Support NeoGAF

[Pinko Marx]

 

[Mr. B Natural]

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.

I think people overestimate the social aspect of mmos. "Competing witht the jone's" isn't social in my book. People get addicted to gaming all of the time and they get obsessed even in single player games where you need to spend 40 hours getting a new piece of armor. Again, spending 40 hours trying to get a new piece of armor isn't stimulating. It's a "test of will" and some people can not say no to such a venture.

To most hardcore gamers, the line between stimulating and addictive is blurry.

 

[Salsa]

http://images.memegenerator.net/Philosoraptor/ImageMacro/2837648/Must-all-games-be-fun.jpg[/ img][/QUOTE]

Perfect :lol

 

[BobsRevenge]

by the dictionary definition of fun, all games must be fun. your own definition does not count and this was a stupid question

His definition is fine and basically is in the dictionary (though it might not be the first one). Stop being a tool.

 

[Cartman86]

Crying lake a baby in a film or feeling hollowed out by some episode of television is enjoyable for me. If that doesn't mean "fun" then fine games don't have to be fun.

 

[Pinko Marx]

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 ?

Like I said, in one way or another. A game with shitty game mechanics, but a good story could be fun in that the story is entertaining to watch unfold. A game with horror elements is fun in the some of the same ways that watching a horror movie is fun. Like I said, a game has to keep me wanting to play in some way. Otherwise, no one would play it. Its pretty damn simple. All games must be fun or NO ONE WOULD PLAY THEM.

 

[TL4E]

It was already mentioned, but MMOs are often times filled with a lot more "wanting" than "liking." It feels like a job at times--you don't enjoy the work, but you want the reward.

I suppose that normal games have the same work-to-reward delay, but it isn't nearly as long and painful to get the reward. The best games imo are those that feel rewarding just by playing them.

 

[Interfectum]

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.

The reason why people watch horror or play horror games is to be scared. Being scared in a non-dangerous situation is a thrill. That is a form of fun. There is only one definition of fun.

 

[Confidence Man]

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 ?

Can you complete the puzzle, or is it designed to be unenjoyable to play and also impossible to finish, just to express an idea?

In that sense you'd have a game that can probably be appreciated as art but not be good as a game, sort of like a puzzle that comes in a box, only none of the pieces actually fit together on purpose.

 

[Salsa]

Like I said, a game has to keep me wanting to play in some way. Otherwise, no one would play it.

I got that, what im saying is that in my case, personally, FUN doesnt have to be the thing to keep me playing.

Of course it depends on the game, and how much i find it interesting/engaging/etc. I mean im not gonna play that first ET game or anything

 

[Pinko Marx]

I got that, what im saying is that in my case, personally, FUN doesnt have to be the thing to keep me playing.

Of course it depends on the game and on other things.

So then why would you play a game for anything other than fun?

 

[Mr. B Natural]

The reason why people watch horror or play horror games is to be scared. Being scared in a non-dangerous situation is a thrill. That is a form of fun. There is only one definition of fun.

The word you are looking for is stimulating. Not fun. Having fun is a form of stimulation but not all stimulation is fun. Most isn't.
Games need to be stimulating. Well, to me anyway.

 

[Interfectum]

The word you are looking for is stimulating. Not fun. Having fun is a form of stimulation but not all stimulation is fun. Most isn't.
Games need to be stimulating. Well, to me anyway.

No, the word I'm looking for is fun. Thanks though.

 

[Salsa]

So then why would you play a game for anything other than fun?

Depends on what the game is trying to express. If its just fun, thats fine, im in. If its a case like Flower Sun and Rain (im tired of this example :lol ) then there's other things. I wanted to see the end of it, i wanted to see what would happen next, i was hooked, and engaged, i found it immensely interesting, and different, and i wanted to comprehend it. But it was a chore to play, and it wasnt fun.

No, the word I'm looking for is fun. Thanks though.

Dude just accept different opinions, no one is wrong or right in this thread. Some stuff means fun to you, other stuff means fun to others, thats it.

 

[BobsRevenge]

The word you are looking for is stimulating. Not fun. Having fun is a form of stimulation but not all stimulation is fun. Most isn't.
Games need to be stimulating. Well, to me anyway.

