Post by: Pittbboi on February 01, 2007, 05:39:38 AM
With Nintendo's new console, fun has been ushered in as the new buzz word. The concept of Wii games being "fun" is used a lot in debates with fanboys of other consoles. Surely the one thing Nintendo's Wii offers over the other consoles is the greater propensity to be fun (ohhh that sentence was dirty). With the introduction of the Wii comes a revitalization of the ever-present idea that games can't just look good, but they have to be fun to play.
But what is fun in a game, really?
For Nintendo, it seems that "fun" is bright colors, basic but functional controls, pick up and play appeal, and an overall simplified graphical style. With the exception of a few games (Zelda: TP and Metroid come to mind), they employ this idea with every game they make. And lately, despite the general movement of the rest of the gaming industry towards HD and realism, Nintendo and its fans have held fast to their "cartoony" style and the idea that fun is all you need, and surely games like Mario Galaxy and Animal Crossing are going to prove it.
But could this be an idea that can possibly hold Nintendo back in some areas? Do games need to be fun to play?
For me, the answer isn't always yes. There's a certain genre for me in which "fun" doesn't really apply: RPGs.
RPGs are by far my favorite genre. The longer they are, the more stuff there is to collect, the better. Rarely does my gaming library stray from the RPG. But never have I really considered RPGs to be "fun". To me, fun isn't the most accurate adjective to describe most of them, at least not in the same way fun describes other genres. Looking up fun on dictionary.com, most of the definitions imply action, and excited activity. In my opinion, playing RPGs is like a comforting pastime. I do it slowly and I savor it. Playing an RPG to me is like reading a good book, especially now that technology has finally reached a point where the story-telling aspects of the genre can really shine. I feel calling an RPG fun is like calling a book fun, and fun is not really the word to describe a good book. The collecting, level-grinding and strategizing; the slow-pacing and the traveling from town to town all to get to that next big juicy bit of story doesn't seem to fit into the same definition of fun that most other genres do, if it even fits at all.
Nintendo, in their quest to make all of their games "fun" may be overlooking a genre that, for the most part, doesn't fit in. And maybe that's why their presence has been sorely lacking these last few gens.
What do you guys think? Agree? Disagree? Are there games/genres that you feel don't necessarily equal this ideal of fun, but are nevertheless great games?
Post by: jasonditz on February 01, 2007, 06:14:30 AM
Of course, co-op Tales of Symphonia is just flat out fun from start to finish.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 01, 2007, 06:15:28 AM
"Fun" has unfortunately become a bullsh!t word used by Nintendo fanboys. The suggestion being that Nintendo makes fun games and the types of games they don't make aren't fun and therefore Nintendo shouldn't focus on them. It means nothing. Good games are fun. If you like RPGs then RPGs are fun. You enjoy playing them.
All this "fun" talk is because Nintendo said that people were getting bored of gaming as is and a lot of people jumped on that and started acting as if they were bored with current gaming and thus needed the DS touchscreen and Wii remote in order to continue enjoying games. It's just following what Nintendo says.
If you define fun as involving a lot of action and having to play a certain way then games need not be fun. Games should provide entertainment.
Post by: Koekoenutt on February 01, 2007, 06:16:17 AM
I've been reading the DS thread about the New Super Mario Bros. here, and I think that is a good example of where some gaming is going. A lot of people found NSMB to be to easy, and not competitive enough. While others found a lot of fun finding the gold coins hidden in the area, and exploring and conquering this mission was fun to them. I heard mention that there were to many 1UPs in the game. Things like this can ruin a great game. I know some people that don't like the Zelda series, becuase they say it is too easy with hearts in every other pot.
I think it is just an userbase opinion of what fun is, and I think it also matters what type of mood you are in. Sometimes Im just not willing to boot up WarioWare, but when I have only 15-20 mins to sit down and play, then I really look towards WarioWare. Other than that, WarioWare really dulls the hell out of me, but I wouldn't say the game isn't fun or isn't a good game. Every gaming company has their ideas and directions, so of course each company will miss out in "Some areas".
Post by: Strell on February 01, 2007, 06:17:22 AM
Chrono Trigger, Earthbound, and FF6 were fun.
This is why modern RPGs suck. Because they are not fun. They are bags of tired cliches and overused bullsh*t.
Post by: MaryJane on February 01, 2007, 06:17:24 AM
I disagree on this being the reason Nintendo's presence hasn't been felt. The complete opposite is true, to this point in time the Wii is Nintendo's most successful console since the SNES. I remember during the N64 and GC launch, the next month boxes sat cold on the shelves. I still can't buy a Wii for myself today. Fun is what is getting Nintendo's Wii to where they are now with the DS. I also think this it's a ploy by Nintendo, hey look our games are fun! Hey look it's Metroid! You know, start them on one thing, and them bring them something else.
