Support NeoGAF

[Salsa]

If I want an engaging cinematic experience, I'll watch a movie. If I want to learn something, I'll read a book or travel. I play video games to have fun. If you're not playing video games for fun, seriously, do yourself a favor and find a new hobby. If a game isn't fun, it had no reason to be made and certainly not worth playing.

I play my games to enjoy them in one way or another.

Do i play games for fun ? yeah, of course. Do i think they could/should/do more than that ? yes.

 

[The Technomancer]

Should all games be fun? Yeah. Should all interactive entertainment experiences be fun? Not necessarily.

Was Silent Hill: Shattered Memories a very "fun" experience? Not really. Was it an incredibly interesting experience? Most definitely.

Spoiler

Although I'll stick with calling everything under the blanket "game" for now. That's too huge of a can of worms

 

[Salsa]

Should all games be fun? Yeah. Should all interactive entertainment experiences be fun? Not necessarily.

Again comes the question of what makes a game really a GAME. Someone else could do this thread

Cant really talk about that until i play Heavy Rain i guess.

 

[The Technomancer]

If I want an engaging cinematic experience, I'll watch a movie. If I want to learn something, I'll read a book or travel. I play video games to have fun. If you're not playing video games for fun, seriously, do yourself a favor and find a new hobby. If a game isn't fun, it had no reason to be made and certainly not worth playing.

Right, but video games have certain strengths as a medium over books and movies. I always bring up Shattered Memories in these threads, but it really does seem to me like the first big step towards storytelling like only a video game can. That is a story that would not have the same emotional impact if you weren't being Harry Mason, if you were just reading a book, or watching him on film.

(I know some people disagree about that game's story)

 

[pargonta]

you know, on a movie forum this thread would be called.. "does every movie have to be entertaining". people go in circles talking about all artforms this way. it will never end, because there will always be a spectrum of people wanting wholly different things from works in a medium.

interactivity makes no difference. if the gameplay is frustrating, then the gameplay may not be a fun part of the game. so what? the game can still exist in the cultural landscape as an important creative text. 'fun' (aka 'entertainment value' in the movie industry) is not a requisite for a video game.

the answer is of course no, but perhaps the youth of our medium makes that harder to swallow.

musicals and comedies ruled the movie industry... the fun eventually went away for them. birth of a nation brought social and political importance to the artform. we desperately need that level of dialogue in games in order to get away from the reliance on fun. i'd love to see less fun in games, in a way. focus on message rather than delivery.

 

[Salsa]

it really does seem to me like the first big step towards storytelling like only a video game can.

Half life 2

Portal

 

[Gazel Ministry]

Cool story, bro.

 

[Salsa]

Cool story, bro.

bye

 

[blame space]

Half life 2

Portal

so not about story

 

[chiQ]

Fun

Pronunciation:/fʌn/
noun
[mass noun]

* enjoyment, amusement, or light-hearted pleasure:the children were having fun in the play area
* a source of funeople-watching is great fun
* playfulness or good humour:she's full of fun
* behaviour or an activity that is intended purely for amusement and should not be interpreted as having any serious or malicious purpose:the column's just a bit of fun

adjective (funner, funnest)
informal

* amusing, entertaining, or enjoyable:it was a fun evening

verb (funs, funning, funned)
North American informal

* joke or tease:[no object] :no need to get sore — I was only funning [with object] :they are just funning you

Source: Oxford Dictionary.

 

[Salsa]

so not about story

about storytelling

 

[The Technomancer]

about storytelling

Hm, I'll give you that HL2 (and HL) and Portal were great at storytelling, but I think that SM was the game (to me, at least) that had me actually emotionally invested in what was going on on the screen.

 

[blame space]

about storytelling

aboutsetting; about atmosphere. the stories never change, making them fundamentally unimportant to an interactive medium.

 

[Salsa]

Hm, I'll give you that HL2 (and HL) and Portal were great at storytelling, but I think that SM was the game (to me, at least) that had me actually emotionally invested in what was going on on the screen.

Ill take you up on that, needed a new Wii game anyway.

aboutsetting; about atmosphere. the stories never change, making them fundamentally unimportant to an interactive medium.

?

Im talking about the way of telling them. Both Half Life 2 and Portal have stories that benefit themselves from the way they are told. THAT couldnt be done in a movie or a book. Sure you could tell the same story, but not in the same way. This doesnt apply to most games.

 

[apana]

As long as people are willing to buy it I guess it doesnt have to be anything? A game could be a DMV simulator for all I care.

 

[The Technomancer]

Ill take you up on that, needed a new Wii game anyway.

Yeah, its definitely worth experiencing at least once. It leaves some people cold, others fall in love with it. I should point out that it only went from decent to incredible in my eyes after the plot twist and on repeat playthroughs, so take that for what its worth.

 

[Salsa]

Yeah, its definitely worth experiencing at least once. It leaves some people cold, others fall in love with it. I should point out that it only went from decent to incredible in my eyes after the plot twist and on repeat playthroughs, so take that for what its worth.

I read about it, so i think i know what im getting in. Guess ill be getting this and Kirby together, weird.

Thanks

 

[apana]

Also what about relaxation games? I could imagine a lot of people who arent into games or having fun, like old people, using a vitatlity sensor type device/ software to relax.

 

[Wallach]

I would say that a game does not necessarily need to be "fun" in the sense that my derived entertainment is completely dependent on my means of interactivity with it. There's simply a limit on how far you can stretch that grace your viewer is willing to give before they abandon it, but that will vary from person to person.

Myself, I don't think this medium is very good at delivering experiences that are so far detached from the interactivity. At least, those types of games are the ones that I am least entertained by even when the quality of their other content is superb. Planescape is a good example of a game that I really enjoyed reading but barely managed to finish and am not likely to play through again very often. I've only played through it once to completion; if you compare that to other similarly structured games like Baldur's Gate 2, which I've replayed maybe a dozen times, the main difference is in the quality of the interactive mechanics.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

half of gaf is long past the point of playing game for fun. The other half doesn't play games.

the other other half works as a gamesjournalist and claims to have fun while they didn't actually play the game. All of them suck at statistics.

 

[RurouniZel]

I tend to prefer when they are.

 

[Salsa]

I would say that a game does not necessarily need to be "fun" in the sense that my derived entertainment is completely dependent on my means of interactivity with it. There's simply a limit on how far you can stretch that grace your viewer is willing to give before they abandon it, but that will vary from person to person.

Myself, I don't think this medium is very good at delivering experiences that are so far detached from the interactivity. At least, those types of games are the ones that I am least entertained by even when the quality of their other content is superb. Planescape is a good example of a game that I really enjoyed reading but barely managed to finish and am not likely to play through again very often. I've only played through it once to completion; if you compare that to other similarly structured games like Baldur's Gate 2, which I've replayed maybe a dozen times, the main difference is in the quality of the interactive mechanics.

Like the examples above, the best way to do this is environment storytelling and the likes. When the way the story is told fuses with the gameplay and every other aspect of the game, you feel like you are really playing the game as a whole, you dont even differentiate aspects of it. Its all there, and it works, falls into place. Not like a cinematic cutscene, random text, or fucking notepads that someone left behind :lol .

 

[Poyunch]

If a game purposely makes you hate it just to make a point it should just fuck off.

Spoiler

I love you No More Heroes. Except that doesn't count for me since I didn't hate it even if Suda was or wasn't trying to make a point.

 

[chiQ]

half of gaf is long past the point of playing game for fun. The other half doesn't play games.

the other other half works as a gamesjournalist and claims to have fun while they didn't actually play the game. All of them suck at statistics.

So many halves...

Further to the discussion I was taking part in before I lost track of where this thread is going:

Just because games are an artform that doesn't change the fact that art that doesn't attract people can't fully serve its purpose. Fun is a really good people-magnet.

