Pet Peeves

[Jigen]

What are your biggest Pet Peeves in video games?

A big one for me is long unskippable introduction scenes especially in games that do not call for them.

 

[Nathanial Essex]

Demos that fail to get to the point quickly. The time I can spend playing video games is much more limited compared to the days when I was a youth with no dependents and full time job. There have been a number of demos which I find just take way too long to get to gameplay or the crux about what the game is about.

I think it was the latest Wolfenstein game that had about 15 minutes (probably more) of cut scenes before getting to the gameplay. I was skipping through most of them at it still took an annoyingly long amount of time to get to gameplay.

A demo should be, ideally, purpose built. Make it so I get the sense of vibe, story and gameplay within a minute of opening that demo.

 

[DigitalDuck]

I'd expand that to uncontrollable cutscenes in general. If you're going to make me watch a movie, at the very least give me the controls I'd have available to me if I were watching a movie - FF, PAUSE, and REW. Let me skip the cutscene (because I'm bored), let me pause it (because I was interrupted), or let me replay it from an earlier point (because I missed something).

Downtime. If a game expects me to restart often, it should restart in as little time as possible. If there's a results tally, it should be skippable and not take long. And of course, the whole cutscene thing too.

PC games that will only run on supercomputers, because of extraneous and unnecessary graphical effects. I'd rather a game that looks like shit but runs than a beautiful slideshow, why not give me the choice?

Menus: anything I can use to control my in-game character should be usable for menus too. Don't make me switch to the keyboard for menus if the whole game can be played on controller, or vice versa. Also if I'm using a controller, menus are a digital input and therefore the D-pad should be used to control them. By all means, offer thumbsticks to change menu items too, but don't force me to use an analog control to make digital inputs.

In addition, menus should respond as soon as they're called. If I know "restart" is the second option on the pause menu, and I press start->down->A, I expect the game to restart. Don't throw this fancy bullshit menu animation at me if it means you're going to ignore my inputs.

I have lots of other complaints but these are things I think should be universal. My other complaints are more of a personal taste thing.

 

[Tsukuyomimagi99]

It usually depends on the game in question. However if there is one universally thing I dislike it’s censorship. If we are to believe that video games are supposed to be art then censorship is an affront to the artist because I am not getting the original artist’s vision. Art is meant to provoke to get people out of their comfort zones and challenge people and society. However that’s not what happens, games are tailored to the sensibilities of the country its released in.

As a grown adult, it should be up to me to decide what type of content I enjoy not a bunch of suits. There’s very little content in video games that I actually find distasteful. If a game does come with content I dislike I simply just ignore it and find something I do enjoy. However the moralistic busybodies who claim to speak on my behalf and the apologists who make excuses for it are the only thing I dislike more.

 

[Inno]

If we are to believe that video games are supposed to be art then censorship is an affront to the artist because I am not getting the original artist’s vision...

But games aren't "supposed to be art." There's art that's made for them, and some games are art, but let's not pretend that, say, Mario or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, FEAR, are art. They're not. They're products. Most games are products first and foremost. Hell, even looking at Yu Suzuki's games... Virtua Racing is not art. Shenmue is, it's made with that idea is mind and goes to great lengths to accomplish that goal of being art, but most games don't. Most games are interested in one thing and one thing only: How much money is this going to make? Depending on the game, you might get the additional concern of, "Well, do the players like the gameplay?" but concerns of, "Will this game be considered art?" are generally nonexistent.

I feel like a lot of people who play games want to jump to the conclusion that games are art because art has some connotation of being "higher" or "better." There's nothing wrong with a game not being art. I play a ridiculous number of games because they're games. If a game is art, that doesn't inherently make it better. I'd say 'Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons' is art, but it's a pretty damn boring experience and the "art" part of it doesn't do anything for me.

When it comes to censoring games, the line for me is "Does it make the game worse?" Almost all of the time, the answer is "No, it doesn't impact the game at all." Most forms of game censorship are basically "Let's lessen the gore a bit," or, in past, "Let's not have the swastika so we can release this game in Germany." It doesn't hurt the actual game at all, and since the games pretty much never strive to be art, it doesn't hurt the "art" either.

I used to feel a lot more strongly on this topic, but eventually I got to the point where I realised that it simply doesn't matter. Nobody bitches when a film cuts shots of gore short or whatever to get a wider release, so why care so much for games? I just find it all very odd.

 

[Tsukuyomimagi99]

But games aren't "supposed to be art." There's art that's made for them, and some games are art, but let's not pretend that, say, Mario or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, FEAR, are art. They're not. They're products. Most games are products first and foremost. Hell, even looking at Yu Suzuki's games... Virtua Racing is not art. Shenmue is, it's made with that idea is mind and goes to great lengths to accomplish that goal of being art, but most games don't. Most games are interested in one thing and one thing only: How much money is this going to make? Depending on the game, you might get the additional concern of, "Well, do the players like the gameplay?" but concerns of, "Will this game be considered art?" are generally nonexistent.

