next »

[Annabelle Kennedy]

I'm.. really with konjak on this...  I'm sure its just my 'uncultured' taste but for me, games that try too hard to be deeply emotional or sentimental (read: passage) just sadden me and do not really at all embrace what i feel konjak is saying (games should be fun?)... what is the point of taking the 'fun' out of game other then some sort of self satisfaction in making an enjoyable experience unenjoyable??  Do i want to play 'art'?.. if that means making depressed then no.  no i dont.

[agj]

nor was there any colored-key-for-colored-door nonsense--the experience was pure

I take it you had some complaints with Knytt Stories then?  :D

Naw, it's just a different game with different objectives in mind, which don't necessarily fit those of its predecessor exactly. But the original is my favorite.


To Konjak and Annabelle:

Guys, let me make this clear: This thread is not about games as art, or anything like that. I have my own opinion on games being only vehicles for fun, but I'm not trying to bring that here. All I'm saying is that we need to understand the games we make, and the word 'fun' does not help us do that. Konjak, you make games that focus on action and excitement, and you actively try to make them fun through these means. Evidently, you have a good intuitive grasp of what it takes to make a fun game with your own personal branding. But you're obviously aware that your games are not fun because of some Magical Fun Jelly that you covered them on. So, were we to analyze, say, Noitu Love 2, we can't really say 'it's hella fun' and put the topic to rest, because that says nothing about all the little details you added, all the different options for controls and art you had to consider, the kind of pacing you put on the stream of enemies and bosses, etc. 'Fun', in the end, tells us nothing but our own gut reaction to the sum of the parts, which is important, but does not help us understand a game.


edit: Sorry, I tried to narrow down the subject of this thread because previous threads about 'games as art' have gotten a little out of hand.

[Zaphos]

But you're obviously aware that your games are not fun because of some Magical Fun Jelly that you covered them on. So, were we to analyze, say, Noitu Love 2, we can't really say 'it's hella fun' and put the topic to rest

This seems kind of like a straw man -- I don't see people really doing that?  At least, not the people who would read and be influenced by this thread ...

I think gut reactions do help us understand games, though.  They're sort of a core truth -- beyond that, a lot of analysis can go wrong, people can misattribute their enjoyment in any number of ways, but the gut reaction is kind of the raw experimental data that we can always come back to.  I don't see a way to remove that from your understanding of a game.

[konjak]

It's just a recent conglomeration against calling games fun lately that has gotten to me a bit. My school of thought is that if you know good design, it'll come to you naturally and subconsciously. The very best in various fields of media have a "nack" for what they do. Analyze and dismember every aspect of their design and recreating it may still not make an equally great thing. I know that when I make games I just... make them. It becomes what it becomes from my lifetime of playing games.

I guess I'm simple-minded. I shouldn't be trying to shit on this thread as I'm not really into the discussion to begin with, I guess.  

[Super-Dot]

How about we have deep, meaningful discussions about game design without arbitrarily restricting vocabulary? I think omitting "fun" is more of an end than a means. If we talk about games on a deep enough level, I think we'll end up refraining from using "fun" anyway because it doesn't contribute much to the conversation. It's a useful word when discussing things generally, a less useful word when discussing things more specifically (sometimes (maybe)).

[Xion]

So wait, I'm still confused. What are you dudes trying to do with the word fun and why does it matter? If you're looking for another word to use in lieu of "fun" you're not gonna find one. Given that a ton of words in the English language can be interpreted in any number of ways, and that none of the words that can't are broad enough to define what you're trying to define, anything you come up with will be just as ambiguous as "fun." Maybe something from a different language?
Or are you just saying that games don't need to be fun? If that's the case then why all the talk about words and their meanings and all that jazz? And agj, when you say "All I'm saying is that we need to understand the games we make, and the word 'fun' does not help us do that," how does it not help?

rant.

And I still don't get why it matters.

[Marmaduke Slam]

Rather than asking "Why did you find it fun?" a better question would be "What did you enjoy?".

I wouldn't be able to tell you why I find things fun moreso than I can tell you what my favourite colour is. Of course, I can tell you what things I had fun doing, etc.

Also, I interpret this thread to be about getting more detailed feedback from people other than "I like it!" or "It was fun!" and put it all to good use. While I personally don't make games I don't think that "fun" is something you can really analyse, it would be much more effective to go by feedback from others and more importantly, feedback from yourself. If you find it fun, then there will probably be others out there that find it fun as well. People are similar on a lot of levels.

[J.G. Martins]

I think mostly everyone is missing the point.

First of all, this is about game designers. A game designer should have a deeper understanding of gaming principles than the general gamer. If a game designer simply says his game his fun, he won't be very credible, will he?

Yes, I am going to talk about Spore, independently of my opinions on it. When Will Wright was presenting his game, he didn't say "hey, Spore is fun, everyone buy it", he showed his mechanics, and he EXPLAINED why he thought it was fun. He told everybody what you could do, and why he decided what the possibilities should be what they were. That's what being a game designer is, in my opinion.

It's pretty bleedin' obvious a game needs to be fun, eesh. That's, again, OBVIOUSLY not the point. The point is that the game designer should be able to describe his game from a totally different perspective than the average gamer (who are allowed to say "that game is fun, NARF ), and add to and compose his game in such a way that he believes will make the game fun.

I totally agree with agj on this

[KniteBlargh]

I could be completely wrong, but shouldn't this thread be on the General board instead of Art and Design?

What if there really isn't much to say about a game in the first place? The two games I'm developing are stupid, and that's probably what I'll say, because it's pretty much the truth. "Greetings. This game is stupid." Most people that will download them will probably only download them because they want to see how stupid they are even though I won't mention what makes them stupid. I think using the word fun would make more sense than awesomesaucer or however you spell it. I mean, at least it's a real word.

If anyone wants to think that I'm still missing the point, don't waste your finger energy on replying to this post. I've already wasted MY finger energy on this post!

[Zaratustra]

 

OK I'm going to try this one last time.

jesus people he's not saying you can't call a game fun or that you should replace all instances of the word 'fun' with 'qxerbadleedle' or whatever daft concept you're coming up after reading the topic title and like three words of the article.

The point, rather radically made I may add, is that there's no point for a game design to think of 'fun' as a quality one can simply inject into the game as the aforementioned Magical Fun Jelly. Making games fun is a complex process which you seem unwilling to discuss, instead demolishing the whole exercise as useless or flying platitudes in the air like so many kites that cannot be cut down by an opposing argument because they have no solidity in the first place.

My school of thought is that if you know good design, it'll come to you naturally and subconsciously.

Do you think anyone knows good game design? Perhaps Shiggy has the magical touch that makes everything he touch turn into a pile of gold, but from what I see, most developers have an inexplicable sequence of alternating successes and failures even they can't understand why. The Sonic Team hit a wall named 3D and never quite recovered. John Romero thought he was pretty clever, made you his bitch, and down he went. Will Wright has had as many flaming failures as shining successes. Game design is a crapshoot, and while you can't ensure a game's success, it's important to know as much as you can to give your baby the best chance as you hurl it into the bear cave.

[Valter]

I agree mostly with what konjak said. Games need to be fun, because no one would play them otherwise. Edmund makes his games not only with a deeper meaning intended, but also with entertainment in mind. Aether, for example, prominently featured symbolism and metaphor, but  he presented them in an entertaining form, using compelling puzzles that the players are satisfied with completing. Fun and Meaning have to be used in synthesis, with the Meaning providing the focus and point of playing, and Fun providing the motivation to continue.

Now, Zaratustra. Fun isn't vague. What it is a genre. "Entertainment" is a word used to describe video games, board games, videos, TV shows, and many other things. In the same way, "Fun" is a word used to describe all the parts of a game that make it enjoyable, such as innovation, control, story, art, music, and replayability. "Fun" is the sum of all the parts of a game that make it enjoyable to play. It would be just as ludicrous to say that we should stop using the term "Continent", because we should just refer to the Countries instead. Or stop saying the word "Earth", because we could just talk about the continents and oceans instead.

Fun, far from being vague, is actually one of the most important terms of video game design.


Also, Konjak was saying that it's the design that matters, not necessarily the person doing the designing. Most of the bad games you described were results of developers making rather poor design choices. Sonic Team's games started sucking when they switched to 3D, which was a poor design choice. Trying to have Sonic go at very high speeds in a 3D environment causes serious camera issues and control issues. The Castlevania franchise has done very well, except for Portrait of Ruin being criticized as one of the weakest entries. This is because the developers made a poor design choice in introducing anime elements into a game that should have been gothic.

Like Konjak said, good game design is essential to making good games, and when developers make poor design choices, they generally end up making poor games.

[Alex May]

Now, Zaratustra. Fun isn't vague. What it is a genre. "Entertainment" is a word used to describe video games, board games, videos, TV shows, and many other things. In the same way, "Fun" is a word used to describe all the parts of a game that make it enjoyable, such as innovation, control, story, art, music, and replayability. "Fun" is the sum of all the parts of a game that make it enjoyable to play. It would be just as ludicrous to say that we should stop using the term "Continent", because we should just refer to the Countries instead. Or stop saying the word "Earth", because we could just talk about the continents and oceans instead.

Fun, far from being vague, is actually one of the most important terms of video game design.

You've just specifically outlined how vague the term is.

"Fun" is a word used to describe all the parts of a game that make it enjoyable, such as innovation, control, story, art, music, and replayability. "Fun" is the sum of all the parts of a game that make it enjoyable to play.

Game X is fun. Now, knowing nothing about Game X, you must explain to me what it is about Game X that appeals to me.

[Valter]

Haowan, point is that you're not making sense. You might require perfect detail to know if you'll like a game, but other people don't. Most people enjoy all the aesthetics of "fun", like art, gameplay, replayability, innovation, and so forth. When you tell them a game is "fun", they generally know that at least one or all of those categories is good enough to make the game worth playing.

You might need precise details, but not everybody.

[Alex May]

Haowan, point is that you're not making sense. You might require perfect detail to know if you'll like a game, but other people don't. Most people enjoy all the aesthetics of "fun", like art, gameplay, replayability, innovation, and so forth. When you tell them a game is "fun", they generally know that at least one or all of those categories is good enough to make the game worth playing.

You might need precise details, but not everybody.

I am making sense; you're missing the point. In order to discuss game design, it's necessary to get into the details of why something is enjoyable. Saying, for example, "we should have pickups in this game because they're fun" is not good enough. "Pickups would give the player a reward for their platforming, break up dormant sections of levels, and we can let them know how many of the pickups they got out of the total which will give them a goal to achieve" is a little more involved and goes deeper into why this mechanic might be appropriate.

Again the thread is not about "most people", it is about game designers.

[Corpus]

I find reading Byron's poetry an immensely fun activity, Valter.

Do i want to play 'art'?.. if that means making depressed then no.  no i dont.

That's fair enough, Annabelle, but it should of course be pointed out that you are rather more emotionally delicate than the average bear. That you don't enjoy such games does not invalidate them, because a lot of other people do enjoy them, whether because they're miserablists, or because they are made to feel clever or "cultured" by such games, or simply because they derive genuine pleasure from playing them.