Interesting Questions

[Aldo]

So, I wanted to make a post where we can discuss actual interesting questions:

So, the first one is one I've been thinking about lately.

Do videogames have to be "fun" to play?

[Heart_Murmur]

No they don't, it all comes down to choice. You can choose to play the video game, but that doesn't mean its fun.

[Master_V12]

Call of Duty in Veteran is not really fun... but i still spent hours on it cause it was challenging. does that make it fun?

[Butterguts]

I disagree, the name Video Game implies fun. Game = Fun. If tag was about hitting yourself in the face with a hammer, I don't think it would be played by kids worldwide.

Call of Duty on Veteran isn't exactly fun, but "I feel", it does activate the same emotions that fun does. The since of accomplishment, like when getting through that god damn television station on Veteran can't be beat. And I feel it offers the same

What I mean, fun can be a lot of things for a lot of different people. Rather it be a deep and complex story, a challenge puzzle, mindless run and gun gameplay, or sniping an ostrich in the head on Cabella's Safari Hunt. Whatever you'd like to call it, it's fun.

[R_matey]

Did you go to that GDC talk about the relevance of games? I am not exactly sure what is was titled but I wanted to go to it and missed out.

[Master_V12]

I got like 10 of those free audio things, ill see if i can find it tonight, off to work right now

[R_matey]

Rad, I will look for it as well.

I think it is interesting to look at games and see what kind of realm there are trying to affect you on. There is a lot of run and gun games that are set up like obstacle courses and playgrounds where you are setting the player in a shooting gallery and having a fun button (shoot). But you can have a game like Rez , where it is very linear on rails shooter, but it uses the media in a completely different way. You have a experience through vibrant visuals, dynamic music, and vibration all synchronized together to give you something completely new. Overall it feels good and "fun" but it is more like a good concert or rave than say a plastic playground.  Designers like Mizuguichi go for digital experiences rather than "people like shooting things so lets do that",that kind of thinking interests me in game design. 

[Aldo]

I talked to Swink about this the other day, and he used a word I really liked, "Engaging". I think there's a split, where some people believe videogames should be fun, while other's agree that there is a whole plethora of reactions/payoff that can be accomplished with games. Like the example with Call of Duty on Veteran difficulty...it's not really fun, but it's engaging. Even say, with Final Fantasy...I know personally, I couldn't say I've had "fun" playing those games, but I've played almost all of them and really liked all of them (even though 8 kinda sucked)...does that make them...bad games or not games at all? or are there people who do find FUN in them and so I'm just not the 'norm'?

I think "fun" is one of the easier things to achieve...along with 'challenge'...like...before great stories and realistic characters and voiceovers and whatever else....you could either make your game "fun" (mario?) or you can make it "challenging" (galaga?)...and sometimes a mixture of both...but as game evolved, it became easier to get other experiences...such as horror (resident evil), or whatever you'd call something like REZ.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with fun games or really any deficiency there, but I believe that the industry is at that point (if it hasn't gotten past it already) that it's gonna expand, and to just think games have to be "fun" is sorta like "old thinking"...because they can be so much more.

and to Vern's Game = fun....what about games like Risk or chess....I wouldn't say chess is a "fun" game, but it's definitely engaging and filled with strategy and there is a sense of accomplishment when you win.

[Butterguts]

What I meant was everyone has different explanation of fun. I could care less about Rez, it doesn't interest me, I don't think it looks fun. If I wanted crazy visuals and music, I'd watch window visualizer. But I like Halo, when I know Matey doesn't. Those are our definitions of fun.

I think the Indie Game wave is great, I dig lots of the stuff thats out there. But I don't think it will cause a Revolution and shake the foundations of the Game Industry. Everyone of us has a jaded opinion about games in general. You wouldn't be in this school or on this forum if you didn't. But the general public could give 2 fucks, I think. Honestly, I feel that's sad, but that's the way things go. Playing games with friends that aren't in this school, blows my mind to hear what they are looking forward too. Dark Sector??? are you serious. Which is why games like Gears and Halo will always do better then the Fez's and World's of Goos.

And to clear my previous statement up, and make it a little clearer after having time to think about it. I'd say games don't have to be fun for everyone, but rather offer some since of achievement or accomplishment. For, instance when you win a game of chess, or pin an opponent in a Canada at Risk. Both accomplishments. A more current example is I'm playing Army of Two, which is a fairly generic shoot'em up. But after clearing out of a room of 30 bad guys and kicking a dude over a balcony, there's a since of achievement. All games should make a player feel like that much of a bad-ass.

[airrunkle]

I've been reading "A Theory of Fun for Game Design" by Raph Koster, and he sees the word fun as a term that is really a bunch of things lumped together.

• Fun is when you mentally master a problem
• Aesthetic appreciation isn't necessarily fun, but it adds to the good time
• Visceral reactions are related to physically mastering a task or skill set
• Social status maneuvers relate to our self-image and community standing

Many games use several of these but not all are required for a fun experience.  Engaging seems like it would be a given with a video game, and would fall under visceral reaction.  Games teach the player patterns that when recognized, are fun.  Without this key ingredient, fun, it would not be a game.

[R_matey]

I really enjoy seeing the presentations that "That Game Company" does on this. They see game design  as different islands , where each of their new games are traveling and discovering new areas.  They get a lot slake from people here and there but overall their games are a nice change from the "fun" norm; and are creating a niche for themselves.

[Aldo]

I don't really agree with that definition of fun. If a girl comes up to me and says, hey, you wanna go out and mentally master a problem....I wouldn't go....that doesn't sound fun. For example, I don't think modeling is fun, but I do like doing it...cause it gives me a feeling of accomplishment and I do like the 'product' of modeling. Same with games...final fantasy isn't fun, but I like getting to see the story progress and sometime, beating enemies that are tough and stuff like that. I googled fun...and here's what I came up with:

activities that are enjoyable or amusing; "I do it for the fun of it"; "he is fun to have around"

I agree with the idea that Raph is proposing though...I just wouldn't call it "fun"...but then again..."Fun for game design'...so...I guess this is what 'fun' would be in JUST game design....hmm..guess he had to call it something. Cause I was sitting here thinking of what I would call it...and couldn't' really come up with anything better. I assume when we all say fun though, we meant "enjoyable or amusing". I also think of the original silent hill...that game scared the shit out of me...especially the beginning...I even considered just quit playing...but...I wanted to see where it went..I wanted to find out what was around the next corner...but I didn't even really ENJOY playing...and it wasn't amusing at all. I wasn't really mastering a skill or anything like that...It's like...the same thing as when you're a kid and you watch a scary movie...nothing good really comes from it, but you can't stop watching...it's just..engaging.

[Aldo]

They see game design  as different islands

I totally agree with them...and to me, the "world" that these islands are in, are the entire spectrum of human emotion...will it ever get to the point where we discover all the islands? Probably not, but I think there are a lot more islands than just 'fun' island or 'challenge' island....even though in this analogy, they would be more like chains of islands.

[Projkt]

I dunno if games have to be fun to play but i would say that games have to be enjoyable to play or why would you bother playing them. I think people play games because there is something in the process of playing them that they enjoy rather it be a challenge, learning something new, mastering an ability or skill, story telling,the experience of playing (playing a wii game) or just having fun.   

[Lu]

They don't have to be fun to play. as evidenced by the millions of chinese farmers that sell in game currency for MMO's

Also I highly doubt guys like Fatality enjoy playing games professionally, but they do it for the paycheck. I think I read an article where Fatality says he plays up to 16 hours a day and does nothing more than disects FPS's like it's a science.  Sometimes he has fun, but many times he says it's a grind, but it does pay off in the end when he's pulling in those 100,000 checks from tournaments.

While a game should ideally be fun, with the integration of "sport gaming" we'll start seeing games that were once fun, being turned into a money making machine; much like the NBA or NFL.

[ronbravo]

I agree with Swink and the other reply's that say games need to be engaging. I would also add that games have to hold some type of subjective value to the person playing it. I've seen many times when you'll have a person who loves a game that has been critically acclaimed as one of the worst things ever made. However, you will find someone who loves to play it. It's engaging and entertaining for that person and that's all that really matters.

[Aldo]

Ok, new question: I got this one off of Kotaku, who got it off of another guy's blog...can't remember who at the moment. But the question is: If you could unmake a game for any reason....and it would mean that the game never existed, so all the conventions it set, or all the bad memories it left...or the genre it spawned...all that stuff wouldn't exist....so, which game would you unmake?

[TeacupBandit]

Personally, I would probably unmake Two Worlds. This is a game I personally couldnt play for more than a half an hour. 1. The graphics seem good at first, but when you finally get into it, after all of the lag, you see that everything is chunky. Some have said that it is my video card and my comp. Well, trust me, that is not an issue with my hardware. But when random things randomly pop into the view and your enemies randomly are behind you when a second ago you were putting a spear through their head, something is not right. 2. The gameplay was horrible. It took me almost the whole time to figure out the controls. The combat and AI was borderline unbearable. Good luck on horseback. 3. The story wasn't even close to being up to par and was filled with every cliche in the book. 4. It really seemed like a bad knock-off of Oblivion.

[R_matey]

You missed the whole point of the question teacup. Good try? Nothing has been influenced or spawned of off two worlds.

