With the recent explosion of indies contrasting the increasing development of live-service games, there’s been an important discussion going on. Are games made for the purpose of art, or products? Depending on the player you ask, the answer may differ. But what was the original intention of video games before the modern landscape, that has complicated things? What is the thinking behind the developers when they make games? This is a crucial discussion now as the industry experiences diminishing returns with AAA games and indies get bigger than ever.
The Developer’s Perspective
There are several ways to look at games. Close to as various as how many genres there are. I am going to look at the developer’s outlook here, what their goal is when making a game. But without needing to get into depth here, I can tell you what their number one intention is. Simply put, all game designers try to create a game that is fun. The other aspects of game design are secondary to that; what else makes up a game, if not “fun”? This is not to say that game design doesn’t have depth or nuances, or that more artistic experiences are any less fun. Nowadays, there will be game designers who intend their games more as art, or more as products. This is reflected in story-based experiences, or games filled with micro-transactions or cosmetics. But neither is without a degree of satisfaction (for the most part).
An Expert’s Opinion
Masahiro Sakurai, the director of the hit franchise Super Smash Bros., has a theory about what makes a game fun. His reputation is that of a professional game director with a long history in development. His title, Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, is among the best-selling games of all time at over 30 million units sold. He describes a concept he calls “game essence” as part of what makes a game enjoyable. Specifically he regards game essence as the “push-and-pull,” or the “risk and reward” of a game. He cautions that this concept isn’t wholly what makes a game, but a big part of it. In his YouTube video, he goes more in depth:
“[Game Essence] also has a big impact on what we call ‘strategy’—which is essentially the same thing through a different lens. ‘Game Essence’ is the fun of managing risk and getting rewards. And strategy is how you manage those risks to get rewards. One is about mechanics, the other is about the player.”
On his channel about creating games, Sakurai shares a plethora of information on his experience and advice on game development. This statement is a reflection of only a little bit of what he has to say, but it succinctly describes the general idea behind making games. So, for most games, we can establish that developers have these concepts in mind—for the sake of this discussion only. The concept carries the fact that video games are inherently interactive, more than any other media. Feedback, control, choice—all leveraged by its very essence.
What Makes a Game?
It could be argued that video games need game essence to feel like games. Typically, there’s a degree of risk and strategy involved: it makes you play an active role. As previously mentioned, there quite literally needs to be involvement from the player, that makes things happen. There are a few exceptions to this. “Artistic” games can sometimes rely on aesthetics or cinematics, with minimal gameplay. They resemble “art” more closely than other games but frankly feel less like a game in general. This is not to diminish them, as all of them tend to have a sense of fun. The same goes for simulators that replicate a real-life experience: they are still fun.
Why Are Games Seen as “Art”?
The discussion around video games being art has to do with fans romanticizing them. While developers don’t normally think of their projects as art, fans see them in a different light. The experience of the game on the receiving end of it can be such a breakthrough for players that they can’t only be defined as enjoyable. They enter a level of value to the fan that they transcend their purpose, sometimes changing people’s lifestyles. Games can become memories: a charged emotion that makes a player feel more complex feelings. It would not suit a video game to be restricted by its technical factors, considering what it means to someone. That is understandable on many levels—but should be cautioned. Great games can become art, but are not a medium to “art.”
Video Games as an Artform
The implication can be severe, as some think to use video games exclusively as a way to tell their story. In this way, they don’t think of making a video game that is fun, only that it tells their story. It pays little respect to the artform as it is intended. Video games are meant to use a concept to formulate gameplay around it, including generous interactivity. If a person can experience the game without playing it, is it really a game?
For a game to be seen as art, it should only be for the reason that it is a video game—not a metaphor for another medium. Plenty of people find it annoying when a novel is lazily portrayed on screen: same when a game is bastardized on screen. Movies like Borderlands and Minecraft show how little those directors care about the uniqueness of video games. It is different when they say games are art.
Within this topic, it is important to make this distinction for the sake of the developer’s outlook. It is frankly beside the point if the project they worked years on is art or a product. They are concerned whether it is fun; even in the worst of times in spite of money-hungry publishers. If a gamer says their game is so good it becomes its own form of art, then it is a true compliment. Games are not simply a medium to other media, same with film, studio arts and literature. They need to start being seen as their own thing.
What Games Mean to Everyone Else
The negative connotations about video games have plagued the industry since inception. It stands to reason, as one the youngest forms of media, only popularized in the 80’s. The younger generation are also the only people to go through that popularity, leaving the confused older generation spiteful. That sentiment still hasn’t gone away, even as normalized as video games are. One of the problems in the industry is that businessmen who aren’t players have taken up leadership positions within the gaming space. They are the publishers in charge, deciding the fate of many big projects and creating that pressure to force games into products.
When Developers are the Leaders
An obvious exception and good point of reference is the Nintendo company. Nintendo was responsible for the first boom in the industry, especially with their game designers such as Satoru Iwata, Masahiro Sakurai, and Shigeru Miyamoto. What is unique here is that each of these designers went on to leadership positions, becoming directors, executive producers and one being a president of Nintendo. This helped maintain the high-quality culture at the actual development studios with them being the leads. Most producers of their development groups are also majority former or current game designers.
When Developers aren’t the Leaders
The same is unfortunately not the same for the other two big companies, being Sony and Microsoft. They have their own strong foothold in the markets, further dissociated from players/game designers. They are derivatives of bigger media companies, of course. PlayStation and Xbox are the actual video game publishers, recently showing their poor management. With them taking up the rest of the console market, most games end up being made under the conditions of businessmen. This circumstance is the reason for a half of the discussion, of games being products. In this way, cynical gamers are right about a lot of high budget games. They aren’t allowed to be made with a love for gaming, much less a significant level of game essence or strategy. They have the makings of a game, filled with things to purchase to truly access the rest of the content.
Games are All About Fun
While the debate seems to be black and white—art versus products—some players forget about the intentions of the developers. Yet it is all true in each respect. Fortunately, only the extreme examples of the worst of “art” or “products,” are put before the player. The majority of games are made by indie developers or smaller publishing groups, so the worst is honestly avoidable. The net negative is that the large pool of resources hoarded by big publishers aren’t put to good use. The other pressing issue is the lack of respect for video games. Yet, that is remedied by the industry’s growing popularity.
It is a good thing that more people are talking about video games. I hope that with the excitement festering in the community that we can still be reminded of the developers. Listening to them, being inspired by them and continuing their philosophy is the essence of what makes video games become an artform. Without that deep understanding, we can’t hope for them to be anything more than brainless fun. The best designers mean for their hard work to be easily engaged, very approachable and bringing smiles to faces. That is all they want—and to be able to continue doing that. If we can appreciate their games for that and more, then great. But otherwise, try not to get distracted from just playing the game. Art versus products…that is beside the point.
