Holy crap I've been desensitized!

[Pesmerga]

This is kind of like that "disallusioned with games" thread, but I felt it needs some more attention.

Really, I keep buying games in hopes I'll get that same feeling I got when I first picked up Diablo II. It was so damn fun, seriously, there should be more games like Diablo II.

It's really selfish, I think, that kind of game where the only fun in it is to see the progression of your character and get the best items. That's why I almost considered getting WoW over BF2. But I mean, BF2 is awesome, don't get me wrong. But honestly, I wouldn't even feel like playing without some HL2Net members if not for the Rank system. Teamplay is cool, but really what it comes down to for me are 2 things.

Cooperative playing: This is by far my favorite type of gameplay. A really small, 2 to 8 man group against hordes of enemies. You know, if not for some "limitations" on my current copy of Doom 3, I would be playing the co-op mod for it with my friend. It's the funnest thing I could ever imagine doing right now, aside from sex.

Progression: RPG style progression. Seeing your character develop because of the decisions you make. Final Fantasy, Suikoden, Guild Wars (although not so much Guild Wars, as the gameplay is awfully slow and there's not much character development aside from armor/weapons), WoW (beta event), Zelda games, BF2 ranking system, ect ect.

Those are the two basic types of fun for me, and in one way or another, I'm looking for them in a game. Aside from cinematic gameplay (a point to the game), basic bad ass features (Doom Marine = badass, Cloud = badass, ect.), and graphics and storyline, which are nessecary additions to the game, are not on the top of my list. Hell, I'll play Duck Hunt longer than usual if it gives me a new gun every 10 kills.

Now I'm worried, or rather, curious, as to your definitions of fun? I'm sure there are people with particular interests? Are all our definitions of fun even similar, if not conflicting? Please share.

 

[Ennui]

They're obviously all different or we wouldn't have any variety.

 

[Pesmerga]

They're obviously all different or we wouldn't have any variety.

Could you explain a bit your fun factor?

 

[Xune]

Fun games for me are ones where assets, be they weapons, characters, cars or pretty much anything else are constantly developing. The better ones are those that allow you to influence that development as you go. Deus Ex was good for that. Another example was the earlier Championship Manager games, developing a Premiership side from a Conference team was an amazing fealing, although I don't play it anymore because of the time it takes up. I've tried MMORPG's but they're way too repetative to be fun.

I'm not head overheals about co-operative play or even multiplayer for that matter. For one I know that thie will ALWAYS be someone cheating, and that puts me off right away. Also until recently I was running on a slow connection, so hitting anyone was a chore. Now I have a propper gaming connection (8mb) I can usually walk into a hall full of enemies and dodge their bullets neo style. Either way, that's just shit.

Games with a broad scope that require you to think are great too. A good example would be Soldiers: Heros of World War 2, which requires tactical management of small teams and their inventory in an RTS style gameplay. On the flip side are games like C&C (which is almost every game that purports itself to be an RTS nowadays). They are soleless games where units mean nothing and the best way to win is to build more units then your opponent and then rush them. Yawn.

However with the proliferation of the mundane and the dumbing down of games to make them appeal to console gamers I only see bad things for future games. The only hope appears to be Spore.

We shall see.

 

[Sparta]

Storyline is what makes a single-player game for me.

KOTOR and Deus Ex = Wicked storylines in my opinion

Far Cry = Terrible storyline in my opinion

 

[Jintor]

Fun is, for me, freeform OR storyline gaming. I love the GTA seiries because it's generally got both. Character? Great. Multiplayer I'm not always in love with - sometimes i just can't stand CS - but to actually enjoy a game i need a convincing sense of acheivement.

 

[jonbob]

Fingers crossed for Spore; maybe we'll see something new.

 

[Laivasse]

I know it's a cliche but fun for me is being able to do things I wouldn't have the freedom to do in real life. This requires suspension of disbelief, which in turn usually requires a good story and atmosphere to the game. Whether I'm unloading both barrels into the face of an Overwatch grunt or hiring myself out on mercenary missions in some fantasy/sword + sorcery setting, or being shocked by Aeris' death it all boils down to the same thing. I'm doing stuff I wouldn't normally be able to do in life - or rather I'm leading a lot of little different lives in games. That's my idea of gaming phun.

 

[X-FacToR]

Fun for me includes piloting a aircraft or chopper with a co-pilot aboard that knows how to aim. Allso having a squad that works together with not only medic but ammo support and have a commander compotent enough to help the advance. By far teamwork is something that is the funnest for me allthough rare because of immature and lone wolf players on ranked servers.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

I also think I've been really desensitized.... Most of it is probably because I test all these great games while they are beta (like Call of Duty: United Offensive... although that was really fun )...

