Are games toys?

[ToastiestZombie]

Lots of people always ask are games art. But you don't see the question "are games toys?" so often. Maybe its because people don't want to admit it, or it's because people dont really want games to be considered toys. So, this thread asks the simple (but very complicated) question "are games toys?".

My two cents: I think that games are toys, but only when they are aimed at children. For example, I would not say that when you are playing Limbo you are playing a toy. But I would say that when you are playing say Lego Star Wars you are playing with a toy, because the lego games are trying to be childs play, whereas Limbo is not.

PS: Didn't add a poll since this question is not black and white enough to deserve a simple poll for showing you opinions.

 

[damocles23]

Nope. They're sotfware.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

Depends. Do you consider books, movies and tv programs to be toys too?

No, because they are used for passive viewing. You dont even call kids tv a toy because a toy is something that you play with.

 

[Rack]

No, they're games.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

There not toys, there a form of media like film and books, Can someone tell that to Germany and Australia?

 

[DrOswald]

Depends. Some games certainly are. but I would like to purpose that being a toy and art are not mutually exclusive.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

No, they're games.

What, I said are games toys, I already know they are games and I wanted to know if you people thought you could classify them as toys or not. Also, put a bit more into your answer.

 

[IKSA]

No games are not toys games are media. I suggest that you watch extra credits episodes for more detail.

 

[GloatingSwine]

What, I said are games toys, I already know they are games and I wanted to know if you people thought you could classify them as toys or not. Also, put a bit more into your answer.

His answer was quite eloquent, if terse. Games and toys are different things. Games, including videogames, board games, card games, or roleplaying games with or without dice, are not toys, because they are games, which are different from toys.

Some of them include toys as components of the game, but the toy is not the game and the game is not the toy.

 

[Wolfram23]

Games? No. But my computer sure is!!!!

 

[krazykidd]

What, I said are games toys, I already know they are games and I wanted to know if you people thought you could classify them as toys or not. Also, put a bit more into your answer.

His answer was quite eloquent, if terse. Games and toys are different things. Games, including videogames, board games, card games, or roleplaying games with or without dice, are not toys, because they are games, which are different from toys.

Some of them include toys as components of the game, but the toy is not the game and the game is not the toy.

This is what i came into this thread to say . You took the words right out of my mouth .

 

[Woodsey]

Nope, they can slap their dicks on the same table as films, music and books.

 

[Hippobatman]

No, they're games.

What, I said are games toys, I already know they are games and I wanted to know if you people thought you could classify them as toys or not. Also, put a bit more into your answer.

It's a fair answer, although not supported by any arguments.

See, I wouldn't necessarily call games toys, and while I'm glad games are receiving more support as an artform, I'm not too sure we should stop just there.

I think the medium as a whole would benefit if it could drop the comparisons to toys, films and art, and rather have games be just that. Standalone category, with no other strings attached.

Of course, I know games are a form of entertainment, which toys, art and films also are a part of. Though, I do believe a video game is something unique in its own right.

 

[x-machina]

Good question, I can definitely see the argument for both sides. I'm going to say yes, there are toys. Simply because they are an interactive form of entertainment. You don't "play" movies or books, but you most definitely play a video game.

That doesn't mean they are not art, I think they can be both

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

When I hear this question, I would sometimes counter with this question (I know, answering a question with another question is pretty lame, but I'm not being formal here!), "Would you give this game/system/console/handheld to a child (Birth - 4-year old)?

This would imply if the parents would be willing to spend hundreds on dollars on a game system, only to have their children not play with it at all, or not use it for its intended purposes (bang it with something, chew on it, stand on it, etc).

Toys are meant to be simple creations that can be mass produced and easily replaced. They are meant to distract a child from their somewhat destructive or disturbances and focus them on something that will not bring anyone harm.

Most of all, toys are meant for kids, not adults. At least for adults, toys have a different meaning/implementation than that for kids (primarily, that they are MEANINGFUL to adults in some way).

Personally, it breaks my heart to see a toddler or infant having the 3DS in their stroller and just drooling, banging it against some solid surface, or just ignoring it completely. That device was not meant for them and parents need to realize that video games are not toys, and that just because you can buy it, doesn't mean that you can justify calling it a toy when you yourself do not know it true purpose.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Very very few games are toys, specifically only the ones with creation aspects and no goals are toys, Minecraft is a nice example of that.

Games with goals, even if made for children are still just games.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

I don't think I'd classify video games as toys. If the primary reasoning is because you 'play' video games just like you 'play' with toys... then why not call music and instruments toys?

Every so often I like to put in a CD I enjoy and play along to it with my guitar. I'm taking an active role in the music, but I certainly wouldn't call my guitar or my CD a 'toy' because I'm 'playing' them.

And with regard to the whole active vs. passive arguement... what about items considered to be toys in which the person playing with them takes a more or less passive role? If I put a Hot Wheels car on a little plastic loop track and watch it roll from the top to the little jump at the bottom, how is that any more active than putting a movie into a DVD player and watching it? Only real difference is the length of time it takes for the thing you're watching to finish (assuming you don't have a particularly epic Hot Wheels track). Or how about watching a Furby roll around on the floor, occasionally saying something to it so that it can parrot your speech back to you? How is that different from watching a movie and shouting at the characters on-screen, or singing along to a song?

 

[doomspore98]

The military uses video games for airforce and navy tactics. I doubt they would call those game toys

 

[IKSA]

Good question, I can definitely see the argument for both sides. I'm going to say yes, there are toys. Simply because they are an interactive form of entertainment. You don't "play" movies or books, but you most definitely play a video game.

That doesn't mean they are not art, I think they can be both

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/art-is-not-the-opposite-of-fun