capitalize on the success of Portal to promote a lesser-known game. I would agree with pretty much all of the points individually in the article, but taking them as a whole, with arguments wildly skewed in both cases, and jumping to a conclusion that is not much more than schlock? I’m afraid you lost me there.

Somehow, an unspoken assumption was made that the only valid metric for judging games is how thought-provoking their underlying statements are. If a game doesn’t encourage a critical re-examination of one’s life, then it might as well be left for the dogs. Sure, this is important. But would you judge a painting solely on this criterion? Should you ignore technical aspects of painting? Throw that away, and a master’s landscape and a child’s doodle stand side by side in their ability to depict countryside life. Would it be wrong to consider gameplay when evaluating games? Otherwise we might as well have interactive museum exhibits taking “Best Gameâ€? awards.

Yes, Passage is underappreciated, and Portal is overhyped. But Passage isn’t all roses, and Portal isn’t driving gaming into a watery, artless grave. The gameplay of Passage is barely out of its infancy. While I am fond of the aesthetics, I won’t hesitate to admit that they depend heavily on the current 8-bit fad for both graphics and sound. Passage also fares badly outside of its indie game incubator; without the proper context–usually a blot post extolling its virtues–most people would discard it after a few minutes. While you could say the same about a lot of art, I’d fault them for it just the same.

And I’m still trying to grasp some of the criticisms of Portal. The storyline, with its innovative delivery and interesting topic–letting what is essentially a character piece for GLaDOS take center stage–is reduced to “not philosphy-ish.â€? The game is criticized for trying to sell copies–this is basically turning what should be praise (the game tries to appeal to people) into an empty, backhanded insult. How does the commercialization compromise Portal as a game? Detail that, instead of appealing to elitism.

In case you accuse me of being subtle with my points, I’ll lay it out simply. Catharsis is not the end-all judgement of games, or even art. It’s nice, of course. But not all great art produces catharsis, and not everything that produces catharsis is great art.

@ http://grandtextauto.org/2008/02/24/pvp-portal-versus-passage/

#34 Joseph Says:

February 28th, 2008 at 3:37 pm

This article seems to me as text book, reductionist, academia that makes that tries to take on games and apply the same tired criticism that makes modern critical theory so fucking boring.

It’s as if the more something is inaccessible, the cooler it is, and the cooler you are for defending it.

It’s as if I wrote an article saying ‘How is “Wavelengthâ€? (a film that is *literally* a 45 minute long zoom shot) is better than Antonioni’s L’Avventurra. Because, after all L’Avventura is a studio picture made within a studio system, as opposed to Wavelength made by one man.

I guess I fell into the trap though, because I am here commenting on this false choice. To assign a value on a piece of work solely based on the political world view of the artist or the critic is something that is frankly very tired, and while those world views do merit a place in the discussion they should not be the end all be all.

The Intentions of the artist are, frankly, a interesting anecdote at best. They should have little bearing on the criticism on an artistic work. Assholes, Racists, Misogynists, and ‘corporate sellouts’ have long produced fantastic works of art just as great well mean ‘deep’ people have produced lost of crap (and folk music). The two are not connected, and to make that connection is undergrad media studies bullshit.

The only thing that’s missing in your article is a name drop of Deleuze, and how passage is ‘rhizomatic’ and portal isn’t.

@ http://kotaku.com/362776/pvp-portal-vs-passage

Garro at 02:49 PM

And to be honest, if you're looking for some deep meaning, you're missing the point of the work. Far be it from me to say you can't find such things in a game like portal. I am simply saying that's not it's purpose, and to look for deeper meaning is almost a pointless exercise. People can find deeper meaning in anything they want, even the intangible or completely non-existent. Existential is a made up word that usually acts as a sign that someone has gone beyond the original point, is currently B.S.ing, and you can stop listening to them. My pants are existential. If you ask me to defend that, I will gladly do so, from the top of my head, because I took a high school literature class, and no one could tell when I was lying, being honest, or just B.S.ing.

@ http://kotaku.com/362776/pvp-portal-vs-passage

Sparkamus at 03:37 PM

Art is often defined as having interest in it for its own sake, outside of practical considerations: aesthetic interest.

If "fun" is a practical consideration, akin to satisfying hunger, then a game that primarily engages interest in "fun" rather than aesthetic interest isn't a very good example of art.

On the other hand, if a piece has difficulty engaging our aesthetic interest, it's not a very good work of art.