3 ms·
> Because games are supposed to be fun [...] I'm gonna have to disagree with you here and reiterate a point from a "Co-optional Podcast" episode from years ago
by Lev1a 6y ago
> Because games are supposed to be fun [...]
I'm gonna have to disagree with you here and reiterate a point from a "Co-optional Podcast" episode from years ago:
Games don't _have to be_ "FUN", they have to be "compelling" / "engaging". The thought that games can only be fun is a relic from video games's infancy stage much the same as once upon a time when films/movies were new and there were only short slapstick flicks. The medium film matured to where a film can be about utterly horrible things/ideas but it's still seen as a good piece of media because it was "engaging" on some level.
- tdsamardzhiev 6y agoFun-centrism certainly helps if you're making something that (1) targets mainstream audience and (2) takes 50+ hours to finish.
- chongli 6y agoThat’s a great point. If someone panned Schindler’s List because it doesn’t include Larry, Moe, or Curly, we’d rightfully tell the person to revisit their ground-level assumptions about what makes for good cinema. The fact that we still have this problem in video games really points to their immaturity as a medium.
- bigbubba 6y agoI think the problem is the term 'game.' If you made 'The Schindler's List VR Experience' that would be reasonable, but if the same software was called 'The Schindler's List Video Game', that would sound crass and disrespectful. Games, computerized or not, are generally understood to be for amusement (maybe unless you're talking to mathematicians.)
- bigbubba 6y agoI wish the games that aren't meant to be fun would state this plainly in their promotional material. "Buy our new awkward conversation asset flip; it's NOT FUN!!"