Poll: Do video games have to be fun?
- Thread starter yaydod
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, although it'd be very had trying to sell an un-fun game. You could make a game about working on an assembly line where you do the same action over and over and if you fail to do it, you lose and the game keeps score. That's a game, although its completely un-fun (okay maybe wacky visuals will Ame it fun for a short time, but its not enough to carry it).
Yes. Yesyesyesyesyes.
Dear Esther is proof that if you just want to make an artistic statement without any sort of fun? THEN YOU SHOULD MAKE A MOVIE.
Game. ITS CALLED GAME. VIDEO. GAME.
Definition of GAME
1
a (1) : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement
Dear Esther is proof that if you just want to make an artistic statement without any sort of fun? THEN YOU SHOULD MAKE A MOVIE.
Game. ITS CALLED GAME. VIDEO. GAME.
Definition of GAME
1
a (1) : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement
As already said here: No. The word is entertainment. Talking about video games having to be fun is as ridiculous as saying movies have to be funny, or music has to make you feel like singing along.
So, the meta question here is: how many times does this topic need to be slaughtered?
So, the meta question here is: how many times does this topic need to be slaughtered?
I'm saying yes. I do agree with you, OP, but in a different way. A movie can be make us sad, scared, etc. and still leave us with a feeling of "I'm glad I watched that." Games can be the same way. If a game make me feel sad, it still envokes an emotional response, and ultimately leaves me feeling satisfied. I don't need to blow up everything in the world or rip things apart with saw blades to have fun. An emotional response would be just as satisfying.
Video games do have to be fun but with one caveat: they don't have to be fun for "everyone", just for "someone". Take the Bullet Hell genre, for example. Some people find it fun, for them, to play them. Many more, however, find them obnoxiously difficult and do not have fun playing. Some video games are fun for a very small niche audience, but it MUST be fun to someone to count as a game.
I guess it depends on what you're definition of fun is, but in general, I'd say no. With any creative work, the key thing is that it be engaging in how it goes about pursuing own goals and ends. A game can be tense and unnerving, and still be a compelling worthwhile experience.
No. Fun is a rather vague term to use. Commonly associated with entertaining in a more basic level, but they are not synonyms...
A good game has to be entertaining, it has to be engaging. It can be engaging through fun, fear, intellectual satisfaction, challenge, etc. Amnesia is a good example of a game experience that is engaging but not fun.
A good game has to be entertaining, it has to be engaging. It can be engaging through fun, fear, intellectual satisfaction, challenge, etc. Amnesia is a good example of a game experience that is engaging but not fun.
A game has to be fun and interesting at the very least. If it's not enjoyable, why spend time "playing" it, or whatever else one does with a game that isn't fun? After those two, challenging is a very close second. I won't spend money or time on a game that lacks any of fun, interest or challenge, mostly because there's plenty of games out there that are those things and are therefore, by definition, better.
It has to be interesting. That is the only thing I ask of any piece of media, as long as it keeps itself interesting regardless of genre I will enjoy it. I can assume at least a few other people feel the same way.
Just as an example take Dead Space 2. The scares were lackluster, the monster design was a bit of a mess albeit a slightly amusing one, the story was decent but was cliche as fuck and the controls were admittedly pretty responsive and all round good.
I love that game just because the aesthetic of the game is so interesting. That is literally the only thing I truly like about the game. Every environment the game throws at you is really fun to go through.
We can all admit that slidey doors that go *whoosh* are cool right?
Though i think multiplayer games have to rely purely on the fun side of things. Since any attempt at horror, mystery, etc etc will be instakilled by Mr XxXL33tHAX0r69XxX. The jerk.
Just as an example take Dead Space 2. The scares were lackluster, the monster design was a bit of a mess albeit a slightly amusing one, the story was decent but was cliche as fuck and the controls were admittedly pretty responsive and all round good.
I love that game just because the aesthetic of the game is so interesting. That is literally the only thing I truly like about the game. Every environment the game throws at you is really fun to go through.
We can all admit that slidey doors that go *whoosh* are cool right?
Though i think multiplayer games have to rely purely on the fun side of things. Since any attempt at horror, mystery, etc etc will be instakilled by Mr XxXL33tHAX0r69XxX. The jerk.
Well fun is a broad term, but I guess you can say "no" simply on the basis of horror games.
Generally people play those to get an emotional kick out of it, sure we can tie this back to fun but a more accurate description would be they need to be engaging, the game needs to make you feel something of value.
What kind of things we find valuable however is everyones personal preference.
Generally people play those to get an emotional kick out of it, sure we can tie this back to fun but a more accurate description would be they need to be engaging, the game needs to make you feel something of value.
What kind of things we find valuable however is everyones personal preference.
The problem is that it's pretty hard to define what's fun.
I don't need the game to be filled with action. I'm okay if the story takes precedence over game play as long as it can illicit a reaction.
The standard definition of fun seems to be stuff blowing up. I can live without that.
I don't need the game to be filled with action. I'm okay if the story takes precedence over game play as long as it can illicit a reaction.
The standard definition of fun seems to be stuff blowing up. I can live without that.
Yes, it needs to be enjoyable to play, absolutely. Well I think so at least.
If it fails at this, then it is a bad game, regardless of its 'artistic' merit or emotional engagement. You can have these things (it would be good if more games did), but in doing this you can't forget what games are in the process.
Dear Esther is a good example of how not to do it, unless they fixed this issue in the full version, I have only played the free mod a while back. It has the engaging narrative which is emotionally satisfying no doubt, but falls very short everywhere else and it not enjoyable to actually play at all.
Amnesia: The Dark Decent is how it is done properly, it has the emotional engagement, without sacrificing the enjoyable gameplay.
If it fails at this, then it is a bad game, regardless of its 'artistic' merit or emotional engagement. You can have these things (it would be good if more games did), but in doing this you can't forget what games are in the process.
Dear Esther is a good example of how not to do it, unless they fixed this issue in the full version, I have only played the free mod a while back. It has the engaging narrative which is emotionally satisfying no doubt, but falls very short everywhere else and it not enjoyable to actually play at all.
Amnesia: The Dark Decent is how it is done properly, it has the emotional engagement, without sacrificing the enjoyable gameplay.
I am going to have to disagree. Amnesia was a very fun game. I think you are narrowing down "fun" a bit too much. A game that keeps me interested I would call fun.