Rod Humble spills his thoughts on 'The Marriage'
by John Bardinelli 
{ Apr 4th 2007 at 3:47PM }
Rod Humble's art-meets-game title The Marriage is only a few weeks old, but the critical response from both gaming and non-gaming communities has been enormous. Arthouse Games caught up with Rod to dissect his thoughts on the reception of his "game". The interview touched on future projects and also brought up the question we all wanted to hear: What does Rod's wife think of The Marriage?Including an explanation of the game's meaning has been one of the most criticized aspects of The Marriage. Art doesn't come with an instruction manual, games do, and Rod specifically labeled The Marriage as the former. He stands by his decision, however, and is proud to have seen the game affect such a wide audience. Relationship websites even featured his work, fueling the fire that The Marriage is more than just a game.
While you're in the matrimonial mood, check out Kloonigames' April Fools parody of The Marriage aptly titled The Divorce.
[Via Arthouse Games]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
NoHitHair @ Apr 4th 2007 4:00PM
You can't be serious.
At first I believed that it was only an unquenchable thirst for multimillion dollar graphics that helped destroy a once creative and innovative industry. Now it's pretentious bandwagoning lauding over something most closely recognized with contemporary artists who simply throw cans of paint at a canvas.
I give up - gaming really is dead. Even on the micro scale.
http://blog.myspace.com/nohithair
hvnlysoldr @ Apr 4th 2007 4:26PM
Even if this somehow triple posts because of the eaten comments. I CAN'T PLAY ART, I PLAY GAMES!
Rabish12 @ Apr 4th 2007 4:31PM
This guy is, quite possibly, the biggest douche I've ever seen in the gaming industry. The Marriage isn't art, The Marriage doesn't even approach art, and claiming that it is because the rules aren't explained anywhere is retarded. Art isn't art because it isn't explained to you, it's art because it's a work of creative expression, or because it means something. All he's produced is a work of shitty visuals and lackluster... well, everything, and a product that's absolutely meaningless.
The Marriage sucks, and this guy sucks even harder for using his BS to make it that much harder for ANYONE to take the "games as art" argument seriously.
Elijah @ Apr 4th 2007 4:48PM
@1: your comment sounds pretty stereotypically consumerist.
Since when do people program in order to satisfy your specific gaming fetishes?
typoink @ Apr 4th 2007 4:50PM
Firstly, people gibbering "The Marriage isn't art / it's unplayable / etc." are, well, wrong. It's art. So are all games. Gaming is an art form. All memebers of the set are, therefore, art. Some of them are bad. That's okay. Art can suck.
Humble's actually on to something, but he's missing a bit of the point. He's trying to experiment with gameplay as art, but I don't think that's genuinely possible. The gameplay isn't the art form -- the game is. What he's doing is stressing a single element of the game to its extreme. That's cool, and it's good for people to do it every now and again.
The problem is that his game still HAS the elements he's ignoring -- and their weakness is still a detriment to the whole. It's an ugly, shallow game with none-so-great controls. It doesn't help that there's very little GAME to "The Marriage" -- it takes all of three or four minutes to figure out what's going on, and there's NOTHING to keep you playing after that.
"Flow" did a much better job of realizing Humble's intentions. It still elevates play and discovery, but pays enough attention to visuals, complexity, sound, etc. that they don't detract from the play.
Nevertheless, there's definitely something to be said for "The Marriage." It's a clever, if overly simple, design. It's a cute little visualization of a metaphor. It's a good counterpoint to the stagnant-yet-expensive games that have been dominating the industry.
But it's certainly not a pinnacle acheivement. It's a hammered-out thought experiment, and it shows.
David Cater @ Apr 4th 2007 5:03PM
I have to disagree with the tone of the comments above. I tried the game without reading the explanation first...and even though I couldn't describe all of the play mechanics, I immediately understood why it was called The Marriage. The whole concept of having a blue square (clearly masculine) and a pink square (clearly feminine) growing and shrinking, fading and becoming more substantial as symbolic events happened was very effective to me. There was a very clear sense to me that certain things would make one partner (square) more present in the relationship, and also cause to dominate the relationship. It was also clear that the factors controlling those changes were different for the male versus the female, which is very true (in my experience). My guess would be that anyone that hasn't been married would have much more trouble understanding both what was going on and why this is art.
