The point of games

Miscellaneous Topics
#1

Renowned game companies have become too focused on how graphically polished their games are lately. When their not working on graphics, they’re trying to make their games such that the game never ends and there isn’t much of a storyline. This kinda ticks me off. I mean, stereotypical parents always say that games are pointless and aren’t of any use in real life, and in my opinion, huge game companies like Rockstar and Bethesda are just proving them right.

Personally, I don’t see any point in running around a massive world (or flying, for that matter) and blowing up people with abnormally large rocket launchers (cough GTA cough). It doesn’t teach me anything. It has no point. It’s just pure entertainment. Aren’t games supposed to be more than entertainment? Again, this is my own opinion (the reason why I’m putting an emphasis on that is that I don’t want to start an argument).

I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong, maybe games are just for entertainment. It’s not that GTA isn’t fun. I’m not going to go so far as to deny that GTA is great fun. But when it becomes an addiction, you start to waste a lot of time on it. Generally speaking, addictions are bad. But is it possible for games to be something more than entertainment? Can gaming be a good addiction?

And the biggest question of all: am I just rambling?

P.S. Entertainment keeps us from turning insane, which makes entertainment extremely important. I’m not trying to say that entertainment is useless, so don’t get me wrong.

#2

Short answer: there is no point to games, they’re entertainment. You can add in any value you want on top of that. Sometimes they’re not even entertaining :slight_smile:

Cas :slight_smile:

#3

I think the major concern isn’t that the games don’t have content. The games have a good amount of content to them, but I think it’s the uniqueness and many factors such as originality and such. I don’t believe game makers today aren’t being focused on telling their story, but making the game in their image with the story loosely attached. This is common in open worlds, as the openness is filled with nothing special. In games such as Red Dead Redemption, the 90% of the open world was riding a horse on trails looking at the grass and the small, invisible animals to snipe. The other part was the story and GTA-like gameplay “Get the cops on you are die.” Another small factor is the target audiences. They are dumb. Anyone who isn’t gaming on a PC is restricted controller and graphic wise and they love it still. Consoles are toxic. Anyways, they keep the kiddies off online, but I digress. The audience for consoles are much, much different because they care more about graphics (poor graphics…, weird right?) than the actual storyline. “Oh COD:BO1 looks sooo good, why am I playing BO2?”

Let me break down what is on my mind.

  1. There are no original games being made

I go to walmart’s game section and all I see is rachet and clank 10 or fifa 2016 etc
Too many sequels
Every company can’t do something new necessary because every graphical thing is being done

  1. The story is important.

GTA’s story is unique, it is well developed, but today’s games like Witcher and stuff don’t display an adequate story
Nobody makes unique storylines anymore, and I’d be damned to see any other game but Fable have plot twists and such
Ratchet and Clank was my favorite story line, but they ruined it with bullcrapping the characters
There are no universes quite like ratchet and clank though, sadly

  1. The audience

Console fnatics (MLG!!) love their controller, but doesn’t realize how much better PC is
Console fnatics love their crappy graphics (note I am saying by comparison)
PC gamers tend to try to find a stable community, and this can affect things like story pretty largely
Old console gamers just want something to get nerdy into
Then there is me who will religiously play one game because they love the story begging for sequals of a game (FinalFantasyX, LegendOfDragoon) /r/legendofdragoon

#4

I know that this is a little off topic now, but…WHAT? The Witcher’s story isn’t adequate? The story of the game that got lots and lots of praise for the depth of its world and the stories within it is bad? The story and the world design is based on the novels, which means that (at least in case of the german translation) it’s based on over 5500 pages of narrative and lore. Maybe it’s a little harder to get into it if you haven’t read the novels, but calling it “not adequate” leaves the impression that you haven’t played that game at all (or maybe for 30min.).
And GTA’s story (I assume that you are referring to GTA V here) is unique? Honestly, what’s it all about? It’s about three guys trying to make money…that’s basically it. And when the main story ends, nothing has really changed. They are still the same three guys, some other guys are dead and Franklin now lives in a nicer place, but apart from that, nothing has really changed. The Witcher 3 in comparison has multiple endings, which depend on your choices much earlier in the story. You can’t revert and try another ending.
And for the record: I love both games and I played GTA V for 35h and Witcher 3 for 73h.

#5

I meant the elder scrolls D: my bad.

I found it very unique, I guess original, due to it being one of a kind tale. Tell me if it is a clone of anything! :point:

#6

GTA is ANY thug drug story ever

#7

“I think that I would never be happy telling a story, that I felt had nothing at all to say relevant to anything of the human condition.” - Ken Levine
“Games shouldn’t only be fun. They should teach or spark an interest in other things.” - Hideo Kojima

Games are an art form and part of culture.
Being art I want to touch people emotionally with my games, make them wonder and ponder, raise questions.
Many interests that I have developed in my life came from playing video games: English, science and engineering, writing, game design.
It is my upmost wish to make art that touches someone, inspires them.

