Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
THE MYTH OF GAMES AS ESCAPISM
Debunking misunderstandings of the medium and why it's important.
Sagitar- 05/22/2011 01:05 AM
- 30619 views
When attempting to drive forward a medium, it's important to understand the trends and viewpoints that are holding it back. I've already likened games to theater and discussed why people have trouble calling them art, but in this post I'm going to dig a little deeper and attempt to disprove one of the troubling myths surrounding our culture and industry.
Many people think playing games is a form of indulgent escapism. Considering role-playing experiences like Dungeons & Dragons or World of Warcraft, it's easy to assume everyone involved is losing themselves so deeply in the game world to escape problems in the real world. They're called "role-playing games" because players take on the role of someone else—a deadly night elf, an interstellar commander, etc. These roles are so appealing because they give us a break from our responsibilities, right?
Wrong. In fact, they pile more responsibilities on us. Games are not a passive medium like film or literature; players don't have the luxury of watching some other hero save the world.
Games are interactive and engaging, and by definition provide obstacles to overcome. Perhaps gamers are escaping into other worlds, but often those worlds have more problems and challenges than our own. Players are accepting a responsibility in that very act of playing, willingly taking it upon themselves to put down a mutant apocalypse, escort a helpless child out of harm's way, or even just pile heaps of experience onto their avatar to hit that elusive next level.
Okay, so that's fine, but if a gamer's network of real-life relationships is in the crapper and bills are piling up at home, vanishing into that other world is still shirking responsibilities, isn't it? On some level, yes. But if players wanted to escape their problems, it doesn't make sense that they would take on even more in their spare time. They would love to be able to tackle those problems; most just don't know how to go about it. Enemies or obstacles in the game world then become manifestations of real-world challenges, ones with tangible goals and a clear (if not simple) path to victory. That's why overcoming them can feel like such an exhilarating accomplishment, even if it's as simple as beating a level of Angry Birds.
People act differently while they're playing games than they do in the real world. It's similar to internet culture in that regard—we feel safely distanced from ourselves and buffered by the blanket of apparent anonymity. You might think this means we're putting on a mask, but it's actually the opposite. The mask is what we wear every day in social situations where to express oneself honestly isn't always an acceptable option. Our masks actually come off when we play games or go online. This has consequences both bad (think YouTube commenters) and good: while society often demands conformity and cynicism from younger generations especially, games give us a venue where we are instead rewarded for expressing our creative selves with fiery pride and passion.
And therein lies our responsibility as developers. Our games must inspire players to take that pride and passion back into the real world and conquer their problems with the same willingness and vigor they displayed in the game world. It's not as daunting as it sounds! The lines between the physical and digital worlds are blurring more and more each day, with advances in smartphones, social media, augmented reality, etc. Be creative and you'll find getting your players to make that step is really pretty easy.
Once we've done that, we'll have broken the myth that gamer culture is entirely made up of lazy, unproductive basement-dwellers and the only use for our wonderfully powerful medium is to escape the trials of the real world—which is to ignore its abilities to inspire, educate, and unite people all around the globe.
Leave a comment if you agree or disagree!
Many people think playing games is a form of indulgent escapism. Considering role-playing experiences like Dungeons & Dragons or World of Warcraft, it's easy to assume everyone involved is losing themselves so deeply in the game world to escape problems in the real world. They're called "role-playing games" because players take on the role of someone else—a deadly night elf, an interstellar commander, etc. These roles are so appealing because they give us a break from our responsibilities, right?
Wrong. In fact, they pile more responsibilities on us. Games are not a passive medium like film or literature; players don't have the luxury of watching some other hero save the world.
Games are interactive and engaging, and by definition provide obstacles to overcome. Perhaps gamers are escaping into other worlds, but often those worlds have more problems and challenges than our own. Players are accepting a responsibility in that very act of playing, willingly taking it upon themselves to put down a mutant apocalypse, escort a helpless child out of harm's way, or even just pile heaps of experience onto their avatar to hit that elusive next level.
