Do games have to be fun?
- Thread starter Gammayun
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A Good Story is fun to hear.
A Good Brawl, alongside your bros or you against this entire planet of gamers, seems like a bitchin' party.
A Good Beat Down, well, some people enjoy that kind of thing.
A Good Battle of Wits and the Mind, no matter if it seems boring to those outside it, are as an epic clash to those within or that understand it.
This is the weirdest thing about "Hard Core" players who think the "Casuals" have "Bad Games". The games they play are fun to them. Who the hell are you to say that they can or can't have fun doing whatever they like?
Before my descriptions and thoughts become any more crapy and invite any issue, games are suppost to be fun. Good Strategy, Good Game Play, Good Story, Good Anything, there are a number of factors that lead to you enjoying your game. And that's how it is suppost to be. The style, abilities, and quality of gaming has changed, but I don't think anyone has revolutionized gaming to the point where the base definition (which is to me: "enjoyable electronic stimulation that you have input into beyond simply activating the first step and watching") has changed.
If you play a game, and no part of it is fun, that is that there's absoltely nothing about it that you can like about playing it, whether or not you enjoy being immersed within the universe, or enjoy playing alongside your friends (or on the flipside, enjoy being able to slaughter everyone you see without a single hint of regret or issue), or whatever it is you would enjoy...
Why the hell are you playing it? If you aren't getting payed to do so, why would you do something that you have absolutely no enjoyment from?
A Good Brawl, alongside your bros or you against this entire planet of gamers, seems like a bitchin' party.
A Good Beat Down, well, some people enjoy that kind of thing.
A Good Battle of Wits and the Mind, no matter if it seems boring to those outside it, are as an epic clash to those within or that understand it.
This is the weirdest thing about "Hard Core" players who think the "Casuals" have "Bad Games". The games they play are fun to them. Who the hell are you to say that they can or can't have fun doing whatever they like?
Before my descriptions and thoughts become any more crapy and invite any issue, games are suppost to be fun. Good Strategy, Good Game Play, Good Story, Good Anything, there are a number of factors that lead to you enjoying your game. And that's how it is suppost to be. The style, abilities, and quality of gaming has changed, but I don't think anyone has revolutionized gaming to the point where the base definition (which is to me: "enjoyable electronic stimulation that you have input into beyond simply activating the first step and watching") has changed.
If you play a game, and no part of it is fun, that is that there's absoltely nothing about it that you can like about playing it, whether or not you enjoy being immersed within the universe, or enjoy playing alongside your friends (or on the flipside, enjoy being able to slaughter everyone you see without a single hint of regret or issue), or whatever it is you would enjoy...
Why the hell are you playing it? If you aren't getting payed to do so, why would you do something that you have absolutely no enjoyment from?
This is a semantic question.
The statement "Games should always be fun," does get thrown around a lot.
If "fun" is synonymous with "enjoyable," then yes, I would say that games should always be fun, and it's possible to derive enjoyment even if a game is making you think, or making you sad with its well-done poignant story moments.
But if "fun" is synonymous with "frolicking revelry," then you have a point. Games don't always need to be fun. I enjoyed the dream sequences in Lost Odyssey even though I was contemplating the human condition on all of them and fighting back tears on a handful of them. By this definition of "fun," the game was not "fun" at this point. It was deep, poignant, engaging, but not "fun."
So I would conclude that a game always needs to be enjoyable and engaging, and it's possible derive enjoyment and engage with any number of things, even if they don't fall into what many would consider "fun."
EDIT: And the statement "Games should always be fun," can be right or wrong, depending on how you define "fun."
The statement "Games should always be fun," does get thrown around a lot.
If "fun" is synonymous with "enjoyable," then yes, I would say that games should always be fun, and it's possible to derive enjoyment even if a game is making you think, or making you sad with its well-done poignant story moments.
But if "fun" is synonymous with "frolicking revelry," then you have a point. Games don't always need to be fun. I enjoyed the dream sequences in Lost Odyssey even though I was contemplating the human condition on all of them and fighting back tears on a handful of them. By this definition of "fun," the game was not "fun" at this point. It was deep, poignant, engaging, but not "fun."
So I would conclude that a game always needs to be enjoyable and engaging, and it's possible derive enjoyment and engage with any number of things, even if they don't fall into what many would consider "fun."
EDIT: And the statement "Games should always be fun," can be right or wrong, depending on how you define "fun."
It all comes down to how to define "fun", but in my head, "fun" is the minute-to-minute laughy-smiley-bouncingoffthewalls type of hilarious time you'd have doing silly things with your friends. On the other side, whatever terminology you decide to use (I use words like "good", "entertaining", and "compelling"), there are the games that aren't necessarily "fun" but engrossing and immersive, with the masterfully crafted gaming experiences that'd make you turn to your friends and say "This game is amazing".
"Fun" is certainly a big part of most video games like casual games, but there are plenty more video games where the entertainment value doesn't solely come from "fun". For example, horror games, or games that have a lot of focus on the story and narrative. I think we can all agree that games like Amnesia, Silent Hill, or KoTOR aren't "fun", but more entertaining and good because they throw you into a rich, immersive world, free for you to explore. It's the compelling gaming experience that matters.
There's a clear distinction between "fun" games like Just Cause 2, Mario Kart, Angry Birds, and Peggle, and then "good" games like Amnesia, Silent Hill, and KoTOR. Some are there purely for the fun-factor, others are there to tell a story and create a compelling gaming experience. Obviously the distinction isn't that black and white, since games that are both fun and compelling like Zelda and Uncharted, but you get the idea.
That same distinction is in films. Most films aren't "fun", but you'd still call them great movies. For example, The Dark Knight, Schindler's List, Citizen Kane, Titanic, and so on. These movies aren't very "fun" to watch, but they're great for other reasons.
I think this entire discussion stems from the implications of the word "game", and the fact that video games are interactive. The word "game" is almost directly linked to the word "fun", and it seems that if a game isn't "fun" then there's no point in playing it. Perhaps this used to be true, back when we only had card games, board games, and imaginary games, like The Floor is Lava, Deuces, and Monopoly. But with video games, it's become an entirely different story.
Video games have become just as relevant of a medium as books and films, both of which partly exist in video games. It's become a new way to tell stories and create compelling experiences, to make you sit and think about yourself and the world around you. So no, video games don't have to be fun, they can be much more. And I'm sure that we can all name a few of our favorite video games that aren't necessarily "fun" but are great for other reasons.
"Fun" is certainly a big part of most video games like casual games, but there are plenty more video games where the entertainment value doesn't solely come from "fun". For example, horror games, or games that have a lot of focus on the story and narrative. I think we can all agree that games like Amnesia, Silent Hill, or KoTOR aren't "fun", but more entertaining and good because they throw you into a rich, immersive world, free for you to explore. It's the compelling gaming experience that matters.
There's a clear distinction between "fun" games like Just Cause 2, Mario Kart, Angry Birds, and Peggle, and then "good" games like Amnesia, Silent Hill, and KoTOR. Some are there purely for the fun-factor, others are there to tell a story and create a compelling gaming experience. Obviously the distinction isn't that black and white, since games that are both fun and compelling like Zelda and Uncharted, but you get the idea.
That same distinction is in films. Most films aren't "fun", but you'd still call them great movies. For example, The Dark Knight, Schindler's List, Citizen Kane, Titanic, and so on. These movies aren't very "fun" to watch, but they're great for other reasons.
I think this entire discussion stems from the implications of the word "game", and the fact that video games are interactive. The word "game" is almost directly linked to the word "fun", and it seems that if a game isn't "fun" then there's no point in playing it. Perhaps this used to be true, back when we only had card games, board games, and imaginary games, like The Floor is Lava, Deuces, and Monopoly. But with video games, it's become an entirely different story.
Video games have become just as relevant of a medium as books and films, both of which partly exist in video games. It's become a new way to tell stories and create compelling experiences, to make you sit and think about yourself and the world around you. So no, video games don't have to be fun, they can be much more. And I'm sure that we can all name a few of our favorite video games that aren't necessarily "fun" but are great for other reasons.
Fun is always enjoyable, even more so when it is of the level of frolicking revelry. Enjoyment is pretty much a given when speaking about fun.remnant_phoenix said:
You have a point when you say "engaging" though...as enjoyment can be derived from such things as immersion.
Ok let move aways from games for a second and talk about film; one film i really enjoy is schindler's list now I wouldnt say its a fun film by any stretch of the imagination. But the question is would you say its a fun film because i enjoy it?666Chaos said:
Well, the answer is pretty simple.
Does everything you enjoy in games fall under what you qualify as fun? then yes, if it doesn't then no.
It's really just a matter of how you define "Fun"
If you limit Fun to humoristic stuff you laugh at, then no, games doesn't have to be fun.
Does everything you enjoy in games fall under what you qualify as fun? then yes, if it doesn't then no.
It's really just a matter of how you define "Fun"
If you limit Fun to humoristic stuff you laugh at, then no, games doesn't have to be fun.
This is just my perspective on it.Gammayun said:
I think what you may be referring to as "fun" is instant gratification style games. SSBB, Guitar Hero, rampaging around in GTA/SR/RDR, CoD, Halo, Mario Kart, etc. Instead of a game where critical decisions have to come into play and are bit more drawn out. The games mentioned can offer a sense of reward in 10 minutes or less. However, games like Mass Effect, L.A. Noire, Bioshock, etc. require on average 30 mins to an hour before any real accomplishment will be felt.
As well, the games that usually postpone the "reward" don't offer a whole lot more "reward" for the wait. About the only thing special about it is the knowledge of how much effort and time went into it gameplay-wise. I know that when these "rewards" (fun) is passed out so liberally, it seems to trivialize it. I personally don't care much for the more instantly gratifying games. I feel the constant need to deliver a sense of accomplishes actually diminishes the prestige of it. I don't need constant reassurance as I play, and often it will cause me to become less attached to the experience. However, casual gamers love this type of gameplay and they get bored easily by waiting 30 mins to an hour before the game deals out a sense of accomplishment. Ironically though, casual gamers tend to not give a crap about achievements and trophies.
Personally, I like slower paced (dull) games. My personal "fun" is in deep exploration of a game and its mechanics. I have my fun based games I like though. Batman Arkham Asylum and Uncharted are in my top 10, maybe my top 5 favorite games. But right next to them is Civilization, Arcanum, Mass Effect, and other similar "less fun" games.
I do agree that this is still a sense of "fun" based on opinion but... "Fun" can be viewed as collective instead of personal and I think that is what you mean and a lot of people on the board don't seem to grasp that concept. People on escapist love the word "subjective" and look for every opportunity to use it it seems.
Ok from what i can see it really depends what your definition of fun is, which thank to the english language is an absolute minefield. But I would argue that enjoyment is not the same as fun, i pointed out earler shindler list is a film that but very much enjoy though its not a fun film.
Yes, a game has to be fun, or why were they made in the first place. (And if your answer is anything else but fun, I have to hit you.) The thing to remember is that fun is a broad dynamic of simply what appeals to you. The trouble with that is that you also have the hardcore competitives who DON'T have fun, because their goal is that they MUST be the best at everything, to the point where it's taken too seriously. So again, the goal is to have fun and not to miss that point.
That would be a pointless debate, however. Everyone has a different opinion of what they consider fun to mean. I myself just use it to describe an experience I enjoyed.LordRoyal said:
Well let's simplify, if you're enjoying it then it's fun. Whatever form that enjoyment takes, by definition, it still equals fun. And if games aren't enjoyable they aren't worth playing, so in answer to your question, yes games have to be fun.
It needs to be fun for me. If I'm not having fun with a game, I always ask myself why I'm playing it and then decide to just put it down. Case in point: The Last Remnant. I could only stomach one hour of that game because it just wasn't fun and the characters were more wooden than a forest of redwoods.
That said, fun can come in different forms. I enjoy exploring new, strange worlds, which is why I love the STALKER series. That's a different sort of fun than say, Saints Row 2 in which your goal is to essentially be the biggest wanker ever to set foot in Stilwater. Both are fun, but for different reasons.
That said, fun can come in different forms. I enjoy exploring new, strange worlds, which is why I love the STALKER series. That's a different sort of fun than say, Saints Row 2 in which your goal is to essentially be the biggest wanker ever to set foot in Stilwater. Both are fun, but for different reasons.
What about the bit in Heavy Rain where you cut your finger off?
For me, this was not fun, nor was it enjoyable in any way. But goddamn did it hit home. It was tough to play that. It had a profound effect on me, and communicated to me brilliantly.
If games are truly an art form, then things like this will be produced. Things that aren't fun, aren't enjoyable, but are made to make you feel something uncomfortable.
I know there are songs I can't listen to easily.
There are films I feel uncomfortable watching, and miserable when they're done.
There are paintings that disturb me.
Games are a fantastic opportunity to do this in their own unique way.
Of course, not every game should be like this. Same for every medium. We'd be worse off without simple but brilliant pleasures like Mario, Die Hard, and Right Said Fred (Sorta).
For me, this was not fun, nor was it enjoyable in any way. But goddamn did it hit home. It was tough to play that. It had a profound effect on me, and communicated to me brilliantly.
If games are truly an art form, then things like this will be produced. Things that aren't fun, aren't enjoyable, but are made to make you feel something uncomfortable.
I know there are songs I can't listen to easily.
There are films I feel uncomfortable watching, and miserable when they're done.
There are paintings that disturb me.
Games are a fantastic opportunity to do this in their own unique way.
Of course, not every game should be like this. Same for every medium. We'd be worse off without simple but brilliant pleasures like Mario, Die Hard, and Right Said Fred (Sorta).
"Do games have to be fun?"
No, they need only be challenging and the challenge itself is the fun.
It seems to me that the storyline has taken far too much of a role in games nowadays and that is what leads to the dull moments we all feel during the experience. Cut-scenes and long dialogues are replacing gameplay, the core element of the challenge, to such a point that a lot of games are barely a film with a mini-game attached. How many people actually watch all the cut-scenes the second time around? Or the third? Or the tenth? How many games do you actually play more than ten times?
If it wasn't for the achievements and trophies, ill be honest, there are very few that would keep me going for a second time round.
I just did a search for the best selling games of 2011 and was completely unsuprised to see that the top 5 games have barely any storyline at all.
Pokemon on the ds
Black ops
Kinect adventures
Just dance 2
Wii sports
The all-time best sellers list shows a similar trend aswell.
No, they need only be challenging and the challenge itself is the fun.
It seems to me that the storyline has taken far too much of a role in games nowadays and that is what leads to the dull moments we all feel during the experience. Cut-scenes and long dialogues are replacing gameplay, the core element of the challenge, to such a point that a lot of games are barely a film with a mini-game attached. How many people actually watch all the cut-scenes the second time around? Or the third? Or the tenth? How many games do you actually play more than ten times?
If it wasn't for the achievements and trophies, ill be honest, there are very few that would keep me going for a second time round.
I just did a search for the best selling games of 2011 and was completely unsuprised to see that the top 5 games have barely any storyline at all.
Pokemon on the ds
Black ops
Kinect adventures
Just dance 2
Wii sports
The all-time best sellers list shows a similar trend aswell.
I would say that games don't necessarily have to be fun. I would say that they have to be engaging. As many people have pointed out, the definitions of fun can have quite a broad range, whereas I see engaging as being a pretty straightforward term.
As people have said, there are some parts of games, or even whole games, where you aren't necessarily having 'fun' but you are most definitely engaged with the game. I would say that the opposite of engaging in terms of games is boring; to my mind, a boring game is even worse than a bad one. Boring games are just nothing-y, you can't even get angry about it being bad, because you just feel nothing towards it. Whereas even a bad game can be engaging; you might want to keep playing out of morbid curiosity, or to see if it gets better.
So basically, I would say that games don't necessarily have to be 'fun' per se, but they do have to be engaging.
As people have said, there are some parts of games, or even whole games, where you aren't necessarily having 'fun' but you are most definitely engaged with the game. I would say that the opposite of engaging in terms of games is boring; to my mind, a boring game is even worse than a bad one. Boring games are just nothing-y, you can't even get angry about it being bad, because you just feel nothing towards it. Whereas even a bad game can be engaging; you might want to keep playing out of morbid curiosity, or to see if it gets better.
So basically, I would say that games don't necessarily have to be 'fun' per se, but they do have to be engaging.
I think fun and enjoyment are different things. I enjoyed going to a wedding the other day. It wasn't fun, just enjoyable. I did however have fun playing football (soccer for those of you who are wrong) and I enjoyed it at the same time. I think fun requires enjoyment, but enjoyment does not require you to have fun.