Who's in the right, Yea Forums?

Good is a buzzword for people who can‘t explain why a game is fun

I equate "fun" with "entertaining" and if your game is not entertaining some level fuck off

Absolutely

No, this waa never the case and this old meme is retarded. Fun is a simple way of saying things like

>the game is challenging in a good way
>the gameplay and gameflow are good
>plying the game easily gets me spending more time than initially planned

I hate that fucking sentence, so retarded

TLOU was an overpriced tv show dvd

Attached: 1361305953140.gif (304x168, 1.08M)

both of them

Well, I definitely don't agree with the guy on the left, but I don't think that every game needs to be "fun" per se
They need to be enjoyable, entertaining, like any other piece of entertainment
But a game isn't bad if it's not Hotline Miami-levels of ball blasting fun

Both, or are you saying that silent hill is fun?
>horror is fun
Then you're doing it wrong

Yes

of course its retarded that's why it's a meme. It's some retarded gibberish a hardcore autist spouted.

games don't need to be good to be fun

This. There is nothing wrong with having fun with a bad game so long as you admit it's bad.

>But a game isn't bad if it's not Hotline Miami-levels of ball blasting fun
I wouldn't mind if it is though, HM managed to be much bleaker then TLOU while still being infinitely more fun

Attached: 1558243433231.png (700x490, 345K)

found the pussy that actually gets scared by horror games lol

This
See: Mario Party Advance

I've played games that weren't fun but enjoyed the story or writing. Now I remember them as that shit game but I liked the writing.
Obviously making the game part of the game enjoyable is your number one priority.

Who is Reggie anyway and why's a non-jap so key in a japanese company? Never been a console player so I don't follow this stuff.

If we're talking about games, then Reggie of course
TLOU is literally just a movie being turned into an "interactive" gaming experience
nothing fun about it
the only redeeming trait is that it has suspenseful moments, good graphics, and a decent story

>entertainment doesn't give you entertainment
Chadggie is right and based as usual.

Christ, all he had to say instead was
>Fun is used as a buzzword when people can't explain why a game is good.

>Then you're doing it wrong
the entire crux behind horror as a genre is that it's fun/a rush to feel scared and tense without the actual danger usually involved you fucking moron

Well then if we follow that train of thought then all movies have to be fun as well. So is Rosemary's Baby fun?

Attached: iwata.webm (546x336, 370K)

If people didn't enjoy horror, why do people pay money for it? I know what your thinking, and that enjoyment and fun are technically different things if you get down to the absolute core of it, but to make a generalizing statement involving semantics for the public like this about your brand is pretty stupid if you ask me.

They're both right. They have a different vision of what they want to create.

Both are stupid. Not all games should always be fun. Should a horror game be fun? Should an RPG be fun when it's trying to tell a sad story? Should games that are the equivalent of a zen garden be fun? Should games that are extremely punishing 90% of the time and extremely satisfying 10% of the time include an easy mode so you can have fun all the time? Druckmann would be correct here if his games weren't boring as sin and could use some fun to make them bearable.

The Regginator

Attached: What's Wrong With You.gif (446x251, 650K)

games aren't movies, despite you snoyfags desperately wanting them to be

>Should a horror game be fun?
Yes.
>Should an RPG be fun when it's trying to tell a sad story?
If the story and gameplay work well enough together that the sad story is enjoyable to experience, that is fun.
>Should games that are the equivalent of a zen garden be fun?
Relaxation is fun.
>Should games that are extremely punishing 90% of the time and extremely satisfying 10% of the time include an easy mode so you can have fun all the time?
Challenge is fun.

psssshhh.... we dont use the word "fun".... nothin personell.....kid.....

as much as I hate nu nintendo, of course reggie is right. He is 1000000000 times smarter than the hobo on the left.
OP you are a fucking retard for asking such a stupid question

>fun is a buzzword
le funny Yea Forums meme, but if you are serious about it you could work for any snoy studio

I hope Bowser embraces the meme and stirs shit like Reggie did.

'Fun' is for autists who don't care if they play a shit game as long as it keeps them distracted from serious things.

Good games, on the other hand, are for people who want to be challenged either artistically or intellectually.

Both Neil because he's talking about the story and tone of the game not the gameplay even though the gameplay is shit and reggie even though fun is subjective and nintendo has released many shitty games

>good games are not fun

user i...

Fun is just a simple synonym for those words you listed. You don't need a huge smile on your face in order to have fun, just simple satisfaction.

Attached: 1547557539558.webm (800x450, 2.97M)

This postmodernist-style movement in game development is a load of bullshit.
Reggie is right. The philosophy of Nintendo is ultimately right even if they do flop in the delivery of their games sometimes.
Games should focus on being games first. Gameplay itself has artistic merits. The experience of the game comes first before anything else, and bad games fail to realise this.
You can all the "epic" narrative and "controversy" and "diversity" you want, but if your game ends up being a walking simulator or a run of the mill wave shooter, you might be successful in the short-term luring in idiots who buy anything AAA but in the long-term that game isn't likely going to be remembered fondly. The very skepticism and scrutiny the game was made with will turn back in on itself critically.
The less successful but more creative and "fun" game will have the legs to endure. It might even end up a cult classic. The developer/publisher will be seen in a better light and future titles will be more keenly anticipated. (of course this only applies if said company survives the initial lower sales. It's more of a balance between making something "safe" and taking risk)

its just your typical bullshit artist

reggie
counter to reggie are,
younger generations who focus way too much...
on being the very best..... Like no one ever was.... to catch them is their real test... to train them is their caaaaauuuuusssee

Attached: d2j7npn-ae233d88-d31b-4e5e-ab0e-56a44056a863.gif (704x464, 3.04M)

Kek

buzzword is a buzzword. Hit yourself with a shovel

Amen

This. See the Prototype series.

Neil Druckmann was basically just being a pissant when he said that. We know what he means, it doesn't matter what he calls it, he intends the game to be enjoyable, I.E, fun. Even if you're intending a title to evoke different emotions, at the end of the day you're playing a game because there's some sort of positive emotion you get from it. Whether it be the thrill of simulating fear, just fucking around, having to think your way through something, etc.

He can dance around it all he wants by saying "we want to evoke sorrow, or fear" or whatever, but people play the game because they fucking want to enjoy it, even if it means enjoying it by experiencing an array of different emotions.

Attached: L9MlEPw.jpg (807x659, 37K)

>tfw my facial grows like Neils and i also have curly hair
Am i a Jew?

Attached: 1469668238923.jpg (444x332, 14K)

Makes sense that naughty dog doesn't use the word "fun", because they haven't made a fun game since the PS2 era.

their right is the guy on the left.

"fun" is just a short way of saying you enjoyed said piece of entertainment. How people enjoy them is different, as each person has different tastes. Ex: i personally dont like horror, but many others find them fun.

Hey hey people

no, just fucking ugly

nintendo as always

>enjoyment, amusement, or light-hearted pleasure
I don't think that anyone would say they had "fun" watching, say, Shame with Michael Fasbender, or the Deer Hunter. That does not mean that those weren't worthwhile experiences. It is impossible to be engaged without experiencing "light hearted enjoyment".

Some games, like Mario, focus on pure fun. Others focus on telling a story through game-play or conveying a specific atmosphere/certain themes. The game doesn't need to be "fun" to be engaging.

It really depends on what you mean by fun, as fun carries with it certain connotations that do not necessarily apply to games that are entertaining.
I wouldn't call wandering around the world of Shadow of the Colossus "fun", but I would call it both entertaining as well as compelling.
Aerith dying isn't "fun" either, but it makes for a good story.
As per usual, focus on either extreme is bad as with Nintendo you end up getting the same, derivative, harmless bing-bing wahoo sort of fun, which has it place but not all games should be like that.
Likewise, not all games should be about brooding, sulky, pseudo-philosophical gruff men with beards that are mostly linear in terms of storytelling and gameplay.
You can have both and those are usually the kind of games I enjoy personally. It all really depends on the kind of game you're trying to make.
Claiming one or the other is right is just boiling a complex question down to a binary choice where both answers are wrong.

