-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Is "mindless fun" a sufficient defense for a game's quality?
- Thread starter Nyoro SF
- Start date
Ravensmash
Member
Pages of tutorials.
Fun is fun, if a game entertains you then I wouldn't call it bad.
crazy monkey
Banned
Fun is what game should aim for. Fuck everything else.
GiantBreadbug
Member
How many gameplays does a game need for it to not be trash-tier to you? If it's a game, and it's playable, then it contains gameplay.
That's probably one of the least intelligent things I've ever read on GAF. And that's saying something.
Dance Inferno
Unconfirmed Member
Who the hell do you think you are.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
This might be a better definition of mindless fun that gets rid of judgmental baggage.
Some might feel that a game which has a low skill ceiling / limited depth in mechanics is poor, but really it's just not deep. It can still have a perfectly well designed gameplay hook that is enjoyable.
Doom is not mindless. >:| On easy maybe, but not on the fan's choice of difficulty (Ultra Violence.)
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
That would be like saying that opinions can never be wrong.
Truth is games can be objectively good or bad. And it's ok for people to like bad games, but that doesn't make them good.
You ever play this turd?
There are bad games.
Edit: Also, ITT, all the juniors try to mob Derrick. Current forcasts predict he won't care.
SouthernDragon
Member
Well, what constitutes mindful vs mindless?
Is Geometry Wars mindful or mindless?
Is Angry Birds mindful or mindless?
Is Geometry Wars mindful or mindless?
Is Angry Birds mindful or mindless?
This basically encapsulate anyone attempting to explain 'fun' as a meaningful descriptor of a video game.
Dance Inferno
Unconfirmed Member
To be fair Angry Birds is a terrible game.
What about other emotions than 'fun'? Graphics? Presentation? Theme? Setting? Dialogue? 60FPS? Audio? Soundtrack? Social features? And on and on.
Yeah like dig holes, or take a sofa from 1 neighbor to another across the town. Riveting stuff.
The best gameplay that series ever had was when you could get NES games and play them.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
If a game is fun then it's not poorly made. But I think the more shallow forms of fun are more easily replaced by other products. And being shallow means you have a shorter shelf life. Whether that's bad or not depends on what you want out of a game.
But there are very few actual examples of mindless fun in a game. We just take the skillset required to play them for granted. You might be able to get away with playing Peggle mindlessly but randomly pushing buttons generally gets you nowhere. Maybe the better phrasing is "aimless fun."
But there are very few actual examples of mindless fun in a game. We just take the skillset required to play them for granted. You might be able to get away with playing Peggle mindlessly but randomly pushing buttons generally gets you nowhere. Maybe the better phrasing is "aimless fun."
Both games are definitely mindful. You plan attacks in both games.
I think "mentally passive" is a better way to describe what a bad mindless game really is. Games that require almost no thought or attentiveness that you can completely occupy your mind with something else while you play.
Animal Crossing, the first playthrough of Fez, and Paper Mario: Sticker Star are recent examples to come to mind.
Animal Crossing, the first playthrough of Fez, and Paper Mario: Sticker Star are recent examples to come to mind.
UncleSporky
Member
No, in order to be truly classified as fun, a game must have a simple majority of its players consider it fun. A consensus must be reached.
grimshawish
Banned
If it is fun it does not matter. If you enjoy it; you enjoy it.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
I personally may use that to describe a good game with fun gameplay (read: exhilarating, gratifying, engaging in a pleasant manner, and so on, depending on the game, all of which are also subjective obviously, you may not have the same reaction - but fun is a nice word and you should use it more) that doesn't necessarily have added layers of depth thanks to things like an involving and/or branching storyline, role playing or other progression elements, exploration, deep strategy and so on, none of which is mandatory for a game to be great and worthwhile of course (while in some cases adding such makes it worse).
For example, arcade style games, platform games, hack and slash games and sandbox games like the early Grand Theft Auto titles. Generally, pure action games I suppose. It's not really a defense, it's a vague description.
The game it's said about doesn't necessarily need defending. I think that's what most people mean when they say it. If what you get from reading such things is that it's a shitty guilty pleasure, well, that's not what I mean, I'll know to avoid the games you describe as such from now on though. But if you mean a shitty game that's a guilty pleasure why not say it (especially if you're one of those who don't find words like fun descriptive enough in which case you shouldn't say mindless fun, lol)?
