Seriously though why do games have to be fun?Why can't they be engaging?

/thread
Fuck you Neil Cuckman you pretentious kike

I actually think its possible that he is browsing Zig Forums and "fun is just a buzzoword" was his reply
Its totally wrong though, "fun" doesn't always means something that makes you laugh and smile. TLoU was fun ride, can't say its comedy game. TLoU2 is already fun because of golf memes. Loved video compilation of edits.

Mario

Sonic

This is the kind of shitty faux philosophical thinking I'd expect from this hack.

Games should be enjoyable. You know if you are feeling something, whether it's because it makes you feel like a kid again or because it's like that car crash you just can't look away from. A sign you like the game is that you can't stop thinking about it and want to play more.

Druckman's games have never been this for me. They've been things I've finished to say I have. And I've finally grown up and stopped playing shit just to tick it off a list. Life's too short.

Now explain why they are not engaging

Pokemon

>engaging

>fun

Attached: 1590093208705.jpg (1024x960, 98.74K)

That has to be the worse looking wojak I've ever seen

He meant it isn't bing bing wahoo fun. Words can have more than one meaning.

Here's oxford's second definition.
>behaviour or activities that are not serious but are meant to be enjoyed

That guy doesn't even make games.

What does engaging mean?

I don't use the word "buy" when discussing Naughty Dog games

Protip, playing games builds up cell memory, and the control/response of those games provides "engagement" and "fun" is just the net result of your brain enjoying the engagement. So your brain doesn't give two fucking shits whether it's Bing Bing Wahoo or anything else, it sees the fun as fun.
People like Neil are just trying to conflate and re-write words in order to subvert people into buying products they might not otherwise be motivated. Because they'd rather spend more time figuring out new ways to spell out the same bullshit instead of actually fixing said bullshit.

do you like broccoli?

Literally just means "keeps your attention." It makes sense when your primary demographic is millions of ADHD normalfags that you'd focus on making a game engaging, because you need them to stay on board long enough to spend money on microtransactions. If they focused on making the games fun, their target audience would put it down after 5 minutes and then never spend more money on it.

Brain turns off and you are simply going through the motions.

It might be brainlet-tier philosophy, but it's also important to to separate fun in terms of instant gratification from fun due to overcoming a learning curve. For example, Kingdom Come has a pretty steep learning curve, especially on hardcore, and I cannot tell you the amount of times I legitimately despised the game because of the level of difficulty it was throwing at me (though I was partially responsible for that, having loaded up mods in order to intentionally increase the level of difficulty). Thus, the game was not 'fun' per se. However, I stuck with it, because I wanted to overcome the learning curve so I could get enjoyment out of a legitimately realistic medieval combat sim (the mods I installed removed the block slow motion, and got rid of clinch/masterstrike abuse), and eventually, I got to the point where instead of smacking my head against the wall after getting slaughtered by random groups of literal plebs, I had fun fighting legitimately tough battles and knowing that I have overcome a legitimately tough learning curve.

Only if play Nu-Mario

But if the game is fun, doesn't it already keep your attention?

I finished the first TLOU and never paid for any microtransaction. The gameplay was repetitive at times but I was lost in the story (engaged).

thankfully neil is making vidya great again. engaging is the better word. I'm tired of all those """fun""" games.

streamable.com/vtq1ys

yes?
lol dude what the fuck is your point

look up the context retard
this is a lot of paragraphs about something you have no idea about

This, if a game developer has no fucking clue how to composite a games mechanics for fun it's going to be a shit game, have very low expectations. Case in point is death stranding, the gameplay is pretty fucking shit.

Fun is an element of being engaging, but like I said, you can have fun with something for 5 minutes and then put it down because it doesn't engage you. They're both important elements to have in a game, and the reason Fuckmann's quote is retarded is because he's trying to appeal to insecure high art faggots by making engagement sound like some transcendental philosophy that puts you on a superior plane over mere peasants who only seek the basest and crudest form of entertainment.

>"I don't want my games to be FUN (ugh), I want to be ENGAGED like a true connoisseur of the arts."

Every game doesn't have to be fun. But if they aren't fun they have to be interesting. Just like movies. Every movie I watch isn't a fun movie. They can can be scary, horrifying, etc. But a good movie is always interesting to watch.

"Yeah or good!"

Attached: 33b8affc17d10682f88627bfd04169ca.jpg (450x370, 29.62K)

Because that concept is pre-fucking-tentious.

Im not going to commit to saying that movie games arent worth playing, but the more i think about, the harder time have defining movie games as "games". Its not right to say that just because something is interactive that it becomes a game. Are choose you own adventure books "games"?

Idk i almost wonder if shit like this should be considered an entirely different medium from video games. Something like "interactive movies" or "interactive stories". Throw VNs in there while your at it

Well I don't use the world "buy".