Do games have to be fun?

[Gammayun]

The other day i was playing through mass effect 2 came to the thought that at some points in the game i was not having fun but i wasnt bored, though was very much engadged in the universe and story. i was enjoying myself though i wasnt really having fun.

Yes the definition of fun is "the enjoyment of pleasure" and i while this certainly fits into the category because i certainly was get pleasure from playing it, it doesnt really fit my perseption of what is fun.

Its hard for me to discribe but I will try; In just cause 2 you hijack a plane, and then use it to crash into a colonel but still it didnt quite kill him so you have to fire a rocket up his arse, now thats fun. But in l.a. noire trying to work out if someone was lying isnt fun but i do enjoy it.

Am i just overthinking what fun actually means or do i have some goods point? And can games be engaging rather than fun? This is something that really confusing me, anyone got any thoughts on this?

 

[Voulan]

I think it largely depends on your own personal taste. What you may not consider to be "fun" others might thoroughly enjoy. There are definitely moments when games aren't exactly captivating your total interest and you're just going through the motions, but in some ways this adds to experience.

I'm a big fan of really psychological games (or games that warrant a big emotional response from the player), so when the game makes me frightened or depressed, upset or even happy I find it really awesome, but not really that fun - however I don't consider this to be a bad thing. To this degree, I'll agree with your query about games being more engaging than fun most of the time.

 

[LordRoyal]

A lot of people dont necessarily have fun when they play games like Chess or Starcraft, but they play them anyway because they like to think and use strategy

 

[Saltyk]

Actually, this is a pretty good point. I can think of plenty of things that I don't find "fun", but that I do enjoy. Maybe we should say that a game has to be enjoyable. Interesting point.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

It tends to help!
I mean, i don't find COD fun or enjoyable because any stratergy other than 'run in guns blazing with THIS gun' tends to get thrown out the window...

 

[SoulSalmon]

Depends on your definition of "fun".
Yes every game must be fun to be any good, but wether that fun is being engrossed in a deep storyline, coming up with complex strategies to overthrow an opponent with a huge technical advantage, or just shooting peoples heads off, is... I was gonna say "subjective" but it more defines the target market really...

 

[hazabaza1]

If I'm not having fun after at least 5-ish hours, I'm gonna stop playing it, simple as.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Depends what you mean by "fun", if by fun you mean do you enjoy playing it, then yes, it should be, otherwise you won't enjoy playing it. You might not like the gameplay of something, but if you play the game because you like the story and derive enjoyment out of that, then you are having fun.

Ergo, yes. Games should be fun.

A lot of people dont necessarily have fun when they play games like Chess or Starcraft, but they play them anyway because they like to think and use strategy

I would argue that the enjoyment you get from forming a good strategy and executing that counts as fun.

 

[Sean Hollyman]

Well isn't that the point of games? To entertain you? If you're not having fun then you shouldn't be playing it..

 

[Togs]

Lets apply the same logic to a different situation should we?

how about the question "do we really need to breathe?".
Or "should food be edible?"

 

[Iron Mal]

Should an activity that is intended for entertainment be fun?

That's a tough question, I mean opera is boring to sit through, right?

Speaking seriously though, of course a game has to be fun. If you aren't enjoying a game then odds are on you shouldn't be playing it (it clearly isn't right for you), games are also uniquely different from films in that while most of us can grit our teeth and force ourselves to sit through an utterly boring or awful film (this is coming from someone who has seen Birdemic and Troll 2 and yet believes there is an even worse film than those out there) it's a very different matter to grit your teeth and play to the end of an awful or boring game (truth be told, I only completed Dawn of War: Soulstorm out of obligation to the fact that I intended to write a review for it on here so I felt I had to complete at least one campaign, if I had just been playing out of love for the game I probably would have abandoned ship after the first stronghold scenario).

Playing a game puts you in a role besides just being the audience, you are in essence the 'actor' and the 'director', this is demanding a lot more effort to be made on the part of those participating and as such I wouldn't say it's unreasonable for someone's reason to refuse to play a game to be 'it just isn't fun'.

