Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Dauntless

Are games only for fun?

Recommended Posts

Dauntless    314
I guess that kinda sounds like a stupid question, but what I mean by that is should games only be entertainment? I''m not talking about, "are games art", or "can games be considered free speech?". Instead, I wonder how many designers see games as an educational tool, or even a tool to improve ones self. I was reading a book on Aikido and I realized I had forgotten many important principles. One of the ideas stressed in the book was that of the notion that we have become a society of entertainment and luxury. We want everything handed to us on a silver platter with little to no effort. We have diet pills that promise easy loss, and ab machines that make exercising "easy". Isn''t the whole point of exercise that its supposed to be hard? Some people will think, "why play a game if it is hard or too much work?", but the same can be said of any endeavor that requires skill. Look at people that practice any kind of sport...the training is often brutal, but the person is rewarded by becoming more skillful or in better shape. The Chinese have a saying, "eating bitter". It means that if you want something worthwhile, you have to suffer and work hard for it. My grandfather basically told me that nothing worth anything comes easy in life. But the point I''m trying to make is that games CAN teach this, although it will be harder than other skills because it will be harder to translate what you learn in the game to real life. Look at games that have high learning curves. Most people simply don''t want to bother with them because they aren''t "fun". But I think as designers, we have to give small rewards, small signs to make the player feel as if he is improving....and perhaps not just as a player...but as a person. I think much of this can be accomplished through the storyline, but also how the missions are presented can make a player feel better about himself. Perhaps this is why the media is so against games, because they see no redeeming values in games because most games do not even have a moral or a story. Perhaps it is time to rethink how games can be used and how we can make games "edutainment"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoakinKittens    122
If a game isn''t neccessarily "fun" or is really hard and you have to work at improving yourself in order to benefit / have fun from it, the game must make that worth while. For instance, it takes a lot of work to become really good at chess ( i understand the peices, but that is all ) but some people excel at that game and have fun from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wavinator    2017
quote:
Original post by Dauntless
I was reading a book on Aikido and I realized I had forgotten many important principles. One of the ideas stressed in the book was that of the notion that we have become a society of entertainment and luxury. We want everything handed to us on a silver platter with little to no effort. We have diet pills that promise easy loss, and ab machines that make exercising "easy". Isn''t the whole point of exercise that its supposed to be hard?



Not to go off topic, but you know, of course, how many reports and studies out there that talk about how hard we work, how much we sacrifice for our children, how hard we study in school, work to improve our homes, etc. etc. ad naseum. (That''s the problem with siting specific fads or behaviors and generalizing.)

quote:

Some people will think, "why play a game if it is hard or too much work?", but the same can be said of any endeavor that requires skill.



Most people study to improve their careers or accomplish something. If a game furthers this, its probably considered training, rather than entertainment.

quote:

Look at people that practice any kind of sport...the training is often brutal, but the person is rewarded by becoming more skillful or in better shape.


But there are real world rewards for practicing sports. The same isn''t true (at least yet) for games, for the most part. (Korea excepted...)

quote:

But the point I''m trying to make is that games CAN teach this, although it will be harder than other skills because it will be harder to translate what you learn in the game to real life. Look at games that have high learning curves.



I''ve actually heard of SimCity and several strategy games being used to train people for very specific tasks (like logistics and strategy). You also might argue that many games that teach either logic or problem solving, or hand-eye coordination also already teach valuable skills.

quote:

But I think as designers, we have to give small rewards, small signs to make the player feel as if he is improving....and perhaps not just as a player...but as a person. I think much of this can be accomplished through the storyline, but also how the missions are presented can make a player feel better about himself.



This is also another discussion, but I believe, in general, that there needs to be more games that appeal to a more mature audience, and certainly one way to do that is through a more deeply introspective storyline.

quote:

Perhaps this is why the media is so against games, because they see no redeeming values in games because most games do not even have a moral or a story.



Nah, actually the media is mostly against us for the same reason that they were against the "talkies" of the early 20th century: It''s a new medium, they can''t relate, they don''t get it, and the material appeals to an audience that''s essentially "not them." Give it time, and just as with the internet, they''ll understand as soon as they can make this new medium their own.

quote:

Perhaps it is time to rethink how games can be used and how we can make games "edutainment"


I''d be interested in hearing specific examples that translate well into the real world...

