| forest-spirit said: Well, even if a game had the best storyline ever or something, I wouldn't play it if it wasn't fun. Lair could be engaging but it was absolutely NOT fun, thus I didn't like it. A lot of people in this thread seams to miss the point of this article. It's not about "core" games being boring and casual games being fun. It's a response to someone who says that "fun" shouldn't be used when talking about videogames. Which is kind of stupid imo. Answer this: Can a game be less good if it's fun? |
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.
