Relax, It's a Fucking Game

[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.

 

[Xanadu84]

Of course games should be entertaining toys. But they can also be many, many more things IN ADDITION to toys. And they SHOULD be many more things, because they are a powerful tool for expression that bring joy to a lot of people when they do. To dismiss the idea that games should strive to innovate and move beyond being, "Just a toy" is exactly as bad as dismissing a fun game because you think it should have a deeper meaning. If it brings happiness to an individual then awesome. How is dismissing games that try to be tasteful and insightful any different, any less pretentious really, then an individual dismissing the use of games as toys?

 

[AyreonMaiden]

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?

The side of me that cried during MGS4's microwave hall tells me that games are far more than just "toys" at this point. In the days of the 8 and 16 bit? Yes. Since the PS1/N64 era? Not nearly as much.

The side of me that loves Jim Sterling's trolling tells me that at the end of the day, art is all so subjective that there's no point in "moving the industry forward" because all media have a healthy mix of every genre, make and style within their bodies of work.

What constitutes "moving forward" anyway? Games are as varied in content and depth as movies, music and novels. Indie games have seen a mass resurgence, bringing with it a whole new niche of bizarre, artful works. Games have funding from the government now as an art form. Games have museum exhibits now. How much more "forward" can you "move" before these (as you call them) Extra Credits sheeple are satisfied? The answer is "Don't bother trying to answer, because they'll never be satisfied. So don't think of gaming as something that needs to be moved forward, because this is about as far as it gets. Just try your best to ignore them and keep enjoying games on YOUR terms."

I personally think games are art, but I think it's stupid and pretentious to push that viewpoint on anyone, as if I alone know what's best for the industry. To me, games are neither paintings nor Tonka trucks; they're Legos with which to create both.

 

[William MacKay]

there are some games that should be called art: L.A. Noire for one (in my opinion) due to the graphics/story/voice-acting etc.
there are others which are 'toys': Bulletstorm for example (imo) due to the basic story/focus on killing shit/the shit-killing/and yes, the killing of shit.

if its beautifully crafted and a show-off piece like L.A. Noire ('look what we can do. its like real life. holy shit.') its art. FUN art.
if all you do is distract yourself, its a toy.

also, btw, Minecraft if a toy. not art. you can make art in the toy. but it's like lego, or ikea: bright colours, scandanavian, you build stuff, it looks awesome and you lose hours of your life in the blink of an eye.

 

[Thyunda]

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.

So because something is interactive, it therefore has to bring giggles to your life? Sometimes I play through a game because I love the story, and I HAVE to find out more, rather than because the game makes me chuckle or squeal with delight. There is literally nothing wrong with wanting to make games more into art. I mean, to say it's 'moving forward' might be a bit...snobbish, but definitely moving it further toward genuine art is a good idea.

But, on the flipside, I do adore sitting back with a few bottles of cider, and playing Halo: Reach or Black Ops all night.

 

[Zeekar]

The existence of this thread instantly invalidates the argument posed by it. Games can be Toys and games can be art. The two things are not mutually exclusive, and I agree that the idea that only games that "move the medium forward" are any good is ridiculous. At the same time, the idea that games can only be toys is equally ridiculous.

If games had no artistic merit, no one would be arguing that they do. Art is, after all in the eyes of the beholder. We should all be allowed to make and play the games we want without some ass being a killjoy.

I don't really think we're in disagreement on that count.

 

[Stilkon]

I think the difference here is that we are conscious of games evolving into an art form. With painting and writing and music, people noticed a few pictures/books/songs that seemed particularly noteworthy or inspirational and as such they came into being as art. I can't recall any movements in the past that had to argue that writing or painting were art forms (if there were such instances, please correct me). As such we have a unique position in that we are conscious of our medium becoming art.

Also, not all games have to be taken seriously. Are there books for children? Yes. Are there songs for children? Yes. Are there games for children? Absolutely. But writing and music are still art, are they not? So why should games be any different?

 

[Dastardly]

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?

Not every movie has to be art. Not every drawing has to be art. Not every song has to be art. But some of them are, and they are recognized as such. They are artistic mediums that are also used to create entertaining diversions for their audiences. Some are deep, others aren't, and there's plenty of room for both.

I think all people are looking for here is for video games to be given that same courtesy. Not every video game is a meaningful work of art, and not all of them need to be, or even should be. But some of them are, and they should be recognized as such. Just because you've got crap like Fast Five and The Hangover 2 doesn't mean movies suck. It just means those movies suck.

On one side of the fence are those people who believe no video game could possibly be art, while insisting that film,etc. can be. It's horse shit, of course. And on the other extreme, some people think this means that--at least for now--all video games have to be art, just so that other extreme doesn't have any examples to point to for awhile. Trying to "force" them to see the artful games.

Of course, that doesn't work. Just as in any other medium, there's room for both, there's need for both. We just want video games to have access to artistic legitimacy, in the same way film/painting/poetry/etc. do.

