Past and present Destructoid editors have talked about how games should be more than simple, mindless fun, and while I wholly appreciate that games can do "more", I've been trying to express my thoughts about "dumb" videogames versus "art" games for a while, because I'm not a fan of the "fun isn't enough" mentality.
This week seemed like a good time to do it, funnily enough.
In defending games like Bulletstorm, Gears of War and God of War, I make the case that mindless fun is just as valid, if not more so, than most of the "arty" games on the market. I probably didn't express myself as coherently as I would've liked, but I think I did okay.
Jim Sterling serves as reviews editor for Destructoid.com, head of the Podtoid podcast, and produces a number of news stories, original features, one-of-a-kind videos. With his passionate argumentative style, controversial opinions, harsh delivery, and dedication to brutal honesty Sterling is a name that you can't help but recognize.
Likes
PS2, iPod Touch, Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid, Dynasty Warriors 3
Meet the rest of the team
Fun can be enough, but there is so much more that can be done with any artform, including gaming. Why the hell would you talk shit about art in gaming when it's such a small sector of the industry to begin with. Guess what: you already get your big dumb shooters, but while you get your Die Hards, I'm still waiting for a Citizen Kane.
I agree with this. I have to say that the way art games are portrayed right now, and the way they are done right now is pretty lame. If anything I'd say they are more "Experimental" games than art games, flipping rules on their head, and sacrificing fun for other concepts.
There is no such thing as any one game "holding back the industry". The only thing that's holding back the industry is reserving the "art" label for specific games with experimental or pretentious qualities which may not be fun. I can't really say it any better than Jim did.
Best one yet ........ When I play video games I do want to switch off most of the time but there are different games for different moods and I think most of us know that .....
Hey Jim, what do you think about Picasso and modern/conteporary art in general? I think they're just pretensious bullshit, and i connect clearly what you said to them.
"Old" (pre-modern) art were made just for the amusement. You looked at them and just FELL amazed, had them a message or not. Post-Picasso, though, you have to "comprehend the artist" in order to "get" the art. I think it's just bullshit, if they can't make you feel wonder just by the painting/sculpture themselves it's just a piece of crap.
one of your best Jimquisitions yet... though I only giggle inanely when I shoot someone in the nuts. :)
I think that people that don't understand FPS or shooter games also don't realize the social aspect to them... it's like going down to your favorite pub. There will be some jerks looking for a fight, there will be some really nice and interesting people, and if you're regular, there will even be your small circle of friends. There's something addictive about having fun in a social environment - whether you're working together - or just shooting each other in the nuts!
"I'm not afraid to look stupid! I wear aviators indoors!" Hahaha that was one of the funniest things I've heard in a while. Another great point jim! I love your vids.
Maybe video games would be taken more seriously as an entertainment medium if they stopped trying too hard. If games tried less to be clever and have "movie-like experiences", the video game medium would be more accepted. No need to play on other mediums' strengths if games can't take advantage of the strengths of their own interactive medium.
I am all in for making video games more than just simple minded fun, if they can do it in an honest and creative way. But not everyone is looking for those types of experiences, and there is no reason why we couldn't have both, the market is damn sure big enough for both.
And why look for gamings "Citizen Kane"? We got our own thing going, it's not like the movie or music industry are looking for their Super Mario in the same way.
"Hey Jim, what do you think about Picasso and modern/conteporary art in general? I think they're just pretensious bullshit, and i connect clearly what you said to them."
I think about paintings the way I think about most forms of art -- just like I don't want to play a game that isn't fun, I don't want to hang a painting on my wall that isn't pleasant to look at.
Some art game devs (SOME, not all) seem to think they'll make their game more edgy and unique by making it horrible to play. But I wouldn't want a shit painting on my wall, why would I like a shit game in my hands?
Conveying a message AND being entertaining ... that's the mark of a truly talented developer, and very few have the nuts to even attempt it.
