Why Do We Shut Out The Different? An Article/Rant

[SnowdensOfYesteryear]

One of my favorite games, in the grand scheme of things, would have to be Flower. Jenova Chen and Nicholas Clark really made this really great experience, along with Vincent Diamente's score, really hit home with me. I don't know why, but I am a big fan of it.

For those that don't know Flower, effectively, you play a wind pushing around a singular petal, and you go near other flowers to pick up tiny little petals, and flowers just kindof change the enviornment... it was fun, but it was, just as well, very artsy, very emotionally rising experience. And a lot of people I know, the so-called "Hardcore" gamers, and I'm sure a lot of you, are going, "wow, that sounds terrible," or, for the less politically correct, "that sounds really gay." And, well, I want to talk about that.

It seems a lot of modern, self-proclaimed "hardcore" gamers really, really fucking hate artgames with a real passion. I'm not talking about games with morals, I'm talking about games that are really based around the concept of games as an artform with it's own merits of interactivity, with gameplay maybe not being as much the focus. And I can understand it not being fun, and trust me, I don't like art games that aren't fun, but even with art games that are fun, like Flower, people tend to shut it out for being the general category of not eating someone's brain or pissing napalm or chainsawing someone's balls.

While I can understand the appeal of these games, and like these games just as well, like superhero comics, I really don't get why people shut out everything else.

If I may use an example of how this really shows in even the more sandbox-type ways, another of a game I have had real fun with is called Sleep Is Death. It is a brilliant game completely based around user-created content, in the way that the user creates a little story, with one person acting as the "player" in that story. The way I see it, it was meant for everything, but more for philosophical, self-exploration in a way that couldn't be done in movies and such because it wasn't dependent on, in itself, the user, and also impossible in real, "Hardcore" games such as Gears Of War because there wasn't a person there to interpret the morality or overall decisions of the individual, dependent truly on their overall decisions rather than a temporary multiple-choice question that clearly outlines the right or wrong options. While you may get the occasional idiot on there that forces his morals and choices upon you, mostly, it would be a very intelectually and morally stimulating experience.

I'm not saying that occasional games based entirely around fun would be bad, or stupid, or just a bad experience overall. But that's all you see, or at least all that's easy to find. All that's easy to find are fun, slapstick comedy games and fighting games. Rarely can you appreciate actually intellectualy stimulating concepts.

I like Gears Of War, God Of War. Games like that. I like games that feature girls with big tits as a major feature. But for all the blathering about how games are art, when was the last time you've played a game really about it being art, rather than just having a temporary cool story, that really even made an attempt, no matter how poor, to change your view on something, to alter something? That stirred up any emotion other than "RAAAAGE" or "SAAAAAD RAAAAGE" or maybe occasionally even "INFATUATION LUSTTTTT"? When has a game really done anything but killing people?

I understand people think that this can't be fun. But as it stands, we haven't really given it a chance. So I ask of you, Escapists - why can't we even attempt to try something different? Why, rather than games about murder, or even the occasional one about humping someone, why not make a game, about, say, unrequited love, or aging? Why can't we make a game that truly stimulates, artistically, us? Why can't we have the variety found in movies, books? Why can't we find true art?

Now I'm not saying every game needs to be some emo, navel-gazing experience, but really. Come on guys. Can't we actually not be all about male power fantasies, can't we be at least half as intelligent as we think we are, for five seconds, just to try to experience at least one or two games that actually make us think based upon something, be it our morality, or our own experience.

Other than the extremely rare break-out success in indie or art gaming, like Jon Blow or Jenova Chen, you never hear about, say, Blueberry Garden, you only hear about the violent, stupid "Hardcore" games. So really. Can we not be "hardcore," ultra-manly gamers for a moment and maybe take a moment to, to borrow a philosophy from China, get in more touch with our Yin?

tldr; WHY THE FUCK AREN'T YOU PLAYING PASSAGE RIGHT NOW?

 

[delet]

I disagree with some of the terms you use but I also agree to an extent.

It's easier to shun and destroy that which is different rather than accept it or learn about it. Also, people are much more used to playing games for fun and not art. Most people play games to escape and experience a world they can't. That means super powerful, kill everyone, get all the ladies, etc. Not all games are all about that but a good few are, and those seem to be in the spotlight quite a bit.

 

[SnowdensOfYesteryear]

I disagree with some of the terms you use but I also agree to an extent.

Just out of curiosity, what terms would this be?

It's easier to shun and destroy that which is different rather than accept it or learn about it. Also, people are much more used to playing games for fun and not art. Most people play games to escape and experience a world they can't. That means super powerful, kill everyone, get all the ladies, etc. Not all games are all about that but a good few are, and those seem to be in the spotlight quite a bit.

What bothers me, really, is that movies and books about this tend to be despised by most (though loved... REAAAAAAAAALLLY loved by some) as "gorn" or "Torture porn," like the Saw series. Why, in one medium, is this considered stupid, and in another, the norm? Y'know.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

I think the problem with how people react to "arty" games is what most people say about art. The old "I may not know art, but I know what I like" adage rears it's ugly head. I think part of it, is that people want to unleash some of their repressed violence in a safe medium, like video games.

When an alternative game, like an art game that doesn't allow you to kill anything for longer than 15 seconds, people tend to lose focus and go for something that's more suited to keep people consistently attentive with action.

 

[delet]

I disagree with some of the terms you use but I also agree to an extent.

Just out of curiosity, what terms would this be?

It's easier to shun and destroy that which is different rather than accept it or learn about it. Also, people are much more used to playing games for fun and not art. Most people play games to escape and experience a world they can't. That means super powerful, kill everyone, get all the ladies, etc. Not all games are all about that but a good few are, and those seem to be in the spotlight quite a bit.

What bothers me, really, is that movies and books about this tend to be despised by most (though loved... REAAAAAAAAALLLY loved by some) as "gorn" or "Torture porn," like the Saw series. Why, in one medium, is this considered stupid, and in another, the norm? Y'know.

Emo, saying 'gay' is simply politically incorrect (It's more idiocy than anything else) and the like, but there's nothing to that really.

With things like Saw or Hostel where torture is all there is to it, it's completely torture porn. I think it may also have to do with it being much more realistic than games.

When it comes to games, it's less realistic and as such more of a fiction, I guess. You kill people a lot it games so it's become the norm, while with movies it seems that 'horror' has recently been replaced with 'gorn'.

 

[Megacherv]

I call myself a hardcore gamer, but I use the term meaning that I embrace gaming as part of my way of life. I want to understand how they work, I want to enjoy the stories, and I want to see them progress as art.

I absolutely f**king loved Flower. I saw it when it was announced and was intrigues as I was a fan of flOw. That game actually had me scared whilst playing it. The 5th level where everything was dark and rainy and towering made me feel quite claustrophobic (touching things such as pylons or metal spikes will zap you and cause your petals to burn). This made the last level all the more relieving when you blast all the colour back into the city and brighten the world up again.

 

[The Arc of Eden]

Because despite the average level of intelligence the "Hardcore" gamer has, Games, in the end are boiled down to stimulation. Murder, sex, and reward what keep people interested in seeing that next level, or keep their attention on the plot. But even without this, the games are treated like LSD for your eyes and mind. Something to just stare at in awe while it slowly burns your corneas. An intelligent experience might typically lack this for more contemplative options.

For myself, I prefer the challenge. Puzzles suit me best. The harder it is while remaining a quality experience, the more interested I become. I also enjoy amazing environments and deep immersion through story. The only problem I see with your argument is that, I typically see casual gamers looking for fun, while the hardcore look for quality.

 

[SnowdensOfYesteryear]

Emo, saying 'gay' is simply politically incorrect (It's more idiocy than anything else) and the like, but there's nothing to that really.

With things like Saw or Hostel where torture is all there is to it, it's completely torture porn. I think it may also have to do with it being much more realistic than games.

When it comes to games, it's less realistic and as such more of a fiction, I guess. You kill people a lot it games so it's become the norm, while with movies it seems that 'horror' has recently been replaced with 'gorn'.

I don't really know how to define gay as anything but politically incorrect, but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand so I'll leave that.

Again, I'll take a game like Mad World, which I thought was... okay. It's a game where you prettymuch do nothing but torture and murder people in various ways.

I realized that if I was watching this in a movie, I'd probably consider it one of the... almost scariest, strangest gorn filsm I've ever seen. Only in the medium of videogames could senseless killing like that be something actually, y'know, considered normal and something the protagonist should, actively, participate in.

I think the problem with how people react to "arty" games is what most people say about art. The old "I may not know art, but I know what I like" adage rears it's ugly head. I think part of it, is that people want to unleash some of their repressed violence in a safe medium, like video games.

When an alternative game, like an art game that doesn't allow you to kill anything for longer than 15 seconds, people tend to lose focus and go for something that's more suited to keep people consistently attentive with action.

I was about to say how we've been "Spoiled" by instant-gratification games that allow you to be Rambo at a moment's notice, but we haven't been spoiled, we've been given ADD.

