By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Does Video Gaming Need a New Name?

 

Does Video Gaming Need a New Name?

Yes 17 30.36%
 
No 38 67.86%
 
Total:55
SSJGohan3972 on 26 September 2013
Mythmaker1 said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Mythmaker1 said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Video games seems pretty good to me. They're games broadcast via video. They're meant to be played, alone or with friends, and they're meant to be fun.


I'd say that not all of them are meant to be fun.

Which ones, out of curiosity?

Horror games are a good example, I think, because the best horror games are not about having fun. They can be exciting or engaging, but they can still be "good" without being "fun."

Or think about books or movies. There are a lot of stories or films out there which are not meant to be fun.

A different argument in a similar vein as mine is in Extra Credits: Beyond Fun.

While I agree with this sentiment, that many people (and I would say now-adays probably most) play video games for something other than primarily fun (usually competitively like a sport) the counter argument would be that people might derive fun from things like being scared or competing, etc.

I realized a few years ago that I lack the taste for games that derive their fun primarily from things like horror, competition or even deep complex storylines, etc. Now don't get me wrong those things when done correct can be amazing (and some of my favorite games have several of those things) but if the primary focus of the game is not gameplay that on its own is fun to me I get turned off.

A great set of examples from the last gen for me are the Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect games. While they both have very intriguing storylines, look great, etc. I had trouble playing them and especially beating them (don't think I've finished any of those games except AC3 but that was for a review I was doing so I made myself). Conversly I read up on the storylines (and watched some videos) of both games and very much enjoyed that, the actual gameplay however felt like a chore.



Systems Currently Playing: WiiU, PS3, 3DS

Also Have: Atari 2600, NES, SNES, PS1, N64, PS2, Wii, GB, GBC, GBA, DSLite, DSi, Android (RazorMax), iPhone (4), iPad (2)

Around the Network
JWeinCom on 26 September 2013

I actually do play games for fun...

But anyway the name is here to stay. The medium has clearly evolved beyond the stage of simple diversion (although Apple is helping it to regress back to that point), but once a name like that sticks it's nigh impossible to change it.



Veknoid_Outcast on 26 September 2013
Mythmaker1 said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Mythmaker1 said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Video games seems pretty good to me. They're games broadcast via video. They're meant to be played, alone or with friends, and they're meant to be fun.


I'd say that not all of them are meant to be fun.

Which ones, out of curiosity?

Horror games are a good example, I think, because the best horror games are not about having fun. They can be exciting or engaging, but they can still be "good" without being "fun."

Or think about books or movies. There are a lot of stories or films out there which are not meant to be fun.

A different argument in a similar vein as mine is in Extra Credits: Beyond Fun.

I see what you're saying. Although I would argue being scared is part of the "fun" of horror games.

Also, it's tough to compare video games with books or movies, because they're very different media. Movies and books have a single storyteller, but games have more than one: the creator of the game and the player, whose actions affect the game world. 

In any event, I still think the primary purpose of video games is to have fun. Lately, games have been moving toward the world of cinema, which is a huge mistake in my opinion, and that movement has replaced some of the active "fun" with passive "entertainment." Maybe that's what you're picking up on? Of course, games have been entertaining fans for generations, but the essence of video games is the interaction between player(s) and game. And that's where the "fun" is created.



HigHurtenflurst on 27 September 2013
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Mythmaker1 said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Mythmaker1 said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Video games seems pretty good to me. They're games broadcast via video. They're meant to be played, alone or with friends, and they're meant to be fun.


I'd say that not all of them are meant to be fun.

Which ones, out of curiosity?

Horror games are a good example, I think, because the best horror games are not about having fun. They can be exciting or engaging, but they can still be "good" without being "fun."

Or think about books or movies. There are a lot of stories or films out there which are not meant to be fun.

A different argument in a similar vein as mine is in Extra Credits: Beyond Fun.

I see what you're saying. Although I would argue being scared is part of the "fun" of horror games.

Also, it's tough to compare video games with books or movies, because they're very different media. Movies and books have a single storyteller, but games have more than one: the creator of the game and the player, whose actions affect the game world. 

In any event, I still think the primary purpose of video games is to have fun. Lately, games have been moving toward the world of cinema, which is a huge mistake in my opinion, and that movement has replaced some of the active "fun" with passive "entertainment." Maybe that's what you're picking up on? Of course, games have been entertaining fans for generations, but the essence of video games is the interaction between player(s) and game. And that's where the "fun" is created.

Remember these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choose_Your_Own_Adventure

Ignoring that though I tend to agree with you.