This comes from a tip dropped over on Ectomo: a post on gaming blog Yahuda that challenges the universally-held notion that the primary, and perhaps sole purpose of games is to be fun.
Games are not supposed to be anything. Games are a medium, like movies, books, and painting. The problem with games, and the game industry, and gamers, is that no one has ever thought about games as other than a) how fun they are, and b) how many people play them. Everyone believes that a better game is one that sells more or that more people play.
Bollocks.
The author goes on to point out that paintings, books, movies, and other media have long since moved on from pure entertainment purposes, to a zone where they can serve alternative or additional purposes. Paintings, the author points out, are no longer required to be purely decorative to be worthy of praise and appreciation.
I've presented this hypothesis to several people and receive similar responses: if fun is no longer required in games, what's the point?
It's an intriguing question. And my forays into "art games", and games whose driving purpose is not to be fun, but to teach or to be artful, have taught me that these games are boring, and that I immediately want to stop playing them. I think one could argue that a painting could be high art, even if it compels you to stop looking at it, but I opine that the looking is as much a part of the experience of the painting as what the painting itself portrays. If one is not looking at a painting, one is not experiencing it. The same goes for games. The minute I stop wanting to play a game, my experience with the art of it is crippled.
So I submit that instead of changing our expectations of games, and eliminating our expectations of fun from games, we elevate the experience of fun within a game to the level of art. Fun is an element of games, just as color is an element of paintings. I think the definition of "fun" can be expanded to mean a sense of gratification from interacting within elegant design.
Roger Ebert infamously stated that games would never be art, as they require audience participation. This argument is mindboggling to me, as any piece of art, once it actually departs the skull of the artist, requires audience participation for validation. Even if the only audience is the artist himself, his gaze and consideration completes the art object.
I'm interested in the opinion of the Dtoid public: how would the definitions of "art", "fun", and/or "gaming" have to shift in order for games to be regarded with the same respect as paintings, movies, and music?
Games Are Not Supposed to Be Fun [Yehuda]
Contest:
6:51 PM on 08.03.2007
| 
In general I'd agree that if we define fun as wanting to continue experiencing a game, games should be fun. I can think of one exception to this, though. Every moment I spent playing System Shock 2 was taxing for me, and I did not enjoy the experience at all. If anything I played through the game out of a sense of duty. Yet I would say that that game is one of the cornerstones of video games as art.
I believe the more that gaming explores these varying degrees of interactivity and human involvement (but preferably not in the form of a crap ton of mini-games) the closer they'll get to become a truer art form.
if i had to do academia all over again, i'd have burnt down the art theory offices and taken up biology instead.
live and learn.
All art -- music, painting, sculpture, literature, video games -- is a partnership, a collaboration between artist and recipient. By interpreting art, we own it. The only way to view passively is not to interpret at all -- to record, store, and think of no more.
I found watching Harakiri heartbreaking but at the same time I found it satisfying and bold. Clockwork Orange is a story about a man whose ethics are deplorable, but who is nonetheless oddly compelling. Sure, games don't NEED to be "fun", they don't need to be anything really, but you have to have a reason for playing them. Any problems that apply to games and enjoyment have analogs in other mediums.
What really strikes me is not the point that is trying to be made, but instead the reason behind it. Gamers like myself see games as being capable of so much more. We WANT the medium to explode. We WANT it to be taken seriously. But in order for that to happen, some of us feel as though we must divorce ourselves from our 8-bit history; wash off the palimpsest and start anew. It happened in Sci-fi and comics, and it's happening now in games. But a complete rebirth is not neccicary, there is wisdom in older games.
Want to try something that stretches the boundries of "Fun"? Play The Cosmology of Kyoto on Dosbox and wander through Buddhist hell. Play Bad Mojo, a game that would make Kafka proud. Play Fatal Frame, for god's sake, in the dark at four in the morning and see if that's fun for you.
Our history is a boon, not a burden.
And whatever you do, stop giving that old mute codger any credence. The man is a hypocrite anyway and has no right to criticize a medium he once seemed fond of.
I also play for a (false) sense of accomplishment and to be challenged. For example, Stuntman wasn't fun for me, but it was awesome and it did feel good to beat it and watch those replays of my hard work.
I mainly play to experience what others have created. I play Mario Bros. for fun. I play Shadow of Colossus to feel a sense of wonder and explore what it is like to be someone I'm not.
Games don't have to be fun. Games are art. Eventually this will be obvious.
Games are still entertainment, they are made to sell as entertainment. One day there will be an indie game-developent scene where they make it as art. That day is not now. It may not even be here in 10 years. And wtf, there are enough good films that are considered art and are also fun to watch. Although I'm not sure if say, The Holy Mountain falls in either categorie.
May the gamers' Tarkovsky rise though, I'll enjoy his/her funless piece of art interaction when it's out.
Really, it all depends on the experience you're trying to draw from the game. As Papapishu said, a game like Fatal Frame is just damned scary, and being scared and disturbed isn't fun for me. For many, though, it is. So, while many wouldn't necessarily define horror games as being "fun," they actually are, for those who derive enjoyment from being freaked the fuck out.
So, uh, yes. It IS all about being "fun," but "fun" takes different forms for different people.
Games on the other hand are in the mind of the beholder. How many times have I played the same game through, time and time again, because it touches a part of me that can't be sated with anything else? I believe that there are certain games that can be considered art, while there are certain games that are there just to be f'd around with. Hell, even teh haloes can be considered art if you back up and watch the whole story unfold along with the action involved.
The difference, I believe, is the time frame involved. Were paintings and statues considered art at the time of their inception? Probably. Were movies considered art when they first arrived on the scene? Probably not. However when viewed from a distance, anything can be seen from a different angle. The difference here is that games are not played by everyone, as paintings, statues, plays, and movies are now. The whole gaming community is viewed by those that don't as a separate entity than any of those listed above, and as such, most people view it as a silly little game that requires minimum thought and violent tendencies. But to those of us in the know, know the game itself is a medium to a deeper meaning. We become the character by means of situation, and find ourselves becoming more involved with the game than simple button mashing. Not to say that some games are more than button mashing, but some games delve deep into our psyche and become a part of us, living on until our dying day.
That's just my opinion.
Truly useless.
Would any of you consider monopoly art? it's a game but not very digital (unless you are playing it on your super Nintendo). what about madden 2007? it's just a computer generated simulation of something that exists in the real world, but way less exciting. Would you consider football art? What about watching football?
I think I've made a sufficient case for how pointless this talk-a-thon could become. The point I'm making is that even if some video games are artistic, you'll never convince me that they are all art. It may not have been Ebert's place to say, but I agree with him nonetheless.
Entertainment comes in many forms; the relatively mindless fun which you see in 90% of games is merely the tip of the iceberg. The uniqueness of the video game medium has gigantic potential for creating meaningful art.
That was the point I was trying to make but much more to the point. Good job.
I guess I'm saying it's ambiguous this definition of "fun," but at least I know what I don't want a videogaming experience to feel like: a chore.
Praise the woman who wrote that article! She seems smart and I think she has a point, it doesn't have to be anything.
She's saying most of what I have been saying for quite a while about art. It's not meant to really be what the player always says it is.
I've made the arguement before that too many people think that art is defined by the consumer and what they like when I say "Screw that shit!" Instead I define art as being what the designer wants. Whether the player likes it I think is a moot point. I think it's just a consumers way of giving themselves a pat on the back at how important they are to the business side of things. Gaming is seen less as an artistic medium and more as a business. Being as it has gotten more business oriented then it means catering to an audience. The audience is the one thing that financially keeps it alive. A lot of consumers know this and may have gotten to the point where they think they are the judges of what is what. Whether we realize or not, a lot of us may have gotten to the point.
So if I say art is anything at all, then it would definitely be by the designers whim, not the consumers want.
