Quantcast
Community Discussion: Blog by Bob Muir | Friday Rantoid: Do games need to be respectable?Destructoid
LIGHTS:  ON | OFF
surf dtoid with arrow keys

HOT GAMES
REVIEWS VIDEOS COMMUNITY FORUM SHOP

pc PS4 PS3 NEXT XBOX XBOX 360 WII U 3DS PS vita ANDROID APPLE

REMOVE ALL ADS?
Guaranteed contest entry?
A new video show?
Something else?

Vote in our membership poll


Meet the destructoid Team >>   Bob Muir
Bob Muir's blog
★ destructoid | Contributor ★
click to hide banner header
About
Bob has been hanging around ModernMethod for years and and somehow writes almost everywhere, including Japanator and Flixist. He was once lit on fire, but it's not as cool as you'd think.

I remember being in here a lot:


R.I.P. Failcast

Rantoid - An editorial column that updates on Sunday
The Zen of Yaris
Conditions of a Review
Longevity - seven years, to be exact
Stop talking about HD-DVD
What is wrong with Japanese developers?
Are achievements beneficial?
PConsoles
Random topic for New Year's
Gaming changed my Christmas
Dreamcast 2 would fail
Buy more special editions
Game Length and You
Reexamining Twilight Princess
Thank you, Mr. Thompson, for being our nemesis
Do games need to be respectable?
Startgame Syndrome's dark secrets
Pre-hype is a big let-down
Why can't games have bad endings?
Why would you want a Resident Evil film to begin with?

Illustrated Review - A picture-focused analysis of gaming stuff, to save you the trouble of trying it
Fallout 3 Survival Edition (and Collector's Edition)
Fable II Limited Collector's Edition
Dead Space Ultra Limited Edition
SoulCalibur IV Premium Edition
Grand Theft Auto IV: Special Edition
Devil May Cry 4: Collector's Edition
Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect: Limited Editions
Check Mii Out Channel

Systems Owned: 3DS, Dreamcast, DS, DS Lite, DSi XL, GCN, GBA, GBA SP, GB Micro, GBC, N64, PS2, PS3, PSP, Wii, Xbox, Xbox 360

Email/Gtalk: necrosterminus [at] gmail.com
IM: NecrosTerminus
Skype: NecrosTerminus
PSN: NecrosTerminus
Steam: NecrosTerminus
Xbox Live: NecrosTerminus
360's Blog: 360Voice
Player Profile
Follow me:
Bob Muir's sites
Badges
Following (98)  




Author's Note: As if to make up for last week's short rant, this post is long enough to bore a war veteran. So get those "tl;dr" comments ready and dive in.

IRC brings up a lot of interesting subjects. Sure, some of them are mundane topics like which hard drive to buy, quotes from a show I've never heard of, or the dolphin-sex life of Chad Concelmo. But every now and then, you happen upon something that you never really thought about before. A discussion emerged about our gracious editors and their varying art styles. Some of us (guess who) preferred the lengthy articles oft attributed to the likes of Rev. Anthony and Leigh Alexander, while others insisted that the quirky humor of writers like Ron Workman was some of the finest work on the site. Soon, a quote from Niero was brought up along the lines of "No one who writes about Princess Peach should expect to win a Nobel Prize."

Honestly, he's right. Game journalism (alongside its pretentious offspring "new game journalism") is essentially covering a medium in which the most popular games involve a macho soldier who fights evil aliens and a simulation of a sport involving men ramming their heads together over and over. It certainly seems quite tabloid compared to "actual journalism," which apparently involves covering shootings, political intrigue, and covert hacking operations. Then again, it's not really game journalists' fault that their craft is essentially a filter for company press releases. Gaming is still a young medium and is growing by leaps and bounds in artistic merit. It's very similar to how the film industry grew into a full-fledged art form. But I am not here to praise what Niero says, since we all know he is awesome. I would like to try extending the spirit of Niero's quote to games themselves: do games need the respectability that comes with becoming an art form?

