   What happened to the fun factor?
  Hey everyone,I am currently listening to some SNES game music, and was reading about alot of the older game consoles and video games from back then. Back then, video games were about creating a new and interesting entertainment medium, not about simulation.These days, it seems most of the newer games simply fall into a general classification (RPG, FPS, Action, Adventure, etc..) and seem to focus more on simulations rather then the entertainment factor that which games were born on.What happened to the fun factor of the video game industry? Why is the industry focusing on simulation, rather then the fun factor that made this industry great?In my opinion, most of the older games are still better then most newer games simply because they focused more on the fun of the game play, not about simulation, or "power" of their respective game console (Playstation 3, XBox 360)I decided to post here to see what others think about the current direction this industry is going, and I wonder if it is a correct path.Video games are supposed to be fun; yet the industry is classifying video games into discrete types (For example, RPG's, FPS's, Adventure); rather then building something genuine, and actually fun to play.I give Nintendo credit for trying to move into another direction, though.I am curious as to what others think about this.Where is this industry headed, and is it headed down a good path?   
Quote:Original post by CrypterWhat happened to the fun factor of the video game industry? Why is the industry focusing on simulation, rather then the fun factor that made this industry great?Which is it, in reality? Is the industry focused on simulation? Or are you so focused on calling out the industry that you are simply blind to the hundreds of games that look to be fun and innovative?In particular, I'll point out the comments posted by myself and others in this thread.   ;Quote:Original post by PromitQuote:Original post by CrypterWhat happened to the fun factor of the video game industry? Why is the industry focusing on simulation, rather then the fun factor that made this industry great?Which is it, in reality? Is the industry focused on simulation? Or are you so focused on calling out the industry that you are simply blind to the hundreds of games that look to be fun and innovative?In particular, I'll point out the comments posted by myself and others in this thread.I think I see your point.   ;  There is a certain seduction in the fancy graphics that the hardware can do nowadays.  Many times I see people with the attitude that the way to have the best game is to have the fanciest graphics.  Well, it won't matter how fancy your graphics are if the game play is boring.  Take a look at the games that were in the GameFest 2007 competition.  Most did not have super fancy graphics, but just really fun game play.There's a story about Walt Disney when they invented the multiplane camera for animation.  They ended up using the camera on Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, but originally it was proposed that the camera be used on another film.  Walt's response was "how does it help tell the story?" -- the story was paramount, not using the latest cool technology.  Similarly, I think there's a problem in the gaming world that they become so involved/obsessed with using the latest cool technology that they don't relate the technology to the game play.  If some piece of technology doesn't enhance the game play, you should probably just leave it out and put your energies into something that does enhance the game play.  In the end, you'll have a better game if you think this way.Similarly, in regular software development, there is a temptation to add features just because you can or because "it will be cool".  However, if there's no business value to be gained by adding this feature, then you're just wasting money.  You'd be better off adding something that provides direct business value to the customer.  This is the essence of what agile development is all about: involve the customer, iterate quickly to incorporate feedback from the customer, and deliver a working product rapidly that captures the most value for the end user at the smallest cost and shortest development time.   ;Quote:What happened to the fun factor of the video game industry? Why is the industry focusing on simulation, rather then the fun factor that made this industry great?You answered your own question. Its the word "industry".;  Graphics have always been a major selling point of games, even as far back as the NES/SNES/GENESIS. I think one problem we're facing these days is that due to the increasing complexity of graphical assets needed in todays games, more resources have to be diverted from other aspects to art.Also, back then you didn't have so many huge companies churning out titles constantly, I believe back then it was a labor of love where as today its just another product you push out the door. Especially when you're talking about companies such as EA.It's not that theres a lack of fun factor in todays games, its that all the media is focused on is the newest biggest title by the biggest companies. It usually isn't those big companies making innovative advancements , its the little guys that work on shoestring budgets whose release gets ignored by the rushing reporters clamoring for a shot of Super FootBall Game Remake 2038.Another thing, consumers will buy anything as long as the marketing guys manage to convince them that they need it. The little companies cant compete on that front with the big multi-billion dollar game stamping machines, so the consumers money goes towards yet another remake of some game they've already played countless other times before.My opinion? forget about big titles. Go look at some games by independent developers, maybe you'll find some fun factor there.   ;  My opinion:In my work I've encountered a lot of people who, for whatever reason, place greater stock in *realism* than *fun*. I've worked on games where arguing that it is not enjoyable for everyone to die from one bullet in some insane 100v100 Battlefield-esque warzone is totally a lost cause, because "in real life people die from one bullet".Most of the time I hear the "in real life" argument from the non-creative people on a project: executives, business people, marketing people, IT, QA, and so forth. That's not to say that designers and directors *never* use this argument, nor that the non-creatives *always* use it, but that's the trend I've experienced.But that trend also bleeds over into gamers. I've read many a game forum where people are complaining that a fun game is "broken", "unbalanced", and "terrible" because it sacrificed a little bit of realism in the name of fun. I've seen countless users lambast certain shooters and action games because their weapons weren't 100% accurate to the real-world military counterparts... even when they clearly aren't trying to be. Some people really care if the M94A7 "Titan" Tactical Infantry Assault Weapon fires 2700 rounds/second at a muzzle velocity of WTF^2... others just want a simple, fair weapon that blows shit up.It's a "chicken or the egg" situation in that I don't know whether the "in real life" gamers evolved from "in real life" developers or vice-versa, but in either case I've definitely observed that movement growing. I *don't* think it has taken over fun factor, nor will it ever [completely], at least not as long as there are still gamers willing to suspend disbelief and enjoy an experience that's fun *because* it's totally unreal.   ;Quote:Original post by deathtrapIt's not that theres a lack of fun factor in todays games, its that all the media is focused on is the newest biggest title by the biggest companies.My opinion? forget about big titles. Go look at some games by independent developers, maybe you'll find some fun factor there.I'll second this sentiment; this is why I basically ignore any magazine or web site that's trying to tell me what the next cool game is going to be and instead I rely on word-of-mouth recommends.  The gaming that I do is much more enjoyable and much less disappointing that way.   ;  Fun factor was outlawed because what is fun for one, isn't fun for other person.Some poeple acually remember games they were introduced first as a fun games, and tend to compare other games to that early encountered.   ;Quote:Original post by CrypterHey everyone,I am currently listening to some SNES game music, and was reading about alot of the older game consoles and video games from back then. Back then, video games were about creating a new and interesting entertainment medium, not about simulation.These days, it seems most of the newer games simply fall into a general classification (RPG, FPS, Action, Adventure, etc..) and seem to focus more on simulations rather then the entertainment factor that which games were born on.What happened to the fun factor of the video game industry? Why is the industry focusing on simulation, rather then the fun factor that made this industry great?In my opinion, most of the older games are still better then most newer games simply because they focused more on the fun of the game play, not about simulation, or "power" of their respective game console (Playstation 3, XBox 360)I decided to post here to see what others think about the current direction this industry is going, and I wonder if it is a correct path.Video games are supposed to be fun; yet the industry is classifying video games into discrete types (For example, RPG's, FPS's, Adventure); rather then building something genuine, and actually fun to play.I give Nintendo credit for trying to move into another direction, though.I am curious as to what others think about this.Where is this industry headed, and is it headed down a good path?Wii.   