Would you buy a game that wasn't entertaining, if it was art?
- Thread starter dcheppy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I have actually thought about this before. The answer I came to was that if a game is not fun, then it's not a game, it's a chore. And I do not like doing chores.
EDIT: That being said, I consider Conker's Bad Fur Day, Psychonauts, and Odin Sphere all to be works of art in their own right.
EDIT: That being said, I consider Conker's Bad Fur Day, Psychonauts, and Odin Sphere all to be works of art in their own right.
That's a good question... Final Fantasy VII wasn't entertaining but I still bought it. [/sarcasm]Mizaki said:
Yes, but I enjoy being disturbed, having my perspective radically altered, and generally having my entertainment smack me around.
Makes me feel alive.
Makes me feel alive.
I would buy it if it was an effective work of art. However I think any game that attempts to exist entirely on its artistic merit would either have to be an indie labour of love like Braid, or be doomed to failure. Given gamings target demographic, any game with a decent budget that relies entirely on its artistic pretentions won't stand a chance commercially. Its a nice idea and some people would buy it, less would understand it, reviews would slaughter it (or try to be intelligent and give it top scores) - and perhaps in the future it would be regarded as ahead of its time.
If a game tries to get itself accepted as art, as fun is the key aim of the medium at this time (don't pretend otherwise), it has to incoporate that into its own gameplay elements to survive. Even if repititive instant death QTEs are used as a reflection on the fragility of life, it still wouldn't be very good as a game. Games that aren't particularly fun stand no chance against the Halos of this world. Although games like Bioshock and Silent Hill 2 did well sales-wise with gameplay that I didn't particulary enjoy (I liked the games overall though).I don't believe games like these are viable on a wider basis until people are forced to re-evaluate how games are played in the mainstream.
So to sum up - the problem is the audience imo. Unless developers are prepared to forfiet sales to cater to a niche audience that appreciates their artistic vanity, its not viable in the current market. Sorry this ended up being about how a game like this would fare in general instead of being my response to the OP's question.
I don't think fun is an issue limiting games though. My favourite movies are those that merge thematic insights with the story, and if games do that with gameplay then although it could possibly be a distraction from serious contemplation ('wow, that was a really effective expression of --- oh a slide, WHEEEE!') its just another challenge gaming has to overcome I think.
To those who feel that games are, or have the potential to be art. Would you feel obliged to buy this game to show the existence of an audience for the product?
If a game tries to get itself accepted as art, as fun is the key aim of the medium at this time (don't pretend otherwise), it has to incoporate that into its own gameplay elements to survive. Even if repititive instant death QTEs are used as a reflection on the fragility of life, it still wouldn't be very good as a game. Games that aren't particularly fun stand no chance against the Halos of this world. Although games like Bioshock and Silent Hill 2 did well sales-wise with gameplay that I didn't particulary enjoy (I liked the games overall though).I don't believe games like these are viable on a wider basis until people are forced to re-evaluate how games are played in the mainstream.
So to sum up - the problem is the audience imo. Unless developers are prepared to forfiet sales to cater to a niche audience that appreciates their artistic vanity, its not viable in the current market. Sorry this ended up being about how a game like this would fare in general instead of being my response to the OP's question.
I don't think fun is an issue limiting games though. My favourite movies are those that merge thematic insights with the story, and if games do that with gameplay then although it could possibly be a distraction from serious contemplation ('wow, that was a really effective expression of --- oh a slide, WHEEEE!') its just another challenge gaming has to overcome I think.
To those who feel that games are, or have the potential to be art. Would you feel obliged to buy this game to show the existence of an audience for the product?
I want my games to be fun. That's my first and only criterion. Games are not art, and more to the point, games aren't supposed to be art. Implicit in the definition of a "game" is that it is a diversion from everyday life and its responsibilities.
Does that mean games can't look good? Of course not; look at Oblivion and Crysis. But I've been playing several games recently that are not going to win any awards (even accounting for their age) for their visuals but nonetheless are a blast to play, namely Mount&Blade, Patrician 3, and Alpha Centauri. None of them try to be art; M&B is Pirates! on land, P3 is a straightforward spreadsheet-style trade sim, and SMAC's an unrepentant build-and-bash 4X game.
Does that mean games can't look good? Of course not; look at Oblivion and Crysis. But I've been playing several games recently that are not going to win any awards (even accounting for their age) for their visuals but nonetheless are a blast to play, namely Mount&Blade, Patrician 3, and Alpha Centauri. None of them try to be art; M&B is Pirates! on land, P3 is a straightforward spreadsheet-style trade sim, and SMAC's an unrepentant build-and-bash 4X game.
Ever heard of interactive art? It's almost universally acknowledged by critics that art can be participatory, since, even in a non-literal sense, all art is: when you read a book, for example, your involvment consists of interpreting the text in visual terms (among other things), which inevitably has a large effect on how you perceive the narrative.
Congratulations. You're one of the idiots in Shakespeare's plays he depicted who argue why theatre isn't poetry, or a college professor trying to explain why rock n' roll can't be art in 1964.
Yes, except anyone with any grasp of art theory would know that 'fun' is too singular a term to ascribe to the essential purpose of art: 'affecting' or 'engrossing', maybe, but not fun. In this sense, a game that gave the player cause to reflect (and was, by extension, engrossing) would be successful as art, regardless of whether it was happy-go-lucky or fun.
Then again, you probably think modern art is a sham because you took one course on it, so perhaps I'm merely squandering my insights.
Video games are art if you also consider an unopened food tin with the label removed or a room where the lights turns on and off every 5 seconds as art.
I can see art in games the enviroment of bioshock is a great exsample but that isn't really part of the game aspect since the deffinition of a game is an activity within a set of rules that provides a challenge or problem to overcome for the purpose of teaching or enjoyment.
To call video games art would be like saying a game of poker is art if the cards happen to have nice drawings on the back of them.
Games are based on rules whereas Art has no rules
I can see art in games the enviroment of bioshock is a great exsample but that isn't really part of the game aspect since the deffinition of a game is an activity within a set of rules that provides a challenge or problem to overcome for the purpose of teaching or enjoyment.
To call video games art would be like saying a game of poker is art if the cards happen to have nice drawings on the back of them.
Games are based on rules whereas Art has no rules
Hey don't be so quick to judge Alpha Centauri, as without artistic ambition. The game is partially a reflection on modern diplomacy, and like civilization, contains themes on war, science, and culture. You think the varying levels of difficulty between a military and scientific, or cultural victory is an accident. Alpha Centauri and The Civilization games do in fact have artistic ambition and merit.SimuLord said:
This is just me being pretentious.
No, for the same reason I rarely read books and almost never read poems outside of English class. It does not matter how artisitic it is, if it is dull and boring to read, I will give up. The tiers of quality for me go like this.
Quality products balance art with entertainment.
Semi-quality products have no or little art, but are still filled with entertainment value.
Bad products have terrible entertainment value, regardless of artistic value.
Quality products balance art with entertainment.
Semi-quality products have no or little art, but are still filled with entertainment value.
Bad products have terrible entertainment value, regardless of artistic value.