Relax, It's a Fucking Game

[Kahunaburger]

But if there is no fun, then it is a bad piece of entertainment. Period.

Yes. But who says that art always has to be for entertainment? Is Letters from Iwo Jima "fun?" No. Is it a good movie? Yes.

You are so very, horribly wrong I actually feel sorry for you. What a joyless existence you must lead.

Ah, so if we want to experience something as anything other than a consumer product we're joyless. Got it.

 

[PeePantz]

Games can be whatever, honestly, although I'm hugely not a fan of games that have clunky mechanics to make a point. But take the upcoming 6 Days in Fallujah - the devs don't describe it as a "fun" experience, because it's supposed to communicate what it's like to be a soldier in a modern war. Compare The Hurt Locker, which isn't very "fun" but is a very good movie I'm glad I watched.

The environment the game takes place in wouldn't be fun if it wasn't a game (yes, I understand that Fallujah is a place and the start to a bloody takeover in Iraq, but I'm talking about the game). However, for a video game, it's a perfectly fun place. Things to shoot and blow up. Things to duck and cover behind/under to survive. Gadgets to use. Very fun. Real war = total downer. Wars in video games = Fun.

 

[dantoddd]

Thinking that games are just toys, is akin to the argument that "All games should be fun" which is simply not true.

I think fun is the wrong word here.

All games should be "enjoyable"

 

[Treblaine]

Thinking that games are just toys, is akin to the argument that "All games should be fun" which is simply not true.

Excuse me, but WHAT?!

Not fun =/= not worth doing.

Shindler's List was not a "fun" movie but definitely worth watching.

People talk about the Citizen Kain of games, I want the Shindler's List of games! A game that is horrible yet compelling, moving and significant.

(And that is the END of my VERY broad comparison between games and movies, I know how very very different they are but such broad concepts as emotional and intellectual reasons to enjoy things can still have some things conceptually in common between both mediums.)

In a way we have had such not-fun-but-good games such as "I Have Not Mouth, And I Must Scream".

Definitely a game.
Definitely NOT Fun.
DEFINITELY a great work of art.

 

[ryai458]

Believe it or not games are just games, monopoly isn't art and neither is killzone, deal with it.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I'll agree on one point: people need to chill out about how companies advertise something. If EA wants to create controversy to raise publicity for something, let them. Also, people calling games like DNF "bad for the industry". Essentially, I have a problem with both extremes. People who insist that gaming needs to do everything in its power to advance as an artistic medium and people who just want games to be about fun.

 

[MightyMole]

I think games should only be considered art if they seamlessly combine complexity with simple fun. This being said, I think Pokemon is an underappretiated masterpiece. You can't name many games that have a rabbithole as deep as it does but is still so simple and fun on the surface, anyone who can read can enjoy it.

 

[Treblaine]

Real war = total downer. Wars in video games = Fun.

See this is why we NEED shows like Extra-Credits.

(closes window and leaves thread)

 

[ultimateownage]

People need to shut the fuck up about their predictions about how the industry should work. It's just growing up, it'll do what it needs to do and the people who can't adapt *cough*Activision*cough* will go. Also, people need to understand what art actually means.

art/ärt/Noun
1. The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Yes games can be art. Can be. Just like not all movies are art and not all paintings have to make a statement, only some games are art. Now shut up about art already.

Videogames are the new comic books. People always thought comic books were all just children's things, now not all of them are.

 

[Naeras]

A lot of people don't give a shit about art. That's fine really. There's a lot of games that are simply trying to provide fun for the players, while some games try to provide experiences that reach beyond that, and some even succeed. I can enjoy both of them. Just like movies can be both mindless fun and/or thought provoking. Or like books. Or pictures. Or comics. They can try to give introspection in the human condition or teach us something about ourselves, or they can be just stupid fun.

I still have to say I vouch for games as an art form, in other words.

 

[Stako]

Sure, games are games. But there are those of us who find the subtle in them. And don't you dare say there is no such thing, because that would only make you a blind man in denial. Some games are practically art now. So, yes, there are games which are just games, but there are others, wich are more than 'toys'. If you havent found and played them - you should, they are quite good. ^^

 

[Kahunaburger]

Games can be whatever, honestly, although I'm hugely not a fan of games that have clunky mechanics to make a point. But take the upcoming 6 Days in Fallujah - the devs don't describe it as a "fun" experience, because it's supposed to communicate what it's like to be a soldier in a modern war. Compare The Hurt Locker, which isn't very "fun" but is a very good movie I'm glad I watched.

The environment the game takes place in wouldn't be fun if it wasn't a game (yes, I understand that Fallujah is a place and the start to a bloody takeover in Iraq, but I'm talking about the game). However, for a video game, it's a perfectly fun place. Things to shoot and blow up. Things to duck and cover behind/under to survive. Gadgets to use. Very fun. Real war = total downer. Wars in video games = Fun.

If you look at what the devs say, it's not designed to be fun or comfortable. It's designed to be a harsh, challenging, but interesting experience - again, compare The Hurt Locker. You can engage either work* as simple entertainment, but in that case you'd be missing out.

*this is all assuming that 6 Days in Fallujah is what it's hyped to be.

 

[Vladimir Francois Tchaikovski]

Thinking that games are just toys, is akin to the argument that "All games should be fun" which is simply not true. The problem here is that we still havent found a better thing to call these simulated experiences other than games. Its long since past time since we needed to rename what the medium is, because by refering to it as games, were just landlocking ourselves one idea of what the medium is, when in fact it is many different things.

I understand that this could create a lot of ping-ponging between us without much results, but games should be fun. Every single one of them. If they're not, then it's a bad game. Sure, my xbox or your pc can do a lot more than games and can even host a medium that's interactive but not necessarily a game. However, that's not a video game and I don't think it should ever be one. While the lines get blurry, one shouldn't stray because they can.

People dont watch "Schindler's List" for fun but you can't deny that its a good film.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Big difference between 'toy' and 'entertainment'

I firmly believe that the primary goal of any creative medium, such as books, films, tv shows, art, sculpture, videogames, comic books, should be to entertain. Any related objectives, such as informing or teaching, should be secondary to entertaining people, because if you are being creative and not entertaining someone then I think you're doing it wrong.

So how do games fit in? Well in the past games only entertained. You loaded a coin in to the arcade machine, picked up the plastic gun and experienced nary a thought from beginning to end. Now games are beginning to have stories, and some games are even challenging us to actually think about serious things. Mass Effect and Fallout may get a lot of stick for their morality systems but really fallout 3 in paritcular has some choices which don't seem to have good outcomes, and all you can do is find the one you personally are okay with. This is a massive leap forwards and potentially opens games up to being even better than films and books because instead of having to accept the writer's idea of what the only acceptable solution ways you can choose your own, a lot like how y'know, actual morality works.

To say a game is 'just' a game is immature and annoying. A game can and should be so much more. I hate to quote Yahtzee again but he puts it quite nicely in the Batman review, 'Was Watchmen just comic book writing, was Schindler's List just a bunch of flickery lights on a wall?' If there weren't people who for every medium in existence said 'Can this be something more, and not 'just' a silly way to entertain people,' then we wouldn't have the entirety of human culture.

I truly believe that gaming is the next big step in human culture. Interactive Entertainment that builds upon what has come before in the same way that storytelling has built itself throughout history. And anyone who says we shouldn't be thinking about this because it's 'just a toy' is holding us back just as badly as the uninformed idiots and pissants at places like FOX News. Let gaming become something more.

EDIT: Meant to add, 'entertainment' doesn't necessarily mean 'make you feel good or happy.' At least not for me when I use it in this context. There isn't really a word yet to describe what I mean exactly. Schindler's List is entertainment, but that doesn't preclude it from being deep and thought provoking. Watchmen is entertainment, but that doesn't stop it from being one of the greatest comic books and I believe one of the greatest stories ever written.

'Sad is just happy for deep people' - Doctor Who: Blink

 

[LCP]

You could say the same thing about sports.

 

[MaVeN1337]

Surely by making a post about this topic, you've identified yourself as someone who gets bothered about it?

Exactly that.

 

[Halceon]

In this thread: broad generalisations, overstatements, categorical positions, extremism and bile, that will drown out the sensible arguments.
"Games should be fun and nothing but fun" vs "games should be art and nothing but art".

 

[icame]

I wholeheartedly agree..mostly

I do want games to grow up, deal with mature subjects and the like, but we also need games that are there to simply entertain.

 

[MrCollins]

Well, it seems almost unanimous, we don't want games as only toys OR games as just a way of expressing artistic creation.
We want both, the simple fact of the matter is, the broader and more wide spread games become (in both audiences reached and themes covered), the better gaming as a whole will be.

But the a part of gamers resist this, and every time something new pops up (the wii selling itself to housewives and pensioners, or facebook and Zynga pioneering social games), cries can be heard saying things like "oooooh this is the end, the villainous scum is upon us, all REAL games will disappear" (whatever that means)

Fun games do not compromise Artistic ones, they are built by practically different industries, as most arty games are indy companies that function very differantly from your average AAA studio.
And Artistic ones will not remove the fun ones, it's sheer economics, people will buy fun, people will sell fun

 

[PeePantz]

People dont watch "Schindler's List" for fun but you can't deny that its a good film.

People also don't "play" movies. People aren't good at "Schindler's List". Games are meant to be played and are meant to be fun. "Schindler's List" was entertaining which is what you want from movies. Games are meant to be fun. Like Risk, Sorry, and "Go Fish". Games will keep you entertained from the fun of playing them.