http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entertainingSalsaShark said:
I'm sorry, but this is just a battle of semantics.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Should all games be fun ?
- Thread starter Salsa
- Start date
I'm sorry, but this is just a battle of semantics.
Yeah, when a game stops being about fun, it also stops being a game; it becomes an interactive experience (movie, art, whatever you feel like calling it). Games that aren't fun because of bad design, clunky controls or interface, are simply bad games instead. Nothing wrong in mixing "art" with game mechanics, though.Patryn said:
Of course "fun" for me is in the challenge a game provides, however small it may be, and in the sense of accomplishment derived from winning it.
John Rabbit
Banned
oh its this topic.
the most offensive thing a game (or any form of entertainment) can be is boring. a game can be poorly made, terribly written, and look like an art student's midterm project, but if it manages to eschew boredom and deliver something interesting or engaging then to me it has succeeded in some way.
some of the most objectively bad games have been some of my most fun experiences.
the most offensive thing a game (or any form of entertainment) can be is boring. a game can be poorly made, terribly written, and look like an art student's midterm project, but if it manages to eschew boredom and deliver something interesting or engaging then to me it has succeeded in some way.
some of the most objectively bad games have been some of my most fun experiences.
Lostconfused said:
The words are virtually the same for all intents and purposes. My point is, games = fun. That's their purpose, their function as a classification. If they are created with an intention to not be fun, then they are something else.
EDIT: And no, you didn't offend me. Don't worry about it, man.
Interfectum
Member
Firestorm said:
:lol
Sorry bro, you found Flower to be fun.
Interfectum said:
By your definition, not by the one we are discussing here.
Vinci said:The words are virtually the same for all intents and purposes. My point is, games = fun. That's their purpose, their function as a classification. If they are created with an intention to not be fun, then they are something else.
EDIT: And no, you didn't offend me. Don't worry about it, man.
This can be a whole other thread. What makes a game a GAME ?
Video games (not all games) are an entertainment product and in most cases are sold to you as an entertainment product. If it doesn't entertain, its a bad product, and so in most cases a bad video game.
Art is different as you dont buy it in the same way. If a piece of art is physically disgusting you haven't wasted your money because you are just there to see it, react to it, and move on. Whether that immediate reaction is good or bad, and why... that is art.
Some areas, like Flash games, do have room to do stuff like this, 'you have to burn the rope' is a perfect example. The game is just about your immediate reaction. Not about slogging through 10 hours of game to pass time. But as long as a game is created as an entertainment product, it should be entertaining.
As someone else said, definitions of fun vary so I haven't used that word. Being scared, or being challenged to the point of frustration may not be fun, but to some they are entertaining and may make a good video game.
Art is different as you dont buy it in the same way. If a piece of art is physically disgusting you haven't wasted your money because you are just there to see it, react to it, and move on. Whether that immediate reaction is good or bad, and why... that is art.
Some areas, like Flash games, do have room to do stuff like this, 'you have to burn the rope' is a perfect example. The game is just about your immediate reaction. Not about slogging through 10 hours of game to pass time. But as long as a game is created as an entertainment product, it should be entertaining.
As someone else said, definitions of fun vary so I haven't used that word. Being scared, or being challenged to the point of frustration may not be fun, but to some they are entertaining and may make a good video game.
Then I think the answer to your question is "no". Not every game has to have you grinning or laughing or giggling. Heck, I'd say the majority of games on the market aren't "happy times"-fun. Such a strict definition of the word makes a topic like this rather meaningless. It's like asking if every movie has to be a comedy.SalsaShark said:
Prophet Steve
Member
In that case I agree with you OP, games don't have to be "fun". I like games like Rez and Flower, that are not like the usual games. Also I like the concept of Heavy Rain, although I have never played it.
Vinci said:
Would you call reading a book you enjoy on a Kindle a videogame? You aren't having "fun," but you are engaged in a story in which you must interact with the page through button presses at certain times in order to continue the story.
No, I suspect none of us would argue that reading a kindle is a videogame. If games can be engaging, but don't have to be fun, then why isn't reading a book on a kindle a videogame? It shares the exact same qualities otherwise.
My question is, what would have to change about reading a book on a kindle in order for people to think of it as a videogame? Would it be adding *gasp* fun things to interact with while reading? If reading a book on a kindle added "fun" elements between pages, such as puzzles or minigames or a little platforming spider scampering across the words, then would you consider it a videogame? Is there a certain depth of interactive engagement that must be met?
Interfectum
Member
SalsaShark said:
I'm not the one making up new definitions for "fun."
Dascu said:
But thats not what im talking about either..
I feel like im offending you dude, sorry
Interfectum said:
Im not making up definitions, like many said, there could be many definitions, there could be many types, im just talking about one of them.
Some people say engaging = fun, and i dont agree, im just going by that.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Not to be antagonistic, but I personally don't think you're going to arrive at any sort of meaningful conclusion given how many different interpretations a word like 'fun' evokes. For instance, I'm playing Civ5 right now. Is it addictive? Of course. Do I reflect positively on my time playing it and look forward to my next opportunity to continue my current game/start a new one? Of course. Are their joyous, smile-inducing moments sprinkled throughout? You bet. But am I always having "fun" playing it? I honestly don't think so, and I don't mean that in any sort of derogatory sense. A lot of the game just involves me being engaged as an active participant who simply wants to progress further in this particular narrative.
But then again, some people might describe that as having fun. Therefore, this topic feels to me more like one that has semantic hurdles to overcome before it can really achieve anything on a philosophical level.
But then again, some people might describe that as having fun. Therefore, this topic feels to me more like one that has semantic hurdles to overcome before it can really achieve anything on a philosophical level.
Sounds fun.DaBuddaDa said:
Could you list a few games that you consider to fit your definition of "fun"?SalsaShark said:But thats not what im talking about either..
I feel like im offending you dude, sorry
And I'm not offended. I'm having fun actually. Otherwise I wouldn't be coming back into this thread to read the replies and post some thoughts of my own.
TheFLYINGManga_Ka
Member
Video games should ALWAYS be about fun first.
deadmuffin
Member
Isn't having fun the whole point? You play a game to get some sort of enjoyment out of it. Even if you get frustrated over a game, people may consider that a form of pleasure comes from the frustration.
flyinpiranha
Member
ilikeme said:
Exactly. "Fun" is defined by the user so calling any game "fun" is from your personal perspective.
But really, "fun" is such a crazily varying definition depending on context and personal bias that it's hard to describe.
All games are fun to somebody .. does that make all games fun?
SalsaShark said:
If a game isn't actually fun to play, then it's nothing more than eye candy, or failing that, something that one is only playing for the sake of narrative. Yet, if actually playing the game to see more of these things feels like a chore, there's not much incentive if something that's actually enjoyable to make progress in is available.
Interfectum
Member
Steve Youngblood said:
There is only one interpretation to be made.
You are having fun playing Civ 5. You wouldn't play it if you weren't.
Maybe the act of clicking "next turn" is not fun, but the overall experience is entertaining and you are finding it enjoyable. Watching your empire expand is fun. Watching reactions to your decisions is fun. Nuking someone that pissed you off is fun.
Steve Youngblood said:
I totally agree, its hard to really get something across, same thing when i made a thread about videogame storytelling and how they shouldnt be compared to movies. Semantics are always in the middle of things.
I highlited the part of your post that interests me the most, that falls into what im talking about. Like you said, some people might call that fun, and as some have done, they posted stuff like "to me, engaging is fun, so yes", and thats totally understandable, if everyone defines their personal definition of FUN before posting their answer the whole thing should be more understandable. Like i said its up to debate, semantics included, we are not trying to find the global definition of fun here, im just asking if games should be fun.
Like i said "engaging is fun so yeah" is a totally valid answer, someone might think differently, and the idea is to get all opinions possible.
While true, a lot of people associate the word "fun" with "giggle-poo charm" or some other insipid narrow meaning in order to discredit what they don't like as "not fun". If you take the broad view of "fun" then everything should be "fun". Looking at statues should be fun. Reading a book should be fun. Scratching myself should be fun unless it's to eliminate a negative, in which case I could see it not really being defined as fun.Dascu said:
Unless you're going to go off the Marxist/post-modern deep end the commodification of art is meaningless in relation to "fun". Going to a museum, looking at a painting, playing a game, etc all contain costs of some sort.
