Would you buy a game that wasn't entertaining, if it was art?
- Thread starter dcheppy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Whatever message you get from the game is just another quality that makes up your enjoyment of a game. Other factors include how visceral the experience is, the challenge of the game, the variety of meaningful choices, the quality of the multiplayer experience - the list is endless.
The main game that I can think of that sacrifices quality as a game for an intriguing message is Planescape: Torment. They stepped back from the tactical focus of Baldur's Gate, gave you a character with limitless respawns, and crippled your mechanical options of character composition. As a challenging game, PS:T is mediocre. Yet it remains fun because of the quality of the writing, the unique atmosphere, and, yes, the message that you get from it.
I think that games are theoretically better than other mediums as art because the nature of the medium allows for more options than any other medium thus far. It's sort of the way that movies are theoretically no worse than books: you could simply scroll the words across the screen and tack on some atmospheric music or pictures if necessary. But few movies are considered as high-quality as books because of the different expectations placed upon them. It's similar to games; they offer potential for a narrative that changes in accord with your desires. Any book could be a game, even if the game is just clicking through pages of text. Whereas most media forms give you an unchanging string of words or pictures, a game can give you a world that functions in accord with the developers' vision. The only limitations are what the developers and the consumers introduce.
If you're only looking at art because it's art and not because you're getting anything out of it, you're looking at art for the wrong reasons. It's not an objective label.
The main game that I can think of that sacrifices quality as a game for an intriguing message is Planescape: Torment. They stepped back from the tactical focus of Baldur's Gate, gave you a character with limitless respawns, and crippled your mechanical options of character composition. As a challenging game, PS:T is mediocre. Yet it remains fun because of the quality of the writing, the unique atmosphere, and, yes, the message that you get from it.
I think that games are theoretically better than other mediums as art because the nature of the medium allows for more options than any other medium thus far. It's sort of the way that movies are theoretically no worse than books: you could simply scroll the words across the screen and tack on some atmospheric music or pictures if necessary. But few movies are considered as high-quality as books because of the different expectations placed upon them. It's similar to games; they offer potential for a narrative that changes in accord with your desires. Any book could be a game, even if the game is just clicking through pages of text. Whereas most media forms give you an unchanging string of words or pictures, a game can give you a world that functions in accord with the developers' vision. The only limitations are what the developers and the consumers introduce.
If you're only looking at art because it's art and not because you're getting anything out of it, you're looking at art for the wrong reasons. It's not an objective label.
Right on about Dreamfall, on of my favourite games, right up there with The Sims.The66Monkey said:
I probably would buy a game with greater artistic merit at a cost of excitement and entertainment because I'm one of those 'games as art' hippies you hear so much about. I also have a background in film theory and art history so I'm waiting for the day for a game to reach the artistic heights of these mediums.
GTAIV was a game that almost reached that milestone, and was one of the damned best efforts in a while in this respect, but it still managed to be entertaining.
No thats not true, Mario is almost or just as famous as the Mona Lisa. Basically the greatest games in the world will be remembered forever because it was something special just like art! Even something like Pac-Man, might not seem like art but it is something original and people will refer to it now and again.
Games do not need great story's to be considered art! That is what books and movies are for. I know some people love the FF, Golden Sun and MG story's but they will never be as famous as Mario or Donkey Kong, it was the challenge and a really fun and original game.
No, I would not buy a game that doesn't focus on being fun more than anything else.
Games do not need great story's to be considered art! That is what books and movies are for. I know some people love the FF, Golden Sun and MG story's but they will never be as famous as Mario or Donkey Kong, it was the challenge and a really fun and original game.
No, I would not buy a game that doesn't focus on being fun more than anything else.
The very nature of a game prevents it from becoming art if it isn't fun. Movies are entertaining, even if they are jarring emotionally, because you classify it as art if you get from it what you went in with a desire to get. With "Schindler's List," it was art because people went into watching the movie expecting a powerful and dramatic film, not a collection of lude jokes and slapstick. For games, as I said before, their very nature (meaning interactivity) requires that they be fun to interact with because that is the only difference between a game and a movie. Everyone who plays a game enters that game wanting to have fun, excluding masochists, otherwise they would not have played the game.
