Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sining wrote:
That thread just makes me sad. There's one comment there about how some guy is saying the developer he's working for/with is trying to push for females to be 50% of an areas population as well as trying to include lots of minorities there whole saying people who support gamergate are against this. Meanwhile I'm like OK... But what about the game? Is it fun? No mention of that. Meanwhile another guy is saying those little details are making him happy he's getting the game. Like wth , what about gameplay? Shouldn't that be the MOST IMPORTANT THING

Not necessarily. Quite a lot of people play games mainly for the storyline, and I'd hazard a guess that if the universe is unrealistic or not up to scratch in their opinion (for example, a real-life setting with zero women or minorities) they'd not enjoy it as much.

Except none of those factors have anything to do with storyline. We're talking 50% of an areas NPCs which as far as gamers can be bothered can be asexual cause they're just walking XP / quest givers. And no one brought up having no woman or minorities. It's not like the only are two modes are zero or 50%

Lastly I think they were talking about dragon age in which anything that requires people to argue that it should be realistic is ludicrous. Also less said about the story the better

If realism doesn't matter for a fantasy game, then why not include more women and minorities in the game's world? What's wrong with being inclusive?

I don't think that anyone needs to mention whether or not a game they're working on is fun. Games are inherently supposed to be fun, otherwise nobody would play them. Nor does he need to mention gameplay, because you can find gameplay coverage of Dragon Age Inquisition with a Google search.

 CorporateLogo wrote:
Langly makes a good response to the Wordell article here: (May contain cussing)
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/192694/business-points-fear-of-a-feminine-market/p39

So it's the same issue as with the more traditional feminism debate: one side insisting on making generalizations of a group of people and that group of people refusing to accept that generalizations per definition doesn't include everyone in that group.

Again, no one is saying anything is wrong with it. It's kind of sad you don't understand what I'm saying because just because I don't see the point of it doesn't mean I see something wrong with it. Things aren't that black and white.

Again, the game could be all women or all minorities or all aliens with spaghetti tentacles but what I need to know is this one simple thing. IS the game FUN.

And lots of games are supposed to be fun but that doesn't mean they are. Eg, I didn't find DA2 fun. I didn't find DR2 fun even though I loved the first one. Telling me 'hey, this game has lots of women and minorities' should not be pushed as a USP of a game.

Sining wrote:

And lots of games are supposed to be fun but that doesn't mean they are. Eg, I didn't find DA2 fun. I didn't find DR2 fun even though I loved the first one. Telling me 'hey, this game has lots of women and minorities' should not be pushed as a USP of a game.

You know the common feminist observation that "not everything is about you"?

Sining wrote:
There's one comment there about how some guy is saying the developer he's working for/with is trying to push for females to be 50% of an areas population as well as trying to include lots of minorities there whole saying people who support gamergate are against this. Meanwhile I'm like OK... But what about the game? Is it fun? No mention of that.

Not only being fun is something very subjective, but do you really expect the guy to tell you anything else than “This game is super-fun”? I mean, people do not mention it because it is just the most obvious thing that the game makers are trying to make the game as enjoyable as possible.

Sining wrote:
Meanwhile another guy is saying those little details are making him happy he's getting the game. Like wth , what about gameplay? Shouldn't that be the MOST IMPORTANT THING

That is a bit excessive, but for many people, it is going to be one of the thing that will make them more likely to buy the game, among many other things that will push them in either direction.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Sining wrote:

And lots of games are supposed to be fun but that doesn't mean they are. Eg, I didn't find DA2 fun. I didn't find DR2 fun even though I loved the first one. Telling me 'hey, this game has lots of women and minorities' should not be pushed as a USP of a game.

You know the common feminist observation that "not everything is about you"?

That observation ought to be a two-way street instead of the one-way street it is now.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Sining wrote:
There's one comment there about how some guy is saying the developer he's working for/with is trying to push for females to be 50% of an areas population as well as trying to include lots of minorities there whole saying people who support gamergate are against this. Meanwhile I'm like OK... But what about the game? Is it fun? No mention of that.

Not only being fun is something very subjective, but do you really expect the guy to tell you anything else than “This game is super-fun”? I mean, people do not mention it because it is just the most obvious thing that the game makers are trying to make the game as enjoyable as possible.

