Jimquisition: Fun & Priorities

[Lightknight]

Please give a name to the concept that we can tell if a game or movie is just blanket checklist crap to appeal to no one specifically but as many as possible. Thta we can tell if the item lacks a soul.

That concept, like the uncanny valley, is fascinating. Perhaps there's already a term for it. But what a fantastic point, Jim.

FYI, No, thank you works in most door encounters.

"Designed by committee" or "Mass appeal" are usually red flags for that...

It'd be nice to have a specific term for the concept that you can tell subconsciously that a product was made commercially and not with passione. Something to encompass that the work is souless and that this soulessness is apparent and unappealing. The artless valley, if you will. Or some other such cheesy name. To indicate that there is work that we know to be passionate and then there's a valley in which we can clearly tell that it's just sausage being churned out in a movie factory. On the other side, are movies that are just soleless projects that the studio has artfully altered enough to hide the fact that they couldn't care less about the topic and were just trying to make it broader. Don't know if that point is consistently reacheable but I'm certain it's been done.

 

[hermes]

Please give a name to the concept that we can tell if a game or movie is just blanket checklist crap to appeal to no one specifically but as many as possible. Thta we can tell if the item lacks a soul.

That concept, like the uncanny valley, is fascinating. Perhaps there's already a term for it. But what a fantastic point, Jim.

FYI, No, thank you works in most door encounters.

"Designed by committee" or "Mass appeal" are usually red flags for that...

It'd be nice to have a specific term for the concept that you can tell subconsciously that a product was made commercially and not with passione. Something to encompass that the work is souless and that this soulessness is apparent and unappealing. The artless valley, if you will. Or some other such cheesy name. To indicate that there is work that we know to be passionate and then there's a valley in which we can clearly tell that it's just sausage being churned out in a movie factory. On the other side, are movies that are just soleless projects that the studio has artfully altered enough to hide the fact that they couldn't care less about the topic and were just trying to make it broader. Don't know if that point is consistently reacheable but I'm certain it's been done.

I still like "designed by committee". Of course, not all uninspired movies/books/games are literally designed by a committee (just by some passionless, uncreative or cynical person), and not everything designed by a committee is necessarily awful; but the phrase evokes that particular kind of soulless, insipid and bland product that comes from companies meddling in the affairs of creative people, using tools like surveys and statistics, without really understanding anything about the product, just to make the result as broad and far reaching as possible.

 

[Flunk]

I somewhat know how to feel when those crazy religious people come knocking on the door. I'm an atheist and it seems like these people just don't accept that it's possible to not believe in any god so they're always trying to trick me into revealing that I'm secretly Catholic or Jewish or something so that they can tailor their spiel to whatever "god" I subscribe to. I've taken to just politely telling them that I'm not interested, if you're not as forward as me I suggest you claim that you're already whatever religion they're preaching. That might work well for you.

Nice commentary, as usual. Fun is the most important part of any game and the industry doesn't seem to get that most of the time. Only really the big developers who have enough clout to push publishers around can get away with fun games these days.

 

[CyberMachinist]

I kind of question who thought it was a good idea that letting an executive talk about their product was a good way to reassure their consumers about buying it?

I mean it's not like almost everyone believes that the guy in charge of the product would give an unbiased review of his product right? I mean they can't be that blindly trusting in this kind of world.


Captcha says "Blah blah blah" I wonder what else sounds like that to my ears *looks at PR*

 

[GonzoGamer]

I really didn't find GTA4 to be any fun though x_x.

Yes, I thought the emphasis on fun was to counteract the image of pretentiousness they've earned this generation.

 

[ThatQuietGuy]

I keep wondering why companies keep saying they want to appeal to a wider audience. It doesn't please the fans of the series and non fans probably aren't that aware of the game pre-release, so when someone says that just who are they trying to talk to?

 

[mad825]

Yes, "fun". SR3 was designed to be fun but it turned out to be a pun referencing sexual donkey; a shallow experience with cut features. God only knows what SR4 will be like.

 

[GonvilleBromhead]

The one thing I did find rather heartening is that they do appear to have learnt from the mistakes of GTAIV. Even though GTAIV made bucket loads of money, and more of the same would also have made bucketloads of money. Whilst it could very well be PR buzzwords, the balance suggests to me it isn't - simply because they probably would have made as much money not changing things.

