Is Fun still relevant to gaming?

[werepossum]

Personally I don't care about games being new and innovative. I want graphics that are as realistic as possible while scaling well across a variety of hardware, AI that's as immersive as possible, and FUN! I'd happily play another two dozen WWII shooters (especially Call Of Duty) as long as they are fun and have well-designed levels. I stopped playing GRAW when I realized that herding and preserving my braindead team members was more stress than fun, even though the game itself was an innovative shooter. The same with the Brothers in Arms series - I don't know WHY I even bought the second one, since I'd certainly had my fill of waving crosshairs and moving as though I were in a walker. (Note to developers: If my character is a soldier, then he or she should be a better shot and move faster than I.) To me, poor AI is much more of a fun killer than poor graphics or even poor level design.

That being said, I certainly prefer fun to realism; I really only want the illusion of realism, consistently maintained. Most combat soldiers go for long periods without killing anyone, and many are not certain if they've ever killed. Almost everyone who takes a single bullet is out of the battle. Preferably a developer can create the illusion of realism in a way that's fun, and when one has to be sacrificed, it should be realism.

 

[stevesan]

if you want fun, reject the mainstream games industry. start here:

www.kongregate.com
www.manifestogames.com
www.gametunnel.com

 

[shadow skill]

I don't know if you realize this Cheeze but in the four or five hundred years since men have used what we would recognize as guns the basic technology has not changed all that much. Rifling by itself was a rather simple, subtle and yet immensely important evolutionary step for the firearms as it increased the accuracy of rounds fired. As we started to make guns that could fire more and do so more accurately we stopped marching at each other in straight lines and shooting each other in the face amd started engaging each other at increasing distances. As the weapons evolved we stopped using trench warfare tactics in the WWI sense.

The combat systems in God Of War, Ninja Gaiden, and Devil May Cry are almost totally different because of subtleties not some major shift. This is what is missing from even the best FPS' of the last couple of years.


I'm really hoping that Killzone 2 is a smash hit, just because of the cover mechanic being employed by the game. I felt that as good as COD 4 was it was a bit stale compared to games like GRAW and RSV because there was no cover mechanic. If reviewers really did care about "innovation" shooters for the most part would not still be stuck with a genre that has not changed in any real way since Doom came on the scene all those years ago.

This is a great discussion, gives me something to do while letting my laptop cool down from playing The Witcher.

 

[Lightbulb]

I've been reading some reveiws and preveiws for games I'm interested in buying but everyone seems more interested in Graphics, controls, Multiplayer, AI, realism and what-not then if the game is any fun to play.

Why isn't teh fun factor considered an important part of a game?

Have we become a society where watching realsitic paint drying is considered entertainment?

Define 'fun'. Did you like STALKER? I thought it was the BEST game out last year. Others can't stand the first 20 minutes and gave up in disgust.

If i had reviewed the game i would have been talking about how much fun it was all the time. People would have bought it and hated it. Was my review good?

A review should do 3 things:

1) What is the basic idea of the game?
2) What makes it different or good?
3) What are the graphics/animations/sound/atmosphere of the game like?
[4) How does the game run on a variety of system (PC only and i wish more reviews did this)]

The first 2 should let you know if you might be interested in the game. The next step for me is always to play a demo - no demo no game for me.

Its all very well asking someone to say if a game is fun but different people have different tastes so its not really worth doing. Just discuss things objectively and let people make up their own minds.

 

[ScottyGEE]

I still find gaming really quite fun. Its satisfying to do the things that gaming allows. the arguments against singleplayer being ignored in favour of MP in ways is true...It is happening.
It is unfortunate really in some sense, because when I'm alone, I really do enjoy a good interactive story (something books, movies cannot do).

But "fun", if we were to measure it by me actually smiling with joy (when was the last time you did that?) doesn't really happen in single player experiences any more. at least with me. Let's put it this way, this generation, only 3 games have managed to make me smile in single player, Halo 3 (you might question how, but shut it), mass effect (some of the humour and the actions are fantastic) and dead rising...And a key note here is dead rising is quite an old game. so there has been a significant gap there. Other games are fun and satisfying but not smile worthy.

