Guys, Do games have to be "fun" ?

[Deleted member 47843]

Games can be whatever the creator wants them to be.

Games have to be fun for me if I'm going to play them through to completion though. That's just my personal usage of games.

I play to relax and have fun. Not to appreciate art or challenge myself severely etc. Those (and others) are 100% valid game designs/reasons to play though, just not my cup of tea.

 

[PennyStonks]

REmake, I became afraid of possible future frustration from poorly managed resources. I wouldn't really consider that fun, but it made RE an extremely tense game.
There was that fish game, too. I wouldn't consider it fun. It had no challenge, but it was cool swimming around with all those fish.

 

[VG Aficionado]

fun (fŭn)
n.
1. Enjoyment; amusement: We had fun at the beach.
2. A source of enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure: Was the party fun?


If you enjoy it and/or are amused, it is fun.

 

[Savinowned]

I totally agree OP. The Last of Us was a great example of a game that crossed the line at times on what I would consider "fun". I think TLOU Part 2 is going to push that even further, and I'm interested to see what it will mean.

 

[Acquiescence]

Not at all.

There's nothing "fun" about Silent Hill 2, but that doesn't stop it being one of the greatest games ever made.

 

[Rayman not Ray]

A game needs to be engaging to keep my interest, but all my favorite games are ones whose emotional beats stick with me after they're finished.

 

[Tygre]

This is the main issue with calling games "Games".

I would argue that for a game to be any good it has to be fun. The whole point of a game is to have fun. If you are not having fun playing a game it is very probably a shitty game or you are way outside of its intended audience.

But I would absolutely reject the argument that for a Game to be good it has to be fun. Games can and should cover the same breadth of experience, and beyond, as film. We should have Games that are documentaries, Games that are meant to evoke deep sadness, Games that teach, Games that broaden our emotional vocabulary.

Games are not just games. But they're annoyingly called Games.

fun (fŭn)
n.
1. Enjoyment; amusement: We had fun at the beach.
2. A source of enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure: Was the party fun?


If you enjoy it and/or are amused, it is fun.

Click to shrink...

Yes. But an experience can have none of those and still be an experience that is of value.

Not everything has to be enjoyable, amusing or pleasurable to have value.

 

[Saint-14]

Me being interested in the story means I'm having fun with the game, fun doesn't only come from combat at least for me.

 

[nekkid]

One of the stupidest things I ever read on GAF was a guy who argued Gran Turismo was better than Forza Motorsport because it was not as fun.

 

[Popetita]

I think using your example a game has to be fun of it is long or rather a game that focuses on the story/experience has to be on the short side.

Most of these games are on the short side and even the longer ones don't go past 20 hours. You could say some JRPGs that get serious are longer but those usually have fun/funnt segments spread in.

 

[MegaSackman]

The Last of Us is a pretty depressing game to play and it's incredible.

 

[Jeronimo]

It's not a requirement. Some games are going for different emotions and responses. But, if a game aims to be fun and isn't, there's usually not much left.

 

[Deleted member 24540]

I think fun is just one kind of the more general concept of mental stimulation, which they need to be in one way or the other to be successful at entertaining you.

 

[Mr.Deadshot]

Kane & Lynch 2 is not a fun game at all, or mechanically astounding. It's a brutal and uncomfortable mess of a game that's absolutely fascinating to watch unfold

So yes it is possible

Click to shrink...

I had a lot of fun with Kane & Lynch 2.

"Fun" can be different. You can watch a comedy or a horror film and have a good time (aka fun) with both, but the experience is different.

 

[JCHandsom]

fun (fŭn)
n.
1. Enjoyment; amusement: We had fun at the beach.
2. A source of enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure: Was the party fun?


If you enjoy it and/or are amused, it is fun.

Click to shrink...

But that doesn't really answer the question of whether games ought to be "fun," as I don't think anyone disagrees that games can be "fun."

For example, I didn't enjoy my time playing Papers, Please and I wasn't amused, but I absolutely recognize its quality and think it succeeds as a game and hope more games like it are made for the sake of widening the scope of the medium.

 

[Hieroph]

No. Detroit isn't fun in a lot of places, but it's a huge experience that wouldn't have been possible on any other medium.

 

[Master Alucard]

it's better if they are

 

[Heromanz]

Where? Much of those genres are suppost to be immersive in some kind. REmake is not 'fun', but instead bring terror for some people like my cousin who like seeing me play the game.
Some games like Life is Strange are support to tell something. So, no necessary 'fun'.
Short answer: No. Not always.

Click to shrink...

Well for one the game has multiplayer based off how the game plays. and given the combat Encounters in that game it's pretty clear that they want you to have fun playing it.

 

[Heckler456]

Games don't have to be anything.

 

[Gaiaknight]

if im not having fun playing a game i stop playing it even if the story is fantastic if the gameplay is boring me i will just look up how the story ends.

