Do Games Need To Be Fun?
- Thread starter ArnRand
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I believe a game needs to be fun but what you described I wouldn't really call a game. Its a game the same way a poem is a song.
The main differnce between games and movies is that games are more immersive. You control what happens to the main character, even if it's a completely linear gmae. With a movie, everything is fixed from the beginning. None of your own actions have consequences. That is why I think games have to be fun. If you put a message in a movie, it's easier for people to get it, because they don't have to pay attention at what they are doing, only the message counts. I like to think games are very black and white at this point: They're either fun or they're boring. And you stop playing boring games.
Games don't 'need' to be anything.
I do however prefer to have fun when I play games, but that doesn't mean all games have to be fun.
I do however prefer to have fun when I play games, but that doesn't mean all games have to be fun.
I know your talking about video games but look at The Mechanic is the Message games by Brenda Brathwaite.
The New World is a game it is not fun.
Síochán leat is a game it is not fun.
Train is a game it is not fun.
These are good well made games made by an experienced game designer, these games are engaging but they are not fun.
If you don't know who Brenda Brathwaite here is one of her shorter talks:
The New World is a game it is not fun.
Síochán leat is a game it is not fun.
Train is a game it is not fun.
These are good well made games made by an experienced game designer, these games are engaging but they are not fun.
If you don't know who Brenda Brathwaite here is one of her shorter talks:
Depends on what people consider fun. I love having my pants soiled by scary videogames and consider it fun, others might not. I don't like MMORPG and don't really have fun with them, others do.
Games are games, the fun they give you depends on the person playing them.
(you pretentious wanker xD)
[that was a joke]
Games are games, the fun they give you depends on the person playing them.
(you pretentious wanker xD)
[that was a joke]
The gameplay should be fun that is the most important bit if you have a message you want to deliver then that is great go for it but if you make the gameplay shit and boring then i'm not interested.
Basically game designers should go is this still fun if I take the important message out of the game.
Basically game designers should go is this still fun if I take the important message out of the game.
Yeah, there's a whole genre of games called "serious games", which are basically educational games, simulations, etc. These are often widely used to train new recruits in the military or fire department or even medical care; not exclusively private use.dimensional said:
Ergo, games do not need to be fun to be games - and since something being fun does not mean it's a game, you can cross out any correlation between fun and games.
I joke.
Quoted for the truth.Kahunaburger said:
You basicly said what I wanted to say. Some great moments in gaming are when a character that you liked dies, that isnt fun but it is something that sticks with you and does what a game should do, bring some kind of emotion to the player.
The ending of Red Dead Redemption was fun as hell, wasnt it? Yet it is the best part of the game.
Fun is a bad word to use, because it means different things to different people.
Like grinding. WoW and jRPGs would suggest that some people love grinding. They love to fight the same enemy again and again for the most meaningless of stat boosts. Other people don't have an attention span, so they buy CoD (kidding! kidding!)
I might sit down to enjoy a nice Tolstoy with a glass of brandy and a fine leather reading chair. Others may sit down in front of the television with a brew and half read Nuts out of the corner of their eye during the commercial breaks. Both are 'fun' but fun in different ways to different people.
Perhaps 'engaging' should be the word. I can engage with Metal Gear Solid, its storyline is deep and complex (some would say needlessly so, but whatever) it has reasonably efficient controls, as long as you play it enough for them to become intuitive, and despite frequent jokes about its length it's not until MGS4 that it gets in the way. I may not like Call of Duty, but I can admit that its frenetic 'DO STUFF! NOW! NOT THAT STUFF THIS STUFF! WATCH OUT YOU'RE DEAD BUT IT'S ALRIGHT BECAUSE YOU'LL BE ALIVE AGAIN IN A MINUTE!' pacing does engage, if not enthrall.
Games that I consider bad are games that didn't engage me once. Games where I would rather have been doing nothing than playing the game. Off hand I can't think of any examples, but I know that they are out there. Games don't have to be fun, but to be considered seriously they need to engage.
Oh, and the developers need to decide on one ending and then stick with it instead of caving to peer pressure.
Like grinding. WoW and jRPGs would suggest that some people love grinding. They love to fight the same enemy again and again for the most meaningless of stat boosts. Other people don't have an attention span, so they buy CoD (kidding! kidding!)
I might sit down to enjoy a nice Tolstoy with a glass of brandy and a fine leather reading chair. Others may sit down in front of the television with a brew and half read Nuts out of the corner of their eye during the commercial breaks. Both are 'fun' but fun in different ways to different people.
Perhaps 'engaging' should be the word. I can engage with Metal Gear Solid, its storyline is deep and complex (some would say needlessly so, but whatever) it has reasonably efficient controls, as long as you play it enough for them to become intuitive, and despite frequent jokes about its length it's not until MGS4 that it gets in the way. I may not like Call of Duty, but I can admit that its frenetic 'DO STUFF! NOW! NOT THAT STUFF THIS STUFF! WATCH OUT YOU'RE DEAD BUT IT'S ALRIGHT BECAUSE YOU'LL BE ALIVE AGAIN IN A MINUTE!' pacing does engage, if not enthrall.
