Support NeoGAF

[RevenantKioku]

So your ultimate and even, ONLY, judging criterion for games is "fun"?

Here's the thing, do you extrapolate some sort of "joy" or "good feelings" from playing games that " other experiences that are psychologically engaging but not necessarily "fun"?'"
What exactly do you GET out of those experiences?
Like I said above, I found those movies to be entertaining, which you used the word fun with as a synonym. Now, I think you are taking the light hearted, jolly gee golly I am having a good fun time! stigma of fun and trying to stretch it out in a way that is still making my brain bleed and oh god why am I still arguing here I am wasting my life.
Anyway, yeah.

 

[Ashhong]

It's not true. Fun is a factor if the game obviously aims for it. You can't say horror games aim for fun and happiness and all that other Mario shit. That's really nothing new and everybody deals with it.

Fun isn't really a clear concept anyway. You can't really define what makes something fun. In my opinion, it's one of those words that are overused despite them not making much sense.

this is true. something like say..resident evil 4, while not that scary/moody imo, was still fun. however, the gameplay was probably the biggest aspects, despite the horror theme.

im reminded of fatal frame. taking pictures was boring, but the atmosphere and mood were pretty top notch imo. thats kind of like a different take on a "heavy rain" style game gantz, but it didnt succeed either.

 

[RevenantKioku]

this is true. something like say..resident evil 4, while not that scary/moody imo, was still fun. however, the gameplay was probably the biggest aspects, despite the horror theme.

im reminded of fatal frame. taking pictures was boring, but the atmosphere and mood were pretty top notch imo. thats kind of like a different take on a "heavy rain" style game gantz, but it didnt succeed either.

Okay, let me pull from this, as Fatal Frame is one of these games that I don't hate.
Being scared and having that tense moment of trying to snap the camera was entertaining i.e. "fun" for me.
Running around a brown world to awkwardly climb some feces-looking ass munchers was not "fun" for me.
There are plenty of games that do these sort of things and we are more than ready for it. This boils all down to wording and is petty, I think.
Badly modeled women talking about shooting their adulterous husband is not fun for me, btw.

 

[gantz85]

ok, so i think the best way to get your point across is to compare a game like this to a painting, not a movie or a book.

a painting, imo, is boring. it doesnt posses and "entertainment/fun value". however, you respect the skill and talent that is put into it. are you asking if we can do this with games? if the public will accept this genre as a work of art for its story? if so...no i doubt it. the general public will not think that hard about it, and the art lovers will not look at games.

I recognize what you're saying but your issue is a separate, though interesting one. We can already have respect for the technical achievements of games while thinking they're gross pieces of shit.. I can think of one case where story was praised and all other things slammed -- Shadow Madness for the original Playstation. But they're far and few between.

My question is whether the consumer base and the gaming press can and will better develop other judging criteria apart from "fun" or "entertainment" even (!! risky move here) for games. For example, Grave of the Fireflies is not a fun movie.. I wouldn't even really use entertaining to describe it. But it was a defining experience and I'm glad I got to watch it. Can there be such for games?

Thanks for the insults.
I think you just need to sit back and realize that what you are fighting for already exists for the most part. I just think you want to see more pretty labels or something. I'm not sure what you want.
But if you really want Heavy Rain after playing Fahrenheit and watching the videos out there, your taste might be worse than mine.
And I have pretty bad taste, I am told.

Well, an eye for an eye, but I think you're moving away from the caricature of me to recognizing my fuller intent, which is progress enough.

I don't "really want Heavy Rain", I'm not ADVOCATING FOR Heavy Rain as a great game. I'm saying -- Heavy Rain wants to be this; a compelling experience where "fun" isn't its necessarily core. There are possibly going to be other games of these type. Are they sustainable development ventures? Can reviewers/editors appreciate them?

 

[Always-honest]

ready to see what the hell we're taliking about

 

[RevenantKioku]

I recognize what you're saying but your issue is a separate, though interesting one. We can already have respect for the technical achievements of games while thinking they're gross pieces of shit.. I can think of one case where story was praised and all other things slammed -- Shadow Madness for the original Playstation. But they're far and few between.

My question is whether the consumer base and the gaming press can and will better develop other judging criteria apart from "fun" or "entertainment" even (!! risky move here) for games. For example, Grave of the Fireflies is not a fun movie.. I wouldn't even really use entertaining to describe it. But it was a defining experience and I'm glad I got to watch it. Can there be such for games?

Well, an eye for an eye, but I think you're moving away from the caricature of me to recognizing my fuller intent, which is progress enough.

I don't "really want Heavy Rain", I'm not ADVOCATING FOR Heavy Rain as a great game. I'm saying -- Heavy Rain wants to be this; a compelling experience where "fun" isn't its necessarily core. There are possibly going to be other games of these type. Are they sustainable development ventures? Can reviewers/editors appreciate them?

Oh, I still think very little of you, don't worry. You're being pretentious and appear to have no idea what you're talking about.
And Grave of the Fireflies was entertaining, btw.

 

[gantz85]

And japanese scriptwriters can be...weird and just plain bad from a western perspective. Anime syndrome, I call it.

I don't think many are capable, especially ones involved in video games, can really crossover into mainstream western markets.

Yes yes yes!

I do think Japanese scripts can be god awful. Is the "anime syndrome" an appropriate descriptor for it though..? Anime writing itself is, I think, a symptom of the general shape of Japanese literature and entertainment. It is not the source or cause of it.

If they want to cross over to mainstream Western markets, what can they do?

Or is there a way they can communicate uniquely Japanese concepts and sell them to the Western audience? After all, we have a new upcoming generation of youth weaned and bred on anime.

 

[Ashhong]

Okay, let me pull from this, as Fatal Frame is one of these games that I don't hate.
Being scared and having that tense moment of trying to snap the camera was entertaining i.e. "fun" for me.
Running around a brown world to awkwardly climb some feces-looking ass munchers was not "fun" for me.
There are plenty of games that do these sort of things and we are more than ready for it. This boils all down to wording and is petty, I think.
Badly modeled women talking about shooting their adulterous husband is not fun for me, btw.

whoa whoa whoa. first, let me say that that "audition" video was mostly a tech demo for heavy rain. as far as i know, the game is about a man whos son has been kidnapped or something. if that is the reason you are cynical for this game, i say think again. just be open to it.

now fatal frame, i can understand what youre saying. you liked the gameplay elements. i dont know about u, but the atmosphere, and the tense horror moments far outweighed the camera shots. a game like that, i would say the camera/gameplay came second to everything else. gantz is wondering if something like that could be a commercial success. (i think)

 

[wolfmat]

Guys, get rid of the word fun. We can't have a serious conversation when we come from that angle.

There is no such thing as fun. I know you all want to convince me that you can feel the fun, but that's not the case, it's much more complicated and one simple word doesn't cut it.

Which brings us to the review scenario and acceptance from the audience.
The reviewers (usually) analyze games deeply enough that they understand which factors keep the player playing. These factors are different for each freaking game out there, with a few constants that are genre-specific.
The audience makes up its mind after buying the product; everything before that is just a result of marketing and hivemind behavior.

See? No fun in there. That's what it boils down to.

 

[RevenantKioku]

whoa whoa whoa. first, let me say that that "audition" video was mostly a tech demo for heavy rain. as far as i know, the game is about a man whos son has been kidnapped or something. if that is the reason you are cynical for this game, i say think again. just be open to it.

A tech demo? What tech?

now fatal frame, i can understand what youre saying. you liked the gameplay elements. i dont know about u, but the atmosphere, and the tense horror moments far outweighed the camera shots. a game like that, i would say the camera/gameplay came second to everything else. gantz is wondering if something like that could be a commercial success. (i think)

You obviously did not understand what I said.

 

[Issun23]

Nowadays I play less and less games. It's titles like ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, and Heavy Rain - if it lives up to its promises to introduce more emotions - that I look forward to playing most. It's like I'm looking for more than mindless fun in games. So I guess I am ready.

 

[Tiktaalik]

Emotion, acting, dialogue and graphics are irrelevant if the gameplay is terrible. Gameplay details remain scarce and are essentially unknown. I see little reason to get riled up about this title until they can show anything of real substance.

 

[Haruspex]

It would be useful to know more about Heavy Rain first, so far I have only seen a few screens which may or may not be touched up. I'm inclined to think it will not reach the heights of intelligence or gravitas it is aiming for.

I do feel gaming needs to develop, 'fun' should not be the base measure of a video-game. I feel the conventions that have come to characterise video-games- objectives, physical interaction, high scores, instant gratification- are holding the industry back, as are the gamers who are more than willing to accept something on the grounds of 'fun' alone. I'd hope when I listen to music or read a book I get a little more out of it than a bit of 'fun', I want it to stir my emotions and give me new perspectives on life.

There does need to be room for 'fun' titles, my gripe is the industry is swimming in the equivalents of Rambo and Finding Nemo, we don't yet have our Citizen Kane so to speak. Some games go part way in acheiving levels of emotional and intellectual power but they always acquiesce, falling back on the crutch of convention and the most conservative expectations of the gaming community. I felt this particularly with Half Life 2, which started off so engaging and promising but before long became just another shooter, albeit a very high quality one with a deeper than usual experience.

At the moment I don't see the influx of new players or 'casuals' as a ball and chain of the industry, there has to be that outlet for the 'fluff' as I like to call it. I feel the core gamers, and the devs, are stunting our growth. Firstly because they have such entrenched expectations and secondly because profit is always the overriding factor, can't really blame the devs for that though, that's capitalism.

One thing that would advance gaming is a shift in focus from visuals, physical interaction and objective based play towards social interactions in games and the underlying structure that makes such a thing possible- that is the AI and narrative. I'm not talking about apeing cinema either, better narrative does not mean hour long cut-scenes, games so often separate the story and gameplay which is a blunder in my eyes.

I don't think its pretentious to demand and expect a little more from games, were the bebop musicians like Charlie Parker or Miles Davis pretentious because they wanted to be more than entertainers making finger-poppin music? Likewise were great actors and directors pretentious because they wanted more than trite love stories, the empty American dream and war propaganda? I don't think so. Its about advancing our artform, gamers have to take an historical perspective and realise just how little the architecture of gaming has changed since its birth. The exterior may look wildly different but the foundations and the scaffolds are still the same.

 

[wenis]

I'm ready for it. The PS3 userbase as a whole may not be. But I'd like to be proven wrong.

I think that the user base is. A lot of the owners are more of the hardcore base since it hasnt hit mass volume with everyone else. So we are a bit more optomistic/curious about what this game can deliver.

 

[Ashhong]

I recognize what you're saying but your issue is a separate, though interesting one. We can already have respect for the technical achievements of games while thinking they're gross pieces of shit.. I can think of one case where story was praised and all other things slammed -- Shadow Madness for the original Playstation. But they're far and few between.

My question is whether the consumer base and the gaming press can and will better develop other judging criteria apart from "fun" or "entertainment" even (!! risky move here) for games. For example, Grave of the Fireflies is not a fun movie.. I wouldn't even really use entertaining to describe it. But it was a defining experience and I'm glad I got to watch it. Can there be such for games?

when i say "work of art" i dont mean "technical achievements". i mean what you mean. and no, i dont think current reviewers can really judge this game the way you want. i can see n'gai and maybe even shane doing it, but thats because they love sony and will WANT to look deeper into the game.

 

[wolfmat]

It would be useful to know more about Heavy Rain first, so far I have only seen a few screens which may or may not be touched up. I'm inclined to think it will not reach the heights of intelligence or gravitas it is aiming for.

I do feel gaming needs to develop, 'fun' should not be the base measure of a video-game. I feel the conventions that have come to characterise video-games- objectives, physical interaction, high scores, instant gratification- are holding the industry back, as are the gamers who are more than willing to accept something on the grounds of 'fun' alone. I'd hope when I listen to music or read a book I get a little more out of it than a bit of 'fun', I want it to stir my emotions and give me new perspectives on life.

There does need to be room for 'fun' titles, my gripe is the industry is swimming in the equivalents of Rambo and Finding Nemo, we don't yet have our Citizen Kane so to speak. Some games go part way in acheiving levels of emotional and intellectual power but they always acquiesce, falling back on the crutch of convention and the most conservative expectations of the gaming community. I felt this particularly with Half Life 2, which started off so engaging and promising but before long became just another shooter, albeit a very high quality one with a deeper than usual experience.