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hase    313
"Are games only for fun?"

In a nutshell: yes.

Of course every game is a little bit more than just entertainment because more or less automatically values and world views are related. But I consider making a game a tool for that bad style at best. Games ARE supposed to be fun, to entertain is their primary function. People who buy games want to be entertained, that is what they spend their money for (unless it explicitly states on the box that this is a learning game). If you use your game as your personal soapbox then you have abused the players trust and effectively cheated him out of his money and playing experience.

Contrary to your beliefs learning does NOT have to hurt in order to be effective. Sure, some things are more pleasant to learn than others, but especially when it comes to sports it is important to listen to your body - if it hurts you´re not doing it much good. I`m not saying that you should never push your limits, but to equal pain with a good learning experience is plain wrong.
And as for helping the player grow as a person, no thanks. That is (again) much too close to the soapbox I was mentioning. The player bought entertainment, not a lecture on how to live his life. And lets be honest, who are you (or anyone) to tell me how to be a better person? There is nothing more pathetic than these do-gooders who are trying to improve us (ever see a recent Steven Seagall film? His tree-huggin eco-awareness messages are just painful to watch...).

Some of your worldview and values will of course make it into your game, that is unavoidable. But I think it is wrong to center your game around that, or even make it an integral part of your game. Your job is to provide entertainment, not to preach or teach a self-help course.
If you want to make games like that, make it clear that it´s not a game of the usual make, because otherwise people will feel cheated. I doubt that many people will be interested, but if you can produce it cheaply there might be a niche for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Infinisearch    2971
Fun is in the eye of the beholder. Then there are other things like a reputation associated with something. I also think there are cultural and personality traits involved. Take chess as an example.

Some people find chess fun others don''t. Some people like checkers but not chess, they are both board games... both require a amount of strategy. Some people default choose to play checkers because chess is associated with being a ''nerd''. The flip side of that is that some people like choose to play chess because it is associated with being smart. If introduced to some thing on that level what we choose to represent ourselves as a person can impact what a person defines as fun. In the above case what i''m saying is that fun comes later on. The associations are usually cultural traits and can exist in some societies and not in others. The simple fact is some cultures are polarized, in the sense that you can be either smart or athletic... not outright but it the writing on the wall.

Then there is who introduces something to you, and how. Basically what i''m saying is that if you like your father and your father used to play chess with you as a kid, and he made it ''fun'' then chances are you will like chess. However if your father made it so you had to be able to beat deep blue at the age of 7... Sometimes its the associated relationships and events in your life that can help define if something is fun or not. If a person is made fun of for playing chess the person can use that to either strengthen or weaken there like or dislike of the game, it depends on the people involved and the relations inbetween.

Then there is the challenge some people like things that provide a challenge. Challenge can be mental, physical or both, and some people will stray away from one or all of them. I have a friend who buys the strategy guide for a game with the game. I always thought that by itself was bad but the worst part is the fact he uses it from the beginning making no effort to try to figure the game out. They are many other things that can be said about why people find something fun or not but in the end you can''t really define fun for the whole.

Some people might find a purely educational game fun while others not... its just a matter of who your target audience is. You could always make a game with education that is there but not advertised. I don''t know if its like this now but I remember a friend telling me that in either japan or china (i forgot which) most TV cartoons teach history or myth. This was told to me after I had watched an episode, and I really didn''t "see the education at the time." The problem in a game is you don''t have to play and so while you could throw in whatever you want its a matter of will the player continue to play and if they do will they just disregard the lesson as a part of the game. If the lesson is not reinforced in life then it is just another thing you needed to do to finish the game. Of course the person could play the game and find some "philisophical resonance" with what you are trying to tell them, but in the end it all comes down to the person playing the game.