 

[Arcanist]

What's the episode on focus testing you refer to? I perused the Jimquisition's archives and couldn't seem to find it.

Oh, and a good showing as usual, Jim.

Fun is bad and you should feel bad

 

[Stryc9]

Alright, so the footage of GTA 5 in this video is pretty much the first I've seen of the game and well...it looks like fun. It looks like the kind of fun I had with San Andreas and Vice City before that. Those were both great games. I never played GTA 4 and from what I've heard about I don't want to.

At the end there, when Jim pulled out the Kirby doll I thought it was a roast chicken and he was going to pick up the chicken, bite into the chicken, tear off the meat and lower the chicken.

 

[Carnagath]

The what in my videos?

The shrimp [http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/6484/9mj.png].

Though judging by your initial response, it's probably a safe conclusion I'll never get an answer. Ah well, making shit up is generally more fun anyway.

Seriously, I don't recall editing that into the video. Rewatched, couldn't see it.

I've always wondered what the shrimp represents as well, and finally someone asked, and you're just trolling him. FUCKING ANSWER HIM FOR GOD'S SAKE. Yes, I'm upset. No, I don't know why. PS, I like you <3.

 

[Something Amyss]

Unless "fun" is just used as a buzzword, and we're not short-termed enough to have forgotten that, I hope.

All of this should be fairly obvious. ...unless you're an accountant I guess.

I thought that's who ran the games industry these days.

 

[Abomination]

I dislike the word "fun" because I have seen it used far too often in very redundant ways... especially online.

"I'm just a girl who likes to have fun!" which translates to "I like doing what I like doing."

That being said, I'm looking really forward to the (PC) release of GTAV. I think I'll go download GTAIV again and play it once more on my upgraded rig.

Good times.

 

[Simalacrum]

Interesting point made, but I think its less substantial than the video makes it appear.

Why? Simply, because its Rockstar. Rockstar is one of those developers that we simply expect to have higher priorities than the rest of the gaming industry. Its one of those rare developers, up there with Valve and Blizzard; they so continuously deliver on excellent, quality games that we just expect their games to be fun. Even GTA IV which many critics claimed to be boring compared to the rest of the series was damnably fun if you ask me.

Now, if going for "fun" became a trend amongst regular developers, I think that would be a far more positive outlook to take. If Microsoft stopped using those damnable words "experience" and "content", if Activision started looking at quality over quantity, perhaps we'd have a very good situation brewing.

As it stands though? This is just Rockstar being brilliant old Rockstar.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

I'm critical of Valve's playtesting because I see that they find themselves unable to take risks. But it's definitely a step in the right direction.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

Why are we teaching the games business people how to do their jobs? Surely they should be hired by people who know what is required from the job, based on qualities that would infer they knew how to do the job. Yet this video exists, telling developers and publishers that by making a game fun, you're going to appeal to people, and sell more copies, as well as make your consumers happy, ensuring future repeat business.

I'm not going to be critical of the community, of their engagement, that results in nurturing a mean relatively significantly deep understanding of the industry that makes their interests possible, however I'm drawn to the pessimistic explanation for this. That the community has had to develop this understanding of the inner workings of a business, that should run autonomously to serve them, to patch and advise it when it falters, and boy does it falter.

I like how you've managed the glare in this episode. A Star.

 

[Darth_Payn]

Great video Jim. I am just as suspicious as you about how much Rockstar says GTA5 will be FUN, but at the same time I'm relieved they're being so upfront about it. GTA4 was angsty and bleak and felt like work sometimes. I also see it as Rockstar's great big Take That to the current trend of games made to be serious, dark, and depressing to be considered legitimate art. I'm looking at you, SpecOps:The Line and The Last of Us! Why ya gotta bring us down, man?!

 

[Darks63]

Well hopefully while they were focusing in "fun" they decided to make the driving "fun" and not "realistic" like 4. I can get realistic driving IRL thanks rockstar.

On the whole them stating fun a bunch of times worries me Jim.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Unless "fun" is just used as a buzzword, and we're not short-termed enough to have forgotten that, I hope.

All of this should be fairly obvious. ...unless you're an accountant I guess.

I thought that's who ran the games industry these days.

And there in lies the problem.