-
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.
Do games need to be fun?
- Thread starter Ghost of Caelid
- Start date
SlimeGooGoo
Party Gooper
If you're engaged it means you care, that you are interested into something.
Fun is usually a reward for your engagement into something. It encourages you to keep yourself actively engaged.
You can be engaged into games, but not having fun. Think of a dude in a casino that is addicted to some games and is compulsively wasting money there, desperately trying to win.
I would say the point of most games (especially non-virtual) is socialization and competition.
Most people play for fun, as a distraction to kill time, but you can also play as a test of competence and worth (think of tournaments that reward participants with glory, fame and money)
*Video* games added "story" to the mix. It's there to keep the player engaged.
If the story and characters are interesting, just like "fun", it will help to keep the player actively engaged in the experience (it could be a drama, comedy, romance, as long as it's interesting, whatever)
Story is just a means to an end.
It should never be placed above gameplay. It should encourage gameplay.
People that put story above gameplay have no idea what they're doing, and usually are people that wanted to work on movies instead.
Where does "fun" comes from?
I would say when some need is fulfilled.
For instance, If the sole reason for you playing a game is to socialize (MMOs), and you manage to achieve that by getting engaged with the game, then you're having fun, you're being rewarded.
Most players feel fun when they manage to accomplish some challenge by use of their (learned and practiced) skill. Be it solving a puzzle, elaborating some strategy, or pure reaction time.
I've seen some weaboos having fun only with games that have virtual romances with waifus (visual novels, Persona, Trails, etc), because they can't achieve that in real life the game satisfies their need for affection.
So game designers need to create those situations that allow players to have fun simply by getting engaged with the game -- with or without story.
Mario is a great example of that.
Fun is usually a reward for your engagement into something. It encourages you to keep yourself actively engaged.
You can be engaged into games, but not having fun. Think of a dude in a casino that is addicted to some games and is compulsively wasting money there, desperately trying to win.
I would say the point of most games (especially non-virtual) is socialization and competition.
Most people play for fun, as a distraction to kill time, but you can also play as a test of competence and worth (think of tournaments that reward participants with glory, fame and money)
*Video* games added "story" to the mix. It's there to keep the player engaged.
If the story and characters are interesting, just like "fun", it will help to keep the player actively engaged in the experience (it could be a drama, comedy, romance, as long as it's interesting, whatever)
Story is just a means to an end.
It should never be placed above gameplay. It should encourage gameplay.
People that put story above gameplay have no idea what they're doing, and usually are people that wanted to work on movies instead.
Where does "fun" comes from?
I would say when some need is fulfilled.
For instance, If the sole reason for you playing a game is to socialize (MMOs), and you manage to achieve that by getting engaged with the game, then you're having fun, you're being rewarded.
Most players feel fun when they manage to accomplish some challenge by use of their (learned and practiced) skill. Be it solving a puzzle, elaborating some strategy, or pure reaction time.
I've seen some weaboos having fun only with games that have virtual romances with waifus (visual novels, Persona, Trails, etc), because they can't achieve that in real life the game satisfies their need for affection.
So game designers need to create those situations that allow players to have fun simply by getting engaged with the game -- with or without story.
Mario is a great example of that.
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
was the creepy, interesting horror of PT not 'fun' to get scared by?
or TLOU2's incredibly visceral gorey third person shooter gameplay, was that not 'fun'? (ok maybe it isn't, IDK i don't like TLOU)
If a game has an interesting subject, or story, or music, even graphics, it's fun to me. It's fun to get invested and immersed in this stuff, it's truly interesting and riveting to me. It's why watching a movie, reading a book, listening to music are fun even if they aren't as interactive as any video game
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
yes. I had a lot of fun as you describe... but also was unsettled by a lot of it.
But blowing someones head off is always fun
tommib
Member
Ok are these the Russian bots I keep hearing about?
Knightime_X
Member
Fun factor is extremely important.
If its not fun its not fun to play.
If its not fun its not fun to play.
GenericUser
Member
Wildebeest
Member
I don't care if the word fun raises people's hackles or not. If a game is all just boring and depressing for the sake of art, then into a lake it gets tossed.
nial
Gold Member
This question doesn't work so much because what is and is not fun/entertaining is subjective. Just because you think something is fun doesn't mean everyone will think the same way. You can find Super Mario 3D World fun and think Bloodborne is a boring slop to get through, but that may not necessarily be true for everyone.
That's why statements like...
Don't get me wrong you can always point out how a game has bad puzzle, combat, level design, is not rewarding at all, etc., but saying "it isn't fun" is not an objective criticism.
That's why statements like...
make zero sense.
Don't get me wrong you can always point out how a game has bad puzzle, combat, level design, is not rewarding at all, etc., but saying "it isn't fun" is not an objective criticism.
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
Yes but each game can give different type of fun, for example there are people who find the challenge in souls games fun and there are people find immersing themselves in simulation games fun.
The beauty is we have different games for every type of gamer.
The beauty is we have different games for every type of gamer.
Last edited:
Shh
Member
darrylgorn
Member
Flip the argument around.
There needs to be an objective example of something that's not fun but engaging.
Like this thread.
There needs to be an objective example of something that's not fun but engaging.
