next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Summary here: http://studioeres.com/games/content/games-and-value

We talked about whether games should provide more value to people than entertainment, and whether games have the right to try to make people think more about the world, or if they should just be about fun. Would appreciate your thoughts on this.

[brog]

If someone's spending time playing your game, it's having an effect on them.  I don't see how this can be a neutral effect, because if nothing else it's using up their time.  Anything that someone spends time doing is going to change them somehow, teach them something, so I think it's good to look at what the effects might be and try to ensure that they are positive.  We can't entirely control the effect that our work will have on people, but since no matter what, if they're spending time playing it it will have an effect, we'd better try our best anyway.

Of course, simply providing pleasure or relaxation can be a good positive effect, but it is admirable to try to do more than that.  And if someone plays your game, of course you have the right to try to have a particular effect on them - they're choosing to play the game, they can stop whenever they like.  Any effect you have is something they are willingly accepting.

So basically, I fully agree with you and disagree with this Teegee chap.

[Gnarf]

I think the "not having a right to change the way people think" point is bollocks. Same goes for anything relating to what is "essentially human". Of course we should try to change the way people think. And we should never try to be "more human" just for the sake of it.

Anyway. I'm not really sure what you have in mind. At first I'm sort of guessing that it's some "games as movies" discussion about having a message or making a statement or whatever. But given the "music which doesn't break any conventions or harmonies" part I'd say it can just as well be about seemingly counter-intuitive game mechanics or something.

if they're spending time playing it it will have an effect

Also that. Maybe some people just can't stand the thought of a world with only casual "light entertainment" half-games and kill themselves over it.

[GregWS]

this Teegee chap.

Uh, you know he's a TIGer too, right?

I'm definitely agreeing with rinku on this one; we should get people thinking.

And counter-intuitive game mechanics are great, and definitely succeed in fucking with the player and getting them thinking about things.  Killing one's self in Psychosomnium definitely comes to mind here.

[brog]

this Teegee chap.

Uh, you know he's a TIGer too, right?

I did not.  Ohh, he's the MAGI guy.  Sorry, I'm not very good with names.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Yeah, my music that doesn't break conventions example wasn't a great example, I probably could have come up with better ones. I think some music which is conventional can be perfectly fine, and I don't think mainstream art in general is really intended as thought control in a conspiracy sense, it's more that the end result is people who aren't ever confronted with anything outside of their comfort zones, which isn't good for the mind since it thrives on challenges and new experiences, not relaxation and contentment.

I am kind of against it if only just for reason: I don't like the idea of creating games which don't challenge the player (and I don't mean in the sense of difficulty level). It's fine that games which are just entertaining exist I guess, but it's not what I want to do, and it's not what I think is best for people, and I don't like that 'just entertaining' games dominate, I'd prefer a more balanced mix of the two.

[Seth]

I think that it is condescending to make games (or anything) that are intended to change the way people think, unless it is a straightforward essay or argument.  Otherwise it seems sneaky, like you are trying to trick the audience into playing a game or reading a novel and then all the sudden some sort of lesson comes along.

But I think games should definitely work to be compelling.  That is, give the audience something to think about, or, rather, have enough substance so that there is something worth thinking about.  What is it in a good movie or story or, more rarely, a game that compels us to consider the actions and their consequences of the characters or entities in them?  I'm not sure, but it's not found in cheap action movies or cheap action games.

I disagree that games should "fuck with the player."  Though I don't think that instance in Psychosomnium is fucking with the player, so I guess we are working with different definitions, but "fuck with the player" brings to mind ways the game designer can too easily trick the player to do something that the game will rather chastise them for, which in my opinion is rather cheap.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Essays or arguments can change what people think about, or what beliefs they hold, but they can't as easily change the method or manner of thought, or give the experiences necessary for such changes, so I think it's different there.

As an example, an essay or argument on the evils of totalitarianism wouldn't have worked anywhere near as effectively as the novels 1984 or Brave New World. The novels changed the entire way that people thought about totalitarianism, and they almost give you the experience of being in one, whereas the former couldn't really do something like that.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

And as I said in the entry I linked to, it's not about changing what they think, it's about provoking thought on a particular subject, or just provoking thought in general by poking the mind, just increasing the amount of awareness. I agree that it'd be condescending to create art intended as propaganda for a particular point of view, but that isn't what I was arguing for at all.

[Seth]

Yes, I agree with you, I was mostly responding to Gnarf:

Of course we should try to change the way people think

1984 and Brave New World I don't mind because they don't seem to be pushing a specific agenda so much as provoking thought, as you said.  It's the difference between them and The Jungle, which turns into "Socialism is the solution to all our problems!" by the end of it.  1984 and Brave New World just display a world that is imaginable and the main message is something like "wouldn't this suck?"

EDIT:  Or rather they don't say it would suck so much as let the reader decide for themselves if it would suck or not.  You can obviously tell the author's own opinion but in the end they let the reader decide that their vision will not be an appealing world to live in.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I haven't read The Jungle yet, will read it one day and see. I've had a copy of it for a while, but never got around to it.

[agj]

During my stay here in the TIGSource forums I have, in various occasions, shared my opinion on this subject. I have even engaged in debate over related issues with you, rinku. Yes, I am a big proponent of 'games that matter'. This could mean games that deliver a message, games that teach or train an ability, games that make you think, or, in general, games that perform some kind of positive influence on the player, and on society as a whole by extension.

There is nothing wrong with entertainment for its own sake (as long as it's not the only alternative), but as brog put it, it's only responsible to be aware of what effects the game we're making will have on the player, because it is going to have an effect.

[GregWS]

Hmm, maybe what you guys are getting at is that you/we like works that strongly hint why a certain system is bad, but don't outright suggest an alternative.  Basically, it's 1984 refuting totalitarianism but not offering a different system.  It would be as if Marx had only talked about the problems of Capitalism but never suggested Communism as an alternative, leaving that crucial step for people to figure out themselves.

Actually, the more I think about this model, the more I like it.  It really is thought provoking, but not "preachy," as it indirectly asks the user/reader/watcher the question: "Well, what do you propose we do?" instead of providing some perfect solution.  And even better, a lot of people are now thinking about "what we should do," as opposed to just passively agreeing or disagreeing with the designer's/author's/director's viewpoint.

Well, I think when I attempt a thought provoking game it'll definitely follow this model, if only because there are quite a few things in our society I'm critical of but have no "magic solution" for.

[TeeGee]

I would just like to add few things, as Paul was the one who wrote the article, and he obviously wrote it from his point of view. He definitely tried to be fair to what I said, but I feel he missed some points I had in mind (unintentionally).

My point wasn't that games shouldn't change the way people think. I think they should, but I also think the people should be the ones to make the choice if they want entertainment or enlightment.
The discussion was spawned by speculations if a casual game should feature death and other heavy topics that might be unpleasent but ultimately thought-provoking. I claim that people should be able to just have fun if they want to.
One of the analogies I used, was that if in the Indiana Jones movie Indy would suddenly die during a chase, people would feel cheated, unhappy and guilty about enjoying the chase scene. And all they wanted was to spend a nice evening.

Though, I also believe people should be able to pick Bergman's Seventh Seal over Indiana Jones. Thought provoking art should definitely be there, but I feel no one has the right to impose it on people who just want to have fun. Enjoyment, in my opinion, is equally important and a value in itself.

So yeah, please, do bring more Psychosomniums and Graveyards. Just don't make my Kratos or Bejewelled diamonds suddenly preach me about the meaning of life.

(Rinku, could you quote this in the OP. I feel honored that you considered conversation with me discussion worthy, but I would like to have my own voice included there. Thanks.)   

[Hajo]

 

Some books are just for fun of reading. Some books are deep thought and want to make people think. Good? Good.

Why the discussion at all? Some games are just for fun. Some games are for education, or to transport messages or to make people think. Good? Good.

I see no point in arguing for either side. People are intelligent enough to choose, to choose what they want to experience. It's not like, that someone forces them to play a game. It's their choice.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Okay, I added it to the post on the blog.

