Games limit themselves by trying to be fun

  • Topic Archived
  1. Boards
  2. Wii U
  3. Games limit themselves by trying to be fun
2 years ago#1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzpgOJ2ubI

Personally I don't agree with it, but somebody else posted that video in my topic on the 3DS board.

So... Discuss!
---
PSN:PhantomResonance
NNID:TheyCallMeSonic
2 years ago#2
Games limit themselves by being "dumbed down". It is not fun having my hand held from beginning of a game to the end. A tutorial is fine, hell make it optional. Give me a Zelda game without a sidekick and let me find my sword and search for a dungeon. I don't need a golden box to pop up and show me how to beat the level because I died 3 times experimenting to get a damn coin. Game developers limit the games by shorting them for DLC and sequels, not trying to be fun.
---
Do you want to go to college for free? Go Marines!
2 years ago#3
deathwave21 posted...
Games limit themselves by being "dumbed down". It is not fun having my hand held from beginning of a game to the end. A tutorial is fine, hell make it optional. Give me a Zelda game without a sidekick and let me find my sword and search for a dungeon. I don't need a golden box to pop up and show me how to beat the level because I died 3 times experimenting to get a damn coin. Game developers limit the games by shorting them for DLC and sequels, not trying to be fun.


I agree with what you said for the most part, the video was talking about something else entirely though.
---
PSN:PhantomResonance
NNID:TheyCallMeSonic
2 years ago#4
I think its best we discuss this instead

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFoRH-VtFO4
---
"Madam President...May God help us..."
2 years ago#5
Soniv4Ever10 posted...
deathwave21 posted...
Games limit themselves by being "dumbed down". It is not fun having my hand held from beginning of a game to the end. A tutorial is fine, hell make it optional. Give me a Zelda game without a sidekick and let me find my sword and search for a dungeon. I don't need a golden box to pop up and show me how to beat the level because I died 3 times experimenting to get a damn coin. Game developers limit the games by shorting them for DLC and sequels, not trying to be fun.


I agree with what you said for the most part, the video was talking about something else entirely though.


The video is wrong as to why games limit themselves, but they are definitely limited.
---
Do you want to go to college for free? Go Marines!
2 years ago#6
I think they were saying that they don't have to be fun.

Bioshock Infinite wasn't fun. It was interesting. And it was amazing
2 years ago#7
Yeah... No.

There are plenty of other softwares out there, of every type.
when the software is designed to be fun, we call it a game.

When its not, we call it something else.
---
NS_CHAIN 2666-2862-7656
2 years ago#8
The video is aimed to developers, and honestly, I just buy whatever I want to play. I wouldn't say that Dark Souls or Sim City are "fun," but they are engaging and you derive very different kinds of satisfaction from them.
---
Sig under construction.
2 years ago#9
Bioshock Infinite wasn't fun. It was interesting. And it was amazing

I see this as a problem, actually. When you read a book, you pay for an interesting narrative told through words. When you pay for movie tickets, you pay for an interesting narrative told visually. When you pay for a game, do you not pay for fun? I mean, if all of bioshock's value came from the story or from how "interesting" it was, why play it? Why not just have it presented to you, like in a book or in a movie? I loved bioshock infinite, but I couldn't help but feel at parts it would have been just as good to me as a movie, if not better.

Games can be used for story telling purposes, of course... but that should really only be done by creating story through gameplay, or story through the world. I must admit, if you're paying for bioshock infinite and not having fun, why are you playing it. What is play? Is it not, by the very definition of the word, meant to be fun? Would Bioshock Infinite be any less fun if you were simply moving the camera around?

I think we need to seriously reconsider what a game is if we're meant to believe that there's more to it than fun.
2 years ago#10
Glem3 posted...
I see this as a problem, actually. When you read a book, you pay for an interesting narrative told through words. When you pay for movie tickets, you pay for an interesting narrative told visually. When you pay for a game, do you not pay for fun? I mean, if all of bioshock's value came from the story or from how "interesting" it was, why play it? Why not just have it presented to you, like in a book or in a movie? I loved bioshock infinite, but I couldn't help but feel at parts it would have been just as good to me as a movie, if not better.

Because that story could never be presented or experienced through a movie or book in the way it is through a game. What movie is going to be 10 hours long and engage the viewer in a personal way that makes them feel like they're a character in the world? Might as well claim that movies are pointless since you can just experience their stories through a book.

To fill out your example though: when you pay for a game, you pay for an interesting narrative told interactively.
---
"Walking tanks must exist somewhere for there to be such attention to detail like this in mech sim." - IGN Steel Battalion review
  1. Boards
  2. Wii U
  3. Games limit themselves by trying to be fun

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived