Some games can be bad but fun if you play them differently than how they are supposed to be played, usual by going on the easiest difficulty and running in all guns blazing.
Does fun = good ?
- Thread starter krazykidd
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh God, here we go ultimate evidence that gaming is suffering a painful death.
Yes if a game is fun it is good, if it is not fun that's a bad mark against it.
Just Cause 2, Painkiller, Serious Sam, Saints Row 2, Super Meat Boy. All the listed games are based on pure entertainment value with little or no focus on the story instead preferring to bombard the player with gameplay and make him/her wow at the amazing feats of violence/grace/stupidity of the said games protagonist.
Obviously some games want to do more than just be fun, they want to tell a story like Mass Effect or scare you through a whole pack of boxer shorts like Amnesia and can benefit from these things but at the end of the day if a game is fun to play I will pay money to play it.
EDIT: There are some good games that I would rate higher than my fun examples given above despite not being as straight up entertaining, Deus Ex for example but I honestly have to be having fun one way or another to like a game, it's a very very simple idea.
Yes if a game is fun it is good, if it is not fun that's a bad mark against it.
Just Cause 2, Painkiller, Serious Sam, Saints Row 2, Super Meat Boy. All the listed games are based on pure entertainment value with little or no focus on the story instead preferring to bombard the player with gameplay and make him/her wow at the amazing feats of violence/grace/stupidity of the said games protagonist.
Obviously some games want to do more than just be fun, they want to tell a story like Mass Effect or scare you through a whole pack of boxer shorts like Amnesia and can benefit from these things but at the end of the day if a game is fun to play I will pay money to play it.
EDIT: There are some good games that I would rate higher than my fun examples given above despite not being as straight up entertaining, Deus Ex for example but I honestly have to be having fun one way or another to like a game, it's a very very simple idea.
It depends on what you mean by "good." If your criteria is just how fun it is, then by definition your game is good if it's fun. But there's more to it than that. DMC 4 is a fun game to play in my opinion, but that's only because I can skip the cut scenes. That's not to say DMC is a bad game, but it's not a masterpiece. Think of it this way -- if DMC had the same lightning fast, funtastic game play that makes it worthwhile now, and a riveting, intellectually stimulating story driven by dynamic and emotionally engaging characters, then it would be a much better game.
Personally, I think a game being fun is enough for me to call it "good." But the "best" game would offer a lot more than an amusing diversion for the time I spend with it.
Personally, I think a game being fun is enough for me to call it "good." But the "best" game would offer a lot more than an amusing diversion for the time I spend with it.
A fun game is automatically good, yes - as long as "fun" is agreed to be a subjective concept. On the other hand, critically lauded games can be boring as all Hell to some. I've tried my best to get one of my friends into Minecraft, to no avail. It doesn't mean that Minecraft is any less of a good game; it means that my friend didn't consider it to be a *fun* game.
OP is making it sound a bit like the "Chicken or the Egg" debate, when it's really pretty simple. Fun should be the absolute value by which games are judged. Extremely well-crafted products can meet with disappointing sales, which might be a case of bad marketing, but also a case of the game not knowing how to reach its audience.
So, IMHO, Fun = Good, while Good =/= Fun.
OP is making it sound a bit like the "Chicken or the Egg" debate, when it's really pretty simple. Fun should be the absolute value by which games are judged. Extremely well-crafted products can meet with disappointing sales, which might be a case of bad marketing, but also a case of the game not knowing how to reach its audience.
So, IMHO, Fun = Good, while Good =/= Fun.
Yes. Always. Every time. End of story.
A better question might be: Can a game be good if it ISN'T fun?
A better question might be: Can a game be good if it ISN'T fun?
Id say fun doesnt always = good, but i think good does have to = fun at least a bit, otherwise why would you keep playing, if not for enjoyment?
It is an implication, not an equivalence. At least to me it is. A good game is fun anyway. But a fun game is not necessarily good.
Yes, if we are simply dividing games into a personal "good" or "bad." If we want to distinguish between games in the "good" category, making an attempt at something resembling a relativistic scale, fun isn't the only factor.
And it depends on how broadly one defines fun. Schindler's List (or something) isn't fun per say, but that doesn't mean it is bad or failed.
I love playing Minesweeper, but it isn't fun in the way I'd use the word to describe Mario Kart.
And it depends on how broadly one defines fun. Schindler's List (or something) isn't fun per say, but that doesn't mean it is bad or failed.
I love playing Minesweeper, but it isn't fun in the way I'd use the word to describe Mario Kart.
Yes. I would certainly think that the fundamental requirement for a game to be "good" would be that it be fun. Good does equal fun and vice versa. Presumably if you're having fun playing it, despite any flaws it may or may not have, then it must be good. Inversely how can you possibly call a game good if you're not having fun playing it?
Yes, fun doesn't have to be good, the 2 Crank films, those films are a fun couple of films to watch, but are they good? I really don't think so, they're just fun, also Far Cry 2, that's a good game, but to be honest it's not that fun to play, so it does work both ways, but usually fun does mean good.
If you call a game fun, I don't think you can call it bad. It at least succeeded on one of the more important levels... unless there's a qualifier in there like "it's fun for a while, but the lack of variety gets boring after a while".
But there's a lot of fun games that completely fail to be great. I'd point to the recent RAGE as an example. It's fun. The shooting mechanics are good, you got a decent variety of ways to kill the baddies, and the driving breaks up the shooting well.
It just fails to rise above the sum of its parts. I finished the other day and it's already starting to disappear down the memory hole.
But there's a lot of fun games that completely fail to be great. I'd point to the recent RAGE as an example. It's fun. The shooting mechanics are good, you got a decent variety of ways to kill the baddies, and the driving breaks up the shooting well.
It just fails to rise above the sum of its parts. I finished the other day and it's already starting to disappear down the memory hole.
If you call a game fun, I don't think you can call it bad. It at least succeeded on one of the more important levels... unless there's a qualifier in there like "it's fun for a while, but the lack of variety gets boring after a while".
But there's a lot of fun games that completely fail to be great. I'd point to the recent RAGE as an example. It's fun. The shooting mechanics are good, you got a decent variety of ways to kill the baddies, and the driving breaks up the shooting well.
It just fails to rise above the sum of its parts. I finished the other day and it's already starting to disappear down the memory hole.
But there's a lot of fun games that completely fail to be great. I'd point to the recent RAGE as an example. It's fun. The shooting mechanics are good, you got a decent variety of ways to kill the baddies, and the driving breaks up the shooting well.
It just fails to rise above the sum of its parts. I finished the other day and it's already starting to disappear down the memory hole.
Not necessarily...as much as it sucks, griefing people in Four Swords or, Battle-Toads is a lot of fun, even if it does waste lives/ time.
Bad games can be fun too if you can find a way to mess with the thing enough. Like, cheating a chopper into existence in GTA4 and killing yourself with it over and over again. That's all I've got since my copy of Shaq-Fu was never delivered.
Bad games can be fun too if you can find a way to mess with the thing enough. Like, cheating a chopper into existence in GTA4 and killing yourself with it over and over again. That's all I've got since my copy of Shaq-Fu was never delivered.
I'm not saying your wrong, and this is mostly to play Devil's Advocate, but what about "I wanna be the guy"? I consider apples that fall up, invisible platforms as the only means of proceeding examples of breaking the rules of gameplay mechanics 101. (Note I did not get that far) However I'd say that's an example of a game that people like ironically. I'll even admit to liking it for the whole 20 mins that I was playing it before I realized that I'm terrible at video games and hate my life and shouldn't bother anymore. (slight exaggeration.) However it's because every screen breaks fundamental rules of game play that it is interesting, I wouldn't personally call it fun though. I found their rule breaking entertaining and interesting, but I found all those unpleasant parts, where I had to play the character (or replay a screen) to find out what new zany ways they defy my expectations, more frustrating than fun.sravankb said: