People used to be terrified of mountains. The enormous, empty mass. The often impassable, craggy dead zone of a landscape on which one would struggle to survive.

Now we have visitor centres, paths, cafes, maps, phones, helicopters. Back then they were just a big nothing that one could make no sense of. That's my interpretation, but David O'Reilly would be like "eh. whatever you say."

if the article didn't mention the piano then I would be inclined to argue that this was not interactive - the ability to rotate / change perspective on something that does not react does not fulfil that criteria for me. However as the piano pieces must produce a sound when acted upon they react and therefore I can accept that the work is interactive. I would like to know whether this is the purpose of their inclusion.

I like mountain. For what it is, I often see a lot of words directed at the question of "BUT WHAT IS IT?" I hope more experience based things like this come out to shake off the notion that all games need to answer that question.

David OReilly is a fascinating dude, if you haven't checked out his animation work, please do. External world is a great place to start: http://vimeo.com/19723116 nsfw

Mountain is a video game. I just ended the debate. So there.

Mountain is a program. There, I continued it. ;)

I want to play Flappy Blade of Duty

I think O'Reilly just wanted to make something...an experiment. I sense some frustration in the short interview. Most likely from all the "IS THE A GAME!?" stuff.

Looks interesting...but not worth much time.

Don't really get it but the guy doesn't come across as someone I'd like, dodging questions to make a point that it is pointless. I'm just upset it doesn't have anything to do with Mountains of Madness, would love a simulator for that. On the same topic I was thinking, it would be cool to have a sort of interactive screensaver or I guess just something like this that had some depth, kind of like the Sims where people would go about their lives, have wars and all kinds of stuff and just watch that. Would be kind of neat just building stuff or the world but then having no control over the inhabitants.

You know, I really enjoyed nvidia's grass demo from the GeForce 256 days. You could control your path of flight through pretty blades of grass while soothing music lulled you into a relaxed state of mind, it was almost Flower before there was Flower. I never called it a game, though.

I know this sounds super pretentious and arty and weird, but honestly I think it's the opposite: David OReilly made something kinda cool and people are trying to read arty and pretentious weirdness into it. Check out this collection of shorts and these t-shirts to get a better idea of what this guy's work is like.

@corvak:

This is exactly what I was wondering. He seemed downright confrontational. I can understand not wanting to color people's experience of the game by expressing your intentions but being short and blunt comes off as pretentious.

Mountain Simulator 2014.

Thank goodness there was no traditional gameplay included so it could be properly seen as art. Gameplay would drag down the deeply personal mechanics at play in this piece of art, and it would only encourage people to judge it as a game instead of the art that it is.

The creator doesn't want to say anything about the game or define it in any way because that's all it is - nothing. And yet people can find so much to talk about regarding it; what an amazing commentary about modern society, eh?

What disappointed (I don't know if disappointed is the correct word) me about Mountain was that I walked away with no opinion on it. I played it for a little over 30 minutes and said "huh." It seems the overwhelming majority of players had an opinion on it, which I would say is a success in itself for any piece of art.

There's something to not wanting to explain your art in order to allow others to have an untainted opinion. Like O'Reilly said, "There is no right or wrong interpretation."

This is kind of how I view Mountain:

Just without all the death and despair. And that's not a bad thing.

This makes me think of Noby Noby Boy. I know that game had some weird community-driven progression, but "playing" the game itself was a whole lot of nothing. It was more just to see what would happen next or what the next generated world would look like. Even if it isn't a game, it's still fun to see things like this.

Went out and bought it after reading this article. It's neat. I think its one of those kinds of pieces that you have to be able to be patient, and have appreciation for things that build over time. I check mine whenever I get the chance (generally every hour+).

Really cool, and worth the $1 just for the experience.

Mountain's OK, I'm glad that exists as a little thing, and it is vaguely charming, but that's about it. I hope his career continues in games, we need more people like him making "artware".

It's kind of interesting, in an experimental way. At least the guy isn't trying to make it something it's not.

Like a lake. It's definitely not a lake. It's a mountain.

Great interview.

Think I'll keep my dollar.

Thank-you for the interesting article Patrick. Keep it up :)

I feel like there's a way to answer those questions more meaningfully without having to prescribe meaning to the piece, but I have no idea how I'd do it.

So. His responses are functional.

I tend to understand the 'this is not a game' end of that argument, because it's often indie devs and more often their fans, wanting to get across that the experience is different from say, a typical mass market video game. Similar to how more artistic filmmakers prefer to distance themselves from Hollywood blockbusters. They know the audience that will like their work is not the audience that will like a typical summer action movie, and the same is true with games. I don't think the average Call of Duty player will be at all interested in The Mountain.

With video games, often the artistically designed indie games and mass market games inhabit the same space, where the less popular independent films are often relegated to limited release in select cities and theatres instead of your neighborhood cinema.

This is very much a case of the creator as an artist using video games as a medium, instead of a full time game developer using them as a means of plying their trade as a means to make a living. He has presented The Mountain to the world without context, because like most art, you have to make up your own decision about what it is. I suppose i'm mostly surprised that he chose to speak to Giant Bomb and the video game community, instead of the animation or art community.

@corvak: Interesting, thanks for the reply.

This looks great.

Thanks for posting this.

Actually the interview seemed pretty bad. If it's not a performance, it's just rude. If it is it's less bad, but still a sour note to leave on.

The game itself seems intriguing, but the sort of thing you'd look at briefly and just as quickly move on from. I suppose much like you might look at an unaffecting painting or a clever phrase. Memorable maybe for being generally unmemorable? Or memorable because of something tangentially related to it, as will likely be the case for me.

In any case, the distinction between it being a game or not seems generally useless. It strikes me as an interesting interactive art piece (like an evolving 3D model you can rotate) rather than something interactive enough to be considered a "game". Regardless, it's a thing, though perhaps moreso than any of the other things people have lately contested as being games or not.

Extrapolating a commentary on the handhold-y nature of modern video games seems silly. I think that interpretation speaks more to expectations rather than what's actually present. In that regard, the interpretation could be seen as a commentary in and of itself.

An immediate connection I made when reading this article was to a bit from Family Guy where Peter ruminates on the meaning of a garbage bag flowing in the wind, which as I recall is copied from some other movie that just now I can't remember for the life of me. Anyways, it smacks of looking at something and expecting something more. Expecting there to be some rhyme or reason to it. Why is there a mountain? Why does it look the way it does? Why can I only control the camera? Why do the words "I'm a Total Babe" fly across the screen? What purpose is there to it all?

Well, it's because this and that.

Why? It's just a mountain. How'd you go from that to whatever interpretation you got? More importantly, why did you look at it and try to find some commentary, some ideological point?

That seems like either an interesting or completely vacuous discussion, maybe both. Granted it's a discussion that can quite literally happen by observing and questioning virtually anything, because it's not about what you're looking at, it's about what you want to see.

I don't think this article effectively conveyed that, if it's at all what you were going for. There are shades of it around the part where you brought up the void, but before it can fester and grow into something more, we move on to the interview. Then after that the article just ends.

The interview could've been interesting as a supporting element, but as the grand finale it leaves things feeling... unfinished. What you're left with is an immediate frustration that is not guided by a follow-up, hence the responses here (mine included). The follow-up wouldn't necessarily have to steer the reader towards any particular interpretation, but a reflection on the interview we could have empathized with and possibly something to get us thinking about the actual message the interview speaks to (open interpretation), would have done well to dissipate that immediate frustration.

:(

Is this the dude behind all those computer coding books with different animals on them?

This interview reminds me of the NPR interview with Sigur Ros in some strange way. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15314775

Is this more of a screen saver than art? Maybe. But do I enjoy that it may invoke others to explore using interactive mediums for a new form of art? Absolutely!

This may not be a great example of art but it shows that art can be interactive without being a video game.

And here we see Patrick pulling a Patrick and inserting way too much meaning into a glorified screen saver, and the creator being wishy washy and generally super off-putting at best, passive aggressive at worst.

All mountain boils down to is just a pretty animated screensaver call it a game if you must but it is just a screensaver. Calling it a game is a great sales gimmick

I kinda like the mountain. Its charming and pretty relaxing

Irrespective of whether or not this is a game, a tech demo, a screen saver, a piece of art or whatever. The guy didn't do himself any favours with his responses to Patrick's questions.

@zaphoduk: I guess I agree with you somewhat but at the same time that's his prerogative, isn't it? He doesn't owe anybody anything.

I think that might be the greatest interview I've ever read.

I look forward to future 100% speed runs of Mountain.

His answers to Patrick's question were boring and evasive in the most grating sort of fashion. Just reading his response makes me not want to check out his "game".