Like this thread.
remember_spinal
Banned
TLOU part 2 is fun as hell though
Edgelord79
Gold Member
They don’t have to be no. They don’t have to make money either.
Not sure what the point is then.
Not sure what the point is then.
Reizo Ryuu
Member
Bad mechanics aren't fun unless you're a masochist, and we don't quantify things that need to make money by a minority that enjoys playing through garbage like sonic 06
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
People who say yes, do you think sports fanatics watch their fav sports teams for fun?
Or do you think they are watching it because they are invested in a team and want to be entertained?
Im a die hard Leaf fan. I dont have fun watching the games, I want to see them win. I dont care if they play boring hockey.
Or do you think they are watching it because they are invested in a team and want to be entertained?
Im a die hard Leaf fan. I dont have fun watching the games, I want to see them win. I dont care if they play boring hockey.
hemo memo
Gold Member
Story? Escapism? Sport?
Thabass
Member
Yeah, but I'm usually having fun doing all of those three. If I'm not...why am I playing it?
This literally makes no sense. I'm a diehard sports fanactic and always have fun watching the games. Even when my teams are losing.
Last edited:
ABnormal
Member
That's really reductive. Games has moved much forward from Space invaders and asteroids. They were merely games at first, but now, in addition to pure games, there are many more experiences. The term "video games" has been obsolete for many years. You can divide games from other interactive electronic entertainment experiences.
Silen Hill 2 is probably the "video game" that left the biggest impression on me, and it wasn't "funny" at all.
skyfall
Member
Oh sure it can be fun, but it's not good for you mentally.
And I wish more devs would realise that. It's miserable to play with these all the time:
It will make you a lot of happier person to go with this sometimes
Last edited:
Carmen Winstead
Member
Or a new high because we have reached a point where we can argue and debate whether games should be more than just "fun"?
Older games only cared about the fun and that was all they could offer but nowadays games can be engaging, entertaining and/or educating while not having to be fun.
Dr_Salt
Member
You don't have to chose one or the other.
nial
Gold Member
Bad mechanics are just bad, that's it. My point is that using the "fun" metric is a pretty shallow criticism in itself.
I get what you're saying, but it honestly comes off as a warrior thing when not only are most of those games in the top pic not dark/gritty, but you also have two Mario-like games in there.Oh sure it can be fun, but it's not good for you mentally.
And I wish more devs would realise that. It's miserable to play with these all the time:
It will make you a lot of happier person to go with this sometimes
Last edited:
MagiusNecros
Gilgamesh Fan Annoyance
Yes. I don't know why this is even a question.
That said most modern games aren't even fun.
That said most modern games aren't even fun.
cinnamonandgravy
Member
Torrent of Pork
Banned
No, but they damn sure better bring something to the table if they aren't.
MastAndo
Member
For me, yes. There are exceptions - Red Dead 2, for example, I didn't find particularly fun to play. It was more captivating and enjoyable because of the story and characters, more akin to a good movie. It's still a pretty terrific experience though, albeit an outlier. Generally, if the fun factor isn't there, I'm not going to play it for very long. They call it "playing" video games for a reason. Play = fun.
Trazyn the Infinite
Member
All games need to be fun. You can have a dark miserable story that is still fun to play. Silent Hill 1, 2, 3, and 4 all do this perfectly.
If your game is not fun, you fundamentally failed at making a game.
If your game is not fun, you fundamentally failed at making a game.
alabtrosMyster
Banned
It depends what you consider "fun". I think TLoU is fun and I don't think that CoD is fun.
I had fun in Journey too, and I still like Crazy Taxy... So I'm not sure why serious is no fun.
Boring is no fun, but this is a different thing, if you can't appreciate good serious stuff you have the problem.
I had fun in Journey too, and I still like Crazy Taxy... So I'm not sure why serious is no fun.
Boring is no fun, but this is a different thing, if you can't appreciate good serious stuff you have the problem.
Trazyn the Infinite
Member
Fun can be subjective, but some times developers actively try to make you have "no" fun, period as a form of their "design". They want you to feel emotional first and limit what you can do, when, to try and "amplify" those emotions.
This is poor design.
Thankfully it also is mostly in very specific Indie games which can be safely ignored. But I am starting to see a few of these design choices rear their head, tentatively in particular AAA SP titles.
NightmareFarm
Member
Yes. Obviously it does, what the hell.
Has gaming really got to this point where we have to question if games need to be fun?
Has gaming really got to this point where we have to question if games need to be fun?
Last edited:
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Entertaining is probably a better term than fun. Puzzle games aren't exactly stereotypical fun but are entertaining. Games are bit like actors, many types and methods but ultimately just have that "it" factor sprinkled with people having various favourites and biases.
Wifey and daughter like Sims 4 where son and I couldn't think of a worse game to play, similar is true for FPS in reverse.
Wifey and daughter like Sims 4 where son and I couldn't think of a worse game to play, similar is true for FPS in reverse.
supernova8
Banned
with the point being that "engaging" means different things for different people.
I want to wander around in BOTW
I want to solve puzzles in Broken Sword
I want to mindlessly hit giant balls into giant nets in Rocket League
I want to be led on a linear story in Everybody's Gone to the Rapture
I want to be freaked out by horror games
etc
etc
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll