NOTE: Read to the whole post please! I'm not saying we should ban COD or anything! Please don't call me a pretentious wanker!
Anyway, in that weird 'are games games?' topic a lot of people said that games needed to be fun to be considered games.
I call bullshit. Yes, the majority of games are and should be fun to play (even the majority of indie games, and even the majority of indie games about serious topics). But not ALL of them. I played this little internet game that was meant to be about the North Korean border where you basically crawled through some barbed wire and died. (EDIT: it's called freedom bridge, thanks, whoever mentioned it in the thread.) It wasn't fun. It was still something I consider a game, and it left a big impression on me.
Sitting through a twenty hour AAA game that isn't fun to play is going to suck, yes. But smaller budget games almost need to be not quite as fun, to be able to tackle big topics like racism or whatever, topics that aren't inherently amusing but are worthwhile being explored in a game.
A game has to hold your attention in some way. Being fun is a very easy way to do that. But there are other ways, like an interesting concept, or a thought provoking idea, or even just suspense and tension. For example, you wouldn't want a game about genocide to be fun, if you were a character doing it. Yet such a game would be a powerful experience.
An example from the film world is the film Downfall, about the last days of Hitler. I can't honestly say I enjoyed that film, it was pretty grim, and there wasn't much redemption or anything. It was a great experience, because it said things about the human condition and made you think about stuff, etc., etc., I'm not a film critic, but the point is, well, games don't have to be fun, and maybe a few more less fun games would be a good thing.
I repeat: Please don't call me a pretentious wanker!
*cowers*
Anyway, in that weird 'are games games?' topic a lot of people said that games needed to be fun to be considered games.
I call bullshit. Yes, the majority of games are and should be fun to play (even the majority of indie games, and even the majority of indie games about serious topics). But not ALL of them. I played this little internet game that was meant to be about the North Korean border where you basically crawled through some barbed wire and died. (EDIT: it's called freedom bridge, thanks, whoever mentioned it in the thread.) It wasn't fun. It was still something I consider a game, and it left a big impression on me.
Sitting through a twenty hour AAA game that isn't fun to play is going to suck, yes. But smaller budget games almost need to be not quite as fun, to be able to tackle big topics like racism or whatever, topics that aren't inherently amusing but are worthwhile being explored in a game.
A game has to hold your attention in some way. Being fun is a very easy way to do that. But there are other ways, like an interesting concept, or a thought provoking idea, or even just suspense and tension. For example, you wouldn't want a game about genocide to be fun, if you were a character doing it. Yet such a game would be a powerful experience.
An example from the film world is the film Downfall, about the last days of Hitler. I can't honestly say I enjoyed that film, it was pretty grim, and there wasn't much redemption or anything. It was a great experience, because it said things about the human condition and made you think about stuff, etc., etc., I'm not a film critic, but the point is, well, games don't have to be fun, and maybe a few more less fun games would be a good thing.
I repeat: Please don't call me a pretentious wanker!
*cowers*
