Flower Intentionally Made Less "Fun"

[Uncompetative]

I think it is admirable to advocate a lightweight ephemeral experience even at the cost of removing traditional risk-reward-challenge-catharsis dynamics just as long as those marketing the product recognizes that it isn't going to be played for hours on end and keep it very cheap, quick diversion.

 

[boholikeu]

Flower is nothing new, special, or interesting and month after this game is finally released I won't ever have to hear about it because everyone will have forgotten it because HOW LONG do you think someone can walk around a field of flowers before it gets old.

Jokes on you. Flower is already out, and it's gotten pretty good reviews. In fact, it's been out six months and people are still talking about it.

 

[theultimateend]

You have to think out side of the box in order to create something new and different. FUN isn't everything. A game like Silent Hill 2 wasn't FUN to play, but it was still an amazing experience. More gameplay isn't always better

No but good gameplay is always better.

People aren't demanding bullshit in their games they are demanding gameplay.

That's why all these interviews are so over my head. Nobody is saying that your flower game needs huge breasted women hurling fireballs. We just ask that it displays itself honestly and plays to the best potential it can.

Which I think that flower game did. It was artful and interesting and was sort of zen like. I had quite a bit of fun in it.

Course I also like fireball hurling large breasted women...but each has a proper place and time...which oddly ends up being my bedroom anytime.

while I believe it is possible for a game to be good without being "fun" it make it a lot harder and even if you get it right there will still be people out there who bash the game for it.

Games have always been designed to be fun.

Not survival horror games, at least I don't think.

I disagree just because fun is not a singular emotional experience. I consider chess and sex to both be fun but each has a different series of reasons behind why it is fun. They don't both set off the same series of emotions or actions but yet when someone asks me "Do you think these things are fun" I say "Hell yes."

But all fun things are not equally better together. Sex + Chess COULD be awesome but it would most likely end horribly.

From a psychological stand point I would consider anything appetitive to be fun and anything aversive to be unfun. Now! This essentially means that fun is subjective which is still the point but it makes it much easier to define and makes it a little more clinical and less ranty forum banter.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

This reminds me of Shadow of the Colossus. I mean the game wasn't completely action crazy and a lot of it was running around looking for the Colossi and that experience in itself was entirely breathtaking and it didn't feel the need to have me running around killing things willy nilly.

 

[jthm]

Hell, now I want to play it.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

It seems like a game that's destined to fail anyways, so i guess if he's going to be a prestigious douche about it the 3 people who buy the game won't hate him for it too much.

 

[The_Echo]

I saw the game and the decided to just ignore it.

Bad idea.

Flower was amazing, and even though he toned down the fun, I still had a blast playing it. Adding anything else would ruin it in my opinion.

 

[Polarix]

I think that flOwer is kind of made in the same vein as flOw, espcially since they were made by the same person; Jenova Chen, because it is more of enjoying the art work and finding a deeper meaning in a game. While I am partially more into games that are focused on gameplay, while story and graphics come second, kind of like God Hand, I can enjoy games that have a deeper meaning like these games and even to a certain degree, Okami which is an amazing game and Braid which is okay. Also its better not to have magic spells in flOwer, kinda detracts from the point in the game.

However, according to Mega 64 , you better play and make indie games, or your gonna get falcon pawnched!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=617lGZjYyNo

 

[Frizzle]

I just downloaded this game last night, and I don't even care what was taken out of it. I played through the first level (are they levels?) and had a smile on my face the entire time. I felt like a 12 year old playing games for the first time. it was amazing. I highly recommend this to anyone and everyone.

 

[Polarix]

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.

....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.

Oh no, Jumplion, you just dissed SirSchmoopy, creator of Unforgotten Realms, you've doomed us all! Sir Schmoopy comes in, "Feel the wraith of Canadian lumber fool", explodes entire thread.

 

[Jumplion]

Oh no, Jumplion, you just dissed SirSchmoopy, creator of Unforgotten Realms, you've doomed us all! Sir Schmoopy comes in, "Feel the wraith of Canadian lumber fool", explodes entire thread.

Bah, I couldn't give a crap if you're Jesus the Messiah, I'll still argue with you if I disagree.

 

[Kelethor]

I guess this guy worked hard too make his game, and therefore has every right too say what he wants about it. however, I want too have fun when I play games. thats just me.