• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Is "FUN" subjective or objective?

JOEVIAL

JOEVIAL

Has a voluptuous plastic labia
Often times professional game reviewers use the word "fun" to describe gameplay mechanics. It's been said before that "fun" is a subjective term but can "fun" be an objective term?

What I may deem as fun may not be fun for someone else. With that said, is fun a subjective term when it comes to describing games? Or can there be a scientific basis for what is considering fun? What do ya'll think?

What I think: The very basis of most Nintendo games is "Fun" factor; they seem to always chase what is the most fun. Nowadays it surely isn't just Miyamoto or any other designer saying "well... I think it's fun, so it should be fun for everyone else." It isn't like that now at least - modern gaming is more iterative as opposed to truly creative - but it definitely was back in the 80's when there was was a lot of experimenting going on to figure what was actually "fun". I believe there is a scientific basis for what is considered fun and enjoyable or else Nintendo would not have such success with their games. They found what is considering fun for most people, and they stuck with that formula with mostly iterations ever since.
 
Last edited:
Subjective. In fact, there is no such thing as an objective opinion when someone is talking about games/television/art/media that they enjoy. Every time I see someone on this site say "X is objectively better than Y" or "X is objectively bad," my eyes roll into the back of my head.
 
It's subjective, some people might consider trying to survive in survival horror games not fun and some do. Some consider challenge in games fun but some won't. Most people experience "fun" in different way.
 
The May 30th Man said:
Subjective. In fact, there is no such thing as an objective opinion when someone is talking about games/television/art/media that they enjoy. Every time I see someone on this site say "X is objectively better than Y" or "X is objectively bad," my eyes roll into the back of my head.
Click to expand...

True. With that said... can games be objectively designed or should I say "engineered" for what most people consider "fun"? At that point, is it still subjectively fun. Or is it objectively fun through majority opinion? At times Nintendo games feel that way. But yeah... maybe they just "feel" that way to me.
 
Subjective.

Your example about Nintendo for instance: I hate patformer games like Mario and Sonic, so no matter how well made they are I simply don't have fun with them. I respect their quality, but I honestly don't enjoy playing these types of games...
 
If it wasn't subjective we'd all be playing the same games.

When a reviewer says something is "fun" it's obviously from their perspective, which is why you should follow specific reviewers that you like as opposed to go to sites like metacritic.
 
Aion002 said:
Subjective.

Your example about Nintendo for instance: I hate patformer games like Mario and Sonic, so no matter how well made they are I simply don't have fun with them. I respect their quality, but I honestly don't enjoy playing these types of games...
Click to expand...

Indeed. Mario Odyssey have been said to be fun to play. But to me it felt like life is draining out of me, just utterly boring and not fun the slighlest.
 
Last edited:
JOEVIAL said:
True. With that said... can games be objectively designed or should I say "engineered" for what most people consider "fun"? At that point, is it still subjectively fun. Or is it objectively fun through majority opinion? At times Nintendo games feel that way. But yeah... maybe they just "feel" that way to me.
Click to expand...
Well that's why some games have "mass appeal" and some don't. For example SRPG is less popular than FPS because most people find FPS more fun but it doesn't mean SRPG are not fun it just has less "mass appeal ".
 
JOEVIAL said:
True. With that said... can games be objectively designed or should I say "engineered" for what most people consider "fun"? At that point, is it still subjectively fun. Or is it objectively fun through majority opinion? At times Nintendo games feel that way. But yeah... maybe they just "feel" that way to me.
Click to expand...

No, absolutely not, unless you think stuff like Candy Crush with player bases of hundreds of millions of users are playing an objectively fun game.
 
Very subjective. There's a framework in game design called the MDE Framework. It's essentially a relationship between the mechanics of a game, its dynamics and the emotions created by playing. These aspects differ between people because the relationship between a person and a game is entirely personal.

There's also a concept called Hard Fun I like which sums up the fun part as overcoming the challenge (kind of a long vs. short term reward system).
 
Last edited:
JOEVIAL said:
True. With that said... can games be objectively designed or should I say "engineered" for what most people consider "fun"? At that point, is it still subjectively fun. Or is it objectively fun through majority opinion? At times Nintendo games feel that way. But yeah... maybe they just "feel" that way to me.
Click to expand...
A lot of games are already designed to appeal to a mass audience, so It would appear that there is a baseline of what the majority of gamers consider fun. However, it's still subjective. Just because a large majority enjoys a game, that doesn't make it objectively fun. There will always be a large amount of people that don't enjoy said game, and the people that do enjoy it will have different opinions on why they like it. Not to mention, that's just not how objectivity works. Humans are inherently designed to enjoy things subjectively.

I would also imagine that if a game was designed to be objectively fun, it would:
1. Have to be designed by an advanced computer AI for complete objectivity.
2. Lack any sense of soul and creativity.

That's just my thoughts though.
 
Subjective of course but in the grand scheme of things I believe we have gone far beyond just 'fun' in gaming. Games can be frightening, stressful, contemplative, competitive or heartbreaking... and far more.

We cannot limit our games to be described by one word.
 
Very subjective. People find fun out of absolutely everything, even the simplests things could be considered fun for some.

Fun varies from person to person and shouldn't be used to make a good point out of a game or trying to devoid of it's problems, like most of demented pokemon fans do.
 
Last edited:
Why would fun be objective?