Sining wrote:
Meanwhile another guy is saying those little details are making him happy he's getting the game. Like wth , what about gameplay? Shouldn't that be the MOST IMPORTANT THING

That is a bit excessive, but for many people, it is going to be one of the thing that will make them more likely to buy the game, among many other things that will push them in either direction.

I have to disagree with everyone here, but being a fun game is not something I would consider the biggest part of making a game. I think entertaining is a better word for that.

Not 'fun'

Wouldn't fun and entertaining be interchangeable in this case?

Sining wrote:
Wouldn't fun and entertaining be interchangeable in this case?

Nope.

Entertain-provide (someone) with amusement or enjoyment, give attention or consideration to (an idea, suggestion, or feeling).

Fun- lighthearted pleasure, enjoyment, amusement


To entertain an audience does not mean you are letting the audience have fun, you entertaining them, a horror game about the dark aspects of life is engaging and entertaining, but it is not 'fun'.

It matters what game they are making.



But anyway this issue I feel like keeps getting worse everytime the media opens its mouth in disagreement and insults the other side.

Sining wrote:
Except none of those factors have anything to do with storyline. We're talking 50% of an areas NPCs which as far as gamers can be bothered can be asexual cause they're just walking XP / quest givers. And no one brought up having no woman or minorities. It's not like the only are two modes are zero or 50%

I totally agree, the NPC's are irrelevant and can be a talking horse or a text message on a phone.

@CorporateLogo

If realism doesn't matter for a fantasy game, then why not include more women and minorities in the game's world? What's wrong with being inclusive?

But that is a developers issue, Why don't they make more games that way? Why aren't they being inclusive in their programming?

As gamers we only see the final product and ask "is it fun? Is it entertaining?" Developers can be as inclusive as they want, and a good game will sell, a horrible game won't.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Sining wrote:
Wouldn't fun and entertaining be interchangeable in this case?

Nope.

Entertain-provide (someone) with amusement or enjoyment, give attention or consideration to (an idea, suggestion, or feeling).

Fun- lighthearted pleasure, enjoyment, amusement


To entertain an audience does not mean you are letting the audience have fun, you entertaining them, a horror game about the dark aspects of life is engaging and entertaining, but it is not 'fun'.

It matters what game they are making.



But anyway this issue I feel like keeps getting worse everytime the media opens its mouth in disagreement and insults the other side.

Yep limiting games to fun is... well limiting. Spec op the line isn't very fun. (Well we are at it the gameplay isn't very good.) It is entertaining though.

nomotog wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Sining wrote:
Wouldn't fun and entertaining be interchangeable in this case?

Nope.

Entertain-provide (someone) with amusement or enjoyment, give attention or consideration to (an idea, suggestion, or feeling).

Fun- lighthearted pleasure, enjoyment, amusement


To entertain an audience does not mean you are letting the audience have fun, you entertaining them, a horror game about the dark aspects of life is engaging and entertaining, but it is not 'fun'.

It matters what game they are making.



But anyway this issue I feel like keeps getting worse everytime the media opens its mouth in disagreement and insults the other side.

Yep limiting games to fun is... well limiting. Spec op the line isn't very fun. (Well we are at it the gameplay isn't very good.) It is entertaining though.

Same with amensia, Home, and i have no mouth and I must scream.

I still scratch my head and ask: How is game "journalism" relevant? It is inferring a level of professionalism that would be interesting to have confirmed or denied.

If I am considering a game for purchase, if I know someone of a similar taste in games getting their opinion on it I find of value.

Totalbiscuit (John Bain) I agree on much of his stuff plus he does add some entertainment as well, few other reviewers out there I find of value. Metacritic comparing the "experts" with user scores is a great secondary metric.

People should just make their games as best they can and keep in mind their audience. I think including mixes of cultural / ethnic as well as gender diversity can give all kinds of interesting twists to a story. It would even be a good means of wrestling with this very topic of fairness and inclusiveness.

So far with all this mess, we are seeing how tolerance is in short supply. A good healthy ignoring of those seeking attention seems to be in order and see if those involved learn anything ethical out of all this.

 Asherian Command wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Sining wrote:
Wouldn't fun and entertaining be interchangeable in this case?

Nope.

