Support NeoGAF

[grainflavour]

Nintendo equals fun so that is the answer

 

[Jigsaah]

Hmmm, is there a way fun can be considered objective?

When I say something is fun, I'm saying I enjoy doing this activity to the point that it doesn't feel like work. Funny thing is, some people feel like work is fun.

However, if looks at in a more general sense, a game that is viewed by many as fun could appear to be more objective, because people on a mass scale have perceived it in that way. Is this real objectivity though? I mean objectivity doesn't excuse itself from opinion really...it just claims to be devoid of bias.

So essentially, we are asking if fun can be devoid of bias.

When you think of it like this, the answer is almost certainly....YES.

 

[stickkidsam]

I think you can make a case for objective quality in terms of game design and graphical merit. There are formulas to gameplay that will lead to satisfying and enjoyable gameplay consistently enough to be a rule.

Whether something is FUN is subjective though. A game can be complete garbage, but to the right person it's still fun.

 

[Lionel Richie]

I think the problem is, 'rewarding' is a more accurate term for why games are compelling.

'Fun' is what you have when you 'play', and 'play' is what you do when you're learning on your own terms, and making progress towards something compelling is rewarding.

Fun is usually used to describe the more light-hearted path to reward, as opposed to grinding, the biggest problem is that fun and frustrating sound conflicting, but that's not necessarily the case.

I agree with you, but the problem is "rewarding" is often used to describe exploration or the narrative and neither is adequate. Like it's a rewarding world there's so much shit to see or the game really made me feel a lot of feels in its rewarding climax. Fucking about in the map or completing a story that often isn't gated by any real challenge isn't rewarding.

 

[LittleBusters]

ResetEra and Feminist Frequency seem to think so.

 

[DrNeroCF]

I agree with you, but the problem is "rewarding" is often used to describe exploration or the narrative and neither is adequate. Like it's a rewarding world there's so much shit to see or the game really made me feel a lot of feels in its rewarding climax. Fucking about in the map or completing a story that often isn't gated by any real challenge isn't rewarding.

I was discussing this with a psych teacher back in the day and we tried to narrow it down to novelty specifically being the main driving factor in games. New information about a world easily fits the bill there. If the game is just throwing stuff at you without challenge, then it loses its novelty pretty quickly. Feeling like something is unearned is a pretty huge killer in games, though some games can get around it with pure charm or creativity (the easier Nintendo games, for me at least).

I think 'rewarding' works better than 'fun' since you 'earn' rewards but only 'have' fun.

Always a good discussion to me, I spend a ton of time thinking about this sort of thing for my own games.

 

[JOEVIAL]

I agree with this. There is at least a common baseline for the "fun" factor in every single game, and we could consider that as the objectively fun item, enclosed within any game. That is why there are game design best-practices, trends and courses.

Everyone is different but i think that no-one can be completely different from another person, because we all share at least a subset of preferences/experiences/backgrounds, and that means that a common ground can be found.

Space Invaders is fun. Objectively.
Everyone can see why it's fun, and maybe you're not interested in games, but that doesn't make it less objectively fun.
Nowadays games are way more complicated, evoking a way broader spectrum of emotions, so it's maybe impossible to make something universally "fun".

Maybe "fun" isn't even the correct word anymore, maybe it can be more correct to use the word "enjoy". What people enjoy is, of course, personal. Still, you can group people based on their shared interests, and create something appealing a wider audience. That's the objective part.

Agreed. Most game designers usually base their games on something objectively fun that "most" people will enjoy. Otherwise the risk is too high.

But yeah, like most everyone is saying, there is still subjectivity in the end. Even if you THINK you've found or made something that everyone would find fun, there is bound to be some people who disagree.