"Games should just be fun."

[ArchBlade]

It's a little too 2-dimensional to say what games "should be". I think the variation between sheer fun or entertainment and engagement on other levels is healthy. The variation gives everyone some of what they want.

And if you're like me, you'll play more than just one type of these games. I enjoy the simple power trips, the action games as much as the next person. To compliment, I also love games that engage me emotionally, mentally or just on any other levels than simple enjoyment. If video games are a medium, then variety in "genre" as you might call it and audience is a healthy thing. There's no definite answer to what all games "should be" because there's so many different areas of potential to what they can be.

 

[spartandude]

I love it when a game is thought provoking, good story and characters and such. but having said that if the game isnt fun then i wont play it, however the things ive just mentioned often make it fun for me

 

[Dorian6]

The people who say that are idiots

that's like saying "movies shouldn't be thought provoking, they should only be a series of gunfights and explosions"

or "comic books should only tell superhero action stories"

or "musicals should just be a story punctuated by songs that reiterate what the characters just said"

It's an incredibly small-minded view of the genre, not to mention fodder for all the Jack Thompsons of the world. It's like the people who thought the "talking pictures" would ruin the film industry. Why can't a game tell an amazing story and be fun at the same time?

 

[Astalano]

Sorry, but I have to repeat this:

I think very few of the people on these forums and in this topic has any idea of what fun is and what art is. A game can be extremely enjoyable/compelling, thought-provoking and such, without being fun. A game can be fun without being artistic. You can combine both, but they undermine each other. If you allow the player to murder dozens of enemies (e.g. Homefront) then the point of your narrative is undermined and your artistic focus is much lessened. You can have great fun and great art in the same game (a movie representing this could be Inception), but it is so difficult to pull off (no, Bioshock didn't pull it off and you can cry to the moon and back about why Rapture failed and the themes it portrays, but from the moment that the gameplay is a total disconnect from those themes, it fails as both an art game and probably even a fun game; it may have good moments of both, but if they don't mesh, like Inception did, for instance, then it's just mediocre art, if not mediocre fun) that it's much more efficient to go fully artistic (e.g. in Homefront, instead of making you superpowered, you make the player character extremely weak and shape gameplay around the theme of rebellion, with few but decisive kills, sabotage and a lot of running from enemies while taking ocassional shots back at them; the point of the game is emphasised but the gameplay isn't fun, although it might be well paced, very enjoyable, etc.) or fully fun-focused (God of War, Call of Duty, Halo).

And I would disagree with this. It implies that the only way people have fun is by being violent in some manner, even going so far as to determine the ways in which they have to do that.

If you want to get really technical about it, look up the dictionary definition of the word "fun" and the dictionary definition of the word "compelling" and see what you come up with. One might almost say that you could have more fun (1. something that provides mirth or amusement; 2. enjoyment or playfulness) playing a clever, story-driven game and that a violence-oriented game is more compelling (1. tending to compel; overpowering; 2. having a powerful and irresistible effect).

As for what is art, that can be pretty subjective too. (1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.) Look at the definition. The quality of the game, the production, the expression, what is appealing or more than ordinary significance. A game doesn't necessarily need to have a deep and thought-provoking storyline to be considered art. It can be just the quality itself; how the mechanics are presented, how the game itself flows, any number of things.

So yes, as I said before, I think it's possible to have both in a game and no, I do not think they need to undermine each other if handled correctly.

I think you shouldn't value the word fun so highly. Fun is about enjoyment, but enjoyment covers other things as well. I enjoyed Metro 2033, but I didn't think it was fun. I call such games enjoyable or compelling because they toy with your emotions. Is it really fun to be in a weakened state? No, fun comes from power fantasies, from humour, from light-heartedness and pleasure, from what I can tell. Just because a game isn't fun doesn't mean it's boring, which is an awful stereotype which is used way too often to describe art.

No, art isn't enjoyed by everyone and doesn't have the same definition or quality scale for everyone, although I do think there are some things that can be considered artistic because of their structure (e.g. Citizen Kane). When I say that art comes from the 3 core elements of gaming complementing each other, that's a cry out for better structure and clearer goals. Yeah, you can call Flower good art if you want, but you can't justify it by looking at the structure, as it doesn't play to the strengths of our storytelling medium. I don't disagree that some might find flower to be the best art there is or 2001: A Space Odyssey, because they have themes that can be picked apart through images, but I would suggest that if we're to aim for the improvement of art in games, we should look at structure rather than style and craft our gameplay and presentation around our story and concepts. Games often get presentation right: the visual images of Rapture are a great example of it supporting the story, but games often get the gameplay completely wrong, because they want it to be fun and forget that it doesn't complement the visuals and story and their general idea of the game.

The idea of Rapture was not that some guy went around with guns and plasmids and killed everyone and occassionally rescued creepy girls. It was about a society free of regulation that collapsed due to it embracing extremes that couldn't sustain themselves.

I hope I've explained well enough.

/For The Love Of The Game

 

[joshthor]

the thing is. games shouldnt be fun. they HAVE to be fun. no one is going to sit through a boring 8 hours to finish a boring campaign. fun means different things to different people. it could mean epic story based adventure, or it could be cut as many people in half in 30 seconds. fun is relative, and if you have to say "games should be fun" to try to get your point across about a game you arent appreciating many games genres. i can play through bulletstorm, one of the dumbest, craziest shooters out there, and then switch to limbo, treck through the nothingness and dispair of it (goddamn spider), and then switch to dragon age 2 for an awesome adventure. just have to be open too other genres besides goddamned shooters.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

OK, this reminds me of a debate I saw in another topic where people were arguing one of two points: Some people thought that games should just be mindless fun and shouldn't worry about being all "deep" and "arty". The other side, obviously, was defending the "deep and arty" games.

Now there were two odd things about this argument:
1. That no one seemed to know exactly what "deep and arty" MEANT, and
2. That both sides had seemingly discounted the possiblity of there being both deep/arty AND stupid/fun games available at the same time. Both had decided that one would kill off the other.

And that's what I don't understand. Some people seem to think that if games start trying to convey complex messages and themes, or start trying to use an interactive medium in more creative, less "game"-like ways, then the Halos, CoDs, and "Bulletstorms" of the medium will die out. I don't really see a reason why both can't co-exist. I mean, Black Swan is a pretty damn complex movie, but that won't stop "Sucker Punch" from hitting theaters in a few weeks. If film can encompass such a wide range of ideas, why not the gaming industry?

Oh, the actual topic? Right, I'll get right on that.

When people say "fun", I think they're usually talking about games actually behaving like GAMES. You know, rules, a winner, a loser. No message, no moralizing, just plain, stupid, fun. [footnote]SIDE NOTE: I love games like that.[/footnote]

 

[Xanadu84]

Games have the potential to beat out all other mediums in terms of emotional impact, whether that emotion is sadness, anger, joy, intrigue or fun. Or anything else really. The fact that fun comes from play, and play generally means interacting with a set of mechanics and observing, predicting and manipulating the resulting change means that games most readily create the emotion of fun. Of course we need to define what "Fun" truly is. In a sense, picking apart the plot nuances of Schindlers List is fun, but the subject matter is too serious to comfortably use that word. Still, what you may call fun draws the observer into the work, and creates a more meaningful experience. Games are equally capable of doing this: Go play the game, "Passage", and tell me that you did not experience something profound, and I will call you a shallow soul indeed. Games should be fun, and every fun game that makes people enjoy themselves and have a good time is a blessing. But the fact that we by and large do not ALSO have more serious matters is a travesty that should be corrected.

Why are games more prone to be, "Just fun?" well, because doing more is a hell of a lot easier. Showing countless lives ruined by war in a movie is relatively easy: Just show the tragedy. This is an oversimplification sure, but there are very direct methods for portraying the horror of war. In games, and not just the non-game, cutscene bits added into games, this is a lot harder. You have to create a complex system of rules wherein the choices the player makes while trying to maximize the effectiveness of their strategy naturally lead to the conclusion that war is bad, and mistakes the player made that would lead to war are morally unacceptable. A movie can hit you over the head with a hammer, but a game has to make sure that a complex, massive series of choices naturally force the player to come to a conclusion desirable by the designers vision. The payoff however, is that when a Game gives you a message, you are not being told the message: Your actions make the player decide for themselves, of there own free will, that an artistic vision is true, and that you are the one who caused that vision to exist. Its harder to dismiss somethign that you yourself created in a very personal way. It's a lot easier to just make a complex system for the players to explore, and not worry about the ramifications. Hence, lots of fun games.

 

[Yopaz]

As always when discussing great game I pick my favourite game, Tales of Symphonia. The game got decent story, perhaps a little overused, but there are lots of [changes in the plot, it doesn't stick to one plot for the whole game, because that would wear thin. It got humour where it fits in, the combat is pretty fun once you get used to, though not as fast paced as some might want it to be. It really gives a new angle to what a JRPG can be.

It got parts that will make you laugh, parts that made me a little sad (the sadest part could be avoided so I always did except for once just to see it and have it done). I have spent somewhere around 400 hours on that game, I love it, but I am not sure if fun is the word I'd use, though teaming up with my friends to kill bosses on the highest difficulty level is entertaining at the least. It's the kind of game that made me wish for sequel, made me wish it would never end, and at the same time wish it would end soon just to see the conclusion. It's more than fun.

Saints Row 2 on the other hand got decent story at best, but there I enjoyed it because it was actually fun.

GTA IV went to far and decided that the game should take itself seriously, which I hated. It's a series that has never been serious and that's where the success of the series is. Never played it past the first few missions and I don't feel like picking it up again.

In short, games should be entertaining if not fun, they need to be able to suck you in. Horror games fail to suck me in since I am a wuss so I can't play them for long before I get too scared to continnue. Yet I still enjoy those, I like being scared, I like being challenged, I like to laugh. I do not like to take an annoying, whiny cousin bowling or drinking!!!!!!!

 

[DarthFennec]

Yeah I don't really get this either. I mean I don't think I've ever played a game that was artistic and not fun to play. it seems that most of the less artistic `I shot a *****, all hail!' kinds of games are the ones that are the least fun, compelling, and interesting, but the more artistic ones (Silent Hill, Mass Effect, Okami, etc.) are the ones that are just better. So where do people draw the line between `art games' and `fun games', I just don't get this.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

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'm guessing you're responding to a strawman because I've never heard someone they disliked games that break away from those two formulas.

But anyway, I mostly agree. I hate it when people use the fun excuse in any game or sport. "I don't want to practice, I just wanna have fun" (read: goof around) or "I don't play to win, I play for fun" (read: play horribly.)

 

[SinisterGehe]

My idea of fun is something that demands lot of logical thought and skill, hiding, sneaking and psychological horror. (Amnesia, penumbra...)
Or modable building or exploring. (minecraft)
I also need my weekly dose of grind (World of Warcraft)

I hate pure shooters or other type of killing games. I Just don't see any fun in them.

Basically, I like mental challenges. NO quick time events or other fast phased action. Just something that I can challenge my mind with.

Those are fun in MY OPINION, believe it or not - I can have opinions.

Agreed, games should be fun. But we can't define universal meaning for fun. I like logical and psychological horror games. My brother likes shooters and race games. My oldest brother enjoys JRPGs. We all find games fun. SO can you come to me and point out of these 3 examples, which is the universally fun genre?

 

[Halo Fanboy]

It's the kind of game that made me wish for sequel, made me wish it would never end, and at the same time wish it would end soon just to see the conclusion.

Symphonia has a direct sequal on the Wi. It's also part of a long running series, "Tales of..." So you should probably play those if you want a similar experience.

 

[00slash00]

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?

i agree with you 100%. i compare games to movies. the stupid mindless games designed to just be fun, i compare to like a seth rogan or will ferrel comedy. They have a reason for existing because they are just a way waste time and forget about everything. however, if that was all we had, i would fucking kill myself (...or just stop watching movies). i dont tend to go for those kinds of comedies though. i generally flock to highly emotional drama with a gripping story that will stick with me long after the credits roll, and thats how i approach games. i could play a game like serious sam and completely forget the experience as soon as the game ends, or i could play something like shadow of the colossus or mgs3, and still be thinking about the story today. i consider story to be one of the most important aspects of any game or movie

 

[Caligulove]

I think that, first and foremost, games should be fun to keep you wanting to play the game. Though in a lot of ways, fun can really be a sort of je ne sais quoi since you can't really articulate specifically WHY it's fun when it doesnt usually fit with other things that would be qualified as fun.

Something like AmnesiaD was fun, but when you try to explain the game, it's hard to see how that would be fun to someone who has never played a second of the game. Or even Super Meat Boy, one of the most frustrating games out there is still fun and still interests you in its great art design, humorous style and solid controls.

The flaw in a lot of games that friends will recommend me is that I'm told about their great characters and narratives, but when I sit down and play the game, there isn't enough to interest me or really make me have fun to justify continuing through the game to see this great content. Such was the case with Final Fantasy XIII. Many people talk about how great it is, but when you push them on it- it's usually something like "well, it really gets good around 15-20 hours in"

...I really don't think I'm being impatient when I think that a game like that should hook you and be "good" right from the beginning couple of hours.

 

[LaMer]

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.

I agree with this whole-heartedly. Mass Effect's gameplay was rather generic, but the story and characters sucked the player into the world. Same with Red Dead Redemption. Amnesia messed with my head and scared the hell out of me, but it held my attention and most important, I talked about it for days afterwards.

 

[fealubryne]

I think you shouldn't value the word fun so highly. Fun is about enjoyment, but enjoyment covers other things as well. I enjoyed Metro 2033, but I didn't think it was fun. I call such games enjoyable or compelling because they toy with your emotions. Is it really fun to be in a weakened state? No, fun comes from power fantasies, from humour, from light-heartedness and pleasure, from what I can tell. Just because a game isn't fun doesn't mean it's boring, which is an awful stereotype which is used way too often to describe art.

No, art isn't enjoyed by everyone and doesn't have the same definition or quality scale for everyone, although I do think there are some things that can be considered artistic because of their structure (e.g. Citizen Kane). When I say that art comes from the 3 core elements of gaming complementing each other, that's a cry out for better structure and clearer goals. Yeah, you can call Flower good art if you want, but you can't justify it by looking at the structure, as it doesn't play to the strengths of our storytelling medium. I don't disagree that some might find flower to be the best art there is or 2001: A Space Odyssey, because they have themes that can be picked apart through images, but I would suggest that if we're to aim for the improvement of art in games, we should look at structure rather than style and craft our gameplay and presentation around our story and concepts. Games often get presentation right: the visual images of Rapture are a great example of it supporting the story, but games often get the gameplay completely wrong, because they want it to be fun and forget that it doesn't complement the visuals and story and their general idea of the game.

The idea of Rapture was not that some guy went around with guns and plasmids and killed everyone and occassionally rescued creepy girls. It was about a society free of regulation that collapsed due to it embracing extremes that couldn't sustain themselves.

I hope I've explained well enough.

/For The Love Of The Game

I think the issue lies not so much in that I value the word fun, but that I don't value it as much as other people seem to. Over and over you try to separate the idea of "fun" from the idea of "enjoyment" and I really can't see the difference. Games aside, what do you consider fun? Reading? Watching television? Going to a bar with friends to drink the night away, or spending a quiet evening by yourself? Going by the argument presented by the "fun versus art" discussion, none of this would be fun, it would be enjoyment. Or something to that extent.

You say "No, fun comes from power fantasies, from humour, from light-heartedness and pleasure, from what I can tell." Can one not get humor from a story-driven game? Must it be crude and in passing, while you're blowing peoples' heads up for it to be fun? Can one not get pleasure from a power fantasy that isn't centered around destruction, but instead feeling more intelligent than your opponent?

In the end I guess it comes down to agreeing to disagree. I understand where you're coming from, but at the same time I think this holy grail of "fun" that so many gamers cling to is really an arbitrary argument.