Before I continue, let me define what I mean by gaming as an art form, or "games as art," since some gamers are confused by what the phrase means. In its base definition, art is simply the expression of human skill and imagination. However, in terms of games, this technically includes bad games, good games, and exceptional games. I think the reason for these exceptional games is part of the evolution of the medium to reach some meaningful, artistic goal that is above, say, something akin to Space Invaders. So if we were to redefine the base definition, games as art are skillfully-crafted games that solicit higher responses and deeper connections from its audience. Furthermore, there's a difference between games that are art and games that contain art. A game like Bioshock is art because there is something meaningful or intentional in most of the game's design and production. A game like Okami contains art because it's considered art-worthy for the accomplishments of another medium; the game itself is essentially a well-done Zelda for PS2 that succeeded in transferring a paintbrush art style into a playable game. I must qualify these statements by saying that art is subjective, therefore the games as art argument is impossible to define fully. You may view Okami as more than just a well-made game, and I think that Twilight Princess had its moments where I felt more than just the usual enjoyment from playing a game. I realize some of you may disagree with my definition, and I welcome any debate you wish to have, but I am going to continue with this definition for now, seeing as the process of definition could easily warrant its own lengthy investigation.

Now that the definition is established, let us look at gaming's "artistic roots." Its earliest incarnations were simple conversions of diversions like Ping Pong. When arcades exploded in the early 80s, Pac Man became a hit because it was fun. Games became popular because they communicated with base desires for fun and challenge. Effectively, they were interactive toys. For example, take Super Mario Bros., one of gaming's early hallmarks. It's a masterpiece of simple gameplay, ample challenge, and strong level design. It set the standard for the platform games for years to come. However, does this game exist on the same level as movies like Birth of a Nation? I'd say no, and not just because that movie's blatant racism. While Birth of a Nation also set standards for its medium, such as a strong story for the time, character development, and radical visual techniques like cross-cutting, none of those things can be found in or have an equivalent in Super Mario Bros. As I see it, the game is not art, it is just fun, interactive entertainment. And honestly, is that a bad thing?

As Yahtzee pointed out in his recent review of Super Paper Mario, games are supposed to be about amusement. How many of us have played a game like Ikaruga and thought less of it because it's just an arcade game? Guitar Hero is not artistic, but does that make it less enjoyable? The answer is a definite "no," since games were originally meant to be fun, and I think that sometimes escapes games made with the intention to be artistic. Compare the two heavyweights in the survival horror genre, Resident Evil and Silent Hill. Resident Evil is a series founded on jump-scares and action-y gameplay. When I pick up a game in the series, I know that it's not going to be deeper than "OMG THARS ZOMBIES IN THIS HERE HOUSE," but I know it's going to be fun. Silent Hill, on the other hand, takes a much more artistic approach to horror. There are few jump-scares, replaced with an encroaching sense of terror and psychological fears that, ultimately, is more successful than Resident Evil. I enjoy the series, as it has much more substance to it. However, the gameplay itself leaves much to be desired. Combat is stiff, pacing is slow, and it seems that the game is much more concerned with trying to be art than trying to be a game. It's much more fun to take out zombies in Resident Evil than it is to hack at penis-monsters in Silent Hill.

But step back for a moment: do games honestly need to be fun? That might sound like a weird question, considering the connotation associated with "game," but it's an important idea. Forgive me for where I'm going with this, but gaming has many parallels with the film industry in this area. The first films were simple, nonsensical affairs, more concerned with quick laughs and visual information than they were with such weighty concepts as narrative and structure. Right now, games are still in this area: simple, self-gratifying entertainment that ultimately does not hold much importance compared to other mediums. Games also currently have a financial need to be fun in order to get good reviews and sell well. But from the success of games like Shadow of the Colossus, we know that artistic games can be a success, provided they have fun gameplay as part of the package. Electroplankton, a piece of interactive art for DS, was only sold online because it was known in advance that the gaming public would not settle for lack of solid gameplay in their art experience. If that's the case, maybe most gamers need to have a game focus on being a game first and being art second.

