Topic: Good design vs Fun gameplay

[Crying Freeman]

This question came to mind a lot over the years, but more so now since I'm starting a game in GameMaker. I love a lot of games that I'll admit are flawed and aren't very well designed. Usually these games have gameplay and charm to rely on. Games like CV2, CVLegends, Golgo 13 TSE, most Valis games. You have professional reviewers who do prefer good design over good gameplay, we have gamers where good design is first, and we have gamers who just want some fun games to play. I'm not saying well designed games aren't/can't be fun, I'm just bringing up the question of which is more valuable to being a good game. Would you rather play a flawed game that is extremely fun, or a perfectly designed game that might not be as fun?

I think a game like Goldeneye is perfect for this discussion. Ignoring the fact it was loved by everyone when it came out, nowadays the word "dated" is shot at it from everywhere. Of course we still have fans of it today (myself included), but let's take people like modern day reviewers and players. "Controls dated, enemy AI ain't to smart now". Is it fun to play, though? Seems like so many people ignore the funfactor point for games now, say its not worth their time. Sure, the controls in a game might not be the best, but is the enjoyment/funfactor there? Can getting used to the controls help you judge the game better? I think this can be brought up with almost every 5th and some 6th gen titles (like how modern players say lock on systems in shooters equal automatic crap)

[X]

I think I would prefer playing a really fun game over a well-designed game. Because that's why I play games to begin with; to have fun. What's the point if a game's really well designed but I not having any fun with it? A waste of time, is what it is.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

I think I would prefer playing a really fun game over a well-designed game. Because that's why I play games to begin with; to have fun. What's the point if a game's really well designed but I not having any fun with it? A waste of time, is what it is.

Most of us would probably agree, but games typically fall into one of two camps: those made to be fun, and those made to be art.

Like, I don't know many people who would say that Ico is "fun". It's a huge escort mission with some majorly stiff controls and graphics that (even after an HD remaster) that feel monochrome and same-y. It's just not built to be fun.

But as an interactive experience, it is impeccably designed that tells an amazing story with mostly silent protaganists and antagonists. It would be hard to craft this experience in any other medium. A short film is the best fit but over too quickly. A movie demands more dialog to fill out the runtime. A TV series would be like a movie only far more so, and a comic book or a novel would probably fall into that trap as well unless handled by a positively brilliant master of prose.

Ico is amazingly designed, just not in a way that makes it fun. You regard it much as you might a Rembrandt painting -- admiring the artistic accomplishment it represents for the medium.

And then we have Mario Kart.

It's simple, nonserious. Cartoonish even. But boy howdy is it fun. You can't really put your finger on why. It just sort of is. You sit down, either alone or with friends (preferably the latter) and you have a blast playing it. It's nowhere near the artistic caliber of Ico, but nor is it trying to be. It just wants to bathe you in saccharine colors, lighthearted music, a simple premise backed with a classic game from your childhood (racing!) and asks that you enjoy your stay. This is the kind of game that Nintendo is famous for making. This is the kind of game that sells systems to the young and the old alike.

Because it's fun.

Not artsy or pretentious, just fun, like swapping some good jokes with friends.

Games aren't either/or, Art OR fun. Different games fall on different sides of that field, and some straddle it like Elder Scrolls or Castlevania. Maybe they straddle but favor one side. Or they don't favor either.

Games are just games, but I would argue that in order to be fun, they must be well designed. Sloppy design achieves a sloppy game which is never fun.

Let us never forget Ride To Hell: Retribution.

[X]

Let us never forget Ride To Hell: Retribution.

LOL! Jesus Christ. Not even Bethesda screwed up that badly.

[Shiroi Koumori]

I prefer to play for fun. That's what games are for, a source of entertainment for a long period of time compared to a movie.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

I prefer to play for fun. That's what games are for, a source of entertainment for a long period of time compared to a movie.

Let's consider that the original Call of Duty Black Ops had probably one of the best plots in the series and lasts anywhere from 8-10 hours. That's basically 4-5 full length films back to back with a plot that matches Hollywood heavy hitters in most departments in terms of pacing, tension, and quality scripting.

And (for those who could actually keep up with it), Metal Gear Solid 4 blends film and game in a way I've never seen before or since. More game than an interactive movie, more cinematic than any game. That's a big part of why MGSV was such a let down to me (but I've ranted on that before). And it'll keep you entertained closer to 20-25 hours.

It's no wonder games are big business when they can be so superior to films as a story telling medium.

[Crying Freeman]

LOL! Jesus Christ. Not even Bethesda screwed up that badly.

Not that game XD

[Crying Freeman]

Most of us would probably agree, but games typically fall into one of two camps: those made to be fun, and those made to be art.