You'll be waiting 'til the end of time. Not only will the video game industry never have its "Citizen Kane," it doesn't really need one. The gaming industry is getting its artistic games like Braid (which I personally didn't like but whatever), Flower and Limbo, all of which were met with astonishing praise from both critics and the public. In time these games will be looked back on and lauded for their artistic merit. But it's not going to happen overnight, and it's not going to happen solely because a group of people say so.
The best thing that could happen on the "artsy games" front would be if the lot of them, including the aforementioned Anthony Birch (for whom I lost all respect for when he foolishly tossed around the word "coward"), stopped having such a needy hard on for acceptance. That's what this boils down to: people desperately wanting games to be accepted as an art form by the other established art forms. In order to try and gain this acceptance they constantly try to one-up each other with one exceedingly pretentious game after another, never realizing that they're fighting a one-sided battle against nobody, because the people who don't consider games to be an art form, by and large, will never know their products exist.
When it comes to the "Games as Art" debate, and the "Artsy Games" debate as well, I can think of no more apt a time to say "STFUAJPG."
I think Passage, Gravitation, not The Path, The Marriage and a variety of other "art games" are just as enjoyable in their own right as any other game. The mechanics are interesting -- but perhaps not fun -- and for five minutes, that's plenty. Die Hard is cool to watch, fun even; but Wild Strawberries is the better film.
I applaude any attempt at something new but most art games seem to exist for no other reason than to be different and be all "Please take gaming seriously".
Sos Jim but you're totally wrong here. First you give a bad example by comparing mindless action movies to video games. Well for one thing movies are a passive art form compared to video games which requires input and thus more thinking and parts of your brain.
I absolutely love 80s/90s action movies for being funny and over the top like Commando but FPS games are just meatheaded and lack that almost self-aware humour. And whilst we'd all welcome the Duke Nukem games where you'd rip off Rowdy Roddy Piper lines, what we have now isn't the kind of humourous games but are completely serious in their mindless stupidity.
The simple question is whether I think there are too many mindless games or not enough. And the answers is that there are too many brain dead games out there, which is more than just shooter genres.
My God Jim I always love your show but I think this one is by far my all time favorite.. I don't think any one could have said it better -and I should know, I've been trying to say the EXACT same thing for years.
If I'm not having fun then I don't want to play a game. I can have fun with art just as much as I can have fun with mindless shit -Its entertainment and if its not fun I don't want it anywhere near my brain. Life sucks enough as it is, once we start letting the things that are supposed to keep our minds off that fact drag us down is when we mine as well just consider chomping down on a plugged in electrical cord.
Well said Strandil. Games are unique to themselves, I think it's weird when they're compared to other mediums like that.
Both Braid and Limbo were immensely fun to me, while also displaying a deeper meaning if you looked into it. Both games required a lot of interpretation, just any good artwork. But they were also damn fun.
Words cannot describe my hatred for Anthony Burch. He's such a pretentious hipster asshole. I'm glade he's not on the site anymore. The day he left, was the day I started to visit Destructoid more.
For the record, I have a HUGE amount of love and respect for Anthony Burch, so this video is not a "take that" at him and I do not personally condone any anti-Burch commentary in the threads. If you dislike him, fair deal, but please do not think I dislike him.
We just don't always agree on the ol' art subject.
I totally agree with you about Edmund and The Path. Those are games which don't use the mechanics in interesting ways, they use other elements to mislead the player into some false, bullshit meaning.
However, I must disagree with your basic premise that pretension is somehow evil. While it is annoying when someone is stuck up their own ass in a superiority/elitist complex, applying literary analysis to games allows us to discover interesting and meaningful observations that we might not notice otherwise.
It's annoying when someone does this on a game that never intended it. Pacman isn't a great dissertation on the nature of addiction, it's a fun arcade game.
That said, Passage was intended to be a metaphor that could not be illustrated with any other medium. The story and the points that the game make comes from its very mechanics, and it is wholly unique to games. It cannot be replicated exactly in any other way.
I think mindless fun is an incredible force, and it has and shall forever be a respite from the brutality of everyday life. However, it is one element of game, not its foundation.
As much as I love him, I was kinda hoping you were going to call Anthony a pretentious douchebag for that incredibly painful "fun isn't enough" comment.
I love these by the way, you're kind of like the anti Burch, it's the same passion, just we don't have to hear about how "paassage drove many gamers to tears".
I would NOT mind if this is what everyone agreed art should be. Kubrick said something similar. Something along the lines of: It could be artsy and meaningful, but is it 'interesting'. I am a fan of putting together the words fun, entertaining, and interesting in the same definition when defining games.
That game is fun as tits. Anyone looking to blow some dinosaurs up in retarded ways should get that game. It's also terrible...in a good way.
Why should games have to be accepted as art anyways? It's kind of a mute point. I just see good games and bad games. If it's fun, it's fun, it doesn't matter what kind it is.
Why be such a contrarian? You said yourself that we can, and should, have both. Why would you later place "fun" superior to other emotions? I've definitely had a lot of enjoyment with "mindless fun" games, but I don't doubt for a second I could have a more profound experience with a game that manages to draw on a larger spectrum of emotions. game designers have gotten incredibly good at creating these kind of experiences, and I think people would like to see the same kind of expertise be developed for other type of games as well.
Designing something for someone to have mindless fun (switing off their brain) with/enjoying isn't easy, but it sure is the easiest of emotions to call on (except, perhaps, frustration?). It's kind of like saying that Porn is inherently superior to non-erotic feature films.
There's room in the world for all games. For "cinematic" games that are nigh-nothing but cutscenes, and for so-immersive-you're-so-Gordon-Freeman games, and for arty farty platformers with LOOK AT ME I'M SO ART DIRECTION! too. Just like any artform, there's room for EVERYTHING in gaming.
On a kind of related note, this brings me to a pet peeve of mine...It bothers me to see people holding any series of games to any preconceived "standard" outside of "Is it fun?"
I've been playing Final Fantasy XIII and I've loved it so far. No it's not FFVI, or VII, or VIII because IT'S FFXIII. IF PEOPLE WANT TO PLAY FFVI OR VII, GO PLAY THAT, INSTEAD OF EXPECTING A SERIES WHOSE WHOLE GIMMICK IS THAT IT'S NEVER THE SAME TWICE TO SUDDENLY CATER TO YOU.
I love it when series have different things to offer to different gamers. I don't love every FF game ever, but I love its existence in its current form. I love that it has sequels and spinoffs, cause it means there's more for everyone and that Square is either 1) experimenting now that they have money to toss about, or 2) trying new things to see what sticks and what to use in the future. Whether you're a story guy, a music guy, a gameplay guy, or all of these, chances are one of the FF games will catch your eye.
"For the record, I have a HUGE amount of love and respect for Anthony Burch, so this video is not a "take that" at him and I do not personally condone any anti-Burch commentary in the threads."
Ah, my bad, perhaps pretentious douchebag was a little much, how about ultra-indie hipster?
Nice one Jim!, this is my favorite Jimquisition episode. Also, the intro when you are banging Sonic is the most artistic thing I've ever seen you do :)
The Wii one showed why Jim occasionally has a decent thought in these things. This one shows why Jim is kind of a trollish tool. Yes, it's okay to like big dumb fun occasionally. To argue they are better than games that try to do more is stupid, period.
I have no problem with more mindless games that really emphasize gameplay, but what bugs me with multi-million dollar games like Gears of War and God of War is that they can't seem to muster up any part of the budget to hire a halfway decent writer. We don't even need grandiose storylines, but at least have the dialogue feel like it wasn't written by a freshman in college. I just want to actually be interested in whats going and I want to give half a fuck about the characters. I mean, when Dom found his wife in Gears 2, did anyone seriously give a shit? In God of War 3, did anyone feel the slightest thing for Pandora at the end, or for that matter, Kratos?
"Ah, my bad, perhaps pretentious douchebag was a little much, how about ultra-indie hipster?"
He's a big boy, I'm sure he can take it. I just didn't want people to think that *I* think of him that way is all. You can call the fucker what you like.
Silly gamer hipsters...chainsaws and cursing is too mainstream for them...giant birds are amazing tho....until..."giant birds were awesome...i saw that game as a E3 demo, but now that sold 2 million copies it sucks"..if you think you are too smart for games...theres always math..if you are not asian...cause i heard math is HUGE in asia.
@Jim
I didn't like him much really. He was interesting at first but he was grasping at straws and recycling material towards the end. He was pretty pretentious IMO. I didn't take away that you didn't like him though.
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
2:00 PM on 01.20.2011 | 
@Maxx
You don't have a game yet that you would consider a masterpiece? I can think of 2 or 3 for me personally.
"Shit"
Excellent as always good sir!
There is no such thing as any one game "holding back the industry". The only thing that's holding back the industry is reserving the "art" label for specific games with experimental or pretentious qualities which may not be fun. I can't really say it any better than Jim did.
Good vid as always Jim.
"Old" (pre-modern) art were made just for the amusement. You looked at them and just FELL amazed, had them a message or not. Post-Picasso, though, you have to "comprehend the artist" in order to "get" the art. I think it's just bullshit, if they can't make you feel wonder just by the painting/sculpture themselves it's just a piece of crap.
I think that people that don't understand FPS or shooter games also don't realize the social aspect to them... it's like going down to your favorite pub. There will be some jerks looking for a fight, there will be some really nice and interesting people, and if you're regular, there will even be your small circle of friends. There's something addictive about having fun in a social environment - whether you're working together - or just shooting each other in the nuts!
Jim, you are one of the greatest men in this industry. You are real, you are true, and you always back up what you say with stuff that makes sense.
The haters only hate because they are afraid of you.
I am all in for making video games more than just simple minded fun, if they can do it in an honest and creative way. But not everyone is looking for those types of experiences, and there is no reason why we couldn't have both, the market is damn sure big enough for both.
And why look for gamings "Citizen Kane"? We got our own thing going, it's not like the movie or music industry are looking for their Super Mario in the same way.
I think about paintings the way I think about most forms of art -- just like I don't want to play a game that isn't fun, I don't want to hang a painting on my wall that isn't pleasant to look at.
Some art game devs (SOME, not all) seem to think they'll make their game more edgy and unique by making it horrible to play. But I wouldn't want a shit painting on my wall, why would I like a shit game in my hands?
Conveying a message AND being entertaining ... that's the mark of a truly talented developer, and very few have the nuts to even attempt it.
You'll be waiting 'til the end of time. Not only will the video game industry never have its "Citizen Kane," it doesn't really need one. The gaming industry is getting its artistic games like Braid (which I personally didn't like but whatever), Flower and Limbo, all of which were met with astonishing praise from both critics and the public. In time these games will be looked back on and lauded for their artistic merit. But it's not going to happen overnight, and it's not going to happen solely because a group of people say so.
The best thing that could happen on the "artsy games" front would be if the lot of them, including the aforementioned Anthony Birch (for whom I lost all respect for when he foolishly tossed around the word "coward"), stopped having such a needy hard on for acceptance. That's what this boils down to: people desperately wanting games to be accepted as an art form by the other established art forms. In order to try and gain this acceptance they constantly try to one-up each other with one exceedingly pretentious game after another, never realizing that they're fighting a one-sided battle against nobody, because the people who don't consider games to be an art form, by and large, will never know their products exist.
When it comes to the "Games as Art" debate, and the "Artsy Games" debate as well, I can think of no more apt a time to say "STFUAJPG."
I absolutely love 80s/90s action movies for being funny and over the top like Commando but FPS games are just meatheaded and lack that almost self-aware humour. And whilst we'd all welcome the Duke Nukem games where you'd rip off Rowdy Roddy Piper lines, what we have now isn't the kind of humourous games but are completely serious in their mindless stupidity.
The simple question is whether I think there are too many mindless games or not enough. And the answers is that there are too many brain dead games out there, which is more than just shooter genres.
