Games limit themselves by trying to be fun

#61jrb363Posted 7/13/2013 6:38:09 PM
Games trying to be fun? What heresy is this?!?!
---
I fundamentally believe that the initial market that we need to make sure we appeal to with any new platform... is really the gaming audience. - Kaz Hirai
#62Soniv4Ever10(Topic Creator)Posted 7/13/2013 8:44:47 PM
jrb363 posted...
Games trying to be fun? What heresy is this?!?!


Fun is for degenerates.
---
PSN:PhantomResonance
NNID:TheyCallMeSonic
#63Emerald_MeliosPosted 7/13/2013 8:55:58 PM
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.

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.


That's generally the reason why I stopped caring about Square Enix's games.
#64Soniv4Ever10(Topic Creator)Posted 7/17/2013 4:31:03 AM(edited)
Boomerang78 posted...


Why do games HAVE to be fun, though? What is the intrinsic nature of video games that deems that all video games have to be fun? Is it because they're called "Games," or is it because people refuse to see them as anything other than something we just find fun?

[...]
The term "Video Game," honestly, is supremely outdated and also serves to limit what we call "Video Games." Right now, I think a better, if overly-wordy and overly-long, term would be Electronic/Computer Interface Media, in that "Video Games" are experienced through computers, require input from the player and is a form of communication (a medium). I think that would more accurately describe what "Video Games" are, now.


After ignoring this topic for a few days, I now realize why the entirety of this argument is stupid and I shouldn't have made this topic based on that video.

Video games are made to be played. If the play portion doesn't exist, it is not a game.

Look at the actual definitions for

-Story
-Book
-Movie
-Entertainment
-Amusing
-Fun
-Game
-Video Game
-Play

The thing is, some of those words can be applied differently because of their subjective nature. "Video Game" is not an obsolete term, it's supposed to try to define what it is more specifically and detail what it provides. Things like genres and sub genres take that a step further until you can identify almost exactly what it is you're looking at. If anything calling it "Electronic/Computer interface media" would only add another layer on top of video games because it could include things like e-books.


Whether or not people find a game fun is completely irrelevant to what I was trying to say (and what the video was trying to say). My point was that games don't have to be made with the intention of being fun and are often better off for it.

And, to be honest, nobody's boxing in the term "fun," because fun IS a specific kind of experience. When someone's enraptured by a sad story, they aren't having fun. In fact, they're experiencing the exact opposite: sadness. "Fun" isn't this all-encompassing term for the experience of all video games that can be considered good. If that's "boxing it in," fine, you're free to think whatever you want.


Things like fun are subjective, they are based on opinion and their perception can vary from person to person, so no that is not irrelevant to the discussion. Implying that trying to make something fun means it IS fun factually, that it is universally fun somehow for whatever reason, is wrong, same thing applies with sadness. Aside from the fact that fun isn't an emotion,happiness is the emotion that is opposite to sadness, look at the actual definitions of those words. You can not feel happiness and sadness at the same time, that would be a paradox.

What I was trying to get across before was that the video's whole argument is based on a fallacy, it's called appeal to population. It looks like I wasn't wrong when I said you were the one that was misunderstanding here, not me.
---
PSN:PhantomResonance
NNID:TheyCallMeSonic