I can see where he's coming from. However, it doesn't seem like my kind of game. After all, I was one of the people who didn't like Okami too much, and this seems to be in a very similar vein as far as artistic expression goes.
Flower Intentionally Made Less "Fun"
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sweet. Pretty closed minded individual.SimuLord said:
Are successful artists the only ones who make good music? Top 40 Billboard debuts are much better than that indie band working the bar circuit.
I enjoy Madden too, but that doesn't mean I don't like new gaming experiences.
Flower looks like an interesting game to me. I haven't played it since I don't have a PS3, but even I can see that spells, or things like that would conflict with the primary control scheme. I mean, if there were spells, you might expect there to be more to the game, but simply controlling the wind makes you realise that the game is supposed to be relaxing fun, like sliding down a waterslide.
It's fair enough that they've removed gameplay elements that stick out like a stick in the mud, because this allows better immersion in the mud... errr, game.
It's fair enough that they've removed gameplay elements that stick out like a stick in the mud, because this allows better immersion in the mud... errr, game.
The thread title is way too provocative. It seems more like a distortion of the truth, just to go back on it.
Games don't always have to be completely "fun" to work. Horror games, for example, work because of their restrictions, which makes it more tense. If I could mow down a ton of creatures with out-of-place items, then it's not scary, and definitely not interesting. Full freedom usually isn't as good as it seems.
Like they say about art, sometimes restrictions make the outcome that much better.
If you want a game with all the content you can think of, then make your own.
Games don't always have to be completely "fun" to work. Horror games, for example, work because of their restrictions, which makes it more tense. If I could mow down a ton of creatures with out-of-place items, then it's not scary, and definitely not interesting. Full freedom usually isn't as good as it seems.
Like they say about art, sometimes restrictions make the outcome that much better.
If you want a game with all the content you can think of, then make your own.
Personally, I thought Flower was a masterpiece. It is so elegant, peaceful, and overall such a simple game that it gives off nothing but good vibes. I wouldn't have it any other way.
A lot of people here have. It was an indie game released on the PSN, and still managed to become many people's GOTY... including mine. It sold FAR better than the traditional "fun" games their company used to make, and is regarded as one of the most immersive, emotional and well designed games of last year.TsunamiWombat said:
So yeah, it did.
Does anyone else feels it is starting to get to a point where it becomes really tiresome that the subject - of games needing to mature - there is always this obligate mentioning of: 'The Path'?nilcypher said:
To me it only shows lack of interest or pure lack of creativity if this is still the only example we can come up with that shows games can elvolve beyond kids-toys.
Examples? Go look at Cactus' (Jonatan Soderstrom) Mondo [http://www.rhizome.org/editorial/2209] or games like: Burn the Rope [http://www.kongregate.com/games/Mazapan/you-have-to-burn-the-rope] and maybe even the - yet unfinished -:
Blueberry Garden.
I have nothing against 'The Path' but I do hate to see that so little other (mostly independent) game designers are working hard to mature this industry who get little or no credits in these sort of articles.
I don't really understand what this is trying to say, it's too damn vague.
All I see is "we are removing the fun because fun is immature", PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, I just don't see what they're saying.
All I see is "we are removing the fun because fun is immature", PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, I just don't see what they're saying.
He's basically saying that he took out some original elements that used to be in the game, like spells and whatnot, because it took away its simplicity and conflicted with the message it was trying to show overall. Having spells and more content in it would undermine the whole point of the game and make it into another "Go here, shoot that, activate spell 5, watch the explosion!" kind of game. Think of it as a "less is more" kind of thing.bushwhacker2k said:
Jenova Chen didn't want to add a shooting mechanic to his game flower because it has been explored in many other games and he wanted to create something different. The rest is mostly jibber jabbering by people who are easily set off on rants by the world fun.bushwhacker2k said:
Wackjob.
Then again he's making a game about flowers so I guess thats the whole point. Calling flower a "game" is a bit insulting to the rest of the industry.
Then again he's making a game about flowers so I guess thats the whole point. Calling flower a "game" is a bit insulting to the rest of the industry.
ead Samurai.
SirSchmoopy said:
....insulting? Really? An insult to the industry? It's pretty clear that you've never played this game. Is that what people stooped down to? Calling a game "insulting" because it's not what you think a game should be?
I dunno about you, but I think an Indie game is still, you know, a game. I still have yet to see a single reason, let alone a valid one, to not call flOwer a game. Why can't this be a game? Because only one button is ever used (press any button, or use the analog sticks to speed up the wind)? Because you don't score "points"? Because it doesn't have any explosions? What exactly makes this game an "insult" to this industry?
I was under the impression that bad games were the insults, not games that do something different from the rest and succeed.
Yeah, how insulting. The video game industry should try to keep it's high standard of boobs, violence and guns...SirSchmoopy said: