Personally I don't agree with this I saw this as the subject of xplays sesslers soapbox and want your opinion should games sacrifice fun for an artistic statement?
should games be more artistic than fun?
- Thread starter knightguy123
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, not really. Rather than sacrificing the fun of the game for an artistic statement, the developers should find a different type of fun that still fits their message.
Yeah, I guessed that.knightguy123 said:
As a general rule? HELL NO!
Occasionally in an attempt to puch boundaries...maybe...
It depends on what you mean by "More artistic than fun" and that also depends on what you consider fun.
Occasionally in an attempt to puch boundaries...maybe...
It depends on what you mean by "More artistic than fun" and that also depends on what you consider fun.
Typically, games are intended to be a form of entertainment. I personally maintain a gameplay > everything else mentality. Arguably, a game's developers can intend it to be a method of artistic expression rather than entertainment in which case there's no reason that they wouldn't sacrifice gameplay for artistic sensibilities.
It just won't make it a good game by any traditional sense of the term.
It just won't make it a good game by any traditional sense of the term.
Are all developers some sort of hive mind, are all games made by the same one person who can only choose one route or his family will be butchered by chainmail wearing henchmen? No. Games should take whatever route the developers want that particular game to take.
Ok, games were originally meant to play for fun... Even though that should be "enuf said," art style is a good thing, but it's not what games are suppose to be about. The fun factor is the #1 factor every developer should take in consideration first more than anything else. Art style is meant to polish a game rather than make it.
As much as I appreciate the artistry of well-designed games, the fact remains that any developer who sacrifices fun for artistic expression is either pompous or delusional, possibly both.
I have nothing against anyone making an artistic statement in a game but if they're going to sacrifice fun for a statement/art, then they shouldn't sell it at the premium price: it should be a budget title.knightguy123 said:
Like with No More Heroes everyone who liked the game gave the excuse that he sacrificed fun (making minigames that revolved around lawn mowing & litter removal, the most boring sandbox ever, and repetitive combat levels) for an artistic statement. The problem is that anyone who bought that game at release/premium price wanted to have fun. If I had paid $20 for that crap, I wouldn't have minded as much. I got the joke and everything but the real joke was on us.