"Games should just be fun."

[DazBurger]

Women wants to be with him.
Men... Also wants to be with him... Its not gay if its Sean Connery!

 

[BioHazardMan]

There are a wide variety of games, books, music and movies. They should do whatever the creator's intend their ideas to do, whether that is to be reflective, scary, sad, or just fun.

 

[Astalano]

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.

My point mainly refers to the idea that pleasant feelings=fun, while games that force you into uncomfortable territory cannot be classified as fun because it's not pleasurable, even though you may find the experience fulfilling in a different way.

 

[The Lunatic]

I think, like Movies, Games should be an experience.

Not all movies are "Fun" but, that doesn't make them bad movies.

Schindler's List, isn't a "Fun" movie, nobody watches it and has the same experience as if they were watching a comedy.

I don't think games should be subject to the same.

 

[VanityGirl]

Video game should be fun... if you're hating it, then what's the point? Or if you aren't at least getting a gratifying feeling while playing it, then I dare say it's no fun at all.

 

[fealubryne]

My point mainly refers to the idea that pleasant feelings=fun, while games that force you into uncomfortable territory cannot be classified as fun because it's not pleasurable, even though you may find the experience fulfilling in a different way.

Okay, that I can completely get behind. I guess my issue with the argument is that it's still subjective. There are people who would get a lot of pleasure from exploring a deep, immersive storyline and don't find it uncomfortable at all. They might, in fact, find the idea of being forced into splattering heads across a wall pretty uncomfortable. It really comes down to the person, and their preferences. The game industry is just that, an industry, and therefore must to some extent cater to the masses - and the masses prefer their mindless killing games. I don't think that means that there isn't room for other people, though.

 

[Sporky111]

Games are for entertainment. Entertainment does not equal fun.

Movies aren't expected to be fun all the time. Yeah, they're entertaining, but they don't have to be fast and action-filled and full of laughs. The same applies to games. Different genres appeal to different audiences, and everyone should stop trying to tell others what they should and shouldn't enjoy in a game and what they should and shouldn't want from a game.

 

[Zhukov]

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.

Yes, it is essentially a strawman.

However, I have heard people make these kinds of arguments. I've had people dismiss Amnesia because the game never gives you a weapon. I've had people dismiss Bioshock as a boring corridor fest. I've had people dismiss Bioware's games as "nothing but talking".

Yes, there is some validity to those complaints. Bioshock's gunplay was lacking. Mass Effect was a bit too heavy on dialogue. Thing is, Amnesia isn't about headshots. Bioshock isn't about the shooting. Bioware games would be much worse without the dialogue.

Don't get me wrong. Some games can be about blowing heads off. Take Bulletstorm for example. I enjoyed the hell out of that game. But when people start bashing those games that aren't about headshot because they aren't about headshots... well, it gets under my skin.

 

[DarthFennec]

If the game isn't fun to play, then it doesnt matter how good the characters, story, or graphics are, because you won't be able to enjoy it.

I see what you're going at, but I think you're wrong. For example, Silent Hill 4 has really shitty gameplay, but the story, atmosphere (graphic design mostly), and characters (well ... character, singular, since Walter was the only interesting one with any depth at all) all make up for it, and in the end it's a very very fun game to play. So yes, I can have fun without good gameplay. Why? Because it's artistic. It wasn't haphazardly patched together to be thrown out as shelfware, it was designed with intention and thought.

What you don't understand is that `fun' and `art' are not two separable things. Games are already an artform whether you want them to be or not, and the arguments about whether games are art are simply asking whether we should make this common knowledge or not (as it is with movies etc). Sure, some games can be fun without being artistically designed, and that's fine, but most of the time it doesn't work that way.

Most games require thought and intention, intimate understanding of the message and the target audience, and critical design of the characters, plot, atmosphere, gameplay, etc, in order to be fun games, and any games that don't have these things (ie, games that aren't as artistic) usually depend on luck and random chance to be fun to play (so, that we happened to have the right group of designers with the right ideas at the right times, or that it just happened to appeal to an audience that happened to play it, or that it was a ripoff of an artistic game and it just happened to become more popular for some reason, etc). But almost all `non-artistic' games are absolutely horrid games that I'm willing to bet nobody here has ever heard of, unless it was just so bad that it's got around (eg Superman 64).

 

[higgs20]

I think the idea behind the whole thing is that the gameplay mechanics of many games that are story central or artistic are severely lacking, there are of course exceptions, I love a game with a decent story, interesting moral conundrums and/or crazy visuals (or whatever makes a game art for you).

But at the same time good fluid, involving and 'fun' gameplay are equally if not more important in this medium.

In short, I'm all for 'games as art' as long as games are still games too.

 

[Astalano]

They might, in fact, find the idea of being forced into splattering heads across a wall pretty uncomfortable.

If it's in a Red Orchestra sense, they might find it uncomfortable because RO is all about a realistic multiplayer struggle depicting the horrors of WW2 on the Eastern Front. If you get shot in the head, it really is quite realistic and disturbing and it's not over the top.

If it's in a Bulletstorm or Call of Duty sense, then there is no weight to the shooting and killing and thus, you can't get emotionally involved in it unless they evoke images that are as far removed from the games as possible.

 

[StriderShinryu]

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?

This is the issue I personally have with most of the "games are for fun" crowd. Not referring to the quoted poster, but to the idea that the gaming market and gaming audience are big enough for all types of games. Just look at how much buzz games like Duke Nukem Forever, Bulletstorm, etc. are getting.. and they're getting it from all sources.

Most on the "games can be art" side seem more than willing to accept that not all games need to be deep meaningful experiences. Far too many of the "games are for fun" crowd, however, seem to be of the belief that a rise in games that are deep meaningful experiences somehow means that games made strictly for fun will disappear. Not only is this a rather stupid premise, but it also doesn't match reality. The last couple years had some of the most acclaimed "art" games ever released and this year we're already seeing, as I stated earlier, not more "art" games but an actual resurgence of games that are strictly in the fun category.

 

[Netrigan]

I'm suddenly reminded of Martin Prince playing the "My Dinner With Andre" video game on The Simpsons, eagerly pressing the "tell me more" button.

And Bart is playing the latest ultra-violent video game nearby.

 

[SpiderHam666]

I think that yes games should be fun. Or at least enjoyable to play. It would have to be a game showing me enjoyment in some way that is valid. If the story is compelling and exciting then no the game itself does not necessarily have to be "fun" because it has something else going for it. If the game can't give me that kind of story then it MUST make up for it with fun gameplay.

 

[Yopaz]

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.

It's so delightful when someone's heard about the Tales series, makes me happy since msot of those I talk to (except real life friends) have never heard of it. I love the series, and the spinoff on the Wii, sadly since I'm European we miss even more releases than USA does... which is saying a lot. Tales of Vesperia and Dawn of The New World gave a much betetr multiplayer experience, and the pokemon element in Dawn of the New World (couldn't catch them all though) was a delighftul feature, but Symphonia was what started me off, and the one I will remember with the most joy, partially because it opened the whole series to me.

Thanks for the advice in any case, nice of you to inform me .

 

[lacktheknack]

I don't care if my game is "fun" so long as I'm ENJOYING my time with it.

This is why I love "The Path".

 

[lacktheknack]

If the game isn't fun to play, then it doesnt matter how good the characters, story, or graphics are, because you won't be able to enjoy it.

This is not true. How did I enjoy "The Path", then?

 

[Silent Biohazard Solid]

Games SHOULD be fun. And you know what else? Heavy Rain, Uncharted, Mass Effect... Those are FUN games.
Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. Since when does a good storyline, graphics and character development take away from a game being fun?