Viewing Thread:
"Challenge, or enjoyment."

Which of the titular activitie do you prefer? Something that challenges you, or something that you enjoy while playing?

Some people may say they are the same thing, but I don't agree. How many times have you been stuck on a level in a game for ages, and when you finally manage to do it, you think "Thank god for that, I'd better save it quick so I don't have to do it again."

It's happened to all of us, and it means what you've just done can't be enjoyable. Becuase if it was enjoyable, you wouldn't mind doing it over and over again. Like sex, or llama trecking.

Games like GT3, Deus Ex, Half Life, MGS etc etc, all recognised classics. But they're just not enjoyable - in my view. They offer a challenge, not enjoyment. You get a sense of achievement when you finish the game or the level, but while you're playing it, there's no fun, no pleasure to be gained.

Until you finish it, then you look back and say "Yup, I did that. I beat the game".

So many times when I've been playing GT3 I've thought to myself "I'm not actually having fun. I'm just doing this as it's a challenge." Surely other people must think the same?

Other games are fun to play while still being challenging.

Games like Tony Hawks, Soul Calibur, Goldeneye, Mario Kart etc are all fun to play. They don't just offer a challenge, they offer enjoyment as well.

These are games that you can have a laugh while your playing. You don't have to be serious and give 100% concentration all the time. Either in single or multiplayer, you can just mess about while you're playing.

If you do that in something like GT3 or MGS you die/lose straight away. Where's the fun in that?

I suppose it depends what sort of person you are. Some will enjoy the challenge of getting onto a porn film set, others would rather get there easily, and spend more time watching.

See?

So, which do you prefer, fun, or challenging?

Some games i like a challenge, but they must be fun aswel, like metal gear solid for example.

i do like games that are just a blast to play, like smackdown or gta.

Strafex, I usually go a little easy on beginners as well. Otherwise it's not fun for them if they keep losing all time.

I think the best way is to go a little easy on them, and give them tips on how to get better. That way they enjoy the game as they can see improvement in their play, and you get a challenge as they will improve at a quicker rate.

Personally, I think that a game should be really fun to get into but really challenging to finish.

3 difficulty settings:

Easy - you mess around, learn how to play and go through the game at any pace you feel like.
You'll die/lose a couple of times but only until you learn you way around the levels.

Normal - a bit more complex than easy and you'll have your skill properly tested. Nothing you won't be able to master within a few weeks though.

Hard - This is to occupy the extreme gamers to the limits of their skills. Dead hard and fustrating.
Sometimes it won't be so fun any more but that might not matter. You get most of your fun in the easier difficulty settings and then get tested and challenged and get rewarded with a huge sense of achievement with the more difficult difficulty settings.

I think that this is the way that most games should work.
It worked a treat for Goldeneye and Perfect Dark.

As for multiplayer, players who do whatever just to win can be annoying but it does depend on the situation.

If they're a seasoned practiced player and they go full throttle on some one who's never played the game before then they deserve all the abuse they get.

I hated it when I first played Goldeneye and a friend decided he's smugly sit on the golden gun and then pick me off with his auto aim.

Ofcourse, I then bought and N64 and was whupping him a few weeks later.

I tend to try and match my opponents level.
If they're taking it easy or if they're a novice then I take it easy and get them used to the game.
If they're still struggling then I aid them with handicaps.

On the other hand, if they start to pick up the controls and tactics and start putting up a good fight then I up my efforts accordingly.
I've rarely had to go full out on a human player at Perfect Dark which might annoy some people - unable to test they're full skills.

Ofcourse, the multiplayer simulants fill the challenging gap nicely...

I'd rather have 60% challenge and 40% enjoyment.

Because, more often than not, the enjoyment wears off, and all that you are left with is the challenge - which, in it's own right, is fun.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Actually, let me explain.

If you really enjoy a game, maybe you love playing it for the first, say, two hours. You then get bored and can't be bothered to complete it. yet, even if you DID try and complete it, it would be too easy and would take you another two hours. What a load of rubbish that would be, compared to...

A game that is immense fun and has a great element of challenge to it, too, is fantastic. Not only does it take a while for the fun to run out, but when it does, you are left with a game you still enjoy that has a huge challenge left - you still have to complete it.

SHOCKY

GasMask wrote:
> I like a bit of both ;o)


That is a potentially very compromising quote taken in the wrong circumstances ;-)

I like a bit of both ;o)

Yeah, all games are better in multiplayer. In fact, and old PS magazine used to give scores for single and multiplayer seperately.

True, but it can be more fun in multiplayer, depending on how seriously you take it.

If you're just having a laugh with mates, it's more fun than a single player, on most games.

However, in single player you *have* to take it seriously, else there's no point playing. If you don't take it seriously in single player in games like Deus Ex, GT3 etc, you die/lose straight away.

Yeah, but I wasn't counting mumtiplayer. Bit, if you think about it, multiplayer adds a level of challenge to it anyway.

Turbo, that may be true in single player, but a lot of fun is to be had from the multiplayer side of things as well.