"The game is fun. If it's not fun, why bother?"

>>382001008
There is a significant subset of people who prefer video games to be emotional experiences over what they perceive to be "mindless fun".

>>382001008
that speech was awesome

it was like a smart person posting on /v/

>I recently found out that this sentence did upset a ton of people.
>recently
you've made this thread at least 5 times now

>>382001074
>emotional experiences
Can you go into detail? Are you talking about visual novels like the walking dead and life is strange?

T H E
G A M E
H A S
T O
B E
F U N
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>382001074
whynotboth.jpg

I think video games can be enjoyable experiences without being downright fun for fun's sake

Movies, music, books, TV shows, and comic books all have examples of great works that are enjoyable but not explicitly "fun". They offer a different type of experience.

As long as the experience you're having uses the medium of gameplay to get its point across, I don't see why it has to explicitly be "fun"

>>382001164
>Are you talking about visual novels like the walking dead and life is strange?

Yeah, also things like Gone Home and That Dragon Cancer. I remember a couple years back a video game journalist tweeted on New Year's Eve that the next year should focus on video games that are fun and he got a huge amount of angry responses calling him a drooling mindless idiot for demanding "fun" and that video games need to be "inclusive emotional experiences".

There's nothing wrong with that statement. He's dead on.

>>382001164

A good example would be something like Planescape: Torment. The tone and writing of the game isn't meant to be "Wheee! RPG power fantasy!", It's meant to invoke a certain feeling in you and give you a certain emotional headstate

The same could be said for games like Limbo, Spec Ops: The Line, Shadow of the Colossus, Ico

>>382001008
Not all funs are equal

>>382001532
All shit.

File: 1497390007110.png (299KB, 662x602px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 662x602px

>>382001554
But if not then why bother?

>>382001532
Sotc was fun

>>382001575

Nuh uh

ITT:
>fun is a meme
>fun doesn't exist
>i hate fun

>>382001008
I think it upsets people because PR guy is trying to say "our games are fun, theirs are not" while in reality it's "our games are ugly and have shit framerate, but please ignore that, it doesn't matter as long as they're 'fun'"

As for nintendo games, I've recently tried to return to them, and honestly, they're just too easy. To the point of being boring.

>>382001008
Of course entertainment products have to be fun. The trouble is that "fun" isn't some objective state, that everyone can agree a game is or is not. If a game IS fun, then there should be reasons for this, and these can be critically explained or justified.

However, it's massively lazy to defend a game that is being ragged on for whatever reason with just the isolated phrase "yeah but I had fun". It is absolute anathema to criticism, it's just like saying "because reasons". As such, the word is pretty much useless, because it has just become a synonym for "good". Why not cut out the middle man and just write what was so enjoyable to you in the first place? (Graphics, gamefeel, sense of progression, audio, or whatever).

There's an ever-growing tumor on the vidya that insists video GAMES are an artform.

>>382001656

Yeah, but it wasn't made to make the player go "yeah! I'm having fun!"

The intent of the developer was to make the player feel a certain way due to the atmosphere of the game. The fun you have comes from the mechanics and gameplay based around that. When you kill a colossus, the music and visuals are supposed to make you feel more melancholy than accomplished.

Games that aren't made to be fun are still enjoyable experiences, and can be fun to play. Just because a game is emotional or feelsy doesn't mean It's devoid of gameplay or enjoyment

>>382001349

You've got a weird definition of "fun" if you don't find it enjoyable

File: 1467310656783.jpg (194KB, 569x629px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 569x629px

>>382001279

Because almost all game teams don't know how, and end up spoiling both.

I think Avellone was right when he talked about emergent gameplay and player-directed events as the better style of game design. Give the player the tools to create their own ways around an obstacle, and try to let them have fun figuring it out, while being subtle with the plot. Linear stories can be done (e.g. Last of Us) but something always feels off when you attempt to sidestep what it is the designers force you to do (again, Last of Us).

File: 1274022192251.jpg (125KB, 499x360px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 499x360px

1)Lots of indie devs and SJWs think its okay for a game to be shit so long as its art or creates a political message

2)A small but vocal community thinks that fun is a word with no real meaning and doesn't belong in serious video game discussion.

3)The speaker works for Nintendo, so of course the majority of modern players will want to disagree with him by default

There do you understand now?

>>382001815

I do find fun enjoyable. Where did I say I didn't?

>>382001716

>games have to be beautiful
>and have a high framerate

Or they aren't "good"?

Seems kind of redundant.

>>382001824
I think that within the sphere of videogames writing, a linear plot that can be interpreted in a variety of different ways is the way to go, to avoid spiralling costs. Some plot bifurcations can be justified, but they exponentially multiply if you have too many. Something like Deus Ex, where the same basic series of events can be plausibly interpreted in numerous different ways by players with different philosophical viewpoints, is enough for most people I think.

>>382001824

There isn't only one way to do it

The story of a Chrono Trigger or Grim Fandango is totally fine being a pre-determined affair, even the depressing parts of CT are enjoyable despite not being fun in an RPG mechanics sense like other parts of the game.

>>382001887
It should be both.

If your game is pretty but not fun, I'm not going to play it.

If your game is fun and outdated, then I'd rather replay Fallout 2, X-Com, HoMM3, Stronghold Crusaders, etc., than pay $60 for outdated shit.

>>382001794
>a game can still be fun even if it wants to be an emotional experience, so long as the developers are competent
Well I guess that solves the issue then doesn't it?

>>382001532
>>382001794
You can have fun in all these "deep" games though. The fact that people assume fun automatically means "WHEEEEEEE FUN" and not "I'm really enjoying this" just shows how closed minded the kneejerk people are.

>>382001887
How is a game having a low framerate not an obstacle to having fun? Or were you one of those "BLIGHTTOWN IS MEANT TO BE LIKE THAT IT'S PART OF THE CHALLENGE" people? Obviously games can be good in spite of technical problems, but it's not exactly something that can be just swept under the carpet.

>>382001716
>only console developer to consistently push out 60 fps games
>shit framerate

Fine, take this (you).

File: 39937743_p0.jpg (133KB, 385x800px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 385x800px

>>382001349
>>382001815
This. People who think fun means stuff that they don't enjoy but other people might. like how kids like toys cuz they are 'fun' but adults for the most part don't enjoy toys. So they think 'fun' is stupid/childish/running around screaming. When really fun means anything you enjoy. If you like sappy love stories that make you cry, then's IS fun for you.
If you like sitting hunched over our keyboard crunching numbers and managing planets in stellaris where nothing gets more exciting than one tiny spec shooting a colored ling at an other tiny spec, it's cuz it's FUN for you.

Fucking semantics.

>>382002060

What about a studio that just doesn't have the capital or the time to make it pretty but it's a great idea, well implemented?

>>382002131
>only console developer to consistently push out 60 fps games
I've seen the list of their games and their framerate, nintendildo, you're not going to fool me.

>>382002131
>only console developer to consistently push out 60 fps games

"no"

>>382002105

That's a big problem. Most people assume that any game that tries to be artsy or atmospheric is going to automatically throw gameplay or fun out the door.

The right word to use is probably "enjoyable". I think the best kind of game is one that puts you right in the vibe it wants you to be with a combination of good game mechanics and good atmosphere

Mario falls into this category, Shadow of the Colossus does, Metroid Prime does, Planescape Torment Does. The ultimate point is that It's creative and has a definitive 'flavor' to it rather than just being a bland emotionless experience.

>>382001113
>/v/
/v/ is full of dumbasses, I don't get why people "respect" the opinions of people in here. most of them are just memeing.

>>382002209
Nothing wrong with that, as long as it's not $60. Nintendo do have time and capital though, it's just that they refuse to make decent hardware due to financial reasons.

Guys, fun is not comedy.
Having fun is enjoyng the experience.
Play a horror game because you like to get scared.
Play a fighting game because you like competition
And so on. Experiences must be evocked on the player. Of course not everyone is the same, so you may share different experiences.
Games must fun in an entertaining way. What they must not be is boring.

File: image.gif (3MB, 310x169px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 310x169px

I didn't have fun with The Last of Us (it was stressful), but it was still one of my favorite video game experiences as a whole.
>why bother
Because it's always good to be reminded that the world isn't fun 100% of the time. If the appeal of Nintendo games is the opposite, then that only helps delude players into thinking that the company is their pal and that nothing could possibly go wrong.

And then they continue to push Amiibos, drop the Wii U a week after say they weren't, rerelease classic consoles with limited libraries, and port every game under the sun to their newest platform.

I think Reggie is a funny guy, because he has to say things and gets visibly frustrated. But to say "why bother" puts into question gaming as a whole, and I guess some people didn't like that.

File: 6p2kwil.gif (161KB, 400x286px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 400x286px

>>382002007

Sure, but again, it's rare to get a Squaresoft circa late 90s, or Kojima and his CUHRAZY WILD RIDE, or a Thief, or a Homeworld, or a Monkey Island. Sometimes it's even in spite of their best efforts and just happens.

Maybe i'm a lorefag here, but I've found worldbuilding > plot for me, and surprises and player-induced events to be just as memorable as, say, Aeris getting a sword through her.

>>382002451
Nice reddit spacing

>>382001008
>if the game isnt fun then why bother?
>proceeds to release rabbids
Really aquires my components

>>382002437
Please don't post until you have finished college.

>>382001887
>FPS below 60
>in the Dark Age of Technology, circa 2017
Or my favourite new nintendo meme
>fps dips below 30 at any point during game play

>there will be someone to defend low framerates

>>382002367

Sensible too since they don't sell at a loss. They've had an ethos since gunpei to repurpose existing tech into something new and variations on this theme. Not always a winner but it's keeping them nicely afloat it seems as the increasingly nervous man keeps being wrong console after console.

Some games are more engaging than "fun" like flight simulators

File: 1455324522648_animgif.gif (2MB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 240x180px

>>382002490

>le reddit maymay

Which was worse: frogposting or redditposting?

>>382002572

I don't like them, but I'll take a steady 30 on a console over dips and inconsistency.

It's one factor out of many for me because I'm a grown up. Well as grown up as possible given this shitty hobby

>>382001532
I had fun with Specs Ops. I genuily liked the story. It was fun.

>>382001008
That's what I said while I was playing shadow of mordor

>>382002451
"Fun" translates to "mechanically good", which The Last of Us isn't.

If a game isn't mechanically good, why bother?

The Last of Us, with all its shooty-bang scenes and handholding, almost made my brain melt. I could feel some of it trickling down my neck as I played the game.

>>382002671
Trick question, both are one and the same!

>>382001008
Because if the game is a battle, where's the fun?

Video games used to be part of the toy industry. What happened?

>>382001393
>Yeah
But LiS and the first season of WD were great emotional experiences and fun to play games. People need to pull their heads out of their asses.
There is enough room for both and if people don't like a particular game - they don't have to play it.

>>382002596
That's a pretty specific definition of fun you're using. FWIW, *I* think flight sims are fun. I just don't know what else I would call my time with Falcon 4, IL2, or FS2004 if not fun. Flying a plane is just one of the many schoolboy dreams that we get to live out in vidya, like being a cowboy (RDR) or soldier (take your pick) or having a model train set (TTD) . Surely all these things are fun?

>>382001008
Because if the game is not a battle, where's the fun?

>>382002463

I have enjoyed both types a ton.

Video games, like any other medium, would probably benefit best from a wide variety of different storytelling styles. We would be at a loss without entertaining linear storylines in games like the Metal Gear Solid series.

My personal favorite is stuff like the souls games which have a story that is distinctly pre-determined in the characters and world, but the onus is on the player to explore it and piece it together. It makes exploring the world and interacting with the mechanics of the game an essential part of the story.

If all games were emergent-based stories I would definitely miss my Grim Fandangos and Final Fantasies. I think each style of storytelling works well for what It's trying to do

>>382001749
this, also the propagandists infecting vidya today cannot do "fun".

>>382001532
Agree with this, it's why I love Bloodborne so much.

>>382002934
Bloodborne is nothing but pure, unadulterated fun with a 3deep5you story.

File: 1482670981111.jpg (196KB, 653x625px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 653x625px

Fun is the top priority.

>>382001008
Those people are a bunch of manchilds who wants to be seen aswell as their hobby as an adult and mature form. Since they assume fun is childish by nature, they get angry.
Reminds me of that infamous lewis carroll quote, something about “Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves."

>>382002721

The Last of Us is mechanically fine on higher difficulties if you're not being contrarian. The resource management and different options for creating tools to deal with enemies creates interesting gameplay situations like "should I take out this clicker so I don't have to deal with it or try finding a way around it so I can save a shank". The gunplay and stealth were fine, and the game was very light in setpieces that took all the action out of your hands like uncharted.

Games like Monkey Island or King's Quest were never mechanically good, the puzzle elements were often the most annoying and convoluted parts of those games. Those games were enjoyable in spite of their mechanics, not because of them.