Entertain-provide (someone) with amusement or enjoyment, give attention or consideration to (an idea, suggestion, or feeling).

Fun- lighthearted pleasure, enjoyment, amusement


To entertain an audience does not mean you are letting the audience have fun, you entertaining them, a horror game about the dark aspects of life is engaging and entertaining, but it is not 'fun'.

It matters what game they are making.



But anyway this issue I feel like keeps getting worse everytime the media opens its mouth in disagreement and insults the other side.

Yep limiting games to fun is... well limiting. Spec op the line isn't very fun. (Well we are at it the gameplay isn't very good.) It is entertaining though.

Same with amensia, Home, and i have no mouth and I must scream.

You know. If you want to go mainstream, you could make an argument that the newest GTA games (4,5) are less about fun gameplay and more about setting. The TES is less about fun then it is about fantasy. Hmm you know, when I think about it, very few games try to deliver fun as their main goal.

Amnesia and I Have No Mouth weren't really designed to be fun. At least, not in a happy fun "this is awesome and I'm badass" sort of way. It's the kind of fun that watching a horror movie is. I think I'm saying the same "fun vs. entertainment" thing that was already said earlier. Is there an actual difference, really, beyond splitting hairs about it?

Either way, horror games are still entertaining. I'm not sure some "brilliant" commentary video game of someone's desperate struggle with coming to terms with their gender and gaining the acceptance of those around them or whatever is really something that will ever be entertaining, unless you can stomp goombahs or run from elder things or rob banks or whatever. It's nothing to do with gender, but the point is that it's nothing to do with gender. Regardless, the aforementioned commentary wouldn't be entertaining to me anyway, because I don't want to do that. Sometimes you don't want to have to think about something. Sometimes you don't want a deeper meaning, and it doesn't really matter if you're staring at a character representing a female form, a male form, or a featureless white cube that's doing it. Sometimes you just want to kick the goddamned turtle shell.

May this forever be known as "The Year Gaming Took Itself Too Seriously."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nomotog wrote:

You know. If you want to go mainstream, you could make an argument that the newest GTA games (4,5) are less about fun gameplay and more about setting. The TES is less about fun then it is about fantasy. Hmm you know, when I think about it, very few games try to deliver fun as their main goal.

Mathematical looney tunes in the stats, exploiting donkey-cave physics in the game itself and systematically replacing every object in a person's house with different objects, I must have totally played TES differently than you did.

Oooh, I also call your attention to exhibit A, the Wabbajack.

 daedalus wrote:
Amnesia and I Have No Mouth weren't really designed to be fun. At least, not in a happy fun "this is awesome and I'm badass" sort of way. It's the kind of fun that watching a horror movie is. I think I'm saying the same "fun vs. entertainment" thing that was already said earlier. Is there an actual difference, really, beyond splitting hairs about it?

Either way, horror games are still entertaining. I'm not sure some "brilliant" commentary video game of someone's desperate struggle with coming to terms with their gender and gaining the acceptance of those around them or whatever is really something that will ever be entertaining, unless you can stomp goombahs or run from elder things or rob banks or whatever. It's nothing to do with gender, but the point is that it's nothing to do with gender. Regardless, it wouldn't be entertaining to me anyway, because I don't want to do that. Sometimes you don't want to have to think about something. Sometimes you don't want a deeper meaning, and it doesn't really matter if you're staring at a character representing a female form, a male form, or a featureless white cube that's doing it. Sometimes you just want to kick the goddamned turtle shell.

May this forever be known as "The Year Gaming Took Itself Too Seriously."

Maybe, but shouldn't gaming take itself seriously? I mean seriously. Games are cool like really cool. You can do a lot more with games then make fun experiences. Games can do things that no other medium can. A book can tell you something, a movie can show you something, a game cam make you do something. It's like a crazy cool thing that games can let you do. I don't think this opportunity should be wasted. Also we need something for all our extra game devs to do. (There are a lot of them.)

sirlynchmob wrote:
I totally agree, the NPC's are irrelevant and can be a talking horse or a text message on a phone.

