Does fun = good ?

[krazykidd]

So this is a weird question that just randomly poped into my head right now . Is a fun game automatically good? Or is a good game automatically fun ?
On the flip side , Could a bad game be fun ? Or a fun game be bad ? ( On the surface it looks like the same question but think about a little and they are slightly different ).

What do you think about that ? If you have examples it would be great .Also i know what is fun is subjective, but so is everyones opinion , so you don't have to tell me that.

 

[AnarchistFish]

I don't see how a fun game could ever be bad, unless it was bad in an ironic way.

 

[Radeonx]

I'd say that a good game is automatically fun, but a fun game isn't good.
A game can be objectively shitty (Crappy gameplay, story, whatever), but you can still enjoy it in a "so bad its good" sort of way.
And a game with opposite qualities of the last example will be fun almost all of the time, because it is just a good game, and you get enjoyment out of it.

 

[SpokeyPokey]

It depends what you mean by 'bad' or 'good'. if you have other criteria for judging a game than the amount of fun you had with it, then obviously all the above can be true. But I just judge games by how much i enjoyed them, so for me, a bad game cannot be fun, and vice versa, simply by definition.

 

[ChildofGallifrey]

No, fun does not equal good, or at least I don't personally think it does.

The best example I can think of is Tommy Wiseau's infamous magnum opus The Room: It's absolutely God-awful from start to finish, there is not one frame of that film that can objectively be called 'good', but it's fun as all hell. The same can be said about many schlocky horror movies of recent times; the script may be terrible, the acting wretched, but it's great fun to watch the blood fly.

 

[Snake Plissken]

Having sex with a disease-infested prostitute: Fun, but definitely not good.
Getting a cavity filled: Not fun, but definitely good.

Fun and good are operate independently but are not mutually exclusive.

Most fighting games are loads of fun, but I don't really think any of them are particularly any good. They lack the substance that legitimately good games have.

 

[darkcalling]

As far as games go as long as a game is fun I can look past most of it's flaws, so in my case fun=good. That said I can recognize a good game on it's own merits if I either haven't played it or just didn't like it.

For example I loved Shadow of the Colossus and had a lot of fun. I played a demo of Ico back on the ps2 and I just didn't get it. I can recognize why others think it's amazing it just did nothing to grab my interest.

Of course this is coming from a guy that had LOTS of fun with Duke Nukem: Forever, Splatterhouse, and Dynasty Warriors so take that with however much salt you deem necessary.

 

[Sparcrypt]

Thats how I judge games - did I have fun?

If yes, it was a good game for me. I don't care what everyone else thought.

 

[theonecookie]

Well yeah no matter what some idiots say about games being art and what not a games primary function is to be entertaining If your having fun it has succeeded. No matter how artsy or well made it is if its not fun it fails as a game that's my opinion anyway same with films as well

 

[Lunar Templar]

I'm gonna just say. yes

if I'm having fun, then they did their jobs right, and all is well

 

[Daffy F]

Well I'll say this: In the case of films, a good film is not always a fun film, and vice versa. In the case of video games, you need to enjoy yourself for the time spent to make any sense, so I suppose yes - In the case of Video games, fun = good.

If yes, it was a good game for me. I don't care what everyone else thought.

This is also an important point to me. It doesn't matter how bad other people think a game is, if you enjoyed it then you've got the one-up on them, haven't you? You've gotten more enjoyment out of it than they have. Victory!

 

[TJC]

I can't shake this feeling that someone is trying to (in)validate Yahtzee's reviewing method.

Let's stick with games here (the cavities example was pretty good tho):

Did you have fun with the game you just played?
If yes, yay, you'll think the game is good.
If no, boo, you won't think the game is good.

But considering that fun vs. not fun is just as subjective as good vs. bad, why the hell bother with making any differences?

 

[Chancie]

I don't see how it could be bad if it's fun. It's going to be "good" still on some level. If it's enjoyable, it's a good game. It's as simple as that.

 

[cricketlenny]

bad things can be fun. Take for example The Room. Its a movie that is so bad that it is funny how bad it is. It was fun to watch. So if a game is so bad its funny, then it could work.

 

[LetalisK]

Did you have fun with the game you just played?
If yes, yay, you'll think the game is good.
If no, boo, you won't think the game is good.

Basically, this. It's pretty subjective. Take for example two games I've played recently: Mount and Blade: Warband and Demon's Souls.

The former is an unpolished jack-of-all-trades-and-barely-competent game with almost no story besides what I create in my head for it. But, I have a lot of fun with it anyway, thus I deem it to be good overall. The former is an expertly executed and very challenging action RPG that received huge critical acclaim. But, it bores the fuck out of me and I hate the control scheme, so I deem it to be bad overall.

 

[Susan Arendt]

A good game isn't automatically fun. You can appreciate a game's design and execution without necessarily enjoying it. If you don't like real time strategy, for example, you're probably not going to enjoy even the best example of the genre.

Everyone has a bad game that they just love to pieces, so clearly bad games can be fun.

 

[Furioso]

Sonic Adventure 2 Battle: Is it a good game? HELL NO, but it is VERY fun, I played the hell out of that game, glaring issues and all