Funny guy.

>>382002572
Then why does everyone love Souls shit and hate Mario games?

>>382003039

This comic is braindead levels of stupid, why is Mario of all things the barometer they're using for this discussion?

The same comic could be them talking about a point and click adventure game and they come to the conclusion that "you're playing because you want to see what happens in the story, aren't you?"

>>382003372
Well he's not wrong. Playing a video game for the story is like eating soup for the spoon

>>382001008

>"The game have to appeal to kids and young adults with autism to sell. if it's not selling, why bother?"

Is what he really saying.

>>382003446

Not really, a lot of old-school games like myst or King's Quest were mechanically weak but fun to play because of their world or story.

Even ignoring that point though, the comic is still stupid. You can't pick one specific game and extrapolate what is enjoyable about that game, Then say that this must be the thing that is enjoyable about all games

>>382002451
I play games to forget about the real world anon. I don't need to be reminded in a game of how shitty my real life is.

File: 1473929024540.png (101KB, 256x189px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 256x189px

>Tfw all my top 10 games are all about gameplay and having fun

>I hear all these complaints because they didn't pander to these liberalfaggots

What went wrong bros? How did Video game industry change so much these past years?

>>382003142
You're incorrect, both the level design and the mechanics of The Last of us are bad.

Resource management is shallow and not needed in most situations. The game creates an atmosphere of fake scarcity, where it always looks like you're running out of ammo though that is never actually the case.

>creates interesting gameplay situations like "should I take out this clicker so I don't have to deal with it or try finding a way around it so I can save a shank"

That is not an interesting situation, it is a very basic one. Every game with limited ammo/attack capacity has this.

The gunplay and stealth aren't fine either. Enemy AI is subpar, which is regretable considering that sneaking around takes up half the game. Gun play is wonky and pseudo-realistic, undermining any attempt at executing it skillfully. On top of that, there's only one way of killing enemies sneakily: put them in a chokehold (stab them if mushroom zombie) and watch the same animation for the nth time.

Level design is braindead. You're walking from setpiece to setpiece, sometimes you get to pick up a ladder and put it somewehre. That's it, no actual riddles, not to speak of situations that require common sense or have you explore the game world (which, in The Last of Us, is inexistent apart from the pre-determined path the player should take).

Also, old adventure games aren't fun. They're mostly annoying and dumb with a few good moments.

>>382001008
It wasn't just two sentences. It was a question.
When you ask a question you should expect answers.

>>382003716

I'm surprised you're old enough to be able to use the internet but still have to be told this:

Not everyone enjoys things for the same reason you do.

>>382003762
>How did Video game industry change so much these past years?

Mass appeal, people trying to look smart while they're actually dumbing down games.

>>382001008
Videogames becoming "art" just means there is a lot more professional intrusion from artists who have no idea on making videogames. They just want to develop their artistic talent, not giving two fucks about making a fun or interesting game.

Sure, a good art design can make a game more atmospheric, which makes it fun, but if you forget the gameplay mechanics, everything falls apart.

What Reggie said sounds stupidly simple, but it's true, yet so many game creators tend to fail comprehending such a basic premise, they only make shitty games.

I don't have a problem with the idea of politics or messages in games.
My problem is that the majority of the people attempting to do this are inept hacks with the subtlty of a brick to the face, my problem is that these whiny childeren think they're george orwell but they're barely even ayn rand, their messages are hackneyed and shallow with barely any depth beyond "wahh, trumps a big meanie" or "wahh, people who don't share my political world views are hitler".

>>382003770

>old adventure games aren't fun

I had fun playing monkey island. Therefore, it is fun.

Just because you need a certain mechanical standard to have fun does not mean that is the ultimate standard. In terms of relevant gameplay choices, the original super Mario bros has far fewer than most games. You can run, jump, use power-ups, that's it. Does that mean Mario Bros is less fun than, say, the last of us? I would say it is definitely more fun.

Mechanics do not equal fun, they're just a supplement to it.

>>382001532
So they're not games, they' re just interactive art.

The people whining about it are shills for that shitty Common Core education. One of its facets is trying to use video games as an educational tool, so someone saying it's all about fun delegitimizes them further.

>>382004228

If they have gameplay, they're video games. The idea that you think video games can't be "interactive art" is mind-blowingly dumb.

Are you really saying shadow of the Colossus isn't a video game?

>>382002451
Copy pasta

and

reddit

mother

fucking

spacing

File: 1478296859393.png (141KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 250x250px

What are some of your favorite games that are fun?

I'll start

Does anyone have that Neogaf screencap where every game has to be immersive in order for it to be good?

>>382002131
Haha this to be honest desu. sonykeks and xboners keep getting btfo'd.

Sure the switch isn't as powerful as the bone or ps4, so the poly counts are lower, but there were way more games on Wii U that ran at 60fps than on ps4 or bone

>>382003614
Damn... thanks for clearing that up!

>>382003861
So you admit you have shit taste?

>>382004162
The original Mario Bros. is fun. It doesn't set out to do anything more than it wound up doing.

However, The Last of Us tries to tell a deep story about an apocalyptic scenario - without doing any world-building or having you use your head every once in a while, a thing which would very likely be necessary in an apocalyptic world.

Also, my arguments regarding The Last of Us' game mechanics still stand.

>I had fun playing monkey island. Therefore, it is fun.

Disqualified yourself from discussion with that sentence. If you claim absolute subjectivity, then everything's true and we can stop dicussing right now. In fact, we can just end all of society.

>>382004448

Le

Reddit

Ebin

4chan master race friend!! :^)

File: console war fodder.png (35KB, 675x827px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 675x827px

>>382002259
>>382002318
>no.. no.!! maybe reality will be warped if I just deny it

>>382004123
>I don't have a problem with the idea of politics or messages in games.

That's literally the biggest issue in modern day games. "Fun" is not the core anymore.

It's like going to a themepark to sit on a bench.

>>382004670

The quality of video games themselves are subjective, you idiot. What is considered "enjoyable" or "fun" is inherently subjective, and this is a medium based around entertainment. The notion of what is "entertaining" completely varies from person to person.

Are you actually so stupid that you think it's impossible to discuss opinions on video games without acknowledging that what we're saying is an opinion? Nothing that you have expressed is objective other than stating things that are factually in the game, your ultimate assessment of whether or not a game was a worthwhile experience is all based on personal preference and taste.