---Its all psychology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
devonne1    122
i think your that is a bomb qeustion because that is what i think about when i think of makeing a game i think there should be a blacnes between fun and learning/theaching an like starwars
in starwars they tell about good and bad and how one cant live with out the other and much more and people who watch it and listen to what they say can learn from it a lot of what they say is in any holy book its just said diffrent. and i think thats were the line comes in is how its said and who its said by so if
you wanted to teach aikido you could make some kind of game where
the camra zoom in on a good move and slow down the fram rate so to show the move or whatever and then put some cool charter in who story is based on what you belive and what you think is wrong
as for fun in video games people have to make money if a company
wants to be on top no matter what and make the most money they have to keep a strong hold on the consumer hey i would do the same thing and but i think there is a lot of game that can teach you things but you have to have like whatever you want to learn
like you i like the art of fighting (not the game) and i read the burce lee book jet ku do and i learnd something in the book that can help me in real life and in the game and because i dont fight a lot in real lif i had to somewhat practics in the game (tekken) and the skill i learnd from real life from the book help me in the game now i am man at that game so to wrap it up i just think there has to be a middle ground between fun and learning make the fun real fun and teach/laerning even funer!

devonne1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diodor    517
To the "can games be education?" question, I ask "isn''t education a game?". I think it is. There is learning, there are tests, there are scores, one can win and one can lose. Simulated action in a controlled environment.

So the games - education dichotomy is superficial, stemming from the definitions of these two terms. Actually, the only difference between game and education is that the main purpose of a game is fun while the main purpose of education is to learn something useful.

Steps can be taken to make games more educative (historical games, economic simulators, flight simulators, etc.) and to make education more fun, but the main goal must be respected. If you’re making a game, don’t let education spoil the fun. If you’re making an education product, don’t let fun lower the standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Citizen Kane answer: Games are meant to be PLAYED. Whether they''re fun is primarily linked to how well they play, but also has secondary links to story, atmosphere and other presentation.

Games can be meaningful and impart deep messages, and they can teach, but these are optional.

The acid test: remove all optional extras like deep plot, terrapixels of graphics, surround sound, etc, and see if it''s fun. If it is, then these extras will help, but only so much. If it isn''t any fun, all the extras in the world wont change that one bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inmate2993    222
The word game surely implies that it''s only meant to be fun, however I think that with Video Games on a whole, its a bit immature to demand that everything be fun. If you want to some day enjoy the luxuries of being politically protected speech, being an artform, you have to accept that art isn''t neccessarily fun. Otherwise every movie you''ll ever watch will only be fun, and every book will only be fun, and the museums will replace Picasso with Dilbert for the fun factor. What I think we need to discuss is not if a game should be fun, but that it be enjoyable, and there is a difference there. Movies like Memento were enjoyable, but not fun in the smile happy happy sence. Likewise, not every game should warrant you being happy after playing it. There are more emotions that could be played with, which the Tragedy threads are talking about.

As for enjoyability, yes. This is an important area. Some people like to read romance novels, they like it. They like the range of emotions that they offer. So, players should enjoy the games. And although it sounds like I''m playing with semantics, it has to be recognized that there is more than just the "oh this is fun" mold.

-> Will Bubel
-> Machine wash cold, tumble dry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilj    122
stop trying to make games fun. Nothing is fun to everyone. What ever happened to the cult classic. Aim your game at those who might appreciate it. The elements of what is fun have then changed, and I think the extras then become more defining, but yes, you loose some audience. Generally, I try to make a game i want to play, I think I know whats fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a person    118
kilji, you are being contradictory. you say dont make games fun which means make them boring. then you say that you make games that are fun for yourself. you also stated that you should make games that an audience can appreciate. i doubt an audience will enjoy a boring game. you also stae that you think you know whats fun, yet say ppl should not make fun games. so you use yru defination of fun to create dull games?

fresh new games are not being created because the risk involved in a failed title can be enormous. look at sega, they created a great system and made great games. sony though used buzz words and fake numbers*. they promoised better games and graphics through the "emotion" engine. the reality was that most of the early ps2 games stunk compared to dreamcast games. none had any flair nor were original. ps2 games did get better, but still never matched to what dreamcast had.

look at super monkey ball on gamecube. quite original (last game similar to it i can recall was marble madness). very enjoyable as well if you like skill games. but you needed patience to grasp the physics and solving of the level to fully appreciate and have fun playing the game. games like 720 or skate or die (oops i mean tony hawk) are becoming popular due to the use of 3d within games to help allow finer control. also clever marketing hype helps as well.

the problem is that new gamers expect more from games then old shcool gamers do. when you used to play games that had only 16 colors running at 320x240 anything running in 256 colors will look much better. though if you only played games on the newer systems, you will not be able to play games on older systems because of the lower standard of graphics. new gamers expect more from games only because they have only seen games with more as their standard of what a game is.