I think it's under discussion in part because it's not just a matter that both exist, and people are free to choose one or the other. It's a matter of one dominating over the other so much that the thought-provoking type is rare and driven underground. I agree that a balance between the two would be great, just that there is no balance right now, and it's very hard to find games that aren't just intended as entertainment.

There are very few games that try to do what 1984 / Brave New World type of novels do. Most games just try to do what Harry Potter tries to do (e.g. be entertaining, feel-good stuff that people want and ask for). And I think that if one type is so rare in games, due mainly to market forces (because obviously games which deliver what people want and expect would sell better than games that don't), a lot of people won't even know anything else exists.

And this happens to a larger degree than in other media, in novels and even movies, it's relatively easy to find works of substance, whereas it's harder for games.

So I kind of see it as a bad idea to make more of what already exists. If 99% of games already are just entertaining, why add more to the pile? They already have a lot of other options.

[Hajo]

I concur that there should be more games with deeper content.

I was just a bit harsh in my last posting because at first it seemed to be a fundamental question that is discussed, if games should/should not do that at all.

Talking about a better balance is a whole different story. I think games as a media are still new, and it's been born as a purely entertaining media, so it doesn't look too bothersome to me, that most of it still is entertainment oriented.

Some pressure I see in the fact that the entertainment titles sell better than the educational titles (exception may exists) and so people who makes games for a living lean towards the sort that makes them money.

But as a hobbyist game developer I'm all pro games that have a educational theme, be it social, economical, environmental or something else.

[Gnarf]

Yes, I agree with you, I was mostly responding to Gnarf:

Of course we should try to change the way people think

Which doesn't really relate to whether or not games are any good for changing the way people think in that particular way. My only point was that changing the way people think is not something that should be avoided just for the sake of it. It's not inherently bad.

I am kind of against it if only just for reason: I don't like the idea of creating games which don't challenge the player (and I don't mean in the sense of difficulty level). It's fine that games which are just entertaining exist I guess, but it's not what I want to do, and it's not what I think is best for people, and I don't like that 'just entertaining' games dominate, I'd prefer a more balanced mix of the two.

Why don't you mean in the sense of difficulty? Hard games that you have to struggle against rather than play (/win) through breaks with current mainstream trends and conventions. They take players outside of their comfort zones. They can change the way players view games and gaming. Not bloody winning all the time seems to me like the gaming equivalent of not so happy endings in stories, or music that it is challenging to listen to/get into. It provokes thought.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

They can do that, but that's not the most efficient or practical way of doing it. For instance, Seiklus and Knytt were more significant to me than the hell level of Cave Story, although I did enjoy the hell level just the same. And I agree it *can* be done that way, just that it wasn't the specific way that I meant the word "challenge" -- it's often more comfortable to jump through the game designer's hoops (even if those hoops are very small and very hard to jump through) than to go beyond that, so I think highly difficult challenges can be, but are not always, challenging in the sense I meant.

[TeeGee]

Okay, I added it to the post on the blog.

Thanks, mate.

So I kind of see it as a bad idea to make more of what already exists. If 99% of games already are just entertaining, why add more to the pile? They already have a lot of other options.

While I think it's something a bit different from what the initial discussion was about, it's an interesting and powerful argument.
However, I would like to point that while 99% of games try to be just entertainment, most of them fail end up and being overhyped abominations bloated with unnecessary features and technical excellence. Not much fun though. Gems like Mario Galaxy happen too rarely, considering the size of the industry.
The reason I (and probably many of us) first came to indie games is that they provided the simple joy that the big titles lost somewhere. I wouldn't want all the indies to suddenly go the art and meaning of life road. Where would I get my simple shmup or hardcore strategy fix then? There's definitely a value in good entertainment and indies are free to provide it to niches that big publishers wouldn't ever think of.

Besides, some people are great artists and others are great entertainers. And these people will always do what they are best at. Othwerwise their creations wouldn't be good anyway. No 'duty' or 'imperative' of making meaningful games is going to change it. People will always make and play what they want. And that's great.