Multiplayer however is another story, especially with my friends in the same room (online play is not even close). As said before, if fun was to be measured by me smiling then, guitar hero, singstar, halo, wii sports, mario galaxy (and soon to be rock band when it COMES OUT IN AUSTRLAIA >=() would be considered the most fun games ever because with friends those experiences are very good.

So fun really is relevant to gaming to me. However, it really happens in multiplayer than in single player, so the technical revolutions that are generally featured there in this generation don't really affect me that much...


Ohshi, graphics...They do matter in terms of immersion as its been said before. But they really don't matter to me (see: Halo 3/guitar hero/mario galaxy)

 

[Archaeology Hat]

It is difficult to qualify what exactly is "fun", different people have very differing opinions of "fun". However it is very much something that is relevant to videogames. The majority of people who buy and play games enjoy them otherwise they wouldn't. I for one can't play a game I don't find fun for very long.

 

[Trx Stamp]

I think fun is still relevant, but I think there is more than just mindless fun. I for one am a sucker for good story, dialog, voice acting, humor, and artistic direction in games. To the point that I can let a lot of gameplay issues go for it. Psychonauts towards the end almost had me smashing my controller with a hammer, and at that point was not fun. But, I wanted to see the end of the story. Dreamfall basically didn't have any gameplay (walk down a hall, push a button, and trigger a 20 minute cutscene), but it had a great story, dialog, and voice acting.

For mindless fun I love run and gun shooters. I just finished COD4 single player, and its about as mindless and arcady as you can get.

I also love hardcore racing sims. I've been playing GTR2 recently. There are plenty of times that it feels more frustrating than fun, but I feel a sense of accomplishment when I pull something off.

So, I guess I'd say fun still matters, but so do other things.

 

[edinflames]

Fun is an entirely subjective experience.

However, beyond being pedantic, I agree with the principle argument of this thread that computer games today are not made with purely 'fun' in mind. Case in point: MOH:Airbourne. This game is not an enjoyable experience, it is a classic example of how EA Games conspire to lower the standards of the industry as a whole.

My personal favorite example of non-fun, however, would be GTA:SA, I actually detest this game, I found it tedious and mindlessly repetitive. The parts which were fun were the missions where I was performing something NEW (ie not a rehash of something in GTA:VC - so basically, the skydive bit). And who's dumbass idea was it to introduce eating, excersise and character fitness? I did not play this game so I could be repeatedly encouraged to lift weights by button bashing or get a haircut. That is NOT fun.

That said, since fun is a purely subjective experience, many of you will completely disagree with my examples.

 

[Swenglish]

Fun to me, is not decided how realistic a game is. I play games to get away from realism, which is why I'd like to bring up Viewtiful Joe.

For those of you who don't know what I am talking about, Viewtiful Joe was a game produced and by Capcom and released on the Gamecube a few years ago. The story is simple; While Joe and his girlfriend Silvia are watching a tokusatsu drama during a date, Silvia is kidnapped by the movie's antagonist and taken into the world of the movies: Movieland. Joe is able to follow Silvia after being picked up and taken into Movieland by the robot Six Majin. Inside the movie, Joe must rescue Silvia from the evil Jadow, the game's organization of villains. To help him, Captain Blue entrusts him with a V-Watch, telling Joe to transform into a superhero upon saying "Henshin" (Japanese for 'Transformation'), but Joe made it into his personal catchphrase, "Henshin-a-go-go, baby!"

As for the gameplay, it was a 2-d cel-shade beat em-up action platforming game with some cool game mechanics, you could slow things down, speed things up or zoom in which affected the enemies and enviroment around you.

Viewtoful Joe was great fun becuase of the overall inpression the game gave you. It had simple controls, good yet not great graphics, and funny voice acting. It was this unexplainable feeling you felt when you smashed through hordes of enemies without getting tired of it because the game rewarded you with big flashing numbers and voices screaming "Yeah!" and "Awesome!"