Fun is really a general term, in a sense if you enjoy something it's fun. However, a lot of used to be kids that now consider themselves adults (people around my age) are afraid of having fun, and being grouped with children, I say let it live. I wish I was still a kid.
WOAH this thread blew up, it's in direct response to the first post, as I haven't even read those that managed to get in before me.
Post by: bustin98 on February 01, 2007, 06:17:27 AM
If its not boring, not painful, not deadly, then maybe it is fun. Fun is more than running around laughing. And its so subjective. For some people, a little pain IS fun. So then you have to call in what defines pain.
I think you're being a little to simplistic in describing Nintendo games. But whatever. A game boils down to gameplay, not graphics. Its the timing, its the putting together clues, its the conversations with characters. The challange to accomplish the task set before you. Sure, Mario Tennis is bright and colorful, but unless your timing is spot on, you'll get your ass handed to you by someone who can hit the button at the right time while using strategy to move you to the wrong side of the court.
Same with RPGs. Its nice that FF has cool cut scenes that advance the story, but when you are playing, you have an objective to accomplish and as long as you are entertained while doing so, its fun.
I can be anal about collecting things in games, and so I will put up with alot just to collect. But when it stops entertaining, thats when a new game is popped in.
Post by: Arbok on February 01, 2007, 06:18:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
But never have I really considered RPGs to be "fun". To me, fun isn't the most accurate adjective to describe most of them, at least not in the same way fun describes other genres.
I love RPGs, my favorite genre next to strategy games. I love them due to the sense of being able to build slowly overtime (which is why I loved Diablo 2 with the skill tree and careful selection of points to maximize potentional based on your concept for the build).
My love for the genre doesn't come from their stories alone, though, but really a mix of gameplay and storylines. My favorites in the genre, for example, tend to be Super Mario RPG, Tales of Symphonia, Diablo and the Pokémon series. Games which couldn't be said to have a great storylines, but the games were fun and are enjoyable to play. Strategy RPGs in particular catch my interest, and since we are getting Fire Emblem that's reason enough for me to be excited at this stage. For me a game has to be fun, regardless of the story, as if its not I likely won't continue to play it.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 01, 2007, 06:32:29 AM
Definitions gets obscured when people use "fun" to describe the sense of satisfaction they generate, which might not even apply to the nature of the game.
Nintendo's lack of RPG support is mostly due to being a "horrible" company that did not aggressively seek out 3rd party support and wasn't the market leader, who believed that "their" games had adequate strength to compete. Nintendo the software developer is focusing on its fun games AS USUAL, but Nintendo the console market penetrator is responsible for expanding its userbase and support. It was their "mistake" as a game platform provider to focus mostly on their own games.
Do no forget that the popular RPGs are provided by finnicky 3rd parties. They'll jump into the swimming pool with most space, even if Nintendo's VIP jacuzi has bubbly jets and scented water.
Post by: JonLeung on February 01, 2007, 06:47:13 AM
Perhaps I'm too forgiving. I kep bragging about getting maximum Bells (one short of a billion) in both Animal Crossing and Animal Crossing: Wild World. But both involved tedious daily tasks that I had to do every day for a couple months. If you were to ask me at any time during those months if I was having fun, well, I don't think I'd be exactly joyous. However, at the end and even now when I could show off that post office model/town hall model and gloat in your face, I could be having fun.
Similarly, I play Wii Sports (Fitness Age) every day even when I'm physically tired, and Brain Age every day even when I'm mentally fatigued. I think I do enjoy it - most of the time. Some days I feel like I'm just obligated to, or even that Nintendo has enslaved me via their daily-based games. o_0 But when I finish all of the Daily Training in Brain Age each day, I do feel like it's another accomplishment.
Accomplishments = satisfaction, which can be part of that entertainment and fun.
Post by: Kairon on February 01, 2007, 07:11:03 AM
So, definitely Mario games are engaging. And so are Zelda games, which are more atmospheric than the gameplay-focused Mario games. And then Mario Superstar Saga had story and humor tied into it's action-platform-rpg gameplay that made it the game it was and made it beloved by all. In fact, it's the quick and toilet-witty humor that seems to captivate you enough to make you want to commit to playing Wario Ware for 2 hours in 5 seconds chunks: where's the gameplay in hitting A as many times as possible to sniff the snot back upin your nose(which, by the way, is pure genius)? For that matter, what's so engaging in petting dogs, or throwing frisbees? There can't really be much, but by god Nintendogs had something about it or Famitsu wouldn't have given it a 40/40 and it wouldn't have sold 11+ million copies worldwide. And if we're taking dogs for walks... why can't we improve our brain? Why can't we count things and read out loud and why can't we do sudoku puzzle?
Why can't we go from Platform, to Action-Adventure, to Action-RPG, to Humor Based Minigames, to Minigame based Virtual Pets, to Brain exercising software and... if its engaging all the way through... why can't we call all those things games? And why shouldn't they exist, and be respected, and be seen as as much a part of the industry as bald space marines shooting aliens with plasma rifles?
