Games should enrich people's lives, says former Edge editor

By Ellie Gibson Published 11 August, 2008

Robertson full of praise for Braid.

Former Edge editor Margaret Robertson has said developers should be able to explain why their games are worth playing - adding that if they can't, they may be bad people.

Speaking at the Edinburgh Interactive Festival Robertson said, "The games industry takes from people the single most precious thing they have, which is time. It's the one thing they can't ever get back. And we suck hours and hours and hours away from people who could be using it to do other things.

"Which is great - I'm ridiculously enthusiastic about all this stuff, and I think it's brilliant," she continued. "But we should stop and think and have answers ready for how we use that time and how people are different at the end of it."

Robertson was delivering a speech about recent and forthcoming games she believes are important, including Jonathan Blow's Braid. (It was jolly important to Eurogamer's Dan Whitehead, by the way; he gave it 10 out of 10).

"Blow's entire focus is on making sure that after you've played this game, fundamentally, you are a better person than before you played it," Robertson said. "That tends to make people really uncomfortable; that's not how we like thinking about games. We spend a lot of time saying, 'Oh, we're just fun, we're just entertainment, we don't have to have a bigger agenda.'

"I think that's not a good enough answer; I think if you're going to take hours and hours of somebody's life, you need to know why. You need to know why they're going to be happier or wiser or smarter or more relaxed or fitter or cleverer, or whatever it is, at the end of it," she continued.

"I do think if you haven't got an answer to that, to why your game is going to enrich somebody's life - I don't think you're necessarily a bad game designer, but I think you might be a bad person."

Robertson conceded that some members of the audience might dismiss her argument as "pretentious arthouse nonsense", particularly those who work for commercial organisations and want to make entertainment products that please shareholders. However, she pointed to Far Cry 2 as an example of a commercial title that also has an agenda - as argued by Ubisoft's Patrick Redding in a presentation at GDC earlier this year.

"Far Cry 2 is a game with a message; it has some stuff to say about the human condition," Robertson said. "Admittedly, it expresses those thoughts about the human condition through taping grenades to fuel tanks and then shooting them from a distance, but it still has things to say...

"They've taken those underlying premises and messages, and used them both to inform and constrain the story and the very fundamental game mechanics in a way that has simplified, enriched and crystallised what they're doing."

Robertson concluded, "We need to embrace the idea that our games should have some weight behind them, some meat on their bones, and something they're trying to communicate if we want them to matter to people."

Other titles listed by Robertson during the session included Battlefield Heroes, Sims Carnival, LittleBigPlanet and 2Across, plus less well-known titles such as Newtoon, Phase and Gravitation. But topping the list was Fruit Mystery. "It's without question the most inept, ugly, stupid, boorish, pointless, noisy, ridiculous waste of time," said Robertson, adding, "I recommend the minute you get out of here you get on the internet and try it."

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (65) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • the_dudefather #1 4 years ago

    I'd prefer it if games were fun to play

    remember fun?

  • Physically_Insane #2 4 years ago

    I PLAY GAMES FOR FUN

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #3 4 years ago

    Fruit Mystery is definitely better than MGS4.

  • Macross #4 4 years ago

    me also,

    seriously though if edge gets any further up its own arse itl be blowing its nose with toilet paper.

  • mcbi4kh2 #5 4 years ago

    shut up you chin stroking pretentious moron.

    Games are for entertainment and nothing else.
    Edited by 1 at 11/08/08 @ 15:54

  • krudster #6 4 years ago

    Are you saying Margaret has a beard?