Okay, so that's fine, but if a gamer's network of real-life relationships is in the crapper and bills are piling up at home, vanishing into that other world is still shirking responsibilities, isn't it? On some level, yes. But if players wanted to escape their problems, it doesn't make sense that they would take on even more in their spare time. They would love to be able to tackle those problems; most just don't know how to go about it. Enemies or obstacles in the game world then become manifestations of real-world challenges, ones with tangible goals and a clear (if not simple) path to victory. That's why overcoming them can feel like such an exhilarating accomplishment, even if it's as simple as beating a level of Angry Birds.
People act differently while they're playing games than they do in the real world. It's similar to internet culture in that regard—we feel safely distanced from ourselves and buffered by the blanket of apparent anonymity. You might think this means we're putting on a mask, but it's actually the opposite. The mask is what we wear every day in social situations where to express oneself honestly isn't always an acceptable option. Our masks actually come off when we play games or go online. This has consequences both bad (think YouTube commenters) and good: while society often demands conformity and cynicism from younger generations especially, games give us a venue where we are instead rewarded for expressing our creative selves with fiery pride and passion.
And therein lies our responsibility as developers. Our games must inspire players to take that pride and passion back into the real world and conquer their problems with the same willingness and vigor they displayed in the game world. It's not as daunting as it sounds! The lines between the physical and digital worlds are blurring more and more each day, with advances in smartphones, social media, augmented reality, etc. Be creative and you'll find getting your players to make that step is really pretty easy.
Once we've done that, we'll have broken the myth that gamer culture is entirely made up of lazy, unproductive basement-dwellers and the only use for our wonderfully powerful medium is to escape the trials of the real world—which is to ignore its abilities to inspire, educate, and unite people all around the globe.
Leave a comment if you agree or disagree!
Posts 
View playlists
Close
TheNecromancer
3160
author=Craze
I wish that this article was longer.
It basically continues on into the comments, in a good way.
Sagitar
1926
author=cho
environments created for game =/= the game itself
if you want to claim that games are a new interactive frontier of art, or whatever, at least claim that the interactive parts are the art.
I don't think you can break it into little parts like that. Each piece of the game is not standalone, it only means something when it ties into the other pieces and you see the whole picture together.
It's the same reason your claim that OCRemixers are inspired by music, not games, falls short.
Take the Gerudo Valley theme from Zelda:OoT. If that song had simply come up on the radio, no one would have cared enough to make a remix of it. But taken in context of this grand adventure, with the blowing sands and badass desert thieves, that's where the inspiration came from. There are dozens of remixes of that melody out there, including some that incorporate sound effects from the game and some that feature original lyrics based on the game's story. Those remixers were inspired by the whole package, not just one individual element of the game.
Radnen
1806
I think Sagitar has made many valid points for games as they don't pertain to escapism (the actual warrant of the debate; do not talk of art here that merits a different warrant (I'd warn all those who did do this)). From my time seeing and reading (online) debates, things tend to fall flat after the first disagreements or ad hominems. Here they do not. The "health" of debate is the "strength" of debate. There is some proof in this kind of strength. Usually in this kind of circumstance, those who totally disagree or agree have narrowed the warrant down to black/white, when an obvious gray zone is present (or has, let's say, presented itself).
I personally believe it can be seen as both escapism and not. Unlike conventional media (books, movies, and plays), video games are far more varied. I can't buy the argument that all games can pr can't be derived from escapism, but I can agree that some indeed are.
@Sagitar: I see what you mean when you say that video games invoke a sense of responsibility that can indeed affect real life. I've seen students at highschool who would fret over their WoW character, all because they can't play as that avatar at that point in time. While in that building they are stuck in the real world. If their guild needed them during the hours of their schooling, then they start to panic about raids they would have missed. One can only imagine as to why some would end up not going to school, or missing class for that day.
But for some games, particularly social games like Harvest Moon or Rune Factory, while they invoke some responsibility, they do so only while the game is on. There is no need to feel an obligation to the game world since it deactivates when the console is off. You're responsibilities are frozen with your saved game. I have a Harvest Moon game I never touched for a long time, but its responsibility is completely gone. For games like WoW, offline actions would be affected by online interactions.
A good example: The weeds that grew in Animal Crossing. Holy crap man, when the game world was off stuff happened. Suddenly the game didn't feel like an escape because the chores were real regardless if the console was off. People would end up leaving the village, those weeds would grow and those who stayed would get kinda pissed at you ("Where have you been!?"). So there are indeed consequences here. To this day I still feel bad for having weeds devour the entirety of the game world. :(
But not all games have this, or have to be that way.
I personally believe it can be seen as both escapism and not. Unlike conventional media (books, movies, and plays), video games are far more varied. I can't buy the argument that all games can pr can't be derived from escapism, but I can agree that some indeed are.
@Sagitar: I see what you mean when you say that video games invoke a sense of responsibility that can indeed affect real life. I've seen students at highschool who would fret over their WoW character, all because they can't play as that avatar at that point in time. While in that building they are stuck in the real world. If their guild needed them during the hours of their schooling, then they start to panic about raids they would have missed. One can only imagine as to why some would end up not going to school, or missing class for that day.
But for some games, particularly social games like Harvest Moon or Rune Factory, while they invoke some responsibility, they do so only while the game is on. There is no need to feel an obligation to the game world since it deactivates when the console is off. You're responsibilities are frozen with your saved game. I have a Harvest Moon game I never touched for a long time, but its responsibility is completely gone. For games like WoW, offline actions would be affected by online interactions.
A good example: The weeds that grew in Animal Crossing. Holy crap man, when the game world was off stuff happened. Suddenly the game didn't feel like an escape because the chores were real regardless if the console was off. People would end up leaving the village, those weeds would grow and those who stayed would get kinda pissed at you ("Where have you been!?"). So there are indeed consequences here. To this day I still feel bad for having weeds devour the entirety of the game world. :(
But not all games have this, or have to be that way.
Darken
3952
author=choauthor=Sagitarenvironments created for game =/= the game itself
I find it ludicrous that there's some magical moment where my environments cease to be art just because they're put into an interactive medium.
Wait what, have you ever tried making a game before? Anything that makes the final cut into the game is part of the game, yes... even graphics.
cho
0
author=Sagitarok, fine, they were inspired by some sound effects and a plot too. none of this has anything to do with game mechanics. you know, the interactive part.
Take the Gerudo Valley theme from Zelda:OoT. If that song had simply come up on the radio, no one would have cared enough to make a remix of it. But taken in context of this grand adventure, with the blowing sands and badass desert thieves, that's where the inspiration came from. There are dozens of remixes of that melody out there, including some that incorporate sound effects from the game and some that feature original lyrics based on the game's story. Those remixers were inspired by the whole package, not just one individual element of the game.
Sagitar
1926
@Radnen: It's an interesting idea, the varying degrees that a game's design can force responsibilities on you. The really interesting thing is that games people tend to blame most often for escapism and avoiding problems (WoW, Farmville...) are ones that inversely demand all kinds of responsibilities and real-world commitments.
Do you think there would be all those Gerudo Valley remixes if the original song had been on the soundtrack of the movie instead of a game? Being there in the desert, interacting with that environment yourself (instead of passively watching someone else do it) was an element that was just as vital to the experience as the visuals or plot. One last time, the whole entire experience provided the inspiration, and the whole entire experience is art.