I would go back and unmake Kill Switch. It is the bases that all shooters have taken with run and gun cover. Gears of War is more known for this mechanic but Kill Switch was first. I am not a big fan of the cover system because it seems to make shooters into third person Time Crisis game. I like what they did for Army of Two with a very loose cover system and Medal of Honor Airborne's duck and peek mechanic.   Other than that, it seems the duck and cover system is almost the main back bone of recent shooters. It is a easy path for game designers per say.

[Decker]

You missed the whole point of the question teacup. Good try? Nothing has been influenced or spawned of off two worlds.

You are right, Teacup bandit, you should really put more thought into your posts

[TeacupBandit]

You missed the whole point of the question teacup. Good try?

How did I miss the question?

[ronbravo]

I would take back good ideas. That way they can't be copied with lesser uncool versions. Perfect example:

Street Fighter II

Street Fighter II the Moive Game.


Naw but in all seriousness, I'd probably say whatever popularized the idea that MMO's can only be RPGs. Seems like there are already a bunch of companies and IPs jumping on the MMO hype but do the majority of them have to be RPGs? I gave up grinding before I graduated from high school which is when I had more time to do that kind of stuff. Plus seems like there are so many other genres of games that would be cool as MMOs but without the RPG elements.

[Moose]

Missed the first question so Ill just pretend it never existed.. as for the second...

Tough call, my knee jerk response would be WoW. Mainly for the following reasons:
1.) Its awesome 'exposure' and success is often touted as a boon for mmo and mmo development, but the runaway success of it has destroyed the market for development. The question in mmos is no longer is the game good, its hey is this a wow killer and umm no way can you make an mmo thats decent for less than a billion dollars. Both of which are stupid things for an entire genre to have to live up to.

2.) It was a rip off IP and its repackaged itself well but ultimately its grown to be the beast it is basically from stealing another companies idea... and that perpetuates the problem of no new ideas being able to be presented. now its this way or it simply wont get funding.

those are big generalizations but all in all I think the core statements have merit.


Upon some further reflection though I think I would actually go with Final fantasy 7.
I think you would be hard pressed to argue that that game is a benchmark in the industry and dramatically altered the landscape of game design forever.

It was one of the first games to include such massive amounts of content, plus 'cinematic' type cut scenes. Then you get into all the other things they did so well that it forevermore changed peoples expectations for how the rpg genre should be tackled.

I mean I have to like it since it was a very slick game, but ultimately I wonder if some of these titles havent done more harm than good when you talk about stifling creativity within the field. Meh I dunno, I guess I could be argued out of my stance fairly easily but you have to wonder.. where have all the independent companies really gone? The start ups and garage style dev. Those games have done a lot to hinder the market by making the initial costs so outlandish that taking a risk on a new IP is something that has become increasingly rare.

[Butterguts]

I would undo games that broke series that I love.

Dave Mirra BMX Challenge/BMXXX. I loved the Dave Mirra Games for PS1 & PS2. BMXXX destroyed Z-axis the developer(which was bought by Activision in 2002) of the 1st 2 games. Dave Mirra BMX Challenge killed that franchise.

Twisted Metal 3 & 4. Twisted Metal 2, awesome...  Twisted Metal Black, awesome.... 3 & 4 were stains on the franchise.

[R_matey]

You missed the whole point of the question teacup. Good try?

How did I miss the question?

The thought provoking side of taking a game out of histroy, that would alter the path of games. If Mario never came out, would there be platformers today, and such. Nobody cared about Two Worlds when it came out and nobody will ever care about Two Worlds again.

[Aldo]

Speaking of games that disappoint..how about deus ex 2...I had so much hope.

I think as for games that I would seriously unmake...as much as I enjoyed playing the games (I was young)...I would say I'd unmake Postal and by extension: Postal 2. To me, they are a big part of the reason politicians focus so much on videogames because they were so blatant in their stance of being able to do 'anything' that I think it left a bad taste about videogames in the mouth's of people who didn't know much about videogames. I think alot of companies would make more mature games if there wasn't the backlash of bad press and I think without games like postal that basically made the game FOR the bad press...the press wouldn't care too to make videogames look 'bad'

to follow Bravo's idea, I'd unmake any game that ended up as a bad movie..(which is pretty much any more based on a game).

[R_matey]

to follow Bravo's idea, I'd unmake any game that ended up as a bad movie..(which is pretty much any more based on a game).

Good thing Mortal Kombat doesn't fit that criteria because those movies were awesome. Postal, if you take out Postal you are going to ruin all the other First Person Peeing games.

[Butterguts]

I'd probably say whatever popularized the idea that MMO's can only be RPGs

Speaking of that, you should check out APB, it's an MMO done by RealTime Worlds. Not RPG based at all, more like the GTA MMO that everyones being wishing for.

http://www.1up.com/do/gameOverview?cId=3143424