  • Darren #7 4 years ago

    Games, like any other form of entertainment (movies, sports, music, etc.), are there to be enjoyed during our free-time and they don't have to be meaningful or purposeful, just fun. I suppose ultimately games are pointless in the sense that we don't really learn or gain anything useful out of playing them but, personally speaking, I like to switch my brain off more often than not and just chill out and have fun. Life would be so wearing (dull?) if everything had to have a point or meaning. So I've spent 300 hours playing World of Warcraft and the same playing Oblivion... you know what... I loved every second of them! :)

  • mcbi4kh2 #8 4 years ago

    not at all, what gave you that impression?
    I saw Robertson and thought it said Robert. meh, the message is still the same

  • Stuz359 #9 4 years ago

    ^ You do realise it's a woman don't you? Either that or one of the worst names for a guy I ever heard. So that shows you didn't read the article properly and didn't pay attention. Bravo.
    Fruit Mystery is a cool game actually. Very Funny.
    Anyway, she didn't say that games shouldn't be fun just that if they are to be taken seriously as a medium for entertainment that they should mean something to the player.

  • jack_klugman #10 4 years ago

    She is my new hero. More talk like this from actual developers please!

  • kinky_mong #11 4 years ago

    I don't see why people think fun and having a message are mutually exclusive. I loved every mind-bending second of Braid and I definitely felt richer from the experience of playing it, since the ending and overarching melancholy of the game evoked feelings I'd never experienced from a game before.

  • mcbi4kh2 #12 4 years ago

    @Stuz359

    why your game is going to enrich somebody's ife - I don't think you're necessarily a bad game designer, but I think you might be a bad person.

    I'm going to stand by my original comment. (minus the beard bit)

    Bravo.

    Bravo. You sound just as pretentious as she is.

  • the_dudefather #13 4 years ago

    @kinky_mong

    Braid is a great exception, but many other games that are 'deep' tend to to use that as a substitute for game play

  • Quint2020 #14 4 years ago

    /yawn

    Games can be thought provoking or whatever you want them to be but they can also be just about dumb fun and entertainment, sort of like books... or films.... or most other forms of entertainment.

    I don't have to know I'll be wiser or fitter or some other bollocks after I've finished playing a game or watching a movie, or reading a book, I do these things for FUN, funnily enough I like spending my free time having FUN.

  • Fwing #15 4 years ago

    "Enrich"? "Make you a better person"?

    Bunch of cock

  • agparrot #16 4 years ago

    What was the last load of claptrap she came out with, last year?

    I do appreciate the effort that some game makers put in, concerning 'messages' and with a deeper subtext than just playing games, but I don't think this approach can be made towards every game, and I also think Margaret might be in the wrong job.

    I think that games perhaps do have a place in wider society, but the notion that they will ever be 'like films' in their universal appeal, audience or production is one I can't agree with. There is a place for intelligent, thought-provoking games... there is even a place for games which *think* they are intelligent and thought-provoking.

    The idea that the makers of Burnout Paradise should be able to explain to me why I have spent 178 hours in Paradise City, a large wedge of it in ridiculously fun-fuelled multiplayer, is a bit silly.

    It is difficult not to think of Bioshock in the context of Margaret's comments, but even then, I don't feel the developer owes me an explanation for its quasi-moral posturing. Yes, I like to think I was one of the people who "got it", but I am not converted to the idea that it was a work of genius worthy of idolisation, or that there is some 'lower' group of gamers who cannot take something from the game, or that the developers should be able to explain to us both why we have spent time playing it.

  • Britesparc Verified Creative, ITV #17 4 years ago

    Why is it pretentious to want games to be important? I think they should entertaining and enjoyable on some level, because otherwise we wouldn't play them. But if they teach us something about the human condition, so much the better...

  • mattigan #18 4 years ago

    Seriousyly, thew morons comparing Braid to Alex Kid really need to play Braid to have their eyes opened to the fact that the only similarity between the two is how they look in screenshots.

    Really, it just shows you up for the ill informed trolls that you are.

  • mcbi4kh2 #19 4 years ago

    @Britesparc

    I think they should entertaining and enjoyable on some level

    Thats where we differ, I think they should be entertaining and enjoyable on every level. If not, whats the point? To enrich myself?
    Edited by 1 at 11/08/08 @ 16:20

  • kinky_mong #20 4 years ago

    @noface: Congratulations on a quick-fire sarcastic comment that completely missed the point.

