Nah, I get what you're saying, we're just using different enjoyments. I don't mean it in the "happy, oh this is so entertaining" way. I'm using it s a blanket term for anything that catches and holds your attention and makes you want to keep playing. Games like amnesia or metro can still be enjoyed just because you want to keep playing, not because its lighthearted.bahumat42 said:
Does fun = good ?
- Thread starter krazykidd
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Definition of "Game" from wikitionary. game (countable and uncountable; plural games)
1. (countable) A pursuit or activity with rules performed either alone or with others, for the purpose of entertainment. In many games, the objective is to win by defeating the other player or players or being the first to reach a specified goal, while in others, role-playing or cooperation is emphasized.
Shall we play a game?
So if a game is not fun, well, then it really isn't much of a game. Those art games, they're not games. They should be called "Interactive Experiences" or something like that, because if you're not having fun, then is it really a game? Being interactive does not make something a game. This does not mean games can't be fun and introspective and a good criticism of culture or minds at the same time. But if an interactive thing is not designed to be fun or to be used for fun, then it's not a game. It's either a simulation (which can still be fun if you're simulating flight or being the bridge commander on a star trek ship or a star wars fighter pilot) or an interactive art piece. And that's fine. I just think they shouldn't be called games unless there's at least one entertaining aspect. So does fun make a game high quality? No. Does it make it good? Not necessarily, but I will play any game that I derive enjoyment from.
1. (countable) A pursuit or activity with rules performed either alone or with others, for the purpose of entertainment. In many games, the objective is to win by defeating the other player or players or being the first to reach a specified goal, while in others, role-playing or cooperation is emphasized.
Shall we play a game?
So if a game is not fun, well, then it really isn't much of a game. Those art games, they're not games. They should be called "Interactive Experiences" or something like that, because if you're not having fun, then is it really a game? Being interactive does not make something a game. This does not mean games can't be fun and introspective and a good criticism of culture or minds at the same time. But if an interactive thing is not designed to be fun or to be used for fun, then it's not a game. It's either a simulation (which can still be fun if you're simulating flight or being the bridge commander on a star trek ship or a star wars fighter pilot) or an interactive art piece. And that's fine. I just think they shouldn't be called games unless there's at least one entertaining aspect. So does fun make a game high quality? No. Does it make it good? Not necessarily, but I will play any game that I derive enjoyment from.
I think that you can enjoy bad games just like you can enjoy bad films. My usual example is Clive Barker's Jericho: broken AI, unabashedly linear and repetitive gameplay, ridiculous aesthetics... And I still loved it, just like I loved the terrible, terrible Hellraiser series.
A good game that I'd hesitate to call fun? Condemned: Criminal Origins. The atmosphere is quite heavy and clubbing homeless junkies to death with a lead pipe is not exactly joyful slaughter, but I've played it to the end and feel richer for it. Even if the story seems like just an excuse to make you visit all those scary places and do all those horrible things.
A good game that I'd hesitate to call fun? Condemned: Criminal Origins. The atmosphere is quite heavy and clubbing homeless junkies to death with a lead pipe is not exactly joyful slaughter, but I've played it to the end and feel richer for it. Even if the story seems like just an excuse to make you visit all those scary places and do all those horrible things.
Not always, Ive played some right turkeys that where good fun- one Ive recently been reminded of is Dynasty Warriors, its shallow repetitive and ugly but by god is it satisfying.
A more recent one is Space Marine- its workmanlike and mediocre to the point where its an actual achievement but again its very satisfying and fun to play.
Yet another that just popped into my head is arguably (and Im gonna need a flame shield for this) Oblivion- buggy as hell, ugly as sin with so many poor design choices that its mod community pretty much completely overhauled the entire game by the end of its life span, but I must of played it (without the mods) for almost 400 hours.
Im sure we can all look back through our gaming library and spot games that really weren't very good for one reason or another but yet we still played to death and enjoyed.
A more recent one is Space Marine- its workmanlike and mediocre to the point where its an actual achievement but again its very satisfying and fun to play.
Yet another that just popped into my head is arguably (and Im gonna need a flame shield for this) Oblivion- buggy as hell, ugly as sin with so many poor design choices that its mod community pretty much completely overhauled the entire game by the end of its life span, but I must of played it (without the mods) for almost 400 hours.
Im sure we can all look back through our gaming library and spot games that really weren't very good for one reason or another but yet we still played to death and enjoyed.
Fun and good. Most times they are unrelated. Eating loads of chocolate? Fun but not good for your teeth. As for games...a lot of fun games are not necessarily good games. A non-innovative sequel can be considered bad by its fans, but extremely fun for someone experiencing it for the first time.
I think some more narrative/story based games can get a pass on the 'fun' part. Horror games as well. What comes to mind immediately are games that either make you intensely sad or scared. By definition, neither of those are 'fun', but they can still help make a good game.
The other problem, then, is when do these games stop being 'games' in the traditional sense. If a story is all narrative and little gameplay, is it a different medium? I don't think so, because many of the earliest video games were highly narrative with little 'gameplay', and nobody counts those out.
