Flower and Fl0w developer Jenova Chen has been discussing mature content at the Develop conference in Britain, claiming that videogames need much more of it. Of course, he's not referring to what we commonly think of as mature content -- favoring as he does emotionally engaging material as opposed to blood, guts and swearing.
"I never see that sense of thrill any more in today’s games," he explains. "Yes, today’s games are more real and satisfying but the underlining mechanics are no different from toys ... The human brain likes information -- it’s like a sponge that sucks up information and wants more all the time.
"Other pursuits are enjoyed by adults and not viewed as toys. As a grown up gamer I don’t want to see the games I have been playing with love turn into toys. I think games need to have more mature content -- not like [Dead of Alive] or [Manhunt], but more sophisticated works. Games should make the player think and touch the gamer’s emotion. Gameplay needs to be like any other medium – it has to evoke all kinds of responses. Otherwise our industry will flatline."
I hate it when developer claim that games "should be" anything but enjoyable. Games can be emotionally engaging and intellectually stimulating, but it's not that they should be, it's simply that we should have more of them to compliment those games that are more like "toys." There is room for both in this industry, and to discount one type of game over another is wrong.
At the end of the day, a game can be as emotional and intelligent as it wants, but if it's not still fun at the same time, I couldn't give a crap.
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 need to be fun, or they won't sell. I kind of hope I'm wrong and Chen can prove me so.
"The industry needs to diversify to grow," Exactly man. Well put.
No, but somebody did dictate what games *should* be.
The attitude that is holding back the games industry.
In that case you may as well just spend 10 bucks on a movie.
So basically, you think that games should just become movies?
At the end of the day, a game can be as emotional and intelligent as it wants, but if it's not still fun at the same time, I couldn't give a crap."
Haha, what? In the second sentence you're doing exactly what you malign in the first. You're constraining games to one sort of emotional palette.
It's like saying "A movie can be as emotional and intelligent as it wants, but if it's not a comedy then I'm not interested." How ridiculous does that sound? Now you could argue that there are romantic comedies and historical comedies and dark comedies, etc etc, but as long as they're constrained into the "comedy" supergenre, movies will always be wholly inappropriate for some subject matter.
Similarly for games, I feel like forcing them to be fun just limits them. Instead of "fun", I propose "engaging" as the universal constant that all games should be.
"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.
Videogames should have that kind of games, as a media videogames are just starting and are covering just a tiny bit of all the generes that other mediums cover.
And Jim, entertaiment is not the same as fun...
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.
Fun is sometimes important, but not every book, movie, and painting is fun. It seems like if something is stimulating, interesting, and deep it can replace goofy, violent fun. But mainstream games will NEVER remove the stupid fun, because it doesn't sell. People only want to be entertained; they don't want to think. Which is why video games are just toys and you like that.
But, I dunno, looking at the previous posts seems to suggest the entire world is happy with staring at shiny, jingly keys.
But, I dunno, looking at the previous posts seems to suggest the entire world isN'T happy with staring at shiny, jingly keys.
Was it "fun" to watch the scenes in Band of Brothers where they stumble upon the concentration camps? Absolutely not. It was fucking heartbreaking, especially having to watch the Jewish soldier tell the prisoners that they need to go back into the camps. But was it entertaining? Did it capture my attention? Absolutely.
I don't understand why every moment in a videogame, no matter what the context, needs to be shackled by needing to be "fun." Should seeing Solid Snake be tortured and beaten down to the breaking point be "fun"? Should seeing Kratos kneel before the remains of his wife and daughter that he just accidentally murdered be "fun"? Should pretty much 99% of Heavy Rain be "fun"?
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.