Jimquisition: Fun & Priorities
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've heard a good way to get door to door preachers to leave you alone is tell them you're excommunicated. Sounds like it'd work.
More OT: never really thought about the difference between putting something in there to sell a game... always kinda rolled with the assumption that fun was supposed to be the selling point.
More OT: never really thought about the difference between putting something in there to sell a game... always kinda rolled with the assumption that fun was supposed to be the selling point.
So I can't stop myself from asking any longer:Jimothy Sterling said:
What is it with the shrimp you put in every video? I can't make any kind of sense out of it, save that, from the audio context, it's some kind of "THIS SHIT IS BAD" visual flag. Is there anything more to it, or did you just decide one day that prawns were evil and would be used to represent evil forevermore?
Really Jim? You didn't share the Gospel of Jim with that poor misguided woman? You are just going to let her worship the false shepherd?
I joke but seriously the use of the word fun is of no significance at all. This is basically a PR guy sitting in the back crunching numbers saying "Streamlined" doesn't fair well with audiences. We would do better to replace the word with fun, that has tested much better.
It is not uncommon for PR people to literally mandate the disuse or the use of a word simply because of the effect it will have. It seems Jim bit the bait hook line and sinker and made an entire episode praising the PR guy's smart move playing straight into his hand.
Fun is just another word for streamlined until the final product gets released and we can see for ourselves.
I joke but seriously the use of the word fun is of no significance at all. This is basically a PR guy sitting in the back crunching numbers saying "Streamlined" doesn't fair well with audiences. We would do better to replace the word with fun, that has tested much better.
It is not uncommon for PR people to literally mandate the disuse or the use of a word simply because of the effect it will have. It seems Jim bit the bait hook line and sinker and made an entire episode praising the PR guy's smart move playing straight into his hand.
Fun is just another word for streamlined until the final product gets released and we can see for ourselves.
Having a different subjective judgement than others is fine, but this is nerd culture so you're going to get a lot of people ready to counter with in-depth descriptions of why something didn't work for them. GTA4, for example was relatively humorless, slow, controlled really wonky for its time, and is forever compared to Saints Row Two. SR2 had a lot of pot humor, wacky side-missions, and was still grounded in drama (the Brotherhood in particular was a sickening escalation of revenge).Magog1 said:
But no, you're not dumb for liking anything, unless it's drinking bleach.
edit- or Dominos pizza. seriously.
My problem is that Rockstar is know for making games that are...how shall I put it? Not fun? Maybe that's too obvious...
Point is, I don't for a second trust Rockstar's saying 'No trust us, online play will make the game fun!" is any different that "No trust us, Dead Space 3 will appeal to a wider audience." As far as i can tell, every bad choice made in AAA gaming, Rockstar is also making. The only difference is Rockstar has as gall to call them 'fun', where as EA is a least honest that they just want more money. It sounds like Rockstar knows its game wont sell well, that its already failed to appeal to a larger audience and it now covering its ass so when sales are dismal, they can say "Oh, I guess people don't like fun. Did we establish that? Our games are fun!"
Its all very corporate and transparent. Jim usually would call them out, saying 'Who cares if YOU think your game looks fun? Prove to us, the gamers, that its fun! Prove to US that adding online play is fun rather than just telling us this is what fun looks like and if we don't buy it, well I guess we don't like fun."
Point is, I don't for a second trust Rockstar's saying 'No trust us, online play will make the game fun!" is any different that "No trust us, Dead Space 3 will appeal to a wider audience." As far as i can tell, every bad choice made in AAA gaming, Rockstar is also making. The only difference is Rockstar has as gall to call them 'fun', where as EA is a least honest that they just want more money. It sounds like Rockstar knows its game wont sell well, that its already failed to appeal to a larger audience and it now covering its ass so when sales are dismal, they can say "Oh, I guess people don't like fun. Did we establish that? Our games are fun!"
Its all very corporate and transparent. Jim usually would call them out, saying 'Who cares if YOU think your game looks fun? Prove to us, the gamers, that its fun! Prove to US that adding online play is fun rather than just telling us this is what fun looks like and if we don't buy it, well I guess we don't like fun."
this is kinda what you sound likeT3hSource said:
Yes fun might be subjective, but so is everything else in a game. Calling "fun" an excuse would be silly because fun things are fun.
of course is the things marketed as fun isn't fun at all then that's a whole other issue.
Going from GTA:SA to GTA 4 was, what I felt at least, a step backwards. Now with three main characters, a large open world that is open at the start, and new side activities and ways to spend money other than to buy guns, this is starting to look like a major evolution for the series.
I figure it has fallen victim to Michael Bay's Transformers movies. Those movies were all successful, and varying degrees of unpleasant. That is the trouble with soulless cash-ins that work, they tend to ruin the market for the very things they are cashing in on.TheMemoman said:
That's funny - I was watching the GTA5 video thinking "Ooh, that looks fun. And that. That looks fun too. I am now interested in this game." THAT'S why! They put the surbliminers in my advertising - I've been had! Damned Rockstar.
I was also confused by the intro story, in that I thought the direction it was going to take was that Jim would open the door and the lady would go "Oh my God! I mean Oh my Jim!" and then give him all the monies she'd previously been collecting. After all, if you're collecting for your church you're collecting for Jim.
I was also confused by the intro story, in that I thought the direction it was going to take was that Jim would open the door and the lady would go "Oh my God! I mean Oh my Jim!" and then give him all the monies she'd previously been collecting. After all, if you're collecting for your church you're collecting for Jim.
The Dead Space 3 Microtransactions are one of the best examples of bad game design motivated by cash-flow. If part of a game is so tedious or boring that people want to pay to skip it, why include it at all?
With GTA 5 I hope one of the fun changes is bringing back Vice City's cartoonish car physics. In GTA I want to peel around corners while mashing the accelerator and bouncing off curbs into the stratosphere. If I wanted realistic driving I'd buy Forza or something.
With GTA 5 I hope one of the fun changes is bringing back Vice City's cartoonish car physics. In GTA I want to peel around corners while mashing the accelerator and bouncing off curbs into the stratosphere. If I wanted realistic driving I'd buy Forza or something.
Seems like a slow week for news, but good point anyway. Though I don't think anyone was actually thinking of the right words to describe what their focus is, just an average explanation to get through it all like someone who's sick of life. The game play vids are the only thing that carries any weight, and GTA5 looked alright.
The video during the uncanny valley segment now makes me wish there was a horror video game that capitalizes on the effect. That thing (sitting on the chair) was scary.