  • Rash' #21 4 years ago

    A question to those close minded individuals that are pandering to the "fun only" agenda: was Ico about fun???

    These sorts of "games are only about fun" reactions remind how far gaming is to being truly culturally relevant. For it to move forward it has to be a collective endeavour between the industry at it's consumers and sadly, as this comments section clearly demonstrates, we have long way to go.

    May this reverential immaturity die a quick death.
    Edited by 2 at 11/08/08 @ 16:46

  • kinky_mong #22 4 years ago

    @ noface: So not only are you blinkered in that you can't imagine an old school style platformer to actually evoke some form of thought, but you're also a tightwad who can't spare less than £10 for a potential Game Of The Year.

  • Widge #23 4 years ago

    I loved Ico because I found it was a puzzle game unlike any other I'd played... the sense of achievement of finally navigating a particularly difficult room. Plus I got it on release (thanks to a demo disc being sent out) so wasn't part of the "you must play this because its art" brigade. I would say here enjoyment = fun. More impact than the likes of COD4 have had on me for sure.

  • Widge #24 4 years ago

    yeah, less interesting content in games, fill them with badass instead!

  • bitesize #25 4 years ago

    May this reverential immaturity die a quick death.

    yeah absolutely, i find it incredibly sad that someone to stands up for actual maturity in games (as opposed to tits + gore), and for positivity and some worthwhile end result, and all they get is a comments thread full of messages like "pretentious moron", and shouting her down with "games are just for fun". no wonder the mainstream public perception of our hobby is so bad.

    mind you, it is the school holidays, so i'm expecting the level of comment around here to be pretty damn low over the next few weeks...

  • YourMessageHere #26 4 years ago

    Some artwork is just for fun. Some is serious and intellectually complex.
    Some books are just for fun. Others are serious and intellectually complex.
    Some stage plays are just for fun. Others are serious and intellectually complex.
    Some films are just for fun. Others are serious and intellectually complex.
    But all games should be just for fun. That will make people take notice of gaming and consider it a medium worthy of consideration.

    For fuck's sake, it doesn't all have to be one way or the other. Tetris and Braid are not like matter and antimatter. They can coexist.

    "Reverential immaturity" - I love this phrase. It's so concisely, horrifically appropriate.

    EDIT: fixed formatting error
    Edited by 1 at 11/08/08 @ 17:11

  • Rash' #27 4 years ago

    Widge, Yes but at the heart of Ico was a a platform puzzle game that had technical and design issues and yet it's regarded by many (myself included) as a gaming classic. Do you honestly believe that was only to do with "fun"? I don't. For me the game is a classic because it's about isolation, the need to protect, an unspoken ambiguious relationship and magnificent architecture and atmosphere. You can't sum an experience like that as mere fun. It does a major disservice to the creative genius of the work.

  • moggsy #28 4 years ago

    Games should be fun yes, but there's nothing wrong with developers striving for more than this is there? Some of the people commenting here seem to think that fun and enrichment are mutually exclusive.

  • Rash' #29 4 years ago

    YourMessageHere, Thank you my friend. It came from my distain of ignorance.

  • UltimateWarrior #30 4 years ago

    I can't wait until games are taken more seriously and we no longer have the stupid Daily Mail brigade blaming them for everything and I see what she is saying but ultimately I think she's missing the point. Books have established themsleves as a respectable art form (after similarly difficult early days) but yet there are plenty of books I've really enjoyed without learning or benefitting from them in any way. Sometimes entertainment is merely there to pass the time or relax in an enjoyable way. Not all games need to educate or stimulate in some life improving way. Life for many is tough enough. Games are a delightful distraction from the stresses of real life and for many of us that is enough, just like a good book/story/film etc.