I cannot believe how dumb you are, holy shit. Why would video game quality being an opinion mean that no one should ever discuss or debate their opinions with each other?

File: 1497372390438.jpg (13KB, 245x246px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 245x246px

>games are art guys they don't have to be fun
I will never understand the thought behind this, they make it sound like "art" is a synonym for quality and somehow immune to criticism when it comes to gameplay. They keep repeating the same sentence hoping that Roger Ebert will rise from his grave and finally pat those hipsters on the head and finally acknowledge that games can be art too. Such a hollow statement.

>>382001008
Fuck you a game can be good without being fun, just look at Gone Home
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>382004670
I would actually make the argument that The Last of Us is not something you can exclusively make as a video game. For something to really push the medium it has to take full advantage of it, not borrow tropes of other popular mediums.

>>382004941
as I said, my problem isn't that they're on a soapbox it's that they have a voice like nails on a chalkboard (to use a colourfull metaphore).
1984 is a book that works as both a political statement and a story, bioshock infinite dosen't work as either.
I suppose I could re-clarify that I don't have a problem with a game attemting to be "deep" since some of my favorite games do that

>>382001532
Planescape is fun though

>>382005125

Because they don't actually play videogames. They see them as a tool due to its popularity that they can use to further an agenda. Hiding it behind art makes it harder to dispute and makes idiots think it's fancy.

>>382005050
I never said that opinions aren't subjective. I called you out on your bullshit. It's nice and dandy that you had fun with the Monkey Island games. However, that isn't an argument, nor do I have any particular interest in that. That was a cheap cop-out on your part.

>The quality of video games themselves are subjective

Not true, at least not entirely. There are certain crtiteria which we can all agree upon (like variety, fluidity of controls, complexity of riddles and the such, depth and interconnectedness of the game world, layered level design) and these we discuss. Except for you. You like to enter conversations with a condescending, spiteful attitude instead. Cunt.

That's just Nintendo's design philosophy (which is great), it doesn't have to apply to all games. Same as with music, books and movies.

Sometimes you want entertainment to punch you in the stomach and/or test/challenge you.

>>382005378
>we can all agree upon (like variety, fluidity of controls, complexity of riddles and the such, depth and interconnectedness of the game world, layered level design)
That's all subjective though.

File: header.jpg (34KB, 460x215px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 460x215px

>>382005290
It's the approach that modern games take on it that ruins it.

I don't mind when it's done right like in Persona 5. But when they do pointless pandering and it becomes the focus of the entire game like Watch Dogs 2, then I completely lose interest.

it's fucking NINTENDO, the whole company is based around fun. If you want to play gone home or depression quest or something you can still do that. For the record, I would definitely consider CRPGs fun

>>382002529
Thanks for providing nothing to the discussion

>>382005545
>That's all subjective though.

Strictly speaking, yes. Reasonably speaking, no. Few reasonable men would enjoy a game that doesn't fulfill these criteria.

If we don't agree upon certain criteria, we'll end up with a debate along the lines of:

"I like x"
"I don't like x"

At this point I'd like to remind everyone that solipsism can't logically be disproven. However, we still assume that others exist.

>>382003348
>Some people like souls but not mario
>therefore, everyone love souls and despise mario like the plague
>Playing Souls on console
Besides, other than Demon's and the shittier parts of DaS1, Souls games run at a consistent framerate, with 30fps being the lowest on consoles

>>382005378

You can't claim that I copped out of the argument on monkey island when my reasoning for enjoying them was "They had good world building/entertaining stories" and your argument was "no, they aren't fun". I literally provided a more substantial argument for their quality than you ever did.

We can set certain "criteria" by which to define video game quality, but what criteria should be set is subjective in and of itself. A Japanese game developer might have a completely different set of criteria denoting game quality than a western developer, and vice versa. If humans are setting the criteria based on what they enjoy in a video game (ie "layered level design" vs more tight linear levels) then even this is opinion

You thinking that I have never discussed my opinions on any of what you mentioned is baffling. Of course I do, I literally qualified what parts of the last of us made me enjoy it. I just don't parade around under the guise of expressing anything other than my opinion, because I'm not a pretentious asshole like you.

You're that annoying dude who can never discuss something honestly with people because, at the end of the day, you falsely believe you're spouting some gospel instead of expressing your personal opinion on the matter.

>>382002163
>like how kids like toys cuz they are 'fun' but adults for the most part don't enjoy toys.
I am not arguing against you. But I've always been bothered by this sentiment.
Adults never grow out of "toys", they just tend to move to more advanced toys. Toy cars become real cars. Legos become crafts and so on and so on.
They're still toys to the people who engage in it as their hobbies.

>>382001074
the fact that you enjoy something, its already considered fun

if its entertaining, its fun

what is not fun is people telling you that what youre doing is not fun

so fuck those people

>>382002698
Consistent 30 is fine, I guess but at least having 60fps be the norm would make any dips that DO happen much less noticeable. You and i would both bitch if Mario chugged along at 20fps during a dip but we might not notice at all if it dipped from 60fps all the way down to 35fps, for example

>>382001008
Because fun is a very subjective term, some people enjoy Grand Strategy games while I find them more boring than watching paint dry

>fun
>fən/
>noun
>noun: fun
>1. enjoyment, amusement, or lighthearted pleasure.
>"the children were having fun in the play area"
>synonyms:enjoyment, entertainment, amusement, pleasure
If it's not fun, why bother?

>>382005872
>and your argument was "no, they aren't fun"

We weren't talking about Monkey Island, but the The Last of Us, so I didn't deem it necessary to write any more. I was the one who kept discussing about The Last of Us. You compared it to Mario Bros., and I refuted your argument. But that didn't interest you at all. Instead, you started talking shit

>even this is opinion
>>382005750

>>382005750

That's not true at all, there is no universally agreed-upon criteria in /v/ for this and you arguing with this guy about the last of us is proof of that. His criteria for mechanical competency is clearly different from your criteria. But do most discussions on /v/ look like your hypothetical conversation? Nope

>>382006139
The way I see it, he's trying to turn it into such a discussion.

Of course everyone values different things. Like I said, nice and dandy that he enjoys games I don't. But the general argument still stands. Some criteria are non-negotiable and serve as basis for discussion.

>>382001008
Videogames are ART

>>382005917
I'm entertained by sad movies, but I wouldn't say they're fun.

>>382006379
I also want to add that we may have misunderstood each other because our opinions about what a discussion should be aren't that far apart.

>>382006112

That post you linked is just doubling-down on your insane logic. There is definitively no agreed-upon rules for game quality, and conversations on /v/ don't devolve into what you suggested they would.

