This is actually something I've been getting more and more interested in over the last few years. and I think its very much true. The game industry only exists because of the economic success of its entertaining factors, much like the way Hollywood generates income on entertaining blockbusters.

I think that there is a lot to this medium that hasn't been explored for two reasons. 1) Games are not taken seriously as an artistic medium 2) The average person doesn't want to play a game unless its fun.

On the concept of turning games into a more artistic "emotional medium", there is much that can be explored in this area. There is a whole branch of pyschological experiments that can be applied to games. As well there are tons of new media theories on variability, narratives, artificial intellegence, etc. That haven't really been explored yet.

I think that the only people who have the guts to risk these experiments are very much the theorists who have a good understanding of the medium. Afterall film only went towards emotional narratives during its early years from the work of people who went against the common belief that the medium was going no where.

These are indeed some of the things we hope to accomplish with game research! It is a long process, however, and incremental change is fine with me.

As for people needing to be entertained... I think this is a small misconception. Not that we don't want to be entertained by games, but that we only want to be entertained by games. Many films are not entertaining because they are "fun," but because they instill certain emotional responses that we derive more complex pleasure from.

Is Deux Ex really fun? I suppose it's not intolerable, but the power of the game is not in how much raw id the player releases, as in Doom. I think we're underestimating the average player, and they just don't know better yet.

I'm not so sure about your claim that people don't only want to be entertained. It depends on what market we're talking about here. The bulk of video game popularity lies in the entertainment industry. This is where you find games like Doom and Zelda which exist for the purpose of keeping the user entertained throughout the journey. Such games follow the notion of a "game" in which the user is challenged with some sort of objective or series of objectives that they carry out with amusement.

Now if you consider all the other applications for games then the video game no longer becomes a video game. It becomes something else that I don't think has been named yet. For an example when talking to girls about video game theory I hear a lot of them interested in trying out a game that acts as a relationship simulator. Now if you actually made a relationship simulator then the interaction with the AI characters would hold much variability to the point that the challenges and objectives become dependant on the player's will and it becomes difficult to call the game a game. Instead, I think, the player would go about experimenting much like players often do in "The Sims". Lets see what happens when I talk to this npc in this way, what happens if I call him/her names, what happens if I compliment them. Etc.

Or you could apply independant films to the gaming medium and make a first-person game that exposes the grotesque sides and stories of WW2 but then is it appropriate to call this first-person simulation a game? Although intriguing to the player they may not neccessarily be drawn in by the neccessity for amusement. Instead the player might find the content of the virtual world interesting enough to explore further such as a movie draws the viewer in through intriguing narrative and story. I find this an interesting aspect of video game theory. Such "games" would surely involve a more in depth approach to aesthetics and representation in order to provide an immersive experiance to fuel to the storyline (voice actors, sound effects, video effects in relation to concept and storyline). The storyline itself would become extremely variable and dynamic. What does this mean when talking about games that aren't games? What happens when a game is no longer a game?

Anyways, I'm asking a lot of crazy questions but you get what I mean...

I'm a bit gobstopped -- why wouldn't you call the artifacts you describe games?

One of the most insipid errors the video game industry perpetuates is the notion that entertainment means "fun" ... and fun means... what? I think the film industry, which is an entertainment industry, successfully debunks this notion. If I took your reasoning to its logical extreme, you couldn't call Lost In Translation a film, because films are supposed to be "entertaining," and that film provokes more subtle emotions.

The industry is very much stuck in this tautology. If it's not an FPS or an RPG or an RTS, then it must not be a videogame. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I haven't talked about it here on WCG, but I explicitly and very consciously use the term game and videogame in a very, very broad sense. Very broad. We need as much help as we can get, and I don't see how it helps to exclude all the interesting stuff into the realm of the third-term void (not a game but...)

fun P Pronunciation Key (fn)

n.

A source of enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure.

Enjoyment; amusement: have fun at the beach.

Playful, often noisy, activity.

enｷterｷtainｷment P Pronunciation Key (ntr-tnmnt)

n.

The act of entertaining.

The art or field of entertaining.

Something that amuses, pleases, or diverts, especially a performance or show.

The pleasure afforded by being entertained; amusement: The comedian performed for our entertainment.

Source: The American Heritageｮ Dictionary of the English Language

If you notice both fun and entertainment are very closely related. They both are concepts that describe things that give pleasure and amusement. I think that games have always been heavily founded in entertainment and exist to entertain. To say otherwise might be somewhat foolish. Thats not to say that games can't or won't ever evolve from the entertainment industry into new forms.

My point is that mass media and MOST people see games as ways to amuse themselves a lot like how someone might watch the movie "The Matrix" for sheer amusement. But thats not to say that the film industry only exists to entertain. When one talks of the more serious side of the film industry you get into ideas of documentaries and heavy drama's that don't so much entertain as they provoke throught and reflection of one's morals, values, perspectives etc.

I don't know a lot of games that do this. Probably because games that don't entertain the mass market don't generate enough coin. Nevertheless games are called 'games' because they are very much built on the act of play. I'm simply asking the question, "What happens when you stop PLAYING a game and start to experiance it?" Because the word play suggests that there is always a challenge and objective to follow through on in an amusing fashion. Art installations can be looked at as analogous to the way a 'video game' could be. Installations are constructed environments that provoke some sort of thought or convey some sort of concept through physical and usually abstract ideas. If one applies the same kind of mechanics and notions of installation art to the video game medium then a video game is no longer a game. Thats all I'm really suggesting.

I think the point your missing is what the ESSENCE of a video game is. What does it MEAN to call something a video game? Does it have to be digital? Does it have to be on a TV screen? Does it have to follow the conventional definition of a game to wear the badge of 'video GAME'? If its not fun and its not a game but it plays on an xbox or a computer LIKE a conventional video game, can we still call it a video game?

I'm also not suggesting that we should segregate this usage of the video game medium into a new category or name. I'm just bringing up points that should definately be thought about carefully when working with these notions.

I just think theres a misplacement in games as far as emotion is considered. For instance, many RPG's these days are quite captivating and they do a very effective job of capturing the players emotion. The lack of emotion exists in pointless killing games (not that I'm against them, I can hardly stop playing Devil May Cry 3). Developers should consider the value of life in fictitious realistic games in which humans are pitted against each other, rather than focusing on how many ways you can kill someone and how your enemy will react.

I JUST CANT BELIEVE I CRIED WHEN I BEATED THIS GAME!!!!!!