Jimquisition: Fun & Priorities
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Jim, you made some great points. So please lose some weight. We can't afford to lose you. DON'T DIE ON ME JIM! DON'T DIE ON ME, DAMN IT!
Haha, I never heard that Jim Sterling said that GTA V will be fun as well as Rockstar's previous games, because he was talking about the way PR explain their game on what the features contain, and all of sudden you guys say that Rockstar game sucks and so on. Sure, it's not fun, but can you guys at least focusing on what he really have to say instead of going off topic?
It's inbetween the part where you're showing shots of a guy in truck weaving his way through a horde of police cars and the yoga shot.Jimothy Sterling said:
[3:19-3:25 GTA V Escape Cop Footage: Grand Theft Auto already has one of the biggest audiences out there because GTA has always been a damn fun series
3:26 TRIPLE SHRIMP SHOT: HOWEVER
3:27-3:28 GTA V Yoga shot: There's a difference...]
Not sure if this is a part of some elaborate joke that just flew over my head, but I thought I may as well help.
OT: By the way nice episode. I like the mini-movie review within the talk about games there. Heh.
Has the gaming industry always been this shallow and profit driven? Because I don't remember it ever being this bad when I was a kid. Back then it just seemed like companies just tried to make really good games because good games sold well. Now it's all about generating hype, appealing to large audiences, microtransactions, DLC. What the fuck happened?
Or has it always been this bad and I've simply been too naive to see it.
Or has it always been this bad and I've simply been too naive to see it.
Don't worry, if this body dies Jim will simply inhabit another.Adam Jensen said:
I was going to write something, but basically this. Except for the controls part. I thought GTA4 went do out of its way to make a "real" story, that they left out most of what made the previous ones fun.Mr_Terrific said:
At least Gay Toni was kinda funny, but that doesn't change that the main game wasn't at all.
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.
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.
Personally, I think the term "fun" is overused. For one, its so vague it means literally nothing. Its like "cool", or "nice". Also, it gets to the idea that all video games HAVE to be fun, all the time, which is not true. They have to be engaging, but not really fun. Is Spec Ops fun? How about Last of Us? Silent Hill? Dear Esther? Walking Dead? We use the word like it was some sort of holy grail, something no game should ever ship without, when in fact its an antiquated necessity ever since video games stop being seen as mere toys on the TV.
Appealing to a mass audience is not the issue with "fun". On the contrary: Mass audience appeal result in games that are bland, but they are too bland to even go against the holy grail of "FUN". You are never going to find a game targeted to a mass market to engage people in any other way that is not "look at all this fun!... excitement!... explosions!". That was the reason with RE6, a game that had 6 playable characters to satisfy the RE4 fan and the Gears fan at the same time; or Dead Space 3, a game that largely abandoned survival horror in favor of "shooter with monsters" and included co-op because people complained it was "too scary" and therefore "not fun enough". The issue with "fun" (that, at least, the previous GTA had) is that it saturated the game with gritty mood to the point fun becomes irrelevant. Some games need to have serious topics, but in the case of GTA, the gameplay depends on randomness and antick displays of violence and chaos. When it juxtaposed it with the moody story it tried to create, the result was a game that feels disconnected.
Appealing to a mass audience is not the issue with "fun". On the contrary: Mass audience appeal result in games that are bland, but they are too bland to even go against the holy grail of "FUN". You are never going to find a game targeted to a mass market to engage people in any other way that is not "look at all this fun!... excitement!... explosions!". That was the reason with RE6, a game that had 6 playable characters to satisfy the RE4 fan and the Gears fan at the same time; or Dead Space 3, a game that largely abandoned survival horror in favor of "shooter with monsters" and included co-op because people complained it was "too scary" and therefore "not fun enough". The issue with "fun" (that, at least, the previous GTA had) is that it saturated the game with gritty mood to the point fun becomes irrelevant. Some games need to have serious topics, but in the case of GTA, the gameplay depends on randomness and antick displays of violence and chaos. When it juxtaposed it with the moody story it tried to create, the result was a game that feels disconnected.
Well, yes, I was saying that they're sacrificing gameplay for paywalls through the medium of tedium. If you're trying to make a fun game those elements should be stripped out.Wolle said:
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.hermes200 said:
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.Lightknight said:
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.
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.
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*
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*