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 01, 2007, 07:30:22 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 01, 2007, 07:31:40 AM
Post by: Rhoq on February 01, 2007, 07:32:03 AM
Post by: Pittbboi on February 01, 2007, 07:52:14 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 01, 2007, 07:53:38 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
To me, gameplay in an RPG can add a fun aspect to it sometimes, but I still don't think fun is the main attraction. Do people read books because they're fun? Or collect stamps? or knit? They're engaging, they comfort you, they pass the time. But how many people actually consider these things "fun"?
I consider reading to be fun and engaging, along with both "casual" and "hardcore" games as well. It is possible to be both.
Post by: MaryJane on February 01, 2007, 08:03:30 AM
Movies; Half Baked was a fun movie, because, well, it was funny. Braveheart is one of my all-time favorite movies, but I wouldn't call it fun, it wasn't even fun watching it especially since he dies at the end, but it was very enjoyable, I think engaging would be the best term for it.
I think games are the same way, but because of their interaction the term can meld more. WiiSports is just pure fun. Zelda on the other hand is adventurous, and to use the word again, engaging, but there are fun parts like when puts sheaths his sword with all that extra unneccessary movement, I smiled every time he did it, and would often do it just for fun, riding Epona, then getting off just to kill somethin insignificant, just to see him sheath his sword in that manner.
Post by: Kairon on February 01, 2007, 08:18:57 AM
For example, I find Brain Age's calculation's exercise engaging. I love doing simple math problems as fast as I can, it's like a quick-button-pressing-minigame-sequence!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Strell on February 01, 2007, 08:25:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
To me, gameplay in an RPG can add a fun aspect to it sometimes, but I still don't think fun is the main attraction. Do people read books because they're fun? Or collect stamps? or knit? They're engaging, they comfort you, they pass the time. But how many people actually consider these things "fun"?
You live in a sad world. Filled with sad things. In a very sad way.
Post by: Pittbboi on February 01, 2007, 08:39:14 AM
Some things that people do in their spare aren't fun. Sometimes fun isn't the right description. If you can explain to me why you would call sitting in a comfortable chair with your favorite blanket, pleasant music in the background and good book and cup of coffee "fun!" go right ahead. To me, that's pleasant, that's comforting and relaxing. But it's not fun. Fun implies something missing from the experience. I put most RPGs I play into the same category.
Post by: IceCold on February 01, 2007, 09:18:42 AM
QuoteI'll have to strongly disagree with this. If you play today's RPGs for the story, and actually consider them good, then there is nothing I can do to help you. 99.99% of videogame stories are cliché, trite and just poorly written in general. There are few exceptions, Eternal Darkness being one. The worst culprits are the RPGs today. I didn't play Tales of Symphonia for the horrible story, but rather for the gameplay experience. If you want good stories, I'd advise you to look elsewhere. Strell had a wonderful quote a while back about Final Fantasy games that perfectly describes my opinion on them - something to do with pre-pubescent children and artefacts. Wish I could find it.
. I do it slowly and I savor it. Playing an RPG to me is like reading a good book, especially now that technology has finally reached a point where the story-telling aspects of the genre can really shine. I feel calling an RPG fun is like calling a book fun, and fun is not really the word to describe a good book. The collecting, level-grinding and strategizing; the slow-pacing and the traveling from town to town all to get to that next big juicy bit of story doesn't seem to fit into the same definition of fun that most other genres do, if it even fits at all.
Nintendo, in their quest to make all of their games "fun" may be overlooking a genre that, for the most part, doesn't fit in. And maybe that's why their presence has been sorely lacking these last few gens.
I wonder, do you find The Da Vinci Code to be a good book? Because that would explain a hell of a lot. Personally, I found that book reads like something which came straight out of a high school English class. Not only that, but it's like the student plagiarised from a history text and inserted the very same words into the dialogue. Yeah, it's that bad.
I guess that's why I love Nintendo/Miyamoto games so much. A plot that works within the context of the game, and serves to complement the gameplay. Not a pretentious, superfluous script which tries to be relevant. Kojima and his political commentaries in his games is one such example. In Mario games, if you can see it you can reach it. If you can think it, you can do it. They make your dreams come true. That matters infinitely more to me than the story.
By the way, I consider reading books to be great fun. I don't do them to pass time; I find reading good books to be incredibly enjoyable.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 01, 2007, 09:25:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceColdQuoteI'll have to strongly disagree with this. If you play today's RPGs for the story, and actually consider them good, then there is nothing I can do to help you. 99.99% of videogame stories are cliché, trite and just poorly written in general. There are few exceptions, Eternal Darkness being one. The worst culprits are the RPGs today. I didn't play Tales of Symphonia for the horrible story, but rather for the gameplay experience. If you want good stories, I'd advise you to look elsewhere. Strell had a wonderful quote a while back about Final Fantasy games that perfectly describes my opinion on them - something to do with pre-pubescent children and artefacts. Wish I could find it.
. I do it slowly and I savor it. Playing an RPG to me is like reading a good book, especially now that technology has finally reached a point where the story-telling aspects of the genre can really shine. I feel calling an RPG fun is like calling a book fun, and fun is not really the word to describe a good book. The collecting, level-grinding and strategizing; the slow-pacing and the traveling from town to town all to get to that next big juicy bit of story doesn't seem to fit into the same definition of fun that most other genres do, if it even fits at all.
Nintendo, in their quest to make all of their games "fun" may be overlooking a genre that, for the most part, doesn't fit in. And maybe that's why their presence has been sorely lacking these last few gens.
I wonder, do you find The Da Vinci Code to be a good book? Because that would explain a hell of a lot. Personally, I found that book read like something which came straight out of a high school English class. Not only that, but it's like the student plagiarised from a history text and inserted the words into the dialogue. Yeah, it's that bad.
I guess that's why I love Nintendo/Miyamoto games so much. A plot that works within the context of the game, and serves to complement the gameplay. Not a pretentious, superfluous script which tries to be relevant. Kojima and his political commentaries in his games is one such example. In Mario games, if you can see it you can reach it. If you can think it, you can do it. They make your dreams come true. That matters infinitely more to me than the story.
By the way, I consider reading books to be great fun. I don't do them to pass time; I find reading good books to be incredibly enjoyable.
I agree completely, people do different things to have "fun" to enjoy themselves. That can be anything from knitting, to reading a book, to watching a movie, to listening to music, to well ANYTHING that they find pleasant that helps to pass the time since it ENGAGES them. I would agree there could be different TYPES of fun, but to state that stuff like reading or any other activity besides playing games isn't "fun" is ludicrous to me.
Post by: Nick DiMola on February 01, 2007, 09:38:41 AM
Whether people want to admit it or not, alot of the Wii stuff is pretty gimmicky, but there are some great uses for the Wiimote and underneath the gimmick is some very enjoyable stuff. The whole "fun" push Nintendo has right now will eventually fall away and they will come up with some other marketing speak to lure in potential buyers.
Post by: Pittbboi on February 01, 2007, 09:44:18 AM
Quote
If you play today's RPGs for the story, and actually consider them good, then there is nothing I can do to help you. 99.99% of videogame stories are cliché, trite and just poorly written in general.
Well, I'm not saying RPGs are going to be winning any literary awards, but I've always had a fondness for the art of storytelling, and most stories will do. For me, I play jrpgs for the same reason I watch anime. Most don't ever leave the realm of the cliche (though FFXII certainly did give it a shot), but I can appreciate the various ways they deliver their stories.
Oh, and I love reading, too. I described reading as much more than just a pastime. However, if I'm in the mood to have fun, I don't sit down and read a book, I go out and do something with friends. When I want to have a quiet afternoon/night in I generally pick up a book. I think that's the difference. When someone yells out "hey, let's have some fun!" I don't think reading is usually considered an option.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 01, 2007, 09:58:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
Fun and engaging definitely are not the same thing. Something that is fun is engaging, while something engaging isn't always fun. Sometimes I will sit down and do something and it is engaging (like programming) but it definitely isn't fun (well, sometimes). As long as a game is engaging, that is all that matters. Usually gimmicky type stuff is pretty fun, but once the gimmick wears off it is either engaging or it is garbage. The Eyetoy is a great example. It was fun when I first got it, but once the gimmick wore off, it was just plain boring. If it were a little bit more engaging I may have stuck around and played it some more.
Whether people want to admit it or not, alot of the Wii stuff is pretty gimmicky, but there are some great uses for the Wiimote and underneath the gimmick is some very enjoyable stuff. The whole "fun" push Nintendo has right now will eventually fall away and they will come up with some other marketing speak to lure in potential buyers.
You have the time to argue with me here but not reply to my PM! Shame on you :-P. Anyway I do agree to an extent, but I could argue that even the gimmicky games that get boring are engaging for a bit which I consider to be fun
.
Post by: Kairon on February 01, 2007, 10:46:21 AM
When I think back to the SNES, god, I had like, a holy trinity of games: FFVI, Secret of Mana, and Earthbound.
God, if there's any game to convince me that Miyamoto's gameplay first and always philosophy is NOT the only way, Earthbound is IT.
... too bad I hate msot RPGs now because of what I perceive as real mediocre writing, boring themes, and WAY TOO MUCH anime cliche influence. /cry
Sometimes i think I'm just too jaded and biased to appreciate anything from the genre. I mean, I enjoyed Super Star Saga and the first Paper Mario.... but not much else although I forced myself to buy SoA and ToS and BK.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Pittbboi on February 01, 2007, 11:02:39 AM
Quote
... too bad I hate msot RPGs now because of what I perceive as real mediocre writing, boring themes, and WAY TOO MUCH anime cliche influence. /cry
Have you played FFXII? Definitely some minor problems with its story, but I really think it's Square's first real attempt iat breaking out of that typical jpop, angst coated, anime/rpg cliche. And it's the first game to convince me that, finally, large scale and consistently good voice acting is now possible in a game!