I feel like a lot of people who play games want to jump to the conclusion that games are art because art has some connotation of being "higher" or "better." There's nothing wrong with a game not being art. I play a ridiculous number of games because they're games. If a game is art, that doesn't inherently make it better. I'd say 'Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons' is art, but it's a pretty damn boring experience and the "art" part of it doesn't do anything for me.

When it comes to censoring games, the line for me is "Does it make the game worse?" Almost all of the time, the answer is "No, it doesn't impact the game at all." Most forms of game censorship are basically "Let's lessen the gore a bit," or, in past, "Let's not have the swastika so we can release this game in Germany." It doesn't hurt the actual game at all, and since the games pretty much never strive to be art, it doesn't hurt the "art" either.

I used to feel a lot more strongly on this topic, but eventually I got to the point where I realised that it simply doesn't matter. Nobody bitches when a film cuts shots of gore short or whatever to get a wider release, so why care so much for games? I just find it all very odd.

From the Oxford Dictionary the definition of art

“The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.”

If that’s not what video games are then I don’t what art is. Countless artists get together to plan, draw, write, program, and perform to create a game. Games like the Mario series are honestly no different in my view they still require concept artists, programmers, and musicians to bring this fantasy world to life. I mean the music in the Mario games is iconic to the point where the London Symphony Orchestra performed their own interpretations of various pieces in the Marioverse.

To me, art works in a spectrum just like how there’s highbrow paintings like the Mona Lisa to crude low brow drawings some kindergartener draws with a bunch of crayons and finally everything else in between. You’re absolutely right that video games are commercial products but I don’t see how that makes them any less art. Artists have to eat after all. There’s nothing wrong with making art for sale if people like what you produce. At the end of the day, I am sure that game developers love what they do and want to take pride in their creations. I mean if they didn’t, why would they go into such a harsh industry in the first place?

When it comes to movies, there’s always director cuts that are always released. There isn’t such a thing that I know of for video games. It probably has to do with how expensive games are to create. The reason I care is because I am gamer who wants games to be the best they can be and two I don’t like being told by others what is acceptable for my viewing eyes to see. I should be able to make that decision on my own. I get that making games is expensive and I know they’re trying to make as much money as possible and thus some content has to go. I really can’t do much about that but that doesn’t mean I have to accept it or approve of it.

 

[Jigen]

Games are art regardless. I do not care what anyone says.

 

[DigitalDuck]

Are pictures art?

Is this art?

Is this art?

Is this art?

Does the existence of non-art pictures stop pictures from being considered an art form?


Is audio art?

Is this art?


Is this art?


Does the existence of non-art audio stop audio from being considered an art form?


Are books art?

Is Gone With the Wind art?

Is The Communist Manifesto art?

Is The Beginner's Guide to Search Engine Optimisation art?

Does the existence of non-art literature stop books from being considered an art form?


Are films art?

Is Toy Story art?

Is Sex Toy Story art?

Does the existence of non-art films stop films from being considered an art form?


Are games art?

Is Shenmue art?

Is Big Rigs art?

Is Custer's Revenge art?

Does the existence of the latter stop games from being considered an art form?


TL;DR/opinion time: Games can be art, but aren't automatically art just because they're games. The medium of games is a form in which art can take, much like pictures, audio, books, and films. If I drew a cock and balls on a piece of paper you wouldn't call it art; why would the video game equivalent be considered art?

I mainly bring up these comparisons because I see a lot of "games like DOA are why nobody takes games seriously as an art form". Do they not know PornHub exists, or do they think films aren't taken seriously as an art form either?

 

[Inno]

From the Oxford Dictionary the definition of art

“The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.”

If that’s not what video games are then I don’t what art is.

Your definition supports my original post. Certainly, games are made through the application of human creative skill and imagination, among a litany of other skills necessary to get games to function. But, as I said, most games are not made for the sake of art (that is, for the sake of being appreciated primarily for their beauty of emotional power), and without that purpose, it is not art, it only a product. That doesn't mean that the developers don't love their games and want people to enjoy them, or anything of the sort. But to most developers, when they worry about whether a player will enjoy their games, it's in the sense of, "Can they get immersed through the presentation and the mechanics? Are the mechanics fun? Do they remain fun for a second playthrough?" They're absolutely passionate about games because, as you say, they wouldn't work in such an atrocious industry if they didn't. But passion doesn't make something art. It just means that it's a product with love put into it.

You mention art IN games, but such as Mario's music. But Mario's music is not the same AS the game. But I said this as well, that art is made for games.

Mind you, if, for whatever reason, something like Shenmue 3 were to get censored, I'd be pissed, because Shenmue 3, like the prior games, is art. That desire for players to appreciate the games for their beauty and emotional power is central to Yu-san's ideas for the games, and he accomplishes the goals of making Shenmue both beautiful and emotionally powerful.

I think Duck said it best by pointing out that games are an art form. That games are capable of being art is commendable, but I think it's quite the disservice to those games that actually manage to be art to be lumped in with an Assassin's Creed or a CoD or worse, some game sloppily slapped together with Unity assets and inadequate code that barely works. Let the games that strive for and achieve art to be appreciated for how unique and rare they are. There's nothing to be gained by saying that all games are art, only the dilution of the idea of art itself.