  • mcbi4kh2 #31 4 years ago

    @bitesize

    fundamentally, you are a better person than before you played it

    I think if you're going to take hours and hours of somebody's life, you need to know why.

    why your game is going to enrich somebody's life - I don't think you're necessarily a bad game designer, but I think you might be a bad person.

    fundamental game mechanics in a way that has simplified, enriched and crystallised what they're doing."

    I can add your quote, it seems to fit in nicely with the pretentious bollocks above

    and for positivity and some worthwhile end result

    There is no end result to a game other than you have been entertained. If you need something more from a computer game, then chances are you need a little bit mroe going on in your life.

    no wonder the mainstream public perception of our hobby is so bad.

    Really, who cares?

    mind you, it is the school holidays, so i'm expecting the level of comment around here to be pretty damn low over the next few weeks...

    That comment reads like the standard of comments is high sometimes

  • Rash' #32 4 years ago

    It's creativity that will take gaming forward, and Braid is a shining example of the creative possibilities in games. I'm seriously considering getting an 360 for it (above all the other "brillant" games for the system).

  • Rash' #33 4 years ago

    UltimateWarrior, I agree that it is missing the point by implying all games should have purpose, but at the moment the balance between mindless fun and interesting creativity is shockingly off.

  • bitesize #34 4 years ago

    mcbi4kh2: There is no end result to a game other than you have been entertained. If you need something more from a computer game, then chances are you need a little bit mroe going on in your life.

    that's a pretty telling statement. you think anyone who likes something a bit deeper than 'move cursor here and press fire to kill someone' is missing something from their lives? amazing.

    out of interest, do you also think the same of other entertainment media? films/books/tv, they should all only entertain and never make you think?

  • LOLLERS #35 4 years ago

    yea lurning is 4 losers i like it when i shot men in teh face and buildings fall down

    Games are just like other forms of entertainment - do you watch entertaining documentaries, or Eastenders? Read The Times, or Heat magazine? Unfortunately most games are targeted specifically at people who choose the latter of those options. Well, the male equivalents of them anyway.

  • mcbi4kh2 #36 4 years ago

    you think anyone who likes something a bit deeper than 'move cursor here and press fire to kill someone' is missing something from their lives? amazing.

    How did you get that from what I wrote? Amazing. FYI I dont like FPS (on consoles at least anyway) :)

    out of interest, do you also think the same of other entertainment media? films/books/tv, they should all only entertain and never make you think?

    You are reversing what I am saying.

    The woman is bascially saying all games should be deep, make you think, have a worthwhile end result etc.

    Im saying that games dont have to, they can be there merely to entertain.

    Im not saying that they shouldnt make you think, just that they don't have to.

  • Daymare #37 4 years ago

    "shut up you chin stroking pretentious moron."

    You shut up, you shallow simple-minded idiot.


    Balance is restored:)

  • seasidebaz #38 4 years ago

    Professor Layton made me a better person.

    It taught me to punch that sector of society that wears tophats and dabbles in puzzles right on their COLLECTIVE PRETENTIOUS CHINS!!

    But only if they give their puzzle a difficulty rating of "hard".

  • MrMarbles #39 4 years ago

    @Arbiter: "...anyone remember either of the Blinx titles on Xbox?"

    Yes, they were quite average. Have you played Braid yet? If so, you'd really know better than to make that kind of comparison. They both feature time manipulation? Cool. Let's compare Tekken with Mario - they both feature moustachioed men who can jump, and a green dinosaur.

    At the end of the day, Robertson was giving a talk about what recent and upcoming games she feels are important for the industry and why. Whether she's being pretentious or not, she still puts her point across better than most in this comments section.
    Edited by 1 at 11/08/08 @ 20:15

  • mcbi4kh2 #40 4 years ago

    @Daymare

    In all fairness to me she was being pretentious.