While there are a lot of people who play games to see rich, life-altering narratives with deep, rounded characters and plenty of insight into the human experience and the world as we see it there are probably just as many (if not more) people who play games because they've just gotten home from a long day at work and they want to have fun and relax.

 

[Deadlyveggie]

Games have matured passed simple entertainment. It happened to all art forms, just look at the French new wave - I challenge anyone to be entertained by those movies, yet they're still masterpieces.

 

[Collins254]

for me a game has to either be
1. Fun
2. Really well told and engaging
3. Challenging and rewarding

if its not 1 of these 3 i wont play it, and it has to be so from the start. I shall give examples
1. Mecernaries 2, Poor story IMO but really fun so i kept playing it
2. Dragon Age: Origins, i dont find myself skipping about in glee, i want to know more about my compaions, complete the story and push back the darkspawn, not loads of fun, but a great game and engaging
3. COD MW2: i use this purely as an example as its my favour COD (shush flamers go have some H20) but it kicked my arse from the begining on veteran and rewarded me for sticking through each level with an extra achievement per every level or 2

 

[shadow_Fox81]

yes i've been thinking about this too so i reaquainted myself with my disenfranchised friend the dictionary. i have no problem with people using the word fun but i won't, something in the definition said "light hearted" and very little i play could be called that (Sponge bob does a musical number on the matter)

but fun just seems to be gamer talk for good.

i don't really read into the word fun to much in games comunities because its like reading into the term game to much. both words have trivial connotations but i don't think as a community there is much to be gained from distancing ourselves from them.

 

[Iron Mal]

Games have matured passed simple entertainment. It happened to all art forms, just look at the French new wave - I challenge anyone to be entertained by those movies, yet they're still masterpieces.

I would have to contest your comparisons to the French New Wave. The New Wave was initiated because you could have taken any film that came out at the time and odds were on that it would almost be a copy-paste of the last film you saw (because of the studio system of the time).

It was when disgruntled critics had enough of having to analyise the same things over and over again that they attempted to make their own unique films to mix things up (ultimately resulting in what we call Auter theory).

Look at the games industry, which has only recently been associated with attempts to be 'artistic', it was within most of our lifetimes that there was a time when you physically couldn't have a story in your game (it wouldn't fit on the disc).

There is a lot of variety in our games today and it's inclusive of all genres (with the possible exception of romantic comedy, I'm yet to see a rom-com game), but I'd still argue that every example of a masterpiece game you could list off was still fun to play through in some way, shape, form or function.

 

[Zhukov]

You seem to be working with a rather narrow definition of fun.

If you are asking if all games need to be fun in the sense of oh-wow-I-just-shot-a-*****-aren't-I-awesome, then no, absolutely not. That sort of thing has its place, but I would hate for it to be the only fare on offer.

 

[LordRoyal]

I would argue that the enjoyment you get from forming a good strategy and executing that counts as fun.

At that point we might as well engage in a philosophical debate about "What is fun?"

 

[Anonimohiperbolio]

Does a movie have to be entertaining? Apocalypse Now is a film I didn't find "fun" or "entertaining", but I really think it's a masterpiece. Good acting, incredible photography, loved the soundtrack, just didn't crack a smile while watching. I wasn't supposed to, was I?

A good part of that holds true for videogames. Some titles you're not meant to have "fun" with, maybe not even "enjoy" in the most coloquial sense of the word, and they can still be great games. Silent Hill games, for example. I would'nt call them exactly fun, the experience might not be very enjoyable, but that doesn't make it a bad game. Maybe you like the oppression, you might replay the game for that sense of loss.
I myself am not very keen on horror titles, but I can understand people who do like them.

Fun is just one thing that can drive a game. Others include story, graphical design, ambientation, et cetera.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Everyone has a different definition of what they consider "fun".

Personally I found the political and societal aspects of Fallout: New Vegas fun in a sense of learning about it and the role they play in the game world.

I'm pretty sure there are other people who didn't.