I realise the Smithsonian has an aura of awe surrounding it; an institute of such respectability that no one would dare criticise it. Well, when they decide to take on the realm of videogames, which I have over 20 years experience in and am an unequivocal expert on, and they screw it up, I'm going to say something. The Smithsonian's Art of Video Games exhibit is flawed and appears to have been devised by an idiot.
.
.
.
You go to the site, you register via an email address and are instantly given a password. You then have 80 votes to spend on games of artistic merit. This in itself is open to abuse, since you could create unlimited fake log-in accounts (which I will be doing), but the worst crime here is how utterly broken their voting system is.
You can only vote for ONE game, in each GENRE category of each system. They don't properly explain this to you, and the HTML is broken anyway in Firefox, forcing me to use Opera, but I only noticed this after I'd voted for Gunstar Heroes under the TARGET category. I then tried to vote for Ranger X but was denied. I had 75 votes left, but they wouldn't allow me to vote in one of the all-time greatest action games on the Mega Drive/Genesis. You're forced to pick between Gunstar, Viewpoint or Ranger X.
The problem here is they expect me to spend the rest of my votes in the other categories. But here's the catch people: who cares about some obscure strategy titles on the Intellivision? I can't vote for Ranger X, but I'm expected to choose either Armor Battle, B-17 Bomber or Utopia? I don't want to vote for any of them! Are they of any significance to anything? 
I realise what they're trying to do. They're trying to force our votes so we don't end up with everyone spending all their votes on Gears of War, Halo and Bioshock, which is fair enough, that's admirable. But the hamfisted way they've devised this means that great games, like Ranger X to give a personal example, are going to be overlooked because they absolutely insist that I need to vote for Utopia on Intellivision. So really, you don't have 80 votes to play around - you have 1 vote for each genre on each system for each era.
The selection of games is reasonable, I will admit, showing that they at least spoke to someone of intelligence in the gaming world. Some will complain about the absence of some games (Demon's Souls?), but the shortlist isn't my problem. They managed to put obscure stuff like Espagaluda and other niche titles in there (Jet Set Radio and Future are both on there too). But because of the way the voting has been forced, it's all redundant, since most categories have a game that everyone will vote for to the detriment of the others, and since you can only vote once in each category it kind of negates the whole exercise. Why put Star Wars next to Super Mario World? No one will ever waste a vote on Star Wars instead of SMW - whereas if they allowed a specific number of votes for ANY game within a specific era, then we'd obviously get a lot of SMW votes, but people would have the opportunity to spend some votes on other games. As it stands, I can guarantee that some great games will receive nothing, simply because of how illogically this has been devised. The only way to correct the shortcomings of this system is to create multiple accounts. I've made several different accounts with email addresses which don't even exist, purely to make use of my 80 votes as I see fit. 80 votes have now been cast, and without the shackles of their arbitrary and illogical system.Whoever devised the voting system had absolutely no clue about games or indeed voting. Or perhaps anything at all. It is a ridiculous exercise in frustration that will only skew the perception of games. Also, Jesus H Christ, Steel Battalion in the same category as Sid Meier's Pirates? Crimson Skies in the same category as Diablo II?
Who in the flaming hell categorised these? Gibbons? Macaques? Mangabeys? If academia can't understand the medium of games, then please just leave it alone and get lost.Man, screw this nonsense.
sounds like the average gamefaq voting system here.
ReplyDeletethey should just get all main gaming websites to do this for them, atleast then it'd be somewhat good/non-retarded.
You'd think after 50 years of videogames people wouldn't still be pulling crap like this off.
I'm probably the only one who thinks this whole thing is kind of silly. Why only do one exhibition on a shitload of video games once, when you sould set up a small part of the gallery to exhibit a different developer/video game each month (You know, like other art works)? Include a bit of concept art/promotional material/cover art, if it's possible to do so. Maybe 3 kiosks for playing the damn things, if it isn't too expensive to do so?