Put simply...
No.
Put simply...
No.
Sorry, started to skip through the posts so didn't read them all.
Yes I would.
If I hadn't played Cloud [http://intihuatani.usc.edu/cloud/game.htm] then I wouldn't be sure. It just made it easier to see different possibilities of gaming.
Art can be entertaining and it can provide other uses too.
Yes I would.
If I hadn't played Cloud [http://intihuatani.usc.edu/cloud/game.htm] then I wouldn't be sure. It just made it easier to see different possibilities of gaming.
Art can be entertaining and it can provide other uses too.
The reason why video games aren't art is because they contain a fundamentally non-artistic element. Art exists solely for the purpose of *contemplation*, so it doesn't have to be fun or entertaining. But a *game* exists to involve you as an active participant, not just someone contemplating a work of art.
A given game most likely contains dozens of individual artworks, but the *whole* is not *a* work of art because of the part that you *play* as opposed to contemplate.
So, basically, what you're asking is whether you'd buy a game that, in fact, contains no *game* or at best, a very *bad* game. My answer to that is no, I'd rather spend my money on something else (a novel, a painting, whatever) that DOESN'T suck because the essential aspect has been *ignored*.
A given game most likely contains dozens of individual artworks, but the *whole* is not *a* work of art because of the part that you *play* as opposed to contemplate.
So, basically, what you're asking is whether you'd buy a game that, in fact, contains no *game* or at best, a very *bad* game. My answer to that is no, I'd rather spend my money on something else (a novel, a painting, whatever) that DOESN'T suck because the essential aspect has been *ignored*.
"Art" is such a tricky definition. I've seen a lot of art whose main point is that it simply novel, and they achieve this by being novelly stupid. I'm not bankrolling stupidity no matter how novel it is.
However, if it's good, intelligent, art then I'll buy it in the same way I'll buy a game. Because good, a good, intelligent games are art in my mind.
However, if it's good, intelligent, art then I'll buy it in the same way I'll buy a game. Because good, a good, intelligent games are art in my mind.
I buy and play games for two reasons:
Story and gameplay.
Story is well.. the story. Plot, setting, and characters are all part of a story and can really make a game shine though it certainly doesn't break a particularly fun game.
Gameplay: With the advent of MMOs, it's clearly obvious: games don't necessarily need to be fun to be a good game. They can be addicting through the promise of incremental rewards for your devotion to the game. There's nothing quite like a game that can suck you in.
Also, games are governed by a set of rules on how things are done in that game. I enjoy going through the game spading for info to become an awesome player of that game.
ex. Don't put any str/per above 7 upon character creation and ever after that in Fallout 3 because with the help of items or quests, you can boost them to 10, the point limit of a stat in that game.
I was gonna use Braid as an example of a game that was art, but it was also entertaining. It had a pretty good story too, though execution of the story could've been better.
Also on OP's example of an "arty" game. That actually sounds like loads of fun to me unless it's just a long game of "press button to kill jew" followed by a long boring message at the end of the game consisting of DON"T KILL JEWS because honestly, that would just be boring. The only thing to make things worse would be QTE QUICK PRESS KILL JEW BUTTON OR ELSE--- oh no too late jew kill you
If you're just moving your character from point a to point b to press button x or your "kill jew" button, then that's just absurd. I probably wouldn't even read the goddamn book if it was just a long message of jew killing is bad.
Execution is key for these types of games. If it was the story of a former nazi officer that got away from charges and is living life as regular is he tries but is haunted by dreams of his past where he must confront and relive each order he faithfully carried, followed by the eventual ending where you choose whether or not you kill yourself, sure I might play that.
Story and gameplay.
Story is well.. the story. Plot, setting, and characters are all part of a story and can really make a game shine though it certainly doesn't break a particularly fun game.
Gameplay: With the advent of MMOs, it's clearly obvious: games don't necessarily need to be fun to be a good game. They can be addicting through the promise of incremental rewards for your devotion to the game. There's nothing quite like a game that can suck you in.
Also, games are governed by a set of rules on how things are done in that game. I enjoy going through the game spading for info to become an awesome player of that game.
ex. Don't put any str/per above 7 upon character creation and ever after that in Fallout 3 because with the help of items or quests, you can boost them to 10, the point limit of a stat in that game.
I was gonna use Braid as an example of a game that was art, but it was also entertaining. It had a pretty good story too, though execution of the story could've been better.
Also on OP's example of an "arty" game. That actually sounds like loads of fun to me unless it's just a long game of "press button to kill jew" followed by a long boring message at the end of the game consisting of DON"T KILL JEWS because honestly, that would just be boring. The only thing to make things worse would be QTE QUICK PRESS KILL JEW BUTTON OR ELSE--- oh no too late jew kill you
If you're just moving your character from point a to point b to press button x or your "kill jew" button, then that's just absurd. I probably wouldn't even read the goddamn book if it was just a long message of jew killing is bad.
Execution is key for these types of games. If it was the story of a former nazi officer that got away from charges and is living life as regular is he tries but is haunted by dreams of his past where he must confront and relive each order he faithfully carried, followed by the eventual ending where you choose whether or not you kill yourself, sure I might play that.
To answer this question i have to ask another one. The question is this: What is the meaning of the word GAME? Quite simply, the definition of GAME, or A game, is a process or object that entertains the user and/or subjugates the user to some level of fun. Thus, even if it was beautifully written, drawn up and presented, it would be ART not a GAME. And i doubt very highly that art lovers would prefer to buy what ever system or system upgrades they needed to fully experiance the game AND the game itself AND the electricity to power the game system over taking a quick train, car or bus ride to the nearest art gallery or flea market where they could admire several different types of art for no more than a grand total of 50 dollars. unless the individual is in paris and intending to visit 'Le Louvre' in which case they would need no more than 150 dollars in Euros. I would buy the game IF it was for the PC or i happened to already own the system that ran it AND it would have to be a game that could at least be interesting to my gamer side. That is to say that it would have to be extremely artisticly captivating AND it would have to include something else to keep me playing it, such as an in-depth storyline or a code at the end of the game that gives me 1000 dollars in cash at a particular website or the winning numbers to every lottery in my region.
First of all, I think that's a bad example. I don't think a lot of people would want to play a game where you executed jews as a nazi officer, simply because it's too controversial.
I think we also need a better definition of what you mean by entertainment, fun and art. A game can be fun or entertaining for a variety of reasons. For instance, when playing good RPGs, I don't pay as much attention to the stats and items as I do to the story. The actual gameplay is pushed back for me in favor of something else. If an FPS has some incredibly impressive scenery or interesting enemies, I may not pay attention to the fact that the weapons are bland and uninventive.
I think we also need a better definition of what you mean by entertainment, fun and art. A game can be fun or entertaining for a variety of reasons. For instance, when playing good RPGs, I don't pay as much attention to the stats and items as I do to the story. The actual gameplay is pushed back for me in favor of something else. If an FPS has some incredibly impressive scenery or interesting enemies, I may not pay attention to the fact that the weapons are bland and uninventive.
Your question is flawed. Art is entertaining. Artsy games are entertaining. They may not be fun, but they're sure entertaining.
I wouldn't buy bad art. I wouldn't buy a bad game. I would buy good art. I would buy a good game.
If a game is good art it's going to be entertaining, hence I'd buy it. A game that isn't entertaining but artsy is going to be bad art, I wouldn't buy it.
I wouldn't buy bad art. I wouldn't buy a bad game. I would buy good art. I would buy a good game.
If a game is good art it's going to be entertaining, hence I'd buy it. A game that isn't entertaining but artsy is going to be bad art, I wouldn't buy it.