let me recommend you Silent Hill 2, Pathologic and The Void; in my opinion those are the best games ever made.TheRightToArmBears said:
"Games should just be fun."
- Thread starter Zhukov
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think a better way of saying it would be 'games should be stimulating'. I agree that being crap-yourself scared by horror games can't really be classifiied as 'fun', but it gives the player a kick. What I think people mostly complain about is when games sacrifice this stimulation for looking pretty or trying to be innovative but only palette swapping something they've or somebody else has done and calling it original.
Actually, there are multiple problems with this...
Game devs have limited funding and limited time. The fun route is often the best way to go if they can't get the game to feel fun and complex at the same time. Often times we end up with games that make our heads spin and we never touch them again, because while they give us a lot of options, we were looking to sit down, relax and enjoy ourselves, not study, learn and practice a fictional environment.
Games span more than one generation of people now. You'll never see people agree on this subject because one group grew up on pacman and asteroids, and another group grew up on halo and call of duty. It's a big argument between 10-20-30-40-50-60 year olds. It's really just simpler to accept that some people like easier games, because they don't have easy lives, and some people have easy lives and want challenging games, or some people live easy lives and want easy games, hard lives and hard games. What matters isn't what joe shmoe that lives 500 miles from you is doing in his living room with his games, but what you do with your games. If you need to post on a message board (basically ranting) about an argument you had with someone else, and you even need to go to such length as to curse them out behind their back... well, I feel dirty for even posting here.
I find now that I'm older I don't prefer to pretend I'm in the game worlds that I play, I'm a little more rooted in reality now, so.. when I play games, its purely for fun, not for becoming emotionally involved with pixelated people/worlds.
I just don't have the time to waste on it. So, games like New Vegas and Dragon Age Origins bore me to DEATH with their linear and bland worlds, because I don't really care how believeable that NCR dudes life story is, I'm not playing the game to (yes here is that argument) read a book or watch a movie. If my game starts feel like I'm doing that, I genuinely feel that something is wrong.
I mean, say you're reading an e-book and you turn the page, and it loads a video clip all of the sudden. Were you expecting that when you bought a BOOK? So what if it 'brings to life' the characters of the story? What if you were happy with YOUR version of those characters in your head? What if you just wanted to read a damn book, play a damn game or watch a damn movie? If the game plays like a book or becomes more of a movie, then it fails as a game, because it's AVOIDING its own purpose.
/shrug, I ranted a little more than I wanted to there, oh well.
Game devs have limited funding and limited time. The fun route is often the best way to go if they can't get the game to feel fun and complex at the same time. Often times we end up with games that make our heads spin and we never touch them again, because while they give us a lot of options, we were looking to sit down, relax and enjoy ourselves, not study, learn and practice a fictional environment.
Games span more than one generation of people now. You'll never see people agree on this subject because one group grew up on pacman and asteroids, and another group grew up on halo and call of duty. It's a big argument between 10-20-30-40-50-60 year olds. It's really just simpler to accept that some people like easier games, because they don't have easy lives, and some people have easy lives and want challenging games, or some people live easy lives and want easy games, hard lives and hard games. What matters isn't what joe shmoe that lives 500 miles from you is doing in his living room with his games, but what you do with your games. If you need to post on a message board (basically ranting) about an argument you had with someone else, and you even need to go to such length as to curse them out behind their back... well, I feel dirty for even posting here.
I find now that I'm older I don't prefer to pretend I'm in the game worlds that I play, I'm a little more rooted in reality now, so.. when I play games, its purely for fun, not for becoming emotionally involved with pixelated people/worlds.
I just don't have the time to waste on it. So, games like New Vegas and Dragon Age Origins bore me to DEATH with their linear and bland worlds, because I don't really care how believeable that NCR dudes life story is, I'm not playing the game to (yes here is that argument) read a book or watch a movie. If my game starts feel like I'm doing that, I genuinely feel that something is wrong.
I mean, say you're reading an e-book and you turn the page, and it loads a video clip all of the sudden. Were you expecting that when you bought a BOOK? So what if it 'brings to life' the characters of the story? What if you were happy with YOUR version of those characters in your head? What if you just wanted to read a damn book, play a damn game or watch a damn movie? If the game plays like a book or becomes more of a movie, then it fails as a game, because it's AVOIDING its own purpose.
/shrug, I ranted a little more than I wanted to there, oh well.