ReplyDeleteI don't know, maybe I'm thinking too highly of people. It's not like this exhibition will change any art critic's mind on video games, anyway...
the smith is feeling it out, if people go for the exhibition, they'll likely invest some money in legitimate research and hire someone who knows something about it. if not, cut it loose. it's an uphill battle to become pop history, right?
ReplyDeleteNormally, a "game exhibit" like this is criticized for being a shallow regurgitation of the same hoary names and images we always get.
ReplyDeleteYet these people obviously know enough about the topic to understand that Super Star Wars has some intrinsic value worth our consideration. The choices offered go well beyond the obvious, and indicate the Smithsonian's good faith effort to present these games as something of cultural import.
But you think they're idiots because they're allowing people like us to vote on it. They're cretins for daring to group games into four categories instead of forty.
Got it.
You've obviously missed what I said.
ReplyDeleteThey're idiots because of the following points combined into a whole:
1) Get someone who knows games to create really brilliant short list, with genuine intelligence behind it.
2) Screw up the voting process to thereby guarantee that certain games will never be chosen.
I'd have rather seen them just make the decision on their own and present us with a final exhibit to discuss. Sure people would complain, but at least the responsibility would have been on the Smithsonian and - furthermore - we wouldn't have been aware of specific games being omitted due to illogical voting. Now when Star Wars doesn't go up, we can all say: well of course it didn't, it was competing against SMW.
I suppose another way to put it is this: I don't advocate democracy, and in cases such as this I would prefer an authoritative body to define things. The double whammy of a poorly conceived voting system, arbitrarily separated by illogical categories (an aerial sim and Diablo together? WTF?), mixed with the ignorant masses being allowed to vote, guarantees that this entire exercise is ****ed before it begins.
"1) Get someone who knows games to create really brilliant short list, with genuine intelligence behind it."
ReplyDelete-As in "an unequivocal expert"?
"...mixed with the ignorant masses being allowed to vote,..."
-And who decides who is ignorant, or what kind of vote qualifies as ignorant? The experts in video games? And who decides who the experts are? Will these experts filter all of the ignorant voters out and decide who votes?
Maybe you are trying to say that the voting system should not exist and a single entity or "expert" make the decisions. Regardless of which, do you realize how silly any of these options sound?
The voting system is in no way designed to present an authoritative, complete, meritocratic, or definitive statement of any kind. It is designed to serve the stated objectives of the exhibition:
ReplyDelete"The Art of Video Games will explore the 40-year evolution of video games as an artistic medium. . . . It will feature games with striking visual graphics and recognize some of the creative individuals who have made significant contributions. . . . [It] is not about the most popular games of all time, nor is it about the individual games themselves. This is not a historic review that seeks to capture every memorable moment in video game history. . . .
"The games were selected based on a variety of criteria, including . . . how the game fit into the narrative of the exhibition, and how world events and popular culture influenced the message of the game."
The Smithsonian wants to create a cross-section of visually interesting games, presenting each in the context of their era and their own hardware. This is why we're asked to consider the merits of Armor Battle only in relation to two other somewhat similar Intellivision games. On the Smithsonian's own terms, it is perfectly "logical," even if cannot result in the sort of exhibit you personally want to see.
As for the very idea of permitting a vote at all (something I didn't realize could offend anyone), it's certainly worth criticizing the Smithsonian's inadequate protections against cheaters. Unless, of course, the critic is going to such elaborate lengths to be one of them.
This is HG101's only content on what is already the largest and most thoughtful exhibition of its kind. You used the opportunity to insult the curator as "incompetent," a "gibbon" with "absolutely no clue about games" who "doesn't understand the medium" and should therefore "get lost." And, despite having ample time to creatively defraud the voting process, you apparently did so without bothering to look up his name.
It's Chris Melissinos. Based on his own work and the people he chose as advisors to the project, it's highly likely he knows of our community. Should he see your contribution to the discussion, I hope he dismisses it as quickly and thoroughly as you did his.
I call things as I see them. This isn't HG101's coverage, this is my coverage. My views do not represent the whole of HG101.