If that were the case everyone would have the same exact opinions on every game.
 
Definitely subjective but I think when people are generalizing something as "not fun" they and the read needs to realize it's their own opinion. The problem starts when somebody applies the term fun to something and then begins to act like that subjective qualifier is somehow objective and then continues from that point.
 
Subjective, there's no point in even discussing it.
But, there is a threshold, I'd say. That bare minimum that will be fun to most people. Most, not all.
 
Feelings are subjective.

Fun is a feeling.

Feelings are fleeting things and you should not threat any of those as objective.
 
JOEVIAL said:
Often times professional game reviewers use the word "fun" to describe gameplay mechanics. It's been said before that "fun" is a subjective term but can "fun" be an objective term?

What I may deem as fun may not be fun for someone else. With that said, is fun a subjective term when it comes to describing games? Or can there be a scientific basis for what is considering fun? What do ya'll think?

What I think: The very basis of most Nintendo games is "Fun" factor; they seem to always chase what is the most fun. Nowadays it surely isn't just Miyamoto or any other designer saying "well... I think it's fun, so it should be fun for everyone else." It isn't like that now at least - modern gaming is more iterative as opposed to truly creative - but it definitely was back in the 80's when there was was a lot of experimenting going on to figure what was actually "fun". I believe there is a scientific basis for what is considered fun and enjoyable or else Nintendo would not have such success with their games. They found what is considering fun for most people, and they stuck with that formula with mostly iterations ever since.
Click to expand...
both.
i game that is only a white screen is objectively boring.
an rts can be subjectively boring for some.
 
"Fun" is an abstract, there is no concrete definition of what constitutes it and it means different things to different people.

I can tell you that, being as objective as I possibly can be, I find game X to be more "fun" than game Y, but as you don't share my perception, my aesthetic likes, value-system and experience... my objectivity is irrelevant to you because my view was formed subjectively.

Unless you a dealing with empirical measurable phenomena (size, weight, complexity, etc) "objectivity" is just a synonym for honesty and impartiality.
 
pupo said:
Everything is subjetive
Click to expand...

Except science, imperically proven facts, and physics.

Electricity in how its created is not subjective. Heat is not subjective (although cold is since there is no such thing as cold, coldness is merely an observation of lack of heat that is subjective). The operation of purkinje fibers is not subjective.

Fun however is entirely subjective in all manner of speaking.
 
I think the idea of "fun" can be considered objectively "near or in the flow state".

That, as many have said, will be very subjective person to person.

Luckily it is not complete guesswork as there are many designs that have proven wide appeal.
 
Just gotta add that "Objective" and "Subjective" exist on a spectrum.

When people complain about reviews not being "objective" enough what is generally meant is that based on the text or language the reviewer is really leaning hard on their own likes and dislikes to the point where their opinion is less than fit for purpose as a review.

Obvious example; if a game contains content that runs counter to the reviewers' moral or political beliefs and as a result they treat it in a hostile way. It colors their entire reaction generally, even though the specific detail(s) that aroused their ire could be viewed as being entirely harmless or trivial to another viewer.
 
Last edited:
I think the word Fun is used so often and in so many context that it has lost all of its meaning.
All it does tell me is that whoever is talking has either no good understanding of what they are talking about or they are too lazy to describe it properly.

We shouldn't limit ourselves with a narrow understanding of what makes games engaging for people.
The "fun" is the personnal end state, I had fun, how you get there is up to you and its up to the game designer to lead you there any way they can.
 
I don't understand the hate for the word fun as if it implied instant lack of credibility for the person talking about the game. There are far more vacuous adjectives that get thrown around a lot, like "important", "groundbreaking", "rewarding", stuff that isolated really doesn't mean anything. Fun is used to describe what it is, a roller coaster ride that feels good to control. It's obviously subjective, but it's simple to understand and even gained an extra meaning in the age of the walk 'em up cinematic stepchild bonding simulator we live in. It means the opposite of that.
 
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.
 
The May 30th Man said:
A lot of games are already designed to appeal to a mass audience, so It would appear that there is a baseline of what the majority of gamers consider fun. However, it's still subjective. Just because a large majority enjoys a game, that doesn't make it objectively fun. There will always be a large amount of people that don't enjoy said game, and the people that do enjoy it will have different opinions on why they like it. Not to mention, that's just not how objectivity works. Humans are inherently designed to enjoy things subjectively.

I would also imagine that if a game was designed to be objectively fun, it would:
1. Have to be designed by an advanced computer AI for complete objectivity.
2. Lack any sense of soul and creativity.

That's just my thoughts though.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
"FUN" is objective. it is a description of an emotion.
what is and is not "FUN" is the subjective part.

so in reviews it is a bit useless... because what is fun to me can easily be not fun for you and vise versa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Parappa the Rapper: Is It Still Fun Today?
Opinion Trailer 
25
576
Gorocketcat replied
Bungie confirms Marathon Season 2 will test PvE and PvP-lite modes, including a PvE-only objective mode
News  2 3 4 5 6
295
2K
yurinka replied
Resident Evil: Is It Still Fun Today? (IGN)
Opinion Trailer  2
81
1K
Ellis replied
E3 2001 - When Gaming Was Fun, 25 Years Ago
Retro  2
85
751
SEGAvangelist replied
LTTP: Turbo Overkill is a lot of fun. A real hidden gem.
9
329
EverydayBeast replied
Top Bottom