Is it Just a Game?

[grassgremlin]

I been wanting to discuss this topic because of recent events.
I've finally got some videos to kick this thing off.


Are Videogames About Their Mechanics?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_2999702119&feature=iv&src_vid=7lPUlN0dnKk&v=RsybY6dcXAQ

Do Games Have Less Value than Other Media?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lPUlN0dnKk

I won't be mentioning current events directly, but I want to discuss a particular argument.

The "It's just a fucking video game, stop taking them so seriously" people. vs "Video Games are an artistic interpretation and must be escalated to more then the some of there parts" People.

The video games are "not art" vs "video games are art." Comparison.

The question. Is "It's just a game!" a good argument or a poor one.
Do people care to damn much about video games or too little.

Should we constantly look for introspective experiences about the human condition. The art games and the games that make us feel or should we be looking for games that are fun to play or competitive. The kind all about pressing buttons to make a character do things.

Should we sweat the small stuff or ignore them and figure out the perfect button combo mechanic.

Why is this a argument?

Just how important are video games to people. Are they important as escapist fantasies? Are they important for education? Teaching you things? Are they just too hitboxes colliding with frame data? Does the video game characters have lives? Should the characters be more important then the game? Less?

Has there ever been a bad thing to escapist fantasy or should games try to mimic reality more. Should characters wear proper armor or the fantasy armor artists feel compelled to design.

Is it Just a game?

 

[Elijin]

Sure.

Just the same as its 'just a book' or 'just a movie'.

You know, as in its a subjective piece of media, which to some is 'just a..' and to others is something beyond that.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Should we be constantly look for introspective experiences about the human condition. The art games and the games that make us feel or should we be looking for games that are fan to play or competitive. The kinds all about pressing buttons to make a character do things.

I always assumed there was room for both. You know, like how sometimes I feel like experiencing something profound and other times I feel like just running around smashing stuff.

But apparently in the world of games there can be only one.

 

[Shymer]

The "It's just a fucking video game, stop taking them so seriously" people. vs "Video Games are an artistic interpretation and must be escalated to more then the some of there parts" People.

Games can be educational, can make people happy, can bring people together, can allow people space to think and re-evaluate priorities. They can make people feel powerful, motivated, and capable. With this in mind, they have the potential to be valuable in people's lives if these are the things you value.

They can also be a way of hiding from problems and not facing them, depressing, frustrating. They can lead to anger and division between people. It's just human nature and nothing to worry about.

If I value other things such as the survival of the human species, the desire for others to have sufficient food, or not to live in poverty or fear, to have their privacy, for a world at peace with itself and with each other - perhaps in the big scheme of things, games have their place, but we have to retain perspective.

If I am sitting comfortably at home twiddling a controller (not a euphemism) and watching a screen, then I value that time - particularly playing with friends. However I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that I can stop doing that and focus on other priorities - other things of value. These two groups of people are, to my mind, not exclusive and not always in opposition.

I love games and playing them with others and I have done for all of my life thus far. I value them. I care about them. However I also think there are more important things in the world and that my love of games is considerably less permanent and tangible than my love of creating happiness for others.

(Edit) Oh. If you mean to ask whether games with strong narratives (telling us something about the human condition) are the only games of value, then I think the answer is simple. You can happily have games that have stories, and games that are about other things (button-mashing, muscle memory, twitch reflexes) in the same way you can have paintings that are about more than portraits, or landscapes, or action scenes.

 

[SweetShark]

Jesus Christ All Stars Battle Arena!!!

video game
noun
any of various interactive games played using a specialized electronic gaming device or a computer or mobile device and a television or other display screen, along with a means to control graphic images.

Don't make it so complicated!
Sure, it is cool to ask this questions to pass your boring time, but yeah, it is just a game.

Yes, I will say the characters are important and represent a part of me, in "Actual Sunlight", but guess what? It is just a game.

Yes, I will say how brilliant is the gameplay merchanic of "VA-11 HALL-A" and I will suggest we need more unique games like this. But is is just a game.

Yes, I will say the game "Journey" is a brilliant game with very cool artistic visuals and a very good twist at the end, but again, it is just a game.

Yes, I will feel sad that a father made a game base the cancer his own child had ["That Dragon, Cancer"], but it is just a game.

Sorry I sound like an assh*le right now, but all great/bad/weird/obscure/unique/revolutionary things start from somewhere. In this case in a videogame.
It is just a videogame even in the end we appreciate it for its quality or the meaning it have to us.

 

[Random Gamer]

I think the "it's just a game, nothing important" view strongly depends on the time a person spends actually playing. It's obvious that if you invest tens of hours every single week, you have a lot more emotional investment in games than if you barely play Candy Crush or Solitaire 30 min a month.

The "it's just a game" angle shouldn't be opposed to "Games are an art form", in this regard, but "Games are a major hobby / free-time activity", just like biking, reading, playing piano or gardening. For some people, it's of no interest, for numerous others, it's vastly important - in some cases, it can even play an essential role in keeping balance in their life and mental state, when life or work are hurting.

As others said, they can be all of what you say. Some can be several of these things at the same time, same only focus on fun, on good story or on education.
As far as I'm concerned, no existing game or franchise should be bashed and brought down because they don't conform to the aims one ascribes to games.
Though a bit more balance between various genres might be desirable. But in this regard, my biggest complaint is probably the usual mentality of the industry that blindly follows the latest trend - RTS, FPS, MMO, other genres depending on the year - and floods the market with endless clones instead of innovating or publishing other genres; and the market and the business system are at fault here, not just gamers or developers.

 

[freaper]

The "It's just a fucking video game, stop taking them so seriously" people. vs "Video Games are an artistic interpretation and must be escalated to more then the some of there parts" People.

The problem with that comparison is that [em]"It's just a game!"[/em] is more often used by bystanders/outsiders who don't necessarily play videogames. I understand what you mean, however.

Different people look for different experiences in their preferred media. Some people [em]just[/em] want to watch an action flick, others [em]just[/em] want an easy romance novel to read. There doesn't have to be this all-or-nothing mentality. Now that games have become relatively mainstream we can move them over onto the dissection table like we did with literature, movies and comics. Some people will want to explore the depths of VG narrative, just like there are literary critics, movie critics (and comic book critics?) there will also be VG critics (not in the consumer oriented sense of the word). That obviously necessitates VG that are worthy of in-depth analysis, which there aren't a great many of...[em]yet[/em], but we're getting there.

TL;DR: Videogames can be an enriching experience, for those who want it to be.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm firmly in the "artistic medium" camp.

This doesn't mean I believe all video games are particularly greatly artistic; just that they can be, and some are. Others are less so, and I'm perfectly happy to agree that Space Marine or Marvel Vs Capcom should be judged primarily on their mechanics.

But they can be very artistic, and for a great number of them, the narrative, style, and characterisation are extremely valid areas to judge them by. Often, story can even trump gameplay for me, though usually it needs to be at least fairly solid.

 

[Adam Lester]

I think that falls in the realm of subjectivity. Also, what kind of game you're playing.

Sometimes, a game can just be entertaining, an escape/something to do while waiting for whatever's in the oven to get done cooking. Other times they can be utilized for artistic purposes or to affect us on an emotional level.

 

[TessaraVejgan]

Games come in all shapes and forms and can be whatever you want them to be. There are devs who just want to entertain people, there are those who want to create work of art, there are those who want to explore social issues, etc and thats perfectly fine. For me its about entertainment and fun. Its the same with other mediums like movies or music. Games have the same value as they do. To me games are important since that is my main way of relaxing. It is an argument because some people can't seem to accept that different people have different opinions and ideas as to what they want from games so they try to push their own agenda and world view down everyones throat.