We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this, though. No more games as art talk for me, it's off-topic anyway.
author=choAre you arguing that games can't be art because they're interactive? There's a whole form of (non-video game) art that relies on the participation of the viewer, like those chalk drawings that you have to stand in the exact right spot to see or this really cool wooden mirror display. And if you argue that the act of moving around to stand in the right spot (the equivalent of game mechanics) isn't art by itself, that's kind of clutching at straws and separating it into pieces again. The whole process is art, both the interactive and non-interactive elements together.
ok, fine, they were inspired by some sound effects and a plot too. none of this has anything to do with game mechanics. you know, the interactive part.
Do you think there would be all those Gerudo Valley remixes if the original song had been on the soundtrack of the movie instead of a game? Being there in the desert, interacting with that environment yourself (instead of passively watching someone else do it) was an element that was just as vital to the experience as the visuals or plot. One last time, the whole entire experience provided the inspiration, and the whole entire experience is art.
We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this, though. No more games as art talk for me, it's off-topic anyway.
eplipswich
2728
Which is why art shouldn't be debatable in the first place, because frankly, anything can be art, even games, and even a toilet bowl and a portrait of Mona Lisa with a moustache (think modernism and dada), however controversial that may be.
P.S.: This is the Mona Lisa with a Moustache: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
P.S.: This is the Mona Lisa with a Moustache: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
Irili
3198
author=eplipswich
P.S.: This is the Mona Lisa with a Moustache: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
Looks a little like King Charles I of England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England
S. F. LaValle
1069
I think what this article represents is a unique approach to developing a goal you want to achieve with games that you make. It's certainly not for everyone, but I don't think it's invalid.
There are a lot of interesting ideas here, even if they don't tie together very well. I know this is the wrong article, but I agree with cho on the games as art front; for games to be considered art, a game's interactivity must satisfy any twisted definition of art, and not the resources that give visual or aural support and which are themselves art.
The idea that people actually take off their mask when they go online isn't wrong I think, but it's skewed heavily by defining what's real. Online, some people are who they really want to be, and in real life social situations, they might not be able to be that person, hence the mask in real life. Ironically, this is the same as putting a mask on in real life; the condition of anonymity grants you the ability to act upon what is right for you, and not under the influence of public opinion. This simply does not apply to some people, who are so comfortable with who they are in real life and/or online that they haven't even considered masking who they are.
He's also right that people do take on responsibilities when playing games. The difference is semantic; in tone (perhaps also by definition, I'm too lazy to look), 'responsibility' infers that one can and does act or perform duties in such a manner as to meet the expectation or need of oneself or others. Basically, putting needs before wants, and semantically we take this to mean we do things we don't enjoy (work) because we must. I think it can be applied more generally in this instance, something along the lines of 'act of perform duties that are conditional to achieving a goal.' In life, the goal is to earn money to pay bills, and the conditions to achieve that is work. In games, the goal is victory or some other reward the player finds worth working for, and the gameplay is the condition.
Note this is mostly applied to single-player games. This very debate has been around since single-player games were first created. People didn't truly understand why they existed, or how they would ever be popular without the competitive nature of games as defined up to that point. These are not contests of skill between two players, where the goal and elation for reaching it are obvious. Single-player games are a complex balance of responsibility and reward, in that the pleasure of reaching the goal has to justify the amount of responsibility the player asked of the player.
While games aren't work (most of the time), they still compel people to accept responsibilities in addition to those that they already bear in real life, and I think that's powerful, and important to understand. While I think it's a stretch to have a game philosophy designed around empowering people to take more initiative in their personal lives, I will leave you with this: sometimes when I'm in a rut and simply don't feel like working, I screw around on the internet, yak with people, what have you (I'm doing it now). If I happen to open up Angry Birds, which is usually on a hard level I had to stop working on, I will keep playing the level over and over until eventually, I win. I emit a victory fist-pump, never in public view, and triumphantly put my phone back in my pocket and get to work.
There are a lot of interesting ideas here, even if they don't tie together very well. I know this is the wrong article, but I agree with cho on the games as art front; for games to be considered art, a game's interactivity must satisfy any twisted definition of art, and not the resources that give visual or aural support and which are themselves art.
