Poll: Do video games have to be fun?
- Thread starter yaydod
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Hm. "Fun," perhaps not; the word implies kind of a giddy feeling. But "enjoyable" on some level, most definitely. "Enjoyable" can mean "I enjoy this on a visceral, shooting-up-everyone-that-gets-in-my-way level," or "holy crap, that was a creepy, horror-movie-like game", or even a more cerebral, "wow, this really made me think" sort of thing, but a good game should be enjoyable somehow.
I would say there is fun in the sense of something being entertaining, and then their is fun as something being "fun" in a lighthearted sense.
Of course a game needs to be entertaining. If I play past the tutorial level and am not enjoying the experience in a entertainment sense I usually stop.
But by no means does a game have to be fun in a lighthearted sense. There is a independent game called Irisu Syndrome, it's a puzzle game with a deeply interesting and dark narrative that keeps me thinking. I want to solve the mystery thus I play. There are so many games that focus on such enthralling themes that you get sucked in. Some games are frustrating at times to the point of annoyance, but their ability to make me think and feel keeps me going back.
Of course a game needs to be entertaining. If I play past the tutorial level and am not enjoying the experience in a entertainment sense I usually stop.
But by no means does a game have to be fun in a lighthearted sense. There is a independent game called Irisu Syndrome, it's a puzzle game with a deeply interesting and dark narrative that keeps me thinking. I want to solve the mystery thus I play. There are so many games that focus on such enthralling themes that you get sucked in. Some games are frustrating at times to the point of annoyance, but their ability to make me think and feel keeps me going back.
They don't even need to be entertaining. They just need to be engaging, which encompasses entertaining, fun, and whatever the fuck EVE Online is.Daystar Clarion said:
I think I see what's wrong with this poll now. Too many people confusing their terms. Fun, entertainment, enjoyment, etc. These words all hook into each other, but you're thinking in the wrong direction. Fun was first, and the others its sub-categories. Fun is the umbrella that these words fall under.Daystar Clarion said:
This many people voting no is wrong, especially if you're doing it upon the simple count of wordplay.
A game should be good, but that doesn't necessarily mean fun.
Art isn't always about positive emotions, some of the most captivating art is so involving because it explores the more solemn side of human emotion. Think if movies and books only existed to create happy joyful or visceral emotions. We would have no Schindler's List, no Grave of the Fireflies, no Obasan or Watchmen. Now games are a very different medium then movies books or comics, and how they will explore those themes will be different, but they are places games should go.
A lot of people have named survival horror as a reason for there answer to be no, and I disagree with this logic, at least partially. There is something thrilling and fun about having the shit scared out of you. It's a lot like riding a roller coaster. Stress and fun are conceptually tied together. Stalker I think is a better example of a game that is excellent yet not fun. Stalker is a good example of a game that is both engaging and really... kind of miserable. And going in the complete opposite direction, Journey. Now don't get me wrong, I love the shit out of Journey, what a moving game, but with perhaps the exception of the sand surfing level I don't think I found it fun in the classicle sense of the word. It's a moving game, more solemn then anything. A meditation if you will.
Art isn't always about positive emotions, some of the most captivating art is so involving because it explores the more solemn side of human emotion. Think if movies and books only existed to create happy joyful or visceral emotions. We would have no Schindler's List, no Grave of the Fireflies, no Obasan or Watchmen. Now games are a very different medium then movies books or comics, and how they will explore those themes will be different, but they are places games should go.
A lot of people have named survival horror as a reason for there answer to be no, and I disagree with this logic, at least partially. There is something thrilling and fun about having the shit scared out of you. It's a lot like riding a roller coaster. Stress and fun are conceptually tied together. Stalker I think is a better example of a game that is excellent yet not fun. Stalker is a good example of a game that is both engaging and really... kind of miserable. And going in the complete opposite direction, Journey. Now don't get me wrong, I love the shit out of Journey, what a moving game, but with perhaps the exception of the sand surfing level I don't think I found it fun in the classicle sense of the word. It's a moving game, more solemn then anything. A meditation if you will.
No, I think it's about the experience. With current technology and societal pressures, most developers take the easy way out and use mindless shooting to rack up XP as a method to create "fun". One day I'd like to make a war game that is focused on the horror of war, instead of the "glory" of it.
You might want to take a look at Spec-Ops: The Line if you haven't already. This is the concept. I haven't played it myself so I don't know how well it's pulled off, but it's an attempt at the very least.Slayer_2 said:
As for the example given, I own Pathologic! It's $10 on Amazon downloads and is very intriguing! It reminds me a tiny bit of Planescape: Torment in that even the meaningless civilian characters make interesting statements and serve atmospheric/expository purposes.
As for the topic's question, no. Art that attempts to elicit positive feelings is generally the basest and least compelling art.
A game just has to have a "reason" to continue playing it, and "fun" is such an overused catchphrase that it has nothing to do with it. I've played plenty of survival horrors that were an utter trial of my wits to get through, and I can state that the only REASON that I did, was because I was particularly intrigued to see what happens next. The same applies to many a JRPG. "Fun" had nothing to do with it.
This applies to plenty of movies, books and other mediums as well. Their worth is measured in INTEREST.
To put it in perspective - you will SUFFER something to meet it's conclusion - if it's interesting enough. Not fun, but worth it.
This applies to plenty of movies, books and other mediums as well. Their worth is measured in INTEREST.
To put it in perspective - you will SUFFER something to meet it's conclusion - if it's interesting enough. Not fun, but worth it.
For me it does, considering how much games tend to cost, especially on a tight budget. I like to play fun games because I feel like I can play to the end of it. I don't want to waste $60 on a game that I don't play through.
On a more general note, I'm just gonna quickly repeat what others have already said, but "fun" is based on a personal taste. Some people may play a horror game to get scared since it's what they enjoy. Others might like a really good challenge. Others might want a deep game that makes them think. It's about preference.
On a more general note, I'm just gonna quickly repeat what others have already said, but "fun" is based on a personal taste. Some people may play a horror game to get scared since it's what they enjoy. Others might like a really good challenge. Others might want a deep game that makes them think. It's about preference.
"Engaging" would be a better term, which some people probably connect to fun. Movies can be more than just happy, fun stories, but the one thing they can't be is boring.
So really the answer to your question is yes and no. They don't have to be fun in the sense that they need to be "happy", but they do have to be fun in that the player has to be interested.
So really the answer to your question is yes and no. They don't have to be fun in the sense that they need to be "happy", but they do have to be fun in that the player has to be interested.
I'd say yes for obvious reasons, but also no if you don't really care much. I remember playing Dark Souls and died 20 times at the first 2 skeletons after the tutorial area. I then realized that I wasn't even enjoying myself anymore, so I returned it. That game was cool, but holy fuck I could not enjoy it at that point