/svidya/ - Strict /v/

I think for me it's about having a compelling challenge with enough mechanical depth that there's some new thrill to appreciate upon replaying it. It's good that you posted Raiden DX there because the other important attribute to replayability is having as little non-game fluff as possible (unskippable cutscenes, unskippable dialogue, long intermissions, etc.), and arcade games do that exceedingly well. When I come back to Super Metroid to see in what exciting way I can beat my last time on it I always make sure to have a spare file lying around with the intro movie already skipped so I go straight to the space station.

>>15288

If your brain releases dopamine while you play it.

Excellent gameplay coupled with an absurdness of plot or premise. Perfect examples of this are many old N64 and PS1 games and numerous Indie and freeware titles.

Remember the first Spyro the Dragon, Mischief Makers, and Banjo-Kazooie?

A well-balanced effort/reward ratio. If you reward the player too often, the feeling of accomplishment that drives people to complete the next objective is too weak, causing players to get bored and stop playing. If you put the rewarding moments behind too much effort, players get frustrated and stop playing. A fun game is one that knows how to balance these two opposites and create a game where it feels like you are constantly making satisfactory progress, and where completing objectives is rewarding enough to hook you into completing the next one.

The bloodstain mechanic in the Souls games is essentially this in its purest form.

That depends on your definition of "fun."

If you mean "fun" as in "engaging," that varies from genre to genre.

>>15373

Not him, but a mechanical reward. To use Metroid as an example, an E-tank or a missile capacity upgrade is a reward. And it's not mutually exclusive to what you're describing - the rewards in Metroid games often require complex manoeuvres in order to be obtained.

When you finally grow up you'll learn that "fun" isn't important. What we desperately need are video games that aren't fun.

>>15374

Playing co-op games with friends in the same room was the best. Left 4 dead had the replayability down because of enemy randomization, and it was a good shooter. Playing online where you can only hear their voice just isn't as enjoyable. So I usually rely on a good singleplayer experience. >>15289 This anon says it well.

GTA III's back of the box stated what I love most about gaming: Anything can happen out there.

>>15289

Would you consider a game replayable if it had some of the non-game fluff things you mentioned but had very in depth branching like Owtheedge the Edgeheg, only not botched?

>>15380

>fun isn't important in an entertainment medium

>what we desperately need in our entertainment medium is less entertainment

>>15451

Fun is a subset of engaging, which is what we really want games to be, which is why people like VNs and text adventures. I'd say a game can be judged by these characteristics

>Graphics (like it or not)

>Fun

>Experience (shit like music)

>Story

>Depth (open world)

>Interactiveness (how much your decisions affect things)

>Interestingness (how much you'll think about whether or not you should've shot Antag at night, etc.)

>Novelty (as in some brand new shit, even if it's shit, is going to keep you hooked)

I might've missed some things.

>>15453

What would you say if I told you I think vn's are fun.

>>15454

I think you're confusing fun with engaging. If you're easily able to pry yourself away from the screen but still think it's great, it's not fun, it's engaging.

If you can't, you live an unhealthy life and you probably play /fun/ games 100% the first time and don't stop to piss.

>>15455

Nope, my brain releases dopamine when I play it, the game is scientifically fun for me.

>>15455

If I'm playing a game and my brain doesn't say "I like this thing, this thing good", I'm not going to play it.

>>15456

Kill yourself, etc.

>>15458

Can we agree that fun is a lot like thrill? If you don't feel a sensation close to thrill when playing a game but your brain still says it's good then you are engaged, not having fun.

>>15459

I always feel a sense of thrill because I play good games.

>kill yourself

Take that shit to /v/

>>15455

While I personally am not a fan of VN games, I won't deny that some games have taken the VN experience and morphed it into something which can be engaging, addictive, and very replayable, such as the game Long Live the Queen on Steam.

Haven't played it, but from what I've read and seen of it, the game takes the appeal of VNs and the appeal of heavily choice based RPGs and smashes them together into a nice blend.

>>15475

How do you know if it's "engaging, addictive and very replayable" if you've never played it?

Also sims like that have existed for years. It's not exactly a new idea.