#8

You could argue there is also no point in the following:

  • Movies
  • Music
  • Sculpture
  • Curry
  • Non-reproducitve sex
  • Asking questions on the point of things

The answer should be obvious… Ok, except for you, Replicoid Unit #9827772-23

#9

How dare you insult curry.

#10

the point of games is about equal to the point of this thread :slight_smile:

#11

I absolutely agree. And yes, games are works of art :smiley:

#12

As an example relevant to many of us here, video games have sparked my interest in programming :slight_smile:

#13

It was Minecraft that inspired me to learn programming, actually.

#14

There’s a dull money-making aspect to games, and an inspiring, artistic side. Many (but not all) “free to play” and Android titles are driven solely by the money-making aspect (which is an art in itself, heh). I’m looking at you all top grossing Android apps. Nothing wrong with that, it’s just IMHO a “lesser” kind of art. Many indie games are much closer to the artistic side. Unfortunately they usually generate less cash.

#15

The big popular games that cover the shelves of a game shops are indeed a big generic and are well “pop” like pop songs. They pay good money for self space, they have spent good money on costume design and voice actors etc. They are consumed by “gamers” for a weekend and then discarded. They played more like a movie than games of old. But this is how an industry looks after a while. Movies, the blockbusters are hardly original or ground breaking in any aspect. Yet they make a billion in ticket sales before the end of their time in the cinema.

My brothers are very good examples of this. He buys or rents 2-5 games for a entire weekend of gaming and then never plays those games again. He thinks nothing of spending 100NZD on a game for just a weekend. If he went to the pub he would spend as much, so he sees it as good entertainment value. This is the market that 90% of AAA titles are aiming to catch. Why change something that works. Just another FPS, just another billion in sales!

Of course i feel many indie devs have good too far in the “distill the game down to the core game play” type game. ie puzzle games and the like. Right now i feel like many indie groups produce generic “indie” titles as well. There are exceptions, but not many.

Having said all that i still find myself having fun playing boaderlands 2. And it is a fairly generic RPG when it is all said and done. But so far 40 hours! for just 20 bucks!

#16

Before computers had the ability of producing amazing graphics, the priority of game development used to be to great games with amazing game play, and something that was really fun to play. But as graphics came in to existence and became more and more powerful the focus shifted toward creating games that were visually appealing. There is nothing wrong with making pretty games but I feel a lot of modern games sacrifice the quality of the game itself to make some that looks good.

For me the point of games has always been about entertainment, but not by making a visually better game but by making a game that immerses me away from reality and keeping me there by having something that is addictive and fun to do.

This is a very “old school” game that to me was truly entertaining but only relied on ascii graphics

http://www.excelsior-rpg.com/ex1.htm

#17

LOL cause that’s the biggest questionable item on that list ::slight_smile:

#18

all IMHO :smiley:

short story: yes, you are right, but…

long story: for me you are focusing only on open ended games (like skyrim, gta, etc…). Forget them for a moment.

Crusader Kings 2 teach me how medieval politics works (btw, I read a lot of book about that and mechanics in CK2 are really close to history), for example.

In my opinion you should try different kind of games otherwise you could have a limited view on games in general. Are videogames pointless? Could be, bug I think depends by the player and the game, no?

#19

My idea, too. Games are for entertainment primarily. You can mix in some teaching and education, this will open some new audience, but still, the prime motivation is the entertainment.

I think in the classic theory, games are seen as fields where the human mind can go exploring, to try new ideas, strategies and scenarios without the dangerous consequences of mistakes that real life brings.

So games should offer just this - playing fields of whatever sort, where the interested can try their skills, and develop them. Different people like different sorts of games, but in all you find a risk-reward scheme, some learning, some exploration and some amout of tactics and strategy.

There are also toys. Toys miss the risk-reward scheme, but keep the entertainment value, also the skill developement.

#20

I would argue that games should be primarily entertaining; however, I think you — ShadedVertex — are right about big game companies focusing too much on 3D graphics. Sure, graphics are important (it’s all part of the atmosphere, along with the storyline and, most importantly imo, the soundtrack), but I think there should be more research on games.

I believe games should have at least the same depth, if not more, as novels — well-built ones, that is. You should be able to ‘feel’ something strong (and discover it) whilst you play a game. At least that’s what I try to focus on.

That’s why the best graphics for a game are 2D watercolour hand-painted :point:

J0 :slight_smile: