next »

[Captain_404]

I know this is a touchy subject, so let's try to keep discussion at a certain level of civility, but please, above all be honest.

I've been pondering recently the question of what exactly people want from games? Particularly, the main complaint leveled against "art games" is that they're not fun. But what is fun exactly? (hooray for the horribly ambiguous question!) I don't think it's what people believe it is, or at least, when they say they want a game to be fun, that's not exactly what they mean.

Many people here point to SotC as an example of what a good marriage of a fun and meaningful game could be like, but when was the last time you really saw someone giddy while playing this game? It's not a fun game, it's engaging, which is a different thing entirely (hence my thread title).

Further along this line of thought, why is it that some people find games like Passage engaging, while others seems to be simply bored by it? Not that I want to discuss Passage in particular, it's just an easy example. My question is, what makes some people react so negatively to games of this nature, accusing them of having no gameplay or not being games at all? Being someone who really enjoys these kinds of games, I'm honestly asking because I want to understand the opposite view.

People will sit for hours to watch a movie or read a book, essentially doing nothing but observing the material. Yet in games, if players aren't allowed to interact in the particular way they want, they get bored or frustrated by the experience (discounting the majority of the population that tolerates cutscenes).

I guess really what I'm trying to get at is what makes an engaging game? Are we limiting ourselves too much by saying only certain kinds of games can be engaging?

[falsion]

Way to take my arguments and turn them into a strawman. I'm not even sure if I should even bother to reply to you since you misrepresented everything I said utterly and completely.

I said nothing about fun. Fun is important, but it was not what I was talking about. I talking about gameplay depth. How the hell you managed to turn what I said into an arguement over fun is beyond me.

And for those not familiar with what he's talking about, read the thread about whether or not we should have more non-violent games. Read my posts and you can see exactly what this guy is talking about, and misrepresenting entirely.

Seriously, this is just disrespectful. I'm really upset that someone would resort to something this low to try to discredit me.

[Shade Jackrabbit]

EDIT: Falsion, I didn't know you had said anything when I wrote this. So sorry that this ignores whatever you said.

I'll start by saying this: Paul Blart: Mall Cop is a movie. The Shining is a movie. Lord of the Rings is a movie. Mouse Hunt is a movie. Singing in the Rain is a movie. Schindler's List is a movie.

Movies are technically "moving pictures". But most people would probably define them as being "entertaining."

Argument #1:
A game can be defined as "An activity providing entertainment or amusement". So we could all agree games are "entertaining".

Therefor Schindler's List is "entertaining". Now, "fun" can be defined as "something that provides mirth or amusement". And therefor something doesn't have to be "fun" to be "entertaining". Therefor games don't have to be "fun" to still be games.

Argument #SJ:
ur gay

Argument #2:
A movie is specifically a "moving picture", and therefor people referring to movies in general as entertaining are wrong. Games though, on the other hand, must provide entertainment or amusement for them to qualify as such. Philosophical revelation, self-discovery, and other such musings do not count as "entertainment". Therefor any game that does not try to be "fun" is not actually a game, but "interactive art".

Argument #3:
Most people think of games as being fun, so whether this is true or not to the definition of games, developers who are making games that "gamers" _{(the "true" enthusiasts of the medium)} would not enjoy should clearly state that their games are not "games" in the generally accepted terminology.

Argument #4:
Who cares? Games are whatever you think they are. Hell, I could think an apple is a pear and I'd be right because things are different depending on how I percieve them.

My opinion:
I'm pretty split on the issue. I'd probably take stance with #3, just due to the way it would affect reception of the software.

[falsion]

I'll start by saying this: Paul Blart: Mall Cop is a movie. The Shining is a movie. Lord of the Rings is a movie. Mouse Hunt is a movie. Singing in the Rain is a movie. Schind[...]

Please don't even bother replying to this until the author of this post can at least attack something that I actually said. Seriously, it really irks me that someone would do something like this.

[Shade Jackrabbit]

I'll start by saying this: Paul Blart: Mall Cop is a movie. The Shining is a movie. Lord of the Rings is a movie. Mouse Hunt is a movie. Singing in the Rain is a movie. Schind[...]

Please don't even bother replying to this until the author of this post can at least attack something that I actually said. Seriously, it really irks me that someone would do something like this.

Oh, man, sorry, for some reason when I clicked "preview" for my post, it didn't show that you had said anything yet. I was responding to the OP.

But that doesn't give you the right to be a dick about it. Cool down, okay? This is a legitimate issue which should probably be handled in a different thread.