So do games need to be fun to succeed? I think Silent Hill is once again a good answer to that. As I've stated above, the controls and gameplay in Silent Hill are weak, often the determining factor in a game's success. However, the game still succeeds in spite of that. Why is this? Because in art, the whole of the message is more important than the deficiencies in its parts. If I let the gameplay deter me, then I would be missing one of the strongest series in gaming.

Does this mean that the industry should attempt to shift its focus away from being mass-market and towards being a respectable artform? I think that would be a false dilemma, as there is no reason why games cannot cater to both sides of the market. Not every movie is a work of high art; for every Matrix produced, there are many Matrix sequels, enjoyable movies that ultimately have little real artistic purpose beyond entertainment. We're never going to see the death of pure escapist games, and trying to raise the prominence of artistic games is going about it all wrong. For gaming to continue rising in success, I believe that the industry should recognize its ability to play both sides and increase the importance of developing artistic games. Maybe then will snobby critics like Roger Ebert finally see what games can offer to society.
Photo



Is this blog awesome? Vote it up!





Did you know? You can now get daily or weekly email notifications when humans reply to your comments.

Legacy Comments (will be imported soon)


Shooting big boss in mgs3 was a lot more heart wrenching and emotional than any movie ive seen in the last couple of years. I don't know if that technially makes it art, but if I can play a game that is fun and be greeted with an ending that makes me wanna hug my mom, im happy
Just on the comment about enjoyable...all art is in some sense meant to be enjoyed. Games just as much, but games would be the first real kind of interactive art,you don't alter a painting or explore a song as its played, but you can in a game
Games can be way more emotional then a movie because you become immersed much greater than from just watching the action.
Great blog, I agree 100% with you.
I'm a big believer that games can be deep and meaningful and still be fun, albeit a different kind of fun. And I think we are really only scratching the surface on this.

I think as soon as it becomes a lot cheaper to produce a solid game then we will see more of these types of games, because as of right now if it doesn't appeal to the general public there really isn't much point in investing millions of dollars into it.

I just hope that game developers continue to push the envelope and don't get lazy like EA for example.

By the way, great post. I love the games as art debate.
Yes, gaming should be first and foremost just gaming! Fun, excitement, something other than work. There is an artistic viewpoint every which way in a game; however if the storyline quality does not match the graphic art quality, 7-8 times out of 10, the gamer doesn't continue with the game. There is a real need for balance with a game, although if the storyline outweighs the graphics, I would think there'd be a good chance of survival. There are so many games out the now so gamers can be as picky as my grandmother, and so many games get marked as "bad eggs". *Just a few thoughts to throw out*
Although not very interested in all the "words", I your title twice, so I think I probably get the gist of things.

I actually think that we have a tiered system already, which is what you seem to be promoting. You have a game like Psychonauts, which people just didn't "get". And as gamers get older, and publishers feel that there are enough intelligent, mature consumers to justify developing an intelligent, mature product, these products will increase.

The greatest inhibitor to producing art is the technological demands of programming a modern game, I think. There is a great documentary called American Movie which chronicles the struggles of this would-be filmmaker in Wisconsin trying to self-produce a horror film called "Coven" (rhymes with "woven"). You have one man without formal training and almost no money wrangling his friends and neighbors to help him, and he gets 'er done. With a game, though, the barrier to entry is high now. To create a good-looking 3D game with HD environments is not possible for one person. So you get creation by committee, which often sucks the creative juices out of a project. One of the lead writers of Portal says Valve is one of the rare places where this doesn't happen.