At the moment I don't see the influx of new players or 'casuals' as a ball and chain of the industry, there has to be that outlet for the 'fluff' as I like to call it. I feel the core gamers, and the devs, are stunting our growth. Firstly because they have such entrenched expectations and secondly because profit is always the overriding factor, can't really blame the devs for that though, that's capitalism.

One thing that would advance gaming is a shift in focus from visuals, physical interaction and objective based play towards social interactions in games and the underlying structure that makes such a thing possible- that is the AI and narrative. I'm not talking about apeing cinema either, better narrative does not mean hour long cut-scenes, games so often separate the story and gameplay which is a blunder in my eyes.

I don't think its pretentious to demand and expect a little more from games, were the bebop musicians like Charlie Parker or Miles Davis pretentious because they wanted to be more than entertainers making finger-poppin music? Likewise were great actors and directors pretentious because they wanted more than trite love stories, the empty American dream and war propaganda? I don't think so. Its about advancing our artform, gamers have to take an historical perspective and realise just how little the architecture of gaming has changed since its birth. The exterior may look wildly different but the foundations and the scaffolds are still the same.

+235 for mentioning Miles Davis.

 

[acm2000]

i got half way through the op before i couldnt read any more for the tears of laughter in my eyes

 

[Son of Godzilla]

So your ultimate and even, ONLY, judging criterion for games is "fun"?

It was more to the point that "but not necessarily fun" is a really bad addendum. It truly is trying to justify liking a game despite thinking it sucks. The entire concept is dumb.

 

[RevenantKioku]

i got half way through the op before i couldnt read any more for the tears of laughter in my eyes

Yeah, well keep reading if you want to bleed from your ears.

 

[Ashhong]

A tech demo? What tech?

You obviously did not understand what I said.

a tech demo? as in showing off what their engine can do? the quality of their animations? that tech.

the only thing i pulled from your post was that you think the camera part was fun, therefore you didnt hate the game. so assume for a moment, that fatal frame = heavy rain. an engrossing atmospheric game with a semi entertaining gameplay element. i dont think it was reviewed that high was it? now if i still am not understanding your point...i give up.

 

[gantz85]

It would be useful to know more about Heavy Rain first, so far I have only seen a few screens which may or may not be touched up. I'm inclined to think it will not reach the heights of intelligence or gravitas it is aiming for.

...

I don't think its pretentious to demand and expect a little more from games, were the bebop musicians like Charlie Parker or Miles Davis pretentious because they wanted to be more than entertainers making finger-poppin music? Likewise were great actors and directors pretentious because they wanted more than trite love stories, the empty American dream and war propaganda? I don't think so. Its about advancing our artform, gamers have to take an historical perspective and realise just how little the architecture of gaming has changed since its birth. The exterior may look wildly different but the foundations and the scaffolds are still the same.

I agree with most of your post, but I think you need to describe more of what you mean by "architecture" of gaming.. What exactly are the foundations and scaffolds here?

It was more to the point that "but not necessarily fun" is a really bad addendum. It truly is trying to justify liking a game despite thinking it sucks. The entire concept is dumb.

I can understand why you would regard it as an excuse, but aren't there things in your life which you would regard as important or worth it but not necessarily "fun"? Are there no movies, novels, people in your life you would regard as important and engaging but not really what you would describe as fun?

 

[Ashhong]

I can understand why you would regard it as an excuse, but aren't there things in your life which you would regard as important or worth it but not necessarily "fun"? Are there no movies, novels, people in your life you would regard as important and engaging but not really what you would describe as fun?

i think fun is too vague of a word. why would u do something if it wasnt fun? i for one, cannot enjoy something if its not fun. to me, fun = to enjoy. i have not watched a movie that i liked that i didnt think was fun. american history x, incredibly engaging, important imo, and fun to watch.

 

[RevenantKioku]

a tech demo? as in showing off what their engine can do? the quality of their animations? that tech.

But it looks like lawn mowed dog dick.

the only thing i pulled from your post was that you think the camera part was fun, therefore you didnt hate the game. so assume for a moment, that fatal frame = heavy rain. an engrossing atmospheric game with a semi entertaining gameplay element. i dont think it was reviewed that high was it? now if i still am not understanding your point...i give up.

