should games be more artistic than fun?
- Thread starter knightguy123
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Overall I´d say no, but there is also a place for art in gaming culture. Let mainstream developers take care of the fun part, so that indie scene may concentrate on that artsy stuff. Some good and innovative ideas spring up from the indie scene every now and then, so they can work as a catalyst for game development as a whole.
Besides, art and fun don´t necessarily cancel each other out. They aren´t polar opposites. The Path, for example, is considered an art game, but I found it, from what little I´ve played, also fun.
Besides, art and fun don´t necessarily cancel each other out. They aren´t polar opposites. The Path, for example, is considered an art game, but I found it, from what little I´ve played, also fun.
What, you mean should games sacrifice entertainment for pretentious highbrow faggotry that only the designers will apreciate?
Fuck no.
Seriously, I have no problem with artistic games, (Shadow of the Colossus and Okami are both awesome), but when the game turns out incomprehensible or lacks actual GAME, nothing pisses me off more. Games are not art. They are games. Thats how it should stay.
Linger in Shadows sucks.
Fuck no.
Seriously, I have no problem with artistic games, (Shadow of the Colossus and Okami are both awesome), but when the game turns out incomprehensible or lacks actual GAME, nothing pisses me off more. Games are not art. They are games. Thats how it should stay.
Linger in Shadows sucks.
No once a game ceases to be fun it's not a game anymore it's... paintbrush.
It only let's me do it like 1/3 of the time. It fills my heart with rage.ssgt splatter said:
Depends what you mean by "artistic". Do you mean good art design? Do you mean purposely bad games that have a 'wacky' or 'indie' theme?
There are enough idiots on the net to justify hesitance to pile the art bullies in aswell.
In a less confrontational tone, games like portal, mirrors edge and bioshock showed us that games can be fun and artistic. In the example of bioshock it combined good artistic styles and stuff with some cool gameplay and storylines and just made the game that much better.
On the flipside there are the overly artistic games that just sap the fun out the mechanics it uses because the art direction was way more influential than the game designers themselves. I had an example before writing this in but ive completely forgotten what it was, so imagine...
Anyways, whats the point of a "game" without it being fun, thats almost the definition of the word yes?
In a less confrontational tone, games like portal, mirrors edge and bioshock showed us that games can be fun and artistic. In the example of bioshock it combined good artistic styles and stuff with some cool gameplay and storylines and just made the game that much better.
On the flipside there are the overly artistic games that just sap the fun out the mechanics it uses because the art direction was way more influential than the game designers themselves. I had an example before writing this in but ive completely forgotten what it was, so imagine...
Anyways, whats the point of a "game" without it being fun, thats almost the definition of the word yes?
What kind of question is this? games are first and foremost, a means of entertainment! you don't find people mounting a copy of halflife two in a frame at the tate modern, admiring it's impressionist take on modern life! You find people sticking it in the dvd drive, shooting headcrabs and saving the world! ever since pong came out, people played video games to relax, or to vent frustration, and it sticks to this day.
Of course, in modern times you find that games have become so flawless in their design that people are under the illusion that it was forged for the sole purpose of pleasing the eye. where this may be the case for some ventures, It is hard to see the artistic side of gorefests such as gears of war and fallout, where wondeful visuals are put to use to show off the copious amount of arteries and vital organs below the epidermis... but i digress. My point is, if you hadn't realised by this point, that videogames are fun, otherwise, people wouldn't play them. but now for my next point: is it too much to ask for both?
Of course, in modern times you find that games have become so flawless in their design that people are under the illusion that it was forged for the sole purpose of pleasing the eye. where this may be the case for some ventures, It is hard to see the artistic side of gorefests such as gears of war and fallout, where wondeful visuals are put to use to show off the copious amount of arteries and vital organs below the epidermis... but i digress. My point is, if you hadn't realised by this point, that videogames are fun, otherwise, people wouldn't play them. but now for my next point: is it too much to ask for both?
I can understand trying to push the boundaries and make things new the problem is when creators seem to think that just because a game is "artsy" that it is above criticism for having bad gameplay. I'm sorry but just because you made a good artistic statement doesn't mean that you should be forgiven of horrible gameplay.
No. It's arrogant, aggravating, and financially unjustifiable. Granted, if you're making a demo to show off some aspect other than gameplay, okay. But a full-fledged game that's about showing off pretty pictures? No! If I want art for art's sake, I'll go to a museum. Or a movie. This applies to "sending a message" or "educational" games, too.
A game is supposed to be fun - that the idea, point, etc. If a game is artsy and fun then fantastic we have a winner. Artsy is good but only when combined with fun.
I think this is a really interesting subject title because if by "artistic" you mean creative and "fun" you mean entertaining then there lies a certain conundrum with sacrificing one for the other. I would have to say that in this matter you cannot choose either and have a really great game because if we just keep releasing the same franchises over and over, trying to play on the entertainment aspect of games then the fanbase is probably going to become jaded and bored with the asthetic content fairly quickly.
The there is the opposite side of the spectrum where we make a really artistic game that looks incredible, with great immersion and atmospheric qualities in it, but if it plays like shit it play like shit and for the most part it's difficult for a game, from what I've seen Velvet Assassin has this problem going on and the videos and gameplay I've seen of it makes the game look like it belongs in a museum and not a game system.
Really I think that sacrificing one for the either is a bad idea for the aforementioned reasons.
The there is the opposite side of the spectrum where we make a really artistic game that looks incredible, with great immersion and atmospheric qualities in it, but if it plays like shit it play like shit and for the most part it's difficult for a game, from what I've seen Velvet Assassin has this problem going on and the videos and gameplay I've seen of it makes the game look like it belongs in a museum and not a game system.
Really I think that sacrificing one for the either is a bad idea for the aforementioned reasons.
