Would you buy a game that wasn't entertaining, if it was art?

[dcheppy]

One of the issues with games not being accepted as art is that their too much fun. Take movies for instance; there are a lot of films out there that are not particularly entertaining but are nonetheless critically and commercially successful. Schindlers List is not especially fun to sit through but because it conveys a powerful message and is well crafted, people accept it. Novels too are often not pure entertainment. Games on the other hand will always sacrifice message for fun. War games can be as serious and reflective but it still has to be fun to frag bad guys or the game will bomb commercially and critically. Reviews always put the emphasis on "was this game fun to play" and not on story or the power of its message. Say a publisher decided to release about genocide, or any number of meaty topics, and the games tone did not allow it to be fun or action packed. Say it was a Holocaust game where you control a Nazi officer given orders to murder jews in a death camp. It could be a powerful game even more powerful than a movie because the player pulls the trigger, but it would not be fun. It would be uncomfortable and depressing. Would you buy a game like this? Would you buy a game that is not fun because it was powerful art? You'd watch the movie, or read the novel, but would you play the game?

 

[Bored Tomatoe]

No, I would not.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

No, I would not.

Seconded

 

[Ursus Astrorum]

Three Words: Linger In Shadows. Was simple, short, and pointless, but it sure was pretty.

 

[hellthins]

Yes. It's not entertaining in the normal sense, but something that has a powerful message, says it well, and can draw upon my emotions is worth my money and my time.

 

[Ultrajoe]

I buy a game for it's worth. If it's artistic worth is great enough then certainly. A game can be better in more ways then it's 'Funitude'

 

[Jimmyjames]

Just did: Mesmerize for the PS3/PS Eye.

Not entertaining, per se... but very very pretty.

 

[v3cks]

Does it count if I bought Mirror's Edge? Cool art style but ugh, no fun.

 

[v3cks]

But to answer the question, I might. The idea of controlling a Nazi might be interesting if there were a plot twist that end up in him trying to stand up to the rest of the Nazis. Then again, I guess that kind of goes along with making the game more fun. All in all, it's a big maybe, ultimately the decision would be dependent on whether the art was interesting enough to me, how how fun the game actually was.

 

[stompy]

No, not really. If something that was called entertainment did not entertain me, then I wouldn't. If it entertained through its strong artistic value, or the way it explores certain issues and/or ideas, then I'd buy it because I would then be enjoying myself with the game.

 

[EzraPound]

Art is entertainment - duh. Distinguish "engrossing" or "entertaining" from "fun."

This is a misconception among gamers. Shakespeare is "entertainment", and A Comedy of Errors is all fart jokes. Just because games aren't 'boring' or featured in an academic canon doesn't mean they aren't all art, of varying quality.

 

[PirateKing]

No. That's stupid.
I think for something to qualify as art, especially a game, it needs to be ummmm, fun.
I mean, even a painting would have to be good enough that you could stand to look at it.

 

[EzraPound]

I mean, even a painting would have to be good enough that you could stand to look at it.

Not necessarily. Good art doesn't have to be fun, just engrossing - in which case a painting that spurred a negative response could be brilliant, as long as it prompted emotion (I'm assuming you'd have to look at it to know it repelled you). Likewise, a game that wasn't 'fun' in an unadulterated way, but is nonetheless affecting on some level could be construed as good art. But then what is it doing but entertaining you, in a roundabout way?

 

[sallene]

I would, if for no other reason for having the experience.





unless it was a crappy art game. then I might be disappointed, but if it was done right then I would defintely buy an artistic game.

 

[Twilight_guy]

No. Yes, I know that makes me shallow, but when I spend 50$ to buy a game I want something fun.

 

[Sirisaxman]

No.

 

[Combined]

Yes.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

Most likely, no. This is simply because I don't have that kind of disposable cash. I buy games to have fun, not to stare at and say "Oooo look at this magnificent piece of art! Time to put it back in its case since it plays terribly." Games that can be both, I point to Okami. Wonderful art style and equally appealing gameplay.

This does not mean I don't appreciate games that are of the artsy type, but like I said, when it comes down to it, I rather play something that I'm going to have fun with.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

I wouldn't want to play that particular game, but I'd like to play a game like Heavy Rain. Now that is a game I cannot wait for, I wouldn't really call it being hyped so much as interested. Heavy Rain is more of an interactive movie with RPG elements (not the goblins or warlocks or potions or stuff like that, but the ability to change the course of the game through your actions).