colafitte said:
Why "video games" have to be just one thing?? Why they need to be your classical definition of fun, to be videogames?? I think is a problem with the definition of video-"game" itself. They've become much more since the 80's and 90's. They've become "experiences" and "artistical interactions" too. And besides, "fun" is an objective thing. What if i tell you that games like most platformers or games like LOL or Overwatch, are "boring" to me just after a few hours, because i need more purpose in a game than just beat the next rival, jump to the next platform or complete the next level with arbitrary objectives??? I obtain more "satisfaction" from a game like Journey than i ever will from a game like Fortnite or Minecraft. Is it me that i am a weird person or what??, Do i don't really like videogames in reality???. People that not consider games like this or Detroit video games(or most games that spend more time tryng to tell a story or a concept than being mechanically "fun games"), are reminding me at people like Scorsese with the movies. They're so purist in their own classical definition about what a movie or a videogame should be that if it doesn't meet their own criteria they reject completely the idea. A videogame doesn't need to be fun, like a movie doesn't need to be fun, like a book doesn't need to be fun, like a song doesn't need to be fun, to be a meaningful and satisfying experience. Because maybe it won't be "fun" or "joyful" but it can be many other things that we humans can value as much too. |
I can have fun from walking through a forest in the fall and seeing all the colours ,fun can be experienced in lots of different ways were others just see emptiness but those that find it boring are not the target audience and a quality product should not reform itself to just appease the biggest mass possible,that would have the danger to make products bland,generic and uncreative.
Give me 1 out of 10 great games with a lasting impression rather than 10 out of 10 Assassins Creeds.
