You know, I was kinda expecting someone to do that.HarryScull said:you mean elephants dont grow on trees!?!canadamus_prime said:
(jokes)
Do Games Need To Be Fun?
- Thread starter ArnRand
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't think so. Often times when I'm playing a game I'll ask myself if I think it's fun, and a lot the time I'll say that no it really isn't.
But I'll still continue playing it because I find it to be very engaging for one way or another.
There are only a few games I can actually say I find fun, and I've played lots in my time.
But I'll still continue playing it because I find it to be very engaging for one way or another.
There are only a few games I can actually say I find fun, and I've played lots in my time.
They don't *have* to be fun, but it helps if the developer is looking to garner an audience - ergo, to make a few bucks.
As games haven't quite hit the same stride as the film industry in terms of their overall production, I doubt we'll see something akin to, say, a Peter Greenaway flick anytime soon. A game version of "Prospero's Books" would attract the Lit Geek crowd, the Art Games crowd and a few critics with a propensity for this kind of stuff.
Would that project garner a huge following, though? Probably not.
Unless the team pulls a Dante's Inferno and somehow manages to take a riff on Shakespeare's works and turn it into some sort of weird shooter where Old Man Prospero has to heft a gun against Caliban or some shit, I don't see that happening.
There's just something about the medium's nature that turns the basic concept of fun into the glue that keeps some premises together, like Bulletstorm's. On the other hand, while Dear Esther is extremely daring and thought-provoking and while I consider it to be a novel experience; it's just not something I'll ache to go through two or three times in a row. This makes me question the validity of my paying ten bucks for something that's essentially over in one sitting.
On the other hand, Minecraft keeps on giving. I can keep rebuilding Shepards for the three Mass Effect games and experience things differently each time. Art games seem to be like books, in that while they might be memorable and deeply touching; they're designed to be linear because they're meant to provoke a very specific set of reactions.
In more traditional games, even the most linear of all setups can give me ample opportunities to be engaged differently, to approach things differently. Art games can be compared to novels, while actual games could be compared to Choose Your Own Adventure books.
So to me, fun is really a byproduct of choice. I can be engaged intellectually and emotionally by Dear Esther - but will I have fun? Probably not.
As games haven't quite hit the same stride as the film industry in terms of their overall production, I doubt we'll see something akin to, say, a Peter Greenaway flick anytime soon. A game version of "Prospero's Books" would attract the Lit Geek crowd, the Art Games crowd and a few critics with a propensity for this kind of stuff.
Would that project garner a huge following, though? Probably not.
Unless the team pulls a Dante's Inferno and somehow manages to take a riff on Shakespeare's works and turn it into some sort of weird shooter where Old Man Prospero has to heft a gun against Caliban or some shit, I don't see that happening.
There's just something about the medium's nature that turns the basic concept of fun into the glue that keeps some premises together, like Bulletstorm's. On the other hand, while Dear Esther is extremely daring and thought-provoking and while I consider it to be a novel experience; it's just not something I'll ache to go through two or three times in a row. This makes me question the validity of my paying ten bucks for something that's essentially over in one sitting.
On the other hand, Minecraft keeps on giving. I can keep rebuilding Shepards for the three Mass Effect games and experience things differently each time. Art games seem to be like books, in that while they might be memorable and deeply touching; they're designed to be linear because they're meant to provoke a very specific set of reactions.
In more traditional games, even the most linear of all setups can give me ample opportunities to be engaged differently, to approach things differently. Art games can be compared to novels, while actual games could be compared to Choose Your Own Adventure books.
So to me, fun is really a byproduct of choice. I can be engaged intellectually and emotionally by Dear Esther - but will I have fun? Probably not.
So you had your fun then.ArnRand said:
Colour me puzzled, but i fail to understand who and why should spend 20 hours of his life playing such game ? Aren't there any better alternatives ?ArnRand said:
In my world we call it "fun". ;]ArnRand said:
BTW :
You preahem,khem, khem, hem, ahem... Sorry, i couldn't resist. ;]
Of course they don't have to be fun. They also don't have to make money or do well but fun is the best selling point at the end of the day. There aren't many substitutes for it.
EDIT: They at least have to be engaging in some way. No-one is going to play something that isn't fun and doesn't grab their attention in any other way.
EDIT: They at least have to be engaging in some way. No-one is going to play something that isn't fun and doesn't grab their attention in any other way.
I'm currently playing through Heavy Rain, and while I'm not having fun as such, I'm can't put it down.
Not that I want this sort of game to be a common trend, It is a very interesting one off.
Not that I want this sort of game to be a common trend, It is a very interesting one off.
When someone describes the experience of reading a good book or watching a good film, "fun" isn't a word that is normally used to begin with because it isn't a suitable description for those types of activities. Fun is more something used for a medium that requires a great amount of interactivity such as skydiving, rock climbing and of course gaming. Films and books, which only require your observation as the way of interacting are described as being "enjoyable" or "good" in the same way as you would describe watching a monkey drinking his own urine as "amusing" and not really "fun".HarryScull said:
Fun is highly subjective here but yes, in some way, shape or form it NEEDS to be fun. I think while playing it or after you put it down you needed to realize, I had a good time here. Why you had a good time will vary of course(whee!, I was SOOO scared there! ect.)
Perhaps a better way to put it would be the game needs to be enjoyable in some fashion.
Perhaps a better way to put it would be the game needs to be enjoyable in some fashion.
They do not have to be, but if your game is not fun to some degree, you wont get a sale from me, because there are two reasons I play games, the fun and the competition.. If a game has neither, then I don't see the point of it being a game to begin with.
Also, by competition, I don't mean competitive Multi-player, I just mean any game that has a win/lose rule set where I must succeed using mental cognition and dexterity.. So 'games' like Dear Esther (the HL2 mod) are not competitive because you don't win or lose, you just kinda walk and listen to the story, not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, its just not a game to me, nor is it fun.
Also, by competition, I don't mean competitive Multi-player, I just mean any game that has a win/lose rule set where I must succeed using mental cognition and dexterity.. So 'games' like Dear Esther (the HL2 mod) are not competitive because you don't win or lose, you just kinda walk and listen to the story, not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, its just not a game to me, nor is it fun.
They need to be enjoyable, though. A good movie is a movie you enjoyed watching, a good book is one you enjoyed reading, and a good game is a game you enjoyed playing. That's where this slightly pedantic debate comes from: The idea that if you play a game, playing something should be fun as opposed to enjoyable.HarryScull said:
In other words everyone, if by fun you mean enjoyable, then yes.
i think a problem with games is the time invested, with movies i can dig a good one that is two hours even if it's hard to watch because the topic it deals with makes me uncomfortable.
but when i spend 40? on a game i want my 10-100 hours to be mostly fun, i will most likely not play a game that is ten hours long if the game is not fun
but when i spend 40? on a game i want my 10-100 hours to be mostly fun, i will most likely not play a game that is ten hours long if the game is not fun