If the "criteria" that you're referencing comes from human preferences in the first place (They would have to, video games are a man-made concept intended to fulfill the subjective and varying notion of "entertainment") then it is subjective.

Just say why you don't like a game and discuss the merits of it based off your personal preference like you did originally, don't try and make the claim that you're measuring by some universal objective standard other than your own personal preferences. The "I'm objectively correct!" argument assumes everyone else is judging by the same criteria you are, incorrectly so.

>>382006449
please don't insult videogames by comparing them to art, or at least make the distinction that you're comparing games to classical art/

>>382002163
>If you like sappy love stories that make you cry, then's IS fun for you.
Word "fun", at least for me, has a connotation of happiness and cheerfulness, so I wouldn't say, just as an example, that it was "fun" watching Born on the Fourth of July or Jacob's Ladder. They were enjoyable films, but fun? I wouldn't say so. It just doesn't sound right in relation to them.

As for videogames, as an extreme example, take Siren. It's a bad videogame from a gameplay standpoint. I wasn't having any sort of "fun" playing it. However, the atmosphere, sounds, the clunkiness and obscureness of the gameplay itself was so tight I couldn't help but be immersed by playing, engrossed in it and terrified of it.

>>382006451
see >>382006032

>>382006379

>some criteria are non-negotiable

You need to qualify this statement. Where do these "non-negotiable" criteria? If they come from industry trends, collective belief, or anything relating to what human beings think is the way to go, then they are subjective and negotiable.

Here's the stuff that is objective: framerate, glitchiness, graphical prowess, connection quality, etc.

Anything about game design trends, mechanical depth, level complexity, etc. are all based on personal preference.

>>382006531
Everyone values different things. However, there's a recurring thread in what people generally enjoy.

>If the "criteria" that you're referencing comes from human preferences in the first place (They would have to, video games are a man-made concept intended to fulfill the subjective and varying notion of "entertainment") then it is subjective

We're using different definitions of the term subjective. If I went by your definition, the entire realm of perception would be subjective. However, we share certain ways of perceiving/experiencing things because we belong to the same species. Slightly different, but equal enough. Hence the reasonable criteria.

You throwing around swear words really doesn't help anyone.

>don't try and make the claim that you're measuring by some universal objective standard

Never did that.

>other than your own personal preferences

That I did, however.

>>382006774

Where do these come from**

>>382006842
>anything relating to what human beings think is the way to go, then they are subjective and negotiable

>>382006842
>We're using different definitions of the term subjective. If I went by your definition, the entire realm of perception would be subjective. However, we share certain ways of perceiving/experiencing things because we belong to the same species. Slightly different, but equal enough. Hence the reasonable criteria.

File: 1376245908531.gif (1MB, 250x134px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x134px

>>382006449
I hate when people say that games need to be art, or say that they are art as an argument as to why they can't be fun and crazy. They already are art just by virtue of design artists, 3D modellers, musicians, writers, and other artists depending on the game work on the projects. Sure, I get the argument that computer programming isn't an art, but video games are so much more than just a code. It's not like a program that sorts out Excel spreadsheets.

The only people who say that video games need to be art are people who don't know what it means for something to be art. They want to strip away what makes video games a unique form of expression and have it adhere to the standards of other art forms without thinking about why it works for that art form and why it may not work for video games. They're fucking pretentious idiots.

>>382006842

>there's a recurring thread in what people enjoy

Ok, I'm going to try and explain this very carefully.

This "recurring thread" you are referring to is literally a giant ball of opinions. There are people whose enjoyment exists outside of this recurring thread, and there are plenty of developers over the years who have challenged "recurring threads" of enjoyment and ended up creating something enjoyed by many. Just because something is consistently believed or liked by people does not make it more objective, it is still definitively opinions and preferences that these people feel.

Also sorry for cussing. No more cuss words I promise.

>>382001794
Nah, I was going "yeah! I'm having fun!"

>>382006842

Also I have no clue how my definition leads to every experience of perception being subjective. This obviously only applies to the notion of what we find "fun".

>>382001008
If you use video games as a form of validation, you do not wish to view the medium as "fun", but a "serious competition", where you can have "skill", "talent", and with "hard work", achieve something "significant".

It's escapism really, real life is hard, video games are relatively easy compared to academia and close, long-term, intimate relationships.

>>382005378
>all agree on
>complexity of riddles
Haha nigga you serious? Is this why every thread about hard puzzles or boss fights is nothing but a bunch of people going "you think x was hard? Wait till you fight y."

>>382005378
>There are certain crtiteria which we can all agree upon
Even if we agreed, assessing what they mean in relation to any concrete game is still subjective. As an example, "fluidity of controls". I think you wouldn't disagree that tank controls are clunky and not fluid. However, would Project Zero or Resident Evil 1-3 be better, had they employed a much more responsive system? No. At least not with everything else left intact. Even these criteria require subjective assessment in relation to the whole game.

From you next post:
>Few reasonable men would enjoy a game that doesn't fulfill these criteria
That, again, depends on how these parts are integrated together. Things like that don't just quantize.

>>382001008
Fun is just a buzzword.

File: 1323228594659.png (218KB, 363x339px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 363x339px

>>382007113
Thank you for saying it better than I ever could.
I've always just said that videogames can be "art" but why should they?
It's so fucking ironic to hear people tell videogames to "grow up" when that really should apply to them instead.

File: 1471120567766.jpg (28KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x375px

>>382001008
Because nintendo games aren't fun

>>382007141
No, I don't agree. If we go by your defintion, there is no objectivity.

We're all in silent agreement about certain aspects of video games, be it something as simple as the game working. Your thought allows for people to say that they like a game even though it's not even working. - Maybe they enjoy staring at a pixelated screen and not being able to move around their character? - You're tossing out common sense in favor of absolute subjectivity.

I'm neither trying to say that there's no room for subjectivity, nor that there are indisputable objective standards. Lets call the standards I've been taking about intersubjective standards instead. Maybe that'll clarify the matter.

>>382006449
>everybody ignores the actual art game
I'm sure you (or at least many here) have read Kojima's interview about art in games circa 2001-2. He mentioned a chair that you couldn't sit on, and why games can't achieve same sort of impression on you. Well, there was one game that did exactly that - Flower, Sun and Rain. It is a game that was made specifically to be as unfun as possible while also investigating the concepts of game design and player agency. Unless you played it, you got no right to talk about videogames as an artform.