Like, I don't know many people who would say that Ico is "fun". It's a huge escort mission with some majorly stiff controls and graphics that (even after an HD remaster) that feel monochrome and same-y. It's just not built to be fun.

But as an interactive experience, it is impeccably designed that tells an amazing story with mostly silent protaganists and antagonists. It would be hard to craft this experience in any other medium. A short film is the best fit but over too quickly. A movie demands more dialog to fill out the runtime. A TV series would be like a movie only far more so, and a comic book or a novel would probably fall into that trap as well unless handled by a positively brilliant master of prose.

Ico is amazingly designed, just not in a way that makes it fun. You regard it much as you might a Rembrandt painting -- admiring the artistic accomplishment it represents for the medium.

And then we have Mario Kart.

It's simple, nonserious. Cartoonish even. But boy howdy is it fun. You can't really put your finger on why. It just sort of is. You sit down, either alone or with friends (preferably the latter) and you have a blast playing it. It's nowhere near the artistic caliber of Ico, but nor is it trying to be. It just wants to bathe you in saccharine colors, lighthearted music, a simple premise backed with a classic game from your childhood (racing!) and asks that you enjoy your stay. This is the kind of game that Nintendo is famous for making. This is the kind of game that sells systems to the young and the old alike.

Because it's fun.

Not artsy or pretentious, just fun, like swapping some good jokes with friends.

Games aren't either/or, Art OR fun. Different games fall on different sides of that field, and some straddle it like Elder Scrolls or Castlevania. Maybe they straddle but favor one side. Or they don't favor either.

Games are just games, but I would argue that in order to be fun, they must be well designed. Sloppy design achieves a sloppy game which is never fun.

Let us never forget Ride To Hell: Retribution.

I downloaded shadow of the colossus HD, and while I was impressed as hell with it, I only beat 3 Titans and haven't touched the game since. I think it's an amazing game, but I didn't like the gameplay, tho I understand why it's so loved; it really is a work of art.

I've never been a fan of games like Gone Home, where its just taking you thru a story and nothing else (and after Mundane Matts video on GH's story, its not even a good one). I love games that have really good gameplay AND great presentation. That's why I didn't like Uncharted 2 as much as I thot I would: I didn't find the gameplay that good, while I loved the story and presentation.

That'd one reason I love Castlevania so much: great (for the most games) gameplay as well as art direction. A lot of modern day games sacrifice fun for tight production, instead of going for both ( I do understand the troubles devs face, but its still something that I notice with most new games)

[Gunlord]

Shadow of the Colossus HD looks very nice, and the improved framerate is a good thing, but that framerate also led to some pretty grave gameplay problems. I think the framerate is tied to Wander's grip strength, so a better framerate for the HD version means Wander's grip is much weaker. He spends most of his time now flopping around when he grabs on to a Colossus, making time attack nearly impossible.

[zangetsu468]

It really depends on the game, one's desire to game and whether one plays multiplayer or not. For multiplayer games, fun games are better imo. No matter how good the gameplay/ design, a casual non-competitive gamer plays against other gamers for fun. (Not that you still can't be competitive if you want to.)

For 1P games I'd say there are games that are fun to play but design comes first. There are also games that are both well designed and fun, which is always a plus.

[Crying Freeman]

It really depends on the game, one's desire to game and whether one plays multiplayer or not. For multiplayer games, fun games are better imo. No matter how good the gameplay/ design, a casual non-competitive gamer plays against other gamers for fun. (Not that you still can't be competitive if you want to.)

For 1P games I'd say there are games that are fun to play but design comes first. There are also games that are both well designed and fun, which is always a plus.

I know where you're coming from. L4D even does the pure fun coop well as hell. But play COD so over mp. Fun is for mo. Evolve seemed to get that wrong. Sure, strategy can make coop fun and tense, but it didn't have the dumb fun or the stressful fun coop from what I've seen. Being the monster looked awesome tho

And I also wasn't saying well designed games can't be fun (that's contradictory to an extent, because great games are well designed as someone else pointed out), I meant more is making a flawed but fun game more important than a perfected masterpiece in terms of production that has mediocre to bad gameplay/fun factor. Idk, re-reading I kinda feel like I came across as "ALL modern gamez suck, man, I'm a 90s kid who grew up in the 2000s and I know what's good". Lol, I look forward to tons of modern games. Still haven't played lords of the fallen, really want to (reminds me of a modernized CV64/LOD)

[Claimh Solais]

Let's consider that the original Call of Duty Black Ops had probably one of the best plots in the series and lasts anywhere from 8-10 hours. That's basically 4-5 full length films back to back with a plot that matches Hollywood heavy hitters in most departments in terms of pacing, tension, and quality scripting.