Post by: segagamer12 on February 01, 2007, 11:32:03 AM
fun is something subjective everyone has a different view on what is fun and what is not. I have a friend who finds smoking pot fun but I on the other hand think it not fun at all, in fact I cant think of one good reason to smoke pot, yet my friend thinks it is good fun. We differ in opinions. No Big deal.
I can have fun recordinga song for the first time, incredible fun at that, yet someone else migth think its is stupid or lame or boring. fun is subjective dude and if you think something is fun than for you it is, if someone else doesnt then for them it isnt.
I think Mortal Kombat is fun for me, others think Pikmin is fun, other think GTA is fun, others Halo, so who is right?
I am right in that MK is a fun game and if you dont see it your dumb? Well I like MK, Halo AND Pikmin (to some degree GTA also) but non of those are of the same style, genre, or category. So can Pikmin be fun to someone who likes GTA? Can Mario be fun to someone whos favorite game is a realistic fighitng game? the answer is of coarse yes. I can have AS MUCH FUN playing Mario as I can MK but its always dfferent. Same with playing FF games or other RPGS. I love anime myself so I can get into a lot of RPGs that others hate, to me watching Project A-ko is fun, same with Wratch of the Ninja, so is reading the Bible, for me.
So yes a game should be fun or at elast provide some kind of entertainment, they are by definiton GAMES after all and the purpose of a GAME is to HAVE FUN.
Post by: Kairon on February 01, 2007, 11:39:51 AM
And dude, Karaoke games... they ARE fun. But then again, I'm Philipino, so maybe Karaoke is just in my blood.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: denjet78 on February 01, 2007, 12:20:59 PM
And yes games HAVE to be FUN. There has to be something in them that you ENJOY or else you wouldn't be willing to put your time into them in the first place. Hobbies were brought up and then brushed aside for being "comforting" or something else that I don't remember because the argument couldn't stand on its own in a million years. Whether or not a certain someone would consider them to be fun is irrelevant, those that engage in them do receive ENJOYMENT from doing so.
Baveheart was brought up (and not made fun of for some strange reason) as a sad movie that people still ENJOYED. Whether it was for the story, the characters, the atmosphere, even the bloody fighting if you ENJOY any part of it then that is the definition of fun for you. Hell, some people simply ENJOY being sad. That is what's fun for them.
Ian Jr. I am starting more and more to dislike you. I ENJOY arguments... No, scratch that: I ENJOY discussions as much as the next person, probably more... Actually a lot more. But I loath arguments simply because usually you end up arguing with someone who has zero intention of ever accepting the possibility that they may be wrong. And that, my friend (maybe), is nothing more than an exercise in futility. A closed mind is a closed mind and that is NOT fun.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 01, 2007, 12:21:45 PM
There are some games which people love which I personally consider torture to play.
As far as the gaming industry is concerned, games need to be salable, nothing more.
Post by: denjet78 on February 01, 2007, 12:48:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
It's all subjective.
There are some games which people love which I personally consider torture to play.
As far as the gaming industry is concerned, games need to be salable, nothing more.
Actually, it isn't all subjective. If no one finds a game fun in any way, then no one will buy it. Someone has to find fun in the game. What is subjective is what they find to be fun.
Post by: Mysticspike on February 01, 2007, 01:05:20 PM
by the way, you have a point, there, denjet78
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 01, 2007, 01:05:43 PM
Post by: Mysticspike on February 01, 2007, 01:11:52 PM
Post by: denjet78 on February 01, 2007, 01:32:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mysticspike
what do u think games were invented for?
Actually games, in the broadest terms possible, were invented as a way to pass down knowledge and skills to the next generation. The "fun" part was simply a way to keep them interested until they could actually learn what they needed to learn.
Games today are a completely different beast.
Post by: Mysticspike on February 01, 2007, 01:37:55 PM
Post by: Mysticspike on February 01, 2007, 01:41:13 PM
Post by: Mysticspike on February 01, 2007, 01:42:19 PM
Post by: jasonditz on February 01, 2007, 01:44:07 PM
QuoteI'll have to strongly disagree with this. If you play today's RPGs for the story, and actually consider them good, then there is nothing I can do to help you. 99.99% of videogame stories are cliché, trite and just poorly written in general. There are few exceptions, Eternal Darkness being one. The worst culprits are the RPGs today. I didn't play Tales of Symphonia for the horrible story, but rather for the gameplay experience. If you want good stories, I'd advise you to look elsewhere. Strell had a wonderful quote a while back about Final Fantasy games that perfectly describes my opinion on them - something to do with pre-pubescent children and artefacts. Wish I could find it.
