Music doesn't have to be catchy.
Drawings don't have to be beautiful.
Literature doesn't have to be witty.
By saying video games have to be fun, you are confirming that video games are nothing more than toys that shouldn't be taken seriously as an artistic medium.
Other urls found in this thread:
If it's not fun, why bother?
Fuck off, cuckmann
Videogames are not art and nearly none of them include a political message
There’s truth to this statement but if you go a little further you end up asking yourself why do I play vidya in the first place. I’m not saying games can’t be on the same “artistic” level as books or movies, but I don’t think they’re anywhere close yet.
And again, are you playing a game for the “world”? Do you want to experience something interactive? The terms fun and artistic aren’t mutually exclusive but you have to admit, with limited time and resources publishers will have to make some sort of choice
All of them are wrong imo, games doesn't have to be fun ? dropped and refunded
and ops don't have to be thought-provoking
>All of them are wrong imo
Because you're a brainlet who only listens to modern pop, considers anime as art and only reads capeshit.
Video game isnt art
>Music doesn't have to be catchy.
But it has to be good.
>Drawings don't have to be beautiful.
But it has to be good.
>Literature doesn't have to be witty.
But it has to be good.
>Anime isn't an art
>Literally Japanese animated movies/series
Based retard
Because it's a requirement of the medium, a videogame not fun is the equivalent of a book having poor grammar or music being played by a bad performer
Yes nothing wrong with modern pop only pretentious contrarians like you hates it, anime is an art yes just like the banana with the tape
capeshit is entertaining and funny your point ?
Music for example doesn't have to be catchy to be good, unless you're a retard who thinks modern pop is the peak of music and most of classical music sucks because it isn't catchy.
>Catchy
I didn't say catchy.
You implied it has to be catchy to be good, which is pretty stupid.
No I didn't.
>>Music doesn't have to be catchy.
>But it has to be good.
Exactly.
no user he means that you have to listen to jazz or noise 24/7 to act intelligent and stuff
Nowhere did I imply it doesn't have to be good, just that it doesn't have to be catchy which is true.
Therefore games have to be good and saying so doesn't make them mere toys.
Is Darkwood fun? Or Pathologic 2?
They are extremely stressfull games. Yet they are enjoyable.
They provide challenge and tell a good story.
These kind of games you play to beat them, to see how it all ends.
And its extremely hard to make one like that.
Yes, because games aren't art.
Saying they have to be fun makes them toys though
No.
>Is Darkwood fun? Or Pathologic 2?
No, fuck no. I love them but no, they aren't fun.
I think most of this just comes down to people miscommunicating. Some people use "fun" to mean "an experience I enjoy". Others use it to mean "a specifically light hearted enjoyment". The first one is probably necessary, but the second definitely isn't.
>Therefore games have to be good
yes
>Therefore games have to be fun
no
I think this is the point people miss. There are a lot of games like those you ilsted which are good but not fun. Both of those games are, as you say, mainly stressful and draining to play, but that's why they're good. They're trying to make you feel that and create a unique challenge and experience around it. I think people who say they have to be 'fun' really just haven't put much thought into what they're saying or simply don't have much experience with games because I think most people would say these are well made games.
Fun games are good.
All fun games are good
Not all good games are fun
It's possible they're also ESL and don't grasp the nuance behind the word "fun".
>Not all good games are fun
False. Name one good game that isn't fun.
Any media just needs to be enjoyable.
Fun is enjoyable. But so is many other things.
exactly
Drakengard 3
Planetarian
People've mentioned many in this thread but I'll mention another: Silent Hill 2.
If you consider that "light-hearted pleasure" then your balls are significantly bigger than mine.
I agree and the fact that this is even controversial at all means this medium and it's audience still has a lot of maturing to do.
threads have to be bait i have to reply to all bait threads outsuyfeitutrgDGsduytdgsgfjylulyfkggsdrgdsdhgdSDjthd7$53467756$#_5$¢¥•÷¥%¢€••€€π•÷÷÷•
>strawmanning this hard
discarded 2/10 made me think about your existence for more than half a second.
Drakengard 3 is fun. Haven't played the other one.
>light-hearted pleasure
Driving in a circuit is a fun but I wouldn't call that light hearted pleasure either.
80% of it is fools conflating fun with enjoyable.
20% of it is fools who really hate games journalists and because games journos keep saying games are art that means they have to think games aren't art.