I think my way of putting it is "Schindler's List isn't fun, but that doesn't make it bad."
In fact, in a lot of cases I think an overemphasis on making games "fun" cheapens them. For example, the second Assassin's Creed did a lot of pandering to people who complained about the first one, and the result was that it was very fun, but felt like a diluted Hollywood story. The first game has more of a simulation feel to it - you were an assassin and you had a list of men to kill. And there was something to be said for that.
The Mass Effect games went a similar way. The first game was about hard science fiction and building an interesting universe. The second one was more about shooting things and looking cool. While the second one is undoubtedly more fun, I think the first one is overall the more memorable game.
In fact, in a lot of cases I think an overemphasis on making games "fun" cheapens them. For example, the second Assassin's Creed did a lot of pandering to people who complained about the first one, and the result was that it was very fun, but felt like a diluted Hollywood story. The first game has more of a simulation feel to it - you were an assassin and you had a list of men to kill. And there was something to be said for that.
The Mass Effect games went a similar way. The first game was about hard science fiction and building an interesting universe. The second one was more about shooting things and looking cool. While the second one is undoubtedly more fun, I think the first one is overall the more memorable game.
I don't know if those were necessarily attempts at being more "fun" they seemed to be more attempts at making the experience more streamlined and action oriented. I couldn't stand how you had to slow walk everywhere in the original Assassin's Creed, it was pretty miserable.mechanixis said:
That being said, I totally agree with you on Mass Effect 1. I don't see why they couldn't just keep everything great about 1 and throw in the engrossing combat of the second. They seemed to rip out the heart of the game with that sequel.
For the most part I agree with you on your points concerning Bioshock and the way in which some elements of gameplay (such as the shooting) are not there for any particular reason other than a device to overcome obstacles. However, I still believe this is art: just a kind of 'amateur' art. Just as how 'art' has moved out of paintings to other forms, I believe videogames still need to go through this process: games are still locked inside the forms of RTS, FPS, RPG and other such definitions which help to classify them. Bioshock is an FPS because it is of a generation is which this is the best view to get that wonderful narrowed view your character does of the world around it. The shooting element is added because it is a sort of trope within the video-game world for that kind of view, such as how a piece of 'traditional' art was often different subject-matter in paintings, using realistic proportions and outlines. I just believe this is the next step in furthering games toward an 'art', and honest I hope the bastard mid-child kind of game such as Bioshock does hang around: the idea that the 'average' game of the future is a mostly fun-driven, somewhat mindless, experience with added depth appeals to me greatly. Obviously, I still want my trashy games where I make things go 'boom' with buttons, and very-much art-driven games which are rather heavy and explore every recess of humanity, but for the most part mid-ground kids appeal to me greatly.Astalano said:
Also, don't worry about coming across as overbearing. Usually I'd write thousands of words reply, but recently I'm a bit busy: sorry if my reply is rather late and a bit rushed.
Ok, since I might have even been one of the people who set you off, I feel obligated to explain.
Games are supposed to entertain. That is their purpose. It is not an attack on Games as Art, because you can enjoy movies and books too. Fun may not be the best word though, but games are the most interactive media, so fun makes more sense. Yes, horror games can be fun. Fun, when I use it, is more subjective. What people find fun differs. I find roleplaying and depth fun. The biggest thing that makes me say that line you dislike, is when games are given merit SOLELY on appearance. Nice things to look at are...nice, but its not very fun for very long. Just like a person you might date. If a game looks terrible, but you still enjoy the acual playing of it, or the actual story and stuff, thats a GOOD game.
Games are supposed to entertain. That is their purpose. It is not an attack on Games as Art, because you can enjoy movies and books too. Fun may not be the best word though, but games are the most interactive media, so fun makes more sense. Yes, horror games can be fun. Fun, when I use it, is more subjective. What people find fun differs. I find roleplaying and depth fun. The biggest thing that makes me say that line you dislike, is when games are given merit SOLELY on appearance. Nice things to look at are...nice, but its not very fun for very long. Just like a person you might date. If a game looks terrible, but you still enjoy the acual playing of it, or the actual story and stuff, thats a GOOD game.
"Games should just be fun." does not comply with the raging nerds I may stumble upon once in a while.
For them, everything must be set within a certain standard, like female characters can only be played by females, only pros can play this game, etc. etc.
