Editor's note: I'm in strong agreement with Christian on this one: Requiring that games holistically adhere to certain core design philosophies such as "being fun" or "having a goal" severely limits their expressive capacities. Sure, I don't want everything I play to be a mentally challenging bore...but I also wish designers would stop treating me like a sex-obsessed man-ape that's only interested in killing things. -James

This is a response to Jim Sterling's recent Destructoid column on the state of art games -- specifically, his accusations of pretentiousness and monotony.

First, I want to address Sterling's opinion, or at least what I've gleaned of it from his hyperbolic and inflammatory post. I wish I could believe that his point is that games and art can both make statements and still be fun. I have a hard time believing anyone could disagree with that position. But his argument seems to be more that art games must be fun and can, if we assume the former, feel free to make a statement thereafter.

Implying that all art games are vague and directionless, and insinuating the notion that they must become more populist, is no less stubborn or pretentious than the games themselves. Sterling isn't stating his opinion on art games; he's issuing a mandate that art games should only be allowed to exist -- or more mildly, only be appreciated -- under the restriction that they are fun. This reasoning presupposes that games serve only one purpose: entertainment.

Not many require that all painting be aesthetically pleasing. Likewise, not many claim that all video recorders should only produce entertainment. We don't hear arguments issuing that any other media must serve one, baseline purpose before they can do more. Such assertions would be arbitrarily reductive. Francis Bacon's work isn't fun or pretty, but it is interesting and valuable. Similarly, the works of Stan Brakhage and Maya Deren aren't entertaining, but that doesn't imply pointlessness.

In the column, Jim focuses most of his vitriol on Tale of Tales' The Path. I haven't played The Path, so I can't make any statement on it specifically. Instead, I'll use another indie often criticized for being ostentatious and overwrought: last year's Flash title Every Day The Same Dream (available here). In the interest of candor, I'll say straight away that this is not a fun experience. The interface mostly consists of holding the right arrow on your keyboard. But that doesn't stop it from weaving a rich and creatively rewarding narrative. Its multilayered meaning reveals the game's purpose. Some think the game is about the mundanity of modern living. For me, it was about self-reflection; I didn't think about what the game had to say about the world -- only on what it had to say about me, based on my own reaction.

Apparently, I'm supposed to believe that because it wasn't fun, it failed as a piece of art? I can't comprehend why people are so married to the idea that games need to be fun. Why? Why does any art need to be fun? A particular group of gamers -- people like Sterling -- are unable to accept that not every game needs to include them. If you don't like art, fine. No one is forcing anyone in to an art house theater to watch 20 minutes of paint on celluloid, and no one is forcing anyone to play Passage or Void.

If people like Jim Sterling aren't interested in art, then why do they have so many opinions about it? Why play something that you don't enjoy just so you can complain about it? Nine times out of 10, calling something pretentious is another way of saying, "this doesn't appeal to me." I'm not saying that the art world is free of pretension -- quite the opposite -- but if your priority is a good time and you just aren't interested in branching out, why bother with experiences that aren't fun?

Making fun a prerequisite to existence cuts short the medium's artistic potential. Even if it's not deliberate, that is the result. The potentiality of interactivity is staggering, but as a format, it still struggling to even walk. The only way to mature is through experimentation, and the indie world has got plenty of room for everyone.

Art games shouldn't get a free pass. I feel like there's an illusion that they do, but the Internet winnows the lot. Out of the thousands of indie games floating around, only the cream of the crop gain any attention. I'm not saying all games need to strive to be art, and I'm not saying that all art games are good art. But claiming that games can only be one thing willfully attempts to destroy their potential to be anything more -- it undermines their legitimacy as a form of expression, reflection, or a way to say something about the human condition. And that isn't always fun.