>>382002105
I think that Nintendo has been so pigeonholed in making certain types of games that the quote was misinterpreted as anything other than BING BING WAHOO wasn't "fun". First off, it is Nintendo's philosophy, not yours.

Frankly, it's a breath of fresh air, actually putting fun as the focus instead of some melodramatic politically-charged message.

>>382007464

Too many people think "art" means "deep and meaningful"

Sometimes art is just something that makes you feel a certain way, like how a bright and colorful Mario game makes you cheery and happy through a combination of its game mechanics and visuals/music. Sometimes It's something like Silent Hill 2 evoking a sense of melancholy beauty through its mechanics , visuals, music, and story.

Games have always been an art form, and gamers who get offended at the notions of games being called "art" are as close-minded as Roger Ebert

>>382007393
>Even if we agreed, assessing what they mean in relation to any concrete game is still subjective. As an example, "fluidity of controls". I think you wouldn't disagree that tank controls are clunky and not fluid. However, would Project Zero or Resident Evil 1-3 be better, had they employed a much more responsive system? No. At least not with everything else left intact. Even these criteria require subjective assessment in relation to the whole game

You're right. Every game has to be judged individually. The criteria I listed are general guidelines. Just like you can't convict people based on law exclusively/without making use of a judge.

>>382001074
Fun isn't necessary mindless though.
One can have fun and yet learn, feel and such.

>>382006112
Holy shit your GAF is showing you entitled idiot. Don't you have an indie startup internship you have to show up to soon?

>>382001532
You listed mostly fun games though

>>382001532
Maybe I am a fuck for liking physics puzzles but I thought Limbo was fun, and I definitely see how you could derive fun from some of the others. Why can't you just have both elements and create a game that isn't a bother to play?

>>382007869
I'd prefer it if you added something of value instead of bashing someone who's already up against multiple people.

>>382005917
>what is not fun is people telling

>>>/reddit/

>>382007508

We can speak objectively on the contents of a game, whether or not a game runs well, What a game's framerate is like, etc. These are all objective

When you start saying that a game is "good" or "bad", however, you have crossed over into the subjective realm. You are now basing your observations not on objective facts, but rather how the game measures up to your own personal criteria of what a "good" game is.

I think that absolutely no one would agree that moving a single pixel around on a screen is a fun game. As crazy as it sounds, the quality of said game is still subjective because the rules of what constitutes a "good" game are still completely made up by us and based on what we find fun.

Keep in mind this only applies to mediums of entertainment. If you can observe it, measure it, or quantify it, It's objective. If it must ultimately be based around rules that can be changed by personal preferences, it is subjective.

"This game crashes frequently and runs at 20 frames" = objective
"This game is bad because it isn't mechanically dense enough" = opinion

>>382001716
it's probably just people not being able to take competitive banter anymore

>>382001349
I think it's a whole different experience,

For example if you read the description of Mario Odyssey : "Join Mario on a massive, globe-trotting 3D adventure and use his incredible new abilities to collect Moons so you can power up your airship, the Odyssey, and rescue Princess Peach from Bowser's wedding plans!"

You know this you will play this game was made purely for fun's sake, You certainly won't play it because of the story or graphics (which both can be subjective and won't always guarantee a good experience worth your money)
We need more games like that from other company's.

File: 1496118086147.gif (2MB, 230x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 230x250px

>>382002259
>>382002318

>>382002163
>When really fun means anything you enjoy.

Wrong, fun is something that you can enjoy but you can enjoy something without it being fun

>>382007734

Even judging these individually, It's still subjective

For example: fluidity of controls

Is resident evil 1 a good game because a lack of fluid controls creates a horror atmosphere of unease and tension? Or is it shit because a lack of fluid controls takes you out of the experience and reminds you that you're playing a game?

It all comes back around to personal preference. Neither point is incorrect or correct. That doesn't mean we can't argue about them, it just means we can't say either argument is objectively correct.

File: Screenshot_2017-06-27-07-37-40~2.png (241KB, 1080x1356px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1080x1356px

>>382001008
You don't have to like video games to make them

Reggie wouldn't be able to tell a fun game from a turd. He's a certified conman.

>>382001393
>Gone home
>That dragon cancer
Neither of these are games, they're trash. Utter trash for pretentious retards to say "wow look it's sad! That makes it deep and special like a work of literature!" It's disgusting.

>>382001349
Movies aren't intrinsically fun.

Music isn't intrinsically fun.

Art, novels, poetry - they're not intrinsically fun.

A game, by sheer definition, is supposed to be fun to be successful. It is its nature. It's a game. Despite any integration of other media used to present a game (visuals, music, etc), the GAME is the PLAYability and FUNness (a word?) of the product.

Fun is subjective of course, but one can say "this game is not fun" or "this game is fun" and you're still holding it against a standard of fun.

File: rip and tear shotguns everywhere.jpg (160KB, 600x500px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 600x500px

>playing D44M
>shotgunning bitches in the face
>pulping them with my fists
>double jumping
>fuck yeah

>playing Sword with Sauce
>playing survival mode
>shotgunning bitches in the face
>wallrunning at ludacris speed
>THE PLAYS
>fuck yeah

>playing Titanfall 2
>shotgunning bitches in the face
>wallrunning and sliding around the place at ludacris speed
>ocasionally drop a fucking titan on it and shrek fags from my deathmobile
>3fast
>fuck yeah

BUT

>play The Fall, Walking Ded (S1), Alan Wake, Metal Gears of all kinds, Valiant Hearts, Fallout, Thomas Was Alone, Spec Ops The Line
>the gameplay is, comparatively to the ones above, absolute fucking garbage
>but the story carries the game enough so I rabu rabu it anyway and recommend it to everyone I know

Thinking about it, a lot of my fun derives from shotgunning bitches in the face specifically. That doesn't mean that I can't enjoy other stuff or that fun is bad. It just means that when you want me to go apeshit about your game and put 300 hours into it, you better have some fucking shotguns. I can still enjoy your game when you don't have that.

>>382004878
>>382008380
Yeah we heard you the first time still its not true

I mean, any game should be fun, or at the least entertaining. It's the same for any medium. And I think something can be "fun" for different reasons. The Sound and the Fury can be "fun," if Southern Gothic really activates your almonds. Breath of the Wild can be "fun," if open world adventure games are your thing. Ultimately, a work should be entertaining, but there's lots of ways to be entertained.

>>382008540
Fair enough. I'm guessing a bunch of people that make their weird "video art" probably aren't into movies either.

