"Games should just be fun."

[Zhukov]

So... you know those threads you get when someone encounters an opinion they disagree with and promptly runs to the internet to either seek comforting confirmation or spread the word?

Yeah, well, this is essentially one of those. Couldn't help it. Sorry.

So anyway...

Apparently games should be fun.

I hear this a lot. On this site and elsewhere. It seems to be something of a backlash against the games-as-art folks. Some people seem to be getting sick of games trying to have characters or tell stories or induce some emotion other then "I shot a *****, all hail!"

I was going to post a somewhat rant-ish argument spelling out why I think this is silly. But perhaps it will work better if phrased as a query. That tends to piss people off less. Well... a bit less anyway.

So, to those of you who say games should just be about fun, I have some questions:

What exactly do you mean when you say that? Isn't there more then one kind of fun? Can a genuinely scary horror game be "fun"? Can something be thought-provoking and still be considered fun? Isn't it fun to observe and interact with interesting characters? Isn't it fun to experience an awesome story? If a game could reliably make players cry, would it still be fun? Can a game be fun because it's scary or thought-provoking or tells a story or makes you cry etc etc?

And if you answered "yes" to all or most of the above, why is it apparently a problem that games, well... some games, are trying to be a wee bit more then high-defintion retreads of Doom or Super Mario?

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I'm glad someone finally made a thread about this. These people confuse me as well. It is like saying "movies should just try to entertain you".

 

[Netrigan]

I would say that video games should be compelling.

I would say the same of all mediums. Fun is one way to achieve this goal. Excitement, fear, titillation, outrage, whimsy, and the full range of human emotion are all equally valid ways of achieving the same goal.

I've watched some truly disturbing documentaries in my life. Stuff that weren't fun or exciting or even uplifting... but they were deeply compelling and only when I'm at low-ebb do I avoid watching similar documentaries, because they are truly compelling works.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

The problem is that many 'art-games' are boring. I have no problem with thought-provoking games, but it has to hold my interest.

 

[Astalano]

A game can still be enjoyable without being fun. Can you honestly say Amnesia is a fun game? No, but it's an emotional rollercoaster and a very enjoyable game that engages you on other levels besides basic pleasure from power fantasies.

 

[Elec0]

I seem to remember Extra Credits talking about something like this.
They had a better answer, but I think that some games aren't ment to be fun, like some movies aren't ment to be entertaining. That doesn't mean that games' main focus isn't to entertain, I think it is, but games shouldn't be limited to just entertaining people, they should be able to make you think, or make you sad as well.
I dunno, just my two cents.

 

[Phlakes]

Can you honestly say Amnesia is a fun game? No, but it's an emotional rollercoaster and a very enjoyable game that engages you on other levels besides basic pleasure from power fantasies.

It's fun in the same way a rollercoaster is.

EDIT: I just realized you used the rollercoaster analogy in your post. Nevermind, then.

OT: Everyone's already said it, they shouldn't be boring.

 

[ten.to.ten]

I think "fun" is the wrong kind of word to use. Enjoyable maybe? All games should be enjoyable, I think that sounds better.

The problem is that many 'art-games' are boring. I have no problem with thought-provoking games, but it has to hold my interest.

The problem I have with "art games" is that they're not actually particularly artistic.

 

[Bobic]

What is it with people on this site saying then when they mean than?

OT: I think the complaint is usually that fun games are much less common, not that all games should be fun.

 

[tibieryo]

When somebody says something like this, I'm reminded of how I feel watching a movie like Brick. Brick is a hardboiled detective drama using film noir slang, set in high school. It isn't a comedy. But it is fun in the way that watching something that's really good is always fun. Games should be the same way.

The potential for deep, thought-provoking gameplay is huge, but it won't be tapped by arty 2D platformers with gigantic chunks of text.

 

[Astalano]

Can you honestly say Amnesia is a fun game? No, but it's an emotional rollercoaster and a very enjoyable game that engages you on other levels besides basic pleasure from power fantasies.

It's fun in the same way a rollercoaster is.

Not really. It's just a metaphor to bring the idea of the highs and lows of emotion it conveys. E.g. in the water level and then you transition to the large welcoming hall with soft music that calms you.

Fun is just applicable to power fantasies. A boring game is a game that is not enjoyable in any way. A game that doesn't mentally stimulate you, isn't paced well, if it's a power fantasy it doesn't allow you to enjoy the action, etc.

 

[Palademon]

Even if it's focused on story or graphics or gameplay, the end result of any game should be lasting entertainment. When people say fun they often refer to some unbridled enjoyment.

 

[Myskomunken]

I believe games should be fun. But I usually find a good story entertaining. I mainly have beef with the games that strive for realism, to the point the developers start sacrificing entertainment. That's when bad things happen. Like all those military shooter clones that are taking over the FPS market nowadays.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

A game that is fun can also be genuinely scary, thought-provoking, fun to observe and interact with interesting characters, have an awesome story, and make players cry. Or it can only be mindless fun.

A game that is genuinely scary may not be fun, a thought provoking game may not be fun.

I tend to see it in the same way I see movies. Even though a movie may put me through the emotional wringer and make me question my very existence, the fact that it has affected me on such a deep level makes it a kind of fun that an utterly mindless movie isn't.

Silent Hill was not, for me, a fun movie, but Silent Hill 2 was a fun game, even though it was ball tighteningly scary. I would posit that everything should be fun first, and everything else is second, because if you build your game around the secondary aspects then you lose the point of making an entertainment media.

Even when games, literature, movies and music are trying to make you think, they're always trying to entertain you, and if they aren't, they've missed the mark.

For me, something that isn't fun is automatically boring, average, middle of the road. Now some of the shooters people refer to that claim to be 'fun' are actually not, they are simply mindless without the fun.

Do you see where I'm coming from? I'm very tired and this is kind of confused.

 

[Netrigan]

I would say that video games should be compelling.

I would say the same of all mediums. Fun is one way to achieve this goal. Excitement, fear, titillation, outrage, whimsy, and the full range of human emotion are all equally valid ways of achieving the same goal.

I've watched some truly disturbing documentaries in my life. Stuff that weren't fun or exciting or even uplifting... but they were deeply compelling and only when I'm at low-ebb do I avoid watching similar documentaries, because they are truly compelling works.

Well... yes, I agree with you, but there's a definite market for cinematic games.

Yeah, I just finished playing Heavy Rain and I can't say it was terribly fun in any conventional sense.

But I think it could go beyond simple cinematic games. I consider Call Of Duty 4 to be one of the best single player experiences I've ever had... and the gameplay is more serviceable than fun. While time and time again, "fun" shooters (like Doom and Serious Sam) get dismissed by people because they're un-involving. And if MW had that style of action, the game wouldn't have been so compelling. Obviously, the word fun is being mis-used in some way (hence my quotes), but I'm not sure what word would better fit. Whatever that element that Serious Sam has that CoD or Halo don't? Frivolity, maybe. But whatever that is, that's what people mean when they say "fun".

The whole thing is really subjective, but I think that "fun" is one of those spices in the video game recipe. A puzzle game isn't yippie fun, but they're draw people in. Intellectual stimulation is enjoyable. Competition is compelling, even if you spend three-quarters of the game cursing and end with a rage quit. Even FarmVille has to be scratching some sort of itch, otherwise people wouldn't be spending so much time playing it.

 

[Flames66]

And if you answered "yes" to all or most of the above, why is it apparently a problem that games, well... some games, are trying to be a wee bit more then high-defintion retreads of Doom or Super Mario?

I see no reason why games can't have deep stories, characters, themes and back stories and not be fun as well. I think it's just a case of if you don't like those features, don't buy that game.

Also, in the sentence I have quoted it should be "more than", not "more then".

 

[Zhukov]

I have no problem with thought-provoking games, but it has to hold my interest.

Oh sure. You'll hear no argument from me on that front. "Games shouldn't be boring" is a statement I can get behind!

A game can still be enjoyable without being fun. Can you honestly say Amnesia is a fun game? No, but it's an emotional rollercoaster and a very enjoyable game that engages you on other levels besides basic pleasure from power fantasies.

Sure, Amnesia was fun. My second best game of 2010. It certainly wasn't the same sort of fun as, say, Bulletstorm but I still loved every brick-shitting second of it.

I guess we're just niggling over the exact definition of "fun". Perhaps it wasn't the best word to chose, but it's the one everyone else uses.

I would say that video games should be compelling.

I would say the same of all mediums. Fun is one way to achieve this goal. Excitement, fear, titillation, outrage, whimsy, and the full range of human emotion are all equally valid ways of achieving the same goal.

I've watched some truly disturbing documentaries in my life. Stuff that weren't fun or exciting or even uplifting... but they were deeply compelling and only when I'm at low-ebb do I avoid watching similar documentaries, because they are truly compelling works.

Now this I agree with. Especially the documentary example. I'm tempted to throw down a [/thread] right there.

I mainly have beef with the games that strive for realism, to the point the developers start sacrificing entertainment.

Yeah, definitely agree with you there. Another example would be how in Mafia 2 you could die by crashing your car. Realistic, sure, but annoying as all hell when you get sent back half an hour because you didn't see a lamp post in time.

 

[Vetala]

game is a form of entertainment and thats why it should be, to entertain. whether it's fun or not doesn't matter, fun is one of the aspect of entertainment but it's not an absolute necessity.

my opinon of course

 

[lozfoe444]

Why can't we just have both types of games? Not all games need to be artsy, fun, or artsy-and-fun. The market is big enough for both Amnesias and Super Mario Galaxys. Silent Hills and Wii Sports. Why does Video Games have to be one thing?