 

[Tsukuyomimagi99]

TL;DR/opinion time: Games can be art, but aren't automatically art just because they're games. The medium of games is a form in which art can take, much like pictures, audio, books, and films. If I drew a cock and balls on a piece of paper you wouldn't call it art; why would the video game equivalent be considered art?

I mainly bring up these comparisons because I see a lot of "games like DOA are why nobody takes games seriously as an art form". Do they not know PornHub exists, or do they think films aren't taken seriously as an art form either?

Your definition supports my original post. Certainly, games are made through the application of human creative skill and imagination, among a litany of other skills necessary to get games to function. But, as I said, most games are not made for the sake of art (that is, for the sake of being appreciated primarily for their beauty of emotional power), and without that purpose, it is not art, it only a product. That doesn't mean that the developers don't love their games and want people to enjoy them, or anything of the sort. But to most developers, when they worry about whether a player will enjoy their games, it's in the sense of, "Can they get immersed through the presentation and the mechanics? Are the mechanics fun? Do they remain fun for a second playthrough?" They're absolutely passionate about games because, as you say, they wouldn't work in such an atrocious industry if they didn't. But passion doesn't make something art. It just means that it's a product with love put into it.

You mention art IN games, but such as Mario's music. But Mario's music is not the same AS the game. But I said this as well, that art is made for games.

Mind you, if, for whatever reason, something like Shenmue 3 were to get censored, I'd be pissed, because Shenmue 3, like the prior games, is art. That desire for players to appreciate the games for their beauty and emotional power is central to Yu-san's ideas for the games, and he accomplishes the goals of making Shenmue both beautiful and emotionally powerful.

I think Duck said it best by pointing out that games are an art form. That games are capable of being art is commendable, but I think it's quite the disservice to those games that actually manage to be art to be lumped in with an Assassin's Creed or a CoD or worse, some game sloppily slapped together with Unity assets and inadequate code that barely works. Let the games that strive for and achieve art to be appreciated for how unique and rare they are. There's nothing to be gained by saying that all games are art, only the dilution of the idea of art itself.

Like I said before, I personally view art as a spectrum between high, crude, and everything in between. Doodles drawn on a piece of paper under the basic definition is still considered art as much as The Last Supper. The difference between the two is merely in their quality. I disagree that a game is merely a product when a group of developers put forth elements like music and artwork to create an interactive work. The game may not have the quality of something like Shenmue but on its most basic level it still considered art because it involved some creative endeavor.

To me video games are a combination of multiple elements that form a cohesive whole and so when you take out any one element the work isn’t the same. So the music is just as much a part of a Mario game as the gameplay. Imagine watching a Star Wars film without John Williams’ score it wouldn’t be the same. I do agree with you though that we should demand more quality from our games and thus advocate for more games that are high art. However shit games still fall under art even if they are shit.

 

[Jigen]

Guys this has really gotten off topic I know I am not a mod, but let's please try to get it back on track.

 

[Let's Get Sweaty]

If I drew a cock and balls on a piece of paper you wouldn't call it art

It would be, though. Not necessarily good art, or created with any highbrow aspirations, but it would still, inescapably, be art.

My pet peeve is having to respond to on-screen instructions during an action sequence, where the time it takes or the distraction it causes to read the text can result in added peril for the player. Rockstar does this a lot.

 

[moon child]

Mine is super long cutscenes. I’m here to play not watch a movie !

 

[Nathanial Essex]

Any expression is art if you want to take the meaning literally in literally every situation. Objectively speaking, everything is art whether you find it to be bull shit or not.

The key differentiator we should be discussing is whether things are a work of art (that expression bring used as an accolade) . All video games are art and require many artist from many fields to complete, but there is an obvious difference between a game like Shenmue and Bubsy 3D. My two year old will purposely make a tune on his xylophone whilst screaming at the top of his lungs. A purposeful expression but he's no Bob Dylan.

Back on topic, something that annoys me about modern gaming is how seriously it takes itself. I remember playing the original Halo and it had a co-op campaign. Instead of creating a new character or amending the story to make it canon, they simply made player two another Master Chief as it was a simple thing to do and playing with a friend is fun.

Now you'll seldom get a game that drops in a multiplayer component like that as it won't be 'realistic' in the eyes of the developer. You no longer get cheats in games. I purchased the old Sonic games on the modern consoles and surprise surprise, they've removed the cheat codes so I can't just turn Super Sonic when I want to. Same thing with Sonic Mania, why not just let me input some code that gives me all the Chaos Emeralds?

It's my favourite pass time but I wish gaming was just a little less corporate.

 

[Revan]

Digital console games because I like seeing physical games on my shelf.

 

[Nigel]

I recently popped in Sonic 06 for old times' sake to see if it's actually as bad as the internet outrage culture says it is (they exaggerate-- I wonder if some have even played it at all, much less in 5-10 years, but it's indeed trash).

What stood out the most, though, was the mix of unnecessary loading screens and the lack of a retry option. I'm no programmer, but I've never understood why a retry option isn't possible without having to reload all of the assets. Sonic 06 isn't the only game guilty of this, to be sure.