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

[Slythernite]

Dictionary definition of a game: An amusement or pastime

Games are, by definition, supposed to be fun. A "game" that is not fun is just an video interface.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

Dictionary definition of a game: An amusement or pastime

Games are, by definition, supposed to be fun. A "game" that is not fun is just an video interface.

I think that people get hung up on the word 'game' and it prevents them from seeing the full potential of the medium.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

In regards to this game in particular, the question about how "fun" it is has to do with the controversity this latest war has caused and the game's relevance to the real world. Meaning that, say, Call of Duty is a fun shooter (where fun=enjoyable), while following a historical conflict, because you get to down an enemy that History has classified as evil and faceless (beyond Hitler's mustache). Other war games, despite pro or against subtext and stereotypes, tend to follow fictional wars against fictional terrorists that are bad within the game's context. With this game, we have a very real conflict that's still going on and has the world divided. That's probably what people question; how are they going to make a game enjoyable, if it's bound to offend?

You might argue that the same could be said about movies of the same sort, but movies aren't interractive. The fun to be had in games is, mostly, by playing; acting within the game's boundaries. That's why the argument holds water.

I personally don't care either way, the game will have to rock the world's socks off for me to even consider getting it, but I get where the scepticism comes from.

 

[Xvito]

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.

I'll have to agree with Jumplion (what is that? like a jumping lion...) on this one.

Most of the time when I'm playing Call of Duty or whatnot it's not because it's "fun" but because it's gets the adrenaline going.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

I can see where you're going with this, and I have to say that I agree, but it is a plus if the game is enjoyable. I mean, if a game is made to teach you something, like that Darfur thing, then I think the message might (just might) stick better if the game was enjoyable. Enjoyable doesn't have to mean "haha-fun", or "locust-go-boom fun", but enjoyability in being told a good story with a point...if i'm making any fucking sense.

 

[yonsito]

if games are not fun then i WONT play them, simple as that.

My feelings exactly. Games don't have to be fun but I only play those that are.
I already spend a lot of time on something called "work" that is not fun most of the time.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

it's not because it's "fun" but because it's gets the adrenaline going.

I'm pretty sure that's still fun.

 

[varulfic]

This topic is based on the straw man that "fun" and "entertaining" is the same thing, it's not. For example, the movie "Godfather" is entertaining, which means that it keeps you interested for the duration of the film, but it's not fun, as in, I don't laugh when the guy finds the decapitated head of a horse in his bed. The same thing applies in video games - the gaming experience can vary depending on what genre you play, from the thrilling suspense of horror games, the adrenaline rush of action games or the fun from comical games like Grim Fandango, and if you're entertained by those feelings, you'll keep playing. If they bore you or otherwise don't appeal to you, you won't.

 

[Jumplion]

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'.

Sweet, I made a thread worthy of moderator attention. The good kind!

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

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?

That implies that I have to be thinking "WOO HOOO KILLING GIANT FUCKOS FTW!!#%!" to be having fun in a game. Which I don't. The challenge of figuring out how to beat a Colossus then actually going through with it is fun. "Enjoying the experience" as you put it, was indeed fun

 

[iggyus]

The concept of it sounds interesting and its definitely something no one ever tried before but it remains to be seen how they pull it of. I personally hope its gonna be good

 

[Arkhangelsk]

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.

You should look up the term "fun". Fun doesn't neccessarily mean to get adrenaline kicks or get entertainment by simple stuff, as shooting someone in a game. It just means "entertaining". And entertainment can be achieved by any possible means. Even gritty, depressing stories can be "fun" in the term that they're interesting and you're willingly to go more into it, therefore that you're entertained. Look up the word "game" and it will say: "an amusement or pastime", and the word fun, if you look it up, will say as an adjective: "something that provides mirth or amusement". So yes, games need to be fun, but it can be different kinds of fun.

 

[Valiance]

What do you call fun?
Fun is a subjective term.

I enjoy competitive play.
I enjoy noncompetitive play.
I enjoy and appreciate art.
I enjoy being drawn into a story, even if I'm not controlling the character while it unfolds. (I LIKE MOVIES LOL)
I enjoy being drawn into a story, even if I'm controlling the character while it unfolds.
I enjoy creating my own story, my own legacy...

A lot of things are fun to a lot of people.

I'm sure something like what you described would please plenty of demographics.

 

[TheRockNRolla]

Also, I think there's the blend of every aspect of a game that makes it fun. A good story with solid gameplay, mixed with the right amount of action and emotion is also what makes a game fun.

Just like how you used Shadow of the Colossus as an example. It's got everything that makes it a fun and interesting game.

 

[Jumplion]

You should look up the term "fun". Fun doesn't neccessarily mean to get adrenaline kicks or get entertainment by simple stuff, as shooting someone in a game. It just means "entertaining". And entertainment can be achieved by any possible means. Even gritty, depressing stories can be "fun" in the term that they're interesting and you're willingly to go more into it, therefore that you're entertained. Look up the word "game" and it will say: "an amusement or pastime", and the word fun, if you look it up, will say as an adjective: "something that provides mirth or amusement". So yes, games need to be fun, but it can be different kinds of fun.

Most of this argument was based on Sessler's argument of this, I just added to the argument. I'm aware that "fun" is completely subjective to each individual, but most people wouldn't consider a movie showing how suicide bombers kill themselves for their country in a serious manner to be "fun" so much as they find it "entertaining" or "enjoyable" and that's completely different from being "fun".

 

[Voltano]

Last year in college I took a class for an entire semester talking about literature in the "Gothic & Horror" genre. We read several stories in the horror theme, from H.P. Lovecraft, Steven King, and several other authors portraying different stories of horror. It was an interesting class for me as I also read other stories in the same root, like "I am legend".