Games that I consider bad are games that didn't engage me once. Games where I would rather have been doing nothing than playing the game. Off hand I can't think of any examples, but I know that they are out there. Games don't have to be fun, but to be considered seriously they need to engage.
Oh, and the developers need to decide on one ending and then stick with it instead of caving to peer pressure.
Fun is a weird word... it gives images of roller coasters and go-carts and such.. in that definition no they don't neccesarily need to be "fun"
but one thing they need to be at the end of the day.. is enjoyable.. A good book doesn't need to be "fun" but if it's enjoyable on a level that clicks with you then it ends up being a good book no? The same can be said for games, a game doesn't need to be theme park fun.. but so long as it clicks on a level you enjoy. (Engaging characters or story, enjoyable mechanics, deep competitive game play whatever suits your tastes you know.) Then it's a good game.
that's my take on it.
but one thing they need to be at the end of the day.. is enjoyable.. A good book doesn't need to be "fun" but if it's enjoyable on a level that clicks with you then it ends up being a good book no? The same can be said for games, a game doesn't need to be theme park fun.. but so long as it clicks on a level you enjoy. (Engaging characters or story, enjoyable mechanics, deep competitive game play whatever suits your tastes you know.) Then it's a good game.
that's my take on it.
For me, a something has to be interactive and has to be fun to be called a game. Things like that 'every day the same dream' and stuff like the OP mentiong, I consider to be interactive storytelling or art, but I don't consider them games. They're not entertaining in the same way that what I consider a game to be is, they're just an interesting way to make a point or provoke thought in the player.
I find everything fun, so I guess I don't really have any right to speak here. If it's a bad game, it's fun to hate it. If it's a game that brutally punishes my every mistake, it's a fun challenge. I usually don't play these games with a grin on my face, but it's still fun.
So... no, they don't have to be fun.
So... no, they don't have to be fun.
A game's primary objective should be to entertain, anything else should be secondary.
Ultimately I play games to be entertained so if I'm not entertained by a game chances are I won't stick with it.
This is the same with books, an author can try to convey the most important of themes using as interesting and unique narrative techniques but ultimately if the text doesn't engage the reader and make them want to read it then what's the point?
Recently I read a novel called Perfume; it focussed its descriptions on the sense of smell and often the narrative would break down into a script or cross from third-person omniscient to first person. I could appreciate why the author was focussing on smell, as it's underappreciated as a sense, and I could see what the author was trying to do with the narrative but ultimately with-out the fleshed out characters and the interesting plot there wasn't that engagement to make me care or want to continue.
In a sense what all forms of media need are an vested interest by the audience. In a book this is by making the reader empaphise with characters whereas with a game this falls down to whether or not the game is fun.
Ultimately I play games to be entertained so if I'm not entertained by a game chances are I won't stick with it.
This is the same with books, an author can try to convey the most important of themes using as interesting and unique narrative techniques but ultimately if the text doesn't engage the reader and make them want to read it then what's the point?
Recently I read a novel called Perfume; it focussed its descriptions on the sense of smell and often the narrative would break down into a script or cross from third-person omniscient to first person. I could appreciate why the author was focussing on smell, as it's underappreciated as a sense, and I could see what the author was trying to do with the narrative but ultimately with-out the fleshed out characters and the interesting plot there wasn't that engagement to make me care or want to continue.
In a sense what all forms of media need are an vested interest by the audience. In a book this is by making the reader empaphise with characters whereas with a game this falls down to whether or not the game is fun.
If you're not having fun, why do you feel the need to 'sit through' a twenty hour AAA game if you're not enjoying it?
To me, different mediums serve different purposes. Movies tell a story with awesome visuals and themes, books stir the imagination, and games are just mindless fun. A game doesn't have to have the visuals or themes of a movie, and it certainly doesn't have to tell a book-level compelling story.
Case in point, Minecraft. It tells no story, it has graphics that pre-date the original Playstation and very basic sound effects.
But it's one of the most addictive, rewarding kind of fun games you'll ever play.
To me, different mediums serve different purposes. Movies tell a story with awesome visuals and themes, books stir the imagination, and games are just mindless fun. A game doesn't have to have the visuals or themes of a movie, and it certainly doesn't have to tell a book-level compelling story.
Exactly this. It can be the most beautifully displayed gourmet horseshit from France garnished with pepper while someone plays the violin beside my table, but I'm still eating shit, and I'm not going to force myself to eat the shit just because it's beautiful and I've already regrettably exchanged money for it.Rawne1980 said:
Case in point, Minecraft. It tells no story, it has graphics that pre-date the original Playstation and very basic sound effects.
But it's one of the most addictive, rewarding kind of fun games you'll ever play.