 

[Maximum Bert]

People invest in things differently games are no different I do find it amusing though that people will say its just a game and then when their team loses at football (thats soccer for you americans) its suddenly a big deal and they dont appreciate me going ah dont worry its just a game because thats kind of trivialising their investment to that game even if they have no control over it personally. I personally cant stand football I literally cannot watch a match without wanting to climb the walls and get the hell out of there so to me it is just a game and one thats not very entertaining at that 99% of the time and if your not invested in a videogame I would understand people saying its just a game. Then again a job is just a job etc in the end its a meaningless phrase you may as well say a horse is a horse.

I usually hear the phrase when someone gets annoyed with a game and that just makes things worse calm down because x is x eh? thankyou for that enlightenment.

 

[happyninja42]

Are Videogames About Their Mechanics?

No, just like movies aren't about the type of camera or form of film used to convey the story. Or how books aren't about the type of font used and how many pages are included in the book. At least to me anyway. The mechanics are just that, the mechanism by which the story/experience of the game is conveyed. Some have great mechanics that help to tell the story, some don't.

Do Games Have Less Value than Other Media?

To some people I'm sure they do. That's an opinionated question, nothing more. To me, sports has zero value, and in fact has negative value to our culture. But billions of sports fans around the world will vehemently disagree with me I'm sure.

The "It's just a fucking video game, stop taking them so seriously" people. vs "Video Games are an artistic interpretation and must be escalated to more then the some of there parts" People.

I'll stop taking games seriously, when sports fans, and other fans of other things stop taking their stuff seriously. Considering that some sports fans find it a valid outlet for their game frustration, to go riot and raze a town for an evening, I have zero qualms with having passion and concern about my hobby too. And they've got zero ground to stand on when trying to tell us to chill the fuck out about games. As to the Video Games as Art camp, meh, I don't really have much opinion on this group. I don't consider them "art", and I really don't have much art appreciation in general. I don't find a lot of the paintings by the "masters" too compelling. It's a vase of sunflowers, whoopty do. So I don't really have much drive to see games considered "art".

The question. Is "It's just a game!" a good argument or a poor one.
Do people care to damn much about video games or too little.

Again, this behaviour isn't exclusive to gamers. I live in Alabama, and college football here is almost a religious thing. The level of fanatical devotion to the college teams here is insane, and sometimes scary and violent. People do really stupid shit in the name of sports devotion, but I never see news articles about them. So no, if it's kosher for them to act like fucking idiots about their hobby, it's ok for gamers to do the same. Would I like to see less stupid behaviour in general? Sure, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over gamers behaving just like other people about the thing they're passionate about.

Should we constantly look for introspective experiences about the human condition. The art games and the games that make us feel or should we be looking for games that are fun to play or competitive. The kind all about pressing buttons to make a character do things.

Yes to both, they aren't mutually exclusive.

Why is this a argument?

I have no idea, but it seems to be popular on this site.

Just how important are video games to people. Are they important as escapist fantasies? Are they important for education? Teaching you things? Are they just too hitboxes colliding with frame data? Does the video game characters have lives? Should the characters be more important then the game? Less?

Again, a subjective issue. For some it's escapism, for some it's a fun social thing for them to do with friends. For some it's a personal challenge type thing, to see if they can beat the developer's challenge put before them. For most I would bet it's a mixture of all of these, and more.

Has there ever been a bad thing to escapist fantasy or should games try to mimic reality more.

Of course there are bad things about escapist fantasy. Anything in excess is bad, and escapist fantasy isn't game only related. Fan fiction, movies, tv shows, all of it can become escapist for someone, and become a bad part of their lives.

Should characters wear proper armor or the fantasy armor artists feel compelled to design.

Either or. I don't require them to be "historically accurate' or whatever with the armor in a game, just like I don't require scifi movies to be "scientifically accurate" most of the time. If they are smacking the face of actual science, and playing it off as being accurate or scientific, then I have an issue with it (like the shit in Lucy, *shudder*), but if it's stuff that's just not possible, but they're using it for the story then I'm fine.