I think good games often have a powerful director at the helm who can make sure that the project stays true to his or her vision. Miyamoto, Kojima, Will Wright -- these are the people who are ultimately capable, I think, of creating art because at this point they also control the technology.
dammit, i couldn't even get my lead in joke right. I read your title twice

also, long comment got unfocused and out of hand. think i'll post a blog entry tonight that might touch on this.
I was pretty much going to respond with what your last paragraph said. There ought to be games that are purely escapist nonsense fun, and there ought to be games that are deep narratives that are inarguably artworks. There's no reason why we can't have both.
The true travesty here was that you mentioned Workman and Niero while snubbing the comedy genius of Nex. Every time I read a column by Nex, a little bit of a man-crush grows in my heart. And possibly my crotch.
They'll be respectable as soon as the current leading generation is dead. Give it 15-20 years, and games will be completely mainstream, and us nerds will have emigrated to virtual reality.
Games are games. But they CAN be respectable.
Well, I think the first purpose of games is to be entertaining and to sell well. Because of that, I doubt that it will become the focus of big developers, maybe some independent studio will come up with something that will blow everybody away.
First of all, about Destructoid: I don't see why a person can't enjoy Ron Workman, Nex, and Rev. Anthony all equally. I love the silliness, I love the intellectual humor, and I enjoy the more thoughtful, cereal material. If a person throws any one of these things out, then I think they're being foolish and missing out on much of what makes Destructoid great.

Okay, so, moving on. There's a great danger in trying to make artistic games. Obviously, the danger is pretension. Try to make something quality and you could end up with BioShock or Portal or, well, just about any other Valve game. Try too hard and you get a Jericho or a Lair. Hopefully Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed will fall into the former category. Too Human, on the other hand? They're just setting themselves up to fall into the latter group.

As for being fun? I see no reason why "respectable," fun, and enjoyable can't go hand-in-hand. I think we need to define what "fun" means, in this context. The very definition of "fun" is something that causes enjoyment. And certainly when we play a game like BioShock or Portal, we're enjoying it despite, and because of, its respectability and quality.

But then, if we're talking about Ron's "drunkenness and cocks" kind of fun, then that's just a matter of taste... I'm losing focus, so I'll just shut up. Hope that made sense.
I apoligize for not elaborating more in my earlier comment, I was in a hurry. But I do agree on most of your points here. The part about Okami being a well-made Zelda clone at it's core, that was very honest of you, and I totally agree. Also, your assessment of Silent Hill was dead on, as I agree about the gameplay mechanics. A very slow game, and dull combat to boot. Resident Evil is now a full on action game, one of my favorites, but it can't match the pyschological thrills of Silent Hill. To me, that makes Silent Hill a work of art, akin to a serious film, and Resident Evil more of a popcorn flick. But it's the ultimate popcorn flick.
BTW, your avatar is an awesome photoshop, fucking hilarious. I'm assuming that is you?
@ Sharpless
Never said people couldn't like all of them. I personally enjoy nearly every editor on the site. Also, I'm not saying that fun and respectable can't coexist, since I cite Shadow of the Colossus as a marriage of good gameplay and deeper artistic value. I was just presenting the idea that some artistic games might be worthwhile and yet not have fun gameplay.
Sorry, I didn't mean for it to appear that I was claiming that you said people couldn't like them all. I was just in debate mode and didn't feel like phrasing it better. :)