games are COMPLETLY different from other forms of art. this is similar to how films, paintings, and music are very different from ecah other. the fact that they are interactive changes how they are viewed and appreciated. a picture can be enjoyed through mere sight, but a game can only be enjoyed while playing. as the player you to some degree can shape the art and control what you see and expierence. see below to realize that something fun provides enjoyment, at least in english.

if you make a game that is meant to teach is by defination an oxymoron.
quote:

From Webster''s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :

Game \Game\ (g[=a]m), v. i. [imp. & p. p. Gamed (g[=a]md); p.
pr. & vb. n. Gaming.] [OE. gamen, game?en, to rejoice, AS.
gamenian to play. See Game, n.]
1. To rejoice; to be pleased; -- often used, in Old English,
impersonally with dative. [Obs.]

2. To play at any sport or diversion.

3. To play for a stake or prize; to use cards, dice,
billiards, or other instruments, according to certain
rules, with a view to win money or other thing waged upon
the issue of the contest; to gamble.


that is not to see a game cannot teach, it is to say that you cant create a game with a purpose of simply teaching information.

great marketing can sell crap, and a great product will be crap without great marketing.



* ps2 was at best equal to the rendering power of dreamcast. ps2 had a higher fillrate, but dreamcast had better texture quality due to more vram and compression. also dreamcast did not need a high fillrate due to tile based rendering vs the normal triangle scan based rendering. the 66million was how many polys coul dbe rendered with transformation, lighting, textures, or any special effects on. the more accurate number is about 3-6 million, just like dreamcast.

quote:

From WordNet (r) 1.7 :

fun
adj : providing enjoyment; pleasantly entertaining; "an amusing
speaker"; "a diverting story"; "a fun thing to do"
[syn: amusing, amusive, diverting, fun(a)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dauntless    314
My question is, what is a game really? As for games NEEDING to be fun, I don''t that is necessarily so. If one defines sports as games, I think many people play sports not for the fun, but because of other factors...namely the ability win. And winning is not necessarily fun, it is something that helps our esteem and confidence. Fun does not do this, it is merely entertainment.

I honestly think that we do have to much leisure in today''s society (despite the fact that we work more) and that we expect things to be easy for us. We drive in cars instead of walking, we watch TV instead of talking to neighbors, and we eat fast food because its quicker than making a real meal. I think games can be more than just mere entertainment, and has the potential to be more moving and inspiring than books or movies....but it seems as if we are stuck in the mentality of "fun". Comics was for the longest time stuck in the same rut too. Ironically, it was forced there in the 50''s due to the CCA (Comics Code of Authority) because parents were afraid comics were damaging their morals (sound familiar? Columbine anyone?) and leading them down dark paths. So comics could no longer address adult issues, and instead had to kiddify themselves. It''s only been relatively recent that writers in the comics genre have made comics and graphic novels a compelling medium. I think it is only a matter of time before someone creates a game with a truly intriguing story which makes the player think a little, and perhaps will be as inspiring as any movie. Think about it....has a game ever made you cry? Has a game ever made you feel like a better person for having played through it?

My goal would be to offer entertainment that gives something a bit more meaningful than that. Perhaps it is a soapbox, but isn''t every other form of entertainment? Are muscisnas, playwrights, authors, sculptors and painters in many ways just giving us a window into their own experiences and perspectives? I see nothing wrong with having a soapbox at all.

So as to warning a player that this game may not be purely "fun" seems a bit awkward. I think entertainment comes in many forms so I don''t think it would be disingenuous to have a learning or inspirational aspect in a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oluseyi    2116
quote:
Original post by Dauntless
If one defines sports as games, I think many people play sports not for the fun, but because of other factors...namely the ability win. And winning is not necessarily fun, it is something that helps our esteem and confidence.

Oh, no. Winning is lots of fun. Taunting the loser is even more fun! (I speak from extensive experience on both sides of the equation, playing a sport where spectacular finishes always lead to swagger).

quote:

Think about it....has a game ever made you cry? Has a game ever made you feel like a better person for having played through it?

Should it?

That''s really not a possible question to answer, because it both should and shouldn''t. Some games should be about fun - and only about fun, while some games ostensibly should be about something more.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ ]
[ MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Boost ]
[ Google! | Asking Smart Questions | Jargon File ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anaton    122
When you go to a store and buy a game, what''s your reason for buying it? Are you looking to pick up something to use as a learning tool, or are you looking for a type of entertainment/diversion? If you are like the majority of game players, you are looking to be entertained, not preached to. On a personal note I don''t mind if some of the producer''s philosophy leaks over into the game but I don''t want it to be central or integral to the game.

As far as has a game ever made you cry? No but I have had a few that have took me through an emotional rollercoaster of sorts. Ever played Homeworld? At the beginning of the last mission when Karen is almost killed by the Evil Emporer as you hyperjump into the system it made me feel both a little sad and pissed off, and furthered my resolve to kill the SOB responsible.

If you can make a game with an educational theme ellicit that type of response then it''s one I''d be interested in but otherwise I''d probably pick up the game beside yours that is more about entertainment and less about your philosophy on how the world is or should be.

Anaton
Flying Tigers CFSG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dauntless    314
I hate to say this because it sounds critical, but why do people feel that people will buy something only because it provides entertainment?

For example, why do we play sports or pay money to go to martial arts classes? When you really think about it, why would someone pay someone else money to make them suffer a lot of pain? Because we hope that it will somehow better us. And that I think is the critical distinction. People think, "hey. it''s a game, all games are good for is a few cheap thrills". Why can''t it be more than that?

I''ll give another example, why would some people read non-fiction books, or watch the Discovery channel? It''s not "entertainment" in the sense that most people think. But lots of people like the fact that when they read non-fiction books, they are educating themselves, hence improving themselves. It''s entertainment of a different sort.

I think people have essentially stereotyped games. When most people say games, they automatically think "entertainment", but entertainment in a very limited scope. Entertainment can come in a variety of forms. Just because a game is educational or has a point to make does not mean that the designer is trying to cram his viewpoint down your throat. When you think about it, every form of linear entertainment that we have...books, TV, movies, plays, etc, essentially have a point to tell. And it is up to the viewer to process this point as he sees fit. Perhaps it will get him thinking...perhaps he will think it''s rubbish. But the main point is to get that idea across in the first place.

In America, animated movies are not taken very seriously. Ditto with comics. In Japan however, if you read a manga...it''s not necessarily about big robots or busty sailor outfit schoolgirls. In fact, the vast majority are not. They are just stories about people. In other words, the Japanese do not stereotype animation or graphic novels with a certain form of storytelling like we have here in the US (and indeed, I cringe everytime I hear someone say "manga style" or "anime style", because that''s like saying there''s a "comic book style"....everyone has their own artistic influences in Japan just like they do here). I think we also stereotype what games should be...rather than what they could be. Perhaps we should even stop using the word "game" because that has the connotation of being "fun", but games can be learning tools too....so the denotation of the word is still valid, but the connotation is so strong, that is has prejudiced what people think games can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster   
Guest Anonymous Poster
Philosophy and games can mix well together if done right. I thought MGS2 was pretty intriguing, and so did a hell of a lot of other people, which is obvious by it''s sales. I would definetely say that it was REALLY heavy on the life views, and it did cram it right down your throat, but that''s what made the experience that much better.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i8degrees    122
quote:
Original post by Dauntless
I think it is only a matter of time before someone creates a game with a truly intriguing story which makes the player think a little, and perhaps will be as inspiring as any movie. Think about it....has a game ever made you cry? Has a game ever made you feel like a better person for having played through it?



Yes. Ever played the Final Fantasy series? I, along with many other people, have cried, or at least had tears, when Aeris died on FF7. Final Fantasy 7 has a very serious in depth plot, I played through the game tens of times start to finish to feel the plot.

"I am governed by none other than the Laws of the Universe."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oluseyi    2116
Dauntless:

Life is short. People who obssess over improving themselves - who turn every possible activity into a "learning experience" and never just engage in mindless fun lose out on life. I don''t play a lot of games, and I don''t care for most "genres" (I really only play sports games because I can consume them in short bursts when I feel like, have fun and leave to do other things).

The primary distinction between games and all the other examples you give - books, movies, comic books - is interactivity. Interactivity and narrative (a key feature of virtually all non-game forms of entertainment) are somewhat opposed in that the more narrative you present, the less interaction you typically have. And most (all?) other forms of entertainment/education impart things to you by forcing you to see a narrative from an author-controlled perspective and then allowing you to ruminate over it. By the time you do that to a game, you''ve lost a lot of interactivity (thus some of the criticisms that MGS2 had too many FMVs/cutscenes).

To effectively incorporate education/betterment in games, you''d have to redesign and rethink narrative paradigms that have held up for generations. That''s a daunting task, but I guess there''s a reason they call you Dauntless.

Personally, I don''t need artsy-fartsy games; Hollywood fucks up often enough trying to teach me some idiot''s stereotyped and cliched version of a "moral". Let''s just rediscover fun.

On the flipside, do players really want games that present them with moral delimas? When we watch movies or read books, the moral delimas and choices of the protagonist(s) have no consequences for us other than possible temporary emotional attachment. Present a quandry in a game and the user will experience repercussions within the game world, and that might detract from the game. Most people face enough situations everyday in the real world that it''s worth investigating whether they''d like to face similar situations in a virtual one. Perhaps you should do a survey?

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ ]
[ MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Boost ]
[ Google! | Asking Smart Questions | Jargon File ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dauntless    314
Oluseyi-
I guess that''s what I''m interested in exploring..the notion of moral quandries as a virtual experience. It''s a razor wire balancing act, because on one hand, you want the player to feel immersed in the world and truly care about his actions, but on the other, you don''t want him to escape the real reality for the virtual one. That''s the real challenge I think...that and like you said, finding a new paradigm for storytelling.

I think that''s ultimately why I want to be a game designer, not for creating a "game", but for telling a story. I don''t really want to hand to a player, "this is the way the world should be", but just make him question As Picasso once said, questions are more important than answers. So I''m not going to ram my world view down someone''s gullet, but basically weave a story that presents characters with choices....and how they they deal with consequences. To me that''s more interesting to make players think about what they do and its what intrigued me about Black and White.

As for being Dauntless...yup, I''m determined And as for life passing me by, well, I''ll admit, I''m pretty geeky by most people''s standards. I have fun but it''s totally different from how most people have fun. But I do occasionally cut loose, and I enjoy the mindless game from time to time myself. If I really just want to have fun, I go out dancing (but I don''t drink) or just hang with friends. And the things I like to do are things that make me reflect on what life is really all about. Talking walks in a park, watching the night sky, reading books, etc etc. For some reason, watching movies and TV got boring for me a few years ago. Other than a handful of movies or shows, nothing really intrigues me. I see in computers a new storytelling medium that is unlike anything mankind has had before, and I think we''re still learning exactly how to use it as an entertainment source. Perhaps one day, narrative and interaction won''t be as diametric as we think, and we can produce a happy union of the two....at least that''s what I hope for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
solinear    145
This might be an obnoxious question, but how old are you?

After putting in 6-10 hours at work Monday-Friday for a couple of years you realize that when you get home you''re not exactly cut out for learning experiences... you want to kick back, relax and veg out. Games are perfect for that. If they''re not enough fun then you''ll just not feel up to putting in the mental energy to play them because the return is diminished. You''re not worried about learning some lesson or anything like that, you''re there to basically burn some time and forget about all the crap that you went through at work.

I know a lot of late High School/college students who love the idea of making educational games and they think that they will be amazing successes, but honestly I wouldn''t put more than an hour into a game if it''s not fun.

Like I said, I don''t want to learn anything when I sit down to a game, I want to veg out and have some fun. If I want to learn, then I''ll pick up any one of my dozen or so books about programming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hamdoon    122
Personally, I find a game more enjoyable when it has a strong connection to real life. Like, if I can learn something about the real world or use what I know about the real world to suceed in the game.

Examples:

- The tech tree in Civilization was the first time I had ever seen that concept used in a game. It was quite interesting, and I''d never thought the progress of technology quite like that before.

- War games. I learned a lot about military history from these games, and that makes them more compelling to me.

- I am a car nut in real life, so I loved the Gran Turismo series. It was really an amazing thing to feature so many real cars and have the detailed simulation to make them seem real. It was realistic enough that real-life driving techniques could be used to good effect. (I know there are probably more realistic driving games for the PC but I have not played any).

Those are all games where I think I learned something... edutainment if you will. =)

So I''m arguing that relating games to the real world can be educational and more fun... it doesn''t have to be preachy and dry.