ReplyDeleteI don't know to what degree Chris Melissinos was responsible for the voting system, or the different game categories/genres, but both are so demonstrably ridiculous that I'm not going to give Chris the time of day for this.
I'm sure he's a great guy, but this Smithsonian exhibit is absolutely pathetic. Did upper management perhaps alter his original plan? Or maybe he doesn't know what he's doing.
In your defence of this monstrosity you've ignored one of my major criticisms. Why is an action based flight-sim in the same category as dungeon crawler Diablo II? Can somebody please tell me how in the hell these two are both in the same genre classification? Because by existing side by side, one will negate the other. This single fact is proof enough to me that this entire thing has been badly thought out.
I don't care about either game, so I've no bias here. But whoever categorised this is, as I said previously, an IDIOT. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
You seem to repeatedly misunderstand what I'm trying to say here. If you're going to have a decent shortlist, and if you're going to insist on democratic public voting (something I never support), then at least make sure it functions in as much as every game has an even chance of getting a vote.
Right now certain games are doomed to never get votes.
Anyway, Game On in the UK was a better attempt at a gaming exhibit. This is poorly thought out and will give the wrong impression of gaming. It is garbage.
Try imagining they had an important "traditional" art exhibit. To select whose artists paintings to use they let "the internet" vote. But you have to chose between Michelangelo and da Vinci because they're both Italian Renaissance painters. Neither can you have both Dali and Picasso, because, oh, they're both from Spain and did Surrealism.
ReplyDeleteIt makes no sense to show Super Mario Bros. 3 in an exhibition on the history of video game visual art without showing its origins in Super Mario Bros. and what the West came to know as The Lost Levels, nor Ninja Gaiden without its influences from Castlevania and its impact on followers like Vice: Project Doom.
What sense do lofty statements like this:
"The games were selected based on a variety of criteria, including . . . how the game fit into the narrative of the exhibition, and how world events and popular culture influenced the message of the game."
... make when you have your carefully selected exhibits trimmed down by a blunt popularity vote? This system is so flawed they might as well just have a random generator chose the games.
Hey all, just thought I would pop in and say hello.
ReplyDeleteAs the curator for this exhibition I can assure you of the following things:
1) I am every bit as much a gamer as you are likely to find. Gaming for 35+ years, collector of 40+ systems, 1000+ games and related materials, custom cabs, custom built sticks, the works. Started programming at 9, assembly at 12, hardware hacking, you name it.
2) I am a huge fan of the history of games, own just about every book written on the subject, and know several of the people who pioneered the industry and multiple generations. Had the good fortune to spend the day at Ralph Baer's home and play against him on the original Brown Box that now sits in, where else, the Smithsonian, and discuss the road from his work in the 1950's to his inventions that spanned military simulation, video games, electronic games, etc.
3) I have worked in the games industry for over 12 years, lead the development of client and server based technology for browser based, mobile and embedded technologies.
In short, I actually do know a bit about the video games industry and its history...
@ Sketcz: allow me to clarify a few things and it's ok if you don't want to give me the time of day on this :)
Are the genres perfect? Nope. Are they as detailed as the most die-hard of us would have expected? Nope again. So why the classifications?
This is done to allow us to pull as many sub-genres under one umbrella and demonstrate where certain mechanics or rule sets are appropriated from one game/era to the next. Action based flight sim and a dungeon crawler? Because it is interesting to draw the discussion that a game like Diablo II would leverage a target based mechanic in a dungeon RPG. And, no it was not the first to do this but, hey, I loved Diablo II and can make a case for the artistry+mechanics. In this case it was not a matter of equals across the board, but discovering where/how components are appropriated is one of the things we want to discuss in the narrative we have developed. It is one piece of discussion across a broad dialog.
(continued)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteThis is done to allow us to pull as many sub-genres under one umbrella and demonstrate where certain mechanics or rule sets are appropriated from one game/era to the next. Action based flight sim and a dungeon crawler? Because it is interesting to draw the discussion that a game like Diablo II would leverage a target based mechanic in a dungeon RPG. And, no it was not the first to do this but, hey, I loved Diablo II and can make a case for the artistry+mechanics. In this case it was not a matter of equals across the board, but discovering where/how components are appropriated is one of the things we want to discuss in the narrative we have developed. It is one piece of discussion across a broad dialog.