Nah, it really doesn't. People don't go into art museums to have fun, but to gain insight about paintings that express a wide variety of emotions and ideas. If people (mostly children) want to have fun they play with toys such as playdough or video games.
video games are exponentially more expensive than any of those other mediums, retard. i'm not paying $400 for a console then $80 for a game to not have fun
>video games are nothing more than toys that shouldn't be taken seriously as an artistic medium
And that's okay!
>Music doesn't have to be catchy
Fuck off Merzbow. Music’s value is entirely its aesthetic appeal. Music that’s designed to be unpleasant to listen to is exactly as shit “artistically” as games designed to be boring.
>Driving in a circuit is a fun but I wouldn't call that light hearted pleasure either.
It is though
>I wouldn't call that light hearted pleasure either.
Then you wouldn't call it fun.
I don't know what you mean by "driving in a circuit"
you have the worst reading comprehension i've ever seen
food doesn't have to be tasty either
you also don't have to be alive
whats your point exactly?
> but to gain insight about paintings that express a wide variety of emotions and idea
That's literally my point. That part IS the enjoyable part.
I'm a different user and I don't know how you could interpret in any other way.
this
Enjoyable, sure. Fun? Probably not.
That feels like an extremely pedantic take on the definition of “fun”.
Okay so we agree
A game is bad if you feel the time you spent playing it was wasted.
A game is good if you feel like the time you spent playing it wasn't wasted.
A game is great if you value the time you spent playing it.
A game is artistic if it not only meets the above criteria for being great, but also elicits emotions and thoughts from you that you don't normally have otherwise.
No.
Yes I would. Your definition is for the noun "fun". as in "Having fun." We're describing video games AS fun making it the adjective. As in a "Fun videogame."
I find pieces of media that make me cry very enjoyable.
They aren't fun and they shouldn't be.
You are wrong because even games like Pathologic and Silent Hill are incredibly fun to people who like them. Exploring the environments, uncovering the narrative, engaging with the mechanics, may be stressful but its still fun, otherwise they wouldn't enjoy doing it.
Okay i think we need to make some clarification
You having FUN with something - you enjoying the actual process
You ENJOYED something - the experience that you are found enjoying
So no.
Games not necessarily have to be fun.
But they have to be enjoyable.
Stick to Despacito. Most of classical music isn't catchy, it does however express deeper emotions and ideas which is the point of art and makes it beautiful. The expression of emotions and ideas through craft.
youtu.be
This piece for example is by definition not catchy at all, yet it is one of Chopins best pieces due how expressive it is. If you truly think music has to be catchy, it's safe to say you know absolutely nothing about music and only listen to the most basic and "easiest" music aviable (modern pop).
>music doesnt have to be catchy
Yes it does you fucking retard. Just because its not saying "Baby Baby Baby ohhhh" doesnt mean its not catchy.
Ode to Joy is catchy. King Crimson is catchy. Erika is catchy.
The word you are looking for is "enjoyable".
If something makes me cry, and I having fun? Clearly not. But if I'm actively seeking such pieced of media, then what it is? Enjoyable.
But OP, all those things can be fun.
Music that isn't "Good" can be fun to listen to.
Memes have spawned out of bad drawings and literature.
Movies that are so bad they're good are fun to get drunk to and poke fun at.
All those things are fun even though they're not "good."
And likewise, a bad game can still be fun. If it's bad and not fun, then they really really fucked up.
Most of classical music by definition isn't catchy you absolute brainlet. Stick to modern pop.
It's not. Many people genuinely argue that
>games should exclusively be light-hearted and non-serious
or, in other words, that games should only be fun. When people say that games don't have to be fun, they mean that games can be enjoyable without that light-heartedness.
Now THIS is an extremely pedantic take on the definition of "fun". No, you fucking idiot, there's no difference in meaning between the noun and the adjective.
But video games are nothing but toys. Complex toys but toys none the less.
Yes.
Most songs that I love are not catchy
ode to joy also fucking sucks
yeah
>there's no difference in meaning between the noun and the adjective
Not according to the dictionary.
The dictionary definition of the adjective is shown here and it's identical. Don't lie.
Youve never had the strings of a single violin stuck in your head? The horns replaying? The ear worm of precussion?
Youre a fucking NPC. How could Mozart replicate Miserere if it werent for it being catchy?
>you are confirming that video games are nothing more than toys that shouldn't be taken seriously as an artistic medium.