 

[TheTejs]

So books and movies are toys aswell? I guess so.
But toys are a classification for something childs play with (thats the culture around the word, anyways).
we are not childs, well... I'm not. And i see games, movies, paitings and books on the same level, and with the same learning capacity. (in mind the books i'm talking about is fiction genres).
Art like these mediums can make people learn about themselves, they give people perspective, they are not just "toys" they are something much greater.

Offtopic:
A fucking game?
http://xkcd.com/90/

 

[PeePantz]

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.

Very well said. Seriously, that was refreshing to read.

While I do view them as toys, I'm not saying new gaming experiences should be scoffed at or not try to be achieved. However, I hesitate putting so much significance in video games. Sure, it's a great medium that's both fun and entertaining. Sure there's art aspects to it. However, at the end of the day, they're still just video games. For people to enjoy. Everyone's different and there's something for everyone. Too many people think that "pushing the medium" forward is to chop off certain genres or aspects of games. However, they fail to realize that "pushing forward" is to create new genres and new experiences that just add to the old group and not replace them.

 

[deserteagleeye]

I'm not going to make a similar post as this guy's when he has exactly what I was thinking. But it sure does make me feel lazy. :/

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.

 

[Kahunaburger]

You definition of fun differs from mine, that's all.
Fun, for me, encompasses everything that keeps you... engaged. That you want to see the end of, or that you do not want to see end.
Whether it be a book, a movie or a game, or anything else.
And whether that book movie or game be fun in the sense that it makes you laugh or that it chains you to your seat with suspense.
It's probably because English is not my native language.

Ah, there's the problem. At least in the American dialect, "fun" usually implies the experience being directly pleasurable or happy. So Schindler's List or Letters from Iwo Jima aren't considered "fun." People can be glad they saw them, find them engaging, etc. So we may all actually be in agreement but just be using different definitions for the word "fun" haha.

 

[Harry Mason]

Games can be toys, but so can literature and film and sculpture and... Well, any art form that started life as an amusement and grew into something more.

I feel a need to demand more from the games I play because I support the medium moving foreword. It took a lot of dedicated people to take film from Nickelodeons to "Avatar," and there were plenty of people saying it was "just a diversion" and nothing more.

Every generation has its pet art-form that no one takes seriously. From painting to literature to expressionism to poetry... It just so happens that my generation is rallying in a small way behind interactive media. By giving a shit about the quality of games that come out, we are making history.

Short answer: No. I disagree with you.

 

[Outright Villainy]

The fun can be defined however the person consuming the entertainment desires, in the sense that person A enjoys 2001: A Space Oddesey for its intelectual engagement, while person B prefers Transformers because it has a hot chick and explosions.
But if there is no fun, then it is a bad piece of entertainment. Period.
So yes. Every game should be fun. Very much so.

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

You're conflating fun with engaging.

Would describe Schindler's list as fun? Or The Road? No, but they're absolutely worth watching and reading respectively. It doesn't even have to be enjoyable. When I read the Road, I was miserable, but it held my attention utterly, and it had a profound emotional impact on me.

I'm not trying to come off as a pretentious ass here, but you were arguing semantics, and you were wrong.

 

[Adultism]

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?

You took the words right out of my mouth, who gives a shit if a game is crap to you, as long as you like it.

 

[funguy2121]

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.

Very well said. Seriously, that was refreshing to read.

While I do view them as toys, I'm not saying new gaming experiences should be scoffed at or not try to be achieved. However, I hesitate putting so much significance in video games. Sure, it's a great medium that's both fun and entertaining. Sure there's art aspects to it. However, at the end of the day, they're still just video games. For people to enjoy. Everyone's different and there's something for everyone. Too many people think that "pushing the medium" forward is to chop off certain genres or aspects of games. However, they fail to realize that "pushing forward" is to create new genres and new experiences that just add to the old group and not replace them.

That makes sense. Any real artist, whether they're a programmer, a doctor, a composer or a painter should know when not to take themselves too seriously.

 

[TrevHead]

As a gamer who nowadays generally plays more retro game genres like 2D shmups and platformers and can spend spend weeks or months enjoy a single game, finding out all the deep hidden mechanics and mastering them. I must say that im quite dismayed at how shallow some modern games have become.

Part of the problem is gamers themselves and how narrow minded they are when approaching games that are new to them, because they dont look further then the graphics or simple mechanics or ask themselves why do other like gamers that game.

Basically they are been snobbish and its this thats the main problem with art games imo. Both from the Con side who cant see the good aspects of art games, but also the Pro side aswell who tend to be very forgiving and uncritical of art games and fap all over crap like The passage or some 2D artstyle platformer made on gamemaker that buggy, controls like shit and is lacking in any sort of fundamental game design principles.

Art game has two words, art and game, unfortunatly most ppl seem to forget this.

When I think of art game I tend to think of solid games with solid 2D art like Odin sphere and Aquaria or fantastic pixel art by Cave like Deathsmiles and Mushihimisama Futari

These games are the real masterpieces