    Saying a game designer is a bad person if the game they designed doesn't enrich lives is a tad pretentious.
    Edited by 1 at 11/08/08 @ 20:35

  • Rash' #41 4 years ago

    mcbi4kh2, I think her assumption that game designers should take greater responsibility for what they offer in exchange for consumers free time isn't pretentious and a very valid point considering the breath of mind numbingly dumb content available.

  • mcbi4kh2 #42 4 years ago

    @Rash

    That would have been a valid point if that was what she said. What she said was:


    I do think if you haven't got an answer to that, to why your game is going to enrich somebody's life - I don't think you're necessarily a bad game designer, but I think you might be a bad person."

  • mcbi4kh2 #43 4 years ago

    @Daydreamer

    lmao @ your email change, I havent really ;)

  • Rash' #44 4 years ago

    mcbi4kh2, Her main point however was:

    "But we should stop and think and have answers ready for how we use that time and how people are different at the end of it."

    I'm not saying I wholey agree with her but she certainly raises valid concerns about the creative stimulus of this industry.

  • Daymare #45 4 years ago

    @mcbi4kh2

    Well, you *did* scare me for a second with a strange, out-of-place remark like that. All kinds of psychos on the web, ya' know;)

  • bitesize #46 4 years ago

    mcbi4kh2: Im saying that games dont have to, they can be there merely to entertain.

    Im not saying that they shouldnt make you think, just that they don't have to.

    well you softened your stance somewhat since "shut up you chin stroking pretentious moron. Games are for entertainment and nothing else." then, which was the statement that i objected to.

  • mcbi4kh2 #47 4 years ago

    @Daymare

    Calling me simple-minded and an idiot makes it IN place, I remember it though so don't piss me off again :) (xxx@siol.net)

  • Daymare #48 4 years ago

    @mcbi4kh2

    It was mildly "amusing" the first time but now it's getting a little bit silly. How old are you? Don't you have anything better to do then threatening someone with spamming his e-mail (and reading profiles, for that matter)!?

    I found your first comment so annoying I couldn't resist throwing it back in your face. You can't really say I was unfair, considering your own tone and choice of words, can you?

  • mcbi4kh2 #49 4 years ago

    What was annoying about the comment? The fact that she came across as pretentious in the article and I told her so? Or was it that I called her a moron? If the former and you disagreed, read the article again! If the latter, toughen up!

    Unfortunately I cant tell you how old I am, all kinds of psychos on the web, ya' know;)

    Im at work so I have little better to do. I could get some work done I suppose, but this is far more entertaining :D

  • UncleLou #50 4 years ago

    Games, like any other form of entertainment (movies, sports, music, etc.), are there to be enjoyed during our free-time and they don't have to be meaningful or purposeful, just fun.

    Sports and games, yes. Movies, mostly. From music (as from books) I expect a lot more than plain "fun".

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #51 4 years ago

    If everything she says is bollocks then how comes three of my favorite (or most memorable) games of all time are Shenmue, Ico &
    FFVII?

    Everyone of those games illicit emotions that went far beyond just having fun. Did I have fun playing those games? Of course I did.

    YourMessageHere made the point perfectly. Movies, Theatre, Art, Music & Literature can be either or both and I see no reason why games are any different. Interesting the other forms of entertainment mentioned are also considered art.


    Edited by 1 at 11/08/08 @ 23:00

  • barchetta #52 4 years ago

    Fruit Mystery humoured me and gave more pause for thought (in terms of how software could connect with an audience) than most mainstream games I played over the last 12 months.

    Not to say there isn't a place for simple entertainment but it would be nice to see some of the big boys with big budgets and some truly talented staff try some different approaches. Franchises are all well and good but are usually distillations of the same core idea (obviously) and rarely get a 'reboot'.

  • Stuz359 #53 4 years ago

    How come if people actually start talking intelligently about games and games design they are called pretentious?

