3 ms·

I really disagree that games lack soul. I wonder if the author has ever played any of the Metal Gear Solid series, any of the Final Fantasy series, Folklore, or

I really disagree that games lack soul. I wonder if the author has ever played any of the Metal Gear Solid series, any of the Final Fantasy series, Folklore, or even any Shin Megami Tensei games. That's just to name a few! It's a real insult to the whole industry to just declare that games are "soulless." I mean, read the following quote again: "Games suck. Game companies have spent so many years trying to make skulls explode complexly and water ripple prettily that they haven't invested any time in learning how to make games that are as emotionally dense as the best novels and films. Most games are a waste of time. Soulless. Empty." This is essentially meaningless, and is not at all specific to video games. Are not movies as obsessed with flashbang as games are accused of being? To my mind, the only people who can claim that video games are soulless are those who don't play games, play the wrong games or are just too jaded to see the labors of love sitting on store shelves today.

pmjordan 18y ago
Agreed. And often it's in the games from which you least expect it. One of those examples for me is BioShock. The facade of the horror shooter-rpg is only skin deep. The main emotions it played on weren't fear and confusion but a wistful sadness and regret. Of course, the history of videogames is littered with perfectly excellent games which wouldn't be considered "high art", and I suppose the fact that games don't have to be artistic to be good bothers some people. In fact there are plenty of awful artistically brilliant games, as the main metric against which games are measured is still how engaging and fun they are. You can tolerate sitting through the ~100 minutes of a movie that doesn't quite grip you, but the interactivity of games sets the bar much higher: you don't progress unless you do stuff, and if that stuff is tedious, then you'll probably give up. The artistic depth can help to make the game engaging, but I don't think it can do this on its own: the mechanics are still crucial. As a result, game designers have to watch out so much that their game is fun, that injecting deeper meaning and emotion will often burst the budget, or it's overlooked altogether. And I do commend anyone who manages to combine artistic brilliance in an engaging game.

pmjordan 18y ago

Agreed. And often it's in the games from which you least expect it. One of those examples for me is BioShock. The facade of the horror shooter-rpg is only skin deep. The main emotions it played on weren't fear and confusion but a wistful sadness and regret. Of course, the history of videogames is littered with perfectly excellent games which wouldn't be considered "high art", and I suppose the fact that games don't have to be artistic to be good bothers some people. In fact there are plenty of awful artistically brilliant games, as the main metric against which games are measured is still how engaging and fun they are. You can tolerate sitting through the ~100 minutes of a movie that doesn't quite grip you, but the interactivity of games sets the bar much higher: you don't progress unless you do stuff, and if that stuff is tedious, then you'll probably give up. The artistic depth can help to make the game engaging, but I don't think it can do this on its own: the mechanics are still crucial. As a result, game designers have to watch out so much that their game is fun, that injecting deeper meaning and emotion will often burst the budget, or it's overlooked altogether. And I do commend anyone who manages to combine artistic brilliance in an engaging game.