Why don't games compare themselves to amusement parks?

[Racecarlock]

I mean, amusement parks are literally places you go to to fly without effort. You just pick a coaster and bam. Airtime, g-forces, and afterwards you feel like you just conquered a dragon.

These are literally the funnest places on earth here.

I see games, time and time again, compare themselves to movies. But I rarely see a game try to compete with a roller coaster at an amusement park. I've never seen games compare themselves to a launched freefall ride or a water slide.

Why not? Why can't games that compare themselves to movies take a part of the industry rather than the whole industry? Sure, you sometimes see a game market itself on it's fun factor, but they don't compare themselves to, say, your local go kart track.

It baffles me. Amusement parks get thousands of visitors every year simply because they're so fun. Why aren't video games aspiring to be that fun?

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well because roller coasters are a physical thrill ride and games are still only a visual one, much like movies.

 

[King of Asgaard]

Amusement parks only last for a couple of hours, and only give you a thrill for a little while after you've experienced a ride.
Games last much longer, and games which focus on narrative strength will give you a feeling that will last much longer, maybe years and years. The high you get from a game can be both adrenaline and emotional, whereas parks will only give an adrenaline rush.
You walk away from amusement parks with a 'that was fun' reaction. You walk away from certain games in tears, be they tears of joy or sadness.
That's why I feel games cannot be compared to amusement parks; games are an art form and thus can convey and elicit emotion, whereas parks can only provide a short-lived excitement.

 

[Vern5]

Did it ever occur to you that not everyone likes amusement parks?

The only games I can think of that could be compared to amusement parks are poorly made sandbox games and MMORPGS. An amusement park is a constructed experience with rules and regulations to ensure that everyone is having a good time with little fuss. There are some games that defy this idea of leisure by either being completely open-ended or by being harder than a stack of nails encased in cement.

Think of it this way: Dwarf Fortress would make a shitty amusement park but people still love Dwarf Fortress. I don't even want to go into what kind of place a Dwarf Fortress-themed amusement park would be. Suffice to say that it would be nearly impossible to get into the damn place and some people might never come back once they get inside.

 

[Doom972]

Well, there is... Every sandbox game ever made. want to drive a car like crazy? Just steal one and go nuts. Want to continue the plot, go to X for you next mission. Want to go to a strip club/bowling/wrestling? You have them on your map. That's pretty much an amusement park experience.

 

[Lilani]

It baffles me. Amusement parks get thousands of visitors every year simply because they're so fun. Why aren't video games aspiring to be that fun?

I'm pretty sure both games and amusement parks worldwide get millions of visitors/sales every year, not thousands. The difference is amusement parks are bound to one physical location, and video games are not. Roller coasters rely upon physical stimuli for their thrills, while video games are more like movies in that it's all in your head. Amusement parks have to make their fun stuff consumable within one or two days, whereas a video game can have hundreds of hours of content. Amusement parks require a huge staff and lots of customer service, games do not. Amusement parks need to feed you, games do not. Amusement parks require a lot of waiting and walking around, games do not. Amusement parks make a lot of money by charging people for water and food, and that one is probably actually a bit comparable to games now that microtransactions are a big thing.

You are taking two very different kinds of entertainment and trying to make them alike. I'm sure there are a few lessons amusement parks can teach video games, particularly about immersion. In Disney World, every aspect of what's around you is catered to making the experience authentic. Cast members wear costumes that correspond with the area, facilities like bathrooms are themed to match the area as well, and some buildings are even built with forced perspective so that they seem taller than they actually are. There's a lot going on visually to change the experience in tiny ways. For example, there is a very slight incline uphill toward Cinderella's Castle in the Magic Kingdom. You hardly notice it when you're walking on it, but the reason it's there is to make the trip from the front gate to the castle when entering the park a bit longer, to build anticipation. And visually it seems slightly higher, making it all the more dramatic. And then, at the end of the day when you're tired and leaving the park, the incline makes the trip slightly easier for you. This is especially helpful for everybody who's using a stroller.

Also, there are trees that line Main Street up to the castle. They are specifically arranged to make an optical illusion that makes the castle seem further away when you enter the park. And then, that illusion works in reverse to make the exit seem closer when you're leaving.

But as far as making games as "fun" as amusement parks I don't see how that's possible, because the two strive for very different types of "fun" and a person who finds amusement parks "fun" may not necessarily think a game is "fun," and vice versa.