And about the repressed violence thing, again, I think that's perfectly fine, but the artistic potential of the medium is so much greater than what we've expressed as of yet and leaving it untapped, or only tapped by extremely obscure indie games, is really annoying me.

 

[SnowdensOfYesteryear]

I call myself a hardcore gamer, but I use the term meaning that I embrace gaming as part of my way of life. I want to understand how they work, I want to enjoy the stories, and I want to see them progress as art.

I absolutely f**king loved Flower. I saw it when it was announced and was intrigues as I was a fan of flOw. That game actually had me scared whilst playing it. The 5th level where everything was dark and rainy and towering made me feel quite claustrophobic (touching things such as pylons or metal spikes will zap you and cause your petals to burn). This made the last level all the more relieving when you blast all the colour back into the city and brighten the world up again.

I also would call myself a hardcore gamer, but nowadays I see it as more of a way to consider yourself one of those assholes on XBLI or PSN or PC Game's networks that are asshats calling everyone noobs.

And it's good to see another fan of Flower.

I typically see casual gamers looking for fun, while the hardcore look for quality.

I'm a bit confused about what you mean by quality here. Graphics quality? Game quality? Story quality? Isn't a games quality generally considered how fun it is?

 

[scnj]

With things like Saw or Hostel where torture is all there is to it, it's completely torture porn. I think it may also have to do with it being much more realistic than games.

I'd just like to point out that torture is not 'all there is' to Saw. The Saw films, while marketed on their violence, do have a thoughtful developing plotline and are based on a character's moral decisions, twisted as those morals may be. That's why I enjoy the films, because they employ the torture and violence effectively, to further the needs of the plot as opposed to just having it there for the sake of it.

 

[delet]

Again, I'll take a game like Mad World, which I thought was... okay. It's a game where you prettymuch do nothing but torture and murder people in various ways.

I realized that if I was watching this in a movie, I'd probably consider it one of the... almost scariest, strangest gorn filsm I've ever seen. Only in the medium of videogames could senseless killing like that be something actually, y'know, considered normal and something the protagonist should, actively, participate in.

My opinion on games is that I want to play them for only 2 citeria:
1- Good gameplay.
2- Good story.

I can have the first point without the second, but not the second without the first. I could have a gory game like Madworld considered a 'good' game in my opinion if it were generally fun to play, but it would be a terrific game if it had a good story as well. A game with a good story wont redeem a game with shit gameplay though.

With Madworld, I think it was just trying to be a mature game for the Wii and that alone. It's also relatively unrealistic. Think about it: If you saw Madworld in exactly the same artstyle as it is now in the Theaters, you wouldn't be much more disgusted as you would be when playing. (Likely the same 'Oh shit!' feeling would be had in either media.) Movies have the ability to deal with real people and make things look real, thus making things more disgusting or horrible than a game that looks noticeably fake compared to the real world. It's all a difference between being able to tell the difference between reality and fiction.

 

[SnowdensOfYesteryear]

I can have the first point without the second, but not the second without the first. I could have a gory game like Madworld considered a 'good' game in my opinion if it were generally fun to play, but it would be a terrific game if it had a good story as well. A game with a good story wont redeem a game with shit gameplay though.

I'd just like to bring this up - Pathologic was not a game I liked the gameplay of very much at all - I wasn't very fond of it. I kindof hated it, actually. But the pure strength of the storyline and it's questioning of morality and kindof putting you in the shoes of someone who's only intent, at all, was to survive, really drew me in... so... I think that a good enough story, or at least a good enough job at getting you immersed, can overall at least change a game, for me, from "unplayable" to "actually pretty okay-good."

 

[delet]

With things like Saw or Hostel where torture is all there is to it, it's completely torture porn. I think it may also have to do with it being much more realistic than games.

I'd just like to point out that torture is not 'all there is' to Saw. The Saw films, while marketed on their violence, do have a thoughtful developing plotline and are based on a character's moral decisions, twisted as those morals may be. That's why I enjoy the films, because they employ the torture and violence effectively, to further the needs of the plot as opposed to just having it there for the sake of it.

Then you're going to have to excuse me for judging a book by its' cover. I've never seen a Saw movie because I don't much care for torture. I have heard things about the movies though, and have heard that the first few movies were great because they dealt a lot with the psychological aspect which I would consider terrific, truly. I've also heard the latter movies loose what made the earlier ones great and devolved more into straight gorn.

Something I'd like to ask you if you've seen it, there was a movie that came out a while ago by those who made Saw about a burglar who, after entering a house, ends up working to save a family who is being held captive by someone worse. I forget the name, but I thought the premise for that was terrific. The only thing that kept me from checking it out is that it was made by those who made Saw and I'd rather not watch something that is majority filled with Gorn. Do you know much about that movie and the contents within; would I like it?

 

[delet]

I can have the first point without the second, but not the second without the first. I could have a gory game like Madworld considered a 'good' game in my opinion if it were generally fun to play, but it would be a terrific game if it had a good story as well. A game with a good story wont redeem a game with shit gameplay though.

I'd just like to bring this up - Pathologic was not a game I liked the gameplay of very much at all - I wasn't very fond of it. I kindof hated it, actually. But the pure strength of the storyline and it's questioning of morality and kindof putting you in the shoes of someone who's only intent, at all, was to survive, really drew me in... so... I think that a good enough story, or at least a good enough job at getting you immersed, can overall at least change a game, for me, from "unplayable" to "actually pretty okay-good."

While I can understand that, I play games to enjoy them. I would love to have a good story to 'em but ultimately I play them for the fun of it. A good story with horrible gameplay may bring me to watch it through on Youtube or something, but otherwise I wouldn't likely be able to get into as much as something with good gameplay.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

And about the repressed violence thing, again, I think that's perfectly fine, but the artistic potential of the medium is so much greater than what we've expressed as of yet and leaving it untapped, or only tapped by extremely obscure indie games, is really annoying me.

Most major companies don't think it appeals enough to the masses to make such artistic games, because, lets face it, each company, from beloved Valve to hated Activision, are all in it for the money.

Why are they extremely obscure indie games? Because indie developers aren't in it for the money, they have something they're trying to convey, and maybe make a little on the side if possible. Their idea of success is telling their story, not making profit. A big business sees the profits as a measure of success.

Is that a bad thing? Yes and no. As long as they stay on the plus side, they can continue to develop, both games, and develop as a company. If they can't, well then they close and lose everything.

 

[SnowdensOfYesteryear]

While I can understand that, I play games to enjoy them. I would love to have a good story to 'em but ultimately I play them for the fun of it. A good story with horrible gameplay may bring me to watch it through on Youtube or something, but otherwise I wouldn't likely be able to get into as much as something with good gameplay.

I honestly can't think of a game, other than Pathologic, that had shit gameplay but a good story. Examples plox? :3

 

[delet]

While I can understand that, I play games to enjoy them. I would love to have a good story to 'em but ultimately I play them for the fun of it. A good story with horrible gameplay may bring me to watch it through on Youtube or something, but otherwise I wouldn't likely be able to get into as much as something with good gameplay.

I honestly can't think of a game, other than Pathologic, that had shit gameplay but a good story. Examples plox? :3

I wouldn't know; if the gameplay was bad enough I wouldn't have gotten to know the story :3

 

[SnowdensOfYesteryear]

And about the repressed violence thing, again, I think that's perfectly fine, but the artistic potential of the medium is so much greater than what we've expressed as of yet and leaving it untapped, or only tapped by extremely obscure indie games, is really annoying me.

Most major companies don't think it appeals enough to the masses to make such artistic games, because, lets face it, each company, from beloved Valve to hated Activision, are all in it for the money.

Why are they extremely obscure indie games? Because indie developers aren't in it for the money, they have something they're trying to convey, and maybe make a little on the side if possible. Their idea of success is telling their story, not making profit. A big business sees the profits as a measure of success.

Is that a bad thing? Yes and no. As long as they stay on the plus side, they can continue to develop, both games, and develop as a company. If they can't, well then they close and lose everything.

It is my opinion, and possibly only mine, that we are early enough in the gaming industry (as compared to, say, literature or movies) and have enough methods of distribution that we could actually, really, and completely change the distribution of games - if a lot of people, say, spent on Indie games, we really could change developers into either trying to build up a "bedroom" style image, or just to make indie-styled games.

But maybe I'm just insane.

 

[SnowdensOfYesteryear]

While I can understand that, I play games to enjoy them. I would love to have a good story to 'em but ultimately I play them for the fun of it. A good story with horrible gameplay may bring me to watch it through on Youtube or something, but otherwise I wouldn't likely be able to get into as much as something with good gameplay.

I honestly can't think of a game, other than Pathologic, that had shit gameplay but a good story. Examples plox? :3

I wouldn't know; if the gameplay was bad enough I wouldn't have gotten to know the story :3

Well, how would you know, then? You haven't really given it a chance to suck you in.

I can play through bad games, mostly because I have since my childhood, because, y'know. Your mom/dad paid sixty bucks for this or you saved up allowance to pay sixty bucks for it, damn it, you're going to play the shit out of it! And... well, I've kindof kept that philosophy.