Nintendo, in their quest to make all of their games "fun" may be overlooking a genre that, for the most part, doesn't fit in. And maybe that's why their presence has been sorely lacking these last few gens.
I actually think Namco does a pretty good job with their RPG stories. They're not masterpieces or anything, but they make a constant effort to present honest-to-god original stories instead of just Dragon Warrior re-hashes.
Post by: IceCold on February 01, 2007, 01:45:50 PM
Post by: denjet78 on February 01, 2007, 02:05:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
You know Spike, there's an "Edit" button to the right of your posts.
Yeah, but that's just not as much fun.
And mysticspike, if you hang around long enough just listening to people you can pick up a lot of information. Besides, if you look back games have been around since before recorded history but people didn't have the leisure time to actually pursue them until the last century or so. Moderns games are an affectation of our modern society where we seem to have more time than we know what to do with so we look for any little thing to fill it. Not having to spend every minute of every day just trying to survive is such an alien concept that really we have no idea what to do with it.
Post by: Blue Plant on February 01, 2007, 02:40:39 PM
Post by: Kairon on February 01, 2007, 03:25:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mysticspike
crap, i spelled oops wrong!! what the hell! well, like i said, it has been an off day.
It's ok. You're Wii-deprived. We understand.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Pittbboi on February 01, 2007, 04:22:17 PM
Quote
Ian Jr. I am starting more and more to dislike you.
Well, not that I really care how you feel about me, I don't see how it matters here. I didn't post this topic to start an argument. It was an honest question and I wanted to see what would come of a discussion about it. If you're getting frustrated and it's resulting in negative feelings, well then that's your immaturity at work.
Post by: Hocotate on February 01, 2007, 04:43:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
I'll have to strongly disagree with this. If you play today's RPGs for the story, and actually consider them good, then there is nothing I can do to help you. 99.99% of videogame stories are cliché, trite and just poorly written in general.
Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
Um.
Chrono Trigger, Earthbound, and FF6 were fun.
This is why modern RPGs suck. Because they are not fun. They are bags of tired cliches and overused bullsh*t.
I agree completely w/ you guys.
Oh, and this thread fails.... If a game is not fun to you then don't play it. The whole "I enjoy reading books but its not fun" thing is just stupid. Fun doesn't only apply to action or fast paced enjoyment. If something is fun it is enjoyable. Settling down w/ a nice book and relaxing is fun if you are enjoying it.
Post by: denjet78 on February 01, 2007, 04:46:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PittbboiQuote
Ian Jr. I am starting more and more to dislike you.
Well, not that I really care how you feel about me, I don't see how it matters here. I didn't post this topic to start an argument. It was an honest question and I wanted to see what would come of a discussion about it. If you're getting frustrated and it's resulting in negative feelings, well then that's your immaturity at work.
To be honest, I read the first few sentences of your original post and jumped to conclusions. Your original statement about how Nintendo has made it so games just can't look good any more, that they have to be fun actually turned my stomach to the point where I wasn't willing to read the rest of your post.
Looking back at the rest of it now, I see what you were trying to say and I apologize for my ignorance. I picked up some adversarial feelings toward you in another topic and I applied them here without giving you the benefit of the doubt. However, I do think I made some valid points previously and if you're still interested in have a real conversation I would be more than happy to oblige.
Post by: wandering on February 01, 2007, 06:12:00 PM
With that said, I'm not sure I've ever played a videogame that I would personally consider both good and not fun. In RPGs, you're slaying monsters, and getting an entertaining story with cackling bad guys and what not. Now, there are trade offs. An RPG might be long and tedious - but, in return, beating it is more gratifying. A member of your party might die, and that might be sad - but, in return, defeating the bad guy becomes more satisfying. An RPG might offer a different, perhaps "deeper" kind of fun than Wii Sports (although there are trade-offs there, too. To get good at the game you have to practice, afterall.) But, I still say rpgs are meant to be fun.
Now, say, a game where you play a ghost who walks around observing the rape of Nanking - that, to me, wouldn't be fun. Informative, maybe.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 01, 2007, 07:07:46 PM
No, they call that "games for everyone". Fun means you produce endorphines when playing it. If it's no fun you don't want to play it because there are probably things that produce more endorphines and your instinct is to maximize your endorphine output.
Of course, arguing about semantics is pointless so I'll assume you meant "do games really need to be for everyone?" and I think we can agree on a "no" easily. But that would have been too easy so you had to use a vague word that usually refers to a fundamental concept of entertainment and tried to bend it to your purpose, eh?
Post by: Pittbboi on February 01, 2007, 07:36:19 PM
Quote
Looking back at the rest of it now, I see what you were trying to say and I apologize for my ignorance. I picked up some adversarial feelings toward you in another topic and I applied them here without giving you the benefit of the doubt. However, I do think I made some valid points previously and if you're still interested in have a real conversation I would be more than happy to oblige.
Hey, no harm no foul.
But yeah, after reading the responses I guess if we extend fun and look at it in a purely subjective sense, then anything that doesn't cause death can be considered fun. However, I was more thinking of fun as it relates to gaming today, specifically Nintendo's stance on it. Nintendo definitely has a more specific definition of what fun is in their philosophy, it's how their explaining the Wii. Miyamoto actually has an even more specific idea of "fun" than Nintendo's official stance on it.
Maybe it's a little erroneous to say that RPGs aren't fun, but I still feel that RPGs are an example of of the genre that almost completely exists outside of Nintendo's current definition of fun (except maybe Kingdom Hearts). People may not agree, but I'd like for this to be a discussion, and I'd rather hear about what RPGs mean to them instead of how I'm so wrong and just trying to be a mini Ian.
QuoteErm, any number of things that aren't "fun" can stimulate endorphin production--from strenuous physical activities to certain foods. So I don't think endorphin production is an accurate measure of how "fun" something is or whether or not something is fun at all.
No, they call that "games for everyone". Fun means you produce endorphines when playing it. If it's no fun you don't want to play it because there are probably things that produce more endorphines and your instinct is to maximize your endorphine output.
Quote
Of course, arguing about semantics is pointless so I'll assume you meant "do games really need to be for everyone?" and I think we can agree on a "no" easily. But that would have been too easy so you had to use a vague word that usually refers to a fundamental concept of entertainment and tried to bend it to your purpose, eh?
Actually not at all. I used the word fun because, as I said in my first post, "fun" seems to be the buzz word nowadays, and I wanted to see what people thought of that in relation to gaming and the general question I had in my head. Whether or not games need to be for "everyone" or not is a different debate entirely.
Post by: wandering on February 01, 2007, 07:42:42 PM
Quote
Does food really need to taste good?
I think people who like marmite would argue that it does not.
Post by: Kairon on February 01, 2007, 08:36:29 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: oohhboy on February 01, 2007, 10:12:27 PM
Post by: denjet78 on February 02, 2007, 12:41:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
But yeah, after reading the responses I guess if we extend fun and look at it in a purely subjective sense, then anything that doesn't cause death can be considered fun. However, I was more thinking of fun as it relates to gaming today, specifically Nintendo's stance on it. Nintendo definitely has a more specific definition of what fun is in their philosophy, it's how their explaining the Wii. Miyamoto actually has an even more specific idea of "fun" than Nintendo's official stance on it.
Maybe it's a little erroneous to say that RPGs aren't fun, but I still feel that RPGs are an example of of the genre that almost completely exists outside of Nintendo's current definition of fun (except maybe Kingdom Hearts). People may not agree, but I'd like for this to be a discussion, and I'd rather hear about what RPGs mean to them instead of how I'm so wrong and just trying to be a mini Ian.
Well today when I think of Nintendo and "fun" I think visceral. I think engagement at the lowest levels of emotion. Just stripping all the crap off that's been built up over the years by developers trying to make their games seem better than what came before. I think that's encapsulated by the whole "non-game" idea. A lot of people are terrified of that label but to me it just means a game that is pure in it's intentions of simply trying to entertain without needing to resort to cheap theatrics and the fact that almost anything, if done right, can be made fun.
I'm actually surprised that turn based RPGs haven't gone extinct yet. I heard their death knell when I first played SoM on the SNES. How strange it is that the action RPG didn't take over the genre outright. And I, for one, did (and still do) have fun playing RPGs. It's not the same kind of fun that you get playing other games. It's the joy in the knowledge that you're helping these small and often weak characters to grow stronger. Strong enough to do almost anything. Even save the world. It's a very engaging and rewarding experience for those who have the patients for it. I used to like to think of them as interactive novels. Too bad now a days they've been trying to turn them into interactive films.
Anyway, I do find RPGs to be fun. I even find level grinding to be fun... in moderation. It's the feeling you get when all you need is 20 more gold pieces before you can buy that new suit of armor. Of just that one more level and you'll certainly be able to defeat that next boss. Accomplishment is what it's all about and that makes me feel good. That makes me happy. And what makes me happy can automatically be considered fun as well.
As for Nintendo and RPGs, they've never been masters of storytelling. They're so great at getting the gameplay down that they've never really needed to worry about it. When they have dipped their toe in though their desire to simply entertain shines through. The Mario RPG titles, Earthbound, even Fire Emblem if you want to throw that one in as well. They're all rather simple yet highly engaging. In the end Nintendo believes that a game needs to be fun first and foremost. RPGs tend to distance the gamer from the actual game, the reason why most people who don't like RPGs tend to feel the way that they do. They're not instantly accessible. To really get anything out of them you need to invest a lot of time and effort. I think Nintendo has seen that as a wall and have simply decided to avoid it as much as possible.
