Relax, It's a Fucking Game

[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.

 

[sumanoskae]

As far as I'm concerned, the best games work on both levels. No, I don't think technology is the most important advancement in the industry. The best thing to ever come out of that race has been(Arguably) Half-Life 2. Other then that, name one thing the graphics and technology race has done to improve the industry. Graphics and technology obviously aren't the best way to sell a game, the best selling console this generation is the Wii, and graphics and tech can't be used alone to make a good game, so why would we ever make that our primary objective?.

I support graphical and technological advancement as long as they serve games as an art form.

And remember, fun is a part of art as well, when have you ever witnessed a great work of art that wasn't fun?, I kind of thought the definition of "Fun" was to enjoy yourself, isn't that, under all the other stuff, the primary goal of art?. Isn't emotionally and intellectually involving material, the height of artistic achievement, fun?. You don't leave these works feeling more alive as a result?, more whole as a person?. We create mirrors to our own world to make baring it's injustice easier, the techniques we apply, allegory, subtext, philosophical themes, stark character realization. Have these things not enriched our lives, filled our world with life, beauty and majesty?. I can't imagine a more enjoyable activity

If you ask me, high art is the most fun toy there is. If you feel differently, that's fine, but I honestly feel bad for you.

 

[Kahunaburger]

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.

Schindler's List is not really for entertainment, and certainly doesn't "keep you entertained from the fun of [watching it.]" It's certainly engaging, in the same way that some future game with similarly challenging themes would need to be engaging. The point is not that "no game should be fun" but that designing games only with fun and mind is just as much of a silly constraint as making movies only with fun in mind would be.

 

[funguy2121]

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.

I thoroughly enjoy my toys and I strongly believe that the medium should only move forward with technology. Sure, new ideas and creativity are going to happen, but I really could give two shits about whether or not a video game is tasteful or insightful. I don't care if certain companies give my "toys" a bad name. If I'm against something, *gasp*, I just won't play it. I'll condone it and enjoy its right to be made because I'm not a consumer fascist.

Escapees, agree? Disagree? Discuss.

Also, due to the Escapist being my primary and almost sole source of gaming news, are the views here about games moving forward and being an interactive art medium, parallel with the gaming world on whole?

I'll admit, some of the articles and vids on here are approaching the same pseudo-high-mindedness that reminds me of old sitcoms doing bottle episodes and clip shows and passing it off as high art. That kind of comes with the territory, though. For a good frame of reference, you might check out IGN some time. It used to be a great entertainment site, at least for gaming. Now it's a so-so entertainment site that gives out high scores to games like Red Steel. With the Escapist, I know I'm getting content primarily from people who view games through a broader sociological lens. Maybe this intellectualism bothers you, but I'm glad that some developers are trying to put together a compelling story. My reaction to the gamification episode of Extra Credits was (1) This is bullshit and (2) even if it's not, it's a naive fantasy that will very quickly visit more harm on us than good. But I can't really say that about 90% of the EC and MovieBob clips I've viewed on here. I also don't get why Yahtzee focuses so much on story, regardless of the genre, but I still enjoy his content as well.

You see your games as a slightly more grown up version of legos and barbies and GI Joes. Fine. I see them as another medium, somewhat similar to movies. And all the avant-gaurde types out there trying to push the limits of the genres are creating new gaming experiences that are driving the medium forward. The tech is just an impetus.