 

[GoaThief]

I like to think of my bed (or wherever I decide to make a temporary one) the literal "funnest" place on earth. Each to their own I guess.

Anyhow, I don't know how you can compare two vastly different things in the way you have without employing very fuzzy logic at best. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say either, that games aren't fun enough for you? How could a game directly compare itself to your example of a new water slide? What should a developer or publisher or both be doing that they aren't now? Do tell.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Simple reason, games lack autonomy. They physically can't compare themselves to anything. Someone has to do it for them.

Actual answer, amusement parks have a real negative connotation of waiting around in line, in the sun for a really insignificant amount of cheep thrills and then it's back to waiting in line for the next cheep thrill.

So it's a shockingly accurate comparison to make, but it's mostly negative.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

There often is this comparison, but like Mikeyfell said, it's often a negative one.

See "theme park MMO":
http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/penelopae/blog/rpg-defined-what-is-a-themepark-mmo/89885/
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...-The-Theme-Park-MMO-Is-Dead-Enter-the-Sandbox

 

[happyninja42]

I mean, amusement parks are literally places you go to to fly without effort. You just pick a coaster and bam. Airtime, g-forces, and afterwards you feel like you just conquered a dragon.

Debatable reaction, I can't recall ever feeling like I've vanquished an eldritch wyrm from the depths of time after riding the Blasto Zoom!

These are literally the funnest places on earth here.

Really? Odd, cause I think they suck. I think they are in fact, one of the least fun places on earth. So, less fact, more opinion with that statement.

I see games, time and time again, compare themselves to movies. But I rarely see a game try to compete with a roller coaster at an amusement park. I've never seen games compare themselves to a launched freefall ride or a water slide.

Because they include more things in them then the elements you listed above? Like plot, characters, dialogue, drama, humor, etc etc. Roller coasters don't contain these things in their design, books and movies do. Thus the comparison is more apt in most cases.

Why not? Why can't games that compare themselves to movies take a part of the industry rather than the whole industry? Sure, you sometimes see a game market itself on it's fun factor, but they don't compare themselves to, say, your local go kart track.

It baffles me. Amusement parks get thousands of visitors every year simply because they're so fun. Why aren't video games aspiring to be that fun?

Not counting the video games that are nothing more than literal roller coaster simulators, or things like Mario Kart (which would I think qualify as your "go-kart" example above), the games aren't marketed that way usually. The vernacular still leaks in though. "A roller coaster thrill ride of fun!" is fairly common.

I guess your most simplistic, least inventive games could promote themselves as being "as fun as a theme park", but it's not going to get my money if that's all it's got going for it. I don't find them fun, nor do a lot of people, and we want something different from our entertainment. People who like amusement parks, fine, that's your thing and go have fun, but I'm not looking for an "amusement park" in my video game. That's a sure fire way to make me not buy your game.

 

[Racecarlock]

It baffles me. Amusement parks get thousands of visitors every year simply because they're so fun. Why aren't video games aspiring to be that fun?

I'm pretty sure both games and amusement parks worldwide get millions of visitors/sales every year, not thousands. The difference is amusement parks are bound to one physical location, and video games are not. Roller coasters rely upon physical stimuli for their thrills, while video games are more like movies in that it's all in your head. Amusement parks have to make their fun stuff consumable within one or two days, whereas a video game can have hundreds of hours of content. Amusement parks require a huge staff and lots of customer service, games do not. Amusement parks need to feed you, games do not. Amusement parks require a lot of waiting and walking around, games do not. Amusement parks make a lot of money by charging people for water and food, and that one is probably actually a bit comparable to games now that microtransactions are a big thing.

You are taking two very different kinds of entertainment and trying to make them alike. I'm sure there are a few lessons amusement parks can teach video games, particularly about immersion. In Disney World, every aspect of what's around you is catered to making the experience authentic. Cast members wear costumes that correspond with the area, facilities like bathrooms are themed to match the area as well, and some buildings are even built with forced perspective so that they seem taller than they actually are. There's a lot going on visually to change the experience in tiny ways. For example, there is a very slight incline uphill toward Cinderella's Castle in the Magic Kingdom. You hardly notice it when you're walking on it, but the reason it's there is to make the trip from the front gate to the castle when entering the park a bit longer, to build anticipation. And visually it seems slightly higher, making it all the more dramatic. And then, at the end of the day when you're tired and leaving the park, the incline makes the trip slightly easier for you. This is especially helpful for everybody who's using a stroller.

