M
Macapala
Unconfirmed Member
If you have a Wii U I don't see how you couldn't be having fun with the current selection of games.
I don't play games for fun, read books for fun, or watch movies for fun. I participate in these activities because I'm interested in engaging in the experience they offer. If "fun" happens to be a side effect of that experience, then that's great. But if not and yet I found the experience to be engaging, then that's great too.
But what makes you think that I consider the level of engagement I have with these mediums to be a chore or a job?
Just because I'm not having "fun" doesn't mean I equate my experience with my everyday job. I don't have to actually "enjoy" a game, book, or movie to have considered the time that I've spent with it to be worthwhile and enriching. I certainly didn't enjoy Schindler's List, but it was an engaging experience I don't regret having.
I really do believe that we do a disservice to the gaming medium by putting "fun" up on the pedestal that it occupies.
I'll take that as a compliment, thank you very much!
Why? Even Ebert loved films because they were fun. To say you don't consume any media for fun just sounds weird. It's not like every film is Tokyo Story or every game is Ico. Some things are meant purely for entertainment and fun, but that doesn't mean it's lacking in engagement or anything compelling.
This makes absolutely no sense to me, but perhaps we simply have different ideas of what "fun" means. Would you mind providing an example of an engaging game you don't find fun (perhaps also with reasons) so that we could have some kind of foundation to the discussion?
So if you're not enjoying it at all, why consume it?
Hmm, so are all Nintendo first party games devoid of offering any value to the gaming medium? Should gamers only deserve Gone Home and Braid and The Stanley Parable?
Video games are not movies, and they're not books. They are interactive media.
Yes, the medium evolves and yes the medium must cater to age demographics, but the primary foremost purpose of a game is to entertain.
You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I believe you're putting what is an interactive experience itself onto some idea that video games should be a certain way.
But I digress to the godfather of video games, Shigeru Miyamoto:
"The obvious objective of video games is to entertain people by surprising them with new experiences".
"When I'm making video games today, I want people to be entertained. I am always thinking, How are people going to enjoy playing the games we are making today? And as long as I can enjoy something other people can enjoy it, too".
"I don't want to criticize any other designers, but I have to say that many of the people involved in this industry - directors and producers - are trying to make their games more like movies. They are longing to make movies rather than making videogames".
That last quote is really the current landscape in a nutshell.
So if you're not enjoying it at all, why consume it?
Hmm, so are all Nintendo first party games devoid of offering any value to the gaming medium? Should gamers only deserve Gone Home and Braid and The Stanley Parable?
Video games are not movies, and they're not books. They are interactive media.
Yes, the medium evolves and yes the medium must cater to age demographics, but the primary foremost purpose of a game is to entertain.
You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I believe you're putting what is an interactive experience itself onto some idea that video games should be a certain way.
But I digress to the godfather of video games, Shigeru Miyamoto:
"The obvious objective of video games is to entertain people by surprising them with new experiences".
"When I'm making video games today, I want people to be entertained. I am always thinking, How are people going to enjoy playing the games we are making today? And as long as I can enjoy something other people can enjoy it, too".
"I don't want to criticize any other designers, but I have to say that many of the people involved in this industry - directors and producers - are trying to make their games more like movies. They are longing to make movies rather than making videogames".
That last quote is really the current landscape in a nutshell.
He compared Schindler's List to video games.
It's safe to say no fun is allowed here.
I do, gaming gives me a joy that not even GAF can take away.
Did the caveman realize the significance of the medium he witlessly discovered? How it would one day inspire the brilliance of Michelangelo or Da Vinci?
This Miyamoto and his caveman understanding of videogames would have us guffawing at jumpmen and their distressed consorts. That is not the true potential of this sacred medium. That is a child's plaything! A mere toy! This man is no artist, he is a peddler of snake oil. Nay, poison. His consumer the well of creative thought and human potential.
And all for the sake this crude notion of fun. Fun makes you laugh and laughs give you wrinkles! Go on. Enjoy your fun, and be ugly for all I care! I will be basking in the awe of the genius of David Cage and Naughty Dog, and I will be in good company.
No, Nintendo first party titles VERY much enrich the medium through their mechanics and other factors.
The issue I have with that last quote is that the vast majority of those in the industry who are attempting to make games more like movies are failing at both the "fun" and "engaging" aspects of the medium. Does anyone actually think "The Order: 1886" looks either fun or engaging from what we've seen so far of it? Yet, saying that the "obvious" objective of video games is "to entertain" is quite narrow minded and unfairly constrains the medium.
As for games not being similar to films or books because of "interactivity", I tend to view interactivity from the standpoint of my mental engagement with the medium rather than physical engagement. Games present a "false" sense of agency/interactivity (that's their beauty) because ultimately you are still being "guided" through the game by the designer in the same way as an author or film director guides the reader or viewer through the book or movie. Your ability to alter the direction of the game is relatively constrained, just not as constrained as with a book or film. Thus, from this perspective, my level of engagement with a game, movie, or book is relatively the same.
That's a very disingenuous interpretation of my position.
"I tend to view interactivity from the standpoint of my mental engagement with the medium rather than physical engagement".
Games present a "false" sense of agency/interactivity (that's their beauty) because ultimately you are still being "guided" through the game by the designer in the same way as an author or film director guides the reader or viewer through the book or movie.
Your ability to alter the direction of the game is relatively constrained, just not as constrained as with a book or film. Thus, from this perspective, my level of engagement with a game, movie, or book is relatively the same".
I mock your position because it is contradictory to the purpose of video games themselves.
Nintendo first party titles are designed for children. Their primary motivation is to entertain and to incite fun. I don't see how they can "enrich the medium" when their core designs are around the gameplay being simple and fun to enjoy and not around telling a deep narrative.
I'm glad you find enjoyment in the mechanics of the consistent game design, but the game itself is meant to elicit enjoyment, thus fun. So if you like Nintendo first party, you have SOME semblance of what fun is.
So you take this approach with all media and you garner the same reaction from all media?
Since when do video games -- or any other form of media/art -- need to have a purpose? The purpose of any piece of media/art is always in the eye of the beholder which means that it is entirely subjective and can therefore be non-existent. I reject the notion that video games should be an "interactive medium primarily designed for enjoyment". They should be an interactive medium primarily designed for engagement with enjoyment, fun, pleasure, etc. being a wonderful ancillary benefit.
Deep narratives are certainly NOT necessary to enrich the medium, far from it. In fact, the medium has yet to convince me that it can actually relate a truly "deep" narrative. And that's quite alright - it doesn't have to be able to do that at all to provide an enriching experience!
Of course I have "some semblance" of an idea of what fun is! I just don't consider it to be the "be all and end all" of the videogame medium.
My reaction to the media with which I'm interacting largely depends on my level of engagement with it.
Sure, the two that immediately come to mind are Spec Ops: The Line and Gone Home.
I didn't derive any sense of "fun" from these titles but the thoughtful, engaging experience they provided was worth my time with them.
and ppl seem to be losing their shit. Then there's No Sky Man game i checked out and ppl are going nuts for it, yet no one really knows how it plays.
In a way I kinda understand where you're coming from, because there are quite a number of games I've played that I didn't enjoy but I ended up completing because of something other than the fun factor. I will never go through those games again, but it was an interesting experience.Sure, those that immediately come to mind are Bioshock (the original), Planescape: Torment, Spec Ops: The Line, and Gone Home.
I didn't derive any sense of "fun" from these titles but the thoughtful, engaging experience they provided was well worth my time and effort!
Something I've been thinking about the past few years. I saw this today.
"turbulent weather rolls in, skies thickening before bursting onto the roads. Crowds at the side of the track reach for their macs and umbrellas, winds tug at the trackside scenery while puddles form in the divots and dips of the road surface,"
"The heat from the sun dynamically melts the snow, with northern-facing surfaces reacting first."
and ppl seem to be losing their shit. Then there's No Sky Man game i checked out and ppl are going nuts for it, yet no one really knows how it plays. I was at a side chicks house last weekend and invited my boy over to cotch. He brought his PS4 and was eager to show me games like infamous and killzone. He was taking close ups of walls n shit and showing me excitedly.
But all this shit, at the end of the day just seems like people are playing games (GAF and enthusiasts) to be impressed on a technical/art level than having fun.
Take a step back for a min n really see if you're having fun with the games u play.