Then again it is harrd to explain what "Fun" really is. Depends what you like I suppose. But those of you who have plaýed Viewtiful Joe can agree with me.

 

[alexhayter86]

The reason reviews don't mention Fun is that it's difficult to qualify why something is fun, and whether things are fun or not is a highly subjective thing.

If you're making the point that games reviewers/previewers don't focus enough on critiquing games, I'd have to agree.

Reviews aren't criticism though, they're a review. A reccomendation on whether a product is worth purchasing or not. Critiques are something that come later, after the product has entered public knowledge and the audience has experience of the product which forms a frame of reference for understanding the critique.

Reviews should be descriptive, giving the audience enough information to decide whether the product is worth their money.

To return to my earlier post. While I agree with your first sentance, I simply can't see how a decent review can't be a critique of a game. Critique meaning "to review or analyze critically." The only way I know if a product is worth my money is if the reviewer offers their critical opinion: I expect to be told what parts of the game they enjoy, what parts are lacking, as well as the significance of the game's features in a wider context. If the review is entirely descriptive, I'll have no idea if its good enough to spend 60 bucks on.

Sure, more indepth analysis can come later, but there's no reason why some can't be there in the beginning.

So I do expect to be told if a game is 'fun', in the sense that the reviewer can only offer me their subjective opinion of the 'fun' elements and then its up to me to see if I agree. But there's more to games than just pure 'fun': there are more emotions. Like any art form, games lead us to feel many emotions, some of which aren't 'fun' at all, but are certainly captivating.

*COD 4 SPOILERS*


The end of Call of Duty 4: where Griggs, Gaz and Price all get shot right in front of you while you lie helpless on the ground. That's not 'fun'. Alot of the game is quite shocking. In the same way that watching Schlinder's List isn't really 'fun', games can appeal to many emotions, including sadness and despair.

I look forward to the day that we can stop quantifying games as 'fun', 'good-looking', etc, and can review them in a similiar way to how we look at other art forms.

I guess that the topic of 'fun' in gaming allows for a broad discussion both because there is more than just 'fun' to games and because different people have 'fun' in different ways.

 

[Sylocat]

I don't mean to be rude, but this sounds like you're just still sore about the fact that not everyone adores Halo. For the umpteenth time, it's not a bad game, and I would probably like it if it weren't so lionized.

I stand by my point about graphics. People are pouring so much money into graphics and multiplayer that they forget about everything else.

No worries--I didn't take it as being rude. See, I never said everyone should adore Halo. I just said that it doesn't mean one has no taste if one does adore the game. Big difference, right? If you thought I was saying the former, I see why I had trouble getting through to you. You just had me shoehorned into a position I was never advocating.

Again, sorry. I misunderstood.

To follow up with something relevant to this thread: so what if people pour money into graphics and multiplayer? What if those two things are what makes a game 'fun' for someone? What if someone's idea of fun is running around in a really good looking graphical space? Or like Condorbeta brought up, your idea of fun is playing against other people? Why do we talk as if a game that emphasizes graphics is somehow a game of less quality? Why can't we be open to the idea that people have different tastes, that they might want different things out of different games?

The issue isn't that graphics are too good, nor that game designers are putting too much effort into graphics. The problem is that game developers are putting so much time into graphics AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERYTHING ELSE. Yes, different strokes for different folks, I realize that. If a given gamer is willing to play a game with lousy gameplay and a crappy story just because it LOOKS prettier than a game with a really good story and fascinating gameplay, they are perfectly entitled to their opinion, but I think it can be objectively stated that their gaming priorities are skewed. If all you want is pretty graphics with no gameplay, watch a movie instead of playing a game.

Personally, *I* think what is hurting game development is the need for every non-budget title to be 'new and innovative'. Game critics seem to want every title to be a gaming revolution. And so all we get are AAA titles as publishers pour all their money into making each game 'revolutionary'. What I think we're really missing are those mid-level games that don't really break any new ground but are just fun refinements of what has come before, because like the OP asked, 'where's the discussion of how *fun* a game is in a review?'

