@Destructionzz: I think there's problem with the connotation of 'fun', which Mike tries to eliminate with the phrase 'fun in the traditional sense', which is what many people in the gaming community demand from games (unjustifiably so). And that is the crux of Mike's argument: This demand is unjust. Any game that you like will naturally be fun to you, but that is besides the point here. When I look at Ratchet and Clank, I say 'looks like a fun game'. When I look at, say, Outlast 2, my instinctive reaction is to not call it fun. But which will be fun to me after I've played both? that's something that only experience can tell; but many in the gaming community wish to divest me of that experience and leave me with games that elicit the natural 'looks fun' reaction.
Great video, Mike. Although there will be semantic differences here and some nitpicking. Because, after all, a game that you like is definitely a game that you had fun with. The distinction is that are you getting a game because you think it is fun, or are you getting a game and then having fun with it. For developers, it would arise in the decision whether to make a fun game, or simply make a game and let people decide whether it is fun. Our idea of what is fun differs vastly from things that actually turn out to be fun. 'Partying', in the traditional sense, is supposed to be the epitome of fun. But I will always choose to read a good book over attending a party even if I'm interested in the party. That's how we work.
The gaming community will try to box games into a retrogressive medium which revolves strictly around restrictive conceptions of 'fun'. But unwittingly these same customers will be demanding more variety, and the developers will be giving them that.
@ballashotcaller: It flew over your head as it did with the majority of other commenters. Let's put it into perspective: I have the choice to get Rocket League or, say, Dark Souls 3. Now this is a choice between a fun game and a cruel one. But I pick the latter, and yes I will say that I'm going with DS3 because it is more fun. Am I a crackpot?
I think Mike Mahardy could've used the word 'immersion'. I want immersion, as does every other gamer. The games we call fun simply draw us in and let us have our way with it. If it keeps holding our hands, like Assassins Creed, that'll break the immersion. Consider Mike's own examples. Outlast 2 definitely isn't 'fun' in the traditional sense (he used this phrase over and over again yet you still missed it), but is it immersive? sure as hell is. Would I prefer it over any other braindead 'fun' game? sure I will.
Try to have a broader perspective on things. It doesn't hurt to be a little more open-minded.
@RSM-HQ: lol I wasn't referring to the difficulty. After 3 games it's difficult enough to find it difficult lol. I was referring to the series ending... that's the sad thing here...
@BeefoTheBold: The fact that it doesn't have a 'clear' ending is what gives its ending any meaning. I mean, let's be honest, which Dark Souls in the entire series had a conclusive ending? could you really call that ending?
Play it for the lore. Either the story makes sense or it doesn't, and either way you'll enjoy it.
AND1SALTTAPE's comments