First off, it assumes that gamers as a whole judge a games greatness by its sales. Basically, that's calling gamers stupid, and if you want to make a point to any group, you shouldn't insult them.
Second, games are just like any medium; if a game/book/movie isn't entertaining in some respect to SOMEONE, then it's meaningless. Entertainment, not necessarily fun (both of which are pretty vague terms) is the key here.
In any medium, if the audience (or at least SOME audience) isn't entertained, then the creator has failed.
Yes, the artist, or game designer in this case, should have final say as to where the game will take you, but if there's no incentive to go along for the ride, then you have nothing.
Yet another example of how video games act in the EXACT same manor as other mediums.
And the argument that the audience influences the outcome is moot because in the end, the only REAL outcomes are the one put in BY THE DESIGNERS!
The path you chose does not effect the end of the story (unless the maker WANTS it to, that is). Much like the vision in you head of how characters, events, and locations are percieved in books does not effect the ending of the book, a gamers choice to stand over a dead body in an FPS and duck-hump them for an hour does not change the fact that storyline is almost always set.
Like in any other art form, you're just along for the ride.
concerning part A I think that it is kind of a dumb thing to say because the only reason that you play is because it is fun- whether you find frustrating puzzles or pwning a fps room or trying to make a jump a thousand times- or even if you do nothing it is all fun to the person who wants to play the game or they wouldn't play it
That makes no sense whatsoever. If you're being entertained, then you're having fun. What on earth on some of us using as a definition of "fun"? Saying that games aren't supposed to be fun is, effectively, saying that games aren't supposed to be enjoyed at all. There is no logic in that whatsoever.
The fault in her argument is that video games as a quality are dictated by their sales and/or popularity. If we were to apply the same logic to movies a lot of movies that would be included in that catagory would be anything but art (in the sense that the author was discussing).
The first definition of entertainment through Google: an activity that is diverting and that holds the attention
By this strict definition, I do think that games need to be entertaining, because they cannot be experienced fully if they are not.
However, fun's first definition is: activities that are enjoyable or amusing. I'm currently playing FF VI for the first time (I know, blasphemy). It is difficult, challenging, and engrossing 95% of the time, and fun for the remainder. Satisfying? Yes. Fun? Not necessarily.
As for games, 'art' and 'fun'.. And 'Fun VS Entertainment', maybe I'll be able to fit it here:
I realized when I saw Black Hawk Down, and tried to define its qualities afterwards, that I could not call it 'fun', or even exactly 'entertaining' in my somewhat limited definition of the word, back then.
I came to appreciate film critics' use of words like 'gripping' or 'compelling', as a movie about war or atrocities like genocide aren't exactly uplifting or highspirited.. but they do make you think. Hense the often used term 'thought-provoking'. So, I realized I could be 'entertained' without something being 'fun' or exciting in the 'f***-yeah!' action movie sort of way.
The question is if games can do the same thing, and be compelling enough to keep us playing (or should I say 'participating', as 'play' suggests something 'fun') even if they're simply thought-provoking. I suppose it would come down to what people go to games to receive. Do we, as a culture want anything more than the equivalent of fantasy, sci-fi, and action movies as games?
Then they pick it up and keep playing.
Definitions of "fun":
1 : what provides amusement or enjoyment
Definition of "amusement":
1 : a means of amusing or entertaining
Therefore, fun and being entertained go hand-in-hand. I think some of us are being a little too strict with how we interpret the word "fun." It doesn't just mean we're jumping around giddily and laughing and generally acting like Zoolander at a dance party. Fun is, effectively, anything that's a positive experience. And if a game is something that is satisfying or positive in any way, even if the tone of the game is harsh or the game is challenging, then it is still fun. So, yes, anything we favor and enjoy and keep coming back to is, almost always, fun.
Quoting Ebert is like quoting an art critic from the dawn of filmmaking and asking him/her if movies will ever become a serious artform. Useless comments from someone too detached from the media to truely critique it.