However, that doesn''t totally respond to the question, "can games be compelling without being fun". I would say that in theory I believe they can... I don''t see why you could say that is true of books or movies ut not of games. But in practice, I can''t say that I have ever played a video game except to have fun (although there are certainly times that a game hasn''t been fun, but I''ve kept playing anyway... hmm...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oluseyi    2116
quote:
Original post by Hamdoon
Personally, I find a game more enjoyable when it has a strong connection to real life. Like, if I can learn something about the real world or use what I know about the real world to suceed in the game.

None of your examples made the real life connection their central focus. The core activity of a game should be fun - at least for those of us who''ve had enough of the real world by 5pm!

Dauntless:
I wasn''t trying to suggest that you were missing out on life; it was merely a generic comment. That said, realize that most media that are intensely intellectual/philosophical are niche products. Mass media must appeal to the general populace, and the general populace currently isn''t big on thinking. Have you ever eavesdropped on the discussions of theatre-goers after a challenging movie (consider it field research )? "Trite" would be a massive understatement.

Realize also that to compete in the modern marketplace, your game has to emphasize high production values (audio, graphics, etc). With that kind of focus, for your game not to be commercially viable or not to do well would incur significant losses. I understand that you''re mostly focused on developing a paradigm, but you have to keep fiscal considerations and how the new paradigm interacts with (or changes completely) the old in mind.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ ]
[ MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Boost ]
[ Google! | Asking Smart Questions | Jargon File ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hamdoon    122
quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
None of your examples made the real life connection their central focus. The core activity of a game should be fun - at least for those of us who''ve had enough of the real world by 5pm!



True... my point was that a link to reality (which can be educational) is not antithetical to making a game fun, and can even help. At that point the game is fun, but the fun is not the game''s only value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dauntless    314
Oluseyi-
Yeah, I worry about the financial ramifications of the design I''d like to see. I seriously doubt it has the "oomph" or sales pitch for a game publisher to publish and fund it. The bottomline for most people is that education or edutainment just isn''t....well, fun I guess financial considerations aren''t my forte really....as can be evidenced from my Linux postings, hehe. Nevertheless, it is important, and I''m afraid that it''s something that I need to look into more carefully for practicality''s sake.

But in a lot of ways, this is more like research I guess. When I finally start back school, this is the area of research I want to go into....the focus of using computers as an interactive storytelling medium. I think the key word there is storytelling. I want to see if it''s possible to balance out narrative storytelling with interactive possibilities. Sounds daunting, but I think with some novel AI approaches, it may be possible somewhere down the road.

Solinear-
I''m 30 actually So I''m not fresh out of college, and as a matter of fact, I''m going back in (God help me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Warsong    100
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Some of you people don''t get it.
Games can be fun and learning.----------
Subcounsiouly they hit you. like the game
**TETRIS which was not made to be fun but to relax, also
**"I have no mouth and i must speek" about the end of the world.
**or games that kids play to learn are addictingly fun for them, they cant get enough of those things.
*******all games help in developing some skills********
even a fighting game can in improving your memory, use it or loose it in useing your brain. ow u ask well learning the moves or other thinsg that use memory, or improve your refelxes.

WAKE UP PEOPLE+++++++++++++
Games are all in %%%%%%%%%%% in how much fun, challeneg, and learning their is.

IF u want to relax go vegitate by lookingt at paint dry, that takes no prain power or effort.

Also games dont''t have to be fun to play them. I played a lof of games that were not fun, and i play then for the challenge which I find that fun.

(((((((originality is low, and some of your people dont think and love the same old same old with pumped up fx)))))))))

Also i have some ideas of very educational games for grownups which are just as addicting as the kiddi games for the kids.
making a game that is simple, gives accomplishment, learning, and fun takes skill.

====== so just becasue companies produce crap doesnt mean their is no hope in making a balance between fun, challenging, and educational that u get something out of it.

life is a lesson, and the less u want to learn the less fun things will be later on, so have fun learning and make it a habbit bad habbits shouldnt beat good ones
The smarter u are the more u aprishiate good games and learning games.
------
dont bother complaining to waht i said becasue thats logical fact, if u dont want to accept it its not my problem.
also dont bother with the typo, speed vs accuracy
Take care

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites