"Fun" is a fairly shallow metric for determining whether…
0 reactions
"Fun" is a fairly shallow metric for determining whether or not media is good
This goes for video games, films, music, novels, etc.
To be clear, I definitely believe it's reasonable for fun-factor to play a part in determining the quality of a piece of media, and I certainly think it's valuable that people have fun experiencing the media they like, but I often hear "fun" being used synonymously with quality when discussing media, especially video games.
Obviously, fun is a purely subjective metric, so for the sake of the argument, I'll be going off of what the general consensus is as far as fun goes when discussing specific tropes and specific examples of media.
Focusing on games, I can think of a multitude of them that are generally a blast to play that I wouldn't in a million years consider high quality, or value as anything more than just the fun they provide. Conversely, I can think of LOADS of games that simply aren't fun to play, but are nevertheless incredible. For an obvious example, Silent Hill 2 is not a conventionally fun game to play. The controls are clunky and dated, the combat is primitive and rudimentary, and the entire environment is oppressive enough to stifle any good time. However, it's an unequivocal 10/10 game in my eyes because the experience it provides is bolstered by remarkable writing, a top tier soundtrack, a focused and wonderfully crafted aesthetic/visual presentation, and generally bold creative decisions. For the sake of brevity, I won't include any more examples but I could go on and on.
I'm less interested in discussing films for this topic, but here it's even more apparent. Put most huge budget superhero films against something like 12 Angry Men. It's excitement, entertainment, and spectacle versus thematic depth, rich dialogue, and thoughtful cinematography. Again, that isn't to say excitement doesn't have value, but it leaves far less to analyze, think about, and thus feel than the latter. It leaves little lasting impact or food for thought, and is thus far less interesting and substantial. It's the same way that sugary drinks and greasy foods can be delicious, but they leave no lasting impact, just a quick fix of dopamine.
I guess my thesis is that fun is not synonymous with quality as far as media goes because there are many more substantial and important metrics to consider. Challenge yourself! Go out of your comfort zone and embrace some stuff a little less consumer friendly, you may surprise yourself. But what do people think? Is my thinking flawed, and if so, why?
#conversation
source
This goes for video games, films, music, novels, etc.
To be clear, I definitely believe it's reasonable for fun-factor to play a part in determining the quality of a piece of media, and I certainly think it's valuable that people have fun experiencing the media they like, but I often hear "fun" being used synonymously with quality when discussing media, especially video games.
Obviously, fun is a purely subjective metric, so for the sake of the argument, I'll be going off of what the general consensus is as far as fun goes when discussing specific tropes and specific examples of media.
Focusing on games, I can think of a multitude of them that are generally a blast to play that I wouldn't in a million years consider high quality, or value as anything more than just the fun they provide. Conversely, I can think of LOADS of games that simply aren't fun to play, but are nevertheless incredible. For an obvious example, Silent Hill 2 is not a conventionally fun game to play. The controls are clunky and dated, the combat is primitive and rudimentary, and the entire environment is oppressive enough to stifle any good time. However, it's an unequivocal 10/10 game in my eyes because the experience it provides is bolstered by remarkable writing, a top tier soundtrack, a focused and wonderfully crafted aesthetic/visual presentation, and generally bold creative decisions. For the sake of brevity, I won't include any more examples but I could go on and on.
I'm less interested in discussing films for this topic, but here it's even more apparent. Put most huge budget superhero films against something like 12 Angry Men. It's excitement, entertainment, and spectacle versus thematic depth, rich dialogue, and thoughtful cinematography. Again, that isn't to say excitement doesn't have value, but it leaves far less to analyze, think about, and thus feel than the latter. It leaves little lasting impact or food for thought, and is thus far less interesting and substantial. It's the same way that sugary drinks and greasy foods can be delicious, but they leave no lasting impact, just a quick fix of dopamine.
I guess my thesis is that fun is not synonymous with quality as far as media goes because there are many more substantial and important metrics to consider. Challenge yourself! Go out of your comfort zone and embrace some stuff a little less consumer friendly, you may surprise yourself. But what do people think? Is my thinking flawed, and if so, why?
#conversation
source
| 4,000 mlx | |
| 5 | |
| 0 |