 

[Noobulon]

Storyline is what makes a single-player game for me.

Interesting.

I'm different to most people in here, in that I don't care at all for storylines in games. Plots usually seem like window dressing - a side-dish to the actual game, there simply to provide justification for gameplay mechanics. At worst they even get in the way of the game itself - hours of cutscenes sandwiched between levels or around boss battles. This is why I could never complete a game like FF7. If I find the gameplay poor, I'm not going to put up with it for a story.

Granted, I probably feel this way because the majority of videogame stories are such half-assed drivel. Would Far Cry be a worse game if they cut out all the cutscenes and voice-overs? Hell, I think it would improve the experience substantially. The player would have to embellish the experience with their imagination.
And what their imagination creates will inevitably be better than the student fiction sci-fi otherwise served up.

Come to think of it, this is probably why HL2's "story" works so well - there isn't really a story at all. There's context (I do want games to provide some context).... but the wider picture is left for the player to imagine. My best gaming memories have been of games which did this. Diablo II - was there even any story in that game? I ignored it if so- my character's story was my own, and the game was all the better for it!

I don't know where I'm going with this. Some of my friends won't play games with bad (or 'unrealistic') storylines at all. I dunno. This is just an subject I find interesting.


Now that I've defined my definition of 'not fun', I'll go and think about what it is I actually like in games

 

[Asknoone]

Storyline is what makes a single-player game for me.

KOTOR and Deus Ex = Wicked storylines in my opinion

Far Cry = Terrible storyline in my opinion

Words of pure wisdom.

 

[Naudian]

I consider a game to be fun as long as it has:
- A good adrenaline rush once or twice per playtime (good sounds help, like in BF2) :sniper:
- A good story(or mystery) that you keep thinking about when youre not playing (HL's story)
- And Smooth performance/gameplay....and purty graphics

 

[Pesmerga]

Interesting.

I'm different to most people in here, in that I don't care at all for storylines in games. Plots usually seem like window dressing - a side-dish to the actual game, there simply to provide justification for gameplay mechanics. At worst they even get in the way of the game itself - hours of cutscenes sandwiched between levels or around boss battles. This is why I could never complete a game like FF7. If I find the gameplay poor, I'm not going to put up with it for a story.

Granted, I probably feel this way because the majority of videogame stories are such half-assed drivel. Would Far Cry be a worse game if they cut out all the cutscenes and voice-overs? Hell, I think it would improve the experience substantially. The player would have to embellish the experience with their imagination.
And what their imagination creates will inevitably be better than the student fiction sci-fi otherwise served up.

Come to think of it, this is probably why HL2's "story" works so well - there isn't really a story at all. There's context (I do want games to provide some context).... but the wider picture is left for the player to imagine. My best gaming memories have been of games which did this. Diablo II - was there even any story in that game? I ignored it if so- my character's story was my own, and the game was all the better for it!

I don't know where I'm going with this. Some of my friends won't play games with bad (or 'unrealistic') storylines at all. I dunno. This is just an subject I find interesting.


Now that I've defined my definition of 'not fun', I'll go and think about what it is I actually like in games

I think you've hit alot of good concepts about the storyline thing.

To shorten it up, it's like watching a horror film but never seeing the monster itself, only you know its there behind that cracked open door or under the bed. It leaves it up to the audience to imagine their own monster, or simply be enthralled by the captivation of what it might be.

I think games like Final Fantasy 7 were so awesome for me is not really because of the story line, hell, I don't even know what's going on half the time. I think its more of a bond between me and the character. Aeris, for example, I fell in love with her for the short time she was around, which just goes to show I love character development.

It's hard to judge tho, what really gives us those happy moments. Storyline is a very broad subject, and is usually something people say makes their games fun because they can't quite put their finger on anything more specific. I try very hard to figure out what I like in a game, but it's difficult to not say things like "Graphics, or atmosphere, storyline, character development or gore" for instance. All very broad subjects, and composed of many smaller elements that have an affect on the player. Another good question might be, what exactly is fun? It's obviously a brain stimulation.

 

[Mr. Redundant]

team-work, sense of achievement, immersion, sweet graphics (I am a graphics whore), tight controls.

for single player: a great storyline (would love to see something along the lines of Clive Barker's Undying again ) and engaging combat with intelligent AI.

for Multiplayer: Voice communication (can't play a game without it since Hl1 dod), structure (Im not going to be able to play another game that doesn't have some structure like BF2's squads and commander system) Huge maps, vehicles, variety, ragdolls and physics (when possible). well who am I kidding? basically BF2.