[kibwen]

DF, Another World, and NetHack were three pleasant surprises out of that list (though I might have preferred Rogue or DCSS in place of NetHack, depending on what their focus is).

Then again, in increasing order of bafflement: Canabalt (fun and beautiful, but not sure if it's world-class-museum-quality), Animal Crossing, and Passage (what the hell??).

[Fargren]

I think both Canabalt and Passage are great exponents of current schools of game making (if you can call the "indie game" and the "art game" a school). They show what people with similar interest to those that made Katamari Damacy are doing on much lower budgets.

Animal Crossing does seem odd though, specially considering The Sims is already there. Seems redundant at best.

[kibwen]

My gripe about the inclusion of Canabalt isn't the game itself, it's that it's just too recent to determine if it will really withstand the test of time. Another World was a fun and beautiful game that barely got any press or sales at all, yet the fact that we still remember it all these years later is a testament to its merit.

And now that Canabalt's been selected for the MoMA's permanent collection, it will be forever impossible to determine whether the game was remembered because of its own staying power, or just because the MoMA told us that we ought to remember it.

[nsfmc]

"it will be forever impossible to determine whether the game was remembered because of its own staying power, or just because the MoMA told us that we ought to remember it."

Isn't that the case with all contemporary art acquisitions, though? I'm reminded of this quote by Dave Hickey from Air Guitar:

"Since there is no absolute authority in the art world, or in the economic world either, we may presume that for every opinion, there is a contrary one. Thus, the social value of a work of art, or an art critic, or a theory, or an institution must be distinguished from its social virtue, since bad reviews, stupid acquisitions, and theoretical attacks, even as they question the social virtue of an object or investment, must necessarily invest it with social value. The raw investment of attention, positive or negative, qualifies certain works of art as “players” in the discourse. So, even though it may appear to you that nearly everyone hates Jeff Koons’ work, the critical point is that people take the time and effort to hate it, publicly and at length, and this investment of attention effectively endows Koons’ work with more importance than the work of those artists whose work we like, but not enough to get excited about."

I mean, give it time or ignore it, or both. All museums make questionable purchases. Being in the permanent collection is certainly a boon, but it won't change how people fundamentally feel about the art in a few generations. Maybe it'll remain successful, maybe it won't, but it certainly captures something which i guess is reason enough to acquire it.

[Steuard]

I've always had the impression that Nethack had pretty much the best attention to detail of any roguelike game, and the most thoroughly developed game world (though much of that only becomes apparent about halfway through the game). Rogue clearly would have been a great choice from a historical standpoint, but I can't argue with their choice that Nethack is pretty amazing as a work of art. (I can't comment on DCSS.)

[kibwen]

It depends on how you define "attention to detail". Both NetHack and DCSS feature online play and fiendish difficulty. NetHack's claim to fame is its complex system of interactions and "the devteam thinks of everything"[1].

On the other hand, DCSS is the pinnacle of roguelike usability. The devs strive to make the game "fair"--which is to say, a death is (99.9% of the time) your fault, and not just bad luck. So no instadeaths, no save-or-die effects, and spoilers should be largely unnecessary (that's the philosophy, at least...). They also hold annual usability studies and incorporate that feedback into the game. As a result, it's a game that's both very approachable and very deep. I highly recommend it if you're a fan of roguelikes.

[1] http://nethack.wikia.com/wiki/The_DevTeam_Thinks_Of_Everythi...

[danso]

I love Passage. It really is a game as a piece of art, even if it is not fun by traditional gaming standards. But I've seen few games so effectively show how the viewer's interactivity can add a whole new, thoughtful dimension to experiencing art.

[kibwen]

You're right, though my objection is mainly that I don't consider it a "game" if it isn't actually fun. :) I could call it "interactive art" instead, but now we're just arguing semantics...

[danso]

Your comment brought to mind how immature a stage that games as art are...nearly every game on that list is a critical rave, with possibly the exception of Passage. They may not all be popular, such as DF, but they are good at serving their niche.

If you go to the MoMA today, you'll see at least three or four "paintings" which are basically blank. There's even an entire wall devoted to the absence of any art...more of a made-you-look kind of thing...which was even less than the entire wall I once saw devoted to a yogurt cup...

So when video games that are e equivalent of a "blank wall" show up, then games will have definitely broken into the art scene.

And no, ET doesn't count because it wasn't intended to be a steaming pile of shot...allegedly...

[kibwen]

I think there's an important insight hiding here. Art-world folk are perhaps overeager to shoehorn games into their definition of "art" (which is naturally rather nebulous). Just because a piece of software has NES-era graphics and allows you to use the keyboard to move a sprite around does not, to my mind, instantly qualify it as a game.

By a similar token, a box containing a blank white board and a single six-sided die does not instantly attain the status of a board game. And even though it is, perhaps, art--and fully something I'd expect to see in a board game exhibit in a museum of modern art--I wouldn't begrudge board game enthusiasts (of which I know many) if they grumbled at how such a "useless" exhibit was soaking up attention that could have been devoted to a game that was more substantial, more influential, and more representative of what board games really are.

But at the end of the day we're still just disagreeing over the definition of "art", which is perhaps the least constructive argument that has ever taken place in the history of humanity. :)