I don't think they bare RPGs any ill will. I simply think that they feel the experience should take center stage. That it should be up front and in your face. By comparison, RPGs are extremely subtle. I don't think either is any better than the other, which is why we still have books as well as film/television even to this day. There will always be a place for the lingering, the subtle. Just don't expect it from a developer like Nintendo.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 02, 2007, 12:58:13 AM
You know, I would define those as fun, too. There would be zero disagreement in this thread had you just expressed yourself properly and said "Do games really need to be for everybody?". Fun is a word with too many possible meanings which makes debate impossible since we don't really speak the same language anymore, "for everybody" is a clear and concise term.
Therefore:
The question in this thread is whether all games should be for everybody, not whether they need to be "fun".
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 02, 2007, 03:31:45 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78
Actually, it isn't all subjective. If no one finds a game fun in any way, then no one will buy it. Someone has to find fun in the game. What is subjective is what they find to be fun.
The adjective "fun" is 100% subjective. Just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so too is fun in the heart of the player.
Also, you're wrong: plenty of people will likely still buy the game even if it isn't fun because they didn't read reviews and got fleeced by misleading ads.
However, let me address the larger point of this thread...
Games don't need to be fun, they need to be distracting. "Fun" is merely a side effect of a well-crafted piece of software, but there are plenty of non-games like Brain Training, English Teaching, etc. which don't elicit the same glee from the player as other games on the DS but they provide a worthy distraction.
It's like this: the job of any game, non or otherwise, is to deactivate that voice in your head which keeps saying, "You have better things to do right now..." so that you can relax and enjoy yourself while playing. It's a quantifier addressing whether or not the game counts as a worthy pursuit as far as your time is concerned. If the game can accomplish this through making you feel as though you are learning something, then it does not need "fun" to hold the player's attention.
However, fun is typically the easiest method of enticing players, as you can often find a simple game of clicking on enemies entertaining whereas creating a game which engages and teaches is vastly more difficult.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 02, 2007, 03:41:47 AM
Post by: JonLeung on February 02, 2007, 04:04:25 AM
I think "fun" has turned into a more restrictive term...it sounds like it's childish or simple. (Which is why I prefer words like "engaging" or terms like "worth your time".) Society has turned into this super-serious thing where you apparently shouldn't have too much "fun".
Things are subjective, but man, do I not understand other people's tastes. What's so fun about sports games and WWII-based games? :P
If only there was a formula for something that everybody could find fun, with no stigma of having lots of it. Some people are too embarrassed about the overly childish or overly sexual, so those extremes are out. Somebody crack the code of the human brain, please.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 02, 2007, 04:14:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: pap64
S_B, humor can be considered subjective.
When did I say it couldn't be?
Post by: couchmonkey on February 02, 2007, 04:19:23 AM
- people liked different games for different reasons over time
- in the mid 80s - early 90s people thought all-out action was fun, now they're seen as "primitive", "for kids" and lacking "depth"
- in the mid 90s - now, people thought epic narrative games with big movies and lots of hours of gameplay were fun
- in the future, social interaction will be the main source of fun, narrative epics will be seen as "too long", "boring", and "nerdy/introverted"
- for example: World of Warcraft, Wii Sports, Pictochat (yeah, I know it's not even a game)
Any type of game can be fun, it just depends on what your interests are. This is why Nintendo is putting out products like Brain Training and Wii Music - the industry relies heavily on sports, fantasy and sci-fi right now, Nintendo is bringing more genres to the people.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on February 02, 2007, 04:39:50 AM
That said, I agree with denjet78. Most of this discussion is just splitting hairs.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 02, 2007, 05:01:07 AM
If that's the question my answer is NO. I feel that most of the time a game for everybody is really a game for nobody because it tries so hard to appeal to everyone that it lacks anything interesting about it. Therefore no one truly can connect with it. At best it becomes a fad but no one REALLY cares.
We see mass audience stuff do well all the time but it rarely becomes part of people's lives. The number one movie in America might be a horrible mass market comedy that no one with a real sense of humour would find funny. It makes a profit and does well in theatre but ten years later no one remembers it even existed. No one cares because it had no identity. It was just a product designed so that everyone COULD like it. There are exceptions but mass market stuff usually is forgetable. Case in point EA games which are forgotten about the second a sequel comes out.
The secret to a successful console is a LIBRARY that's for everybody in that everyone can find something they like. Variety is what truly attracts everyone to a console. That kind of variety is what made the NES, SNES, PS1 and PS2 so popular. Any genre and any style was represented in some way. Everyone can buy the console and enjoy it but fall in love with totally different games.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 02, 2007, 05:58:34 AM
I think maybe another word for what we're debating here could be "upbeat". Games that get described as "pure fun" usually are very upbeat.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 02, 2007, 06:43:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: pap64
S_B, humor can be considered subjective.
When did I say it couldn't be?
Nowhere, it was a random thought that came to my mind when discussing the subject of fun and entertainment. Humor and comedy is part of entertainment, which itself is part of the definition of fun and this thread proved that these concepts are all subjective.
Everything fits, no? :p