  • MrMarbles #54 4 years ago

    "How come if people actually start talking intelligently about games and games design they are called pretentious?"

    Because several Eurogamer readers have learnt a new word this week and are excitedly over-using it.

    It's the new "Better than Halol, Xbot. Riiiiiiiiiiiidge Raaaaaacer, maximum damage lolcats."

  • team_evil #55 4 years ago

    Margaret Robertson ruined Edge magazine. Correct me if I'm wrong but she was the one who ditched all the features on the wider games industry in favour of 8 page previews of shitty FPS.

  • muscleblade #56 4 years ago

    I play games for fun - smart sophisticated games like Braid are fun.

  • Daymare #57 4 years ago

    I'm glad it's not just me getting fed up with people throwing around "pretentious" remarks every time someone expresses his/her thoughts about games in a more thoughtful way. God forbid games would be or could be something more then just "fun" to some gamers. That's like, you know, pretentious and stuff, dude.

  • IkariW #58 4 years ago

    I love the fact that people can speak positively about games don't get me wrong....

    But, can we please have people who know what they are talking about and are more informed?
    I mean Maggy was the 'FORMER' editor of Edge, so....she knew jack when she was there, she knows even less now, so why are people bothered about listening to her or what she has to say anyway?

    You might as well have just grabbed someone off the street to do a talk, no difference at all.

    Most people who work in games magazines think they know alot about games, and how they are made, what they should be like etc etc.

    When in actual fact, they know very little, they are fed PR spin...told what the games companies; and by games companies I mean publishers, want them to hear, or should I say what the they want the magazines to tell the public.

    Besides all this and slightly more to the point, why on Gods green earth is the former editor of Edge speaking at an interactive festival in the first place? and I place emphasis on the word 'Former' here...


  • Meho #59 4 years ago

    While no one in their right mind would disagree with the idea that games would be better for offering intellectual/ emotional/ spiritual content in addition to gameplay, the way Robertson puts it (as quoted here) is a bit problematic.

    'Enriching' someone's life as in 'making them a better person' is a requirement that should never be put in front of art (ignoring for the moment the fact that games still don't really fit most definitions of art...) because it's restrictive and also clashes with the very notion that art is about aesthetics which are again defined as something close to purposeless beauty (there is a less clumsy definition but I really can't be arsed to go into too much detail).

    In other words: Charles Bukowski. Suehiro Maruo. Takashi Miike. H.P. Lovecraft. Francisco Goya. Hubert Selby Jr., Charles Baudelaire, Diamanda Galas, Maso Yamazaki etc. etc. All of thes people made some art that is incredibly influential and that changed people's lives (well, my life for one) but that ultimately was more about challenging the very idea of good and evil, the very idea of human condition as normally percieved. They most certainly didn't set out to make people 'better persons'. Many of them openly despised the idea that there is a universally accepted notion of a 'better person'.

    The other thing following is the comment about making a game that does not suit this imagined mould which might not make you a bad designer but might make you a bad person. To me this is a moralistic standpoint that has little reason to exist IF we are going to take games seriously. I appreciate that by this she was probably addressing games such as... Saint's Row, Manhunt etc. etc., games that feel merely exploitative and, in her opinion fail to address the controversies that they create (giving the audience the opportunity to engage in antisocial behaviour without a moral ratonalisation that would 'justify' it).

    However, this is exactly the opposite direction of 'games can and should be considered a medium that provides serious discourse' since it suggests that the games SHOULD follow a prescribed moral(listic) code without having the guts/ brains/ ambition to challenge it. Now I am not saying that exploitative content (avoiding to say art) is necesarry to make a game 'serious', I am saying that novels like 'American Psycho' or 'Perfume', films like 'Tokyo Fist' and comics like 'MPD Psycho' gain their weight (aesthetic/ artistic/ discoursive) exactly through presenting an opportunity to the consumer to question the accepted moral and philosophical stances in today's society. Some people will come out of it wanting to be serial killers and woman-beaters, while others will have a long and hard discussion with themselves about the nature of the society, the ideas of moral codes that rule our lives and ultimately, perhaps even come up with revolutionary ideas of how to change the society. For the better or for the worse? Who knows, we are talking about redefining the meanings of 'good' and 'evil'.

