Just want to drill into this real quick: a game like CS2 is a good game because it’s enjoyable to play with strangers, but a game like Peak is a bad game because it isn’t as enjoyable with strangers?
Alternatively, a game like CS2 is a good game because it’s mechanically well made, but what is it about the mechanics in Peak that make it a bad game?
Take care to not conflate a personal dislike of the genre with objective quality within a context. Liking action movies doesn’t mean rom coms are all terrible (no matter how much one might think they could be improved by a sudden firefight at the climax).
Surenho@beehaw.org 1 week ago
I very much disagree, it’s like judging that samba is not good cos it’s not blues. They’re two different genres with different goals. If it’s fun then it is well designed.
helix@feddit.org 1 week ago
Funny, that was actually my point I tried to make. I repeat myself:
But that’s where I’d disagree:
You can have fun with badly designed or badly polished games. It needs an engaging game loop, sure, it can’t be complete crap. But I’d argue that you don’t need to create a good game to create a fun(ny) game.
Example: EYE Divine Cybermancy. One of my favourite games but I often laugh at the jank and incoherent story, and the bugs, and I’m still having fun.
Maybe we shouldn’t call it friendslop, but friendjank?
Smoke@beehaw.org 2 days ago
It reminds me of the gameplay footage played on short videos to provide visual content while audio is playing, or games optimised for streamers to play and overreact to. They aren’t games that are intended to be played and provide enjoyment that way, but as tools for others to turn into enjoyment from playing them, and then their audience gets that enjoyment from participation or simply watching.