Tomonobu Itagaki Interview (TeamXbox)

[mrt]

Que?

[dog$]

When one posts without a specific quote and isn't replying to the main topic, it's usually assumed that the post's subject refers to the content directly preceeding it.

Specifically, I was reacting to statements like:

I'm sorry MarkRyan, but even a 'game-critic' should know that the purpose of a game is to atleast be entertained.

and

In the end it is about how much fun it is to play.

and

do you mind telling me how the fact that Itagaki says he makes entertaining games... makes his games not the most awesome things in recent history?

As far as I'm concerned, being "fun" simply isn't good enough to make your games the best. I'd like to assume that the userbase of this board already knows that videogames "are fun" (thus not making it a valid single criteria to judge Game X against Y), and that we all know any game can be "fun" if you're giddy or intoxicated enough.

[Damian79]

As far as I'm concerned, being "fun" simply isn't good enough to make your games the best. I'd like to assume that the userbase of this board already knows that videogames "are fun" (thus not making it a valid single criteria to judge Game X against Y), and that we all know any game can be "fun" if you're giddy or intoxicated enough.

Why compare? Some people may enjoy x game but that doesn't mean that I would find it enjoyable.

I mean look at Zelda 64, every review gives it near perfect scores, but I find it incredibly boring, does that mean I should buy the game even though I don't enjoy it? I don't have a problem with other people liking it, but the game wasn't much fun for me. The end.

[dog$]

The end... until someone feels like voicing an opinion regarding the matter. MarkRyan did so with some form of logic behind his sentiments, but that isn't good enough for you.

What you people are telling him is that he has no right to voice dissent at all, regardless of his basis of opinion or other irrelevant criteria (such as refusing to buy his games). Sure, this mindset would result in fewer arguments here, but TNL is getting inactive enough as it is.

[rezo]

It reminds me of the old color vs. drawing argument in art. Simplified, the appeal of color is more immediate to people and they'll like it even if they don't get the color theory behind it, whereas technically proficient rendering tends to call for a bit knowledge of what went into the work before appreciating it. So people tend to go for things that are simpler and more immediately pleasing to them, and then they compare them to things that are more technically sound that they aren't into.

It's like me saying Super Robot Wars is the best strategy game series ever because I buy into the fanboy crap that it's covered in(the whole, various robots from various popular series join forces, all with their own original BGM and voices). So because of things that have not much to do with strategy gaming at all, I could say it's better than other games in the genre.But that would be stupid. As far as delivering solid strategic gaming goes, I'd probably have to pick something else, based on how the gameplay(related to actual strategy) is actually handled-scenarios, character types,terrain design, etc.

Likewise, saying that one fighting game is a better fighter than another because the other takes too much time to get into isn't really saying that one game is a better fighting game. It's saying that you don't have enough of an interest in that sort of game to bother with something that focuses on providing a certain level of complexity in the experience. However, I think the more important question there is whether or not the people that are willing to put in the time are rewarded for it. ie: Do you spend a long time learning a fighting game just to find out it sucks, or do you find a new and remarkably deep experience from taking that time that sets the game apart from others. If that is the case with something like Virtua Fighter, then I'd say it probably is a better fighting game than something designed for you to jump into that sells itself largely on being pretty. Even if you happen to enjoy the pretty game more.

Of course, I don't know if that's the case with something like Virtua Fighter, since I haven't played it all that much. Or Dead or Alive really. Soo... so I'm just speaking generally. good night.

[Damian79]

No I am saying that he has to to stop his constant whinging at Itagaki and DOA. He seems to give off the vibe that he can't accept that DOA is a good game to some people or even fun to some.

I am saying people see thing in games others don't and vice versa.

[mrt]

As far as I'm concerned, being "fun" simply isn't good enough to make your games the best.

who said anything about being "the best"?

you said:

Yet GamePro is able to both define and quantify a game's worth on it being simply "fun". What's worse is how many other people buy into this theory.

if im not having fun with a game i cease playing it. when im having fun i keep playing it.

i play games to have fun. i fail to see how a games worth depends on anything other thant how much fun i am having while playing.

try again?

[dog$]

I might happen to think it's fun to bury cats in the ground neck-up and go mow the lawn.
Hitler thought it was fun to shishkabob and roast Jews.
You might think it's fun to control emotionless tanks (endowed with the inability to move and shoot at the same time) as they battle emotionless zombies in a "scary environment".

Saying a game is "fun" is meaningless because no two people can ever fully agree on what "fun" is.

So when you tell me that you like a game for it being "fun", my reaction is that you're using the word "fun" in an attempt to conceal your ignorance and lack of ability to truly define what it is that you like about the game.

[AaronChance]

As far as I'm concerned, being "fun" simply isn't good enough to make your games the best. I'd like to assume that the userbase of this board already knows that videogames "are fun" (thus not making it a valid single criteria to judge Game X against Y), and that we all know any game can be "fun" if you're giddy or intoxicated enough.

Not all games are fun no matter how hammered you are. Not all games are fun to the same people. Assuming that videogames are fun is like assuming that the next Hollywood blockbuster will be worth watching. That'd be nice in an ideal world, but that's not the world I live in.

Team Ninja don't make the best games I've ever played, but at least they're fun.

[mrt]

So when you tell me that you like a game for it being "fun", my reaction is that you're using the word "fun" in an attempt to conceal your ignorance and lack of ability to truly define what it is that you like about the game.

who gives a shit if i can define why a game is fun to me or not?

if we're talking reviews here, stop reading gamepro.

remember saying this?

As far as I'm concerned, being "fun" simply isn't good enough to make your games the best.

um, who cares if its 'teh best!"?

i spend my hard earned cash to play games that i find fun. sorry thats so hard for you to understand.

this is silly