Castle Paradox

[Aethereal]

I think the problem is that "playing games for overall fun" is a rather iffy usage of words here to get the point across. I think a better way of saying it would be "no game should be played SOLELY for fun". And I do agree with JSH in quite a few ways on this. Games can be played for fun, sure, and we all play them for the fun factor, but that doesn't mean that we don't play them for other reasons as well.
_________________

[JSH357]

My POINT was that games can be created for fun, but that doesn't automatically make 'fun' an automatic requirement for a game to be a game. There could be a game that isn't fun to play that is still great and still a game. Basically, all games are about conflicts. Just like in this argument now, people are driven to conflict. It isn't because conflicting is fun(although, it is fun to some people or fun when you win) but because people LIKE to have conflict. The reason that games are different from other forms of entertainment with conflicts is that games are interactive. This does not mean that games are fun, educational, etc. All it means is that games are interactive and contain one or more conflicts. The reason that one plays a game is to resolve the conflict- bad games have bad conflicts and bad resolutions.

Let's define fun here, since it seems to be what you all think fun is despite it not being an actual definition: violence and/or direct conflict that is intense in either an emotional, a visual, or a physical manner.

Asteroids and Space Invaders may have been created with the intention of 'fun,' but that does not automatically make the purpose of computer gaming 'to have fun.'

The reason that people think games are only made for fun is because game designers never dare to make games that aren't fun. Why? Because the computer games audience consists primarily of males age 15-25 who love action and direct conflict. No computer games are designed for those outside of that audience because computer games started out targetted at that particular age range and have thus become a niche market.

Think about chick flicks- their target audience is the average woman. There aren't any successful games targetted toward women because even the games designed to be played by the average woman still follow the same rules as those targetted toward teenage boys.

But if a proper chick flick game were made...

Teenage boys would probably hate it. The average woman would probably love it. In a perfect market, a game like this could be made successfully. But for now, people like you guys in this thread prevent it from happening.

If you aren't going to let games wander outside of a single focal point, then fine. That's your business, and I'm not trying to shove reality down your throat. But don't tell me that I'm wrong just because I believe something that is different from you.

And by the way, I'm right and you aren't.

So anyway, if you have a problem with my reviews, my philosophy, or even my writing style in general, I suggest that you tell me not to review your game if it is already listed- because believe me: I will take it off, and I will never consider reviewing your game again without permission.

Sorry I have to come off as an arrogant jackass just to get anything said around here, but it's the only thing people respond to on these forums.

[Iblis]

[JSH357]

There IS when you don't even understand what fun is!

You can't just say that something is fun- why is it fun?

If all games are created with the intent of the players having fun, then why is Final Fantasy X not fun in the least?

Also, your arguments are crazy.

"No game should be played just for fun" refers to the fact that fun is a reaction and not a goal. The first time I ever played a game, I thought nothing of fun. I probably didn't even know what the word meant! I played the game because I sought the new experience; I sought the conflict. If I enjoyed the game, fun was a result. But it was not a goal.

On the contrary, my 'screwy' definition of fun is almost exactly on target. According to the average gamer, mindlessly holding down the X button and killing random monsters is fun- that's violence and direct, intense conflict. If you don't understand why it is that, then you need to think a little bit harder.

And for the fifth time, a game can be CREATED with the intent of being fun- I never claimed to have a problem with that. All I said was that it isn't the only option. (And of course, if the designer doesn't understand what fun is, then he shouldn't design fun things)

You aren't thinking of games as interactive entertainment. Saying that all games should be made to be fun is like saying all books should be nonfiction or all movies should be comedies. (Slight quote from Rinku, edited)

[Me]

Saying "No game should be played 'just for fun.'" is misleading, JSH. It makes it sound like you think that NO game should be played for fun AT ALL, EVER. Which, I know is not what you mean, but that's what it can be easily misconstrued as saying.
Games are and should be played for a variety of reasons, all or most of which link together. Mario Brothers, for example, is fun. Inside that seperate idea of "fun," we have challenge (jump well), we have conflict (princess has been captured, goombas can kill you), we have music (yes, it's an element of fun), we have graphics (Mario looks funny - stereotypical Italian plumber yay), and we possibly have some other fun elements that I have neglected. In addition to being parts of "fun," all of these elements exist on their own. I don't particularly have fun playing certain RPGs at times, the conflict or the story are what make me play.

A game should not neccessarily have to be played entirely for fun.
_________________
UP DOWN UP DOWN LEFT LEFT RIGHT RIGHT A B START

[JSH357]

Yes, yes. I probably should have condensed a little.

[Iblis]

[Me]

Fun is different from entertaining, but only in certain ways. Entertaining itself is a difficult word to use, as it usually connotes (not denotes) "fun" or "funny." Games are entertainment - that is pretty much a fact. Even an educational game is meant as entertainment - ever played Operation Neptune? Awesome game, plus it teaches you math. However, a more "serious" game, such as . . . um . . . haven't played any recently, but I'm sure they exist. Anyway, more serious games that are not obviously meant to be played for fun are still entertainment.
Games should not neccesarily be played solely for fun. However, this does not mean that a game cannot be played for fun.
_________________
UP DOWN UP DOWN LEFT LEFT RIGHT RIGHT A B START

[The Drizzle]

Let's consult Dictionary.com:

[JSH357]

Drizzle, I never said that stories are more important to games than fun. A story CAN be more important to a game than fun, however. It all depends on what type of game is being made. The problem with this is that game designers never bother to make interactive stories- and by interactive stories I do not mean games like Final Fantasy. Also, your arguments containing the examples did nothing but contradict themselves. Look back over them- thinking this time- and you'll see what I mean.

And for the umpteempth time, I never said that games shouldn't be fun. All I said was that games don't HAVE to be fun. You people are seriously slow.

[The Wobbler]

[Shineyest]

y shouldnt a game be played just for fun that doesnt make sense unless you are trying to form something along the argument of why dolphins and animals play stuff and it should be slightly educational
_________________
I am making a game about thieves

[MultiColoredWizard]

Because the people who think of a deeper meaning in a game are the ones who are serious about making games, are more intelligent and moral than others. Compare me to the rest of my school(Not saying it's solely in games; books, movies, and other kinds of art can do the same thing).

Even pong has a deeper meaning(as far as I've thougt(4 seconds or so..)), which is that not everything has to stay the same to figure something else out. It takes adjustments.

[Uncommon]

A lot of older games were just for fun. I think games could be for whatever you want. If you want a game with depth, then that's great. If you want a game for fun, that's good, too. If you want both, fabulous.

You know, whatever.

[MultiColoredWizard]

Yeah, but even they have a level of depth. Arkanoid tought me that there are several ways to get through obstacles, and Pinball taught me that there are several ways to complete one goal.
Even if I didn't know it at the time, it still happened.