[Captain_404]

Way to take my arguments and turn them into a strawman. I'm not even sure if I should even bother to reply to you since you misrepresented everything I said utterly and completely.

I said nothing about fun. Fun is important, but it was not what I was talking about. I talking about gameplay depth. How the hell you managed to turn what I said into an arguement over fun is beyond me.

And for those not familiar with what he's talking about, read the thread about whether or not we should have more non-violent games. Read my posts and you can see exactly what this guy is talking about, and misrepresenting entirely.

Seriously, this is just disrespectful. I'm really upset that someone would resort to something this low to try to discredit me.

I have no intention of dumbing down any argument, or discrediting anyone at all. This post isn't in reaction to anything you've said to begin with. It's a question I've been tossing around in my head for the past few days and I thought it would help to post it here and maybe get some things straightened out.

I encourage you to please post your arguments here, in their fullest and most inscrutable, I in no way want to appear as trying to dilute anything you've said.

How the hell you managed to turn what I said into an arguement over fun is beyond me.

I think this suggests we may not even be talking about the same thing.

Still, I'd love for you to express your opinions on the subject in this thread, I assure you this isn't any kind of personal attack.

[falsion]

I'll start by saying this: Paul Blart: Mall Cop is a movie. The Shining is a movie. Lord of the Rings is a movie. Mouse Hunt is a movie. Singing in the Rain is a movie. Schind[...]

Please don't even bother replying to this until the author of this post can at least attack something that I actually said. Seriously, it really irks me that someone would do something like this.

Oh, man, sorry, for some reason when I clicked "preview" for my post, it didn't show that you had said anything yet. I was responding to the OP.

But that doesn't give you the right to be a dick about it. Cool down, okay? This is a legitimate issue which should probably be handled in a different thread.

Well, he could have replied to what I said in that thread instead of turning it into a strawman and trying to turn it into an argument over fun (when I never said that) then hide it by saying "some people" although who is replying to is pretty clear here.

[Dacke]

falsion, I've been reading most of what you've been posting today. I'm honestly a bit curious: are you trolling or not? Or just at times?

[falsion]

Captain_404: http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=7210.msg230788#msg230788

It's pretty clear to me. What you are talking about is pretty much the same thing I was talking about in the "should we have more non-violent games" thread, except you somehow turned this into a discussion over fun when I clearly was talking about gameplay depth.

[falsion]

falsion, I've been reading most of what you've been posting today. I'm honestly a bit curious: are you trolling or not? Or just at times?

Only in that thread about girls, but then again a lot of people were.

But, no I am really disappointed right now. I'm completely serious about this. Read the thread about if we should "have more non-violent video games." This is copied verbatim from that very thread.

[Shade Jackrabbit]

Well, he could have replied to what I said in that thread instead of turning it into a strawman and trying to turn it into an argument over fun (when I never said that) then hide it by saying "some people" although who is replying to is pretty clear here.

I have no intention of dumbing down any argument, or discrediting anyone at all. This post isn't in reaction to anything you've said to begin with. It's a question I've been tossing around in my head for the past few days and I thought it would help to post it here and maybe get some things straightened out.

I encourage you to please post your arguments here, in their fullest and most inscrutable, I in no way want to appear as trying to dilute anything you've said.

[...]

Still, I'd love for you to express your opinions on the subject in this thread, I assure you this isn't any kind of personal attack.

Now you two kids play nice.

[Captain_404]

I've glanced through the thread you linked to, and I do think some of my own thoughts may have been influenced by ideas expressed there, at least subliminally (the example if SotC seems particularly suspicious).

Still, I believe this is a completely different topic, and again, I don't want to discredit you. I do wish you'd present your own argument, instead of calling this thread pure strawman (which is ad hominem of itself isn't it? ).

I want above all else to encourage true discussion, and if that can't be achieved, I hope some mod will lock or delete this. It may just be bad timing for this discussion.

[mirosurabu]

I didn't notice that OP was talking about you falsion. Did I miss something in his post or is it some kind of mind-reading?

Answer to the topic: fanboyism, no? Oh well, maybe it's the presentation; it creates false expectancies which in turn lead to anger. There are thousands of possible explanations.

[Afinostux]

I think the best metric of fun is simply how well the game fills a need. If you don't need the game for whatever reason, it will not be fun. I know this is a bit general. It's sort of a half formed observation at this point, but I'll show you where I'm coming from.