For you maybe. I know that if you took Painkiller and replace every enemy by just a floating hitbox and turned all landscape into gray walls, it would loose much of its appeal. And I purposefully choose a game with no scenario or setting to begin with. Do the same to a Monkey Island game, and congratulation, you just made it completely useless.

nomotog wrote:
Maybe, but shouldn't gaming take itself seriously? I mean seriously. Games are cool like really cool. You can do a lot more with games then make fun experiences. Games can do things that no other medium can. A book can tell you something, a movie can show you something, a game cam make you do something. It's like a crazy cool thing that games can let you do. I don't think this opportunity should be wasted. Also we need something for all our extra game devs to do. (There are a lot of them.)

Don't get me wrong, the last thing I want to imply is that games don't need to raise the bar. I'm just saying.... well, perhaps the problem is a hangup on language. I can accept that a movie can do "unfun" things. I can accept that a book can as well. I just can't accept an argument where a "game" is something that's serious or "unfun". It's pretty much in the definition.

It's like, well, at what point do you separate "software" from "game"? I mean, games ARE software, but software isn't games. You can still have fun with MS Paint, but it's software. You can't usually have fun with MS Access.

I guess I'm okay with the notion of serious, informative "un-games". I'm just not cool with calling them "games", because by some accounts, it sounds like they're not. Perhaps closer to that "edutainment" thing.

 daedalus wrote:

nomotog wrote:
Maybe, but shouldn't gaming take itself seriously? I mean seriously. Games are cool like really cool. You can do a lot more with games then make fun experiences. Games can do things that no other medium can. A book can tell you something, a movie can show you something, a game cam make you do something. It's like a crazy cool thing that games can let you do. I don't think this opportunity should be wasted. Also we need something for all our extra game devs to do. (There are a lot of them.)

Don't get me wrong, the last thing I want to imply is that games don't need to raise the bar. I'm just saying.... well, perhaps the problem is a hangup on language. I can accept that a movie can do "unfun" things. I can accept that a book can as well. I just can't accept an argument where a "game" is something that's serious or "unfun". It's pretty much in the definition.

It's like, well, at what point do you separate "software" from "game"? I mean, games ARE software, but software isn't games. You can still have fun with MS Paint, but it's software. You can't usually have fun with MS Access.

I guess I'm okay with the notion of serious, informative "un-games". I'm just not cool with calling them "games", because by some accounts, it sounds like they're not. Perhaps closer to that "edutainment" thing.

Probably because a game is sometime more than just a game, its a combination of both books and movies, and its interactivity.

But does a game really have to be fun?

I mean we push the borders on what a game is everyday.

I mean I agree currently we are producing too many art games, and not too many action games and fun games..

Its been a long time since I sat down and enjoyed myself this year with a game, that come out this year. There were mostly art games that came out. Not really any games I would consider for myself as fun.

 daedalus wrote:
Amnesia and I Have No Mouth weren't really designed to be fun.

I found Amnesia to be fun. You are solving puzzles and enjoying a nice Lovecraftian horror story and trying to avoid the horrible creatures of doom and not die, which is fun. When stuck and not finding what to do next, it can be frustrating, though.

Fun was a poor choice of word on my part, all games are designed to be engaging on some level.

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest

Asherian Command wrote:

Probably because a game is sometime more than just a game, its a combination of both books and movies, and its interactivity.

But does a game really have to be fun?

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Amnesia and I Have No Mouth weren't really designed to be fun.

I found Amnesia to be fun. You are solving puzzles and enjoying a nice Lovecraftian horror story and trying to avoid the horrible creatures of doom and not die, which is fun. When stuck and not finding what to do next, it can be frustrating, though.

To both of these points, I think that the language is what I'm struggling with, because you both appear to make the opposite argument. I mean, when I say that Amnesia wasn't supposed to be "fun", I don't meant that it's not enjoyable. Consider Serious Sam. That's "fun". it's a goofy game that doesn't take itself too seriously. I guess that's using "fun" as "lighthearted", but I've heard it used that way. Amnesia and I Have No Mouth were fun games in that they're entertaining, but they're not fun games as in setting.

That's the difference. From my understanding of say, Depression Quest, there's no fun in setting or in gameplay. I heard it described as a static point and click adventure game with no real puzzles or anything. Maybe that description was wrong. Hopefully someone can clear that up. My point is that that sounds like it's only purpose is to inform with the faintest veneer of a game covering it. That sounds unfun.

