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

Forums - Gaming - Cool(Subjective) Vs. Fun(Objective)

 

Are some elements of entertainment more objective than others?

Definitely Yes 8 44.44%
 
Definitely No 7 38.89%
 
Not Sure at all 2 11.11%
 
Definitely Sure, but none of these answers 1 5.56%
 
Total:18
o_O.Q on 27 October 2016
robzo100 said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Both of those are entirely subjective.

My apologies for the OP. As a result you are missing the point. The most basic point I'm trying to get across is that while all games have a fun factor, not all games try to be cool. The premise I put forth is that being cool is subject to generational trends. It used to mean blue/spiky/aerodynamic, then it used to mean realistic/violent, then dramatic/good story, etc... It changes all the time.

Whereas if a game tries not to be cool then it can only end up being recognized for one thing, it's fun factor. Yeah, it's a not a simple theory exactly, but I explained it badly perhaps in the OP.

 

can you define how uncharted tries to be cool? and why it would try to be cool?

can you also define how mario tries to be cool? and why mario would try to be cool?



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 27 October 2016

Both are subjective and I think you are trying to shoehorn your opinion on people choosing some games because they were cool and other because it was fun... do you really think people buy things because they think its cool but also boring?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 27 October 2016
o_O.Q said:
robzo100 said:

My apologies for the OP. As a result you are missing the point. The most basic point I'm trying to get across is that while all games have a fun factor, not all games try to be cool. The premise I put forth is that being cool is subject to generational trends. It used to mean blue/spiky/aerodynamic, then it used to mean realistic/violent, then dramatic/good story, etc... It changes all the time.

Whereas if a game tries not to be cool then it can only end up being recognized for one thing, it's fun factor. Yeah, it's a not a simple theory exactly, but I explained it badly perhaps in the OP.

 

can you define how uncharted tries to be cool? and why it would try to be cool?

can you also define how mario tries to be cool? and why mario would try to be cool?

He says mario doesn't try or is cool.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

o_O.Q on 27 October 2016
DonFerrari said:
o_O.Q said:

 

can you define how uncharted tries to be cool? and why it would try to be cool?

can you also define how mario tries to be cool? and why mario would try to be cool?

He says mario doesn't try or is cool.

 

lol and what does that mean? that businesses don't try to market their products?

businesses become successful by portraying their products as the best in whatever field that business is in



Ostro on 27 October 2016

There is one day in everybody's life when they come back to what they once found cool, only to find out it is way more fun than what is currently cool.
Really, everybody.

I share that view, though I wouldn't base it on actual words like fun and cool.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 27 October 2016
o_O.Q said:
DonFerrari said:

He says mario doesn't try or is cool.

 

lol and what does that mean? that businesses don't try to market their products?

businesses become successful by portraying their products as the best in whatever field that business is in

Well, that is his line of argument... like people found Mario bland but fun and Sonic cool but boring and people would buy they like that and not thinking the game was cool and fun for their tastes.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

robzo100 on 27 October 2016
Ka-pi96 said:

Although there`s still some problems with that viewpoint. Namely that what people consider cool is still an individual thing. Different people can think of completely different things when asked what they think is cool. It seems like you`re focusing on things that the majority consider cool, but could you not do the same for fun? Could you not look at what the majority consider fun too and go from that? I think it`s certainly possible to argue that what the majority think of as fun can shift over generations just like what the majority consider to be cool.

Individual tastes will always change, I won't ever attempt to argue against something like that. But there would be something to gained, insight in general, from recognizing that there is such a thing as a generational change in the concept of "cool." Some entertainment tries to subscribe to it, some doesn't. The last sentence to me is a plain fact and I'm curious if it is to other people as well.

If it is a fact then it's a matter of which games, through a generational perspective (an individual one would be meaningless), this can be attributed to. That's why I used Mario and Sonic because they are so well known, not only in general, but specifically because one tied itself to that time period's conception of cool/edgy/trendy. And the one that did failed.

Why? Because trends change. Someone else mentioned shoehorning, not trying to shoehorn anyone. Making a topic alone doesn't qualify as forcefeeding someone an opinion. I'm only arguing that Mario was inevitably recognized for something more because there was room for it to be recognized for something more since it never tried to attach itself fashionable trends or perceptions of cool/edginess.

The Mario game's gameplay could be unaltered while altering everything else(the look, sound, music, marketing, story) so that it looks cool. If that were done then I argue it could ruin the game despite the fun factor remaining untouched. Why? Because it will be outshadowed (not eliminated) by it's attempt to be cool.

Not a perfect analysis here by any means. But I think there is something to be gained by this perspective besides forcibly changing any one person's opinion.



DonFerrari on 27 October 2016
robzo100 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Although there`s still some problems with that viewpoint. Namely that what people consider cool is still an individual thing. Different people can think of completely different things when asked what they think is cool. It seems like you`re focusing on things that the majority consider cool, but could you not do the same for fun? Could you not look at what the majority consider fun too and go from that? I think it`s certainly possible to argue that what the majority think of as fun can shift over generations just like what the majority consider to be cool.

Individual tastes will always change, I won't ever attempt to argue against something like that. But there would be something to gained, insight in general, from recognizing that there is such a thing as a generational change in the concept of "cool." Some entertainment tries to subscribe to it, some doesn't. The last sentence to me is a plain fact and I'm curious if it is to other people as well.

If it is a fact then it's a matter of which games, through a generational perspective (an individual one would be meaningless), this can be attributed to. That's why I used Mario and Sonic because they are so well known, not only in general, but specifically because one tied itself to that time period's conception of cool/edgy/trendy. And the one that did failed.

Why? Because trends change. Someone else mentioned shoehorning, not trying to shoehorn anyone. Making a topic alone doesn't qualify as forcefeeding someone an opinion. I'm only arguing that Mario was inevitably recognized for something more because there was room for it to be recognized for something more since it never tried to attach itself fashionable trends or perceptions of cool/edginess.

The Mario game's gameplay could be unaltered while altering everything else(the look, sound, music, marketing, story) so that it looks cool. If that were done then I argue it could ruin the game despite the fun factor remaining untouched. Why? Because it will be outshadowed (not eliminated) by it's attempt to be cool.

Not a perfect analysis here by any means. But I think there is something to be gained by this perspective besides forcibly changing any one person's opinion.

Except Sonic succeded and failed not due to cool factor but due to being fantastic 2D platformers (preffer then to SMW) and then failing to make a very good Sonic game latter.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

robzo100 on 27 October 2016
DonFerrari said:
o_O.Q said:

 

lol and what does that mean? that businesses don't try to market their products?

businesses become successful by portraying their products as the best in whatever field that business is in

Well, that is his line of argument... like people found Mario bland but fun and Sonic cool but boring and people would buy they like that and not thinking the game was cool and fun for their tastes.

Well, when Mario come out there wasn't much competition in this new high-quality version of home console platforms. Nintendo had the benefit of being first, and I also think combined with being rooted in Japanese culture (an isolationist culture), they had no need/desire to try to mold themselves so heavily to the Western Youth. Sonic came second did the opposite as it needed to in addition to other reasons as well I'm sure.

Again, it's not that people play games like Zombies and don't have fun. If they continue to play a game it must be fun. But if fun becomes heavily associated with something finicky like a fashion trend, or a generations perception of what is cool or edgy, then that association of fun will die with it. To me this is the basic simple underlying psychology behind what we all know to be true when we are exposed to entertainment from our grandparent's generation matched up against the current generation.



Zkuq on 27 October 2016

No. Either it's subjective or objective, but not both. If there can be differing opinions about something, it's either not known well enough, or it's subjective.