The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I know the title sounds bizarre - but hear me out!
When I pick up a book, watch a film, or listen to a piece of music, I'm not always expecting to have fun. Sometimes I'm looking for an emotional reaction that isn't necessarily pleasant. For example I might watch a harrowing war film. Or read a tragic love story. Or read/watch a story about a mans descent into alcoholism and his eventual death. While I might be moved by this I'm not experiencing fun - in fact I'm more likely to be bawling my eyes out.
I'm wandering if this applies to games. As a mature adult is playing through a harrowing war game (and I'm not thinking Medal of Honour here) which conveys real hardship and horror to me going to be something I want to experience?
Is it possible to write a game whose mechanics work, I can play the game, but that makes me uncomfortable. Does this have to be accomplished through narrative? Or could it be done through the actual gameplay without (for example) the game ending up as some tabloid style gorefest.
I don't really have any conclusions right now but I'd be interested in peoples opionions.
I guess I have two core questions:
1) Is it possible to write a 'good' game that provokes an unpleasant emotional response for a long period of time without turning into a tabloid gorefest?
2) If it is, is it a game anyone is likely to want to play?
1. Depends on your definition of 'fun'. Fun does not necessarily mean thrills and spills.
2. Yes, but the key to making great games is not necessarily fun, it is involvement. Getting the player involved in the game is really what we want.
On the whole, it is entirely possible that games do not have to be 'fun', but they do have to have an emotional engagement value. That said, the easiest emotional involvement that games can create is thrills and spills, and that is why the great majority of games tend to be emotionally flaky affairs that are designed for the wild ride.
While I like the wild ride games, I want to see more games that open up to a greater emotional spectrum. I believe that that is beginning to happen, and not before time.
The only thing a game has to be is worth playing.
Whether because it:
is just fun (Mario Kart)
is thrilling (Half-Life)
is funny (Earthworm Jim)
is scary (Eternal Darkness)
is rewarding (Zelda)
is challenging (Super Monkey Ball)
just looks astonishing (Rez)
makes you love the characters (FFVII? Or so I gather)
has a story you can't stop following (Deus Ex)
fills otherwise empty hours (Tetris)
brings you into contact with other people (Counter-Strike)
or any of a million other reasons, it doesn't matter. There must be a reason to play but it doesn't necessarily have to be "fun".
Being fun may make a game appealling. Indeed, fun games are most likely to sell. But games that make you tremble with fear are just as attractive, because there are people who like to experience that. And equally, a game that offers nothing but the satisfaction knowing you conquered one of the hardest challenges in videogaming can be just as good to play, or sometimes better.
We all play games for different reasons. We all play different games. All games differ.
Life, on reflection, is pretty good.
SB.
When I pick up a book, watch a film, or listen to a piece of music, I'm not always expecting to have fun. Sometimes I'm looking for an emotional reaction that isn't necessarily pleasant. For example I might watch a harrowing war film. Or read a tragic love story. Or read/watch a story about a mans descent into alcoholism and his eventual death. While I might be moved by this I'm not experiencing fun - in fact I'm more likely to be bawling my eyes out.
I'm wandering if this applies to games. As a mature adult is playing through a harrowing war game (and I'm not thinking Medal of Honour here) which conveys real hardship and horror to me going to be something I want to experience?
Is it possible to write a game whose mechanics work, I can play the game, but that makes me uncomfortable. Does this have to be accomplished through narrative? Or could it be done through the actual gameplay without (for example) the game ending up as some tabloid style gorefest.
I don't really have any conclusions right now but I'd be interested in peoples opionions.
I guess I have two core questions:
1) Is it possible to write a 'good' game that provokes an unpleasant emotional response for a long period of time without turning into a tabloid gorefest?
2) If it is, is it a game anyone is likely to want to play?
1. Depends on your definition of 'fun'. Fun does not necessarily mean thrills and spills.
2. Yes, but the key to making great games is not necessarily fun, it is involvement. Getting the player involved in the game is really what we want.
On the whole, it is entirely possible that games do not have to be 'fun', but they do have to have an emotional engagement value. That said, the easiest emotional involvement that games can create is thrills and spills, and that is why the great majority of games tend to be emotionally flaky affairs that are designed for the wild ride.
While I like the wild ride games, I want to see more games that open up to a greater emotional spectrum. I believe that that is beginning to happen, and not before time.
The only thing a game has to be is worth playing.
Whether because it:
is just fun (Mario Kart)
is thrilling (Half-Life)
is funny (Earthworm Jim)
is scary (Eternal Darkness)
is rewarding (Zelda)
is challenging (Super Monkey Ball)
just looks astonishing (Rez)
makes you love the characters (FFVII? Or so I gather)
has a story you can't stop following (Deus Ex)
fills otherwise empty hours (Tetris)
brings you into contact with other people (Counter-Strike)
or any of a million other reasons, it doesn't matter. There must be a reason to play but it doesn't necessarily have to be "fun".
Being fun may make a game appealling. Indeed, fun games are most likely to sell. But games that make you tremble with fear are just as attractive, because there are people who like to experience that. And equally, a game that offers nothing but the satisfaction knowing you conquered one of the hardest challenges in videogaming can be just as good to play, or sometimes better.
We all play games for different reasons. We all play different games. All games differ.
Life, on reflection, is pretty good.
SB.
I know the title sounds bizarre - but hear me out!
When I pick up a book, watch a film, or listen to a piece of music, I'm not always expecting to have fun. Sometimes I'm looking for an emotional reaction that isn't necessarily pleasant. For example I might watch a harrowing war film. Or read a tragic love story. Or read/watch a story about a mans descent into alcoholism and his eventual death. While I might be moved by this I'm not experiencing fun - in fact I'm more likely to be bawling my eyes out.
I'm wandering if this applies to games. As a mature adult is playing through a harrowing war game (and I'm not thinking Medal of Honour here) which conveys real hardship and horror to me going to be something I want to experience?
Is it possible to write a game whose mechanics work, I can play the game, but that makes me uncomfortable. Does this have to be accomplished through narrative? Or could it be done through the actual gameplay without (for example) the game ending up as some tabloid style gorefest.
I don't really have any conclusions right now but I'd be interested in peoples opionions.
I guess I have two core questions:
1) Is it possible to write a 'good' game that provokes an unpleasant emotional response for a long period of time without turning into a tabloid gorefest?
2) If it is, is it a game anyone is likely to want to play?
1. Depends on your definition of 'fun'. Fun does not necessarily mean thrills and spills.
2. Yes, but the key to making great games is not necessarily fun, it is involvement. Getting the player involved in the game is really what we want.
On the whole, it is entirely possible that games do not have to be 'fun', but they do have to have an emotional engagement value. That said, the easiest emotional involvement that games can create is thrills and spills, and that is why the great majority of games tend to be emotionally flaky affairs that are designed for the wild ride.
While I like the wild ride games, I want to see more games that open up to a greater emotional spectrum. I believe that that is beginning to happen, and not before time.
The only thing a game has to be is worth playing.
Whether because it:
is just fun (Mario Kart)
is thrilling (Half-Life)
is funny (Earthworm Jim)
is scary (Eternal Darkness)
is rewarding (Zelda)
is challenging (Super Monkey Ball)
just looks astonishing (Rez)
makes you love the characters (FFVII? Or so I gather)
has a story you can't stop following (Deus Ex)
fills otherwise empty hours (Tetris)
brings you into contact with other people (Counter-Strike)
or any of a million other reasons, it doesn't matter. There must be a reason to play but it doesn't necessarily have to be "fun".
Being fun may make a game appealling. Indeed, fun games are most likely to sell. But games that make you tremble with fear are just as attractive, because there are people who like to experience that. And equally, a game that offers nothing but the satisfaction knowing you conquered one of the hardest challenges in videogaming can be just as good to play, or sometimes better.
We all play games for different reasons. We all play different games. All games differ.
Life, on reflection, is pretty good.
SB.
When I pick up a book, watch a film, or listen to a piece of music, I'm not always expecting to have fun. Sometimes I'm looking for an emotional reaction that isn't necessarily pleasant. For example I might watch a harrowing war film. Or read a tragic love story. Or read/watch a story about a mans descent into alcoholism and his eventual death. While I might be moved by this I'm not experiencing fun - in fact I'm more likely to be bawling my eyes out.
I'm wandering if this applies to games. As a mature adult is playing through a harrowing war game (and I'm not thinking Medal of Honour here) which conveys real hardship and horror to me going to be something I want to experience?
Is it possible to write a game whose mechanics work, I can play the game, but that makes me uncomfortable. Does this have to be accomplished through narrative? Or could it be done through the actual gameplay without (for example) the game ending up as some tabloid style gorefest.
I don't really have any conclusions right now but I'd be interested in peoples opionions.
I guess I have two core questions:
1) Is it possible to write a 'good' game that provokes an unpleasant emotional response for a long period of time without turning into a tabloid gorefest?
2) If it is, is it a game anyone is likely to want to play?
1. Depends on your definition of 'fun'. Fun does not necessarily mean thrills and spills.
2. Yes, but the key to making great games is not necessarily fun, it is involvement. Getting the player involved in the game is really what we want.
On the whole, it is entirely possible that games do not have to be 'fun', but they do have to have an emotional engagement value. That said, the easiest emotional involvement that games can create is thrills and spills, and that is why the great majority of games tend to be emotionally flaky affairs that are designed for the wild ride.
While I like the wild ride games, I want to see more games that open up to a greater emotional spectrum. I believe that that is beginning to happen, and not before time.
The only thing a game has to be is worth playing.
Whether because it:
is just fun (Mario Kart)
is thrilling (Half-Life)
is funny (Earthworm Jim)
is scary (Eternal Darkness)
is rewarding (Zelda)
is challenging (Super Monkey Ball)
just looks astonishing (Rez)
makes you love the characters (FFVII? Or so I gather)
has a story you can't stop following (Deus Ex)
fills otherwise empty hours (Tetris)
brings you into contact with other people (Counter-Strike)
or any of a million other reasons, it doesn't matter. There must be a reason to play but it doesn't necessarily have to be "fun".
Being fun may make a game appealling. Indeed, fun games are most likely to sell. But games that make you tremble with fear are just as attractive, because there are people who like to experience that. And equally, a game that offers nothing but the satisfaction knowing you conquered one of the hardest challenges in videogaming can be just as good to play, or sometimes better.
We all play games for different reasons. We all play different games. All games differ.
Life, on reflection, is pretty good.
SB.
Small Blue wrote:
>
> Whether because it:
>
> is just fun (Mario Kart)
> is thrilling (Half-Life)
> is funny (Earthworm Jim)
> is scary (Eternal Darkness)
> is rewarding (Zelda)
> is challenging (Super Monkey Ball)
> just looks astonishing (Rez)
> makes you love the characters (FFVII? Or so I gather)
> has a story you can't stop following (Deus Ex)
> fills otherwise empty hours (Tetris)
> brings you into contact with other people (Counter-Strike)
>
> or any of a million other reasons, it doesn't matter. There must be a
> reason to play but it doesn't necessarily have to be "fun".
All of those things make it fun, do you see?
>
> Whether because it:
>
> is just fun (Mario Kart)
> is thrilling (Half-Life)
> is funny (Earthworm Jim)
> is scary (Eternal Darkness)
> is rewarding (Zelda)
> is challenging (Super Monkey Ball)
> just looks astonishing (Rez)
> makes you love the characters (FFVII? Or so I gather)
> has a story you can't stop following (Deus Ex)
> fills otherwise empty hours (Tetris)
> brings you into contact with other people (Counter-Strike)
>
> or any of a million other reasons, it doesn't matter. There must be a
> reason to play but it doesn't necessarily have to be "fun".
All of those things make it fun, do you see?
Ah, but that that was just one of many examples.
I think fun is pretty much a must in gaming. In fact, isn't that the whole point of it all?
The only hours Tetris fills up are the ones you spend trying to sell the piece of crap. It really is a terrible, terrible game.
Rickoss wrote:
> The only hours Tetris fills up are the ones you spend trying to sell
> the piece of crap. It really is a terrible, terrible game.
EHSKIMO?
The music, think of the music, think of the concept, not of beautiful women.
> The only hours Tetris fills up are the ones you spend trying to sell
> the piece of crap. It really is a terrible, terrible game.
EHSKIMO?
The music, think of the music, think of the concept, not of beautiful women.
"Fun" isn't really a term to be used in this way regarding games, as you can't really say it is fun to be hiding in a corner while being hunted by several enemies, or the like.
What is a must in gaming is....enjoyment, you have to be able to enjoy a game, otherwise, well there isn't much point in playing it then is there?
What is a must in gaming is....enjoyment, you have to be able to enjoy a game, otherwise, well there isn't much point in playing it then is there?
Good post.
I prefer games to be as 'intense and immersive' as possible. I don't really look for 'fun' factor, although being totally involved in an tense and intense game is fun I suppose.
I think if developers focused more on creating and provoking emotion within the actual gameplay instead of relying on doing it via cut-scenes, this would improve gaming no end. But is it possible?
I prefer games to be as 'intense and immersive' as possible. I don't really look for 'fun' factor, although being totally involved in an tense and intense game is fun I suppose.
I think if developers focused more on creating and provoking emotion within the actual gameplay instead of relying on doing it via cut-scenes, this would improve gaming no end. But is it possible?
Melancholy wrote:
> Rickoss wrote:
> The only hours Tetris fills up are the ones you spend trying to sell
> the piece of crap. It really is a terrible, terrible game.
>
>
> EHSKIMO?
>
>
> The music, think of the music, think of the concept, not of beautiful
> women.
I agree with this man. Somebody - give this man a cookie! :D
> Rickoss wrote:
> The only hours Tetris fills up are the ones you spend trying to sell
> the piece of crap. It really is a terrible, terrible game.
>
>
> EHSKIMO?
>
>
> The music, think of the music, think of the concept, not of beautiful
> women.
I agree with this man. Somebody - give this man a cookie! :D
I really struggle with this issue. I mean, I like F1, but the game is well, lacking that fun factor. Great simulation, but you need to be in the right mood to play it. There are many such games out there right now. So it is to be Realistic or Fun?