Well they need to be entertaining, otherwise they are not worth my time. But no they do not need to be fun, as long as I enjoy myself the game is good.
Do Games Need To Be Fun?
- Thread starter ArnRand
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes, to me, 'fun' just about equals 'meaningful'. I don't limit fun to silliness, bright colours, laughter and dynamic events.NinjaDeathSlap said:
So yes, games have to be fun in that regard. Gloomy, scary, punishing and troubling can all be fun if you look at it like that.
No, I don't think games need to be fun. I think demanding that games be fun is stunting the creative potential of the medium in fact.
You wouldn't call a book that is focused on dissecting and examining communism fun, you wouldn't call a movie about sexism in our society fun, but they're still books and films, and are not rated less highly than other examples of their media just for not being fun.
Games have incredible potential, the interactivity and immersion provided are fantastic ways of exploring ideas. Take for example Dys4ia (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/591565). A game about being transsexual and transitioning gender. I wouldn't call it "fun", I didn't have a whale of a time playing it. However, it's still a good game, it examines a tricky and confusing subject and manages to make its point far more clearly by involving the player in the transition, through gameplay.
You wouldn't call a book that is focused on dissecting and examining communism fun, you wouldn't call a movie about sexism in our society fun, but they're still books and films, and are not rated less highly than other examples of their media just for not being fun.
Games have incredible potential, the interactivity and immersion provided are fantastic ways of exploring ideas. Take for example Dys4ia (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/591565). A game about being transsexual and transitioning gender. I wouldn't call it "fun", I didn't have a whale of a time playing it. However, it's still a good game, it examines a tricky and confusing subject and manages to make its point far more clearly by involving the player in the transition, through gameplay.
"Fun" to me is popcorn-munching, roller-coaster, summer-blockbuster stuff you don't have to think about. You should walk out of the theater chatting with your buddies, "Wasn't that AWESOME when he punched that guy through the wall?" God of War and Burnout: Paradise are great examples of games that operate on this level. Don't think, just mash the accelerator / ogre's head as far down as it will go. Nothing wrong with that. I love both games.
I also love games like Civilization. I poured 1000 hours into Civ 2. I wouldn't say any of it was "fun." It was a more cerebral type of enjoyment, mentally engaging on more levels than action games tend to be.
Games must offer something people want. It can be "fun," or something more complex.
I also love games like Civilization. I poured 1000 hours into Civ 2. I wouldn't say any of it was "fun." It was a more cerebral type of enjoyment, mentally engaging on more levels than action games tend to be.
Games must offer something people want. It can be "fun," or something more complex.
Is Freedom Bridge (the game I mentioned in the OP) flawed because its gameplay is not really engaging at all? It's just moving left and right and slowing down when you go through barbed wire, and it's definitely not exciting. I think the game is engaging because of the story (such as it is.) The game would be nothing with just the gameplay element, it would be terrible, to be honest.poiumty said:
But that's the point. It's not exciting to escape a country and walk through barbed wire, it's a long hard slog, and it shouldn't feel really awesome as you're doing it, that would ruin the game.
The game certainly engaged me. There's the sound of rushing water to the right that promises an event in the future, and tells me where to go. And the events that unfold as the game progreses are shocking and thought provoking.
I wouldn't call them fun.(Well, allright, maybe the gameplay was engaging, coupled with the story. But ONLY with the story could it become engaging. And it still wasn't fun.)
It might be good if you played this game, seeing as it takes literally less than minute to complete. And it's a good thing to play anyway (extra credits recommends it!) Then you'll be able to relate more to my points: http://www.necessarygames.com/my-games/freedom-bridge/flashpoiumty said:
Anyway. I'm going to have to back pedal a little. I originally said the gameplay wasn't engaging at all, even though I took that back at the end of the post. I repeat: within the context of the story, it was good gameplay.
Have you seen Yahtzees measure of a good game: Context, Challenge and Gratification? What I'm getting at, is, no game is good without context. It can be fun, maybe, but not really good. Good as in, the kind of thing a critic gives 5 stars. If you were fighting a load of polygons, instead of a dragon in Skyrim, I don't think it would be very fun. Even pong was clearly a tennis simulator. EVERY game needs some kind of context or story in which to take place, it's an integral part of the experience.
With that in mind: Is it really a flaw (as a game) that Freedom Bridge requires it's context to have engaging gameplay, when basically every game in history uses the same idea, just to a lesser degree?
I don't think it needs its own category, of interactive experience. I think that's a bit demeaning to games. Freedom bridge is not trying to be a novel or film. It would not work, at all, in those mediums. It takes on its power and message because the player is controlling what happens. That is the essential part of the experience.
(Thanks for the debate by the way, clarified some ideas for me.)
If it interests you, then it's fun. Nobody has the same definition of fun as others.
For example, I find the original Fallout to be boring. I love the ideas and style, but gameplay wise, I couldn't bear it for more than a few levels before I tossed the game aside and never touched it again. However, plenty of other people find the original Fallout fun, and I don't mind. They can enjoy whatever they want.
I find Silent Hill 2 to be fun. Some could argue that the gameplay is crap and the puzzles can get annoying, and I agree, but rather than Fallout where it subtracts from my overall enjoyment of the game, it enhances it. It inspires a feeling of helplessness and confusion that puts the player on the same level as the protagonist. Any game that can keep me interested after nearly 7 playthroughs is what I call fun.
For example, I find the original Fallout to be boring. I love the ideas and style, but gameplay wise, I couldn't bear it for more than a few levels before I tossed the game aside and never touched it again. However, plenty of other people find the original Fallout fun, and I don't mind. They can enjoy whatever they want.
I find Silent Hill 2 to be fun. Some could argue that the gameplay is crap and the puzzles can get annoying, and I agree, but rather than Fallout where it subtracts from my overall enjoyment of the game, it enhances it. It inspires a feeling of helplessness and confusion that puts the player on the same level as the protagonist. Any game that can keep me interested after nearly 7 playthroughs is what I call fun.