I think we can be reasonably certain where most of escapees will come down on the issue of games as art.
So we're not talking about that. It's also (mostly, I feel) a debate that should be external, not internal. We should be engaging our culture(s) as a whole with this issue, not just circulating it ad nauseum among ourselves
However there is an issue that should really be debated internally that most people don't really seem to talk about that much...
This is an important question that we as gamers need to deal with, because it is linked to "games as art." Personally I think that Ebert's whole issue is that he doesn't believe in fun, and therefore feels that anything that is fun isn't art... But I digress...
Are video games supposed to be "fun?"
And please, no Definist fallacies...
I'm not really sure that Games = Fun is a great argument.
I think there are several things to consider:
1. What is fun? ex. Is fun more fun when it's experienced in the now, or is fun more fun when it's remembered as fun? That sentence was fun to write...
2. Of the games that you have played in the last year, how many of those would you immediately describe as fun? I've got two The Blob 2 and 'Splosion Man. Every other game I've played over the last twelve months (and they are legion) get's words like: blah, compelling, interesting, engaging, satisfying, like hookers and blow at three in the morning (GTA).
3. Have you completed any games in the last twelve months that weren't fun?
So there you have it.
4. If games are, or are not supposed to be fun, where do we go (or not go) from here? What are your conclusions... etc. yadyadyadyada
Are video games supposed to be fun?
Salaam
So we're not talking about that. It's also (mostly, I feel) a debate that should be external, not internal. We should be engaging our culture(s) as a whole with this issue, not just circulating it ad nauseum among ourselves
However there is an issue that should really be debated internally that most people don't really seem to talk about that much...
This is an important question that we as gamers need to deal with, because it is linked to "games as art." Personally I think that Ebert's whole issue is that he doesn't believe in fun, and therefore feels that anything that is fun isn't art... But I digress...
Are video games supposed to be "fun?"
And please, no Definist fallacies...
I'm not really sure that Games = Fun is a great argument.
I think there are several things to consider:
1. What is fun? ex. Is fun more fun when it's experienced in the now, or is fun more fun when it's remembered as fun? That sentence was fun to write...
2. Of the games that you have played in the last year, how many of those would you immediately describe as fun? I've got two The Blob 2 and 'Splosion Man. Every other game I've played over the last twelve months (and they are legion) get's words like: blah, compelling, interesting, engaging, satisfying, like hookers and blow at three in the morning (GTA).
3. Have you completed any games in the last twelve months that weren't fun?
So there you have it.
4. If games are, or are not supposed to be fun, where do we go (or not go) from here? What are your conclusions... etc. yadyadyadyada
Are video games supposed to be fun?
Salaam