Don't forget that Black Ops even had some of Hollywood's major actors, with Sam Worthington as Alex Mason, Gary Oldman as Viktor Reznov, Ed Harris as Jason Hudson, and even Ice Cube as Joseph Bowman. Not to mention, they're celebrity actors that actually delivered great performances in voice acting (something I really appreciate about the Call of Duty series).

It's one reason I can't really relate to a lot of my gamer friends, in that they pretty much completely disregard the story to games and only play it for... well, just that. The gameplay. Some of the best story experiences I've had came from video games, like Nier, The Last of Us, and (believe it or not) Dynasty Warriors 7.

Plus, video games can flesh their world out in a way that movies, books, or comics can't. You have this world, and (most of the time), you can live it and explore it. They have a way of immersing a viewer that other forms of media simply can't do.

Overall, though, I much prefer to have fun with my games than be in awe of what I see on screen. The Ys games are some of the most fun I've ever played, but they've never EVER been technically impressive. On the flipside, The Order: 1886 is one of the most technically impressive games I've ever played, but overall it kinda just boils down to a generic (albeit very polished) third-person shooter with a pretty cool (but abruptly ended) story.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

Not to mention, they're celebrity actors that actually delivered great performances in voice acting

MASON! USE THE TWO-OH-TWO! MASON! USE THE TWO-OH-TWO! MASON! USE THE TWO-OH-TWO! MASON! USE THE TWO-OH-TWO! MASON! USE THE TWO-OH-TWO! MASON! USE THE TWO-OH-TWO!

Like that bit? XD

But yeah, most of the VA in Black Ops was actually pretty damn impeccable.

One thing that Call of Duty was good for from COD4 all the way to just before Ghosts was that the single player campaign was a pretty enjoyable experience. The Modern Warfare trilogy in particular had a high stakes, high tension, globe-sweeping epic storyline of how two men's desire for revenge (Zakhaev and Makarov) could plausibly tear the world apart, and Shepard representing the political infighting that keeps good men from being effective deterrents to evil actions. The Modern Warfare Trilogy was absolutely ace in my book.

The series has fallen on hard times, becoming more and more like "Star Wars Battlefront DICE Edition" with each new installment after Ghosts though -- multiplayer is pretty clearly all the developers really care about anymore, and single player has suffered greatly for it.

Then we have Skyrim, and the near-infinite role playing potential alone is good for tens of thousands of hours of playtime before we even get to the total amount of in-game content.

[Crying Freeman]

MASON! USE THE TWO-OH-TWO! MASON! USE THE TWO-OH-TWO! MASON! USE THE TWO-OH-TWO! MASON! USE THE TWO-OH-TWO! MASON! USE THE TWO-OH-TWO! MASON! USE THE TWO-OH-TWO!

Like that bit? XD

But yeah, most of the VA in Black Ops was actually pretty damn impeccable.

One thing that Call of Duty was good for from COD4 all the way to just before Ghosts was that the single player campaign was a pretty enjoyable experience. The Modern Warfare trilogy in particular had a high stakes, high tension, globe-sweeping epic storyline of how two men's desire for revenge (Zakhaev and Makarov) could plausibly tear the world apart, and Shepard representing the political infighting that keeps good men from being effective deterrents to evil actions. The Modern Warfare Trilogy was absolutely ace in my book.

The series has fallen on hard times, becoming more and more like "Star Wars Battlefront DICE Edition" with each new installment after Ghosts though -- multiplayer is pretty clearly all the developers really care about anymore, and single player has suffered greatly for it.

Then we have Skyrim, and the near-infinite role playing potential alone is good for tens of thousands of hours of playtime before we even get to the total amount of in-game content.

More of a personal preference but I enjoyed ghosts single player over the multiplayer. I agree it's the most bland of the series, but hey, I had a lot of fun with the si glee player. MP sucked ass tho. The hitmarker and hitmarker sound effect were made into something that lacked impact, and the maps weren't especially good (better than MW3's from what I remember) I mean yeah, the story was stupid, but it was really entertaining. It's not trying to be Shakespeare, it's trying to be a military-resistance themed action romp, and it succeeds in that regard.

My favorite is BO2 because it was the only one I found both the SP and MP exceptional. I know Dave isn't nearly as badass or interesting as his dad Alex, but Menendez is the best villain in the series. The past missions starring Woods, Mason and Hudson are more story for the three which is great after BO1. The future characters aren't great except for Harper, who keeps things in the future missions way more fun, as Dave, Sal and the others in the future aren't that interesting. Still, the multiple endings, decision making, options for strike force instead of forcing them on you, making load outs for SP, then the MP feels as fun as COD4 and WAW (tho I'll admit it isn't AS balanced as those 2). Plus you have to admit Mane fez is 10000000% better than that bland fuck Dragovitch.