 

[Tygre]

One of the stupidest things I ever read on GAF was a guy who argued Gran Turismo was better than Forza Motorsport because it was not as fun.

Click to shrink...

I don't agree with this argument, but it's not stupid.

Some people like the toil. They're having less fun, but they're getting more out of the experience.

 

[MechaX]

The games themselves don't have to be fun (from an atmospheric standpoint), but they need to be engaging.

This is somewhat distinct from how most players themselves feel like the are having fun if they are engaged. So in the end, you're going to run into the same end point on what it means to have fun with a game.

 

[LavaBadger]

if this makes sense

Click to shrink...

I think that's interesting. I don't single out any media for such a purpose.

I do often choose media based on my mood (Not listening to sappy music if I'm already feeling down, like you mentioned), but I'd also not watch a sad movie, or read a sad book in that instance.

No judgement on how you do it. Just interested.

 

[JCHandsom]

"Fun" can be different. You can watch a comedy or a horror film and have a good time (aka fun) with both, but the experience is different.

Click to shrink...

Which (as the video I posted earlier goes into detail about) is why describing a game as "fun" is kind of a fruitless endeavor in the first place- you can't really design or critique a game around "being fun" without going into the actual substance of what the purpose of the game actually is, because "fun" means a hundred different things to a hundred different people. It's a weightless term that amounts to little more than "I like it."

 

[VG Aficionado]

For example, I didn't enjoy my time playing Papers, Please and I wasn't amused, but I absolutely recognize it's quality and think it succeeds as a game and hope more games like it are made for the sake of widening the scope of the medium.

Click to shrink...

You don't have to like or enjoy Queen, Dali, Tarantino, Kojima, etc. in order to recognise the art quality. Perhaps you may subjectively think their work is not fun, but objectively, if you see creativity, beauty, perfection, technique, whatever that's good in anything they do, I think we can say it's fun for the sake of many people being able to not only see the same good things in them, but enjoy them too, to any extent of the concept.

 

[bunkitz]

Not really, I don't think so. Back then? Sure. Absolutely. Now? The medium has evolved to being much more than just the traditional idea of a "game" and we can have experiences like Journey. Journey is a great game, I love it, but I don't think it's necessarily fun. You also have titles that have important messages to tell while also being fun, such as The Last of Us. They are an entertainment medium that's beyond "fun" now. They can be used to tell stories and as a platform to give an engaging experience that also educates people about all sorts of things without, necessarily, being fun.

 

[Renteka-Bond]

A game doesn't have to be, no, but I'm more likely to drop it or not get it at all if it doesn't look like it will be fun to me. Different people have different definitions of fun, though.

My scale for fun/entertainment/engagement varies by genre, though, so there's definitely wiggle room. For example, a lot of people find platforming mechanics fun, but I find them annoying, so while something like Mario Odyssey doesn't resonate with me at all, something in a whole different spectrum like Digimon Next Order, which is basically Excel: Digimon edition, was enjoyable for me despite not being a very good game.

 

[Jerm]

I guess literally and technically no.

 

[carlsojo]

Yes games have to be fun or there's no reason for me to play the game.

This is a weird thread.

 

[StrangeRoboMemory]

No, not at all. But I personally don't like to spend my time playing games like that...I more appreciate them from afar, glad that they're out there doing their thing, but I won't play them very often.

 

[Chumunga64]

They can invoke any emotions the creator wants

I feel like they should be good to control however as a way to not create "artificial difficulty" from things like slippery controls or camera

 

[DontHateTheBacon]

"Fun"

and

"Entertaining"

are two different things.

 

[SurrenderDorothy]

Nope.

 

[J75]

Games can be whatever they want but i sure am not gonna play a game that im not enjoying/having fun with.

If a game is engaging, thats enough to keep me interested but fun is definetly what i seek for nowadays in games. I'm over the days of playing stressful games even though i understand a big amount of the enthiastic gaming crowd loves their crazy soulsborne type games with ultra hard difficulty. I would never find that to be engaging nor fun but hey, to each it's own i guess.

 

[JCHandsom]

You don't have to like or enjoy Dali or Tarantino or Kojima in order to recognise the art quality. Perhaps you may subjectively think their work is not fun, but objectively, if you see beauty, perfection, technique, whatever that's good in anything they do, I think we can say it's fun for the sake of many people being able to not only see the same good things in them, but enjoy them too, to any extent of the concept.

Click to shrink...

I didn't say that I didn't like Papers, Please. I actually do like it, I just didn't enjoy it or find it amusing.

I also agree with the second bolded part, except I don't think calling something "fun" is a good descriptor for games that succeed in their intended design, as any explanation as to why, say, RE4 is "fun" is going to be drastically different from why Rome: Total War is "fun," so why not just cut out the middle man and just talk about the elements of those games' success instead of falling back on a nebulous claim of "it was fun?"

 

[Pascal]

No, but I think a game should always be compelling in some way.

 

[Eros]

Yes, but fun is relative.

 

[Clocian]

No, it's about the experience.

 

[Kizuna]

Not necessarily. They have to be engaging and provide some value. Maybe it's a sense of fun, but it could be something else that speaks to you as an individual in one way or another.
However I personally definitely don't want them to move any closer towards being artsy, exchanging lighthearted if vapid fun for some "meaning" in the process. Games will always be entertainment to me first and foremost.

 

[KORNdog]

no. and i think the industry these days has shown it's not even considered in a lot of cases. a lot of games now offer an "experience". it's about immersion, narrative, atmosphere...which is fine, some of my favorite games i would consider to be this including games like the last of us. but "fun" isn't how i would describe them. not in the purest sense anyway.

besides nintendo's first party output and some of the indie scene, i think fun has fallen by the wayside for most devs/pubs.

back in the 80's and 90's it was ALL about fun. the tech wasn't there to support much else so it really doubled down on it. they were pick up and play titles that distilled fun into digital crack. 30 minute games were selling for the same as 100 hour RPG's do today. they were rock hard but made you want "one more go"...it was fun...even failure was fun. but it was clearly a sign of the times. arcades wanted you to pump them full of money and what better way to do than than a quick, simple, fun fix, and they had the advantage of looking better than home consoles ever could at the time. but arcades died and imo, "fun" died with them....at least in regards to mainstream, AAA releases.

realism and "experiences" rule this industry now. and while i liked a lot of them. it's also why i've reverted back to some retro gaming in between. it remains the most fun you can have in gaming for me. no bloat, no time investment...just a bit of fun.

 

[PSqueak]

But that doesn't really answer the question of whether games ought to be "fun," as I don't think anyone disagrees that games can be "fun."

For example, I didn't enjoy my time playing Papers, Please and I wasn't amused, but I absolutely recognize its quality and think it succeeds as a game and hope more games like it are made for the sake of widening the scope of the medium.

Click to shrink...

You can argue that if a videogame didn't engage people or didn't manage to capture the time of anybody then it failed on it's porpuse, if an entertainment piece of media, wherever it is a game, movie or novel, fails to engage people it is a failure.

Papers, Please is a game that engaged people, they got enjoyment out of it's existance, narrative and message, it was entertaining in its own way, that means P,P succeeded in engaging the audience, thus it was fun to the people who enjoyed the experience it had to share.

Y'all need to stop giving the word "fun" a childish, demeaning connotation.

You're not more mature for saying your "adult" games are not fun.

 

[Zaki2407]

No, but I think a game should always be compelling in some way.

Click to shrink...

This.

 

[Dhoom]

If a game has a good story but is held back by bad gameplay, there's no reason to play the game I'll just read the plot online. I'm playing to have fun, not playing to not have fun. If I'm not having fun during the game, then why am I even playing it?

 

[Deleted member 8752]

Nothing has to be anything.

 

[Ichi]

Yes. I can watch a disturbing movie but the whole experience is "fun". Fun for me doesn't need to invoke joy or happiness - it just means you like what you're experiencing, or you have an emotional or intellectual response to the things presented to you.

 

[Soapbox Killer]

I think that's interesting. I don't single out any media for such a purpose.

I do often choose media based on my mood (Not listening to sappy music if I'm already feeling down, like you mentioned), but I'd also not watch a sad movie, or read a sad book in that instance.

No judgement on how you do it. Just interested.

Click to shrink...

Gaming is more of an investment for me in both time and money. TV, movies, books and music would all be in my house without me doing anything since I have a bunch of kids and a wife. When I sit down with 2 hours of free time and the "good" tv, I'm going for maximum enjoyment from my time. Music is passive for me, as is TV (since it's all Disney and wrestling in my house) but my gaming time is me being actively involved and since I have very little time, it has to be fun.

 

[Sasliquid]

No, games don't have to be fun. It limits them as an art form to think they should only be engaging in that way.

I mean I'll argue The Last Of Us is not fun and it's one of the reasons I admire the game

 

[Hailinel]

A game shouldn't necessairly be "fun", but it should be engaging in a manner that's intended. You can make a game that's educational or covers an important social topic, but if the compulsion to engage with the game isn't there, then it's kind of pointless.

 

[Mister X]

Depends on your definition of fun.

 

[Molemitts]

I want a game to make me feel *something*. Fun seems like the standard, Mario Odyssey is fun and I like it, and it does exactly what it needs to do. Of course there is so much more than that. Silent Hill 2 I wouldn't describe as fun, but it is mysterious and horrific. Bloodborne can be fun in the satisfaction of taking down a great challenge it can also put across a sense of wonder, horror or confusion and of course frustration, all of this is part of the experience. What Remains of Edith Finch is a good example of how to take not so fun ideas and turn them into gameplay mechanics that also tell a story.

One area I think this idea needs to be worked on majorly is war games. So many games about war just aim to be fun and I almost find it just insulting. War is terrifying and brutal, but war games are too often not about that because they wouldn't want to ruin your fun.