I think games are sufficiently sophisticated to the point where intention can be a lot more specific than 'the colors and noises were pleasing'. Critique can be more specific as well. It's possible to have a fun game that is complete garbage narratively (aka most of them), maybe that's something that needs to be evaluated.Originally Posted by Shin Johnpv
It's possible to have a game that's not 'fun' at all but still hits dead on like Hotline Miami. I don't know about you, but I felt really gross playing that game. I think that's 100% the tone they were going for, so the game is successful.
Last edited by YellerDog; 11 Feb 2016 at 02:06 PM.
can't wake up
Fun is subjective of course. I wish people who say "it's fun" or "it's my fun" can just elaborate and explain why it's fun. For the most part they can. but any of the reasons they state are totally valid. If they find Superman 64 fun because they love flying through rings in games, ok! I just don't place the same value on flying through rings.
Last edited by Diff-chan; 11 Feb 2016 at 02:07 PM.
When you divorce the entertainment value from a game, what are you left with aside from tech specs? What else are you going to discuss?
Why do many people here dislike LittleBigPlanet?
It's not entertaining.
Floaty-ass jumps.
Survey says!
The Dog family chose the number one answer. Would you like to pass or play?
Exactly. And that's something that is not P's and yet reasonably objective.
It's a part of the game's physics, which is a technical thing.
I'd argue it's more of a design choice. I doubt the engine mandates floaty jumps. It's closer to art style than resolution.
However, if we go with your take, then that would be a specific example of a technical thing directly impacting "fun."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks