Let me preface that I am a huge Ubisoft fan. I love the South Park games, and despite my many complaints about the Assassin's Creed franchise, I love that too. They've made some of the best games out there, and to list them all would take too much time. I cheered when Ubisoft fought off the Vivendi takeover. I think they're great, the Guillemot family has made magic. So it's with a heavy heart and confusion that I have to take them to task for their recent interview. 

In a recent interview with Game Informer, Ubisoft's chief creative officer Serge Hascoet suggested that the game industry has no soul, and that games are not meant for entertainment. So I'm definitely going to tear him a new one, but for full context, here's the nonsense he's spouting.

“You know what is missing in this industry? A soul. Video games are about gaming, and gaming is not about entertainment, it’s about learning. When you learn, you have fun. But when we are just entertainment we are losing something. I question the team about what real benefits the player will take away from the game for their real life. Right now, we don’t do enough in this area. This is what excites me, how to make something that lets you have the most fun while also having something beneficial for your life.”

Video game Confucius you are not, Serge. The industry has a soul. Nintendo saved that soul decades ago. You know what they used? A fun and entertaining experience that could bring the whole family together. 

Though nowadays that soul is in danger, threatened by broken games that demand money for DLC and micro-transactions. Ubi would probably know something about that, right? EA, too.

Some of the best games out there aren't teaching more than just how to play the game. Super Mario didn't teach me jack about plumbing, but it did teach me to stomp some goombas and save some princesses. 

Prince of Persia and Watch_Dogs didn't teach me how to actually travel in Persia or hack some systems, but I did learn how to cut down some fools in both. 

Is he suggesting that those games, the latter two his own company owns, aren't good? 

Though I get his point, Ubisoft has been trying to steer their flagship games in a more educational direction. Watch_Dogs teaches people about other locations, their culture, and so forth. Assassin's Creed does much the same, but in a pseudo-historical perspective. Their Discovery Tour nailed that aspect. However, both games are also fun and entertaining. If it was just the Discovery Tour for both games, would people be shelling out $60+ for them? 

As well, games are already instructional and can prove beneficial for health. Gamification is a real thing, games can teach us things we can use in real life. Tetris has proven to help people cope with trauma after a terrible experience. Also, have you seen pro-gamers? That hand-eye coordination in godlike. 

Serge? Get off your high horse. You're complaining about nothing. The industry has a soul, even if you can't, or refuse, to see it. Games are educational as well, and have been before AC. Super Mario had math and typing games way back when. Pokemon and other games teach pattern recognition, math, and strategy, all things we can use in real life. What about the people who just want to tune out and escape the world at large for a while? Those people are in it for the entertainment and fun. You know, the things that sell games in the first place?

Games are meant for entertainment. Even those old Super Mario games had a story to go with their lessons, and were meant for kids. Serge, you may be making way more money than me in an industry I'd love to work in, but you're wrong on this one. So for the last time: Video games are about gaming, and gaming IS about entertainment.

What do you fine people make of this? Decide the winner: Kasaix for entertainment, or Serge for not entertainment? Sound off in the comments below!