The idea that people actually take off their mask when they go online isn't wrong I think, but it's skewed heavily by defining what's real. Online, some people are who they really want to be, and in real life social situations, they might not be able to be that person, hence the mask in real life. Ironically, this is the same as putting a mask on in real life; the condition of anonymity grants you the ability to act upon what is right for you, and not under the influence of public opinion. This simply does not apply to some people, who are so comfortable with who they are in real life and/or online that they haven't even considered masking who they are.
He's also right that people do take on responsibilities when playing games. The difference is semantic; in tone (perhaps also by definition, I'm too lazy to look), 'responsibility' infers that one can and does act or perform duties in such a manner as to meet the expectation or need of oneself or others. Basically, putting needs before wants, and semantically we take this to mean we do things we don't enjoy (work) because we must. I think it can be applied more generally in this instance, something along the lines of 'act of perform duties that are conditional to achieving a goal.' In life, the goal is to earn money to pay bills, and the conditions to achieve that is work. In games, the goal is victory or some other reward the player finds worth working for, and the gameplay is the condition.
Note this is mostly applied to single-player games. This very debate has been around since single-player games were first created. People didn't truly understand why they existed, or how they would ever be popular without the competitive nature of games as defined up to that point. These are not contests of skill between two players, where the goal and elation for reaching it are obvious. Single-player games are a complex balance of responsibility and reward, in that the pleasure of reaching the goal has to justify the amount of responsibility the player asked of the player.
While games aren't work (most of the time), they still compel people to accept responsibilities in addition to those that they already bear in real life, and I think that's powerful, and important to understand. While I think it's a stretch to have a game philosophy designed around empowering people to take more initiative in their personal lives, I will leave you with this: sometimes when I'm in a rut and simply don't feel like working, I screw around on the internet, yak with people, what have you (I'm doing it now). If I happen to open up Angry Birds, which is usually on a hard level I had to stop working on, I will keep playing the level over and over until eventually, I win. I emit a victory fist-pump, never in public view, and triumphantly put my phone back in my pocket and get to work.
Once upon a time video games were a diversion for entertainment. Now with immersive worlds, they are escapism, because a game is easier than life.
S. F. LaValle
1069
author=ShortStar
Once upon a time video games were a diversion for entertainment. Now with immersive worlds, they are escapism, because a game is easier than life.
They CAN be. When I play games, I don't escape anything. I have a great life. I play games to have fun.
Just a word about litterature being a "passive medium". Reading a book or admiring a painting are individual experiences where one's life experience and imagination are highly involved, its anything but a passive experience. .It actually takes much more out of you than playing video games. Nevertheless, video game making, at least the better ones, is a minor form of art, especially when they don't pretend to teach you anything, art, creation doesn't work like that.
Radnen
1806
author=chana
Just a word about litterature being a "passive medium". Reading a book or admiring a painting are individual experiences where one's life experience and imagination are highly involved, its anything but a passive experience. .It actually takes much more out of you than playing video games. Nevertheless, video game making, at least the better ones, is a minor form of art, especially when they don't pretend to teach you anything, art, creation doesn't work like that.
You are right, video games don't leave much to the imagination!
If that is so, then why do we feel inspired to make our own? Why do people write fanfiction about them, or play them over and over again? I'd say that video games can set fire to the imagination just as much as any other type of art!
And yes, I consider them to be art. Art inspires, it makes you think about technique, meanings behind its creation, composition and subject. Can you say you've never played a game and been inspired to create something? Never thought about how something could be recreated and how you'd go about that process? Never thought about the history of the lands presented there-in or pondered on how the characters relate to each other, about the themes that you faced, about the battles or music or anything else that was a part of the experience?
