>The game is good because it is fun Is this a valid point?

>>377165559
Yes.

Obviously. Opinions are never wrong

File: soup.jpg (39KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 400x300px

As valid as the soup is good because it's tasty.
If you dislike a soup but someone else says they find it tasty and that's why they eat it nobody cares, do the same with a video games and /v/ loses its shit.

>>377165559
No

>>377165559
Not necessarily. Bad games can be fun too. Look at stuff like Takedown Red Sabre and Big Rigs. Awful trash games but they're still fun due to how shit they are.

Being fun doesn't erase flaws in design, but it can make up for them sometimes.

Why do video games have to be 'fun'?

Movies, etc. aren't exactly fun all the time.

>>377165559
It's valid but it's not convincing

>>377165559
You're allowed to find a game fun, but if the game is shit you finding it fun doesn't make it not-shit and stop getting so asshurt over people calling the game what it is, which is shit.

Completely invalid.

Games can only be good if they meet certain qualtifiable criteria, such as frame rate and resolution.

"Fun" is meaningless. If you play for "fun" then you don't know a fucking THING about video games.

File: consider_the_following2.jpg (127KB, 713x918px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 713x918px

>>377165559

Not unless you can describe why it's fun. I mean, you can say you like a game because it's fun, but that doesn't tell anyone anything of worth. There is no discussion to be had from such a statement. It's not even a matter of creating some "objective" criteria for fun, if you can't explain why you specifically find a game fun then maybe you should take some time and think about it. It may help you appreciate and understand the game in question a bit more.

>>377165559
>Game is not good because it's boring
4chan seems to against this one when I see it.

Nier would be a prime example.

File: 1470913938104.png (444KB, 940x444px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 940x444px

>>377165559

File: 1475705452646.png (190KB, 540x482px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 540x482px

Fun is subjective.

File: funthings.jpg (86KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1920x1080px

Yes.

>>377165729
>food analogy

>>377165559
A game isn't good because it's fun, but a good game should be fun.

>>377165559
more importantly than 'fun', 'good' is a subjective word.

Hard to answer the question, but I'm going to say yes it is.

>>377165559
>The game is good because it is fun
>Is this a valid point?
Is a game bad if its boring?

>>377165923
interactivity

>>377166667
correct.

>>377166218

The variable x is never defined outside of the declaration in P (x), so what does it mean to make S the set of all x's that satisfy P (x)? Isn't that tautoligical? My discrete math class starts in a week.

Fun is still a valid reason as to why a game is good, but you should be able to explain what makes the game fun.

>>377166886
Doesn't that depend on the experience an individual player is looking for in a game?

>>377165559

Fun doesn't equal a good game. Bloodborne isn't fun for me, but it's a good, solid game. I just don't like RPGs very much.

Fun is a preference. If it's fundamentally good, but not fun, it's still good. Dwarf Fortress is another example. Tight and solid gameplay but it sucks every ounce of fun out by doing so.

Fun itself its not a good argument. Fun is subjetive and everyone finds fun in diferent things.

But if you complement your argument with WHY you find it fun. Then it become as valid as any other metric out there.

>>377166048
>If you play for "fun" then you don't know a fucking THING about video games.
>Implying video games aren't made to entertain
>Being this edgy

>>377167539
Not him but that wasn't a serious post.

>>377166886
See >>377166667

>>377166607
But his actually makes sense.

>>377165559
It's the reason we play games, but it's horrible reasoning since "fun" is subjective. People are just too lazy or ignorant to explain why something is fun.

>>377165612
/thread

>>377167661
Well, now I feel silly

>>377165559
In response to "why do you play this game?" Yes. In response to "why is this game good?" No.

File: 10231654654.jpg (68KB, 680x738px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 680x738px

Nope.

>>377168027
I figured someone would've posted that pasta and derail the thread by the first five posts.

>>377167708
He posted a statement that sounds good when you say it but doesn't actual mean anything if you give it any thought. Congratz you got tricked by elementary rhetoric.

>>377165559
It's a valid reason for why someone enjoys the game. It is not a valid point to argue that it is a good game.

No.

Fun is subjective but a byproduct of being good.

It's only an indicative.

Didn't Anita's ex say something about fun being meaningless, and games should be meaningful (empowering, progressive, etc.)?

>>377166998
well it's trying to prove a tautology, so
I don't fucking know
it's been too long since I took symbolic logic

>>377168652
Yeah, well you got tricked by elementary trolling, congratz

>>377168809
And /thread

>he has ever said the word "fun"
b2r

>>377168809
Pretty much. I can say Terraria is fun all day and every day but I seen people who outright hate freedom and true progression that you earned on video games. Often claiming they weren't looking for a 2nd job, just something to play to relax. Terraria while being one of the best game for being fun isn't a game that can be recommended to anyone who would get more enjoyment out of an idle game like Cookie Clicker. Likewise people might find Cookie Clicker and such idle games fun but of course not everybody want to watch nothing happens for hours at a time. Some people do in fact would like to play a game.

Sadly I have to say fun is indeed a buzzword as it doesn't describe the games at all and if you are forced to use it as a reason then you had already lost. If you can't even explain why a game is enjoyable then you have no right to try shilling it off to other people.

It's a valid point in defining why someone enjoys something, but not a point in why it's enjoyable or how it's good.

For example, saying a book is well written says nothing. That could mean the story flows well, the world is defined in an imaginative way, the characters are well developed, as well as tons of other stuff. The person may enjoy the book, but such a statement has no substance. Saying a game is good because it's fun doesn't say anything of value. All that says is that, for some subjective reason that isn't defined, the person likes it.

There's no substance to that statement. If someone says a game is fun, the immediate knee-jerk reaction that people probably have is to ask, "Why is it fun?"

>>377165729
I'd disagree with that. If I have to pay a substantial amount of money for a bowl of soup, I want to know why it's good. Anyone can just say it's tasty, including the person selling me the product. But that tells me nothing. You could say it's good because it's spiced well, that it has fresh ingredients, that it's not too thin, plenty of stuff.

I'd imagine that if the culinary field is similar to vidya in its level of product competition, there is a pretty big reaction from some people when someone says a soup is good. If someone tells me that Campbell's chicken soup is good because it's tasty, I'd probably tell them they're an idiot.

Fun games are objectively shitty games.

>>377165559
It's valid, but it's vague. And that really is the problem: it doesn't inform a person of too much. I had fun with some game (assuming I'm being truthful) and so you might have fun, but you might not enjoy it at all and there isn't really a way of judging that simply from "I had fun with it."

>>377168652
He's right though.

>>377172243
You don't have to pay a substantial amount of money to eat fucking soup

>>377165559
yes. it's not a very strong one on it's own though.

>I play games I find fun
>they're mostly trash and openly admit it
>most people become confused why I would play a game I think is bad

You might as well say its good, people just don't understand