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

[Jumplion]

I know, I know, the first thing that pops into your head when you read the title is "BLASPHEMY!" but here me out!

Or more specifically, hear Adam Sessler [http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/694743/Sesslers-Soapbox-Fun-Vs-Art.html] out (I swear to god, anybody who starts whining about G4 and crap better stay the fuck away from here!)

Here's the situation;

With "Six days in Fallujah" being announced by Konami, followed by a media outrage from people who thought that this game was going to be nothing but a glorification of the current war, the question started popping up "How will this game be fun if it's supposed to be serious?"

The thing is though, maybe the game doesn't specifically have to be fun to be a good game? After all, as stated by Sessler, there are many paintings that are "serious" but are still very "good". There are many documentaries and serious films out there that are inspiring yet still "good". There are plenty of books out there that are very detailed, depressing, but they are still "good" books that people can read.

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.

Case in point, many war games like Call of Duty and Killzone 2 show off the "horrors of war" but end up being a glorified version of it with big, hulky men holding their guns with their huge cocks going in and decimating everything (more CoD than Killzone, but I'll shut up...).

Another example, the almighty "Shadow of the Collosus". A beautiful game, a work of art as some (most really) people would call it. But when playing it, did you really have "fun" in the sense that you were going "WOO HOOO KILLING GIANT FUCKOS FTW!!#%!"? Or were you just enjoying the experience for what it was?

So, discuss, do video games always have to necessarily be "fun" when trying to do something? Don't get me wrong, most games should be fun, but games like "Six Days in Fallujah" don't seem to have "fun" as the first thing to pop into their minds. It seems that "Six Days in Fallujah" wants to show that video games can show war as for what it is.

 

[oliveira8]

I had fun in Shadow of the Colossus...if I'm not having fun in a video game I turn it off...

But how does the saying go? "If every man knows the horrors of war none would made it."?

 

[Mr.Bubbles43]

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.

 

[antipunt]

Games don't have to be fun, but then they'd better be 'good'
..
I'm not sure if I'm making sense

 

[sneak_copter]

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.

 

[reyttm4]

If it's fun it would add playability rather than being boring but I can somehow imagine a game being interesting and gripping and being as playable as a fun game, so I guess we will have to wait until it gets here.

 

[Gladion]

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 make your point, but there are still films that are not documentaries and STILL not fun to watch, even though they're good movies. (Irreversible comes to my mind).

Edit: I agree with the OP, but whenever I bring up that point, people would just yell at me saying I was wrong and what I said was bullshit.

Edit#2: I would even go as far as to say that no anti-war game should be fun at all, that would undermine the whole concept, it's possible to make the game thrilling anyways, but that might be just me.

 

[sms_117b]

Games don't have to be fun, but then they'd better be 'good'
..
I'm not sure if I'm making sense

Making perfect sense, coincidentally you're absolutely right

 

[Sindre1]

Fahrenheit is not fun.
But it is awesome!

 

[ElephantGuts]

I agree with you completely. I love serious games and sims. I would use games like Silent Hunter 4 as an example, but I do have fun playing it.

But the game doesn't necessarily have to be "fun", if it's interesting and good then you will have fun playing it. Or maybe you won't have fun, but it will still be good to play. And yes this comes close to not making sense but I think that's due to slightly variable definitions of the word "fun."

 

[Horned Rat]

Games don't have to be fun, they have to be entertaining. Six days in Fallujah may not be fun, but it's a game, and while it has a serious message to get across it has to be entertaining (i.e, good gameplay, controls, challenge etc).

You use the analogy of movies, well movies don't have to be fun, they have to be entertaining. If a movie wants to get across a message, it could have a dude in a suit sitting on a chair telling you what the message is and why it is right, but it would suck. The message must be shown properly.

 

[super_smash_jesus]

It really depends on what you define as fun. A game for me personally os "fun" if I find it enjoyable. If the game I am playing revolves around foreign policies and legislature, then I doubt I would find it "fun" and more along the lines of a chore. After all, I beleieve the original intent for "games" is for them to be fun and enjoyed by all. So I disagree with you, games DO have to be fun, but that depends on what the person finds fun.

So, I guess to sum up my point better I shall do this:

Fun = Enjoyable, Enjoyable = players game preference, game = fun.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

The comparison I like to make when this discussion comes around is to the movie Schindler's List. There is no scale or metric I can think of by which Schindler's List can be considered 'fun'; instead it is engaging, compelling and moving.

Games could do this as well, and as a secondary effect, increase their appeal to a wider market, if developers could just get over the idea that video games have to be 'fun'.

 

[TheRockNRolla]

There are plenty of games that aren't what I would say are "fun", yet the mystery of the story that drives you to complete the game. Like BioShock for example, it's not a "fun" game. Yes you can run around shooting things and lighting them on fire, but then you'll run out of ammo and find yourself in a sticky situation. Yet it was that intense, dark atmosphere that make you dive deeper into. You're drawn to that conflict, and you want to know what the hell happened and why everything is so fucked up. Then, when it all comes to an end, your left in awe because of the amazing, in-depth experience you had.

 

[letsnoobtehpwns]

I didn't have fun in BioShock. I still haven't made it to the end.

 

[sneak_copter]

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 make your point, but there are still films that are not documentaries and STILL not fun to watch, even though they're good movies. (Irreversible comes to my mind).

Ahh, but it still physically happened. If it happened to real people in a real enviroment, then it will make more of an impact than a couple of pixels.

Anyway, thanks for agreeing with me. Not many people do that.

 

[suhlEap]

i'm not entirely sure why that game wouldn't be fun anyway. maybe i'm being offensive seen as it's set in a current war and stuff. but i mean, i don't really care about the war anyway, people are dying for a stupid reason and if they make a game about it, why shouldn't i have fun playing it? unless i'm missing the point here?