Relax, It's a Fucking Game

[BlindMessiah94]

I can't tell if the OP is just trolling or being serious, but I'll say this:

Games are toys, but that's not all they are. Putting anything into one small box only serves to limit perspective. Games are toys, but they also have a culture, a community, and more. They are a constantly evolving medium. Just saying "they are toys" doesn't do them respect or acknowledge what they are capable of doing.

 

[Mxrz]

Lot of people want to feel smart, important or relevant. Extra Credits makes them feel enlightened about something they like, so they then go off looking for something to look down upon from their new enlightened perch, etc. etc.

tl;dr. Kids be kids. This forum is probably more one sided in that regard, but the problem isn't widespread enough to be anything other than an occasional annoyance.

 

[zerobudgetgamer]

The problem is video games are not strictly a "toy" like Transformers or Power Rangers action figures, at least not anymore. Compared to "real" mediums that can be used to illicit "artistic merit" - Music, Movies, Art, Literature - Video games have significantly higher levels of interaction and immersion. The player isn't just watching/listening to the exploits of some guy, he BECOMES that guy. This opens up vast avenues of storytelling that could illicit far greater emotions from the player than any medium currently in existence. Of course, this is only a "could". It's neither a "will", "does", or even a "should," really. I'll admit that video games should always be fun first and "artistic" second, but as of right now most businesses don't really care about either.

What I mean by this is that most game publishers only really care about how fun the game is up until they know it can pass for purchasable. This is why you have so many copy-cat "Like XXXX BUT" games out there, and why most F2P games suffer from "Premium Syndrome" where the core fun of the game is free, but special features, like being able to set up shops (with an NPC storekeep), Accessing certain skills/weapons, even customization options, etc. are kept away until you pay them a nominal fee (every month). To those of us who are aware of this, it keeps us from truly enjoying these games, because we know either little effort was created to make a truly "original" game with "original" gameplay or that the publisher wants to suck as much cash from your wallets as possible before you finally say "ENOUGH!"

But I feel I got a bit off-topic here. Instead, I'll end by saying this. When many of us (I hope) say we want to push the medium forward, it's not all to do with making games into art. A lot of us just want to see more publishers take risks and create new games and series instead of grasping desperately onto the series that they created 5, 10, 15 years ago. Budgets are bigger, developers are more talented, but there is a constant push for "more realism" or "better graphics" that could be so better spent trying to make a truly unique game filled with entertaining wonder for all.

 

[deathninja]

A painting can be "art", or it can be a totally sweet picture of a dude on a dragon killing orcs and shit. Likewise my copy of The Expendables doesn't somehow sully your Citizen Kane disc.

Games/interactive media are a medium. There's as much justification of scope for highbrow, thought-provoking works as there is popcorn tits-and-guns material.

 

[The Funslinger]

Look, I have no problem with a game being just a game, but at the same time I do think that advancing gaming as an artistic medium is a worthy goal. I kind of think of it a lot like movies, not all movies are art, some are just good stupid fun, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where some movies couldn't be considered art. It's a valid medium for exploring some deeper thing.

Likewise, just because we give games recognition as an artistic medium, does not mean that all games have to be high art. So, you can happily play with your toys, but don't think that means you have to hold the rest of us back from exploring gaming as something more serious.

All I'm asking is that gaming not be looked at as a toy or as an art form, but instead as a medium which can be used to make toys or art.

I agree with this. I enjoy games with philosophical artistic merit, as well as games that revel in the ridonkulous. However, all games are art, in the sense that the things like the visuals count as art, on par with things like paintings as they're still unique things created by the developers to give the game a sense of aesthetic, and then there are things like a game's music score to consider. Remember, just because people think of games as art doesn't mean they don't think of them as games. "Games are art" doesn't make us a bunch of upper class twats stroking our facial hair sipping champagne flutes.

All this comes down to is that no matter what type of opinion emerges in the world, there will always be someone against it. I find it pathetic that people like the OP arbitrarily hate this point of view when its end goal is to get gaming as much freedom as it needs. How can gaming having a free reign possibly affect your gaming experience negatively? The only gamers who react saying "god, it's only a game" are the people who just don't have the reasoning to see that it isn't some blanket statement to take all the fun out of the medium. They're essentially the same as all the fox news believing game haters, except from a gamer's point of view.

 

[katsumoto03]

For video games to become art, they'd have to stop being video games.

 

[Savagezion]

but games should be fun. Every single one of them. If they're not, then it's a bad game.

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.

WHOA, what the fuck?

Games should be fun! That's just ridiculous! What would be the point of a game that isn't enjoyable?

"Fun" and "good/bad" are subjective. I would be willing to bet you like things that are "cool" and dislike things that "suck". Some people may actually consider The Graveyard a "good game" and there isn't anything wrong with that. Some people think micromanagement of resources in a strategy game is "fun" while other find it "dull". Not everybody enjoys the same things. I swear I don't see how TES is a popular series. I really don't. I don't think they are "fun" despite trying many times to get into them because they are so highly praised. Even though I don't like them I have put about 60 hours into Morrowind and about 30 into Oblivion.

One of the problems is that "good" isn't good enough for the gaming community. A game no longer needs to be released to receive criticism of high caliber. Speculation is what is making Skyrim supposedly the second coming of Christ and Mass Effect 3 dogshit off a conveyor belt. Devil May Cry, hardly an artsy game is being ragged on for giving Dante black hair regardless that it is being done in the name of "fun". Remember Tomb Raider, a game solely about the fun of exploration and sleek combat? People bitched because Lara was just titties and ass selling the game - then I bet those are the same people praising Duke Nukem, a character with WAY less potential for development.

Basically, because everything being stated here is subjective, it is easy to cross the line of hypocrisy. I ain't calling anyone a hypocrite, I'm just saying.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Eh, its good they have that little art grant. Remember, being art allows thinks like
<spoiler=The Vargas Dog>http://s3.hubimg.com/u/1188790_f520.jpg
A tied up starving dog that Nicaragua with "Eres Lo Que Lees" ("You Are What You Read") written above it in dog food

<spoiler=Guernica>http://www.terra.es/personal/asg00003/picasso/grguer2.jpg
A painting by Picasso about the bombing of the town Guernica by its own country's leader using Hitler's planes that is a statement to big military power crushing small might that cares for its homeland that actually needed to be covered up in the UN meeting of the invasion of iraq

and

<spoiler=Saturn Devouring His Son>http://madsilence.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/saturn-devouring-his-son1.jpg
A painting so dark and bleak and violent that I actually saw a woman cry just by seeing it, and is open to many an interpretations

To all exist instead of being destroyed for being too much.

While videogames are just games, its nice to have that freedom, and doesnt really hurt them. No one's really calling them Video Arts now are we?

 

[ZeroMachine]

but games should be fun. Every single one of them. If they're not, then it's a bad game.

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.

WHOA, what the fuck?

Games should be fun! That's just ridiculous! What would be the point of a game that isn't enjoyable?

"Fun" and "good/bad" are subjective. I would be willing to bet you like things that are "cool" and dislike things that "suck". Some people may actually consider The Graveyard a "good game" and there isn't anything wrong with that. Some people think micromanagement of resources in a strategy game is "fun" while other find it "dull". Not everybody enjoys the same things. I swear I don't see how TES is a popular series. I really don't. I don't think they are "fun" despite trying many times to get into them because they are so highly praised. Even though I don't like them I have put about 60 hours into Morrowind and about 30 into Oblivion.

One of the problems is that "good" isn't good enough for the gaming community. A game no longer needs to be released to receive criticism of high caliber. Speculation is what is making Skyrim supposedly the second coming of Christ and Mass Effect 3 dogshit off a conveyor belt. Devil May Cry, hardly an artsy game is being ragged on for giving Dante black hair regardless that it is being done in the name of "fun". Remember Tomb Raider, a game solely about the fun of exploration and sleek combat? People bitched because Lara was just titties and ass selling the game - then I bet those are the same people praising Duke Nukem, a character with WAY less potential for development.

Basically, because everything being stated here is subjective, it is easy to cross the line of hypocrisy. I ain't calling anyone a hypocrite, I'm just saying.

You made it sound like you were implying that if a game isn't fun for ANYONE it's ok. A game that is fun for no one is a failure.

If you're saying that gamers see games they don't find fun as bad games, then yes, and that's a bad thing.

But a game should be fun for at least someone, or else it is a failure as a game.

 

[Wharrgarble]

I think we need a healthy balance of both.

We need titles that we can point to and say "See? These actually DO enrich the lives of those around them!" My father is someone who hates video games with a passion (he was born in the 1940's - total luddite) and since I'm a girl, thinks I have no business playing them. But when he came to visit the other day I convinced him to watch some L.A. Noire, and he was rather taken-aback. He loves Film-Noir; the complexity of the game astounded him and he actually sat down with me and got engaged into the story. He thought they were all Duke Nukem style shooters. Granted, he never bothered to look but the fact that a game such as L.A. Noire exists made him begin to change his previously determined viewpoint.

However, that's not to say we don't need our "just for fun" games. We need those as well. I know there are times when I come home from a stressful day of work and I don't want to have to play something complex. I want to shoot things, so shoot things I do. Left 4 Dead 2 is a game about killing zombies. Lots and lots of waves of zombies. Sometimes? That's all you need.

It doesn't have to be one way or another. It can be both. Movies, books, music... All those genre's have both, so why shouldn't we?

Play what you want and what you like. That's why there's choice.

 

[sergnb]

You know, the beginning of films were pretty much that... pure amusement tools, AKA toys.

And if the medium didn't develop as it has we should have masterpieces like The Fight Club.

I say yes, go on forward, gaming industry, and develop yourself. Just because some games primary objetive is having fun doesn't mean other games can't be deep and insightfull. Other mediums qualified as art still do that. For every Van Gogh painting you have 2000 fanart illustrations that have no meaning other than looking awesome.

For every Pulp Fiction you have 200 Transformers.

You know the drill.

Also, I would like to point out that just because a lot of people agree with a statement and change the view on the subject when they watch certain show or movie, or talk with certain people, it doesn't mean they are sheep. The term sheep drives me crazy. Only hipsters use it. There's no fucking sheeps, there's misinformed people. Tell them something that might collide with their beliefs and they might change their opinion. Shit happens, you know.

 

[Flames66]

but I really could give two shits about whether or not a video game is tasteful or insightful.

*Couldn't*

I personally enjoy playing games, both for their entertainment value and for their deeper attributes. I see no reason that fun and depth have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[klasbo]

Over the past year or two, I've noticed a big shift around these parts (I firmly believe Extra Credits have created a new wave of sheep) concerning "moving the medium forward". I've noticed the word "toy" being thrown out as if was on par with a rapist. Well, last time I checked video games are essentially that; a toy. Something to play with for entertainment.

[...]

Escapees, agree? Disagree? Discuss.

I prefer (and want more of) games that go in the direction of sport (sport in the broad definition that also includes chess, and the like), rather than moving toward some kind of "interactive story/art". Yes, there is artistry and creativity involved in making any game, but I don't like it when people push this aspect of the games just for the sake of "moving the medium forward". Make better experiences as a whole, and work with the strengths of the medium. If you ask me, the best way to do this is to work on player-player interaction, both coop and competitive. This is the massive advantage games have over visual art, books and other storytelling, and combinations such as TV and film. (And at the same time, it's sort of "back to roots" to the Dungeons and Dragons origins of video games as a whole. )

The entertainment value comes as a natural result anyway. All (good) toys are entertainment, and all (good) books, TV shows, films, etc, are also entertainment. Toy stores also sell frisbees, footballs (or soccer balls, as well as other balls), and they all have strong "player-player" type interactions which the vast majority of folks enjoy. This is where games should go (imo, obviously). Art and storytelling should only be used as tools for setting up a context where this player-player interaction can occur (suspension of disbelief, basically).

Also: My Little Pony.
And as long as the sheep are well fed...

 

[Crackin n Shmackin4U]

Look, I have no problem with a game being just a game, but at the same time I do think that advancing gaming as an artistic medium is a worthy goal. I kind of think of it a lot like movies, not all movies are art, some are just good stupid fun, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where some movies couldn't be considered art. It's a valid medium for exploring some deeper thing.

Likewise, just because we give games recognition as an artistic medium, does not mean that all games have to be high art. So, you can happily play with your toys, but don't think that means you have to hold the rest of us back from exploring gaming as something more serious.

This , also It's "just a game" just like football and rugby , people tell you to calm down when you get frusrated about a game but are all understanding if you miss a goal in a soccer match as if the reason for frustration is somehow different "cus sports" , gaming is just an electronic medium for a game rather than a physical one , the environments are different but its fundamentally the same and to be honest what gets me riled up is the stigma , people condemn gaming as a bad influence and there is even an article on this website blaming gaming for aggressive behaviour , my respone is , "and?" what doesnt !? there are plenty of violent programmes , books and movies out there , even ideals , such as karl marx , look what his ideals led to , and there are the parents go out and buy 18s games for their 10 year old children because they regard them as toys , and then they blame the result on the video game !? I'ts the parents fault for not taking the age cert for the game seriously and not bothering to see if it was influencing their children negatively , if it were any other medium the parents would be blamed , and whats really annoying is the fact people listen to absolute morons spouting crap about gaming and shouting over the gaming representatives who actually know what their talking about , ask them a question and then say they are out of time for the interview a second later (FOX) --> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/110273-Fox-News-Attacks-NEA-for-Classifying-Games-as-Art , I mean does it not piss anyone off that the people defending our side aren't being allowed speak , and people blindly follow the words of some bigot who doesnt even bother to do any research at all and just spouts ignorant comments people who havent got a clue about gaming would beleive and just get them riled up , it's just absolute gorilla's shouting over the intelligent people so tehy can't speak , we do also carry some of the blame though --> http://www.cracked.com/article_18571_5-reasons-its-still-not-cool-to-admit-youre-gamer.html?wa_user1=1&wa_user2=Tech&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=flashback and you can't honestly say that if you played through bioshock that you wouldn't have gone through a good story that would make you think rather than if you came out of the fast and the furious 5

 

[mjc0961]

I have no problem with the medium moving forward. My only problem is people acting like we all have to buy this and play that in order for it to happen. No we don't. We don't have to do anything. The medium will advance and grow on its own. I don't have to demand less mindless fun like Saints Row (personally, I demand more Saints Row myself) or less first person shooters to get games like Heavy Rain or LA Noire out of the industry. Hey look, games like those come out regardless of how many CoD clones there are. The only thing gamers have to do is pay attention to what's coming out and pick up whatever games they want. All that other talk about "don't buy this, it's hurting the industry" is rubbish as far as I'm concerned.

"Games" like Fahrenheit/Indigo prophecy, Heavy Rain, Dragon age, Mass effect, etc from the big end, to offerings from Indie devs like Tale of tales and many others that are all blurring the line of what the medium is.

And I fully disagree with this. None of those games are blurring the line of what games are. Games are still what they always were: things we do in our spare time to bring ourselves enjoyment/fun. They're just expanding what kinds of games there are, which is something that has been happening since the medium started. Games like Super Mario Bros did the same kinds of thing that those games you listed are doing today, but it's just hard for us to remember a time when there weren't tons of platforming games to choose from.

The only problem here is that too many people seem to think that fun means "blowing things up" rather than what it truly means which is "enjoying yourself." And to say that games shouldn't be fun is a big problem. Do you want to spend your free time being bored our of your damn mind? I don't. If a game isn't fun, if it's not bringing me any enjoyment, I turn it off and find another game that will. Just like I'll turn off a movie or TV show and put down a book that's failing to entertain me. Sure, for some people it's a career, but if you're just playing as a hobby, fuck yes you should be having fun when you're playing. That's the point of a hobby in the first place.

 

[Savagezion]

-snip-
You made it sound like you were implying that if a game isn't fun for ANYONE it's ok. A game that is fun for no one is a failure.

-snip-

But a game should be fun for at least someone, or else it is a failure as a game.

Right, but is it failing at what it was trying to do? See not all "interactive entertainment" (to quote an earlier term) is trying to be fun. I doubt the graveyard was. At that point, it is just a program you can interact with for entertainment purposes. If someone chooses to interact with that program a lot why is that bad? I can see why someone calling it a game if no one finds it fun is faulty. I think the Graveyard is a great example as I find it retarded as a game personally. But to call it an expression on mortality through the medium I find valid. But what do you call it then? It was already stated that "interactive entertainment" in lamens terms is "a game".

My point there was that many people like different things. For a movie analogy, not every game needs to revolve around fun like the Transformer movies. Some developers may want to do a "Shawshank Redemption" and that isn't automatically bad for the medium nor a bastard of the game industry. It is just for a different type of audience who will indeed find it fun because they tend to like story over "fun" mechanics. (Press A for Awesome)

If you're saying that gamers see games they don't find fun as bad games, then yes, and that's a bad thing.

Well, that goes more into "I don't like things that suck, I like things that are cool". It's OK to not like a game because you don't find it fun. But to assume others shouldn't find it fun because you don't is ludicrous. The people pushing for the medium to move forward in story and richer experiences are doing so because they find that part of games more fun. The reason I love Mass Effect or Dragon Age and can't get into Elder Scrolls is character development. I love character development in all forms of stories. It is where my personal entertainment mostly rests in any story. But I don't wish TES didn't exist, but I do wish they would explore deeper and more interesting stories. However, I also understand they risk alienating the fanbase that got them where they are today by doing so, so I won't be offended if they don't.

Saying the industry should cater to one group's interests over another group's is retarded. There is enough room on the shelves for everybody so long as there is enough of an audience to warrant the games be made. The increase in "artsy" elements to games should show that there is a large group that are actively seeking changes like this.

 

[Chelsea O'shea]

so are you saying music is meaningless?,movies?,any form of art?
see its the same things with games,calling em toys minimizes them,makes them meaningless.
not saying all games are deep and meaningful but saying "they are all toys" is just really dumb.

this is the end of my short rant.

 

[Dfskelleton]

Look, I have no problem with a game being just a game, but at the same time I do think that advancing gaming as an artistic medium is a worthy goal. I kind of think of it a lot like movies, not all movies are art, some are just good stupid fun, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where some movies couldn't be considered art. It's a valid medium for exploring some deeper thing.

Likewise, just because we give games recognition as an artistic medium, does not mean that all games have to be high art. So, you can happily play with your toys, but don't think that means you have to hold the rest of us back from exploring gaming as something more serious.

All I'm asking is that gaming not be looked at as a toy or as an art form, but instead as a medium which can be used to make toys or art.

I don't think I could say anything that hasn't been said by this good man here.
Give him a round of applause, accompanied by photos of adorable animals.

 

[KrubixCube]

I think any game can be considered art. No, it doesn't mean it has to be pretentious, or even good. If something's considered art it doesn't mean it's considered as good art. But is there a craft put into it? Is there thought put into how it's constructed? Yeah. Close enough.

No one in this thread is going to be able to define art without giving someone else a rage attack. I think the debate here is whether or not people are becoming too pretentious about games.

I think it's a good sign, there's a group of people that are too pretentious about any art form (film, music, etc) and it just means that it's moving in the right direction. These people wont go away, and like someone said above, having the popcorn flick equivalents (Bulletstorm) and the art film equivalents (Heavy Rain) in the same console isn't going to tarnish either one or stop people from enjoying them both. Why do they have to compete?