I play video games for artistic experiences. Someone once described it as discussing what games made me think about as opposed to what I do in them. It's why I'm even on this website in the first place - I just like to write about games and think about games.
Vampire Survivors is not the worst offense to my creative sensibilities that exists, but it is representative of something larger: the idle game genre. I don't believe there is anything inherently morally bankrupt about the idle game or enjoying it (though I certainly find a lot of the following of this particular one disgusting due to the level of harassment people have received for criticizing it), in spite of what people would strawman detractors of Vampire Survivors as believing, but there is also no meaning to it. The idle game is simply idle. I understand it is useful for people who find it hard to listen to something on its own and concentrate, but what I come to games for is simply not present.
I do not understand the appeal and praise. It's just another empty idle game.
Vampire Survivors is not the worst offense to my creative sensibilities that exists, but it is representative of something larger: the idle game genre. I don't believe there is anything inherently morally bankrupt about the idle game or enjoying it (though I certainly find a lot of the following of this particular one disgusting due to the level of harassment people have received for criticizing it), in spite of what people would strawman detractors of Vampire Survivors as believing, but there is also no meaning to it. The idle game is simply idle. I understand it is useful for people who find it hard to listen to something on its own and concentrate, but what I come to games for is simply not present.
I do not understand the appeal and praise. It's just another empty idle game.
9 Comments
Why would a game having no meaning be a detriment to its quality? Isn't being "fun" or "satisfying" what games should strive for? Also you seem to consider an artistic experience something that makes you think about it afterward, where does that definition of the "Art" come from? With that definition in mind and the review you gave that game, does that mean video games can be art but this one in particular isn't?
Sorry to ask you so much questions, plus it's not like I even played or intend to play that game in the first place lmao, I am just genuinely curious about your definition of what constitutes a videogame and what even constitutes "Art" according to you.
Sorry to ask you so much questions, plus it's not like I even played or intend to play that game in the first place lmao, I am just genuinely curious about your definition of what constitutes a videogame and what even constitutes "Art" according to you.
I think the game is boring and vapid. Simple as that. Sure, it's an artistic experience, because all games are - but I think it sucks, lol. Why would I play something that's only "fun" (even assuming something as hollow as this is fun) when I could be playing games that have purpose to them. I don't even feel fun in a traditional sense like most people do.
It's essentially just a personal preference and I'm not sure why with this game in particular people have trouble understanding that.
It's essentially just a personal preference and I'm not sure why with this game in particular people have trouble understanding that.
I think it's because people are having fun with it and that's enough for them.
Though I have trouble understanding why you would still consider this game an artistic experience, when it really doesn't seem to fit your definition of artistic. Even if you had fun with it, you still consider it vapid, hollow, lacking any meaning, devoid of any purpose, so isn't it the proof that the "all games are artistic" assumption is wrong according to your definition?
Though I have trouble understanding why you would still consider this game an artistic experience, when it really doesn't seem to fit your definition of artistic. Even if you had fun with it, you still consider it vapid, hollow, lacking any meaning, devoid of any purpose, so isn't it the proof that the "all games are artistic" assumption is wrong according to your definition?
Oh, well I didn't even have fun with it. I just didn't clarify because I didn't think it was relevant.
That being said, I just see art as works made by humans. It doesn't have to be something rich with ideas and meaning to be art. I don't have to like it for it to still be art. It is regardless. I just don't like games that lack those things. I find them to be wastes of my time.
That being said, I just see art as works made by humans. It doesn't have to be something rich with ideas and meaning to be art. I don't have to like it for it to still be art. It is regardless. I just don't like games that lack those things. I find them to be wastes of my time.
Also RE: "I think it's because people are having fun with it and that's enough for them."
I don't mean that they're not allowed to enjoy the game. I mean the level of vitriol and harassment from fans of the game I've seen over people criticizing this game is absurd.
I don't mean that they're not allowed to enjoy the game. I mean the level of vitriol and harassment from fans of the game I've seen over people criticizing this game is absurd.
Yeah it sucks how aggressive people can get over criticisms about the thing they enjoy, it's like they're so insecure about their opinion that the only criticism they want to hear is ones that validate them.
I have to say that I find your definition of art kinda useless. If art is something as broad as a "human-made work", then I don't get the reason you play video game according to your review. What is an "artistic experience"? If it's to experience something a human made, then I don't see the point mentioning it considering we mostly spend our life interacting with human-made works, whether it's for entertainment, work or necessities. Or perhaps it is to experience something human-made for the sake of experiencing something made by a human, by which point I hardly doubt it's the case, whether it's for videogames, movies, or even eating at a restaurant.
I have to say that I find your definition of art kinda useless. If art is something as broad as a "human-made work", then I don't get the reason you play video game according to your review. What is an "artistic experience"? If it's to experience something a human made, then I don't see the point mentioning it considering we mostly spend our life interacting with human-made works, whether it's for entertainment, work or necessities. Or perhaps it is to experience something human-made for the sake of experiencing something made by a human, by which point I hardly doubt it's the case, whether it's for videogames, movies, or even eating at a restaurant.
I really don't give a shit if you find my definition of art useful or not. I study and dissect video games because I enjoy it. If you find my definition of art useless, you don't have to use it.
Not everything has to be some kind of debate.
Not everything has to be some kind of debate.
I just wanted to point out that your opening statement doesn't really make sense considering your definition of artistic, unlike the rest of the review which is well-thought out like all your other reviews. Sorry if you viewed this discussion as a debate, it wasn't my intent.
the game wouldn't even be that bad if people weren't treating it like it was the freakin mona lisa lol
fourside
1 year ago