#gamergate megathread

[ultimamax]

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DevinWilson/20140828/224450/A_Guide_to_Ending_quotGamersquot.php
"We stop upholding “fun” as the universal, ultimate criterion for a game’s relevance. It’s a meaningless ideal at best and a poisonous priority at worst. Fun is a neurological trick. Plenty of categorically unhealthy things are “fun”. Let’s try for something more. Many of the alternatives will have similarly fuzzy definitions, but let’s aspire to qualities like “edifying”, “healing”, “pro-social”, or even “enlightening”. I encourage you to decide upon your own alternatives to “fun” in games (while avoiding terms like “cool” and “awesome” and any other word that simply caters to existing, unexamined biases)."

Also http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/129891/who_says_video_games_have_to_be_.php?print=1

This is kind of a pointless article. You can already see that "edifying" or "enlightening" games are popular. (for example, story driven games like Portal or Bioshock Infinite or Mother 3) That doesn't mean they have to be not fun. They're arguing against a problem that doesn't exist.

[Ad Bot]

[ResonKinetic]

Now?
This clusterforget was confusing since day one. lol

i at least had a vague understanding of what was going on until recently

the clusterforget overdrive lever has slowly been moving towards maximum, for lack of better words

[Ticonderoga]

Is this still going on?

[Camel]

This is kind of a pointless article. You can already see that "edifying" or "enlightening" games are popular. (for example, story driven games like Portal or Bioshock Infinite or Mother 3) That doesn't mean they have to be not fun. They're arguing against a problem that doesn't exist.

as far as i'm concerned, a game being "fun" is at the bottom of necessary things to be a good game. a game is inherently fun - that's what a game is, just like a meal is inherently edible. but being edible doesn't mean it's good, and being fun doesn't mean it's good.

[Jaxx]

This is kind of a pointless article. You can already see that "edifying" or "enlightening" games are popular. (for example, story driven games like Portal or Bioshock Infinite or Mother 3) That doesn't mean they have to be not fun. They're arguing against a problem that doesn't exist.

their (anti gg) problem is ultimately that not enough people are buying games they (anti gg) would like them (consumers) to buy, despite them (anti gg) not actually purchasing forget all in terms of games anyways, essentially dictating as an outside force something they have no stake, and therefore no say, in.

[Katadeus]

as far as i'm concerned, a game being "fun" is at the bottom of necessary things to be a good game. a game is inherently fun - that's what a game is, just like a meal is inherently edible. but being edible doesn't mean it's good, and being fun doesn't mean it's good.

There are enough games that aren't fun
There are also a bunch that aren't very fun

[beachbum111111]

This is kind of a pointless article. You can already see that "edifying" or "enlightening" games are popular. (for example, story driven games like Portal or Bioshock Infinite or Mother 3) That doesn't mean they have to be not fun. They're arguing against a problem that doesn't exist.

not to mention that  “edifying”, “healing”, “pro-social”, and “enlightening” are all neurological tricks as well.

[Camel]

There are enough games that aren't fun
There are also a bunch that aren't very fun

exactly, which means they're bad games.

but a fun game is not necessarily a good game

[beachbum111111]

exactly, which means they're bad games.

but a fun game is not necessarily a good game

What's the point of playing a game if you don't enjoy it?

[LeetZero]

What's the point of playing a game if you don't enjoy it?

I think his point is that a game can be fun, but broken.

[Ipquarx]

exactly, which means they're bad games.

I think his point is that a game can be fun, but broken.

A game can be not fun and still be a good game, and a game that's fun can still be a good game too.

Whether or not a game is fun is not connected at all to whether or not it's a "good game" because whether or not something is a good game is entirely up to opinion as "good" is not an objective (unbiased) term. If you want to say a game is "good" then you're immediately stating that that is merely your opinion and you can say whatever you want to justify your reasons, since that's just your opinion. That article is totally pointless because, as I said, whether or not something is a "good game" has no relation to whether or not the game is considered "fun" by the people who play it. They're trying to complain about two things being connected when in reality they have no relation to eachother.

[McJob]

People keep ignoring what the definition of fun is, and it makes me cringe and cry.

Fun = The brain rewarding us with dopamine for learning a new skill or getting better at an old one.

Fun is inherit to the game experience. A game is about learning new skills and getting better at them until you succeed in a challenge.

Fun has NOTHING to do with something being happy, something being pointless or something made only for entertainment.

Fun is also personal. Everybody learns differently, and everybody will find fun in different forms.

[beachbum111111]

People keep ignoring what the definition of fun is, and it makes me cringe and cry.

Fun = The brain rewarding us with dopamine for learning a new skill or getting better at an old one.

Fun is inherit to the game experience. A game is about learning new skills and getting better at them until you succeed in a challenge.

Fun has NOTHING to do with something being happy, something being pointless or something made only for entertainment.

Fun is also personal. Everybody learns differently, and everybody will find fun in different forms.

[Oasis]

Daily reminder that Jack Thompson literally tried to ban violent videogames and got disbarred, he has no credibility. I cannot imagine why anyone thinks that he is at all relevant right now, but apparently they do, which is idiotic. I have interest in hearing what he has to say in the same way that I would like to hear what Charles Manson has to say, morbid curiosity and nothing more than that. It'd be a cold day in hell before anyone should give him a shred of credibility after his ridiculous history with the industry. So y'know if we could, not give him airtime, that'd be lovely.

Yup.

[joe411]

#rekt