And I would like to add that the reason I think it is art is because it can evoke an emotional response. If you've been in a situation where you were confused and frustrated by your partner and why they couldn't seem to understand you, this game could have an immense impact. I would say that the primary initial response would be relief...a growing awareness upon playing the game that a) it felt familiar, and b) the fact that it felt familiar must mean that other people must feel the same kinds of things...i.e., you're not alone, and you're not crazy. That kind of feedback from an unlikely source can be immensely reassuring, and could help people take those lessons and use them to communicate better. Therefore, I have no problem calling it art.
NoHitHair @ Apr 4th 2007 5:04PM
@4:
Did you actually read what I wrote? I specifically noted a decline in the gaming industry due to the customer function of embracing graphics over gameplay. How in the world does that make me a "stereotypical consumerist?"
I'm not entirely sure what you're implying with "gaming fetishes," but if that includes a want for developers to get back to actually focusing on gameplay and depth then consider me a hardcore fetishist.
http://blog.myspace.com/nohithair
NoHitHair @ Apr 4th 2007 5:16PM
@6:
The problem I have is I believe you are manufacturing meaning and depth for this "game" that otherwise doesn't exist.
To disprove your theory that only a select group of people could understand this game (i.e. married couples), I had only days before invited my parents (who have been married for about 25 years) and their family friends (who had been married for just under 20) to play 'The Marriage.' What resulted was similar to my reaction - boredom and a distinct confusion over why they wasted their time. As an aside, my parents are not only one of the most loving couples I've ever known but they were instrumental in involving me in video gaming culture. Were it not for family sessions around our NES and SNES, I don't know that I would've appreciated classic games as much as I do today.
Lastly, painting 'The Marriage' with a belief that it requires a certain mindset to understand is highly pretentious at best and patently insulting at worst. Determining an individual's ability to grasp concepts based on your interpretation of their lives rather than the merit of their arguments is precisely the root of isms (classism, racism, sexism, etc.).
http://blog.myspace.com/nohithair
AssemblyLineHuman @ Apr 4th 2007 5:23PM
NoHitHair: If it counts for anything, I got basically the same thing out of it as Cater did without reading the explanation. And I'm not married.
Doug Clayton @ Apr 4th 2007 6:03PM
That game sucking fucked. That's about all I can say about it, it wasn't fun, it wasn't interesting, it wasn't interesting, it was fucking pointless. I had the same reaction to flOw, I was so fucking bored out of my mind that I wondered why I even bothered trying it. Please tell these assholes to stop trying. And don't give me shit about me not making videogames. I'm 17. And I have a real life. I'm gonna get back to myspace and Guitar Hero now.
hvnlysoldr @ Apr 4th 2007 6:32PM
Doug Clayton aint no AVGN.
zh @ Apr 4th 2007 6:52PM
Dear NoHitHair:
Please get over yourself. Not everyone believes what you believe. I've watched what I thought to be great movies with smart people who at the end think "Why did I waste my time?" or "I don't get it." Still doesn't mean it lacks merit. If you take a small sample of people similar to you and they all feel the same, then great, you share an opinion. Doesn't make it a universal truth.
The marriage is an interesting idea. It's more like a poem than a painting. Somewhat abstract and meant to reflect the emotional pairing of ideas. I can't say it was great, but it certainly is valid.
Ikthog @ Apr 5th 2007 12:31AM
"And I have a real life. I'm gonna get back to myspace and Guitar Hero now."
Heh.
The problem I had with this is not that he wants it to be taken as art, or that it's boring, but that I don't see any indication that the rules are anything other than arbitrary. For a game that wants so badly to have meaning, and express it through gameplay and game rules, he didn't try very hard to instill meaning in the gameplay mechanics. The events that cause the blue and pink squares to change size and transparency could be randomized without affecting the gameplay... so he's not saying that "When this happens, men do this, while women do this," or even "This is a model of the dynamics of relationships," but rather, "Marriage has rules, this game has rules, therefore this game is a metaphor for marriage."
I would argue, however, that just because somebody creates something and puts it online, and a blog posts a thing about it, that therefore the creator owes you an explanation, and has somehow robbed you or lied to you if you don't like it.
NoHitHair @ Apr 4th 2007 11:03PM
@13:
I'm beginning to get very weary from people who believe it's alright to have their own opinions but if anyone else expresses one of opposition, then they don't have the right to speak. To make it easier for you I'll offer disclaimers.
(In my opinion): Quite simply, I think 'The Marriage' is so incredibly terrible, especially considering the ridiculous praise, that (in my opinion) it works to erode the gaming industry further (in my opinion).
Was that easier for you to understand? Need a pop-up book? While I appreciate your undesired attempt at irony perhaps it would be better to attack the merit of the opinion itself rather than form the first amendment into your warped definitions.
http://blog.myspace.com/nohithair
typoink @ Apr 4th 2007 11:37PM
Alright, nohit, I'll bite. You statement has essentially no merit. You express that you find it terrible with no justification. Okay, that's cool, but it's a subjective opinion about the "quality" of the game. Not much weight.
You then claim that "The Marriage" is hurting the industry. Hmm. How? It's a free-time project that has garnered a degree of interest due to its degree of simplicity and abstraction. Do you really think "The Industry" is going to copycat this game? I can't imagine that happening. It's utterly unsalable.
Further, you were complaining that companies were favoring graphics over gameplay. Sure, fair enough; many of us would agree. "The Marriage," however, does the exact opposite, but favors a very nontraditional gameplay style. You also lambast this, and declare that gaming is dead.
You've created a false dilemna, suggesting that games either fall into category A or category B. Anybody can tell you that there's numerous games that fall in the middle. There's also games with great graphics and unique, fun gameplay.
You're essentially claiming that games that don't innovate are lousy whereas games that innovate in ways you dislike are also lousy. Thus, the only games which aren't lousy are those which greatly innovate in ways which you, specifically, like. What a great way to encourage games to innovate!
I find it astonishing that you sit here denouncing the stagnation of the gaming world while I find the games being released today, especially the "middle tier" games, far more creative than anything I've seen in years.
rob @ Apr 27th 2007 9:06AM
@NoHitHair
(In my opinion): You are an opinionated knob (in my opinion).
NoHitHair @ Apr 5th 2007 12:37AM
@14:
First of all, I really appreciate that someone was actually willing to tackle the argumentation itself instead of whether or not a person has the right to an opinion. I sincerely thank you for that.
"Okay, that's cool, but it's a subjective opinion about the "quality" of the game..."
Claiming my opinion is a "subjective" one is redundant. All opinions are subjective. It is the evidence behind them that creates their strength. Now if you have a problem with the evidence provided (which I could understand considering I offered little [mostly because I have found in my experience the majority of Joystiq readers refuse to read lengthy posts]), that I can understand. So I'll try to present my side.
"You then claim that "The Marriage" is hurting the industry. Hmm. How?"
I believe 'The Marriage' hurts the industry not in the greater economic sense that it can truly have a substantial impact on that billion dollar market, but that it has generated a false appeal to contrast current gaming. Simply because something is unique hardly means it's fun and it most certainly doesn't imply intelligence went into its design. I'm more worried that word of mouth may cause developers to look at this medium as an actual gaming genre and thus further deplete what makes games fun. I don't believe that finding "meaning" in some colorful squares and circles for 5 minutes can possibly fit the definition of enjoyment.
""The Marriage," however, does the exact opposite, but favors a very nontraditional gameplay style."
I don't think this does favor a "nontraditional gameplay style" - I think it doesn't include gameplay whatsoever. This is why I believe it harms gaming. It's precisely aligning 'The Marriage' with innovative gameplay where I have an issue. As far as I'm concerned this type of "gameplay" falls far behind just about every game I've ever played. I think I had more fun with E.T. on the Atari 2600 than I did with 'The Marriage.'
"There's also games with great graphics and unique, fun gameplay."
I never said there wasn't. I have played several games with both features intact and those ones are the best. However, I strongly believe that developers greatly favor expensive and beautiful graphics over gameplay. This claim is hardly spurious and has countless examples as evidenced by games such as the recently released 'Motorstorm': 8 tracks, no offline multiplayer (unheard of for racing games) and no optional events other than a "story" mode, such as time trials or challenge events. Therein lies the difference between Motorstorm and The Marriage - one has graphics and no gameplay, the other has neither.
"You're essentially claiming that games that don't innovate are lousy whereas games that innovate in ways you dislike are also lousy."
Okay, we're back to arguing over whether a person has the right to an opinion. My opinion is that The Marriage did not innovate. If you disagree, prove me wrong. I don't see a damn thing that "game" did any different other than being a colossal waste of time.
"I find it astonishing that you sit here denouncing the stagnation of the gaming world while I find the games being released today, especially the "middle tier" games, far more creative than anything I've seen in years."
I'm sorry you feel that way. I disagree.
http://blog.myspace.com/nohithair