And yes, I consider them to be art. Art inspires, it makes you think about technique, meanings behind its creation, composition and subject. Can you say you've never played a game and been inspired to create something? Never thought about how something could be recreated and how you'd go about that process? Never thought about the history of the lands presented there-in or pondered on how the characters relate to each other, about the themes that you faced, about the battles or music or anything else that was a part of the experience?
author=RadnenThat's noy at all what i meant, any form of art is a work of creative imagination I was not opposing litterature and video game making, in fact, for the best of them, i think they're of the same essence, artistic creations, which is why i enjoy so much some of them, only one is a major form of art and the other a minor,author=chanaYou are right, video games don't leave much to the imagination!
Just a word about litterature being a "passive medium". Reading a book or admiring a painting are individual experiences where one's life experience and imagination are highly involved, its anything but a passive experience. .It actually takes much more out of you than playing video games. Nevertheless, video game making, at least the better ones, is a minor form of art, especially when they don't pretend to teach you anything, art, creation doesn't work like that.
Pokemaniac
3559
author=RadnenLike Minecraft, which allows you to build whatever you want based on the game's logic, or even your standard super-linear JRPG which sets up obstacles for you and forces you to interpret what is going on and react to it...
You are right, video games don't leave much to the imagination!
Video-games aren't art(although they totally are) because there were no video-games when the word art was made. I don't think that changes anything about how we should make them, or the impact they make.
Movies, photography didn't exist either when the word "art" was invented, they're definitely a form of art.
The fact that the best of the amateur rpgs ARE a form of art is not sufficiently taken in account, i find, particularly in the way some of those are so violently attacked by the commentators that their authors go all the way to cancelling or, maybe worst, redoing, but in a totally increative and uninteresting way , this time, their games. Nothing is more personal then artistic expression , and at that level anyone is really fragile. So, if some games are incomprehensively overpraised, pity for the really creative ones and their authors. Breaking those is the best way to make amateur games nothing worthwhile.
The fact that the best of the amateur rpgs ARE a form of art is not sufficiently taken in account, i find, particularly in the way some of those are so violently attacked by the commentators that their authors go all the way to cancelling or, maybe worst, redoing, but in a totally increative and uninteresting way , this time, their games. Nothing is more personal then artistic expression , and at that level anyone is really fragile. So, if some games are incomprehensively overpraised, pity for the really creative ones and their authors. Breaking those is the best way to make amateur games nothing worthwhile.
Pokemaniac
3559
Got me there. ;P Well, photography isn't much of a stretch as art because it's presented in the same form as a painting. Movies... Well...
It's really a lot about the demographics of these things, I think. Movies and photography were always adult media, but games are still viewed as childish(which becomes less and less true every day) and a niche(Console, handheld and mobile games combined I think you'd find most 1st-world people are some type of gamer). Things that are made primarily for children are often assumed to be shallow and only mindless entertainment(Anyone who's played more than a few games can tell you that they can be very mentally taxing, and can evoke emotions that other mediums can't to the same extent). Cartoons, for instance, took longer than other forms of media to emerge as adult entertainment rather than just for kids. As a result, most people don't really respect the finer points of cartoons, and what they do to achieve what they do.
tl;dr I don't see how someone scribbling on a piece of paper can be said to be art when someone lovingly crafting an experience can't.
It's really a lot about the demographics of these things, I think. Movies and photography were always adult media, but games are still viewed as childish(which becomes less and less true every day) and a niche(Console, handheld and mobile games combined I think you'd find most 1st-world people are some type of gamer). Things that are made primarily for children are often assumed to be shallow and only mindless entertainment(Anyone who's played more than a few games can tell you that they can be very mentally taxing, and can evoke emotions that other mediums can't to the same extent). Cartoons, for instance, took longer than other forms of media to emerge as adult entertainment rather than just for kids. As a result, most people don't really respect the finer points of cartoons, and what they do to achieve what they do.
tl;dr I don't see how someone scribbling on a piece of paper can be said to be art when someone lovingly crafting an experience can't.
