Do quality and fun go hand in hand? Is it possible to have games of good quality that just may not be fun? It may sound stupid at first but I really had to think about this. The best games are the best for a reason, right?
It's a mixed bag. Some games you will think "That was amazing" but then never want to play again and some you will think the same but play for hundreds of hours. It's the same with fairly poor games, some you will play for ten minutes and regret purchasing and some you will think are an absolute gem despite their drawbacks. There is no definite answer to this question.
Absolutely. I own both 2D and 3D sonic games. Sonic&Knuckles and...Sonic Unleashed. The 2D games were way more challenging and I hated the fact my speed was halted by those blasted animal insect thingys. I definetely perfer a boost button in Sonic Unleashed over the tedious spin dashes. Generally more fun in my opinion. Its the sense of speed that the whole franchise is about. Sonic Advanced 3 got the job done as well. On the flipside, some games are challenging and well...challenges are fun. Master Hand, Sephiroth, Metal Gear. Bosses that pumped us up for an epic battle.
The thing is, there are different kinds fun. Reading a great novel vs riding a rollercoaster, sure both are fun but they got different kind of thrill. Same with games. There are mindless fun that comes from games that often has weak story but it is fun for the chaos and all the shit you can do like just cause 2. And those with serious story lines and characters are fun because it get you hooked-up with story etc.
This reminds me af another question: Which color is better? Blue or red?
It depends for me the best games are not the most fun games. Uncharted 2, MGS4, God of War 3, Killzone 2/3, LBP 1/2, Twilight Princess, Gears 2, and Halo Reach are all amazing games and some of the best this gen for their platform. But I've spent more time PLAYING and enjoying Warhawk, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Left 4 Dead 2, Plants vs. Zombies, and Peggle than most of those games (with the exception of LBP & Uncharted 2). There's a space for both. Games that are AAA huge blockbusters, and games that are simply fun, and some developers need to stop pursuing tons of AAA games when they can't compete (causing them to go bankrupt) and start making games all about having fun with your friends. Oh and we need more Niche game like Demon Souls. Fun and niche games are missing this gen, since everyone wants to be that AAA game that sell 10+ million copies.
I've heard people say that Batman: Arkham Asylum was boring even though it won multiple GOTY awards. It's a matter of opinion. I was actually playing it today(just gt it last week) and I think its fantastic.
Of the criticisms you could have of arkham asylum (not that there are many), being boring isn't one of them. Not sure how anyone could think that, it's one of the most interesting and fun games this gen.
Agreed, one my friends, at my recommendation, bought the GOTY edition in a steam sale. He played it for an hour, told me it was boring and repetitive, and hasn't played it since. Some people may enjoy games that recieves poor review, or no awards. Vice-versa some people might not enjoy a critically acclaimed game.
Maybe I just like bad games, haha.
I don't understand the question. How could it even qulify as the best game if you did not enjoy playing it? I think I know where this is going. Is this a casual versus core fight? I am tempted to give the site a hit to find out. I might find that he is basing the best games on "professional" review scores. Which I would also disagree with. I guess what I am actually saying is that the "Best" game is too subjective and therefore to broad to be used in that context. What be should use is one of the above (review scores,game category) to have a more meaningful debate.
It's not a casual vs core fight, I assure you. I used "Best" in order to be as broad as I could. To that capacity I guess we could replace "Best" with "Critically Acclaimed". I tried to qualify my choices on a personal level. Hopefully it reads as such.
the only games i ever spent more than 100 hours this gen were oblvion, fallout 3, gta 4, rdr
To me the best games are the most fun to play. You can spend millions developing a game but if it isnt fun to play then whats the point?.
I definitely agree with this. Games like stalker, dark messiah and borderlands hit my top 3 favourite games but at the same time I look at games like portal, half life, system shock, silent hill 2 and I just think they are the best games I've ever played. It's sort of how I'd say apocalypse now is a better movie than equilibrium, but for some reason that shitty like action sci fi movie pressed the right buttons for me and makes it something I watch all the time.
The fact they were called "best" speaks for itself. Nothing is declared best if it doesn't satisfy all the required criteria (fan factor in the forfront, especially for games). Of course, there are games that have certain flaws that might repel most players while attracting a niche that just can't get enough of em. It is a matter of personal taste in that regard.
but reviewers consider Most COD games BEST due to the high scores each game receives despite all the BS we as gamers find in them.... does that make COD the best FPS?? NO.
call of duty is good, just overdone imo. I would rather them just be releasing more support for cod4 instead of sequels every year.
how the hell can a game be good if it isnt fun? Sure story can enhance a game, but it cant make a shitty game good...
where is the sense in the question as wouldnt the most fun game be the best game :/ or have i been playing and judging games wrong all these years as i still consider cops n robbers on the c64 one of the best games ever made along with mario 3 on the snes obviously graphically not as good as todays games but still better then a hell of a lot of them
When people talk about 'fun' they usually mean instant gratification. Whether it be books, movies, music or games I tend to go more for the experience that takes more time to pay off but pays off in a more significant way. Instant gratification games are great but it irritates me that I can't get a single friend of mine into Fallout 3 because you're not running around machine gunning people within the first ten minutes. The idea that they have to invest a little more than ten minutes half paying attention in order to really see what's so great about the game turns them off and though they're my friends I have to admit that really bugs me. Like I said, if people like instant gratification games, fair play to them, I like them too. I just think it's a shame that people miss out on a whole other kind of great experience because they're unwilling to invest in something.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.