>>382008201
>If you can observe it, measure it, or quantify it, It's objective. If it must ultimately be based around rules that can be changed by personal preferences, it is subjective.

That is exactly what I believe to be the problem of our debate. I know this definition, but I don't agree with it. Nothing is objective, these things are just evaluated through standards set by our human mind. You say if I can observe it, it is objectively that thing. What about those who are colorblind? They can't observe the color red when it's next to green like everyone else. Does that mean everyone has an objective world inside their head? No, reality is filtered through our means of perceiving it. The moment it enters the mind, it becomes subjective. Height, quantity and impression aren't properties of the object itself, but of our perception of the object. The word you're looking for is intersubjectivity. We can agree upon some things because we're all human and therefore have the same means of perception, even though these things may not be objectively provable. I believe we can also set some of these standards in regard to video games.

Earlier I used the term objectivity instead of intersubjectivity. I was hoping to simplify the debate, but instead made it worse.

>>382008540
I get this to be fair.

I don't like reading books, but I enjoy writing. (I wouldn't try sell my books though, I just delete what I've written), but still.

>>382008792

Movies started out as intrinsically fun - they began as a way for people to go to the theatre house and see a crazy sight like a moving train on the wall or attractive women.

It wasn't until later on that people started using movies as a way to tell stories and expanded their possibilities as a medium.

The root word "game" and the origin of video games doesn't mean that has to be the standard forever.

I do think that, like good movies use cinematography effectively, all games should effectively take advantage of what gameplay is

>>382008875
I disagree to an extent. Movies can be great and be completely unfun. Holocaust films, super depressing movies, etc are examples.

Music can be completely joy killing but still still be excellent.

Games have to be fun because that's what they are. Movies are cinematic. Music is musical. Games are fun. Food is edible. Etc.

Maybe that doesn't make as much sense as I think it does but I do get where a lot of you are coming from.

>>382005626
>done right like in Persona 5
You mean the game that has reached the epitome of cancer in the Purseowner series?

>>382001008

The game........................................... is fun.

>>382009092
That's true. Good point.

Admittedly video games are unique in this way. I guess it depends on who you ask.

>>382003762
>Tfw all my top 10 games are all about gameplay and having fun

oh shit nigger you're right

>>382008427
You're absolutely right, and I never ruled that out. I was merely saying that there's some vague standards we are in silent agreement about. Maybe trying to give examples of them was a mistake.

File: 1491007826671.jpg (316KB, 695x726px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 695x726px

>"The game is diverse. If it's not diverse, why bother?"
Is he right?

File: 1497898651101.jpg (231KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1920x1080px

Reggie's right, why play video games if you don't enjoy them? Do you go play football or something despite not having fun with it? Do you deliberately waste the time to watch a movie you're confident you won't enjoy? Do you pay the ticket for a ride you won't have fun with? Probably not unless you're pressured to do so or you absolutely have to.

The first videogames in history were made for fun, for killing time like playing Pong with a friend or maybe Space Invaders to try reaching a high score at the arcade. Games have evolved since; developers used to design the premise of a game, what the goal is and then how the player should go about achieving it. Graphics, music and other resources were only designed to create chemistry with the gameplay, gameplay being the primary focus of the game. It was simple like this back then, but technology eventually grew to allow for less constraints in gaming platforms, where new resources like textures, sound chips, increased computer architecture (8, 16, 32, 64 bits) and so on began to arise. EVERY developer and organisation would want to become big pioneers of these new technologies, so they all had games revolve around these new developments. This meant that the dominating gameplay aspects would be subdued in place of other aspects of a game, giving developers more and more options on what they want a game's foundations to be. That's why "fun" is an argument today, people like games for different reasons now, whether it's the gameplay, the music, the graphics, it's all subjective but the whiners think their opinions are the objective ones.

Danmaku is art and also fun.

I don't play games unless they're fun, if I want something emotional I watch a movie, read a book or listen to music. Interactive motions kill the delivery for me.
>but that's the strength of vidya
Probably, still not pleasant to experience unless it's 'fun'.

>>382009092
I can agree with this. The thing is, though, that the people who want to take video games and "turn them into art" (implying that they aren't art already) want to take away the gameplay. They want to keep the interactivity but remove the classical fun. They want you to just control an avatar that simply walks from event to event, clicking a button to activate them, and then have pretentious "deep" story in them. That's not a fucking game.

>businessman telling you what's fun and what is not
Yeah no he can fuck off

>>382001008
>>382001164
There are mentally ill people that are so obsessed with politics that they feel all games should be political and "mature". If they don't make any sort of "progressive" political statement, the game is garbage.

I'm being serious. People actually think like this, especially over on Neogaf

>>382009624
I would change it from "the strength of vidya" to "a strength of vidya."

>>382008792
I don't agree games are intrinsically fun, precisely because it's subjective. Someone can be playing a game and not have fun.

What games intrinsically are is pretend.

>>382009704
He didn't tell you what fun is. He just said that there's no point in playing a game if it isn't fun. He still left the definition of fun up to you. Is English your second language?

>>382009725
you're right, I shouldn't give the medium that much credit.

There's nothing wrong with it, if that's how you want your games.

For me, I would rather have a game with a good story. One of my favorite games is Spec Ops: The Line, and the gameplay is ass. I don't care, I enjoyed myself.

>>382009724
College campuses and the media in general are brainwashing everyone into blind liberal political zealots

>>382009724
/v/ is the same way. Anything that can be construed as a potential progressive political statement makes the entire game garbage.
>Oh, I just can't enjoy this game because they made a character a black woman and I'm not racist but in this political climate you just know it's pushing an AGENDA and inherently political
It's just the flipside of the "everything is political" medallion.

>>382009897
One of the things here though is differentiating between "fun" and "good gameplay."

A hard thing to write down on paper, really, but there has to be a distinction.

I find Just Cause 2 to have sucky gameplay but a ton of fun.

I find Bioshock to have great gameplay but not very fun

Etc. It's a weird thing. Probably because it's so new, video games. I recall the Lumiere Brothers and Edison having weird artistic debates when film emerged.

It will evolve with time.

>>382009945
Yeah, no one has thought about their political position except you. They're all just brainwashed. Not redpilled by memes like you. Fucking sheeple.

>>382009113
Video games are games. They are meant to have fun. No one plays a board game to be depressed and learn a lesson in life.

As a result, all the video games that go for "art" usually (always?) end up being unenjoyable and pretentious.

>>382009724
That's wild but I get it. While I make it a point to avoid, they make it a point to expose me. Explains why there is so much conflict in the industry.