you kinds of people must be really weird to hang out with
>"how was the rollercoaster ride?"
>yeah, it was fun!
>"shut the fuck up"

>As per usual, focus on either extreme is bad as with Nintendo you end up getting the same, derivative, harmless bing-bing wahoo sort of fun,
People always say shit like this, but mainline Mario is one of the best examples of a series done right. Look at the mechanics of SMB, SMB2, SMB3, SMW, 64, Sunshine, Galaxy, 3D World and Odyssey. They all had substantially different takes on the same formula, and were constantly experimenting with the gameplay. The only thing that remains the same is the story. Compare it to something like Ass Creed where every single game is exactly the same with one new mechanic added in.

Horror movies and games are fun to watch and play cause you are on the edge, you fucking retard. You jump with parachute or go to amusement parks for fun and amusement.

the irony in this post

WTF WHY DIDNT YOU EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS FUN?
>I really enjoyed the adrenaline rush created by the initial section of the track where you slowly clime the tracks at a 70 degree angle and then suddenly drop at a 90 degree angle from the apex of the hill. The loop in the track provided excellent variety that would not have otherwise been present otherwise.

Nintendo of America is in charge or localisation decisions for games, marketing, distribution
Reggie was their director for many years, and has been known for his presence at E3 and other ads

Fun is subjective so Reggie is right

Lmao

You mean objective? Otherwise he's not right

The BING BING WAHOO man is right here , Naughty Dogs sucks and their last good game was Jak 3

Are you retarded?

You should only play a game if you enjoy it. If you do not enjoy it, you are wasting your time.

>Naughty Dogs sucks and their last good game was Jak 3
I honestly doubt that there's anyone here who would refute that.

If games are Art = Left, If games are games = Right.

He was mostly a figurehead to the American fanbase. He held no power at the Japanese branch, he was the head of deciding whether or not games on Nintendo systems should be sold in America or not. He left the company a few months ago though.

>implying art can’t be fun

No, you are, if fun is subjective it means that some people would think that looking at a painting is fun, while playing actualy games like zelda is boring ass shit

No i mean subjective because fun is different for everyone. So anybody can find joy in playin'. So there is a game that you can find game that is FUN.

Yes, and? How is that at all contrary to what I said?

If (You) find the game fun, it's worth playing. If not, why bother? If you'd prefer to look at a painting do that instead. It's not worth wasting your time playing games that you don't find fun for any reason other than entertainment.

Put me in the screenshot!

Reggie is right.
People are more willing to remember a jank game that is fun over a fundamentally solid game that is boring. If you make a game that is better consumed in a cutscene format, you have failed.

I mean when playing RTS games I wouldn't say I have fun in the traditional sense but I still keep playing.

All media, even if it's meant to make you think, is meant as an escape from reality.

If my only goal is to make you think, I'll write an article. If I want to make you think while entertaining you, I'll make a game.

But they need to be fun to be good.

what's with all the newfags replying to this

They botch can be but fuck Druckman

Rent free

I hate Druckmann but he's right. Fun is a buzzword. Fun by itself doesn't mean anything because the word "fun" means different things to different people. If you're going to a design a game, you need to get specific with the way you describe it in order to execute a focused and coherent vision. If you define what "fun" in the context of your game means, you won't even need to use the word itself.

Not the kike

Attached: huh.jpg (542x616, 35K)

They are both free to make the games they want to make and we are all capable of choosing which one we buy.

Oh is that why TLoU wasn't fun?

Attached: 1563687535725.png (274x301, 16K)

But you don't PLAY movies you WATCH them. A game should be fun because it's something you PLAY. A movie can't really be compared to a game because of the fact a movie is passive while a game is active. A movie can be slow and passive since you'll be watching it. A game being slow and passive in terms of controls is a shit game with shit controls. A game pulling player control away to talk at you is a shit game that doesn't want to let you play the fucking game.

user, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but the reason the kids didn't find you when you were playing Hide and Seek wasn't because you were good at hiding, they just didn't like you.

If someone comes into your office and plays your game the number one thing you want them to say about your game is its fun, if they dont, you fucked up.

>jew
>not jew

Yes.

I always think the games we talk about the most, the ones that consistently get remembered, are the game where the gameplay dictates the narrative.
Think of rogue-lites like Binding of Isaac for example. We've had threads every week or other week about that game for years with us all sharing our experiences.
That random element creates beautiful variance.
The biggest sin in gaming, I feel, are open world games with no variance. No emergent gameplay, no reward for doing something unique and different.
I think that games like Dark Sousl are great because there's so many different builds you can use that drastically change HOW you play the game too. And that facilitates discussion.
Its when games like this get dumbed down and streamlined into like three choices is when people start to ignore and leave it.
Developers are too obsessed with hand holding. With making sure everything gets seen first time that it hurts the overall experience.
Its why people love Diablo II but hate III even after they fixed the visuals in the game a bit to be more inline with the series. It still fails to fundamentally improve much from the core gameplay.
Its why I HATE Fable 3. Its objectively worse than its prequel in every way. And that's like the second biggest sin going.

Of course Reggie is correct. The fact that left is even a thing is an embarrassment.

They're both telling me how to think, so they're both wrong. Make the game, shut the fuck up, and let me form my own opinions.

Attached: 1324235345667.jpg (184x184, 13K)

Best game shits on all vidya

Against a similarly skilled opponent

People are being too literal. Fun just means you personally enjoyed it without any more elaboration. It is a buzzword, but it's moreso an answer to the question "is this game good?" A game is either fun or not fun, no in-between.

>jew man dont want me to have fun
how much of a fucking baby do you have to be to not grab the concept of what hes trying to say and just look at it from the surface
god i hate these threads

Because it's a retarded statement no matter how you look at it

The meme has always been valid. However the context is different than in OP's pic. The meme refers to when fags on a chinese cartoon forum respond to an argument about a game's flaws by just saying "w-well I think it's fun!". Okay, that's not an argument. You need to explain why you think it's fun, what about the game is fun. Just saying it's fun means nothing. It's like going to a job interview, and when they ask you why they should hire you, you just keep saying "I'm a good fit for this job!" without backing it up.

Because he's talking about a sequel to a game that was the definition of not fun.

No wonder uncharted 4 was full of cutscenes and less gunfights compared to the other 3 games once this kike kicked Amy out.

The shame of it though is that I actually enjoyed TLOU's gameplay. The stealth worked good enough, and it was satisfying as fuck to scavenge for a brick so that you could smash some guy's head in from behind.

However, it was also marred by its pretentious story that was far too full of itself. People kept sucking off the game for its story, but it's just a generic zombie story we've seen a million times over. Oh, they have a pseudo-father/daughter relationship, yeah this shit is now oscar worthy.
And I wouldn't have minded the story if not for the fact that the game constantly cockblocks the gameplay in order to shove tedious walking-simulator segments in your face. I wish they'd at least just use actual cutscenes during these moments instead of trying to fool me into thinking slowly walking down an empty hallway is still gameplay.

And it's obvious that TLOU2 is going to crank up the "cinematic experience" crap to 11 while deemphasizing gameplay even more.

to be fair UC3 was mediocre as well anyway. But that was more because they were doing an almost 1:1 retread of UC2 but with less of the charm

UC2 is still peak ND kino to me though.

Yes

The philosophy on the left gives you shit like The Cemetery and Dear Esther

So why was the Naughty Dog sexual abuse scandal shushed so fast? Because the victim was male?

This Tbh

Same. Though I wouldn't use pretentious, more like bad and generic
>oh they're not zombies th-there INFECTED
>oh you are gonna be the cure little girl
>oh and the little girl is gon SWEAR XD
>hmm and Joel is gonna larp with Ellie like she's his daughter
>and it's all gonna be an escort mission!
The only thing they did that wasn't overdone was the ending. It's just boring, and it's a shame the gameplay doesn't make up for it.

BING BING WAHOO!!!!!

Both are right, the keyword people need to use instead of fun is "engaging".

You can't say a game like Silent Hill 2 is fun outright, that doesn't get across what the game actually does well. You can't say a game like Sekiro is fun outright, because losing over and over simply isn't fun.