One thing I got from all those stories was pretty obvious: The characters *were* not having fun in them. Hell, most had horrible things done to them, or did horrible things (While I never cared for the story, "The Monk" is a good example of a protagonist becoming a royal dick). Its interesting how most of these stories are really depressing and horrible, like a really good horror story, and yet they are popular or accepted by population. This might be where "horror" fails in video games because in a game, the player is meant to be having fun while playing the protagonist, always be safe and comfortable with where he's at in the story. Where as horror is meant to not give a sense of comfort to the viewer/reader/gamer interacting with the media, as previous horror games like "Clock Tower" on the SNES gave me when I gave that a try.

Last year I played Yahtzee's "John Defoe" game series, starting with "5 days a stranger" and going toward the end. Looking at that, I certainly wasn't having fun there, but the experience was *entertaining* enough to keep me hooked toward the end.

Interesting "food for thought" Original Poster, and it would be nice to see games accept this philosophy more...

 

[Deacon Cole]

In all honesty, "Fun" is a nebulous term. It's difficult to say what we truly mean when we say fun. But, I wouldn't be me if I didn't go out on a limb and copy & paste some stuff that might help define it.

A fun game has:

1. Clear goals (expectations and rules are discernible and goals are attainable and align appropriately with one's skill set and abilities).

5. Direct and immediate feedback (successes and failures in the course of the activity are apparent, so that behavior can be adjusted as needed).

6. Balance between ability level and challenge (the activity is neither too easy nor too difficult).

7. A sense of personal control over the situation or activity.

8. The activity is intrinsically rewarding, so there is an effortlessness of action.

And also exploits reflex and cognitive engagement, affects the player and also grants efficacy to the player.


The numbering is wonky because I copy and pasted this from the Wikipedia article on Flow [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)] with the rest coming from Seductive Interfaces [http://www.designhappy.com/sedint/TheMaze.htm]. The elements of Flow were composed of things provided by the activity and reaction people have when entering a state of Flow. I omitted the reactions since all we're interested in are the things the game itself provides.

But this is a list of what makes a game fun, at least it's a decent start. Frankly, I grouse at the idea that a great game may not be fun, setting aside matters of personal taste. That's kind of like how a great book is no fun to read or a good movie is no fun to watch. If no one likes to read a great novel or watch a great movie or play a great game, then why is it considered great?

For different media there are different criteria. Games, being interactive, have criteria like this. So is Shadow of the Colossus a great game because of its engaging gameplay or does the gameplay suck, or is middling but it has a surface aesthetic that makes some think it must be high art?

I played my roommate's copy of a few minutes once and I don't think so. I would need to try it again to be certain, but here's my experience based on a few minutes of play:

I started up the game and after skipping or ignoring all that opening crap that gives you all the back story that I simply do not care about, I found myself in a field with a horse and after managing to get on the horse, gallop for a bit and somehow fall off the horse, I gave up in frustration. My frustration didn't stem from the controls, although they seemed a bit complicated, but I might have gotten the hang of it with time, but because I had no idea where I was supposed to go or what I was supposed to do. I might have learned that in the opening narration or cinematic, but that's not game design. That's movie making or fiction writing. So it failed on the first point: having a clear goal. There wasn't even anything to do in the area I was in except ride around on a horse on a fairly barren landscape. No minor enemies to shoot my bow at. Just nothing.

So, why is Shadow of the Colossus considered high art by some on this forum? I am honest. Explain this to me. The graphics were nice, but that isn't game design. That's digital painting. I don't recall much of a HUD, which may have been novel when it came out, but that does not make the gameplay good any more than using a Hello Kitty controller would. Is it because others have a higher tolerance for those portions of games that you don't even get to play and the whoop-de-doo story and dialog more than made up for the gameplay shortcomings?

I asked my roommate about this game and he said it was impossible because he couldn't even get past the first colossus. So that's hangs a question mark on point 6 for this game. So, what is it? Is it the gameplay that makes it great or is it other stuff? Because if it's other stuff, it's not a good game at all.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

You should look up the term "fun". Fun doesn't neccessarily mean to get adrenaline kicks or get entertainment by simple stuff, as shooting someone in a game. It just means "entertaining". And entertainment can be achieved by any possible means. Even gritty, depressing stories can be "fun" in the term that they're interesting and you're willingly to go more into it, therefore that you're entertained. Look up the word "game" and it will say: "an amusement or pastime", and the word fun, if you look it up, will say as an adjective: "something that provides mirth or amusement". So yes, games need to be fun, but it can be different kinds of fun.

Most of this argument was based on Sessler's argument of this, I just added to the argument. I'm aware that "fun" is completely subjective to each individual, but most people wouldn't consider a movie showing how suicide bombers kill themselves for their country in a serious manner to be "fun" so much as they find it "entertaining" or "enjoyable" and that's completely different from being "fun".

I wouldn't say it's fun as in "poops and giggles", but what games are? If you think on the more ethical side of an FPS, for example. If you look at it in a way that you've just taken a life, then it stops being fun and gets serious. Having fun in that particular game type is about ignoring the fact that your virtually killing someone, and enjoying the spectacle. It's not as deep as it sounds, but it can still have the same meaning. This is different in movies, cause in the aforementioned kind of movie, you can only look at it from the serious side. And being "amused", is usually focused on being amused by the happening itself, or having a happy or glad feeling about it, like making a kill in a game. If you say you're amused by that kind of movie you mentioned, people will be offended. There is a difference between "amusement" and "entertainment".