Poll: Do video games have to be fun?

[yaydod]

So i just read this article about a gritty, obscure Russian games that looks very interesting.
Here is the link: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/butchering-pathologic/

It made me think, must video game be fun? I am tempted to say no.
No, video games don't need to be fun, just like some movies can make you feel sad, pathetic, or even scared, which are all somewhat unpleasant emotions, and yet we really like those movies they even get praised (first that comes to mind is Schindler's list).
I think video games can do what movies are unable to, to makes us actually "live" the horrible actions, decision, make us think that it was "the right thing to do" while making us feel terrible about doing such things (without a stupid evil/good moral system).
Look at the success of Amnesia: the dark descent, it is not a fun game, it is very interesting, intriguing even disturbing but not "fun".


So Escapist, do video games have to be fun to be a good video game?


Captcha: Savoir faire, en effet il en faut beacoup pour faire des jeux comme cela.

 

[Space Spoons]

For my money, yes, a game does have to be fun. I don't know how many other people share this particular opinion, but for me, gaming is a fundamentally different experience than movies or books. I'm not looking to have some big, emotional, deep experience- I just want to run around in a virtual space and blow off some steam.

This was the big problem I had with Braid, a game that sacrifices fun gameplay for a pretentious, pseudo-intellectual story.

 

[Able Seacat]

A game has to be entertaining. It can do this in a any number of ways, such as through action, horror or through challenging puzzles.

If I'm not enjoying myself while playing a game then for me that game has failed.

 

[Cheery Lunatic]

This thread reminds me of that game, Slender, that recently gained popularity.

I honestly don't get why people liked it so much. You are literally walking around a fucking forest collecting pieces of paper. The scares are stupid as hell and I'm a total pussy.
I've seen people call this game a masterpiece. I wish I was kidding.

OT: Yes. At least for me, it has to be fun to be good. If I have to force myself to keep playing then something is definitely wrong.

 

[BeeGeenie]

People ride amusement park rides or watch horror movies to be scared, because sometimes it's fun to be scared.
Some people have toxic personalities and pick fights because to them, being angry and argumentative is fun. I hear they tend to hang out on Xbox live a lot.
Some people watch sad movies because they enjoy the emotional impact, which I guess could be considered a form of intellectual fun.

so... Depends on your definition of "fun."

 

[Zhukov]

Please define "fun".

...

Actually, don't bother. The answer is no.

A game just needs to be something that I want to play, regardless of reason. Different games can appeal in different ways.

Saying all games need to be fun in a specific way is a dumb thing to say. It's like saying all movies need to be funny.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Video games need to be entertaining.

'Fun' is encompassed by entertainment.

 

[The_Lost_King]

I say no. I'm with the other people saying it needs to be entertaining and the first thing that comes to mind when entertainment is said is fun. Games that aren't fun have been big hits. No one had fun in amnesia but everyone loved it.

 

[Tayh]

I wouldn't say it has to be fun, specifically, but it must be able to entertain in some fashion.

 

[shrekfan246]

Ah man, I didn't get in before I was ninja'd this time. This is another one of those threads we seem to get every single month, isn't it?

Anyway, Able Seacat stole my answer; It doesn't need to be 'fun' - I wouldn't consider Silent Hill 2 or Amnesia: The Dark Descent 'fun' games, but I would consider them 'good' games - but it should be engaging in some manner.

 

[Aerosteam]

That's weird, there are more votes for 'yes' but looking at these replies the majority is 'no'.

Something that is 'fun' can mean different things to different people. Lets say someone finds the combat in God of War to be fun, that's easy to take in. But in a horror game, someone could find the survival aspect and scares to be fun, and in a different way.

People seem to forget that videogames exist for entertainment, being entertained is essentially having fun.

If there's no fun/entertainment in a game, that game sucks.

 

[Camaranth]

They have to be compelling, not necessarily giggling "oh look at the great time we're all having" fun

If there is nothing compelling in the game, (story, mechanics, art style whatever) then its not going to be played.

so no games don't have to be "fun"

captcha: end of story, well thanks for supporting my opinion captcha

 

[ten.to.ten]

I'm not sure if "fun" is the right word, but to me a game has to be entertaining.

 

[Ljs1121]

I think a game has to be fun to the person playing it. There's not going to be a universally fun game to play, but as long as the person who's enjoying the game considers it fun, then it's good and stuff.

Everyone thinks fun is different, so they're going to buy games according to their definition of fun.

 

[Don Savik]

This thread reminds me of that game, Slender, that recently gained popularity.

I honestly don't get why people liked it so much. You are literally walking around a fucking forest collecting pieces of paper. The scares are stupid as hell and I'm a total pussy.
I've seen people call this game a masterpiece. I wish I was kidding.

OT: Yes. At least for me, it has to be fun to be good. If I have to force myself to keep playing then something is definitely wrong.

Its a pretty fun horror game, considering that its just something that 1 person made. The current state of horror games lately people have resorted to making their own. Kinda like Containment Breach. I can see why they get popular.

But 'masterpiece'? who the hell called it a masterpiece? I mean its a pretty atmospheric and scary game if you can look past the terrible Slenderman model (seriously I hope the guys redoing it in the source engine make him look better) but MASTERPIECE?! I DONT EVEN

OT: people find fun in different ways. I mean, look at how much Football Manager sells even though its fucking spreadsheets and stats.<-- but somehow these games still don't make people "nerds", but that's another rant for another day...

 

[FalloutJack]

No offense, but even after what you're saying...if you're not having fun, what the hell ARE you doing? Fun, equating to the enjoyment of an experience, must cover your media experience in some way, or you have missed the everloving point. If you were horrified and this was the point you were striving for, then you enjoyed it and therefore fun. If this is not happening, then you are doing something wrong.

 

[Lilani]

Everyone thinks fun is different, so they're going to buy games according to their definition of fun.

Exactly! Personally, I can't stand tower defense and bullet hell games. But I like a few FPS's, and I don't mind artsy-fartsy games like Dear Esther. Everybody is different, and everybody's definition of "fun" or what they look for in a game is going to be different.

 

[veloper]

The gameplay has to be fun. For me that fun is a good challenge with enough variety.
The story can be all doom and gloom.
If the gameplay is depressing too, then the product shouldn't be a game, but a movie.