Also, there are trees that line Main Street up to the castle. They are specifically arranged to make an optical illusion that makes the castle seem further away when you enter the park. And then, that illusion works in reverse to make the exit seem closer when you're leaving.

But as far as making games as "fun" as amusement parks I don't see how that's possible, because the two strive for very different types of "fun" and a person who finds amusement parks "fun" may not necessarily think a game is "fun," and vice versa.

How do you always get things so right? It's like you always know the perfect thing to say.

 

[Kittyhawk]

I think you shouldn't be comparing them as they are two completely different types of entertainment. Besides that amusement parks have been around for over a hundred years. They will give you different spectacles in short doses for a price.

Games on the other hand have infinite use and appeal once purchased. Take games like Chess or Cards. Both are great testaments to the power of good games, both being older than old or modern amusement parks too. Like console games, they can be played again and again til you grow weary of them. When that happens, you can adapt the rules and create new games within a game (eg: Cards = Solitaire, Black Jack or Poker. With a console, the equivalent might be playing a game to completion for an ending, then playing it again for achievement and secrets.

Its been a few years since I last visited an amusement park, which in some places are also not open all year round. Games can be played rain or shine by contrast. Open the box and go, plug and play accessible fun.

 

[HellsingerAngel]

There's a lot going on visually to change the experience in tiny ways. For example, there is a very slight incline uphill toward Cinderella's Castle in the Magic Kingdom. You hardly notice it when you're walking on it, but the reason it's there is to make the trip from the front gate to the castle when entering the park a bit longer, to build anticipation. And visually it seems slightly higher, making it all the more dramatic. And then, at the end of the day when you're tired and leaving the park, the incline makes the trip slightly easier for you. This is especially helpful for everybody who's using a stroller.

Also, there are trees that line Main Street up to the castle. They are specifically arranged to make an optical illusion that makes the castle seem further away when you enter the park. And then, that illusion works in reverse to make the exit seem closer when you're leaving.

I think this is a really interesting concept that isn't used enough in gaming. Because games are such a vast experience, they really do borrow a lot from other sources of amusement and media. Like you said, I think the little touches of crafting an experience is what separates an average game from a great game. Take Skyrim as an example for this. When you first need to visit a particular spot there's often a vast amount of space between you and your end goal; this is the incline towards the castle. You get there and do your quest, having fun with the experiences that you have before deciding to go back to home base. But instead of having to walk all the way back and view all that boring scenery again, you just have to quickly hit the fast travel buttom and away you go -- this would be that decline. It seems small but after doing that day in and day out, the time saved really adds up and makes going to the farthest reaches in a game like Skyrim bearable if not enjoyable.

But as far as making games as "fun" as amusement parks I don't see how that's possible, because the two strive for very different types of "fun" and a person who finds amusement parks "fun" may not necessarily think a game is "fun," and vice versa.

This is where I don't think I agree so much. Now hear me out, but when I think of a game that's crafted to emulate the feel of an amusement park, I think of the Call of Duty franchise -- more specifically the ones that take place in more modern settings. Call of Duty is a finely crafted experience, made to lead you towards particular set pieces with some stimuli in between to keep you placated while you work towards them. Some of these set pieces have been breaching doors and shooting guys in slow motions, some are helicopter or AC-130 gunning missions, you have skidoo rides and stealth portions, or just a classic frantic sprint with obstacles bursting forth from a very defined path. These are the rides that Call of Duty has constructed to amuse the players with various short lived experiences dotted throughout a bombastic theme of being part of a crack team of covert op badasses. Maybe you aren't particularly fond of a couple rides but really enjoy some others, but that's all apart of both experiences.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The amusement park thing is a big part of why I've always said games are overpriced. Ticket prices have gone up some since this was totally accurate, but when the initial increase to $60 happened, that's what a one day one park pass at Disney went for. I think you can still get into Busch Gardens for around that price. This may only work for those of us who live in florida, but given the choice between a new videogame and a trip to a theme park for the same price (I live here, so I don't need to worry about airfare or hotel rates), why on earth would I choose the videogame?

 

[Tazzman]

For the same reason E-sports people are not considered athletes, it's because they're not. Playing a game and going to an amusement park are two completely different experiences. Theme park thrills are basically adrenalin rushes whereas games are more mentally stimulating (even though adrenalin is basically controlled by the brain). Although multiplayer games can pretty much just be cheap thrills.