If I'm not having fun then I don't want to play a game. I can have fun with art just as much as I can have fun with mindless shit -Its entertainment and if its not fun I don't want it anywhere near my brain. Life sucks enough as it is, once we start letting the things that are supposed to keep our minds off that fact drag us down is when we mine as well just consider chomping down on a plugged in electrical cord.
Both Braid and Limbo were immensely fun to me, while also displaying a deeper meaning if you looked into it. Both games required a lot of interpretation, just any good artwork. But they were also damn fun.
You said what most gamers think but don't say because they are afraid of looking dumb people (yes, i'm borrowing your words)
Keep it up Jim!!!
Jim you are the savior of gaming "journalism".
We just don't always agree on the ol' art subject.
I totally agree with you about Edmund and The Path. Those are games which don't use the mechanics in interesting ways, they use other elements to mislead the player into some false, bullshit meaning.
However, I must disagree with your basic premise that pretension is somehow evil. While it is annoying when someone is stuck up their own ass in a superiority/elitist complex, applying literary analysis to games allows us to discover interesting and meaningful observations that we might not notice otherwise.
It's annoying when someone does this on a game that never intended it. Pacman isn't a great dissertation on the nature of addiction, it's a fun arcade game.
That said, Passage was intended to be a metaphor that could not be illustrated with any other medium. The story and the points that the game make comes from its very mechanics, and it is wholly unique to games. It cannot be replicated exactly in any other way.
I think mindless fun is an incredible force, and it has and shall forever be a respite from the brutality of everyday life. However, it is one element of game, not its foundation.
I love these by the way, you're kind of like the anti Burch, it's the same passion, just we don't have to hear about how "paassage drove many gamers to tears".
That game is fun as tits. Anyone looking to blow some dinosaurs up in retarded ways should get that game. It's also terrible...in a good way.
Why should games have to be accepted as art anyways? It's kind of a mute point. I just see good games and bad games. If it's fun, it's fun, it doesn't matter what kind it is.
Designing something for someone to have mindless fun (switing off their brain) with/enjoying isn't easy, but it sure is the easiest of emotions to call on (except, perhaps, frustration?). It's kind of like saying that Porn is inherently superior to non-erotic feature films.
There's room in the world for all games. For "cinematic" games that are nigh-nothing but cutscenes, and for so-immersive-you're-so-Gordon-Freeman games, and for arty farty platformers with LOOK AT ME I'M SO ART DIRECTION! too. Just like any artform, there's room for EVERYTHING in gaming.
On a kind of related note, this brings me to a pet peeve of mine...It bothers me to see people holding any series of games to any preconceived "standard" outside of "Is it fun?"
I've been playing Final Fantasy XIII and I've loved it so far. No it's not FFVI, or VII, or VIII because IT'S FFXIII. IF PEOPLE WANT TO PLAY FFVI OR VII, GO PLAY THAT, INSTEAD OF EXPECTING A SERIES WHOSE WHOLE GIMMICK IS THAT IT'S NEVER THE SAME TWICE TO SUDDENLY CATER TO YOU.
I love it when series have different things to offer to different gamers. I don't love every FF game ever, but I love its existence in its current form. I love that it has sequels and spinoffs, cause it means there's more for everyone and that Square is either 1) experimenting now that they have money to toss about, or 2) trying new things to see what sticks and what to use in the future. Whether you're a story guy, a music guy, a gameplay guy, or all of these, chances are one of the FF games will catch your eye.
"For the record, I have a HUGE amount of love and respect for Anthony Burch, so this video is not a "take that" at him and I do not personally condone any anti-Burch commentary in the threads."
Ah, my bad, perhaps pretentious douchebag was a little much, how about ultra-indie hipster?
He's a big boy, I'm sure he can take it. I just didn't want people to think that *I* think of him that way is all. You can call the fucker what you like.
I didn't like him much really. He was interesting at first but he was grasping at straws and recycling material towards the end. He was pretty pretentious IMO. I didn't take away that you didn't like him though.