I would say the same thing about reading the DSM-IV on depression. Not to say that it's beyond merit or doesn't deserve to exist or whatever, and the DSM is certainly interesting, but I think we could both agree that the DSM isn't a game, so why would we classify anything else who's primary intent is strictly to inform or to persuade as a game also?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The New Yorker wrote:“I can’t really call it a game since I don’t think the point is to entertain you,”

Well, that was prescient. I swear I wasn't the guy mentioned in the Yorker..

 CorporateLogo wrote:
Fun was a poor choice of word on my part, all games are designed to be engaging on some level.

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest

I find it funny how people like zoe quinn make good games and yet they are the most rude individuals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:

Probably because a game is sometime more than just a game, its a combination of both books and movies, and its interactivity.

But does a game really have to be fun?

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Amnesia and I Have No Mouth weren't really designed to be fun.

I found Amnesia to be fun. You are solving puzzles and enjoying a nice Lovecraftian horror story and trying to avoid the horrible creatures of doom and not die, which is fun. When stuck and not finding what to do next, it can be frustrating, though.

To both of these points, I think that the language is what I'm struggling with, because you both appear to make the opposite argument. I mean, when I say that Amnesia wasn't supposed to be "fun", I don't meant that it's not enjoyable. Consider Serious Sam. That's "fun". it's a goofy game that doesn't take itself too seriously. I guess that's using "fun" as "lighthearted", but I've heard it used that way. Amnesia and I Have No Mouth were fun games in that they're entertaining, but they're not fun games as in setting.

That's the difference. From my understanding of say, Depression Quest, there's no fun in setting or in gameplay. I heard it described as a static point and click adventure game with no real puzzles or anything. Maybe that description was wrong. Hopefully someone can clear that up. My point is that that sounds like it's only purpose is to inform with the faintest veneer of a game covering it. That sounds unfun.

I would say the same thing about reading the DSM-IV on depression. Not to say that it's beyond merit or doesn't deserve to exist or whatever, and the DSM is certainly interesting, but I think we could both agree that the DSM isn't a game, so why would we classify anything else who's primary intent is strictly to inform or to persuade as a game also?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The New Yorker wrote:“I can’t really call it a game since I don’t think the point is to entertain you,”

Well, that was prescient. I swear I wasn't the guy mentioned in the Yorker..

Well. It be more accurate to call it an interactive experience than just a game.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Well. It be more accurate to call it an interactive experience than just a game.

It is also how I describe my bathroom going experiences.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 CorporateLogo wrote:
Fun was a poor choice of word on my part, all games are designed to be engaging on some level.

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest

I find it funny how people like zoe quinn make good games and yet they are the most rude individuals.

There was an ask Slashdot with Jeff Vogel once, not that he was ever really relevant, and he kind of came off as an ass. I did actually think the Exile games were pretty cool years and years ago. I think I still have my copy of Exile 3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Well. It be more accurate to call it an interactive experience than just a game.

It is also how I describe my bathroom going experiences.

Well, if you consider interactive in terms of "allowing for input and output", then your bathroom experiences don't really account for the input without taking into account your breakfast burrito also.

How about Edutainment then?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Well. It be more accurate to call it an interactive experience than just a game.

It is also how I describe my bathroom going experiences.

Well. nevermind.

There was an ask Slashdot with Jeff Vogel once, not that he was ever really relevant, and he kind of came off as an ass. I did actually think the Exile games were pretty cool years and years ago. I think I still have my copy of Exile 3.

I think ever since the indie scene is so competitive that my industry is quite cut throat sometimes.





So yeah this happened:

http://www.nerdist.com/vepisode/nerdist-play-weighing-in-on-gamergate/


And the response





Yeah I would like to keep saying to the journalists. Do your research before you talk about something.

I Mean if Totalbiscuit and Minx can do more research and talk about it for 30 minutes straight. Then yeah.... You need to work on it.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140906VL200.html

This is a fairly good article on the whole situation, and it also connects (or at least attempt to) Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo into this whole mess; if Gamergate keeps up, the companies "May have their all important 4th Quarter Earnings diminished."

 Slarg232 wrote:
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140906VL200.html

This is a fairly good article on the whole situation, and it also connects (or at least attempt to) Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo into this whole mess; if Gamergate keeps up, the companies "May have their all important 4th Quarter Earnings diminished."

Also on phil fish