I also said being scared and that the tense moments were fun. And since our OP graced us with the thought that we were going to consider things intellectually I figured I would do the same and operate under the notion of who gives a fuck what reviewers say.
And the game is going to bomb anyway, so yeah.

I can understand why you would regard it as an excuse, but aren't there things in your life which you would regard as important or worth it but not necessarily "fun"? Are there no movies, novels, people in your life you would regard as important and engaging but not really what you would describe as fun?

Like I've been trying to say, you seem to be taking the HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY aspect of fun and focusing on only that.
The only things I do in life that are "not necessarily 'fun'" is work and handling disasters (mostly of small, personal scale). I'm hard pressed to understand why anyone else would operate otherwise. Even if you spend your evening pounding nails into your dick, I would imagine it would be because you garner some sort of enjoyment from it.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

I can understand why you would regard it as an excuse, but aren't there things in your life which you would regard as important or worth it but not necessarily "fun"? Are there no movies, novels, people in your life you would regard as important and engaging but not really what you would describe as fun?

There's almost nothing I'd describe as fun without feeling compelled to explain why I thought it was fun. You need to stop using the word and find something else. I think you might like "uncompelling gameplay".

 

[gantz85]

i think fun is too vague of a word. why would u do something if it wasnt fun? i for one, cannot enjoy something if its not fun. to me, fun = to enjoy. i have not watched a movie that i liked that i didnt think was fun. american history x, incredibly engaging, important imo, and fun to watch.

There's almost nothing I'd describe as fun without feeling compelled to explain why I thought it was fun. You need to stop using the word and find something else. I think you might like "uncompelling gameplay".

Hmm.. you two might be right, but if we're going into semantics there is a TON of problems since words have family meanings. It's like talking about core gamers and casual gamers.. is there REALLY a difference? Etc. But there is a functional use to differentiating the two sub-populations despite so many attempts to dissolve the distinction.

I'm not sure what to use to replace "fun" to better represent my thoughts, but it should go through well enough. Simply reading comments on The Dark Knight, for example, will bring forth comments like it's not a fun movie etc etc. I think that's close to what I'm getting at.

 

[Ashhong]

But it looks like lawn mowed dog dick.

what the fuck? now ur just being ridiculous. not to mention that thing came out in like 05-06. i think.

 

[RevenantKioku]

what the fuck? now ur just being ridiculous. not to mention that thing came out in like 05-06. i think.

So? There are 8-bit games that are more visually appealing. This looks like shit.

 

[fernoca]

Too early to say..
For all we know, Heavy Rain could be canned tomorrow..just like 8 Days and The Getaway..and we won't ever know how it actually looked or even played..just small glimpses and information from devs, based on ideas and concepts.

But as everything, it needs something to "click" with the audience..
People are buying the Wii because the ads show people simulating "real life movements" to play a game..People went to see Titanic , because Leonardo DiCaprio appeared on this big-ass CG boat that breaks in half..

And..then..they stay for the experience.

Nothing shown so far about Heavy Rain, as brief as it has been, shows something or anything to actually click with anyone..
"Oh...look at the rain.." Look at the textures".. "The details".. "The tears"..

The same things many were claiming about the Final Fantasy: Spirits Within movie, just to end with many ignoring the movie, because it wasn't that great to begin with.

Just like Indigo Prophecy/Farenheit..
A great game, that reminded many to series like 24...., in the end showing that people prefered to watch 24, not play it.

 

[gantz85]

what the fuck? now ur just being ridiculous. not to mention that thing came out in like 05-06. i think.

Dude, you're getting distracted by a guy who says he doesn't want to be in this thread but has continued posting like crazy : ) Let it be, don't get baited.

 

[Eccocid]

They made Fahrenheit, which gave me hope for bringing emotions and believeable acting into videogames. From what we have seen from The Casting demo and The Eye demo, I'm beginning to believe that Quantic Drema can push the limits for emotions and feelings in videogames.

Personally, this could be the game that could touch me emotionally in a way games have yet to do.

Sorry but thats so lame. Especially the The Casting demo and The Eye demo, I'm beginning to believe that Quantic Drema can push the limits for emotions and feelings in videogames. part. You dont have to have uber realism for delivering emotions! THATS THE THING! A very minimalistic painting can evoke more emotions that some rennasiance art. Heavy Rain is the epitome of silliness. I really dont get the hype.

 

[RevenantKioku]

Dude, you're getting distracted by a guy who says he doesn't want to be in this thread but has continued posting like crazy : ) Let it be, don't get baited.

I said I won't talk about Heavy Rain, not that I wouldn't smash down your comments.
But I have broken that promise too, oh well. There is always tomorrow.

 

[Ashhong]

Hmm.. you two might be right, but if we're going into semantics there is a TON of problems since words have family meanings. It's like talking about core gamers and casual gamers.. is there REALLY a difference? Etc. But there is a functional use to differentiating the two sub-populations despite so many attempts to dissolve the distinction.

I'm not sure what to use to replace "fun" to better represent my thoughts, but it should go through well enough. Simply reading comments on The Dark Knight, for example, will bring forth comments like it's not a fun movie etc etc. I think that's close to what I'm getting at.

who the fuck says TDK isnt fun? they should be banned from Earth. the thing with "fun" is this. lets say you are watching a movie. are you enjoying yourself? do you like the movie? i would say then that you think the movie is "fun".

now that i think about it, i think some might say a disturbing movie is "not fun" yet is good. like say silence of the lambs or SAW. some might be so turned off from the concept that they dont think enjoy the movie, but appreciate it. yea, i like saw, so what. im a sucker for twist endings.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I think people are latching onto the word "fun" a bit too much and thinking about it in the extreme literal sense. I would consider a fun video game is essentially a video game with gameplay elements that are exciting, interesting, compelling, and possibly addicting. I have no issues with labelling a tense horror game as a fun game just as I do a silly colourful game. I think "fun" in videogames has a slightly different meaning than the normal literal term.

Heavy Rain could be fun? I don't know we haven't seen any gameplay whatsoever so it is impossible to judge it as a game.

 

[Ashhong]

So? There are 8-bit games that are more visually appealing. This looks like shit.

WHAT?? and now youve moved into "trolling just for the sake of it".

she says fuck you.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Let's use "enjoyment" or "engagement" in place of "fun", but I fear that will open an even bigger can of worms :lol

 

[RevenantKioku]

WHAT?? and now youve moved into "trolling just for the sake of it".

[http://www.breakitdownblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/heavy_rain_1.jpg[/]

she says fuck you.

That looks awful. I don't care how much technology is behind it, that is not an appealing image and I don't want games that look like that.

 

[gantz85]

Sorry but thats so lame. Especially the The Casting demo and The Eye demo, I'm beginning to believe that Quantic Drema can push the limits for emotions and feelings in videogames. part. You dont have to have uber realism for delivering emotions! THATS THE THING! A very minimalistic painting can evoke more emotions that some rennasiance art. Heavy Rain is the epitome of silliness. I really dont get the hype.

I think you're right on this, realism is not a necessary criterion for delivering emotions. Abstract representations are enough; even 2D sprites manage to elicit some level of emotion from players... whether accurate representations can do so more by virtue of representational accuracy is a separate question, but let's not derail this thread

Heavy Rain is not claiming that emotions is key to its deliverance of emotions or anything though; though David Cage seems to think that it can help deliver the experience.

 

[Ashhong]

That looks awful. I don't care how much technology is behind it, that is not an appealing image and I don't want games that look like that.

if you honestly want 8bit games over that then well, more power to u.

 

[RevenantKioku]

if you honestly want 8bit games over that then well, more power to u.

Reading comprehension is not what it used to be, sigh.
I said there are 8-bit games that are more visually appealing than that.

 

[Ashhong]

Reading comprehension is not what it used to be, sigh.
I said there are 8-bit games that are more visually appealing than that.

and then you said that u do not want games that look like heavy rain. therefore, you would prefer some 8bit games visual style more than heavy rain.

 

[RevenantKioku]

and then you said that u do not want games that look like heavy rain. therefore, you would prefer some 8bit games visual style more than heavy rain.

Some being the key word here, yes. Perhaps you meant that but the message was not clear.
Okay, now I am really done here.

WATCH ME WORK IT NOW.

 

[gantz85]

who the fuck says TDK isnt fun? they should be banned from Earth. the thing with "fun" is this. lets say you are watching a movie. are you enjoying yourself? do you like the movie? i would say then that you think the movie is "fun".