Also, if a game is worthwhile then it is, by definition, also fun. I think people tend to think of "fun" much too narrowly. I'm not sure what you mean about a lack of fun gameplay, though... can you name some examples of worthwhile games without fun gameplay? Personally, I'm not even sure that's possible.
If you're still reading this Sharpless (I know it's off of the front page of the cblogs), I cite Silent Hill as an example of a worthwhile game with a deficient of fun gameplay. I have much more fun with Resident Evil, even though it's not as artistic a game, but Silent Hill's actual gameplay is pretty boring, as I see it. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear enough in my write-up, but I was attempting to use Silent Hill as an answer to questions like yours.
I'm very ADD, so I kind of skimmed the post. *embarrassment* :) Anyway, I still have a hard time understanding the gameplay/worthwhile argument. I'm not a fan of horror games, so your example is foreign to me. I don't think I've experienced a game that is "worthwhile" (what does that mean in this context, now that I think about it?) and yet utterly fails at gameplay. I mean, every game has SOME gameplay shortcomings, but if it is an utter disaster in that area, then I don't think I could consider it worthwhile. Hmm. I'll keep my eye out for such games.
Heh, no need for apologies, it was pretty lengthy.

By worthwhile, I mean that the other parts are skillfully crafted enough, usually in a deeper way than normal games (a.k.a. "art games"), to merit a play of the game, despite the weakness of the gameplay itself, which is normally the reason to play games. Silent Hill's gameplay is simple, stiff, and boring, and level progression often consists of checking 20 locked doors before you find an unlocked one to continue through. However, the production and intended atmosphere of the game are deep enough to warrant my attention. There's a lot more going on beneath the surface, and it's quite psychological, and somehow I can overlook the poor gameplay.

Another example, this one slightly less good: .hack is a repetitive action-RPG with party AI you must micromanage and dated graphics. However, the premise is wildly creative, the game captures the spirit of interaction in MMO games perfectly, and the whole meta-ness of .hack, combined with an almost viral-campaign-like focus which rewards consuming the non-game components of the franchise, merits a playthrough in my book. I say this example is less good than the Silent Hill example because the game places too much focus on the repetitive gamplay and not enough on the brilliant concept the game is founded on.

I hope that clarifies what I mean by a game with poor gameplay that is still worthwhile.
Heh, no need for apologies, it was pretty lengthy.

By worthwhile, I mean that the other parts are skillfully crafted enough, usually in a deeper way than normal games (a.k.a. "art games"), to merit a play of the game, despite the weakness of the gameplay itself, which is normally the reason to play games. Silent Hill's gameplay is simple, stiff, and boring, and level progression often consists of checking 20 locked doors before you find an unlocked one to continue through. However, the production and intended atmosphere of the game are deep enough to warrant my attention. There's a lot more going on beneath the surface, and it's quite psychological, and somehow I can overlook the poor gameplay.

Another example, this one slightly less good: .hack is a repetitive action-RPG with party AI you must micromanage and dated graphics. However, the premise is wildly creative, the game captures the spirit of interaction in MMO games perfectly, and the whole meta-ness of .hack, combined with an almost viral-campaign-like focus which rewards consuming the non-game components of the franchise, merits a playthrough in my book. I say this example is less good than the Silent Hill example because the game places too much focus on the repetitive gamplay and not enough on the brilliant concept the game is founded on.

I hope that clarifies what I mean by a game with poor gameplay that is still worthwhile.
Okay, I get you. I think we simply have to disagree here, then. To me, a game is not worthwhile if any one major component is largely messed up. Also, I'm a gameplay whore. I can play a game with good gameplay but crappy everything else, but I can't tolerate a game that looks and sounds great but plays like total crap. I won't say that absolutely, but that seems to be the way I generally feel.

If Shadow of the Colossus had terrible gameplay, it would be a failure to me, even with the design and story and artistry. Sure, I would definitely give it props for what it did right, but I wouldn't say that such a game would be worthwhile for more than a brief look at what it does right. But hey, that opinion is subject to change. Who knows?

Back to Top
DLC   |   BEST Games of 2012   |   Best PC Games   |   Best PS3 Games   |   Best Xbox 360 Games   |   Best Wii U Games   |   Best 3DS Games




All content is yours to recycle through our Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing requiring attribution. Our communities are obsessed with videoGames, movies, anime, and toys.

Living the dream since March 16, 2006

Advertising on destructoid is available: Please contact them to learn more