The other problem, then, is when do these games stop being 'games' in the traditional sense. If a story is all narrative and little gameplay, is it a different medium? I don't think so, because many of the earliest video games were highly narrative with little 'gameplay', and nobody counts those out.
I'd agree with this position. Alpha Protocol wasn't a good game. I was just particularly conditioned to overlook its terrible flaws so that I could have fun with it. Then there are games that I can appreciate on a lot of levels but wouldn't care to play because I simply don't enjoy them (Pokemon for example).Susan Arendt said:
A game is, at its heart, entertainment. Entertainment = For Fun.
Therefore, a game that is fun has served it's purpose and is therefore "good".
Therefore, a game that is fun has served it's purpose and is therefore "good".
Short answer: yes, fun game = good games by definition.
But the truth is that games are judged in three sectors, each of which people misjudge "goodness" a game on.
There are three standards to grade a game on. 1) production quality 2) morals/offensiveness 3)fun.
1) Production quality is easy to agree on. Everyone thinks Metroid: Other M has solid graphics, good controls and is bug free. Everyone agrees that Battlefield 3 is great to look at. And everyone thinks that Deus Ex 1 looks like shit today.
2) This refers to does it teach morals/ is it offensive/ is it true to the franchise. Some games are not fun and have low production quality but have great morals. Many think that Deus Ex has solid philosophical questions, that Halo might have a solid precautionary tale against zealousness, and that Mario has no morals or anything (most games are like this). Some games are offensive, like Ethnic Cleansing. And lastly there is being true to the franchise. Nobody thinks that Halo has ever strayed far from its canon and saw the RTS Halo Wars as acceptable and a fun change of pace. People were able to adapt to a new setting from Half Life to Half Life 2 easily and many consider Metroid: Other M to be a war crime and X-com the FPS to be a betrayal. This is regardless of if the game is fun or has high production values. There is generally not much debate in this section.
3) Fun factor. This is where personal taste and opinion enter a lot. Did "Streets of Fury" (available for 3$ on Xbox arcade) have a moral lesson, no. Was it a technical masterpiece, hell no. But was is really really fun, HELL YEA. A game that is fun will be played even if it is low in production quality (why people prefer Deus Ex 1 to Deus Ex 2) or has no morals (Mario) or is untrue to the franchise (some liked Metroid Other M. Many liked Fallout 3 even though it betrayed Fallout 1 and 2).
The best example is Perfect Dark for Xbox 360. The game has great graphics, few bugs, great weapon selection, multiplayer and splitscreen co-op. It has generic morals about evil corporations and was true to the franchise. But it was boring and no fun to play and as such was deemed "not a good game".
If you want morals, watch the History Channel and read books on history and morality. If you want high production values, go make a computer or something. The reason you game is to have fun, and as long as the game does that it is good.
But the truth is that games are judged in three sectors, each of which people misjudge "goodness" a game on.
There are three standards to grade a game on. 1) production quality 2) morals/offensiveness 3)fun.
1) Production quality is easy to agree on. Everyone thinks Metroid: Other M has solid graphics, good controls and is bug free. Everyone agrees that Battlefield 3 is great to look at. And everyone thinks that Deus Ex 1 looks like shit today.
2) This refers to does it teach morals/ is it offensive/ is it true to the franchise. Some games are not fun and have low production quality but have great morals. Many think that Deus Ex has solid philosophical questions, that Halo might have a solid precautionary tale against zealousness, and that Mario has no morals or anything (most games are like this). Some games are offensive, like Ethnic Cleansing. And lastly there is being true to the franchise. Nobody thinks that Halo has ever strayed far from its canon and saw the RTS Halo Wars as acceptable and a fun change of pace. People were able to adapt to a new setting from Half Life to Half Life 2 easily and many consider Metroid: Other M to be a war crime and X-com the FPS to be a betrayal. This is regardless of if the game is fun or has high production values. There is generally not much debate in this section.
3) Fun factor. This is where personal taste and opinion enter a lot. Did "Streets of Fury" (available for 3$ on Xbox arcade) have a moral lesson, no. Was it a technical masterpiece, hell no. But was is really really fun, HELL YEA. A game that is fun will be played even if it is low in production quality (why people prefer Deus Ex 1 to Deus Ex 2) or has no morals (Mario) or is untrue to the franchise (some liked Metroid Other M. Many liked Fallout 3 even though it betrayed Fallout 1 and 2).
The best example is Perfect Dark for Xbox 360. The game has great graphics, few bugs, great weapon selection, multiplayer and splitscreen co-op. It has generic morals about evil corporations and was true to the franchise. But it was boring and no fun to play and as such was deemed "not a good game".
If you want morals, watch the History Channel and read books on history and morality. If you want high production values, go make a computer or something. The reason you game is to have fun, and as long as the game does that it is good.
A fun game does mean it is good. A game's purpose is to entertain. If it entertains, it has fullfilled its purpose. By this logic, no, a bad game cant be fun, because it is bad because it isnt fun. A bad game that is fun is not a bad game.
In the context of entertainment products, yes. This should be obvious since entertaining is a synonym for fun.
a game must be enjoyable to be worth playing so no mater how great the construction, or graphics, or storyline, or goals. It's still not worth owning or playing if it's not enjoyable.