Flower Intentionally Made Less "Fun"

[More Fun To Compute]

"Fun" implies that it's all "Woo! Yeah! Explosions! Conflict! Action!" or something that you personally like above all else, something that you're getting a kick out of and that gets you worked up, or it's trippy, or funky, or whatever.

The word can be interpreted in many ways. In games it is used to describe play with the implication that the play is engaging.

 

[somerandomguy76]

Personally, I'm glad that Flower is what it is. Any more "depth" and the experience would be far less mesmerizing. I don't believe this game needs anything else in order to be "fun". I enjoyed it as it is. It's simply a different breed of game and I respect that.

 

[Sewblon]

I haven't played flower (Playstation store is annoying) but I think he is on to something. Entertainment does not need to be fun, merely engaging. Fun is not bad, merely limiting.

 

[Jake Lockley]

I completely agree. Flower and Flow aren't games. More like tech demos or interactive art, and weak ones at that. Art is subjective and it's clear Chen had a specific experience he wanted to communicate to users. Unfortunately I don't like being locked into a specific experience. The best games in my opinion have emergent unintended properties. That's art, not locking people into a narrowly predefined experience. Maybe that's why his games have fewer users than a small town newspaper. Maybe Sony will get a clue and realize how much money they are losing on his games and put money into projects like LittleBigPlanet and ModNation which truly are creative experiences for the users, but I doubt it. Games like Flow and Flower are best left to Flash game developers to release on the web for free.

 

[Cody211282]

To me fun and entertainment are the same thing with games and movies. I have fun watching documentaries because i enjoy learning new things, same goes for movies like Schindler's List its fun to watch because you get to learn something new in a manner that is enjoyable.

*shrug* Okay then, not much to argue about. However, if that's the case, then why would flOwer trying to do something different be bad?

Its not they just worded it like a PR nightmare, if the games fun then its fun, if its not im going to blame him for taking all the fun out of it

 

[Asehujiko]

So he's try to simplify the game?

He's done a poor job at it, a screen with big letters LOOK I HAVE ANTI ALIASING ON A CONSOLE BUT NOT ENOUGH RAM FOR ANYTHING ELSE would have conveyed exactly the same point.

 

[randommaster]

I'd call this guy revolutionary, but Nintendo said this back in 2005 when they anounced the Wii. It's still true, though, and It's cool to see people take this viewof gaming to heart.

 

[Jumplion]

Its not they just worded it like a PR nightmare, if the games fun then its fun, if its not im going to blame him for taking all the fun out of it

Actually, my blame is on the people who don't actually read the article fully and have piss poor comprehension skills (not directed at you).

let's be clear that by 'fun' he means 'like other games on the market'.

Chen said that Flower had originally had more traditional gameplay elements like spells...but that their introduction spoilt the feeling that the game was meant to convey, so Chen had the features cut.

Those emotions just derailed the experience - I didn't want to make a game where people just play and shout out 'yes!' all the time.

"As grown up gamer I don't want to see the games I have been playing with love turn into toys. I think games need to have more mature content - but not like [Dead or Alive] or [Manhunt], but more sophisticated works ... Games should make the player think and touch the gamer's emotion. Gameplay needs to be like any other medium - it has to evoke all kinds of responses. Otherwise our industry will flatline."

Not once has he said he took out the fun, let alone all of the fun. In fact, I'm pretty sure he wanted to bring a different kind of "fun". He mainly said that he took out some elements of the game-like spells and what not-because he wanted to keep it simple and not make it another game with explosions and a clear goal.

Everyone else is blowing what he said out of proportion, and in turn putting things in his mouth that he never said, like "take out the gameplay! Preposterous!" or some crap like that.

 

[Mordwyl]

Fun is a relative term. One can interpret it as anything they want, although it all comes down to one very simple thing: Was the game engaging enough to warrant immersion to the player? I admire this man for sticking with his principles; not a lot of designers have the balls to protect their baby over raking shovelfuls of greens (I'm looking at you guys who look at World of Warcraft). Even so, while removing redundant features from a game should improve the overall feel doing so may hurt it.

If you remove the fun factor of a game it's not a game anymore. Fate Stay/Night was a great visual novel, but it was a visual novel nonetheless. While there literally is no groundbreaking plot in Tetris it's still a timeless fun game to play... This brings me to another fact: There are a lot of things people consider fun. However, the distinction from games needs to be kept in mind so we do not start to confuse the meaning of what a game is anymore.

 

[Jumplion]

However, the distinction from games needs to be kept in mind so we do not start to confuse the meaning of what a game is anymore.