So why not get the genre pitch perfect, forget about lumping subs into a catchall? Because this exhibition is not just for those of us who are gamers. If I was building it for hardcore gamers alone, I could have just pitched for a Mana series exhibition or one that was a deep dive on Atari from Syzygy to the end of the 2600. But that is not what this exhibition is about. It is not a historical exhibition. it is about the evoluiton of art in/of video games, examined over 20 systems and 4 genres.
This is for anyone who has ever touched games at some point in their lives. Just because someone stopped playing games a long time ago does not mean that those games were not important to them. Bringing multiple generations together to see their connected history, through this medium and to understand the artistry and art within them is the goal. In order to illuminate the artistry, messages and social reflection that games have the capacity to radiate, the discussion must be approachable and resonate.
Sure, I could have pushed the art games angle. But communicating the possibility space for video games to be truly expressive and viewed as art, to an audience that has been told by popular media it is anything but, would not be served by having "The Marriage" on display (http://www.rodvik.com/rodgames/marriage.html). However, explaining the Cold War influence behind Missile Command allows me to frame an experience that a visitor remembers in a context they were not aware of helps to draw out the potential of video games as commentary, for example.
(Continued)
(Continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou asked, in your post, "...who cares about some obsure strategy titles on the Intellivision?". I believe that the genesis of sim/god based games rooted in titles like Utopia are ones we should care about. B-17 Bomber as an overly ambitious game that not only married strategy with action based gaming, but added voice as well. These are important cultural decedents that help to frame where the games we enjoy today come from, how they evolved while keeping core mechanics intact.
Lastly, with regard to the vote. In having to distill the almost 40 years of video games down to 80 titles (just for the core narrative, BTW. There will be more artifacts in the exhibition than just these 80) is an impossible task. You are correct, I could have just picked 80 games myself, built the exhibition and have been done with it. But I wanted to let the public have some voice in what they were going to come and see. So, there are 240 games up for vote that, regardless of the mix, allow me to keep the narrative we have developed in tact. In a very real way, what is happening here is demonstrated in story driven adventure games: the player has the opportunity to make choices while, regardless of those choices, arrives at the conclusion the author intended.
Oh, one more thing. @derboo: we didn't forget Super Mario Brothers. SMB is one of only 5 playable games that will be on display in the exhibition. The reason it was not up for a vote was because there was nothing to vote on. It's influence is evident and it deserves to be there.
In the end folks, I am just glad that there are communities like this that care enough to discuss the importance of preserving the history of video games. Even if you don't agree with every decision we have made regarding the exhibition. Know that it comes from someone who has a deep knowledge of video game history and a true love for the medium.
I thank you for your time, attention and hope you will still come to see the exhibition when it opens.
I can be reached at chrism@pastpixels.com
Cheers!
Chris Melissinos
Thanks for posting my comments, but you forgot to approve the second post I wrote. Here it is for reference:
ReplyDelete"So why not get the genre pitch perfect, forget about lumping subs into a catchall? Because this exhibition is not just for those of us who are gamers. If I was building it for hardcore gamers alone, I could have just pitched for a Mana series exhibition or one that was a deep dive on Atari from Syzygy to the end of the 2600. But that is not what this exhibition is about. It is not a historical exhibition. it is about the evoluiton of art in/of video games, examined over 20 systems and 4 genres.
This is for anyone who has ever touched games at some point in their lives. Just because someone stopped playing games a long time ago does not mean that those games were not important to them. Bringing multiple generations together to see their connected history, through this medium and to understand the artistry and art within them is the goal. In order to illuminate the artistry, messages and social reflection that games have the capacity to radiate, the discussion must be approachable and resonate.
