If you read that article carefully, the guy never says that the gameplay sucks. He simply says that he stopped playing because he couldn't envision himself coming to the end. He makes no mention of the game being repetitive, tedious, or anything like that. In fact he says, quote:

As I gushed at the time, Legend was the first genuinely superb Lara Croft game in years, with a reinvigorated control system, elegant puzzles, and an epic storyline involving one of Lara's long-vanished colleagues. I was hooked -- and eager to finish the game and solve the mystery.

That is why the article is fucking stupid. If he came out and said "I stopped playing because it wasn't fun anymore because the gameplay is too repetitve" then I would agree and say "yes, I too hate games that become repetitive and a chore to finish" *cough*Doom 3*cough* *cough*F.E.A.R.*cough*

But he never says that...maybe he was trying to infer that because he didn't want to hurt the feelings of the nice people at Crystal Dynamics, but nonetheless he doesn't indicate that as being his reason. That is shitty journalism written from a perspective I can't relate to at all.

Using an example of two games I love...I could pay 50$ for Sonic the Hedgehog II or 50$ for Shining Force II. They're both great games but Sonic II will maybe give you 12-15 hours of gameplay, 20 if you die a lot. Shining Force II will give you 80+ hours...maybe more depending on whether or not you want to explore.

Shining Force II is like playing 20 long ass games of a chess-hybrid with a pretty good story between each one to keep you engaged and wanting to move forward .

Sonic II is like an extended game of pinball with a fair-enough story to keep you playing and no replay value.

Completely regardless of age, race, sex, political party, or whatever other excuse you want to make, if you only have 50$ to spend and you like both genres equally, why on earth wouldn't you spend the money on the game that is going to give you the longer, more dynamic, and ultimately more fulfiling gaming experience? 

I beg to differ sir -- I was playing some quite recently, and having a blast. Still fucking forget about the robots that crash through the wall on the Aquatic Ruin level... 

Those games boasting about having 40+ hours of gameplay really need to look at World of Wacraft. It's not uncommon at all for a lvl60 character in WOW to have 50+ DAYS of invested playtime and yet players are still finding stuff to do in the game. 

Multiplayer is a bit different though, isn't it? I mean, ask the typical competitive QW player how many years he has invested in QW servers, and he's still only played 5-6 maps! 

I don't dare think how many hours I have spent in that game. I have it on an emulator for my phone and usually pull it out when I'm on a bus or something. 

A game that NEVER ends?! My god, man, who would play that? 

A game that NEVER ends?! My god, man, who would play that?

Errr.. Immortal people ? 

JC, Mohammed, Moses, Khrisna and I have been playing Go on a fractal based board that seems go on endlessly. There is one player who never makes good moves because he is always smoking pot.
I'll never tell who it is though at the risk of offending millions of his fallowers. 

 

410+ hours play time so far and I haven't finished it (penultimate mission is a bitch).

Admittedly I've explored a hell of a lot and played really slowly and done a bit of farming and stuff....but still... 

1) you are forgetting the monthly fee for MMORPG

2) what rpg said

3) WoW is for ppl willing to trade (huge chunk of) real life for a virtual drug. 

One place to find game related texts that aren't just news and reviews is The escapist magazine:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/

They usually have at least something interesting in each issue. 

Oblivion. I've spent about 220 hours in it so far, on one character, and it still absolutely rocks. I may even get around to trying the Mages Guild quests at some point. Game of the Decade for me, at any rate. 

yeah, bear, this is usually pretty good. although warren spector's got an article up there right now about how games don't need to be fun, and I can't really figure out wtf they'd be instead. 

I read it as that what he was trying to communicate is that a) fun is a too vague word to be very usable when trying to talk about the "fun-factor" in games and that it might be beneficial to try to break it down into more specific aspects of exactly what makes the game desireable to play and b) maybe games doesn't have to aspire to be fun (as in entertaining) to be interesting like other forms of art that are consumed for other reasons.

Basically I think a) is just about getting better at describing/thinking about game mechanics and what makes it work or not and when it comes to b) I'm sure there are already games like that but then again it all depends on a) - what you consider as fun, entertaining as opposed to or in combination of being fulfulling in some other way. 

I can't really figure out wtf they'd be instead.
Inspiring, thought-provoking, beautiful, teaching, communicating a statement. Meditative. Some games could try a little bit harder to be important. 

but why 'instead' 

One "short" game with great replay value was Square's evil stepchild, Vagrant Story. The SP is really short, however it had an innovative combat system, great level design, very ominous story, dozens of cool monsters and an item combining/upgrading system (there were smithies/shops throughout the game to upgrade the stuff you found in the dungeon.)

Best of all, during the first playthrough, I'd come upon doors that said "Sealed with the Rood Inverse". I couldn't make heads or tails of it, as it is something from the game's story that you get at the very end. I always thought it might be some kind of artifact, but it isn't. The whole game I went, "what is that thing they keep talking about?" Finally seeing what it really was was SO cool, because it was there all the time. Well, those doors only open in the second play through, after you got the Rood Inverse. Thus some of the most interesting areas (and the top-level smithy) aren't even accessible when you first play it.

I always thought that was so cool. I love that game, and someday I'll find it again. I foolishly sold it. 

and usually pull it out when I'm on a bus or something.

Thank god for the qualifying sentence before that. 

Inspiring, thought-provoking, beautiful, teaching, communicating a statement. Meditative. Some games could try a little bit harder to be important.

So if they're not fun aren't they not games at this point? 

So if they're not fun aren't they not games at this point?

Hardly. That's like saying it wasn't food becuase it didn't taste good. 

Lun,

that's alot o' negations. 

Here's my point.

Games are stuck in the fun-niche. For historical reasons, they are treated as play, or entertainment. Which is all fine, Nintendo is all about the fun and the play and thank god for them.

But there's something else that generally goes amiss. The game as a medium. And when we equate videogames with some mysterious fun-factor, we're not realising what might be possible.

I enjoy a good popcorn-flick. That's the hollywood mainstream-machine at its absolute best. Spiderman, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc. And they're non-stop fun entertainment from first frame to last. They are exhilirating and exciting to watch.

But then there're other kinds of movies. Say, 21 grams. Maria full of grace. And they're great. But they're definitely not fun to watch. They're hard, and sad, and unrelenting. In fact, watching them can make you feel like shit. They make you think, they plant stuff inside of you and have you question yourself and the things around you.

We've also have the kind of film where the story-telling is very central. The Godfather, Seven, Silence of the lambs. They don't make you feel like a iece of crap, but they deal with dark themes, and if they have to tell you something you might disagree with, they will. For the sake of the story and the experience.

You can't say that any one of these genres are better than the other, and a good movie is a good movie when the craft that went into it is solid and well executed.

In games, every genre but the popcorn one has gone virtually un-mined, and that's a shame. I'm 25 years old, I can handle some provocative story-telling, a message not easily digested. Challenge me. 

If I have a burning desire to bring to an audience something of the importance of the politics and tragedy of the highland clearances, what is the most attractive way for me to do that? If I really want to decide what characters to have, what dialogue they should deliver, what dramatic events will occur, wouldn't it be natural to write a script? A screenplay for a movie or radio drama? Or maybe a novel?

But if I try to realize it as a game, then I must - not because of any outdated misconception of what constitutes game design, or what some pundit pontificated on the internet, or a slavish obedience to marketable convention, but by sheer definition - make extensive allowances for the audiences' input. I have to make it interactive. Is interactivity really beneficial to telling the story of the highland clearances? I'm trying to impress intellectually and emotionally upon people an event that destroyed the lives of thousands of impoverished natives, and altered the scottish landscape to this day. Do I really want to try and blend that with concerns of item inventories, physics objects or skill trees?

I guess the question I'm asking here is not "can games contain important topics?" but rather "can important topics be made into games?", which I admit is not quite as to the point. The point I am trying to illustrate is that the qualities of art that make it 'important' may be ultimately incompatible with what makes games 'interactive'.

Now you can respond by saying that the highland clearances wouldn't work as a game because they are clearly not a suitable topic. Well ok, let's look at a topic that clearly is suitable: WWII.

Saving Private Ryan brought home to people, especially young people, the overwhelming horror and sacrifice involved in the Normandy landing. More than one of the spate of WWII games post-Q3 contained maps deliberately emulating this event. Did they - could they - ever have the same impact as the movie? And I'm not talking about graphics level.
Matt Damon spoke about how he and the other actors observing Spielberg at work estimated that he was making an average of one decision every eleven seconds. Note the word "decision". Everything that transpired onscreen during that sequence was a decision. When Tom Hanks rolled that radioman over for the third time to discover his face had become a gruesome crater, that was a decision. There was no interactivity there, no alternative non-linear gameplay available, no quickload. Even if such a compelling image were added to a WWII game, could it have the same impact? Because in a game like CoD or RtCW, at the end of the day you're not there to bear witness to a talented director's realisation of a historical milestone. You're there to shoot nazis and capture strategy nodes. I'm not at all convinced that the two things are reconcileable the way Specter seems to desire.

I'm not saying that games that are more than fun aren't possible, just that I personally can't imagine how a game could be made where fun wasn't the primary goal. Just because I can't imagine it doesn't mean it isn't possible, and I look forward to someone proving it is. But so far the arguments amount to nothing more than wishful thinking.

Lots of people spend lots of time playing games. They're lots of fun, but wouldn't it be great if they were more than just fun, if they were culturally significant? I spend lots of time drinking sugar-free cola. It tastes nice and quenches my thirst but...well, wouldn't it be great if sugar-free cola could be more than just tasty, if it could be culturally significant? More important?
Just because it would be a satisfying ideal to fulfil doesn't mean it's actually possible. I'm not unsympathetic to the wish for games to be more important, but I've yet to hear any actual proposal as to what that would be like.

That's like saying it wasn't food becuase it didn't taste good.

Yes food does not have to be enjoyable to be nourishing. But it still has to be edible. 

This is a wonderful discussion youse guys are having -- I only hope there are a lot of the companies' higher-ups having the same one, seeing as how a massive industry such as game production certainly warrants it. It would be awesome if such gaming experiences as those being described here actually made it to production, ones that provide (and demand) a much greater scope of emotional and intellectual response from the "player". Oh spooooge.