People find art games fun when the art game tells them something they need to hear. An art game without an intended message is just a game, and if it's lacking in gameplay, it will be panned as such. A really good example is Daniel Benmergui. Today I die is fantastic to me, because the first time I played it, I was into some hard times, and I found it incredibly uplifting. However, I think Story Teller is crappy to me because it has absolutely nothing to say to me. Similarily I don't like passage because what it has to say means nothing to me, despite having a far stronger message than StoryTeller.

Conversely, traditional competitive games are more fun for other reasons, more due to the function rather than the form, but still because they satisfy a need. For instance, Unreal tournament satisfies my need to unwind, because it caters to my desire to break things when I am frustrated. TA Spring is fun when I need to think clearly, because it has the same micromanagement and deception as starcraft, except huge. Recently I've found that games that offer accomplishment at one thing or another to be no fun, because I feel that I accomplish far more when programming or doing something more creative.

I'm not sure how clear that was, but my basic observation is that games are fun when they resonate with you personally, and they resonate best when they let you do something you need to do, or hear something you need to hear.

Also, I feel that game designs are stronger when they refine their delivery to a single need. I have less evidence to back this up, but as a player I find that the less focused a design is, the more it directs me towards things I don't want to do. With a cleaner design, it is up to the player. I think 'hybrid' is a dangerous term because it is typically bandied about by people who think designing something better means adding more things to it. Hybrids are not necessarily a death sentence, however. On this very board, Spelunky is a hybrid with a terrifically focused design.

I have taken a crapton of time writing this and a bunch of stuff has been posted by now, so I'll end it here. Looking at what has been posted apparently I missed something important because game design = drama

[falsion]

How are you going to argue about someone saying art games are not fun, when nobody ever even said that?

Read that post and it's clear that I was talking about gameplay depth and whether there is more to a game than just being able to do a single action. And about how people should try to find new kinds of innovative gameplay, even in old genres of gaming.

Sorry, I get worked up when people take things I say or even other threads and try to spin them into something else.

[Shade Jackrabbit]

How are you going to argue about someone saying art games are not fun, when nobody ever even said that?

Read that post and it's clear that I was talking about gameplay depth and whether there is more to a game than just being able to do a single action. And about how people should try to find new kinds of innovative gameplay, even in old genres of gaming.

Sorry, I get worked up when people take things I say or even other threads and try to spin them into something else.

Falsion, you're really pissing me off because this is a topic I really care about because I have run into people OUTSIDE OF THE FORUM who have this feeling towards art games. So let me say this loud and clear:

THIS TOPIC HAS NOTHING TO FUCKING DO WITH WHATEVER YOU SAID IN THE PAST

Unless you want to offer an opinion. In which case, go ahead. Offer an opinion. About THIS TOPIC.

[falsion]

How are you going to argue about someone saying art games are not fun, when nobody ever even said that?

Read that post and it's clear that I was talking about gameplay depth and whether there is more to a game than just being able to do a single action. And about how people should try to find new kinds of innovative gameplay, even in old genres of gaming.

Sorry, I get worked up when people take things I say or even other threads and try to spin them into something else.

Falsion, you're really pissing me off because this is a topic I really care about because I have run into people OUTSIDE OF THE FORUM who have this feeling towards art games. So let me say this loud and clear:

THIS TOPIC HAS NOTHING TO FUCKING DO WITH WHATEVER YOU SAID IN THE PAST

Unless you want to offer an opinion. In which case, go ahead. Offer an opinion. About THIS TOPIC.

Then present some arguments they've made, not a regurgitated version of my posts from the non-violent games thread that are complete misrepresentations of exactly what I fucking said.

Read my post history, around page 3-ish. It's pretty glaringly fucking obvious.

[Dacke]

falsion, I think you should take a step back and relax. Captain_404 is asking a question that could be asked completely independently of the context you are referring to. I'd advice you to try to look at it as such.

I think you can turn your indignation into this argument:
Captain_404: Do you have any proof that "people" have this view on fun and games? What do you base your claims on?

[falsion]

falsion, I think you should take a step back and relax. Captain_404 is asking a question that could be asked completely independently of the context you are referring to. I'd advice you to try to look at it as such.

I think you can turn your indignation into this argument:
Captain_404: Do you have any proof that "people" have this view on fun and games? What do you base your claims on?

Okay, yeah, that would be a lot better. That's a good question actually. I would much prefer that instead, and then discuss it. Because what's being refereed to in the OP is not what I intended with my posts at all in the non-violent games thread.

If you can give examples of things that other people actually said about art games not having fun, then I wouldn't take issue with this. And then we could talk. But taking things I said from an earlier thread and misrepresenting them is just disrespectful, even if you didn't mean to.

[mewse]

Yes, I do want fun games.

Your premise is flawed.