 

[blame space]

Im talking about the way of telling them. Both Half Life 2 and Portal have stories that benefit themselves from the way they are told. THAT couldnt be done in a movie or a book. Sure you could tell the same story, but not in the same way. This doesnt apply to most games.

but the "way of telling them" is always the same. you navigate an environment that's been presented to you, ideally in an interesting or challenging way. to me, the story is the last thing I give a shit about in this situation. I'm not a fucking actor, I don't need motivation to want to play a video game. the story is a means to an end: THE end. of the level, of the game, of your attention-span..

if we're going to say we care about a game's story, we need to be playing games with true choices and repercussions. of course the industry solution is to develop "sandbox" experiences (which I tend to LOVE, by the way), or singular binary choices (looking back.. smh @ Bioshock), which further trivializes the supposed seriousness of a gamer's "choice".

a perfect video game story would be an actual interactive narrative in which you utilize established mechanics to produce an infinite number of potential outcomes; a game that would never have the same story twice. that's the ideal: an impoosibly complex "choose your adventure" book that has infinite "turn to page 60" options. otherwise, why the hell am I participating?

because I enjoy what I'm participating in, for whatever dumb fuckin thumb-twidlin' reason. escapism, competition, immersion, satisfaction.. fuck, hand-eye coordination. i choose to recognize and praise those aspects of my favorite games: the things which I control and enjoy. the fun \o/

 

[Rollo Lawson]

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

im not being a tool, whatever that is. fun is not some existential concept like "love" where everyone can just make their own meaning. its a straight forward concept with clear definition. even when the focus is to educate or persuade or tell a story, the reason anything is put into a game is to make it fun...period. there is no other reason for games to exist...

 

[Dr. Hoofington]

Fuck fun.

The market driven mandate for fun is halting any real innovation in game design.

 

[blame space]

Fuck fun.

The market driven mandate for fun is halting any real innovation in game design.

so off-base that I question your integrity.

Geometry Wars Retro Evolved 2 GOTG

 

[Tain]

I don't know about "should." I don't think that there shouldn't be any bad games. But all great games are fun, definitely.

 

[HK-47]

Again comes the question of what makes a game really a GAME. Someone else could do this thread

Cant really talk about that until i play Heavy Rain i guess.

Yes, play Heavy Rain. Its a wonderful guide on how not to write a mystery thriller story and how David Cage clearly is an alien that doesnt understand how things like people, psychology, the police, plot twists, unreliable narrators, reasoning, logic, and average rainfall work.

 

[notsol337]

I don't think all games should be fun. I think all games should be boring.

I love boring games. If a game is fun, I chuck it across the room and then light it on fire.

Fuck fun, I'm an adult. We don't have fun, we analyze shit.

(When I really think about it, Earthbound wasn't always fun but I love it. I'm a hypocrite and a dick.)

 

[blame space]

I don't think all games should be fun. I think all games should be boring.

I love boring games. If a game is fun, I chuck it across the room and then light it on fire.

Fuck fun, I'm an adult. We don't have fun, we analyze shit.

honestly though, I think I'd rather live in this reality than the current one where I have to listen to roommates scream at Call of Duty for hours on end.

 

[HK-47]

a perfect video game story would be an actual interactive narrative in which you utilize established mechanics to produce an infinite number of potential outcomes; a game that would never have the same story twice. that's the ideal: an impoosibly complex "choose your adventure" book that has infinite "turn to page 60" options. otherwise, why the hell am I participating?

Its called tabletop rpgs. Also saying thats how story in games should be is incredibly constricting.

Also why just established mechanics? Isnt the best way to push boundaries by specidically defying convention? Gaming right now is bogging down completely in playing it safe, in genre conventions as applied to gameplay.

 

[Stahsky]

The only thing you get out of video games is entertainment ?

Yes. That's exactly what it is. Nothing more. If I'm not entertained then it failed as a product.

 

[blame space]

Its called tabletop rpgs. Also saying thats how story in games should be is incredibly constricting.

Also why just established mechanics? Isnt the best way to push boundaries by specidically defying convention? Gaming right now is bogging down completely in playing it safe, in genre conventions as applied to gameplay.

"established mechanics" being relative to the game and input utilized within the game, not in relation to other games.

 

[FoxSpirit]

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.

Nice. I also wanna push out 2 more completely different examples:

Starcraft and Cave-shooters.

They are more "gamey" than your examples yet they certainly don't make you go whee. Those games are, uhm, demanding?
I remember finishing Contra 4, it was a great feeling but certainly not one of a 10 year old. It was a much more accomplished feeling, the feeling of something I could not have achieved when I was 10.