Sure, I could have pushed the art games angle. But communicating the possibility space for video games to be truly expressive and viewed as art, to an audience that has been told by popular media it is anything but, would not be served by having "The Marriage" on display (http://www.rodvik.com/rodgames/marriage.html). However, explaining the Cold War influence behind Missile Command allows me to frame an experience that a visitor remembers in a context they were not aware of helps to draw out the potential of video games as commentary, for example."
Thanks!
Chris Melissinos
Thanks for taking the time to give such an eloquent reply.
ReplyDeleteWell, you clearly have the experience, knowledge and passion needed for such an exhibit. If in conversation someone had mentioned your background prior to my knowing of the exhibit, I’d have said you sounded perfect for the job. As such I retract any and all statements regarding those in charge not understanding games.
But here’s the thing. When I saw the details of the exhibit to me it seemed like it was done by a committee consisting of people who had a sincere understanding of games (and I said as much in my original post, because there is intelligence in the short list), and people who had no clue. I don’t expect detailed explanations of the exhibit’s inner workings and who decides what, but what I’m seeing – in my opinion – doesn’t correlate to your obvious talent and understanding regarding this subject matter. I still don’t agree with the genre categories or the way the voting system works.
You’re absolutely correct when saying distilling a definitive list is impossible – whether it’s an exhibit or magazine article, unless the list is infinite in size there will always be people complaining about something being missing. And I want to say again this isn’t my gripe. It’s the way this appears to have been organised which bothers me. I also dislike public voting systems – I stick to the belief that people in positions of power for such things (curators, journalists, etc) need to be informing the public rather than letting them partially shape things.
I absolutely agree with Derboo’s overall view, that it seems at odds that certain short-listed games will be omitted because they share a similar genre classification (which I feel are flawed anyway), in the same era.
Thanks for the follow-up Sketcz. We could have communicated, more effectively, the framework for the exhibition but I am confidant that the result will meet the needs of both the visitors of the museum and the industry itself. Being able to demonstrate the art behind the games that people recognize is a very powerful way to draw them further into the conversation, have them realize there are more to these games than they thought and create a connection between multiple generations/families.
ReplyDeleteGenres are necessary to frame the discussions, very quickly, and allow me to lead them along a path. In short, it would be easy to demonstrate connection when Pitfall Harry and Nathan Drake are in the, seemingly, same pose. Without a linear progression, it would be 10X more difficult to get this point across in still images and the annotated video that will accompany them.
Oh, and I think most people will be really pleased with the way we will be displaying the exhibition. Wish I could say more about it, but that has to wait!
Last bits with regard to the voting. Again, I can tell the narrative I have to tell with the voting structure in place. It is a very narrow voting mechanism to allow for a bit of movement, but can keep everything in tact. Tough choices? Hell yes (Chrono Trigger, LttP, Earthbound). But I think you will be surprised with which games are winning in some categories. I can tell you that some of the results will catch people completely by surprise while others are a no-brainer. Which is which? For that, you'll have to wait till May.
Personal, painful omissions? TG-16 and Amiga 500. So beautiful and, yet, had to give way for others that are more firmly rooted in the social discussion. Perhaps if I do another exhibition in the future, I may want to do a fan favorites and eclectic one. FM Towns Marty and Adventure Vision anyone? (NOTE: I actually had an AV when I was a kid and my parents threw it out during a move....gah!) But this first one is to help start the public discourse.
Again, thanks for your feedback!
Chris Melissinos
Here's a better voting system: You allow the voters to rank all the titles in any way they want. The same rank can be given to several titles (otherwise it would be a PITA). Non-assigned rankings are treated as bottom-rank by default, however there is also a bonus category named "I dunno anything about this".
ReplyDeleteThe information from all these rankings is put into something called a pairwise matrix, that's a table that tells you for each pair of titles how often A is ranked ahead of B and vice versa. You apply the Schulze Condorcet method to it (look it up on Wikipedia) to determine the overall winner. If you want to know what the most popular game from the 80s or for the SNES or whatever among the voters is, you reduce the pairwise matrix to titles that fit the constraint(s) and then apply the counting method.