Prophet Steve
Member
Yes, it does make all the games fun. Because games are supposed to be fun. But I think it is a pretty useless thread without clear definitions.flyinpiranha said:
And yes, Silent Hill is fun.
DaBuddaDa said:
No. I would consider it an entertaining book. Books don't have inherent classifications as to what their content is derived to accomplish. Generally speaking, games (and toys, for that matter) do.
I think we're getting down to the semantics of what a 'game' is. And no, that's not a discussion we should engage in, as it will go 'round and 'round forever.
There have been gamebooks, you know. They were called Choose Your Own Adventures. The primary aspect of a 'game,' at least from my perspective, isn't that you're able to simply interact - it's that you're able to make choices and those choices are reflected within the outcome or at least the next chain of events of what you're interacting with. This causal relationship of interaction and outcome, when done properly, is fun and is one of the foundations for what constitutes a game.
The problem lies here.
Is this your idea of fun?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytHAS8QyQs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6tSowlt7E4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trGxJHsI6I8
or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfSfKYombwQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LByNqf-nr4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm7V-VrlJuo
Is this your idea of fun?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytHAS8QyQs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6tSowlt7E4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trGxJHsI6I8
or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfSfKYombwQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LByNqf-nr4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm7V-VrlJuo
TheFLYINGManga_Ka
Member
How about all video games should be fun for the target audience it's going for.
Like Demons Souls, or something completely different like Izuna 2 for the DS. It should be fun for the people who like these.
Like Demons Souls, or something completely different like Izuna 2 for the DS. It should be fun for the people who like these.
Dascu said:
Like i said in OP i think that the game that mostly goes against the usual definition used for FUN in games is Flower Sun and Rain. I find tons of games fun, (almost all of them, if we dont take personal liking) so listing them would be a chore. Its easier to find the ones that i didnt found fun, but that were still engaging to me: Flower, sun, and Rain.
Im talking about the future, in our current time 99% percent of the games are conceived with fun as the main idea, that's what makes FSandR so different.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Games don't have to do anything. If I find the experience rewarding in whatever way I'll have a positive opinion of it, even if I didn't have fun.
edit: Just thought of a good example. Amnesia isn't fun so much as exhilarating. It gets the blood pumping and triggers a fight or flight response (except I suppose flight is your only option :lol ). Gets your CNS up in arms and whatnot. That isn't necessarily fun, really, but I enjoyed it.
edit: Just thought of a good example. Amnesia isn't fun so much as exhilarating. It gets the blood pumping and triggers a fight or flight response (except I suppose flight is your only option :lol ). Gets your CNS up in arms and whatnot. That isn't necessarily fun, really, but I enjoyed it.
I replayed the game very recently and... I had a fun time. The pretty music, the nice graphics and camera angles, the hilarious script, the satisfying feeling of solving the riddles... Heck, even the infamous running chapter was enjoyable if only to see the reactions of Sumio. It's a game where most of the enjoyment comes out of the story and not the gameplay mechanics, but still, a game is the sum of all of these components. A game can be fun because of the story. Any game that makes you pick it up again to continue playing is, in my opinion, a fun game.SalsaShark said:
I suppose this is what you mean though. Should all gameplay designs be focused on fun?
SalsaShark said:
I disagree with this, in a way. Everyone's idea of fun is different. Some people just really enjoy games that are unique and new, and will overlook problems that might drive other people away. On the other hand, you have people who love games like Madden, which do almost nothing new year to year, but are generally very polished and accessible.
I do think that every games needs to be "fun", just not necessarily to everyone. The big game companies seem to be overlooking some potentially profitable niche markets in favor of constantly pursuing games with mass-market appeal.
Edit: I should have read more than just the OP, because a lot of people already said what I'm saying.
Confidence Man
Member
What you should probably be asking is if all games should provide pleasure in the interactive experience itself (like an arcade-style game), or whether it's alright that they should only provide some other pleasure that's derivative of, but not inherent to, the activity (narrative, problem solving, production, etc..)
So you have some that can be just "fun" (e.g. Wii Bowling, Quake), some can be just the other thing (e.g. Heavy Rain, Morrowind), and some can be both (e.g. Halo's "30 seconds of fun" stretched out over a narrative.)
So you have some that can be just "fun" (e.g. Wii Bowling, Quake), some can be just the other thing (e.g. Heavy Rain, Morrowind), and some can be both (e.g. Halo's "30 seconds of fun" stretched out over a narrative.)
lastplayed
Member
SalsaShark said:
I disagree. To me, any media that engages me is entertaining. News is entertaining, dramas are entertaining, comedies are entertaining, reading books about history is entertaining. Is that the same as "fun"? Not sure, but if I'm not having fun with a game, I turn it off.
So the short answer is "yes".
Dascu said:
Thats totally valid, given your personal definition of fun. But not with my definition, like i said the thread is not about finding the global definition wich we all agree with, you found it fun, i didnt. Given your definition maybe i did, but by mine, i didnt.
Dascu said:
This is one of the things that the industry takes as MUST BE FUN, so yeah, that is also up for discussion, im not refering to a specific mechanic, but yes, fits with what im saying.
Palmer_v1 said:
Already addressed those guys as well, every opinion is valid given each person's definition of fun, so its okay to express yours.
Confidence Man said:
But what about a boring puzzle, in wich you dont find pleasure at all, but the idea behind the game is that you feel that way, just to express a point ? is that valid ?
Mr. B Natural
Member
Games need to have some kind of intense brain stimulus - be it fun like peggle, exciting like cod mp, scary and unsettling like silent hill or mind-bending like Braid. That will be the case until games step out of the shadow and try to do something meaningful...which may never happen.
Then there's crap like MMo's which boggle my mind to their popularity and is about as stimulating as staring at a blank screen, but brings out the OCD in everyone that touches it. No stimulation, pure time wasting. It's pure addiction and it's a nonsensical one at that.
Then there's crap like MMo's which boggle my mind to their popularity and is about as stimulating as staring at a blank screen, but brings out the OCD in everyone that touches it. No stimulation, pure time wasting. It's pure addiction and it's a nonsensical one at that.
If a game isn't fun as a game (and not as whatever art fluff is attached to the actual game), that's more or less the equivalent of entering a three-legged horse in a race. Yeah, it might eventually hobble its way to the finish line and satisfy 'being good enough to justify its own existence', but there's some pretty obvious reasons why it's always going to fall short of just about any halfway-competent fun game, and some equally obvious reasons why the same game would be much better served by bothering to make the 'game' part fun.
Which isn't to say that it isn't a good deal more complicated than 'be as fun as possible at all times'. There are plenty of ways to pace the fun in a game, whether it's a moment-to-moment absolute blast, a longer, more passive 'consistently enjoyable', or even/especially using a buildup-payoff model, where the payoff is made more rewarding than it would be otherwise because the path there was long, frustrating, or whatever. But if it isn't designed such that ultimately 'fun' is the main focus, you've got a bad game, and the best atmospheres and stories in the world aren't going to make a whit of difference.
Which isn't to say that it isn't a good deal more complicated than 'be as fun as possible at all times'. There are plenty of ways to pace the fun in a game, whether it's a moment-to-moment absolute blast, a longer, more passive 'consistently enjoyable', or even/especially using a buildup-payoff model, where the payoff is made more rewarding than it would be otherwise because the path there was long, frustrating, or whatever. But if it isn't designed such that ultimately 'fun' is the main focus, you've got a bad game, and the best atmospheres and stories in the world aren't going to make a whit of difference.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Its reward schedules in a social environment. MMOs are basically skinner boxes you pay $10 a month to put yourself in during your free time.Mr. B Natural said:
Complex Shadow
Cudi Lame
yes
Pinko Marx
Banned
Yes. A game has to make me want to keep playing in one way or another. That doesn't mean every aspect of it has to be fun, but there has to be some entertainment value there.
I don't get why people are saying no.
I don't get why people are saying no.
Rollo Lawson
Banned
by the dictionary definition of fun, all games must be fun. your own definition does not count and this was a stupid question
Pinko Marx said:
But what a game where you want to keep playing because of the narrative, because of how it makes you feel (could be scared in a horror game, etc), or because some other factor other than fun ?
Then again, all those things can be equivalents of fun for you, and thats totally fine, main reason why people are saying NO is because we all have different definitions of fun.
Rollo Larson said:
K thanks