Where can I observe these "games have to be art/politics" people?

>>382010185
Unless you've played Monopoly.

I refuse to believe bankruptcy and tax simulator for four+ hours is enjoyed by anyone.

And yet it is played.

(I'm joking - I do agreee.)

>>382001008
Because games are fundamentally toys

>>382010185
I think the upper/upper middle class might be the ones perpetuating this. An idle mind is the devils play thing. Got no choice but to fuck shit up, their upbringing and lifestyle doesn't allow any other way of expression.

>>382001008
Who the fuck knows? To me, it sounds more like a design philosophy than anything else.

>>382001008
Isn't just an excuse for Nintendo's lack of ability to make HD games or good games?

It's like talking to a Nintendo fanboy, you look at a game objectively and say you don't enjoy it, and they imply you hate "fun". It's like convincing the mentally disabled.

File: neogaf.jpg (192KB, 1360x880px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1360x880px

>>382001074
hmmm...

>>382010185
There's a board game about the Holocaust.

File: IMG_4492.jpg (73KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 640x426px

>>382009945
Kek. Have you even been to college?

>>382010669
Feel like my first game should be an immersive pooping sim. Just to prove a point.

File: Engineer.jpg (73KB, 779x609px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 779x609px

>>382009945
At a proper university campus they tell you so fucking little that you drop out after a semester because you couldn't find the rooms where the exams were held, because the prof expected you to figure that out by yourself
t. Engineering
You utter twat

File: 1497974023277.png (385KB, 551x310px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 551x310px

>>382008808
>playing Titanfall 2
>shotgunning bitches in the face

>>382010290
You're always exposed to something. Reinforcing the status quo is also a political act. But you usually only notice "politics" when it's politics you oppose. So SJWs started making games in response to what they perceived to be a straight white male hegemony that was being artificially reinforced by blatant pandering. But you didn't see any of that. You're just noticing the response. Still, if you say you want video games to be the way they were before politically speaking, you're taking a position just as much as they are.

>>382010435
and?

>>382009945
Wow if only we were as enlightened as you

>>382001008
Because there are people who consider simplistic open world games "fun" and anything with substance "unfun".

It breeds shitty, forgettable, casual games.

>>382011007
What is this, improv?

>>382010683
A cursory glance on Boardgamegeek mentions "Holocaust" ("a fantasy board game in which a hero combats against the horrors of a world devastated by war") and "After the Holocaust" ("an economic, military, and political simulation of events in the United States, twenty years after a large-scale thermonuclear exchange"), both of which sound like fun and are merely settings, not actually a game about the actual Holocaust. If there was, it would probably played as a dark comedy game, sort of like "Guillotine" is to the French Revolution.

File: shotgun sandwich doomguy revenant.png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>382010962
Well-made shotguns in quakestyle sanic shooters make me hard as diamonds and cum buckets.

File: 1495153065555.png (909KB, 1228x1128px) Image search: [Google]

909KB, 1228x1128px

>>382011224

>>382008540
This is how the new Mass Effects are made.

>>382010991
Of course, we're all taking a position, dialog is disappearing and sides are being taken. I kinda like that. I don't want to hear the other arguments. If I were religious (I'm not) there would be certain ideological stances I couldn't take because they contradict the religious text. same is true for someone super progressive, or conservative (or whatever).

end dialog, fight it out.

>>382001008
Explain why Pokémon Sun and Moon (or any Pokemon since XY really) are unfun to play then.

>>382010928
Can confirm. Last year one faculty fucked up and didn't make all the Bachelor's diplomata in time, which are needed for students to apply to Magister's programs.

>>382011507
Your opinion?

File: 1468437735917.gif (1MB, 295x255px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 295x255px

>>382005824
>Souls games run at a consistent framerate, with 30fps being the lowest on consoles

>>382008383
Are you fucking retarded, fun literally means a state of enjoyment.

File: 1442816466658.jpg (29KB, 500x435px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x435px

>>382009493
This guy knows what's up

>>382001074
but emotional experiences in games are fun, they are still only entertainment

File: Funthings.jpg (77KB, 600x371px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 600x371px

Fun things are fun.

>>382011154
no

File: 1488245521620.jpg (36KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 350x350px

>>382001008
He is absolutely 100% right. You can create a great story and a great world and atmosphere and all of that, but you also need to create gameplay that is well designed- easy to learn and hard to master.

"fun" means you are enjoying the experience of simply playing the ACTUAL game part of the "game" independent of how much they want to """emotionally engage""" you in a """cinematic experience""" cutscene

There are definitely some walking sims that are not "games" but whose stories wouldn't work as well if they WEREN'T interactive, but that just means the actual story content of it isn't as good and not worthy of being a short story or book etc.

Take absolutely every narrative, story and atmosphere element out and just leave a gameplay prototype. Is the game fun?

The GAME is FUN. Nintendo are pretty much the only company left that actually embodies a good GAME DESIGN mentality, whereas everyone in the west just hires shitty incompetent 'affirmative-action' dorks straight outta college, gives an IP to a hack director and then practices shitty business tactics and marketing up the ass to SELL you the game, like shit like Andromeda or Mafia 3. They don't want to make a good game. They want to sell you a game.

If it's not fun, why bother?

File: PaperMarioStickerStarCover.jpg (164KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 250x250px

>The game is fun. If it's not, why bother?"
>proceeds to make a sequel to this abomination

>>382001532
I was definitely a lot more invested in the fun I had playing Limbo than its message.

File: socialist-realism.jpg (101KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 400x300px

>>382001008
>How fucked are video games that these two sentences did upset people?
Not too fucked since it was a big head that spoke them. There's still hope, at least for the east.

West is full of propaganda. The ideologues were salivating like rabid dogs for the day in which toys were classified as art because

>MUH ART IS POLITICAL
>MUH VIDEO GAMES ARE POLITICAL

Picrelated very much. Now that video games are art, you got to make them propaganda, or you're ______ist, aka a blasphemer or heretic, against the system. They're no longer entertainment, they MUST be a vehicle to advance the cause, komrade.

It's not working as well as it should be, because video games are still a marketplace which means that the consumer dictates the direction, but watch out for when governments start sponsoring and investing in video games.

>>382014247
Right because Limbo was still in that stage where indie developers still had fun games, even if they were a bit artsy and pretentious.

If I'm having fun playing video games then how can I get over my privileged white man guilt? I must repent by only playing bad QTE/walking simulators where the main character is a visible minority or a woman.