Is Fun still relevant to gaming?

[Fire Daemon]

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?

 

[alexhayter86]

Depends what reviews and previews you're reading. Most of the ones I read focus on the whole package.

Sure, modern next-gen games such as Mass Effect, the Orange Box, Gears of War, Halo 3, Call of Duty 4 and Crysis have amazing (and at times realistic) graphics, intuitive controls, wonderful sound and intelligent AI. These features form a cohesive package which is fun because it is immersive; you, the player, find yourself more connected to the game because of it.

Hell, I can play Rocketman on facebook for 20 minutes and have 'fun', but it's not a particularily immersive experience.

I think that graphics, AI, etc, get alot of mention in the press precisely because they do factor in to the 'fun factor' of a game. 'Gameplay' itself is most important, of course, but that's a very vague term. What we 'play' in the 'game' is what we actively experience in it, and I'd argue that we experience real immersion with the help of great graphics, sound, AI, and so on. The aesthetics of a game - how we perceive the game - is our most significant connection to the game itself.

The latter features aren't just found in next-gen games though: throw on Mario 64 and the graphics, controls and sound are work together to provide a more immersive experience, and therefore help make the game fun.

If you're making the point that games reviewers/previewers don't focus enough on critiquing games, I'd have to agree. Far too many articles I read are simply descriptive, explanatory pieces: e.g. "You can get Mario to do spin attacks by shaking the wii-remote" instead of "Shaking the wii remote to spin Mario is an [ingenuis/strange] decision because [insert critique here]".

 

[Kermi]

For games that aren't particularly story heavy (i.e.: party games, fighting games, racing games) they need to be fun. I don't expect immersion, I don't expect to be amazed, but a smooth control system and pretty visuals will satisfy me for a short time. There's really no reason for me to spend 50 hours playing Dead or Alive 4 or unlocking every single costume variant, not even for a higher gamerscore.

For games that are built around a story (i.e.: most FPS/3PS games these days, RPGs, etc) I'm willing to be very forgiving on the 'fun' aspects of the game. No, I won't push my way through an endless grind or a boring game design just to get to the end and find out that my character's existence is the slowly fading dream of a dead civilization, created for the sole purpose of saving the world. But if the story is compelling and the game mechanics are satisfactory, I am willing to forget plain old fun for the chance to engage myself in an interesting narrative for a few hours.
For instance, Mass Effect is not what I would call fun. But it was a fantastic example of space opera with many positive qualities that well outweighed a few technical limitations, so I thoroughly enjoyed myself.

To answer your original question, fun is still relevant, but so are many other factors. Different people like different games. On top of that, individuals like variety. A list of my favourite games covers pretty much every genre out there - the games are hardly equal, but I don't base my enjoyment of a game solely on how much fun I have playing it. Nor do I discount it because it's a two-dimensional run and jump platformer where my main objective is to stomp on turtles for five minutes and be told over and over that the princess is in another castle.

 

[GloatingSwine]

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.

 

[Sylocat]

Fun is no longer a factor because game developers are so busy trying to outdo each other in terms of who can make the prettiest graphics that they forget to put fun in the game.

And since it's incredibly costly to make a game with such allegedly-photorealistic graphics, they won't greenlight any games that aren't sure to make a profit, so they stop funding any new or innovative game ideas and start making more and more repetitive FPS games with the same old stories, because that's a formula that is so popular that they know it'll always sell.

The game industry is entering the dark phase that the movie industry is stuck in, namely that people are so focused on making money that they forget to make something actually good.

 

[RentCavalier]

I've long been saying this, so far as to send a letter to EGM about it (which won Letter of the Month, but I have yet to see the letter in print. 0_0?) The case in point is that, while the industry is sinking in that direction, it is not there YET.

YET.

There's hope. The recent scaling down of E3 is a big step forward out of the tawdry sludge that is the superficial, big-titted bling bling game. The innovative games that pop up on XBL, made by developers in their bedrooms (read the story in this month's EGM on that) and, of course, the Wii, which is the champion of casual gaming and also dick jokes.