But when a game actively engages the player in a matter that they care about, be it by jumping around in Mario or weathering through the events of Lisa, then it's a good game.

I still cant believe King Koopa is literally in charge of NoA.

Theres gotta be some Major Major shenanigans at play here.

Neither are correct, because it entirely depends on the type of game.
It's like saying all movies or books have to be "fun", which is retarded.

A psychological cosmic horror game should not be "fun". You should enjoy playing it, but it shouldn't be "fun".

Attached: xf2wdqiVK1qkv52g_400.jpg (355x236, 51K)

Gameplay and game design are ultimately worth more than the many other attributes of a game, because they are together the main point of engagement; what you actually DO. A game with superb gameplay and/or game design that's mediocre in all or most other respects is nine times out of ten better than a game with bad gameplay but good high quality visuals/music/writing

I don't really play either of those people's games, but beyond a shadow of a doubt Reggie is in the right

"Buzzword" is a buzzword for those incapable of forming together a proper argument for their position.

you forgot that music/sound is the most important part in game design tho

>complains about buzzwords and in the same breath parrots an unoriginal Yea Forums quote with no substance
Bravo moron.

Cease the antisemitism you fucking Nazis.

>Gameplay and game design are ultimately worth more than the many other attributes of a game

Not true and Yea Forums even proves this time and time again.
What matters most is
>eye catching visuals
>strong mood
>(decent/addictive gameplay loop)
>polish (should feel good to attack/shoot, good feedback on enemy death, menus look slick, etc)
That's it. Good level design, well thought out combat system, etc. is not really important at all for most people. People value how a piece of media makes them feel emotionally and are suceptible to cheap psychological tricks.
This is precisely why super garbage mobile games like cookie clicker or whatever can hook people despite being completely braindead and shit.

Attached: 1505153791624.png (500x400, 234K)

>Good level design, well thought out combat system, etc. is not really important at all for most people
Games like Doom, the first halflife etc, wouldn't have succeeded if they didn't have good gunplay and level design. At least in shooters, the gunplay is the main selling point.

I feel like Nintendo is the only ones who know what they're doing and I don't own any of their shit. Shame.

Videogames = a form of entertainment.
Entertainment = better when it's fun.
Better games = Better fun.

REGGIE WINS

Attached: 1526459923691.jpg (364x364, 38K)

>Games like Doom, the first halflife etc, wouldn't have succeeded if they didn't have good gunplay and level design.

Again, incorrect. None of those thing are important to sell a game and make people enjoy it. Current Blizzard are masters of the things I mentioned and Overwatch is a prime FPS example. Overwatch is a downright horribly designed game in almost every regard. Poorly thought out, sloppy, shallow, etc.
Yet because they have eye-catching visuals, strong marketing and very high levels of polish it blew up and is still pretty popular (even though it's on a decline for a lack of good design).

Also good gunplay falls under polish. How a gun feels to shoot. The gun itself can be horribly balanced or nothing special at all.
Seriously, do you know how they've "buffed" certain weapons in prior shooters? Not by making them deal more damage, increase the accuracy, lower the recoil or anything like that. They simply made the effects, sound and animation of the gun feel more powerful. That's it. The gun functioned exactly the same, but after the updates to the sound and visuals players felt that the gun now felt "much more powerful", even though the players original complaint was that the gun was weak and did low damage.

Nintendo are also good at this. Look at BotW (shit combat and horrible design galore), Hollow Knight and much much more.
Strong game design always helps, but it is NEVER the most important aspect of almost any game.

A movie is an experience and a gaym is an interactive experience

Attached: image.png (200x280, 68K)

Reggie.

Uncharted is a bore to play.

Both of them you stupid faggot.

I’m not even shilling but he’s obviously referring to the darker tone in lou2
But you already know that user. And so does everyone in this thread, but let’s shitpost about it anyway because it’s fucking Yea Forums and why talk about vidya when we can just gaslight each other into oblivion.

Look at all those seething nintentoddlers replies, you nailed it with this post, fun" is the ultimate cope

I just remembered why I rarely come to Yea Forums anymore. Fucking low IQ board, even dumber than /fit/ and that's saying something.

t. anti-fun

Attached: aYtihBi.jpg (914x600, 119K)

Fucking based

fun = I liked it

Reggie obviously. But Reggie is retired while Druckmann is still there, what does that tell you about modern gaming?

you can tell Druckmann is a vile, emasculated piece of shit who's looking for a fight by the way he looks on his pictures despite being a scrawny hippie faggot, pretentious conflict seeking provocateur ideologue

Ok, then what is fun if not enjoyment?

>A game director vs a marketing department head with no connection to game development
Yea, I'll trust the jew this time.

film director*

Reminder: challenge+ story are what make a game good, not 'fun'.

>I'll trust the jew
famous last words

"fun" is the Infantile warcry of autistic manchildren.

lollolo

Druckman: "My games aren't fun. They are deep and will make you cry. It's basically a hollywood movie made in a videogame."

Reggie: Play games because you like them and have fun with them. There doesn't needs to be another reason to play a game. Fun can be seen in different ways. Like challenging yourself and becoming better."

Well who is in the right a wannabe hollywood producent who wants to make "deep" games or a president of a company who was more then 10 years successful of leading a company.

Reminder: fun = I liked it

has a game ever made you cry user, I dont think ive ever cried at a game

reggie was the chief operating officer of the american branch of nintendo. Nothing to do with making games.

He was the COO. Educate yourself and see what their task is.

yeah but not every other person on earth is like you

Their work is operations aka making sure their supply chain is functioning. American nintendo has nothing to do with game dev. Only japan does it.

Reggie, both literally and in regards to the question.

Nintendo Baybay

I miss him bros

This

>Naughty Dog games don't focus on gamepla-

Attached: God Tier TLOU Gameplay.webm (640x360, 2.99M)

Horror games are fun, user
Silent hill was fun
Resident evil was fun
OG alone in the dark was fun

Fun doesn't always mean giddly and sparkly, people can find horror fun
The reason modern horror games aren't good is because they focus way too much in giving you a jump scare they forget they are games and should be entertaining you
If you finish a horror game and you don't feel like you enjoyed your time doing it, then it wasn't fun

It's a GAME. You don't play games if there's no amusement to be had, it's actually quite simple. In the end a politically charged or "artwork" video game will fade into obscurity within the month of its release but good games will be remembered forever.

Attached: smug Shaq.jpg (765x599, 140K)

This

Pretty much, it put all it's eggs in the story
and now the writer for it left ND because she found them to be a bunch of self centered douches
TLoUs 2 will review super well but it will be a shit game
TLoUs2 will be the captain marvel of games and if you disagree with it's scores you are a sexist shitlord

>TLOU is literally just a movie being turned into an "interactive" gaming experience
No, it's not. It's a simple generic stealth game nestled in between cutscenes. There is no interactive storytelling there to be considered an "interactive gaming experience".

This. Except you worded it incorrectly because you're retarded, sad, and no one likes you you piece of shit fag.

Correct. This is why masterpieces like Gone Home and Firewatch are so beloved and remembered while "fun" pieces of shit like Rage 2 or DMCV are already forgotten despite coming out a few months ago.

The gameplay in TLoU was engaging and sometimes even fun, I will give you that
the problem is that it was still way too much narrative-driven and once you beat it, you don't care about replaying it, meanwhile, games that are all about having fun through the gameplay often leave you wanting more and some people even jump in NG+ as soon as they finish their first run through it
The multiplayer is there and that can be fun, but people found ways to cheeze it fast and it quickly stopped being fun

Obvious Reggie is right. Why in the fuck would I play a video game if it wasn't fun? That's the whole point of a video game. If the medium I'm consuming isn't letting me have fun or giving some sort of entertainment value then there's no point.

that pasta is at least seven years old newfag

fpbp

games are supposed to be fun, if they come with an artistic vision or a politic agenda that's OK, but if they're not fun, then there's not much to "GAME" on, right?

Me, I'm always in the right.

Two or three shitposters latching on and trolling with it isn't "being remembered"