See, I think the problem is the opposite. I think the problem is that A-list game companies are no longer willing to try anything new. And no, I don't think that every game MUST be a "revolution," but name one difference, other than graphics, between the FPS's of 1997 and the FPS's of today. A game that is a "fun refinement of things that have come before" can be fun, I'm aware of that, but why should I buy a game that, for all practical purposes, I already own?

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

And no, I don't think that every game MUST be a "revolution," but name one difference, other than graphics, between the FPS's of 1997 and the FPS's of today.

Destructible environments.

 

[Fire Daemon]

Wow, A lot of interesting points have been made.

It seems a lot of people on this forum are "games are art Hippies"

 

[Jagdedge]

Wow, A lot of interesting points have been made.

It seems a lot of people on this forum are "games are art Hippies"

Because people who are unemployed, believe in free love, and in preserving the environment, are the same as people who believe video games are art.

 

[Sylocat]

But we don't just criticize a good looking game for "lousy gameplay and a crappy story"; we also criticize good looking games for decent gameplay and an okay story. I don't think anyone's priority is for a good looking game with lousy controls and a story with plot holes you could drive a truck through; however, I think there *are* people who if given a choice between making either gameplay, graphics, or story will pick graphics first.

You also said: "If all you want is pretty graphics with no gameplay, watch a movie instead of playing a game."

Would you be as quick to criticize someone who only plays RPGS--and plays plenty of terrible ones from a gameplay and graphics standpoint--because they love story? Would you tell someone like that they should 'read a book instead of playing a game?' In other words, why do you put 'story'--something associated with a book--right along side 'gameplay', but treat 'graphics' like it's an inferior preference?

Because, as pretentious as this may sound, I think that placing how something looks as a priority above what it's actually like under the glossy surface is a sign of an inherent shallowness in a person.

You also said: "See, I think the problem is the opposite. I think the problem is that A-list game companies are no longer willing to try anything new. And no, I don't think that every game MUST be a "revolution," but name one difference, other than graphics, between the FPS's of 1997 and the FPS's of today. A game that is a "fun refinement of things that have come before" can be fun, I'm aware of that, but why should I buy a game that, for all practical purposes, I already own?"

Like I've been saying to shadow skill, I don't think FPSes are a good example because I think there's only so much innovation possible in that genre. Just like I don't think we're going to see any huge innovations in Car Combat games anytime soon. It's just the nature of those games: we've had enough time to explore all the differences.

Now, why should you buy a game that for all practical purposes you already own? Because maybe you prefer the story in one FPS to another. Maybe you prefer the setting. Maybe you prefer the weapons. Maybe you prefer all the kinds of things that make one person prefer one novel to another.

Um, but 99% of all FPS's these days have either no story at all or stories that are indistinguishable from one another, the exact same settings, and mostly the exact same weapons, except of course for the "futuristic" ones that look and sound like they were manufactured by Mattel.

We just have to face facts: videogames are starting to mature. There's only so much unexplored territory left in some directions. We were all lucky enough to live through a period of a new art/entertainment form comparable to early Greek drama where playwriters were doing revolutionary things like pulling actors out of the chorus, or having them speak their lines instead of singing them. We have to acknowledge that doing something different with an FPS in 1997 was a hell of a lot easier than doing something different with an FPS in 2007, and stop blaming things like graphics when it's just the nature of human cultural progress.

The problem is, as these forms "mature," the bigwigs in charge start doing more and more market research and place more emphasis on backing "sure things" than on making games that are actually fun to play. The huge, A-list gaming companies have simply lost sight of what makes their art form versatile. All games MUST fit into neat and tidy little cardboard boxes, otherwise they MIGHT not sell, and nobody will spend millions making a game that MIGHT not be a surefire hit. This is the same problem that is facing Hollywood right now.

 

[Sylocat]

Wow, A lot of interesting points have been made.

It seems a lot of people on this forum are "games are art Hippies"

Because people who are unemployed, believe in free love, and in preserving the environment, are the same as people who believe video games are art.

Um... as opposed to...?