The more cooler, less serious gamers would blink twice and wonder what they are implying, and in general won't give a fuck about anyone else's pleasure so long as they can meet their ends. This can often lead to teamkills, low scores and confusion; all traits that make the formerly mentioned nerds rage until they burst an artery.
I am kind of in between, like the cheese on a bacon and lettuce sandwich. (I have no idea if that exists, but I want one!) I make my own pleasure but always try my best to appease others to a certain level.
My point? I want a bacon and lettuce sandwich!
For them, everything must be set within a certain standard, like female characters can only be played by females, only pros can play this game, etc. etc.
The more cooler, less serious gamers would blink twice and wonder what they are implying, and in general won't give a fuck about anyone else's pleasure so long as they can meet their ends. This can often lead to teamkills, low scores and confusion; all traits that make the formerly mentioned nerds rage until they burst an artery.
I am kind of in between, like the cheese on a bacon and lettuce sandwich. (I have no idea if that exists, but I want one!) I make my own pleasure but always try my best to appease others to a certain level.
My point? I want a bacon and lettuce sandwich!
with fun people mean entertaining, some games are un-entertaining but considered art (like the graveyard).
Entertaining differs from person to person (some people like deep characters and conflict while others seek escapism).
Comments like these are from people that are afraid that artsy gaming is going to replace fun gaming (in the same way "hardcore" gamers are afraid that casual gaming is going to kill the FPS genre).
Entertaining differs from person to person (some people like deep characters and conflict while others seek escapism).
Comments like these are from people that are afraid that artsy gaming is going to replace fun gaming (in the same way "hardcore" gamers are afraid that casual gaming is going to kill the FPS genre).
I think we should use terms like entertaining, enjoyable, or stimulating. I don't know what people think "fun" is, but a wild action sequence, combined with a sympathetic and dynamic character, a witty line of dialogue, and execution of a strategy in a hard spot is all entertaining. Only one or two of those, to me, are "fun" but ALL of them are entertaining, enjoyable and/or stimulating.
I can enjoy a game on many different levels for different reasons. Red Dead Redemption had great atmosphere (enjoyable because it draws you in), a sympathetic character (enjoyable because you want to see his journey unfold and how he reacts and develops) some nice horseback riding (enjoyable to gallop across the world at 40 km/h) and decent gunplay (enjoyable to shoot virtual people and watch them fall down in their blood).
I can enjoy a tense moment with 2 dramatic characters in a film. I enjoy seeing the thematic elements employed in it, and I enjoy the fight scene that happens in it. We can enjoy many things because they invoke a feeling in us that isn't necessarily the same all the time (laughter, stimulation, titilation, fear, critical thinking, attachment etc... But whatever that feeling is, we enjoy having it, and enjoyment is what entertainment (including games) is all about.
I can enjoy a game on many different levels for different reasons. Red Dead Redemption had great atmosphere (enjoyable because it draws you in), a sympathetic character (enjoyable because you want to see his journey unfold and how he reacts and develops) some nice horseback riding (enjoyable to gallop across the world at 40 km/h) and decent gunplay (enjoyable to shoot virtual people and watch them fall down in their blood).
I can enjoy a tense moment with 2 dramatic characters in a film. I enjoy seeing the thematic elements employed in it, and I enjoy the fight scene that happens in it. We can enjoy many things because they invoke a feeling in us that isn't necessarily the same all the time (laughter, stimulation, titilation, fear, critical thinking, attachment etc... But whatever that feeling is, we enjoy having it, and enjoyment is what entertainment (including games) is all about.
If a game makes you go "This is awesome!" no matter what made you say it, the story, the artistic-ness, the gameplay, it means it's awesome. End of story.
I think when someone designing a game says this, they probably add 'to this audience' which then rounds it up. So scares and thrills in horrors, role-play, strategic control over an army, manly shooting of others.
etc etc. If someone just says 'games should be fun' then yeah I can understand your rant - it needs to be more detailed to make any sense. Otherwise it's like saying "Homosexuals are gay".
Kiiiiiiiiinda obvious!
etc etc. If someone just says 'games should be fun' then yeah I can understand your rant - it needs to be more detailed to make any sense. Otherwise it's like saying "Homosexuals are gay".
Kiiiiiiiiinda obvious!
I agree. A game should be fun. There are many kinds of fun though. It doesn't have to be stupid arcade fun. So long as I am not bored while playing, good job for the game! I don't think they are mutually exclusive but then again, I don't even know what the hell an "art game" is.