Relax, It's a Fucking Game

[Treblaine]

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.

Well small tip from someone who does speak English as their first language.

If you enjoy a film like Shindler's List, DO NOT DESCRIBE IT AS FUN. Or people will think you enjoyed it for the worst possible reasons.

"Fun" is not entirely synonymous with "enjoyable".

 

[LopezPerry]

I agree with you man.

 

[Enrathi]

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?

So does that mean all books should be texts and we should do away with all fiction? Books were originally for the extended storage of knowledge, to pass along things that may over time be forgotten. To keep a history and teach the new generations. Writing wasn't created to entertain, therefore it should only be non-fiction.

Radio was originally designed to be wireless telegraph, also not entertainment. Therefore the only programs on radio should be news, no more talk radio or music.

I could keep going, but I think you get the idea. While I think you're taking it to the extreme, I also won't say you're completely wrong. I do believe that games should entertain and don't all need to be "art". Mortal Kombat has no artistic quality whatsoever, but I love it. I also love Red Dead Redemption and LA Noire, both of which are very much the artistic that people mean when they talk about games being art. I've also heard good things about Heavy Rain, but haven't played that one yet myself.

Then there's plenty of games like God of War that are both mindless fun and gore, but also have an interesting story. Demon's Souls is another one, good gameplay, decent, if subdued, story, and difficulty to make me want to throw my controller at times (but not unfair, I've always earned every smack I took). I like DS for its gameplay, world design, and atmosphere. But it also has a story of how man's lust for power was his downfall. Is one required to enjoy the other? Not really, but the sum is greater than its parts. I would have enjoyed either aspect without the other, but together they created something I enjoyed even more.

Hell, the first movies were just literally moving pictures of common sights. Cars, trains, people dancing, just to showcase the technology. Look at Hollywood now. Dramas, comedies, action flicks, horror, romances. If the medium had never developed or become more artistic, either we'd still be watching movies of trains rolling down the tracks or it would have died out completely long ago due to stagnation.

Not every movie has to be Schindler's List and not every game has to be Bulletstorm.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

It can be both. I don't care what others think of my hobby, personally. I just want to enjoy it.

I do.

That's what I was going to say.

It doesn't have to be one way or the other.

[sub]Also I think the OP is pretentious to claim that everyone who watches Extra Credits is a sheep.[/sub]

 

[TiefBlau]

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.

You're not really seeing the point here.

We use the term "game" to describe pretty much anything interactive created for the sake of experience. That's the definition everyone is using for it these days, and if you don't think that's the right definition, then you're going to have to convince everyone to adopt a new definition before you start complaining.

So maybe someday, we can categorize them into video games and interactive fiction, but for now, we're just going to have to deal with calling both of them games.

But that doesn't mean we should judge them all as the same kind of game.

You might not like the kind of art games that other people do. That's fine. No one's forcing you or expecting you to play them and like them. But on the other hand, the world doesn't revolve around you and you can't expect everyone to tailor to your individual tastes. If you're not the target audience, play another game. Don't complain about this one.

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.

That's great. You continue playing with your toys. I like toys as well, but I also like the art stuff being made, and I like to see when people experiment with the concept of interactivity. If you don't like this, you don't have to do it. Again, no one's forcing you to do anything.

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.

Yes, don't be a consumer fascist.

If you don't like art games, don't play them. Don't get on this huge schpeel and start insulting other people for liking them. Just because you play games doesn't mean you have to act like a fucking baby.

 

[CyprisVeil]

Sorry if I'd prefer to have decent stories in my RPGs. I love Extra Credits. Yeah, it's a game, but that's no excuse not to move the medium forward. Other forms of media have improved from it, why shouldn't gaming?

 

[KrubixCube]

Maybe it's just been because there's been so many good games that advance the storytelling parts of games. I think it's annoying when people get so uppity about anything that isn't "art" but surely it's a good thing that people expect more of their games. If I get one more games that take themselves seriously and is about a military grunt fighting vaguely terrorist/chinese/korean/russian people I might kill something.

But all games are art, even if they're not high brow. Do you have an emotional reaction to it that was intentional on the developer's part? Well then...good enough.

 

[Zaik]

Yes, I too noticed the dirty hipsters trying to ruin something else for everyone involved.

I laughed, mostly in their faces, and intentionally bought games they hated because they weren't pretentious clusterfucks, and then proceeded to have fun with them. They cried on an internet forum, and the world somehow managed to keep spinning.

My opinion on the issue should be obvious.

 

[Android2137]

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

Dear lord. How can you pass even one level in that game? I know there's only a 1 pixel hitbox, but still.

Anyway, why is it so bad if we want our games to explore more artistic directions? It doesn't mean that we don't want the fun games to stop being made either or that it can't be both fun and artistic.

 

[kikon9]

YOU CAN HAVE BOTH!
There will always be "fun" games and there will always be "art" games. These are not mutually exclusive. In the same way that there are artistic films and enjoyment films, there can be the same two groups in games.

 

[Marble Dragon]

Why can't art be fun? I like looking back on an experience and thinking about it. When I walk out of a classical concert, I sometimes feel as if my heart has escaped me. As if I don't need wings to fly. Because for a moment there, the emotion of the piece stunned my brain, and it was just my heart driving me. And I love it when games are able to do the same thing, without all the effort of putting on a fancy dress, putting my hair up, going somewhere and playing the horn. (I mean, seriously, what a pain in the ass.)

I'm not saying I can't have fun with a stupid zombie shooter. Those are great! Adrenaline rushes, fear, excitement - it's all there. I like witty games. I like all sorts of games - that's why I call myself a gamer. But I also like art. And I think that zombie game can have artistic merit without sacrificing all the bloody, gory fun.

You don't care about art? That's cool. Go on enjoying your toys, and go on calling them what they really are. But realize that there are people out there who think games could be something more, and that they have just as much right to games they like as you.
...Or you could make an angry post about how stupid they are for wanting an insight into something deeper. I guess that's cool too.

Long story short: If you want to look at cave paintings all your life, that's fine. But the Mona Lisa was more than just a fucking pretty picture, and people like it that way.

 

[fates_puppet13]

the views of extra credits have been about since before youtube
so sheep hardly

games are art
and we should strive to bring our medium forward for the respect the deserve

are all games art
no
flims are art
are the saw films art
no
they're pieces of crap
is the hangover art
no but its funny

the point is we should strive to have games respected and encourage innovation
otherwise we'll forever be slandered by fox news as adults only by age
and all we'll have is fps "grey-brown-lots-of-bloom" forever

even if we don't all agree on if i should be an art
we should at least desire the respect for our chosen outlet deserves
and we should demand better gamesfrom publishers whilst not being unresonable

because then we would have better toys to enjoy as you'de view it

 

[LarenzoAOG]

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 agree for the most part, games were and, for the most part, are meant to be enjoyed, but is it too much to ask that a toy be fun and maybe teach us something? Or that a toy be made that can be appreciated for more than just being fun to play with?

 

[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.