 

[Supervlieg]

Engaging, yes

 

[Monocle]

Every game I like enough to own is fun in that playing it is enjoyable and rewarding enough to sustain my interest. A game can be or do many things—it can frustrate, annoy or bore me—but if any of these sensations outweighs the pleasurable aspects of the experience then I feel I'm wasting my time with a piece of entertainment that has failed to perform its only significant function. I avoid games that consistently disappoint me in this way or leave a forcible negative impression.

 

[Brashnir]

you know, on a movie forum this thread would be called.. "does every movie have to be entertaining". people go in circles talking about all artforms this way. it will never end, because there will always be a spectrum of people wanting wholly different things from works in a medium.

interactivity makes no difference. if the gameplay is frustrating, then the gameplay may not be a fun part of the game. so what? the game can still exist in the cultural landscape as an important creative text. 'fun' (aka 'entertainment value' in the movie industry) is not a requisite for a video game.

the answer is of course no, but perhaps the youth of our medium makes that harder to swallow.

musicals and comedies ruled the movie industry... the fun eventually went away for them. birth of a nation brought social and political importance to the artform. we desperately need that level of dialogue in games in order to get away from the reliance on fun. i'd love to see less fun in games, in a way. focus on message rather than delivery.

I think interactivity does make a difference. I don't think it's necessarily insurmountable, but it is a significant barrier for creating a lot of different types of experiences in games.

It's one thing to passively watch an unpleasant drama unfold between fictional characters in a movie, it's another entirely to be forced to actively participate in unpleasant drama.

One of the reasons that such a barrier exists is that interactivity in games is primarily about problem solving. (Game structure almost always can be reduced to tools vs. obstacles) Players are conditioned to work their way through a problem in order to 'win" in a game. In passive entertainment, there is no inherent obstacle-driven structure. A character in passive entertainment will do whatever the creator decides they will do, without fail. This includes doing bad things, making poor decisions, and doing all sorts of things that the viewer of said entertainment would never want to do.

These creative devices are either impossible, or at the least very unpalatable in active entertainment. Making a bad decision in a game means you lose and have to retry - it can't be the vehicle through which the story unfolds.

That's not to say that powerful "un-fun" experiences can't be done in a game, but there are a lot of obstacles with game structure that make it even more difficult and and even tougher sell than an un-fun movie or book. On the other hand, if one is done well, it could be an even more powerful experience than the same story told through literature or cinema, since it would be driven by the person experiencing it.

 

[Dascu]

An interesting idea would be the following:

Take your favourite game and strip away everything that isn't gameplay. Cutscenes are removed and any dialogue outside of them is replaced by "...". Sound is muted. Textures are all white or grey. Geometry is simplified and characters are replaced by circles or cylinders.

Now ask yourself if you'd still play this game and enjoy it? If you do, then the core gameplay mechanics are fun. If not, then your enjoyment of the game was from other elements than the actual gameplay. I think this could be relevant to the discussion in this topic. Take Silent Hill 2 or Heavy Rain. Games that are mentioned quite a bit in this thread as examples being engaging yet not fun (and let's assume that the definitions of fun and engaging are different, as the OP asks of us). Now, I think a lot of us would agree that if you strip away all those non-gameplay elements, then it's true that these games wouldn't be fun anymore.


So, the question formulated in the OP could be: Can games that rely on non-gameplay elements still be considered good games?

I'm very conflicted about this. I liked Silent Hill 2, but something rubs me the wrong way when I compare it to, say, New Super Mario Bros Wii. I can't, with a clear conscience, consider the former to be anywhere near as good as a game as the latter. It's because I realize that I'm not playing SH2 for the gameplay. Inevitably, questions arise if games like that should even have gameplay anymore.

 

[B-Genius]

Apologies if anyone's mentioned this already, but how about Shadow of the Colossus as an example?

For most of the game, you are simply riding around an empty, not particularly engaging (albeit beautiful) landscape. I doubt many could call this "fun", but it sure as heck compliments the rest of the game.

Short answer: yes, with an 'if'.
Long answer: no... with a 'but'.

If it's not fun why play it?

Games are supposed to be entertainment.

See, this is weird. Movies are also supposed to be entertainment. Does that mean all movies should be "fun"?

Toy Story 3 was "fun".
The Road was not "fun". But people enjoy it nonetheless.