    So why restrict games to supporting the existing moral code, rather than grant them the freedom to challenge it, just the way other media do?

  • Sevens #60 4 years ago

    "shut up you chin stroking pretentious moron.

    Games are for entertainment and nothing else."

    Absolutely. Education wouldn't work on you anyway.


    Depth and complexity are great. Of course there's a place for games purely focused on "mechanic" gameplay as well.
    Edited by 1 at 12/08/08 @ 10:34

  • mcbi4kh2 #61 4 years ago

    @Sevens

    Join the queue. Ive had that exact same argument from 3 or 4 different people. Just read the earlier posts to see the path our discussion will follow.




  • Repsode #62 4 years ago

    I think that the way that Robertson put it is not quite right. More games could do with being more intellectually stimulating, especially story led ones like RPGs. However to say that the goal should be to make the player a better person is a little bit simplistic. Different people take different things out of art. Some get something positive out of it, some get something negative. Others just plain aren't engaged and get nothing. There's only so much influence works like this can have at face value.

    Bioshock for instance is lauded for it's themes and the central moral quandry. Sadly I was already so set in my position I just could not kill the Little Sisters. There wasn't even a thinking process behind it. Hell I didn't even have a go at the Big Daddies once I realised they were pretty much harmless till provoked. The reward for the other path just wasn't great enough to tempt.

    I am not everyone, others saw in the game what I did not. Simply we take what WE see in art not necessarily what the creator hopes.

  • theanorak #63 4 years ago

    Some artwork is just for fun. Some is serious and intellectually complex.
    Some books are just for fun. Others are serious and intellectually complex.
    Some stage plays are just for fun. Others are serious and intellectually complex.
    Some films are just for fun. Others are serious and intellectually complex.
    But all games should be just for fun. That will make people take notice of gaming and consider it a medium worthy of consideration.

    For fuck's sake, it doesn't all have to be one way or the other. Tetris and Braid are not like matter and antimatter. They can coexist.

    Apologies for quoting practically the whole post, but YES, this is the point. YourMessageHere is right on the money. Die Hard 4.0 is not Shindler's List is not Hostel is not Requiem for a Dream. But they're all films. Insert your own comparisons for books, plays etc.

    Personally, I don't see that there's any need to *force* games to the *serious art form* section. It'll happen naturally, eventually. Perhaps we're just starting.

    People getting their nappy in a knot about "games are fun" isn't going to help though. Apart from anything else, just look at film, or books. Compare the number of Wilbur Smith/Stephen King/Chick-lit books on the bestseller shelf, or most bookshop shelves, with yer proper *serious* fiction. There's lots more of the former than the latter, because some people only like to read pure entertainment, and others like to read pure entertainment on the train/tube/beach so they don't have to think too hard.

    Games will most likely (hopefully?) finish in a similar position -- lots of mainstream fun, lots of genre work, enough game-as-art, game-as-social-commentary, game-as-intellectual-argument to provide plenty of thought-provoking content for those who want it.

    Why restrict the medium?

  • gruntboy #64 4 years ago

    fruit mystery was superb! bring to xbla please!
    Edited by 1 at 13/08/08 @ 03:09

  • Azazel #65 3 years ago

    Games will most likely (hopefully?) finish in a similar position -- lots of mainstream fun, lots of genre work, enough game-as-art, game-as-social-commentary, game-as-intellectual-argument to provide plenty of thought-provoking content for those who want it.

    I think we're already there though. It's just that for the majority of people they only see the "lots of mainstream fun" part, and that that's the percentage that will eventually change.