While I agree with you completly, I don't think he's quite eschewing fun, he's just saying that we need the mature depth in addition to it. I could be totally misreading it though >.<

I agree with his sentiment that we need games that break free from the hard coded mechanics of "Start, shoot, Die, Restart" and pursue new ways of playing. NPCs and environments have a toy-like interactions in current usage, because all you can generally do right now is attack them in different ways.

I think the challenge is doing something like putting yourself into an interesting situation and still making it interactive. The first thing that comes to mind for topics to begin is to approach dramatic movies that don't involve violence as the solution, and think, how could I make a person face decisions like those in the movie - and how to make it an entire interactive world instead of a series of cutscenes.

Games do touch emotions. Emotions of elation at winning or sailor swearing at losing. Nice info Chen, and you are on the right track, but expectin games to be much more of this is tricky. Only rarely do they tug at heartstrings.

Games need to be fun, or they won't sell. I kind of hope I'm wrong and Chen can prove me so.

Jim I dont think hes saying that all "toy" games should disappear and be replaced with games that provide a different interactive experience. I think he wants the same thing you want, a world where both of these types of games can co-exists. Your always going to need Hollywood and "art cinema" (a term which is fairly problematic) in the world. Hopefully that parallel is was clear.

Who are you and have you done to AAA game developers... Oh, wait, Flower is not in the AAA league. Thank god for that...

"Nobody said "take away the fun and replace it with this other thing"."

No, but somebody did dictate what games *should* be.

Indeed. How dare we expect to be entertained by entertainment?

Games as Art. Yeah, we get it. I hear opinion pieces almost every day now. We get it. Stop philosophizing and start doing it already.

all this philosophy of videogames is tiring. You can make your artsy bullshit game and delve into the deep inner-workings of our entertainment values, but if it doesnt sell than who gives a fuck. Hipsters alone wont keep your company running.

I think you have it wrong, Jim. We don't want "intellectually stimulating" games because we want to be cultured and elitist, we want them because they are enjoyable. You cannot seperate art and enjoyment, the purpose of art is to be interesting and ultimately enjoyment... Most of us don't watch a Fellini film because we hope it will increase the value in our person, we watch it because it is interesting/enjoyable.
"Art" (and I don't like the word) is enjoyment for those of us who have been so bored to death by the same old save the world plots and explosions, and who simply want something more interesting or original.

Well shit, run for the hills, someone having the gall to demand that games have a bit more sophistication to them, and not once saying that they should be boring as balls at the same time. Good lord, you'd almost need creative game designers to embrace and enforce that kind of idea.

I feel like I just read a Summa piece. Too bad more wasn't quoted from the article, he made great points, and not one point on devaluing the entertainment factor of a game for the sake of artistic merit. Some of you seem 'scared' that a game attempting to be "artsy" will be a boring piece of shit.

*ins't (sorry)

But, I dunno, looking at the previous posts seems to suggest the entire world isN'T happy with staring at shiny, jingly keys.

" Should " is the most judgmental word in the English language.

whatisdelicious. read what he said.

"No amount of artsy fartsy shite will cover up bad game design."
Of course not. Nobody except those reading too deep into this article are stating this. Not once in the quoted article (nowhere...at all...) did the designer infer that you can have sophisticated or artistic design in lieu of decent gameplay as a substitute. In fact, he kind of eludes to the opposite being true towards the beginning (after the ad) with his sports anecdote! Seriously, it's like the whole point of what the developer was stating was ignored and instead some manufactured non-issue was brought up.

I swear some of y'all just look for shit to bitch about.

You're all misinterpreting where the fun has to come from for games. Games are more than outlets for game designers to express mature themes and emotions, they are interactive mediums. A game has to be fun to play to warrant its existence, not filled with emotional characters and other artistic tropes. You can create a mature game, but if you're only looking to do that through the storyline then you should've made a movie instead. Games are not simply story lines that unfold when a press some buttons (Heavy Rain still has a lot to prove for me). You can't compare movies and games so directly. A dramatic film doesn't have to also be a comedy to be fun, because all you do is watch it. If watching the drama engages you, mission accomplished. The same cannot be said for games. If you're expressing deep emotions through convincing characters, but neglect gameplay, then you have just made an artistic game that isn't fun and is therefore not a worth a damn. Simply take flOwer, one that has been recently held up as a strong example of art as games. The gameplay is shallow and the controls are limiting, you follow a trail at a speed that becomes completely inappropriate for all the small loops of flowers you need to collect. The game created a great atmosphere but without game content, wouldn't this atmosphere be better spent on a game realized gameplay is what sets games apart, and is what's going to have to be advanced before games can be considered their own form of art? All this focus on story shows how constrained the community is, or how eager game developers are to gain acceptance into the mainstream pretentious art community as opposed to actually forwarding their medium.

This thread was won by Whatisdelicious.