"Games should just be fun."

[mechanixis]

I think my way of putting it is "Schindler's List isn't fun, but that doesn't make it bad."

In fact, in a lot of cases I think an overemphasis on making games "fun" cheapens them. For example, the second Assassin's Creed did a lot of pandering to people who complained about the first one, and the result was that it was very fun, but felt like a diluted Hollywood story. The first game has more of a simulation feel to it - you were an assassin and you had a list of men to kill. And there was something to be said for that.

The Mass Effect games went a similar way. The first game was about hard science fiction and building an interesting universe. The second one was more about shooting things and looking cool. While the second one is undoubtedly more fun, I think the first one is overall the more memorable game.

 

[Jumplion]

I think my way of putting it is "Schindler's List isn't fun, but that doesn't make it bad."

Fuck yeah, bro! I've been saying the same exact thing!

Spoiler: I think this calls for a brofist

 

[cowsvils]

I think my way of putting it is "Schindler's List isn't fun, but that doesn't make it bad."

In fact, in a lot of cases I think an overemphasis on making games "fun" cheapens them. For example, the second Assassin's Creed did a lot of pandering to people who complained about the first one, and the result was that it was very fun, but felt like a diluted Hollywood story. The first game has more of a simulation feel to it - you were an assassin and you had a list of men to kill. And there was something to be said for that.

The Mass Effect games went a similar way. The first game was about hard science fiction and building an interesting universe. The second one was more about shooting things and looking cool. While the second one is undoubtedly more fun, I think the first one is overall the more memorable game.

I don't know if those were necessarily attempts at being more "fun" they seemed to be more attempts at making the experience more streamlined and action oriented. I couldn't stand how you had to slow walk everywhere in the original Assassin's Creed, it was pretty miserable.

That being said, I totally agree with you on Mass Effect 1. I don't see why they couldn't just keep everything great about 1 and throw in the engrossing combat of the second. They seemed to rip out the heart of the game with that sequel.

 

[AngloDoom]

[Snippedy snip]

For the most part I agree with you on your points concerning Bioshock and the way in which some elements of gameplay (such as the shooting) are not there for any particular reason other than a device to overcome obstacles. However, I still believe this is art: just a kind of 'amateur' art. Just as how 'art' has moved out of paintings to other forms, I believe videogames still need to go through this process: games are still locked inside the forms of RTS, FPS, RPG and other such definitions which help to classify them. Bioshock is an FPS because it is of a generation is which this is the best view to get that wonderful narrowed view your character does of the world around it. The shooting element is added because it is a sort of trope within the video-game world for that kind of view, such as how a piece of 'traditional' art was often different subject-matter in paintings, using realistic proportions and outlines. I just believe this is the next step in furthering games toward an 'art', and honest I hope the bastard mid-child kind of game such as Bioshock does hang around: the idea that the 'average' game of the future is a mostly fun-driven, somewhat mindless, experience with added depth appeals to me greatly. Obviously, I still want my trashy games where I make things go 'boom' with buttons, and very-much art-driven games which are rather heavy and explore every recess of humanity, but for the most part mid-ground kids appeal to me greatly.

Also, don't worry about coming across as overbearing. Usually I'd write thousands of words reply, but recently I'm a bit busy: sorry if my reply is rather late and a bit rushed.

 

[Saelune]

Ok, since I might have even been one of the people who set you off, I feel obligated to explain.
Games are supposed to entertain. That is their purpose. It is not an attack on Games as Art, because you can enjoy movies and books too. Fun may not be the best word though, but games are the most interactive media, so fun makes more sense. Yes, horror games can be fun. Fun, when I use it, is more subjective. What people find fun differs. I find roleplaying and depth fun. The biggest thing that makes me say that line you dislike, is when games are given merit SOLELY on appearance. Nice things to look at are...nice, but its not very fun for very long. Just like a person you might date. If a game looks terrible, but you still enjoy the acual playing of it, or the actual story and stuff, thats a GOOD game.

 

[iLikeHippos]

"Games should just be fun." does not comply with the raging nerds I may stumble upon once in a while.

For them, everything must be set within a certain standard, like female characters can only be played by females, only pros can play this game, etc. etc.

The more cooler, less serious gamers would blink twice and wonder what they are implying, and in general won't give a fuck about anyone else's pleasure so long as they can meet their ends. This can often lead to teamkills, low scores and confusion; all traits that make the formerly mentioned nerds rage until they burst an artery.

I am kind of in between, like the cheese on a bacon and lettuce sandwich. (I have no idea if that exists, but I want one!) I make my own pleasure but always try my best to appease others to a certain level.

My point? I want a bacon and lettuce sandwich!

 

[Wintermoot]

with fun people mean entertaining, some games are un-entertaining but considered art (like the graveyard).
Entertaining differs from person to person (some people like deep characters and conflict while others seek escapism).
Comments like these are from people that are afraid that artsy gaming is going to replace fun gaming (in the same way "hardcore" gamers are afraid that casual gaming is going to kill the FPS genre).

 

[ColdBlooded]

I think we should use terms like entertaining, enjoyable, or stimulating. I don't know what people think "fun" is, but a wild action sequence, combined with a sympathetic and dynamic character, a witty line of dialogue, and execution of a strategy in a hard spot is all entertaining. Only one or two of those, to me, are "fun" but ALL of them are entertaining, enjoyable and/or stimulating.

I can enjoy a game on many different levels for different reasons. Red Dead Redemption had great atmosphere (enjoyable because it draws you in), a sympathetic character (enjoyable because you want to see his journey unfold and how he reacts and develops) some nice horseback riding (enjoyable to gallop across the world at 40 km/h) and decent gunplay (enjoyable to shoot virtual people and watch them fall down in their blood).

I can enjoy a tense moment with 2 dramatic characters in a film. I enjoy seeing the thematic elements employed in it, and I enjoy the fight scene that happens in it. We can enjoy many things because they invoke a feeling in us that isn't necessarily the same all the time (laughter, stimulation, titilation, fear, critical thinking, attachment etc... But whatever that feeling is, we enjoy having it, and enjoyment is what entertainment (including games) is all about.

 

[ColdBlooded]

Ignore this post

 

[LikeDustInTheWind]

If a game makes you go "This is awesome!" no matter what made you say it, the story, the artistic-ness, the gameplay, it means it's awesome. End of story.

 

[Vault101]

exactally

and this is why I dont liek Mario, its an example of fun.....but not much else and certainly not enough to spakr my interest

but thats my TASE you know.....its all a matter of TASTE

 

[GraveeKing]

I think when someone designing a game says this, they probably add 'to this audience' which then rounds it up. So scares and thrills in horrors, role-play, strategic control over an army, manly shooting of others.
etc etc. If someone just says 'games should be fun' then yeah I can understand your rant - it needs to be more detailed to make any sense. Otherwise it's like saying "Homosexuals are gay".
Kiiiiiiiiinda obvious!

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I agree. A game should be fun. There are many kinds of fun though. It doesn't have to be stupid arcade fun. So long as I am not bored while playing, good job for the game! I don't think they are mutually exclusive but then again, I don't even know what the hell an "art game" is.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

snip

well, what i, personally, mean by it is that just because we're moving towards straight faced, emotional tales doesn't mean that we should sacrifice the occasional Prototype or God of War or Bulletstorm.

For a game to be a game, it needs to focus on being fun FIRST, then all else should be focused on. Because you can have the greatest story ever written with beautiful visuals and heart-stopping moments of intensity coupled with tear-jerking moments of sincerity, but for it to be a GOOD game it needs to tie that in seamlessly with the gameplay.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I realize that cross-media parallels don't have much meaning in these kinds of debates, but let's roll with it.

1) All games are art, just like all films are art. There can be stupid art and lowbrow art and art whose only purpose is to laugh at farts, but that doesn't stop it being art. It's a cultural product which stimulates the senses or emotions, therefore it's art.
2) All art is meant to be enjoyed on some level. Even deliberately counter-cinematic movies and deliberately dense alternative films are meant to be enjoyed. Enjoyment doesn't have to be limited to being excited or comforted or made happy.

So no. It's not about art vs. fun. It's about a cultural conflict between people who feel that all games should restrict themselves to being lowbrow entertainment, i.e. that they should be uncomplicated, unchallenging, exciting, accessible and fast-paced versus the idea that video games should incorporate a greater diversity of experiences and above all shouldn't be afraid to be highbrow, pretentious, complicated or try to 'push the boundaries'.

And really.. I don't see the conflict. Sure, it's a bit annoying that the AAA industry seems to be so mindless right now, but at the same time we live in an age where it's becoming easier and easier for small developers with big ideas to distribute games, and that's only going to get better. So yeah, we already have our Hollywood, we're just developing our arthouse right now.

Why fight over something as trivial as personal taste in time-wasters?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Videogames should be fun for the same reasons that board games, card games, tabletop games, and sports should be fun; by definition, that's what they're for. People keep comparing them to books and movies, but they're a completely separate medium, one that excels at making games, not telling stories. Expecting a game to be like a movie is like expecting a painting to have the character development of a book; it's completely barking up the wrong tree.

All of this reminds me of an article I read years ago about becoming a game designer. The main piece of advice was that, if you want to break into the industry, you should be able to take a standard deck of playing cards and come up with a new form of solitaire. If you can't do that, no amount of story hooks or character designs will make you a good game designer. While it may have been somewhat hyperbolic, it gets to the heart of what game design is -- designing a game, not a painting, a book, or a movie. It's a lesson that we as gamers should take to heart, lest we go back to the days of mid 90's style FMV games. Anybody remember that horrible attempt at making games more like movies?

 

[Grunt_Man11]

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

This right here.

Being entertaining, or fun, should be a priority with games, movies, and such. Why?

Let's look at all these "great works of literature" that "explore the human condition" which many of us had to read in high school. Now, be honest here. Who here actually remembers any of these pieces fondly?

I'll be honest here. I had to read "The Grapes of Wraith" in high school. I found it to be unimpressive tripe. Why? Because it was boring!
Face it people, if a person is bored then they don't care. That's a fact.

How valuable is a message on the human condition in a book, movie, or game that hardly anyone can get interested in? Answer: None, it's worthless.

An unheard message is meaningless, and trying to plop people down and force them to listen to it will only earn their ire.

If you want to make a thought-provoking story about the human condition that's fine, but if you fail to make it entertaining then I don't want to hear you whine when I fail to care about it.

"Art is not enough."
Unless they want their "work of art" to nothing more than high school curriculum forced on students who will forget it ever existed the first chance they get, instead of truly appreciate it, then the artists of the world need to understand this.

 

[ckam]

Things can be fun and be art, too... Yeah.