Journey Creator: Games Aren't Good Enough for Adults

[Zhukov]

Eeek.

I want to agree with him, God knows gaming needs to grow the fuck up, but yeah... no.

First off, I loved Journey, but by his reasoning it was worthless. Guiding my lanky little jawa across the desert with a stranger didn't do anything "for my life". Don't get me wrong, it was a great experience, but it was no more relevant than headshots in CoD.

Also, I wouldn't place intellectually engaging material above emotionally engaging material. Although he seems to regard them as the same thing which is... odd.

Lastly, adults are perfectly capable of indulging in some good ol' dumb fun every now and again. Yes, it's a shame that that is just about all gaming is capable of delivering, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

 

[Corven]

I'm sorry but this guy seem's to have this preconcieved idea of what an "adult" is, which is going to be called out like some posters already have. You can't lump everyone together who meets some arbitrary age to be considered an adult, and then say they all need to be intellectually stimulated in order for them to enjoy their time with a certain entertainment medium.

For example my father is one of the smartest people I know but he regularly watches and enjoys shows like spongebob.

 

[senobit]

So what happened to games just being pure escapism?, a head shot with a sniper rifle may not be relevent to everyday life but its bloody fun.

 

[lacktheknack]

What's actually written on the home page:

"Journey Creator: Games Aren't Good for Adults"

Talk about an important missing word!

 

[Dresos]

It was a fantastic game and I enjoyed the time I spent on it very much. I didn't learn much if anything at all, but it was awesome to just relax to.

 

[scorptatious]

I loved Journey, but I don't necessarily agree with with the creator on this subject.

Sure, I do like playing games that give me some intellectual stimulation, but I don't think every game has to be like that. Sometimes I just want to play something like Halo, Team Fortress 2, Mario, Kirby ect.

These games aren't particularly deep in the intellectual department, but they do excel in other areas of what makes good games.

 

[somonels]

A headshot with a sniper rifle is a highly sought after and admirable skill. Making them on computers, however, isn't.

So what happened to games just being pure escapism?

Means you have a problem and games won't make it better.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Emotional engagement != intellectual stimulation.

 

[bjj hero]

The guy is full of shit.

I play bass guitar. It is of no use in the rest of my life other than entertaining myself. That doesnt mean music is not good enough to for adult entertainment.

I'll go for one of the worst examples possible. COD...

COD4 was a regular shooter, set in the middle east. I went in all guns blazing with tanks and helicopters, we started to pull out when things turned bad. We evac but I went back in to rescue a downed comrade. We make it and get back to the chopper, Ive saved the day. Typical hero shit.

HOLY SHIT

A nuke goes off, Mushroom cloud floors my chopper and every aircraft in the city. I come too weak, and crawl out of the remains, living long enough to take in the destruction. The city is ruined, buildings crumble and fall, bodies are everywhere.

This is no longer a fun romp shooting the natives. That is powerful. A bit more than a "headshot with a sniper rifle".

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Altogether now...

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggghhhhhh *facepalm

Credit where credit is due, Journey was awesome. But someone really needs to go around the indie developer crowd with a pin and start deflating some heads. Arguably, people like this, who think that games have to follow their specific example before they can have any kind of emotional and intellectual merit are holding back the potential of what games can be more than the suits at EA and Activision ever will.

 

[antipunt]

There's a mix of good and bad here, and I think everyone's already pointing them out. Making 'adultish' games is an awesome concept; I'd like more of those, but we need the 'stoopid' ones too. Also, I'm not sure his reasoning is all that sound....; good conclusion though.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Clearly, playing games is no good for anyone at any age, but that doesn't mean it's bad for you either.

And because your game can be considered artsy by some, doesn't make you a modern day prophet.

 

[Agayek]

"For adults to enjoy something, they need to have intellectual stimulation, something that's related to real life. Playing poker teaches you how to deceive people, and that's relevant to real life. A headshot with a sniper rifle is not relevant to real life."

I may be taking this way out of context, but that's just wrong.


Real life applications doesn't inherently make something more intellectually stimulating.

This. I'm not sure on the actual context there, and I can't be bothered to read the interview it's from, but that particular quote is absurdly wrong.

Something can be intellectually stimulating, extremely emotional and thoroughly engaging without ever being relevant to real life. Case in point: The Lord of the Rings, or any of a number of other fantasy books.

As long as you challenge people's preconceptions, or engage them in the narrative, that's all you need.

From the rest of this article, the core sentiment he appears to be espousing (specifically, that games need to be more intellectually stimulating) is not a bad or unwelcome one IMO. It's just blind to the fact that many games have already reached a level of audience engagement and stimulation on par with (and in some cases possibly even superior to) that of books and movies. More is never a bad thing, but there's nothing inherently in games that prevents it from being done.

 

[esperandote]

If i wanted to learn something useful in life i would go outside, i love doing combos.

 

[RagTagBand]

Oh look, an indie game creator has a giant, pretentious ego. How unexpected!

 

[sethisjimmy]

I disagree completely. Games can and often are pure entertainment, with no real relevancy to real life. They may not teach us important skills but what they do is make us happy.

Beyond that, even though I don't play Call Of Duty or those kinds of multiplayer shooters, if I think for even a minute I can easily come up with real world applications, such as the strategy required for some of these games. You often have to quickly adapt to other players and the map, and form a strategy around these problems. Not to mention the quick reflexes involved in a lot of these shooters.

And on the other hand, completely out of nowhere, we have the question: What in the fuck did FLOWER ever teach anybody? What kind of relevance did that game have to the real world?


The point i'm trying to make is that games don't NEED to teach us anything, and trying to hamfist some terrible life lesson into a game does not make it better. Games often do teach us valuable things, but in no way are they all obliged to teach us real-world applicable skills. For many they are pure fantasy;escapism, they are purposefully nothing like real life. If you are attacking shooting games, then you are attacking all unrealistic games, fantasy, sci fi, everything.


I'm not sure why this guy thinks it's a good idea to compare games to poker anyway, as if poker is the ultimate form of entertainment that all other mediums should look up to.

Anyway I think i'll repost this on the interview at gamasutra. These pompous indie developers have been getting on my nerves lately.

 

[RagTagBand]

Oh look, an indie game creator has a giant, pretentious ego. How unexpected!

Dude, he's not indie.

Okay, Pretentious game creator has a giant, over inflated ego.

 

[Varil]

Dude needs to lighten up.