Arguing some semantics

fun/fən/

Adjective:        Amusing, entertaining, or enjoyable: "it was a fun evening".

Halo 4’s Gamestop.com Product Description

The Master Chief returns to battle an ancient evil bent on vengeance and annihilation. Shipwrecked on a mysterious world, faced with new enemies and deadly technology, the universe will never be the same. Enlist aboard the UNSC Infinity to experience Halo's original multiplayer and Spartan Ops - episodic fiction-based co-op missions.Key Features·                                 The Reclaimer Saga Begins: Experience the dawn of an epic new Halo adventure, solo or split screen with up to three friends
·                                 Go Beyond the Story: Halo 4's Infinity Multiplayer features a vastly expanded suite of multiplayer modes, weapons, vehicles, armor abilities, a new loadout and Spartan IV player progression system.
·                                 Spartan Ops: Extend your campaign experience in a massive-scale adventure that builds upon the "Halo 4" Campaign. Receive a weekly series of cinematic episodes on Xbox LIVE followed by new game play missions, played solo or cooperatively with up to three friends - effectively delivering two campaign experiences in one game!***
·                                 War Games: Battle the competition in fresh, immersive new game modes and strategies.
·                                 Track your groups, stats and scores on HaloWaypoint.com
·                                 Edge-of-your-seat Entertainment: Immerse yourself in Halo 4's graphics, sound and epic game play including a mysterious and deadly new class of enemies**

 Occasionally, I have to wonder if our game writer’s lexicon is gleamed from product descriptions online. I can’t help but cringe every time I hear a critic un-ironically say the word “immersive” or “epic” (luckily these terms have finally left our collective vocabulary as writers, apparently content at their place on the back of a box). This is an industry built upon press releases, of course, but I still feel like people like to box in games and their potential to very simple words and meaningless descriptions. For example, I hate it when people say “video games need to be fun”. (Warning: The following blog is going to essentially be me nit-picking about things you might find unimportant.)

What is fun, exactly? Well, “fun” is a word that means different things to different people, and it means nothing at all. When we are talking about games, we seem to be fans of calling everything fun; Resident Evil 2- it’s fun, Call of Duty- it’s fun, Super Mario Galaxy- it’s fun. In reality, though, the reasons we play these games aren’t to experience some nebulous thing called “fun”. Resident Evil 2 is a game you play to be afraid and helpless, or to experience an interesting world through a unique scope. Call of Duty is a game you play to A) experience a single-player experience (as I do) or B) play with others, or a combination thereof. Perhaps the only comparison between both games is that you shoot things. You might play Super Mario Galaxy to explore a world, be challenged with platforming, listen to music- a variety of reasons. But do you really play all three of these games simply “to have fun”? Do these games really live or die by their ability to be “fun”?

  I am not one of those weird pseudo-intellectual people who say “all language is ultimately meaningless, man”. Language does most certainly have a meaning; all of society is built upon the essentials of language and interpersonal communication. This belief, that language is extremely important- and precise language is doubly so, informs how I discuss art and products. Our reasons for being drawn to pieces of art or products are not simple enough to be described in one word.

Currently, I’m playing Bastion on a borrowed iPad. Bastion is an enjoyable game; I find myself enamored with it and I kind of want to play it right now. But is it “fun”? Maybe I could describe it that way. But if I wanted to make you interested in the game, the only way I could would be by explaining what interests or entertains me. Here’s an example: “Bastion has a large amount of interesting ideas that I enjoy exploring. First of all, the combat in the game is very rewarding, the sound effects associated with using the weapons (especially the dueling pistols) and the sound effects associated with fighting enemies train a part of your brain to want to keep playing- and by extension- fighting. I also think the art style of Bastion is clever; I am a big fan of the concept of a beautiful post-apocalypse, that’s why I’m drawn to shows like Adventure Time. The game is extremely eye-catching, all the colors are vibrant and even the littlest details like the color and texture of tiles you walk across is always different and unique.” Could I say “Bastion is fun”? Yes. But it’s more than fun. 

 Finally, I dislike the notion some people have that games “need to be fun” for a similar reason. Saying that a game needs to have a component as nebulous as fun A) devalues different artistic visions and B) gives off the impression that games are essentially toys, made for the enjoyment of kids and weird adults stuck in childhood. I’m tired of games like Journey for being slammed- not because of anything meaningful about what the game is- but because it isn’t “fun”, like action games, stealth games, or sports games. And, as I said earlier, the buzzword “fun” is about as concise and meaningful as “epic” or “engrossing” or “visceral”; it gives the impression of depth with no further explanation. 

Some More Worthwhile Questions Than "Are Games Art?"

I'm really, really tired of the debate about whether or not games are art. I have heard every possible argument possible from every side of the debate, and I will not listen to anymore of it. If you love games and have seen their power of telling stories and evoking powerful emotional responses, you understand that games absolutely have the ability to be forms of artistic expression. That discussion should have a bullet in it's skull by now, and the fact that gamers are still discussing it proves we are still unsure of our medium, and we personally aren't sure if we are good enough to be art, which is a destructive mindset. 

Since I will never discuss that topic on THIS blog, I feel there are other topics related to the advancement of fascinating and artistic games that need to be discussed; there are problems surrounding video games as an industry that need to be solved. In this post, I'm going to cover two of these questions, and I hope you think about them, as well. 

Is The System Weighed Against Creative Game Development? 

What is "the system", you ask? Some may classify it as publishers, and the mainstream game market. I find that a little close-minded, and it doesn't really cover the whole problem. After all, publishers are just companies that exist to make money. They follow markets and bet on what they feel will succeed in the current market. No, "the system" may very well be you, and it is definitely is me at times. The things we buy contribute to "the system", subscribing to news organizations that parrot corporate lines contributes to it, etc. 

You may think the statement that much of the industry is weighed against creativity is a little dramatic, and if I  did not see the lineup for games releasing this year I may agree with you. But think about this: What games have you been most excited for this past year? Now list all of the sequels that appeared on your list. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy having more of a great game as much as any gamer- but it seems the video game industry is more occupied on doing more of the same than doing something new. We don't seem to want to leave our comfort zone, and because of that we consistently get more of the same. And then when a game at least attempts something different, or tries to change video games- it is labeled as pretentious because, well, it wasn't fun, or some crap like that. 

"The system" rewards people doing the same thing over and over because it says, "That weird game isn't how video games are supposed to be." "Games have to be FUN or else they have failed as a game." It's one thing to criticize a game fairly, it's another entirely to look down upon the game because the people behind the game are trying something new, and calling them pretentious because they aren't staying with the status quo. 

Are The Personalities We Like in The Game Industry Dragging It Down? 

I will admit that I really like Jim Sterling, the writer of Destructoid.com. Not only do I find his humor ridiculously funny (some of my favorite podcast moments are Jim Sterling going insane on Podtoid in British voices) and I appreciate his harsh criticism of gaming, and his apparent longing for games to become the best they possibly can be. Yet, Jim is very guilty of trying to limit games as a form as well. He has made it very clear of his disdain for "art" games, complaining that they aren't fun, like games have to be fun before anything else. 

Now, it's fine to have different opinions than me. That's what makes the world awesome, there are so many great and fascinating opinions floating around on any topic, and there are people like Jim Sterling who are great at fluently expressing and explaining these opinions. But I find the idea that games have to be fun one of the most destructive of any concept in the industry. It's like saying a novel must have intrigue or else it has failed, it's like saying that a rock album has to have heavy electric guitar riffs or else it is worthless. There is so much possibility in interactive media that saying games have to be fun is ridiculous and limiting.

Yet, people eat up these people's opinions like they are going to give them pundit-superpowers or something. How could non-gamers accept games on the same level as books or paintings when so many people in the middle of the industry feel they need to be toys. I am sorry, but I DO CARE that people accept games- I want more people to be interested in something as awesome as games because I know if we got over this "games are toys" hump, everyone would realize that games are amazing, as I already have. 

I have said my piece, and put forward some pressing questions about trends that are harming the future of imaginative games. I now hope you will disagree or agree with me, and expand this discussion beyond being a one-sided affair. We won't get anywhere in this medium unless these questions are asked, and I am eternally grateful for the internet as a place for asking them. Game on, guys.