So, I know I have already done a review dismissing the game as a "reddit game." That review is a little popular, but I've been thinking about this game for the past few days again and I need to get my thoughts out.
Right out of the gate, this game is very critical of art as a concept. Themes of being suffocated, overworked, and tired by the concepts of art and what it could be or mean are expressed throughout the game. Such an example is an Applebees being destroyed revealing it as "art." Bubsy is immortalized as the epitome of a bad game in the gaming sphere. To the point where people talk about him as much as they would a good game. In a way Bubsy has become a statue, unchanging and unprecedented in its reception. The game ends with Bubsy getting a second chance by breaking out from his statue referencing the at the time up-coming revival of the Bubsy series. A main question raised throughout the game is if James Turrell can make art out of light or earth then does that make Applebee's or Bubsy 3D art? Well, according to Ben Esposito: no. In an interview with Esposito, he says the game ["[Uses] the aesthetics of a bad game in poorly executed edutainment in order to get people to interact with art, [gets people to] actually think about concepts related to art and the infinite. Being critical of the idea that games should could be art.”](https://killscreen.com/previously/articles/good-laugh-ben-esposito/amp/#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16654923673909&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com)
So for one, the game's dismissal and smug additive towards light being an art form just feels misplaced. Art is the showcase of creative and imaginative power shown in visual form, whether it be paintings, sculptures, etc. James Turrell's artworks are meant to showcase the visual power of the brain. Turrell has a clear sense of artistry with light, and is an undeniable master with the form. He uses color as if it were from a brush painting out beautiful landscapes fully realized within reality. This fine comprehension for light within his work allows for some beautiful pieces. So yes, Turrell's use of light should definitely qualify as art. His artwork very clearly showcases the human skill and creativity required for the medium. Secondly, in response to Esposito's criticism of games as an art form this can go forth onto Bubsy 3D. Programmers, artists, game designers, and the rest of the team working on the game used their creativity and imagination to create something which we can call art. Now, whether that art is good or not is up for debate But regardless it can still be seen as "art" in one way or another. Same thing for Applebee's, whether you like their food or not architects worked to plan out and build the establishments. Food itself is also an art form. It requires people to use their creativity to create and cook new dishes for Applebees that families can eat. This is where Bubsy throws a punch with its criticism of art, by saying that this perception of so many things being considered art can be suffocating.
However, Arcane Kids biggest fault when engaging in these critiques of art is their absence of elaboration on their ideas. This absence even hurts some of the good points they make. I think you can clearly see this in their manifesto which for the most part reads like word vomit, by saying things just for the sake of saying them. Take the excerpt "Stop listening to advice" which is just a backwards and hypocritical thought process. They don't flesh out on what to do instead of listening for advice. It feels like Arcane Kids is demanding for you to stop listening to advice which in of itself is advice. There’s the saying “show don't tell” but there’s a difference between that and just “show.” This lack of contextualisation continues its way into Bubsy. Yes, perceiving so many things as art can be suffocating, but any points or perspectives on how we should be classifying art are never brought up. Art being seen as so many different things is only brought up because it is and nothing more. There are similar criticisms for the ending in which Bubsy rejects art for humanity because art has no relief. This ending is ambiguous in almost a nonsensical way. Bubsy rejects all practices of creative and imaginative works for "humanity." What "humanity" is doesn't really seem to be spelled out. Humanity could mean kindness, or just the human race in general. Maybe this confusion could have been avoided had Bubsy gained some sort of characterization other than "what if the annoying 90s platformer mascot became an art snob.” and Empty attempts at dadaism, absurdism, and overall reeking of the age old saying "I am 14 and this is deep" plague the game's duration as well. As a whole, how does rejecting art as a concept correlate to the human race? Once again, it just seems like Arcane Kids using word vomit, by not following up on anything they say.
Bubsy 3D: Bubsy Visits the James Turrell Retrospective is a game that has very little to say, and what it does have to say is shallow and pretentious. The game doesn't even have much to gain from outside of the message of the game. The gameplay is near Identical to Bubsy 3D (so not good) and collectibles are placed nonsensically and seem to offer no purpose to the overall game. Generally it's not worth playing over watching a video of someone else playing through the game. Reddit is a platform that has little to gain out of actually interacting with it. Most of the time you'll get a bunch of pretentious and shallow comments about whatever you decided to post. Whether it be a piece of art, or your opinion on a piece of media, it's generally not worth it. Do I need to connect the dots for you?
Right out of the gate, this game is very critical of art as a concept. Themes of being suffocated, overworked, and tired by the concepts of art and what it could be or mean are expressed throughout the game. Such an example is an Applebees being destroyed revealing it as "art." Bubsy is immortalized as the epitome of a bad game in the gaming sphere. To the point where people talk about him as much as they would a good game. In a way Bubsy has become a statue, unchanging and unprecedented in its reception. The game ends with Bubsy getting a second chance by breaking out from his statue referencing the at the time up-coming revival of the Bubsy series. A main question raised throughout the game is if James Turrell can make art out of light or earth then does that make Applebee's or Bubsy 3D art? Well, according to Ben Esposito: no. In an interview with Esposito, he says the game ["[Uses] the aesthetics of a bad game in poorly executed edutainment in order to get people to interact with art, [gets people to] actually think about concepts related to art and the infinite. Being critical of the idea that games should could be art.”](https://killscreen.com/previously/articles/good-laugh-ben-esposito/amp/#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16654923673909&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com)
So for one, the game's dismissal and smug additive towards light being an art form just feels misplaced. Art is the showcase of creative and imaginative power shown in visual form, whether it be paintings, sculptures, etc. James Turrell's artworks are meant to showcase the visual power of the brain. Turrell has a clear sense of artistry with light, and is an undeniable master with the form. He uses color as if it were from a brush painting out beautiful landscapes fully realized within reality. This fine comprehension for light within his work allows for some beautiful pieces. So yes, Turrell's use of light should definitely qualify as art. His artwork very clearly showcases the human skill and creativity required for the medium. Secondly, in response to Esposito's criticism of games as an art form this can go forth onto Bubsy 3D. Programmers, artists, game designers, and the rest of the team working on the game used their creativity and imagination to create something which we can call art. Now, whether that art is good or not is up for debate But regardless it can still be seen as "art" in one way or another. Same thing for Applebee's, whether you like their food or not architects worked to plan out and build the establishments. Food itself is also an art form. It requires people to use their creativity to create and cook new dishes for Applebees that families can eat. This is where Bubsy throws a punch with its criticism of art, by saying that this perception of so many things being considered art can be suffocating.
However, Arcane Kids biggest fault when engaging in these critiques of art is their absence of elaboration on their ideas. This absence even hurts some of the good points they make. I think you can clearly see this in their manifesto which for the most part reads like word vomit, by saying things just for the sake of saying them. Take the excerpt "Stop listening to advice" which is just a backwards and hypocritical thought process. They don't flesh out on what to do instead of listening for advice. It feels like Arcane Kids is demanding for you to stop listening to advice which in of itself is advice. There’s the saying “show don't tell” but there’s a difference between that and just “show.” This lack of contextualisation continues its way into Bubsy. Yes, perceiving so many things as art can be suffocating, but any points or perspectives on how we should be classifying art are never brought up. Art being seen as so many different things is only brought up because it is and nothing more. There are similar criticisms for the ending in which Bubsy rejects art for humanity because art has no relief. This ending is ambiguous in almost a nonsensical way. Bubsy rejects all practices of creative and imaginative works for "humanity." What "humanity" is doesn't really seem to be spelled out. Humanity could mean kindness, or just the human race in general. Maybe this confusion could have been avoided had Bubsy gained some sort of characterization other than "what if the annoying 90s platformer mascot became an art snob.” and Empty attempts at dadaism, absurdism, and overall reeking of the age old saying "I am 14 and this is deep" plague the game's duration as well. As a whole, how does rejecting art as a concept correlate to the human race? Once again, it just seems like Arcane Kids using word vomit, by not following up on anything they say.
Bubsy 3D: Bubsy Visits the James Turrell Retrospective is a game that has very little to say, and what it does have to say is shallow and pretentious. The game doesn't even have much to gain from outside of the message of the game. The gameplay is near Identical to Bubsy 3D (so not good) and collectibles are placed nonsensically and seem to offer no purpose to the overall game. Generally it's not worth playing over watching a video of someone else playing through the game. Reddit is a platform that has little to gain out of actually interacting with it. Most of the time you'll get a bunch of pretentious and shallow comments about whatever you decided to post. Whether it be a piece of art, or your opinion on a piece of media, it's generally not worth it. Do I need to connect the dots for you?
5 Comments
more like—more like Bubsy PEE-D. Am I right, snort fellow gamers?
All jokes aside, solid review, good shit. You know how these tires spin; ya good.
All jokes aside, solid review, good shit. You know how these tires spin; ya good.
Okay, i disagree with A LOT of what you just said, i interpreted the game very differently, so i'll explain my thoughts.
First of all, Ben Esposito doesn't say games aren't art, he says "Being critical of the idea that games should could be art.”, which frankly, i, personally think he meant "high art" as in "games should have deep philosophical meanings", which is certainly something that was growing rapidly in the indie scene when this game was made, Braid being a major example, although, i do believe he might have developed his thoughts in a clearer and more cohesive manner considering the narrative shift and stronger message of the epilogue.
The very use of Bubsy as the protagonist creates a very interesting contradiction, exploring the meaning of art using Bubsy as its protagonist is essencial, because he represents just that, the LOWEST of LOW ART, a 90s videogame (which by itself wasn't considered the highest of art forms) and not only that, but one that has been universally panned since forever.
The Epilogue shows much more than just "lol bubsy became an art snob", in Bubsy's dialogue in relation to that art exhibition that contains a giant boulder, you can see what his character really is about, the notion that you should make something that lasts for generations and is "timeless", make your mark on the world, and that's what his character is all about, when he goes to that underground place, you see statues of many famous artists whose art is considered timeless.
The whole point of the game is that in trying to make your art "timeless" and "meaningful" you rob it of art's actual true meaning: human self-expression, when Bubsy chooses "humanity" over "art", the game devolves into Bubsy spinning and shooting zombies in a way of showing that Bubsy rejects the very notion of "high art", returning to what's considered "kitsch" or "low art", because that's how he wants to express himself, so that's what he'll do.
The part about Bubsy himself becoming a statue to be put on display also comments about again, the separation between art and human self-expression in that Bubsy's life, his existence, is just part of his life's work, it's just another piece in his catalogue.
Bubsy's art isn't Bubsy's self-expression anymore, Bubsy's life is simply another one of his own artworks.
In the public's view, Bubsy's artwork hasn't happened because of his personal experiences, thoughts and life in general, his whole life is just the background for his artwork.
First of all, Ben Esposito doesn't say games aren't art, he says "Being critical of the idea that games should could be art.”, which frankly, i, personally think he meant "high art" as in "games should have deep philosophical meanings", which is certainly something that was growing rapidly in the indie scene when this game was made, Braid being a major example, although, i do believe he might have developed his thoughts in a clearer and more cohesive manner considering the narrative shift and stronger message of the epilogue.
The very use of Bubsy as the protagonist creates a very interesting contradiction, exploring the meaning of art using Bubsy as its protagonist is essencial, because he represents just that, the LOWEST of LOW ART, a 90s videogame (which by itself wasn't considered the highest of art forms) and not only that, but one that has been universally panned since forever.
The Epilogue shows much more than just "lol bubsy became an art snob", in Bubsy's dialogue in relation to that art exhibition that contains a giant boulder, you can see what his character really is about, the notion that you should make something that lasts for generations and is "timeless", make your mark on the world, and that's what his character is all about, when he goes to that underground place, you see statues of many famous artists whose art is considered timeless.
The whole point of the game is that in trying to make your art "timeless" and "meaningful" you rob it of art's actual true meaning: human self-expression, when Bubsy chooses "humanity" over "art", the game devolves into Bubsy spinning and shooting zombies in a way of showing that Bubsy rejects the very notion of "high art", returning to what's considered "kitsch" or "low art", because that's how he wants to express himself, so that's what he'll do.
The part about Bubsy himself becoming a statue to be put on display also comments about again, the separation between art and human self-expression in that Bubsy's life, his existence, is just part of his life's work, it's just another piece in his catalogue.
Bubsy's art isn't Bubsy's self-expression anymore, Bubsy's life is simply another one of his own artworks.
In the public's view, Bubsy's artwork hasn't happened because of his personal experiences, thoughts and life in general, his whole life is just the background for his artwork.
very good insight here! I'm still not personally a fan of the way they went about delivering this message, just kinda feels forced in the ways it tries to be humorous and feels very discombobulated but your points are still valid!
LauraLob0 nailed it. I do think what Esposito said in that interview is kind of dumb and doesn’t make sense, but I love how this game throws the complicated relationship of what makes good art or bad art in the midst of mortality. It’s a bad game, Bubsy 3D was a bad game, but they’re human games made by living breathing humans. Esposito knows this but chose to make art too.
Jenny
1 year ago