But that's the thing, why do we want to dictate what is a game and what isn't? If we do that, then we wouldn't be able to explore and push the boundaries of what we can do with games. Imagine if only a joke book could be considered a "book"? After all, it's "fun" in primal terms, but then we wouldn't get such gems as Atlas Shrugged or To Kill a Mocking Bird (I have no idea what's a good book or whatever, but those were apparant "classics" that popped in my head). If films were dictated as "Michal Bay: Explosions!" we wouldn't get the Godfather or Citizen Kane (again, just "classics" that popped in my head) because those aren't "films".

We shouldn't dictate what is a game and what isn't so early in the media-s growing. Why can't flOwer be considered a "game"? Because it doesn't have spells? Because it doesn't give you a clear objective? Because you don't press the X button? Why not?

 

[Zetona]

Maybe adding spells and the like to Flower would have made it more "fun" in the traditional sense. But it's for the best that those elements were removed. Flower's simplicity is the part of the reason why it works so well.

I loved Flower because it went beyond "fun"; it was beautiful and joyful, and it blew my mind.

 

[SimuLord]

This is the distilled essence of why "art house" developers annoy me to such a grand degree. Intentional boredom wasn't interesting when Warhol and Beckett attempted it with theater and it's not interesting when people like Chen attempt it in gaming. I also disagree that The Path is anything other than a complete waste of time. I'd rather play Madden, and so would most people, which is why EA Sports is a money-printing machine while nobody outside the gaming enthusiast media gives a flying crap about Flower and The Path.

 

[Mordwyl]

We shouldn't dictate what is a game and what isn't so early in the media-s growing. Why can't flOwer be considered a "game"? Because it doesn't have spells? Because it doesn't give you a clear objective? Because you don't press the X button? Why not?

Because eliminating the very meaning of what a game is does not make it a game anymore.

They are neither movies nor forms of literature. These two have a wide variety of types yet being fun or not they stick with their guns. A combination of the media may work nicely like my previously mentioned visual novel example or become a disappointment like interactive movies but at the end of the day, movies are always moving pictures whereas books are a collection of words.

Using this context I simply want to say I play games, watch movies and read books. It's the order of the universe.

 

[Jumplion]

We shouldn't dictate what is a game and what isn't so early in the media-s growing. Why can't flOwer be considered a "game"? Because it doesn't have spells? Because it doesn't give you a clear objective? Because you don't press the X button? Why not?

Because eliminating the very meaning of what a game is does not make it a game anymore.

They are neither movies nor forms of literature. These two have a wide variety of types yet being fun or not they stick with their guns. A combination of the media may work nicely like my previously mentioned visual novel example or become a disappointment like interactive movies but at the end of the day, movies are always moving pictures whereas books are a collection of words.

Using this context I simply want to say I play games, watch movies and read books. It's the order of the universe.

I guess I was talking about dictating a game in very narrow terms. Obviously, a video game (specifically video) has interaction with it, however someone has yet to explain to me why flOwer shouldn't be considered a game.

 

[Jumplion]

This is the distilled essence of why "art house" developers annoy me to such a grand degree. Intentional boredom wasn't interesting when Warhol and Beckett attempted it with theater and it's not interesting when people like Chen attempt it in gaming. I also disagree that The Path is anything other than a complete waste of time. I'd rather play Madden, and so would most people, which is why EA Sports is a money-printing machine while nobody outside the gaming enthusiast media gives a flying crap about Flower and The Path.

Where did he say he wanted boredom? What's the problem with taking out some previous elements in the game because it derives from its simplicity? Read my post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.125867?page=2#2636373], and learn some comprehension skills.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

I'd say it actually makes perfect sense.
Schindler's List wasn't a fun movie in any way, but still remains to be one of my favorites.

 

[Azraellod]

sounds logical to me.

i have done things like that to projects of mine in the past. if it changes the experience to something that it was not supposed to be, then it makes sense to remove it.

 

[Worsle]

What next, let's make books less enjoyable by removing every dialogue from them? Or maybe we should return to black and white deaf movies, but not add subtitles?

What? How does that even make sense or relate to the article?

If you don't give audience what they want, you will fail.

And since we buy games, we would like to have fun... Not that I have PS3.

Or maybe people by games to be entertained? Same reason I read books, listen to music or go to the cinema for entertainment. Not every movie, book or even song has to be fun for me to enjoy it and I would defiantly say trying to make them such would harm all three industries greatly. I would love games to be able to pull off some thing of the same kind, if games are really going to grow up out of this puberty stage then they will need to.

As to all the comes of "they are called games for a reason" are they? It is mostly a term from the origins of gaming not a descriptor of their future. Maybe a name change is needed though to help gain some respect in much the same way comics have gone for the name visual novel to try and get the more serious work respected.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

I can see where he's coming from. However, it doesn't seem like my kind of game. After all, I was one of the people who didn't like Okami too much, and this seems to be in a very similar vein as far as artistic expression goes.

 

[Pimppeter2]

I've never heard of the game, but I'm definetaly intrested now