>>15476

Because I know people who are engaged by it, addicted to it, and play it frequently who aren't big VN fans.

I'm not saying that sims have never been done, but I'm saying that VNs can be morphed into the definition of fun being "addictive" as opposed to merely engaging.

>>15459

Fun is fun, thrill is thrill, they are two very different sensations, resulting from two very different neurotransmitters.

imo it's a combination of "things you like"

if you like the artstyle, music and "gameplay"/genre you have fun playing.

gameplay: physics, movement, controlls, difficulty, perspective, …

>>15374

>so if you seek fun in games, my advice is to get your mental and physical health to decent levels.

Please stop with the demeaning bullshit shills use to defend the industry's practices of fucking gamers and then bitching that they don't want to pay $500 in DLCs and other shit just to get a decent game

I think no other game shows whats wrong with vidya than The Order. This game's gameplay is as generic as possible, you literally can't tell it apart from GoW circa 2006. As it's devs said its all about the fucking cinematics and nothing else, they literally don't give two fucks about gameplay

And that's what makes a game fun: the gameplay

I have played games with shit graphics and full of bugs, and yet those were great games because the gameplay was challenging and diverse, you just couldn't get bored with it

I also have flayed flawless games that were boring as shit thanks to on-rails movement, "press X to win" bullshit QTEs mixed with regenerating shields and other hand-holding mechanics combined with the occasional difficult section that was either a joke or a constant frustration thanks to a fucking lazy dev just making the game impossible to beat

>>15374

>If you don't find a game fun then you must be a neckbeard or have some other psychological issue..

That's the most idiotic thing I've heard and sounds like something a fanboy would say. Having standards and calling out the industry on its bullshit practices doesn't mean you're depressed or there's something psychologically wrong with you, it means that you're rational enough to not get scammed by scummy developers and realize their shit practices/games.

Are you going to tell me that The Order 1886, a game that is pretty much a movie with barely any gameplay is somehow fun? No its not fun at all because there's barely any gameplay and is far too hyper linear and filled with QTE's to the brim that almost completely removes the control from the player.

I've played GTA V and that game was fun to play since it had decent gameplay and the developers have put a lot of attention to small details along with making the story and characters somewhat likeable. Despite it having some bugs, I enjoyed the game a lot more

I've tried out MGS: V and I've enjoyed playing that game because it had good gameplay and it was fun.

I've played MGR and I have enjoyed that game quite a lot, so much that I've been replaying it over and over again because of how much I liked it.

I've played a decent amount of modern games which are quite fun and aren't shit, but most games nowadays are nothing but hyper-linear, broken garbage which has been dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denonimator which will eat up everything the developer/company puts out including bullshit DLC practices and micro-transactions along with hype to maximize their profits.

A fun game has excellent gameplay with interesting mechanics which give the player many diverse options and ways to play the game along with a good challenge, rewarding the player for mastering and using the mechanics properly.

>>15649

What would you say is "hyper linear"?

I think linearity isn't always a bad thing. Shmups are as linear as they get and are still enjoyable and replayable.

>>15653

Yeah that's I didn't say linear because linearity itself isn't necessarily a bad thing otherwise I'd be contradicting myself because I did enjoy MGR. Hyper linearity is when a game tends to be so linear it nearly takes away all the control from you.

The difference I'd say between Linear and Hyper Linear is:

Linear:

>You have a set goal and have to reach that goal. You can play around and have multiple ways of reaching that goal.

Hyper Linear:

>You have a set goal and have to reach that goal and you cannot do anything else other than play through these scripted events filled with QTE's/anything else that takes away control from you and can only play the game one way.

>>15654

takes away most control from you*

Was being a bit hyperbolic there.

>>15655

Ok, so in those terms something like a Shmup would still be linear because it allows you complete control over the experience promised to you through initial gameplay even if it's still just Point A to Point B?

>>15698

Comparing a Shmup to the Order 1886 would be a bit difficult but most shmup's don't really have scripted events and are filled with QTE's like The Order. In a shmup you play and have control of your character most of the time, there will be scripted cutscene's but there's not that many scripted events. In the Order the game is way too scripted and filled with QTE's taking away control from the player quite a bit.