There were some movies that I didn't explicitly enjoy myself but I found overwhelming afterwards and was happy to have watched. For example, Grave of the Fireflies. Or Thin Red Line. These aren't anything close to what I would describe as "fun" movies.

I think people are latching onto the word "fun" a bit too much and thinking about it in the extreme literal sense. I would consider a fun video game is essentially a video game with gameplay elements that are exciting, interesting, compelling, and possibly addicting. I have no issues with labelling a tense horror game as a fun game just as I do a silly colourful game. I think "fun" in videogames has a slightly different meaning than the normal literal term.

Don't get misled by the word "fun" though, it's a point of conversation that I have tried to expand upon post by post. Tense horror games are one thing.. I'm talking about the possibility of games which aren't like that at all! Let's take Citizen Kane or let's take Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace.. I wouldn't exactly call these two "fun", but they have qualities apart from that which make them highly memorable and more.

How about having these for gaming?

Honestly, I didn't feel that literal description of "fun" when I was playing ICO. I was just absorbed, I was controlling the little horned boy, I had stuff to solve, places to go, a girl to protect and shit to do.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

Only game nerds would equate graphics technology with emotion.

Just because this mannequin cries, doesn't mean I will. In fact, given that she's holding a gun, its likely I won't. I don't care yet what she goes through - what will I go through?

 

[Grayman]

I have no idea how Heavy Rain is going to turn out. I haven't played IndigoP/Fahrenheit. I'd assume that it is going to be a graphical adventure but won't be of the point and click nature.

If the game has nothing but story and atmosphere than it would be better off as a novel or film. If the game has mechanical flaws then it would be better off not existing.

Games that are carried by the narrative and not mechanics have been successful in the past but fell out of favour with the game buying public. If HR isn't about physical action -like almost every other game made in the past ten years- the troubles it faces will come from that. It's mood and storyline won't matter. If HR fails as a game it will be a game that would have failed in any type of story or depth.

Completely forget about being ready for HR, if it fails it would have failed if it was a light hearted comedy, action story, or slasher horror.

 

[antiloop]

I am ready.

Emotion in games ftw.

 

[wolfmat]

Hmm.. you two might be right, but if we're going into semantics there is a TON of problems since words have family meanings. It's like talking about core gamers and casual gamers.. is there REALLY a difference? Etc. But there is a functional use to differentiating the two sub-populations despite so many attempts to dissolve the distinction.

I'm not sure what to use to replace "fun" to better represent my thoughts, but it should go through well enough. Simply reading comments on The Dark Knight, for example, will bring forth comments like it's not a fun movie etc etc. I think that's close to what I'm getting at.

It's just not that simple. People making stupid comments about movies doesn't change that.

I think people are latching onto the word "fun" a bit too much and thinking about it in the extreme literal sense. I would consider a fun video game is essentially a video game with gameplay elements that are exciting, interesting, compelling, and possibly addicting. I have no issues with labelling a tense horror game as a fun game just as I do a silly colourful game. I think "fun" in videogames has a slightly different meaning than the normal literal term.

It's like saying something is cool. You'll find it hard to make a point with that alone.

You're all just barking at each other. Let's concentrate on how ridiculous the original post is.

 

[Ashhong]

Only game nerds would equate graphics technology with emotion.

nobody here has done this. we were discussing the story and everything but the graphics until kioku thought it looked like dog shit.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

Ash: no, not here - I was talking about Quantic Dream.

 

[Ventrue]

nobody here has done this. we were discussing the story and everything but the graphics until kioku thought it looked like dog shit.

People don't know that the story is going to be good, they're just equating good facial technology with emotion and good storytelling. Ten years ago, Planescape had emotion. Grim Fandango had emotion. Heavy Rain looks very nice and may be a great game with great storytelling, but its too early to hype it into the stratosphere as "The game that brings emotion into gaming."

 

[makingmusic476]

All I know is that heavy rain will probably do better than similar titles before it, if only because Sony will market it pretty well.

Tbh, I think this is one of those few games that will do better exclusive than it would've multiplat. If EA, Activision, or whoever had picked the title up, they'd probably be treating Quantic Dream like the niche developers they are.

Edit: Same goes for LBP. The entire concept screams niche, yet look what Sony and MM have managed to create.