I think being rewarding is a key. If a game is frustrating you almost endlessly but you end up rewarded by it, then you'll probably want to do something like it again. Like, take Quake Live. Something I've been playing recently and when I'm in a close match it isn't about having fun. Like, at all. It's about winning, and when that becomes difficult it is frustrating. I start literally getting angry and pissed off. That isn't fun. But if I win I'll throw my arms up in victory and feel a genuine sense of being better than other people, which is rewarding.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

Thread hindered because some people can't process a nuanced definition of "fun."

It was laid out in the OP: Fun is not a synonym for entertaining or engaging. To use my go-to example, No Country for Old Men is an engaging, critically acclaimed movie, but few would pick "fun" as an appropriate adjective for it. Reading a biography of Thomas Jefferson isn't "fun" like Halo is "fun" but people choose to do it for some reason. That reason is the kind of engagement I think this thread is supposed to be about.

Should there be games that are deliberately unpleasant, unnerving, yet engaging? Yes. And lots of other adjectives besides "fun" as well.

 

[Pinko Marx]

Depends on what the game is trying to express. If its just fun, thats fine, im in. If its a case like Flower Sun and Rain (im tired of this example :lol ) then there's other things. I wanted to see the end of it, i wanted to see what would happen next, i was hooked, and engaged, but it was a chore to play, and it wasnt fun.

The game itself wasn't fun to play, but the story was fun to experience. Thus there was some form of fun being had. Which was an example I had originally brought up.

Like I said, in one way or another.

 

[DryvBy]

I don't look at games as art because that falls into the catagory of splatter paint being art.

If a game's not fun, it's nothing to me. And by fun, I don't mean relating to overall product: gameplay/style/story/can I do whatever the eff I want? yes. cool beans.

 

[Interfectum]

Depends on what the game is trying to express. If its just fun, thats fine, im in. If its a case like Flower Sun and Rain (im tired of this example :lol ) then there's other things. I wanted to see the end of it, i wanted to see what would happen next, i was hooked, and engaged, but it was a chore to play, and it wasnt fun.

Why did you keep playing Flower, Sun and Rain? For the discovery? For the story? To see how the crazyness would end? Guess what, that was fun to you.

Maybe the core gameplay was trash, but you still found fun in the game.

I would just call that bad game design. It's possible to be engaging on both fronts but some games fall short in either or both.

 

[BobsRevenge]

No, the word I'm looking for is fun. Thanks though.

You're trying to derail the conversation by arguing semantics. No one should really care. If you understand how we're using words in the discussion and wish to share your feelings on the subject, then please just use the words how the OP intended them to be used. If not, don't bother posting because this kind of shit ruins these threads. Like, every time. And its pointless and I'm tired of it.

edit: Please excuse my abrasiveness, but I'd just really like to curb these sorts of responses.

 

[Salsa]

The game itself wasn't fun to play, but the story was fun to experience. Thus there was some form of fun being had. Which was an example I had originally brought up.

Like I said, in one way or another.

Again, depends on the definition of fun. The story wasnt really that much fun though, it was interesting.

Thread hindered because some people can't process a nuanced definition of "fun."

It was laid out in the OP: Fun is not a synonym for entertaining or engaging. To use my go-to example, No Country for Old Men is an engaging, critically acclaimed movie, but few would pick "fun" as an appropriate adjective for it. Reading a biography of Thomas Jefferson isn't "fun" like Halo is "fun" but people choose to do it for some reason. That reason is the kind of engagement I think this thread is supposed to be about.

Should there be games that are deliberately unpleasant, unnerving, yet engaging? Yes. And lots of other adjectives besides "fun" as well.

This is what im talking about.

Why did you keep playing Flower, Sun and Rain? For the discovery? For the story? To see how the crazyness would end? Guess what, that was fun to you.

Maybe the core gameplay was trash, but you still found fun in the game.

I would just call that bad game design. It's possible to be engaging on both fronts but some games fall short in either or both.

Ok, ill give you this, even if i dont really think so: Maybe I, ME, personally, found something FUN in the experience, given my personality, but maybe the game wasnt meant to be FUN. It was meant to be interesting. All im saying if that this is valid in the industry, if games can be good without being FUN. Thread title is: Should all games be fun? its pretty clear.

You are talking semantics, read hey_it's_that_dog's post.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

I don't look at games as art because that falls into the catagory of splatter paint being art.

If a game's not fun, it's nothing to me. And by fun, I don't mean relating to overall product: gameplay/style/story/can I do whatever the eff I want? yes. cool beans.

That's fine but this discussion doesn't have to involve games being art at all.

 

[Pinko Marx]

Thread hindered because some people can't process a nuanced definition of "fun."

It was laid out in the OP: Fun is not a synonym for entertaining or engaging. To use my go-to example, No Country for Old Men is an engaging, critically acclaimed movie, but few would pick "fun" as an appropriate adjective for it. Reading a biography of Thomas Jefferson isn't "fun" like Halo is "fun" but people choose to do it for some reason. That reason is the kind of engagement I think this thread is supposed to be about.

Should there be games that are deliberately unpleasant, unnerving, yet engaging? Yes. And lots of other adjectives besides "fun" as well.

This thread is stupid to begin with, and like another posted said, is nothing more than a battle of semantics. The way I see it is that if a game has some aspect of it that is engaging/entertaning/rewarding then there is some fun to be had. Regardless of the fact that there is some unsettling or tedious or whathaveyou aspect of it.

 

[Amir0x]

It should be "fun" insomuch as you actually want to spend time with the game, because it's engaging in any number of ways.

If the gameplay is broken, however, I'm not sure what else games should be exactly. if you're not playing them, then they might as well be movies or tv shows, and we all know how good game developers are at writing stories.

 

[HK-47]

No.

It should be good though, and what I define as good is my own opinion.

I've play games that where neither fun nor particularly enjoyable. They were good though, engaging for sure.

 

[Pinko Marx]

No.

It should be good though, and what I define as good is my own opinion.

I've play games that where neither fun nor particularly enjoyable. They were good though.

See, I don't get this shit. How is it not enjoyable yet its good? A GAME CAN'T BE GOOD AND NOT ENJOYABLE.

 

[seady]

Alan Wake first thing comes to mind.

Very interesting characters and story, but also VERY un-fun.

 

[Interfectum]

You're trying to derail the conversation by arguing semantics. No one should really care. If you understand how we're using words in the discussion and wish to share your feelings on the subject, then please just use the words how the OP intended them to be used. If not, don't bother posting because this kind of shit ruins these threads. Like, every time. And its pointless and I'm tired of it.

edit: Please excuse my abrasiveness, but I'd just really like to curb these sorts of responses.

I don't give a shit what you are tired of. I wasn't even responding to you and actually someone was arguing semantics with me.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

This thread is stupid to begin with, and like another posted said, is nothing more than a battle of semantics. The way I see it is that if a game has some aspect of it that is engaging/entertaning/rewarding then there is some fun to be had. Regardless of the fact that there is some unsettling or tedious or whathaveyou aspect of it.

Semantics = meaning, and in a discussion understanding each other's meanings is essential.

Calling "semantics!" should not be used to dismiss an entire topic of discourse.

Even if the entire thread ends up being exclusively about debating what "fun" should mean, how is that not worth some people's time? Have you seen the shit that is talked about on internet message boards?

 

[HK-47]

See, I don't get this shit. How is it not enjoyable yet its good? A GAME CAN'T BE GOOD AND NOT ENJOYABLE.

Icepick Studios. Their games are not fun to play. They are difficult and unforgiving by design. And thats the whole point. Thats part of the experience.

 

[Confidence Man]

See, I don't get this shit. How is it not enjoyable yet its good? A GAME CAN'T BE GOOD AND NOT ENJOYABLE.

A thing can be appreciated for it's qualities but not be enjoyed, yes?

 

[BobsRevenge]

Semantics = meaning, and in a discussion understanding each other's meanings is essential.

Calling "semantics!" should not be used to dismiss an entire topic of discourse.

Well, I mean, the OPs intentions are clear enough to dismiss the discourse alone in that that discourse is tangential to the topic at hand.

 

[Interfectum]

Icepick Studios. Their games are not fun to play. They are difficult and unforgiving by design. And thats the whole point. Thats part of the experience.

Wouldn't you say the fun is found in overcoming the difficult and unforgiving design?

At the end of the day there is something you found enjoyable about it. And maybe the unforgiving nature of the game is what you found to be fun.

 

[Salsa]

I think the thread is derailing too much at what people finds fun.

Yeah, for some, maybe walking in and endless corridor to hit a wall is fun. But that game isnt conceived as fun, is it ? Thats what im talking about.

 

[Pinko Marx]

A thing can be appreciated for it's qualities but not be enjoyed, yes?

When you put it like that, its understandable, but not in the context of video games. A good game, by definition, is enjoyable in some way.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

Wouldn't you say the fun is found in overcoming the difficult and unforgiving design?

At the end of the day there is something you found enjoyable about it. And maybe the unforgiving nature of the game is what you found to be fun.

So you think anything engaging/enjoyable can be reduced to "fun" in the end, and that's fine, but this discussion is better aided by additional hairsplitting, categorizing the types of engagement/enjoyment rather than lumping them together and saying "why talk about this?"

When you put it like that, its understandable, but not in the context of video games. A good game, by definition, is enjoyable in some way.

And the question tacitly asked by the OP is: Should this continue to be the definition of "game" or is there room for other kinds of experiences under the "game" umbrella?

 

[Struct09]

They don't necessarily have to be fun, but them being fun is a strength of the medium.

 

[Pinko Marx]

I think the thread is derailing too much at what people finds fun.

Yeah, for some, maybe walking in and endless corridor to hit a wall is fun. But that game isnt conceived as fun, is it ? Thats what im talking about.

Tell that to the FFXIII staff.
ZING!

 

[Salsa]

And the question tacitly asked by the OP is: Should this continue to be the definition of "game" or is there room for other kinds of experiences under the "game" umbrella?

Yup.

Tell that to the FFXIII staff.
ZING!

:lol

 

[TL4E]

I think the thread is derailing too much at what people finds fun.

Yeah, for some, maybe walking in and endless corridor to hit a wall is fun. But that game isnt conceived as fun, is it ? Thats what im talking about.

A masochist might find "fun" what we find to be the very opposite. Ultimately, however, the masochist still finds the experience rewarding. We can then define "fun" as what activates the pleasure centers of the brain for any given person.

Then yes, I agree with you.

 

[MrMephistoX]

Enjoyability comes with fun. Even getting one's ass handed to them online or in Ninja Gaiden is fun and rewarding in it's own punishing way. Others might consider that to not be fun; indeed, they may find it too frustrating but I enjoy a challenge.

Would I want to play Schindler's List the game on the other hand? Probably not.

 

[BobsRevenge]

A masochist might find "fun" what we find to be the very opposite. Ultimately, however, the masochist still finds the experience rewarding.

Is this a jab at Demon's Souls?

 

[woxel1]

All games don't have to be fun, but play has to be fun, but you play games, so I guess what I'm trying to say is all games don't have to be played...?

 

[TL4E]

Is this a jab at Demon's Souls?

Sorry but I've not played the game. :lol

 

[HK-47]

Wouldn't you say the fun is found in overcoming the difficult and unforgiving design?

At the end of the day there is something you found enjoyable about it. And maybe the unforgiving nature of the game is what you found to be fun.

No really. Games fucking beat my ass and actively worked against me. Its cruel in the worst way. I'm happy someone had the guts to do it though. So few people push the boundaries of games I feel I need to support those who do.

 

[Campster]

Absolutely not. Pictures don't need to be pretty. Music doesn't need to be catchy. Dance doesn't need to be graceful. To force an adjective on an entire artistic medium is short-sighted and overly reductionist at best, and damaging for anyone working in that medium at worst. Suddenly the onus on someone trying to express himself in song is to not only bare his soul but to make sure there's a beat you can dance to. The painter can't just pour his inner demons out on the canvas, but must do so in a way that is palatable to the eye. The dancer is no longer able to use their body to its fullest expressive extent because loose, sudden, or jerky movements are seen as a lack of skill rather than a conscious effort.

To clarify - the OP makes it pretty clear he's not talking about "engaging" or "interesting" as valid interpretations of fun - just explicitly fun fun. "Whee, I'm having a great time on this waterslide!" fun, not "Watching Schindler's List is grippingly powerful entertainment" fun. No one is arguing that games should be skull-crushingly dull (well, maybe Ian Bogost, but I digress). Seriously, if games are required to make you feel the same way a 10 year old boy in the middle of a neighborhood waterwar feels, and the need to generate that silly emotion supersedes any other thing you're trying to do with your work then it's no wonder we have a medium riddled with nothing but male power fantasies and simple toys.

I mean, look at these games. They've been covered before and many of you have already seen them, but they're engaging without necessarily making you feel like you're a six year old at Disneyland:

Every Day The Same Dream
Real Lives
The Passage

Some of these games might not be to your tastes, and that's totally cool. But there's a difference between games not one being to one's liking and the requirement that all games conform to a single aesthetic. Games like these, and numerous others, prove that you can have an engaging experience that isn't necessarily something you'd invite your friends over and split a few beers while playing on a big-screen TV.

 

[DaBuddaDa]

This is stupid then. If you don't want to argue semantics, then sure, the OPs arbitrary and subjective definition of fun is not required for games. If you use the dictionary definition, it is required for games.

So what else is there to discuss?

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Allright, question speaks for itself, but lets talk a little..

Given that most of us recognize videogames as an art form, do you think that a fun experience is one of the things it should always transmit ?

With the whole comparing videogames to movies/books thing (wich i think it shouldnt be done, but whatever), dont you think that games can expand to give players a more profund experience than just having fun ? (and rely solely in this aspects, taking away the "fun" part)

Movies/books dont need to be entertaining. I mean i dont think people watched The green mile or read Pride and Prejudice thinking "hey this is so much fun! call the kids!".

Another thing: Fun=/=Engaging/Interesting. These are completely different concepts.

A good example for this is Flower, Sun, and Rain. I really liked the game, but i didnt have any fun with it. It was frustrating, gameplay was broken, but i actually think (and this is up for debate, as some people might think its stupid) this was done in purpose. I mean there's a whole section of the game where you just run from one character to another to say what the other character wanted to say, and viceversa. This is completely unnecesary, unless its part of the point, and part of the atmosphere the game wants you to experience. I didnt have fun with the game, but it sure was engaging. I really wanted to know what the fuck was going on in Suda's mind while making this, and it was a really good experiment on this matter.

What im basically saying is, the industry is big enough, shouldnt there be more room for experimentation ? there will always be fun games, of course, and everybody loves those (me included of course), but i think it wouldnt hurt to have more games like Flower Sun and Rain (just to name an example) to try and experiment with this.

I have become more and more assured that there is a trend currently of both developers and gamers confusing the lack of this with better game design, or worse, treating it as an inarguably higher-evolved form of game crafting with each passing day.

Not so much that work/pacing/encumberances must exist in every sense, but in the act of removing it, developers have found they must insert something else in its place, and it's very very unwise replacements in every case. Players who blanche at "work" and "roadblocks" of self-betterment or pacing in games don't care as, hey, at least it ain't asking anything of them other than patience; there was less risk of coming up short or a long fight to be dealt with.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Of course not. They need to be compelling and engaging, and being fun is only one way of achieving that goal.


To use examples from film, there are very few people who would say that the brutal, single-cut scene of Monica Belluci being anally raped in Irreversible is entertaining or enjoyable, but that was never the intent of the scene and in no way makes it a bad film. Salo has plenty of scenes which leave the viewer feeling physically ill, but that's pretty much the point.

Should all music make any sound?

Wrong question. Should all music be tuneful and harmonious? Phillip Glass and John Cage would say no.

These are all highly subjective issues. Not everyone wants to watch challenging or harrowing cinema, and not everyone wants to listen to discordant music. That doesn't mean however that works which eschew convention are invalidated within their medium. In fact, the point of such work is in part to reinforce the convention which it violates.

Welcome to post-modernism, enjoy your stay.

 

[Pinko Marx]

Okay so what we need to do here is find a different word here for the concept OP has described. Because what he has defined and what fun is are two different things. But since I can't think of the proper word, I'm just gunna put OP's fun in quotations, like so: "fun".

So now to properly answer the OP. No, not all games have to be "fun". I've played plenty of good games that weren't exactly "fun", but I enjoyed. Shadow of the Colossus comes to mind. Killer 7 is another one. Both great games.