Is it Just a game?

YesNo.

 

[Erttheking]

The only time I feel like "It's just a game" can be properly said is when someone is freaking out over losing one. Every other time it can go straight to hell.

 

[FenchurchSt]

This feels kind of messy.
Take a painting. Are characters more important than colors? Are strokes more important than forms?
Should people in the picture have realistic proportions?
Are they just pictures, or can we really compare them to, say, a real world nuclear strike, or a street mugging?

I couldn't agree more. Is it the Medium that makes it art or is it the Concept behind it? Believing video games to be art doesn't exclude the notion of it being either something serious or not serious. It can be either. But does something "not being serious" also exclude it from being art? I don't think so, personally.

Games can challenge your perception. The Stanley Parable is probably my favorite game and I can't get away from praising its commentary on player agency and the type of narratives that wish only to take away your control and would rather stick you in a spectator seat and have you impact nothing.

Games can be educational. Number Munchers happened. When I was young I played a lot of the "Jump Start" games which had stories and plots and you had to solve puzzles and learn things to beat the game.

Games like Goat Simulator exist wherein the goal is to have absurd giddy fun and I highly doubt there were any underlying metaphors or statements to be made through it. In it's own way it's art: comedy and fun can be art. I wouldn't dare tell the talented participants in Who's Line is it Anyway? that they aren't artistic performers; they do a thing that has merit and makes people feel a thing (joy). Sure you probably shouldn't get mad over a game like that, but again it wasn't really made with the intention of you getting upset over it.


Personally, I think both comments have their own place in our gaming culture:

If someone accuses a game that you can tell was lovingly crafted in which you have invested so much of yourself to be "just a game" I'll be a little hurt; however, just with other forms of art it's all about personal perception, but still people usually have the decency to not say a Rembrandt is "just a painting" and has no real value to our society. BUT, sometimes it is appropriate to say "it's just a game" when you're in the midst of a PvP-centric game or when you know deep down that the game you're playing was made with that exact mentality that it shouldn't matter. It's a sad reality that we face that a lot of the games people get most invested in, the high-pedigree IPs with content controlled by publisher mandate, are not made with that much care [since the people who cared for it are the ones getting their care cut right out of it for them], but love still exists in games and I think we'd all be foolish and STUPID to not acknowledge that the things that brought us here are still around if you look for it. :3

Also, let's not forget how shat on the FILM industry was long ago (for all it's pomp now...), even decades after its establishment. Even a lot of people who were professional film critics for magazines back in the 20's and even through the 30's would claim there was no real value in film, IT WAS CONSIDERED CHEAP DISPOSABLE ENTERTAINMENT by its proponents INSIDE the industry itself. Gee, if that doesn't sound familiar....

Metropolis still happened right in the middle of all this negativity in film. Even George Mèliés, one of the most artistically inspired filmmakers of all time and a founder in the field, had to deal with this and died long before hardly anyone saw film's merit. Cheer up my fellow gamers! We have to deal with some crap, even within our culture, but we have a lot to look forward to!

Also things are coming to us much quicker than it did for film. For example, the founding of a standardized rating system as opposed to simply cutting content for a "suitable for all audiences" approach, wasn't 3 DECADES in the making as it was with film. Unfortunately, I think the reduction of time it takes us to have these debates kind of also intensifies it... so here we are.

Think about this for a moment: already we've started to see the rise of Game ART FESTIVALS just like for film and some games are even showcased in museums. EVE Online even has had it's place in MoMA in New York! I'm not saying we "games are art" people don't have problems in a lot of society getting people to even consider the concept, but I'm saying that our day of wider acknowledgement is coming.

I think our major problem as gamers in this debate is our straining to try to define "art" itself. This debate may sound like one for games, but it's really as old as the concept of art itself.