There's still hope, and I think this recent batch of consoles is going to be the final swan song for this current era of gaming. Beyond this, everything is going to change.

For good, or for bad, well...that's still to be seen.

 

[Condorbeta]

I 'spose that people wouldn't play the "graphics heavy" "amazing controls" games if they weren't fun.

Multiplayer would have a big say in this as well. Sticking someone in Halo 3 or sniping someone in COD4 gives you a great deal of satisfaction (thus it is surely fun). Singleplayer has a good say in it as well, though it depends on the game. Something intuitive like Bioshock.

That said, it does all come down to the bottom line. Most people wouldn't buy these games if they didn't have fun with them. It's what's kept games like Counter Strike alive to this day.

 

[shadow skill]

I like to read, so I think that games that can create some sort of emotional response are more fun than others. That's why a game with not so great gameplay can still be relatively fun and worth playing in the end. (Mass Effect and The Darkness come to mind.) I also think that developers and publishers don't have the courage to say "Fuck you." when it comes to creating something with substance. Look at all these games with shitty multiplayer or single player modes, or these games that live in mortal fear of any kind of exposition. I'm tired of seeing the co-opted gaming press constantly trying to bring down a game because it lacks multiplayer, or has "little replay value." I read a review for Ratchet and Clank Future where the person actually oomplained that the game had no multiplayer...Something that had no effect on the game at all NONE!

It's this kind of bull that has lead to the poisoning of the game market with all these multiplayer first games that don't bring anything new to the table at all bar a few notable exceptions. I remember reading somewhere that Itagaki told someone to shut up when they asked him about multiplayer for NG2. If that is true I would have to say thank you to Itagaki. Do people think about how the game would even work online when they ask for things like this? Reviewers can talk about fun up to a certain point because game mechanics can actually affect how much fun a player has doing something in a game. But I do not want to see them talk about "replay value" since that is even more subjective than whether or not a game can be fun or not.

Making games with substance is what has ceased to matter not fun.

 

[PurpleRain]

What may be fun to some person may not be fun to another. Also, what is to say that something can be fun, but also hard/annoying/tedious. I found Stuntman Ignition fun, but at times it was a royal pain in the arse! Fun is fun... but you also have to ad replay and difficulty into that mix to keep people playing.

 

[Sylocat]

I remember reading somewhere that Itagaki told someone to shut up when they asked him about multiplayer for NG2.

Wow, Itagaki is better than I thought.

Let me play devil's advocate: because all people care about is how 'new' or 'innovative' a game is. People don't care if a game is a lot of fun because it perfects--or even just does a good job with--what has come before.

Call it a 'Red Queen Hypothesis' for gaming if you will: people think they have to justify their conclusion that a game is 'fun' on the basis of objectively demonstrable criteria that cannot be found in any other game/isn't done as well in any other game. The easiest way to do that is to talk about the "Graphics, controls, Multiplayer, AI, realism" and such, and point to something new or innovative. So they ignore talking about whether the game is fun or not, because they're convinced that something can't be 'fun' if it's not 'new' or 'innovative'. It's this fundamental mistake about games that drives reviewers to think that if a game is fun, it must be because of something in the game that's r-evolutionary in the game, and not just that the game does a good job keeping pace with what's out there already.

So that's why the focus is on "Graphics, controls, Multiplayer, AI, realism and what-not": reviewers think that if a game is 'fun' it's because there must have been some kind of innovation in those things.

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.

 

[shadow skill]

Has anyone else noticed that the three greatest hack and slash franchises of the last five or so years manage to play differently from each other? Can anyone say that God of War, Ninja Gaiden, and Devil May Cry are not aspects of the grand truth of the genre? Can the same be said of shooters? After ten years the gameplay hasn't changed at all save a few notable exceptions. Anyone who has played Doom already knows how to play virtually all of the games that have come after it! Even simple things like changing the gun types never seem to happen, the parameters of all of the guns seem to be exactly the same as the ones in Doom. Yet you keep seeing FPS' that get high scores all over the place, the o-opted gaming press doesn't seem to notice that between just about any two games in the genre the mechanics and weapons are all the same, and all function on the same principles. In the above three franchises I mentioned bladed weapons are used however all three manage to not play like any of the other games. Playing any one of them does not automatically grant you precognition on how the other games work, you actually have to learn how to play each one the same can't really be said for most fps'. So I don't think the argument with respect to innovation that you make Cheeze_Pavillion holds water.

