Flower Intentionally Made Less "Fun"

[whaleswiththumbs]

That makes sense after all its not a "game" game....

Kindof agree, it's not a game like Half-Life, because let's face it, Half Life has no deep emotional response. Games like The Path do, i'm tempted to call the emotion games, but then I wouldn't take myself seriously because i hate emos, but i just called my favorite genre of games emo.

So what should we call these non-game games?
My vote is for "art games"

 

[Therumancer]

Well the very term "game" implies fun. I have no objection to artists using computers to convey their works, but I think it should be treated as something differant from gaming.

Mature gaming is pretty much on the right path, basically we need more of what is already there (sex and violence) for mature games. I see maturity as being the abillity to seperate fantasy and reality and "turn off" your play instincts so to speak. Which is why mature games simply involve very "childish" impulses taken to extremes. Kids having a greater difficulty seperating what is acceptable from what isn't when portrayed in that fashion to an extent. I don't think playing sexy or violent games turns a kid into a pervert or seriel killer (well arguably everyone is a "pervert" but that's another discussion entirely) but they can give them some rather wierd ideas.

A good example of this I think is games like "Saint's Row" where idiots talk about all the sex (well sort of), violence, and crime in the game I don't think those elements in of themselves are what make the game mature. Nobody is going to take the shooting, drug dealing, hoing, or whatever else seriously when portrayed like that. However the context it's put in overall, especially when the gang bangers start getting into dicussions of honor, loyalty, and other "positive" values in this context it can lead to a warped value system especially when viewed by the young who do not seperate that from reality as well. For example some games that are mature will take a very "Omerta" approach to good and evil, basically the idea that if you REALLY want Justice you need to get it yourself. Encouraging a mentality where say instead of going to school authorities to resolve a problem, kids are increasingly more likely to want to resolve problems themselves in hallways and parking lots, leading to things like increases in school violence.

Even games with a clear cut line between good and evil, involve methods and logic that are just as fantastic as the storyline itself. Someone who comes away from a game thinking a quest for revenge is inherantly good is getting the wrong message. That's intended to be a "Dark" motive which many adults will understand better than children. I've talked to teenagers about morality and such (say in discussions about RPG alignment systems) and noticed that a lot miss the distinction between Revenge and Justice even when it's part of
a storyline. Younger players oftentimes missing the subtext when a protaganist is asked
which one they actually want, and the point that it's NOT supposed to be a good thing if
they choose revenge.

At any rate this is getting away from the subject,


Ultimatly I do not consider things like "Flower" (as described, I have not played it) and similar programs to be games, but works of electronic art. It's fine, and people can appreciate that, but I don't think it should be presented as a game but rather a genere of it's own.

Similar to how I feel many so called "Adventure Games" should not be considered games but rather "Interactive" or "Visual" novels. Japan sort of makes a distinction here and I think thw Western Audience could learn from that.

I have not played "The Path" yet (largely because I believe it's a Steam Exclusive) but I've heard about it and people have tried to sell me on it. As it's been described to me it's really not much of a game (not that this means I wouldn't appreciate it).

To take something with a vaguely similar theme, I'd say "Rule Of Rose" is an example of someone making a game along those lines (very surreal and artsy elements surrounding a VERY odd premise, but also including things like combat mechanics). Indeed discussing Rule Of Rose which I think is one of the more original "survival horror" games to ever be made, is when I had "The Path" suggested to me.

 

[FloodOne]

So games are supposed to be fun, yet we're going to remove the fun?

Odd move, but I don't have a PS3 so I'm not too bothered.

Did you read the article?

Yes (a few times), I just feel that fun stems from raw emotions and if he wants thinking responses rather than emotional ones then he's taking the fun out a of a product that's supposed to be fun.

Thinking and puzzle solving can be fun but I reckon he wants this to be the kind of "thinking outside the box" thinking.

But I'm odd and probably don't understand 100%.

I have fun reading books. A lot of fun actually, and little of that fun stems from raw emotion. It stems from using my mind to dissect a characters motives, or to try an piece together the puzzles of the world events happening in the story. Sure it's not the same as Flower, but it is fun without the need for adreniline pumping raw emotion. If games look to branch out more into mainstream entertainment and "art", experiments like Flower have to happen.

 

[Gerazzi]

While it is a bizzare move in my book, It is his game to make and do with as he pleases.

I agree.
I kind of want to point out that games are meant to be fun but then I guess that argument has already been made on the Escapist a billion times over.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

By the sound of it, he's not in it to be a millionaire, but to make something special, and for that we should applaud, don't most of us have a movie that we love that was a bit weird and low budget, obviously made for the love of it, not marketed to the lowest common denominator?

No reason some games can't aim to purely create a feeling and entertain, and of course entertainment isn't the same as fun.

