qft

that's how i got the article.

The obvious answer is "yes, I can imagine games that should not be fun, and that would be worse if they were". Actually, Silent Hill 2 was such an experience for me.

Exactly like I read books and I watch movies that are not "fun". They might be touching or thought-provoking or even depressing, and not fun to read at all. So why do people read or watch such books and movies? Because they get something from them, because they feel provoked, stimulated, enriched.

Did you read the original Gamaustra blog post? Is "Requiem for a dream" fun to watch? Would it be better if it was? There's a whole gamut of human emotions out there, and someone might be interested to delve into interactive experiences that immerse you into them by something different than "fun" or immediate rewarding mechanics. Nobody is saying that games should not be fun, only that they don't need to be, becasue that's a limitation on a medium that can evolve way beyond its roots.

Well, the article makes points I understand and agree with while the blog rant is rather weak and, to quote itself 'retarded'.

Clearly the core focus on a game is fun an d gaming, but this will expand - and should - to encompass broader emotions and elements.

I see it as the distinction used by some directors when they speak about films vs movies. A movie is for fun first and foremost, and will be designed as such. A film may be entertaining, but it doesn't have to be in the traditional sense, as the goal is more serious.

So do I want great fun games? Sure, keep them coming. Do I want games that are serious, challenging and adult (note I mean context and theme, not mindless gore or some T&A)? Sure, bring them on too.

SOTC is fun to an extent, but the full experience is one of doubt and lonliness and a question of can you go to far for love? Silent Hill 2 is hardly a barrel of laughs if experienced in the tone intended. I enjoyed both of this titles as films, entertaining in their way, but with definite themes and a willingness to challenge you.

On the other hand I still enjoy titles like Super Mario Galaxy and just spent the morning with my kids playing Sports Resort.

What I don't understand is the desire of certain people to try and narrow things down to one specific type of experience, wanting nothing but fun, or nothing but serious titles.

Variety is where it's at, and the individual can then please themselves based on their personal preferences.

EDIT: Actually, given videogames actuall quite quickly expanded into many genres and experiences, I've felt for a while that the term Videogame is in some ways a hinderance and places a focus on the concept of 'game' only.

Maybe I should've put IMO on everything I wrote there. I'm just saying that I would never play (not for very long atleast) a game if it was boring to play.

Not boring, of course. No good game is boring. But it doesn't have to be fun. The Godfather wasn't fun. Lord of the Rings wasn't fun. The Dark Knight wasn't fun.

Shadow of the Colossus wasn't fun, MGS4 wasn't fun, Killzone 2 wasn't fun, Heavy Rain won't be fun.

They're all still awesome, though.

I would sooner whack myself on the head with a hammer than be forced to play Frisbee Catch for any extended length of time. Of course fun games can be good- Mario Kart, LittleBigPlanet, Ratchet and Clank, light hearted games like that. But not all games that Mr. Malstrom considers "fun" are good. If the mainstream thinks they are, good for them.

Well, it's not like the opposite of fun is boredom. You can not have fun in many ways... boredom is the absence not only of fun but of any induced emotion in the user.

A game could be disturbing to play - SOTC was, in places, or there's the infamous "press this button" scene towards the end of MGS3 - and yet highly emotional, even if it's not fun pulling the reins of the user.

I don't care much for the Malstrom article. He takes the original blog, that is thought-provoking though flawed, into his world of bloodlusted and envious hardcore gamers who hate anything holy i.e. economically successful. Having beaten the improbable hyperbole built upon the real material into ridicolousness, he ends dismissing the argument but adding nothing relevant.

the blogger is a tard, I've played CS1.6, BF, and UT professionally is CAL, TWL, and several other leagues. While i took matches seriously, I also played for fun. I guess professional gamers > hardcore when it comes to how we view video games.

I must use fun differently than most people here.  I never saw the Godfather, but the Lord of the Rings and the Dark Knight were both fun, enjoyable movies to me.

LOL! This is why I don't listen to movie critics who slobber all over foreign films. "American movies don't address the human condition."

Yeah... and when I watch a football game or play laser-tag I'm really disappointed by how those activities don't advance the human condition. There is a time for every purpose under Heaven.

theRepublic said: Alby_da_Wolf said: Once I managed to install them and configured peripherals, if necessary, I even manage to have fun with PC games... Yep, I am so strange! This said, even if I think that Malstrom every now and then is right, and he definitely is when he bashes this subset of hardcore gamers, he isn't righ a t all in general on this issue, a lot of hardcore gamers enjoy their games and have fun from them, but even more are hardcore only with some games and casual with others. And Wii didn't disrupt hardcore gaming, sorry Malstrom, Wii added a new way of gaming that can even add something new to hardcore gamers habits without negating their old loves, the only threat to hardcore games are lobotomized versions of classic hardcore titles, like the sequel to Deus Ex. Malstrom is not saying that "hardcore" games can't be fun.  He is saying that "hardcore" gamers who think that games shouldn't be fun are nuts.

Yes, and as I wrote, maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough, this time I AGREE with Malstrom, it's just that I don't agree with his disruption theory, he tries too much to make facts square with it at all costs.

Sorry, maybe it's almost a non sequitur with the current argument, but each time I agree with Malstrom, I feel the need to specify that I don't agree with him on everything, and his attitude with Wii's success can't help making me think to a tail that tries to wag the dog