Games don't have to be "Fun"...

[MrSnugglesworth]

Games were made to be fun.


It is not a "Game" if it is not made to be fun. Serious can be fun, as far as games like CoD and GoW(sort of) go.

 

[xXGeckoXx]

Thing is, a documentary has you an observer to a REAL situation, therfore to make an impact it does not need to be "fun". A game has you interact with a FAKE situation, therefore to make any sort of impact it needs to have something to back it up, e.g. "fun".

Not sure if I made my point, but whatever.

You did....It was a good one. I basically agree with sneak copter here. Real life games do not NEED the fun factor so much. I love fun games like TF2 because you ENJOY playing them and i think thats what counts.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

I can't truefully say yes, games don't have to be fun. I'm all for the games "Games are Art" movement but at the end of the day, games is form of media designed to entertain. There's a lot more effort put into playing a game than watching a movie or looking at a work of art or even reading a book.

Unless players are motivated to continue they're simply not going to experience the full game and all the amazing things it could potentially have in store for them. There are a lot of games that aren't always "fun" in some of the story elements and so on. But this all need to fall back on a fun element, otherwise there going to be very little to keep you going. I'm not going to give a fuck about a meaningful story if it doesn't have solid, interesting and "fun" gameplay to fall back on, otherwise theres going to be a sad feeling of "Wow, this would be such a great movie, too bad it's a shitty game"

Maybe "Six days in Fallujah" will prove me wrong, it certainly looks like an interesting concept. However I see two likely things evolving from this. The first one is Six Days is another CoD4 clone. The story may be interesting at times but it doesn't depict the situation in the delicate way it needs to be, and therefore falls flat on its face. The second situation is it depicts the war exactly how it played out, creating an emotional role coaster...which we don't get to see because we can't stand to play it for more than 20 minutes. A few people applaud it half heartedly for what it tried to do then we forget about it.

EDIT: Wooo! 2000th post!

 

[inkheart_artist]

Weak. What about a movie that isn't inspiring being good? What about a painting thats not visualy interesting being good? Fun isn't the driving interest for any of those things. Shadow of the Colossus was fun because a game doesn't have to be an adrenaline rush to be good, otherwise Sonic would've phased out Mario in the 16 bit generation.

Weaker then all that though is quoting anyone on the G4 staff. Anything they say amounts to a commercial advocating the next high profile(though not necessarily good) game that they were paid to advertise for.

 

[FISHFINGERS]

Hmm interesting...
I certainly used to say "For it to be worth my time to play a game it MUST BE FUN!!!1!" regularly.
I guess that is going to have to change now. Perhaps "For it to be worth my time to play a game it must be interesting." would be more accurate.

After all if you go subscribe to the "Videogames as art" theory then you will have to except that games will have to carry messages in the same way movies, music, art and books carry messages.

And as it stands it would be hard to get across a "Killing is wrong" message in traditional style of game where the entire emphasis on the game is getting to the end of a level, usually by killing almost anything and everything that stand between you and the end of the level.

Certainly to get across this message the act of killing should not be fun, nor should it be something your character is unable to do necessary, but it should be interesting. And that would be an almost impossibly fine line to walk.

On a separate note. War would be near impossible to portray accurately in a game (as somebody who has never experienced it first hand understands it). It has been described to me by my Grandfather, as "Years of boredom with brief bursts of mind numbing terror."

 

[Lady K]

As I'm sure plenty of people have said, if every game had to be considered "fun for all" then it's not gonna be much fun for everyone. Video games have gotten to the point to where they are an artistic outlet, just as much as book or a movie would be, what with all of the HD graphics considerably dark storylines or premises that seem to be so popular. It needs to have a good balance all of the aspects that makes a game good.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Jumplion]

Weak. What about a movie that isn't inspiring being good? What about a painting thats not visualy interesting being good? Fun isn't the driving interest for any of those things. Shadow of the Colossus was fun because a game doesn't have to be an adrenaline rush to be good, otherwise Sonic would've phased out Mario in the 16 bit generation.

Weaker then all that though is quoting anyone on the G4 staff. Anything they say amounts to a commercial advocating the next high profile(though not necessarily good) game that they were paid to advertise for.

Being from G4 doesn't make it hold any less weight, shut the hell up. I specifically requested that everyone refrain from bashing this just because it's from G4.

A movie that isn't inspiring can be good, it just depends on the context. Same with a painting that's "serious" or isn't visually interesting. This means that they are "Enjoyable" not "Fun", those are two completely different things within the context they are usually used in. "Fun" is subjective from person to person, I agree, but in a broader term everyone expects that every game must be "fun" to be a game at all. Documentary movies, books, and serious paintings aren't "fun" so much as they are "entertaining" or "enjoyable" but those are completely different from being "fun" for people.

You can still watch a documentary and have it be "enjoyable" but rarely is a documentary on obesity or World War II actually "fun". With games, everyone expects them to be "fun" as in making the person play them happy, and to a degree they are right. But games, like "Six Days in Fallujah", aren't so much as to be "fun" as they are meant to be informative and showing the player the horrors of war and such.

 

[Sion_Barzahd]

Games aren't always fun in the most common of terms.
Some are challenging or frightening. These are enjoyable indefinately, but not as much fun. If that makes sense.

 

[Saskwach]

I've spent a long time mulling this over and I agree that games don't have to be fun to be valid. But I'll never play a game that's not meant to be fun. Call me a philistine, but I prefer my intellectual and artistic pursuits to be elsewhere. Some people only watch action movies; I only play fun games.

 

[Joeshie]

A games real purpose for existing is in the hopes that you will enjoy playing it. Now, "enjoy" is in the realm of gaming meant to encompass "fun". And you will hear many, MANY gamers state that if a game isn't fun, then it isn't a good game in which case they would be absolutely incorrect. I wouldn't say that I'm having "fun" in the traditional sense when I play Dead Space because I'm actually shitting my pants. However, I still find the experience enjoyable. The same goes for games, such as the Fallujah game, which attempt to take a more serious subject and present it as a game.

 

[Nostalgia]

The definite purpose of a game is to be fun, but fun is subjective. I do not enjoy playing sports, except maybe Bowling, and I'm sure many people would disagree with me. I love platformers, and especially in this day of age, a lot of would disagree with me as well.

 

[Clashero]

I don't think games have to be "fun", what they need to be is entertaining though. If it grips you and makes you keep playing it then I believe that makes it good.

Exactly my thoughts.
From a gameplay standpoint, Dreamfall: The Longest Journey is quite mediocre, bordering on terrible. But the story made me want to keep playing. So was the game "fun" as in "I'm having a blast doing this"? No. Was it entertaining? Yes. Was it one of the best gaming experiences of my life? Of course.

 

[Gamer137]

The problem is that fun is subjective. Fun is usually graded by the persons encitement level. To me, something is fun if you stay with it by your own uninfluenced will. While you may choice to go to work of your own will, it is influenced by your need to eat. In most games, playing a game is your own choice with no one ordering you to do so. Lets say someone makes the most realistic, depressing, and gross war simulator of all time. In terms of excitement, not fun. But if it draws you in as an artisic statement, and you stay with it, then it is still "fun" in my sence.

 

[Erana]

The Path is an example of not being fun, but good.

 

[inkheart_artist]

Being from G4 doesn't make it hold any less weight, shut the hell up. I specifically requested that everyone refrain from bashing this just because it's from G4.

A movie that isn't inspiring can be good, it just depends on the context. Same with a painting that's "serious" or isn't visually interesting. This means that they are "Enjoyable" not "Fun", those are two completely different things within the context they are usually used in. "Fun" is subjective from person to person, I agree, but in a broader term everyone expects that every game must be "fun" to be a game at all. Documentary movies, books, and serious paintings aren't "fun" so much as they are "entertaining" or "enjoyable" but those are completely different from being "fun" for people.

You can still watch a documentary and have it be "enjoyable" but rarely is a documentary on obesity or World War II actually "fun". With games, everyone expects them to be "fun" as in making the person play them happy, and to a degree they are right. But games, like "Six Days in Fallujah", aren't so much as to be "fun" as they are meant to be informative and showing the player the horrors of war and such.

Who said a documentary was expected to be fun, I think the only movies that fit in that way are childrens movies and comedies. Movies are expected to be entertaining, thought evoking or at least interesting just as a game is expected to be fun. An uninteresting movie is the same as an unfun game and both are utterly forgettable failures. I doubt a high profile game thats informative before its fun would go very far.

Thats not saying I don't think an informative game can't be fun but if its gonna show you how sucky war is its probably gonna suck. The wife of a radical you just killed runs up to you with a granade and blows herself up on you. You survive but lost your legs above your knee and your best friend who was next to you died in the blast. You get sent back to a wife divorcing you because she can't handle taking care of you. Theres the gritty reality of war, don't see how that could translate into a good game.

I also gave my justifications for why G4 is utter garbage and holds about as much significance as scribbles in a seedy mens bathroom and I'm sticking to that.

 

[GonzoGamer]

A lot of people like games that aren't fun: look at how well No More Heroes and GTA4 did.

I however prefer my games to be fun and any statements they want to put it there should be integrated in a fun manner. Games are still very expensive and can take longer to play through than you average book to read through. So I expect my games to be fun and if I want a statement, I'll look for it in literature or film where I can get it for a much better price and not have to be "uncomfortable" for quite so long.

I think Sessler is hilarious and everything but I think they've been playing games for free for too long, so anything with an interesting enough statement will get a good score by them because it didn't make any sort of dent in their paycheck. The rest of us have to carefully consider what we want to spend $50+ on.

 

[wrightofway]

Just because something is serious doesn't mean it isn't entertaining. A book can be a commentary on a social issue and still be an entertaining book. Games should be no different.

 

[experiment0789]

With games however, it seems that no matter how serious the game is trying to be, the #1 thing that matters it the gaming being "fun" to play. Now, don't get me wrong, that should always be the most important factor in a game, but with certain games that try to portray the "horrors of war" or games that try to scare the shit out of you, sometimes making the game "fun" to play undermines the whole point of what it's trying to do.

I see what your saying, people need to recognize that not all kinds of games are...
1.for you
2.going to be the same type of fun,by this I mean for some killing everything in sight like some Rambo or Chunk Norris like character or surviving some war or zombie Apocalypse.
Like movies there are different type of games,some of them are pretty but still good,and some are like Halo 3, where your charged with the task of saving the world and being a war hero/bad ass.