 

[cattypat]

I think the main problem with games is that they are a constantly developing medium, and those who don't keep up these days, are left behind and as a result could care less about modern games.

The Wii proves this, that both old school gamers and those who've never touched a game in their life really don't care about more sophisticated games, just give them a room with friends, a tv and basic control instructions, along with the instinctive games, and you have entertainment. Trawling the net for patches, guides or even oponents, all forced necessities in modern games, brings the idea of work rather than a passion.

To sum it up, the fun is still there, just people get it in different places

 

[Deeeder]

I will have to agree with alot of the people on this thread that gaming is not about fun anymore. And basically games are all about graphics now and even if they arent they have the same old story line as every other FPS or RPG has. Look at the trilogy of halo. Halo 1 had some good graphics for its time and then halo2 came out and topped halo 1 and added some new weapons and everyone loved it even though it was repetitive and the story is still the same about all the rings and blah blah blah. Halo 3 just fancied up all the graphics makeing the game very bright. But despite all the hype there are other games that top halo graphics and gameplay department its just that most people are mindless zombies towards games because " if you dont like this game your a FAG" is what most people get pressured into and forcing them to like it. Gaming still can be fun i just wish they would come out with a game that didnt have soo many flaws you could find in the first 2 hours of playing.

 

[shadow skill]

There is a major difference between a shotgun that you have to load each individual shell, and manually pump and a shotgun that is fed by a clip or a drum and is semi or even fully automatic. There is a major difference between carrying an assault rifle and a separate shotgun, and carrying a weapon that combines both. (Under barrel shotgun attachment for M4a1 Assault rifle anyone?) The basic attack parameters in so far as point and shoot stay the same but the tactics change because of idiosyncrasies the of the weapons in question.

Let me give you an example: In Call of Duty 4 say I'm in a close fight with another player and my assault rifle runs out of ammunition... Instead of waisting precious time reloading or changing to a pistol if I had an assault rifle with a shotgun attachment I could simply switch to the other trigger and fire in infinitely less time than it would take to reload or switch to my pistol. Here is another example, say I have a shotgun that runs out of ammo instead of taking the time to put in the next eight or so shells individually I could instead use a clip and be done with it. While poor bastard A is busy trying to ram shells into his or her gun I am shooting them in the face....

However what seems to happen is that we keep getting stuck with assault rifle/grenade launcher combos, pump action shotguns etc. Keep in mind that the gun types I described above have already been made. What if we had thermal vision and could see through walls, or simply did away with stupid melee mechanics and implemented varying types of cover mechanics, what if there was a shooter where you did not strafe but instead turned your head left or right while moving in a straight line and shot at people that way?

Small changes in weapon functionality and/or design will change the nature of combat tactics whether we are talking about bladed weapons or firearms. The physical involvement or lack thereof really has nothing to do with anything at the end of the day.

 

[jadedcritic]

Well, of course it's still relevant, but you don't read about that so much because it isn't really something that can be reviewed.

Case and point, I actually downloaded a utility that changes icon shape on the desktop. I actually stared at it, and fiddled with it, putting little transformers icons on my desktop for two hours. Why? I don't honestly know, I thought it was cool, thought it was fun. Most people would disagree. I'm using a wierd example, let me try something more gaming related.

At the risk of giving away my age, many moons ago, I'd picked up Oddworld. I don't recall which one, think it was Abe's Odessey. Was playing it with a friend around. Whatever the reason, he wasn't into it, but was looking at it anyway - and he literally jumped into a meat grinder. He thought it was HIlariOUS. The man spent damn near 15 minutes jumping himself into a meat grinder over and over again laughing himself into a fit. Needless to say, I don't get the appeal.

Fun is relative, it's not something you can rate with any real credibility. The best you can say is that the reviewer had fun playing it, but that doesn't necessarily mean squat to the reader.