Anyway, if you tell someone, this game sucks because it doesn't have a deep story, or whatever else, and he responds saying it's good mindless fun, he's not necessarily defending it, he may just be explaining that it doesn't have to have a good story to be great and implying that the gameplay and overall experience make up for it. I guess he should apologize for not writing an essay on the topic going by what some people are saying here, as if one should care to go in depth when one likely doesn't go in depth on why it's bad but just points out a few elements (again, not mandatory for entertainment elements) that it lacks.
For example, arcade style games, platform games, hack and slash games and sandbox games like the early Grand Theft Auto titles. Generally, pure action games I suppose. It's not really a defense, it's a vague description.
The game it's said about doesn't necessarily need defending. I think that's what most people mean when they say it. If what you get from reading such things is that it's a shitty guilty pleasure, well, that's not what I mean, I'll know to avoid the games you describe as such from now on though. But if you mean a shitty game that's a guilty pleasure why not say it (especially if you're one of those who don't find words like fun descriptive enough in which case you shouldn't say mindless fun, lol)?
Anyway, if you tell someone, this game sucks because it doesn't have a deep story, or whatever else, and he responds saying it's good mindless fun, he's not necessarily defending it, he may just be explaining that it doesn't have to have a good story to be great and implying that the gameplay and overall experience make up for it. I guess he should apologize for not writing an essay on the topic going by what some people are saying here, as if one should care to go in depth when one likely doesn't go in depth on why it's bad but just points out a few elements (again, not mandatory for entertainment elements) that it lacks.
IMO, if you feel like you have to justify to other people why something is entertaining/enjoyable/fun to you, you're doing it wrong.
What is good gameplay anyway?
What is a good plot?
There are no mathematical or objective definitions for concepts we associate with "good games". Even though "good gameplay" sound like a less nebulous definition than "fun", it's still pretty fucking subjective. All there is are different strokes for different people.
What is good gameplay anyway?
What is a good plot?
There are no mathematical or objective definitions for concepts we associate with "good games". Even though "good gameplay" sound like a less nebulous definition than "fun", it's still pretty fucking subjective. All there is are different strokes for different people.
Ravensmash
Member
I've had fun with it.
You can make reasoned arguments about how well or poorly designed a game's mechanics are, or how well the game does or doesn't conform to genre conventions, but those things aren't necessarily the true determinants of a game being good or bad. If one claims to be making a truly objective, universal assessment of a game's quality, they're just projecting their own tastes onto everyone else.
(HI DERRICK!)
Isn't it all subjective?
I mean, I guess it depends on what kind of conversation you are having. If someone is trying to be critical/analytical and discussing whether a game is "good" and is using specific criteria, then maybe it's not a good defense.
But most people don't operate on that level. They play games to be entertained, and value the game based on whether it was worth their money or not. And "mindless fun" is totally fine, if that's what someone was looking for when purchasing their game.
I mean, I guess it depends on what kind of conversation you are having. If someone is trying to be critical/analytical and discussing whether a game is "good" and is using specific criteria, then maybe it's not a good defense.
But most people don't operate on that level. They play games to be entertained, and value the game based on whether it was worth their money or not. And "mindless fun" is totally fine, if that's what someone was looking for when purchasing their game.
Isn't "mindless fun" as a defense the same as "guilty pleasure"? As in, it's not something you feel like you shouldn't like, but you do? I enjoy "mindless" games sometimes - I like to play them while watching TV. I can't do that with most games because I'm immersed in the story or world or whatever. But for FFTA2 or Pokemon, I can easily have fun while also watching TV. The gameplay can be "mindless" and still be good.
I hate the word 'fun' when it comes to games. Mainly because it's way, way overused and secondly because it has about 30 different interpretations for some people. Some consider a 'fun' game something you get any sort of enjoyment out of, no matter the nature of the game. Others consider the word 'fun' something crazy where you can do a lot of weird stuff and I've even seen people coin the term exclusively for games that make you laugh.
No one knows to what extend each individual holds to the word 'fun' when they want to describe it. Just too easy to throw out the word 'fun' and it's way too broad to ever make any damn sense.
I got enjoyment out of reading a 900 page manual for a flight simulator, only to spend 4 hours training to fire a guided missile. "Enjoyment" is under fun if you look it up. If I said that sentence and called the game 'fun' people would throw rocks at me.
Screw the word fun. Be more precise and use some proper terms.