Of course, he could have left the other stuff in as an optional mode, but again, maybe it would have detracted from the purity, in the way that I've seen games marked down for having a poor vs or multiplayer mode, yet if it hadn't been there it wouldn't have been marked down.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Yeah... if he's going out of his way to not have people enjoy his game, he's in the wrong business, is all I'm saying.

Well as long as he doesn't disappear up his own a-se like M. Night Shyamalan seems to have done recently, I'm fine with him developing his games as he wants, with as little studio interference as possible. In the end, if the game's really bad, it'll only get sold for as long as it takes for word of mouth to totally damn it, and then it'll go out of circulation.

One of my pet gripes is when studio interference ruins a film by altering the ending or introducing a random love interest who does nothing but delay the main plot. I don't want this to happen in my favourite films (and generally it doesn't, which is why they're my favourite films!) so why should I see it happen in my favourite games as well?

As for removing "fun" elements, System Shock 2 is a genuinely great game (I think the vast majority of people who have played it would agree with me there), but I think it would have been a lot better if the "psi-amp" had been removed from it completely. You can quite easily get through the game without using psi, but it would be as close to impossible as you can get in gaming to do it without using tech, stats or weapons skills; so why include psi at all? I'm sure there are other things that the developers could have done instead. A "psi" based game is a great idea, but I don't think the system fit THIS paticular game.

And maybe that's why the developer decided to remove elements from "Flower". In the end, it's his game to develop. We can choose to play it or not play it, and we can criticize the finished product as we like. But why should we be able to influence how the game gets made in the first place? Leave it to the professional, he's probably had enough criticism of past games to know what he's doing right / wrong!

 

[Pendragon9]

I think by "taking out the fun" they were clearly going for a different direction. And you know, I like it. Kinda like Scribblenauts. Going in a new direction always makes for good games.

 

[squid5580]

Where I do get his point about the experience not being "fun" it should be entertaining. Not every movie is meant to be fun. Why should every game? Schindler's List wasn't a "fun" movie. Although it was emotionally touching. Why can't a game be made in the same vein?

 

[MasterSqueak]

So games are supposed to be fun, yet we're going to remove the fun?

Odd move, but I don't have a PS3 so I'm not too bothered.

Pretty much this, except I have a PS3 but don't use it.

 

[Jumplion]

Wow, I am laughing my ass off at the near instant change of tone from everyone. Guess it was tahe fact that Dyack made "Too Human" -_-

I played flOwer and I loved it. It was a very emotional game that you could make up the meaning by yourself. Plus, the way you controled the petals, with the SixaxiS controller, made it an incredibly imersive experience. It's unlike anything else I've ever played, and for $10 you better believe it's worth it.

 

[calelogan]

I wholly agree with Jenova Chen. Be it as researcher, indie game designer, or writer, unless games start treating themes in a mature light, the medium will not be respected by society as an authentic cultural and artistic expression.

I have nothing against commercial blockbuster games, but lately, indie games have shown how much games have still got to explore in terms of emotions and interactivity. If we have the chance to experiment, then let's do it.

There's room for all kinds of genres and methods of expression.

 

[Abedeus]

What next, let's make books less enjoyable by removing every dialogue from them? Or maybe we should return to black and white deaf movies, but not add subtitles?

What? How does that even make sense or relate to the article?

If you don't give audience what they want, you will fail.

And since we buy games, we would like to have fun... Not that I have PS3.

 

[The Bandit]

This is a dumb argument. If a game is deep and sophisticated, it is fun. While games like Peggle are not deep or sophisticated, they are also fun.

If you're intentionally removing things that add to the fun of the game, in order to make it seem more "sophisticated" though, you're a pretentious prick.

/thread

 

[Credge]

I wouldn't have used SF4 as an example of fun. Shoddy controls in a 2D fighter do not make for a fun experience.

 

[lacktheknack]

I see where he's coming from, but the problem with the best example of what he wants, The Path, is that it was like a book- read/play it once, maybe twice if you REALLY like it, and then it's done. You forget that you have it.

 

[Jumplion]

What next, let's make books less enjoyable by removing every dialogue from them? Or maybe we should return to black and white deaf movies, but not add subtitles?

What? How does that even make sense or relate to the article?

If you don't give audience what they want, you will fail.

And since we buy games, we would like to have fun... Not that I have PS3.

Well, it's quite clear that you have never played flOwer at all, and because of that I advise you to be quiet.

Why can't games do something other than "fun"? Are documentaries "fun"? Was Schendler's List "fun"? Are psycological thrillers "fun"? Are "based on a true story" shows and movies "fun"? Are books depicting the horrors or war and events in Iraq "fun"?

Get rid of this simplistic viewpoint of what a game should be. Why can't games do something other that boobs, explosions, gore, blood, and all the "Fun" things you think games should only be required to have. I'm not saying those kinds of "fun" games are bad, they have their place, but games can be more than just "fun", and I don't see what's the problem with trying to experiement with what games can do.

You want "fun"? Go play whatever interests you, doesn't matter to me. But don't you dare start constituting what should and shouldn't be a game because games are only meant to be "fun". Grow up and think outside of the box, if games continue only being "fun" it will never grow and we will never be able to see what we can acomplish through different experiments.

When I played flOwer, it was an amazing experience that was unlike any other. The visuals were fantastic and fit perfectly with the soundtrack that fit perfectly with the gameplay that fit perfectly with the atmosphere. Controlling the wind with the SixaxiS motion control made it all the more immersive and made me feel that much more attached to the game itself. Something that makes me feel genuinely happy, something that fills me with real joy instead of "Wooo! Explosions!" joy? I'd say that's a better game than all the explosions, boobs, and blood, aka games people apparantly describe as "fun", combined.

AS a side, watch this [http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/694743/Sesslers-Soapbox-Fun-Vs-Art.html].

 

[Cody211282]

This is a dumb argument. If a game is deep and sophisticated, it is fun. While games like Peggle are not deep or sophisticated, they are also fun.

If you're intentionally removing things that add to the fun of the game, in order to make it seem more "sophisticated" though, you're a pretentious prick.

/thread

Totaly agree with ya

 

[Cody211282]

What next, let's make books less enjoyable by removing every dialogue from them? Or maybe we should return to black and white deaf movies, but not add subtitles?

What? How does that even make sense or relate to the article?

If you don't give audience what they want, you will fail.

And since we buy games, we would like to have fun... Not that I have PS3.

Well, it's quite clear that you have never played flOwer at all, and because of that I advise you to be quiet.

Why can't games do something other than "fun"? Are documentaries "fun"? Was Schendler's List "fun"? Are psycological thrillers "fun"? Are "based on a true story" shows and movies "fun"? Are books depicting the horrors or war and events in Iraq "fun"?

Get rid of this simplistic viewpoint of what a game should be. Why can't games do something other that boobs, explosions, gore, blood, and all the "Fun" things you think games should only be required to have. I'm not saying those kinds of "fun" games are bad, they have their place, but games can be more than just "fun", and I don't see what's the problem with trying to experiement with what games can do.

You want "fun"? Go play whatever interests you, doesn't matter to me. But don't you dare start constituting what should and shouldn't be a game because games are only meant to be "fun". Grow up and think outside of the box, if games continue only being "fun" it will never grow and we will never be able to see what we can acomplish through different experiments.

When I played flOwer, it was an amazing experience that was unlike any other. The visuals were fantastic and fit perfectly with the soundtrack that fit perfectly with the gameplay that fit perfectly with the atmosphere. Controlling the wind with the SixaxiS motion control made it all the more immersive and made me feel that much more attached to the game itself. Something that makes me feel genuinely happy, something that fills me with real joy instead of "Wooo! Explosions!" joy? I'd say that's a better game than all the explosions, boobs, and blood, aka games people apparantly describe as "fun", combined.

AS a side, watch this [http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/694743/Sesslers-Soapbox-Fun-Vs-Art.html].

Yes all the things you listed are fun as in they are entertaining and that's what they are meant to be, do we learn something as well and are moved at the same time, probably, but if its not entertaining no one's going to want to watch it

 

[The Eaten Cake]

It's a pretentious move, all right, but it was the right one. Spells and suchlike would've ruined Flower, as far as I saw (my mate played the first level to show me the game). I wouldn't say it's removing fun by keeping out those features, though.

 

[Jumplion]

Yes all the things you listed are fun as in they are entertaining and that's what they are meant to be, do we learn something as well and are moved at the same time, probably, but if its not entertaining no one's going to want to watch it

Ah, and that is where you are half-smarter than most of the other people here.

"Fun" and "Enjoyment" are two completely different things with two completely different contexts. You can't have a successful show, movie, book, or video game if it isn't "enjoyable" but you can have one that isn't "fun" because not everything is "fun".

"Fun" implies that it's all "Woo! Yeah! Explosions! Conflict! Action!" or something that you personally like above all else, something that you're getting a kick out of and that gets you worked up, or it's trippy, or funky, or whatever. You can't exactly have fun with Schendler's List, unless for some reason you find the holocaust funny.

However, you can "enjoy" Schindler's List in the way that you described. You learn something, you are enlightened, you find something you didn't know before, or it could even be "fun" in disguise if you do think that the Holocaust is hilarious.

I guess you could classify "fun" as a subsection of "enjoyment", as you can have one without the other. If you don't like horror movies or games you're not going to enjoy them therefore there is no "enjoyment" to get out of it and thus no "fun" to gain from it either. But a survival horror enthusiast already enjoys most survival horror games, but the really good ones are "fun" to him (or maybe they finds Pyramid Head raping maniquins funny, I dunno).

It's sort of the same thing with "Graphics vs Visuals", two different words, two different contexts, and we've got to learn the difference between them.