No one knows to what extend each individual holds to the word 'fun' when they want to describe it. Just too easy to throw out the word 'fun' and it's way too broad to ever make any damn sense.
I got enjoyment out of reading a 900 page manual for a flight simulator, only to spend 4 hours training to fire a guided missile. "Enjoyment" is under fun if you look it up. If I said that sentence and called the game 'fun' people would throw rocks at me.
Screw the word fun. Be more precise and use some proper terms.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
That sounded neither fun NOR enjoyable, lol. I don't think the word choice matters in this case
THANK YOU.
Using the word 'fun' is just as productive as saying 'purple monkey dishwasher'.
cutmeamango
Banned
If the challenge, rules and mechanics are able to provide entertainment and excitement without a reflection on those subjects or the thematic/narrative present (if any), I can call it "mindless" fun.
Bejeweled presents the challenge of achieving a high score in a limited time by matching color lines. The rules give me limitation, I can only swap adjacent houses but never on diagonals, and incentives/bonuses as exploding items after an amount of correct movements in a given space of time. Other than the visual of gems/jewels no narrative is present.
It is a game by definition, it doesn't ask or require pondering about any of its components, only a trained visual-motor reflex. Yet the competitve element of surpassing oneself or others and/or achieving given or personal goals is more than sufficient to call it "fun".
Games with "elaborate" structures can still satisfy the above, so they can be "mindless fun" regardless of 'quality' of any of its parts.
Bejeweled presents the challenge of achieving a high score in a limited time by matching color lines. The rules give me limitation, I can only swap adjacent houses but never on diagonals, and incentives/bonuses as exploding items after an amount of correct movements in a given space of time. Other than the visual of gems/jewels no narrative is present.
It is a game by definition, it doesn't ask or require pondering about any of its components, only a trained visual-motor reflex. Yet the competitve element of surpassing oneself or others and/or achieving given or personal goals is more than sufficient to call it "fun".
Games with "elaborate" structures can still satisfy the above, so they can be "mindless fun" regardless of 'quality' of any of its parts.
Agreed. A conversation can't really get anywhere if people just limit stuff to "it's fun".
OnimaruXLR
Member
"Fun" is such a meaningless descriptor in any kind of clinical sense. You can say you had fun doing something, but all that really means is that you enjoyed it, with no indication of why. Some people have "fun" getting pooped on! It's about as subjective as shit can get.
The real question is how someone defines their fun (if they even have the wherewithal to do so). For example, I think Dynasty Warriors is a bunch of samey cash in generic shit with all the complexity of knocking over dominos, but I understand that there are reasons people enjoy them; some people like the history stuff, some people genuinely enjoy the concrete lack of challenge, some people go in for it because it's one of the few games that has a "single pre-firearms soldier on a battlefield" setup, some people like seeing the kill counter go up, some people only play the licensed games because they like Gundam/FotNS/One Piece... and so on.
So basically no, mindless fun isn't a good defense at all. If your intention is to defend a game/explain why you like it, you need to actually do that and not just go "IT'S GOOD." And if, in the process, you sound like a caveman because you're going "BECAUSE THE COWS ARE ADORABLE AND THE SPARSE BACKGROUND COMPELS ME TO CLICK THEM" then hopefully you can come to terms with yourself afterwards.
The real question is how someone defines their fun (if they even have the wherewithal to do so). For example, I think Dynasty Warriors is a bunch of samey cash in generic shit with all the complexity of knocking over dominos, but I understand that there are reasons people enjoy them; some people like the history stuff, some people genuinely enjoy the concrete lack of challenge, some people go in for it because it's one of the few games that has a "single pre-firearms soldier on a battlefield" setup, some people like seeing the kill counter go up, some people only play the licensed games because they like Gundam/FotNS/One Piece... and so on.
So basically no, mindless fun isn't a good defense at all. If your intention is to defend a game/explain why you like it, you need to actually do that and not just go "IT'S GOOD." And if, in the process, you sound like a caveman because you're going "BECAUSE THE COWS ARE ADORABLE AND THE SPARSE BACKGROUND COMPELS ME TO CLICK THEM" then hopefully you can come to terms with yourself afterwards.
Unspeakable Evil
Member
Aren't mindless and fun contradictory?
True, but do you realize how ridiculous it is to frame the conversation in such a way that allows you to claim someone else's enjoyment wasn't genuine because their tastes differ from yours? We're talking about a medium whose interactive nature leaves a hell of a lot more room for subjectivity than books or movies, but you still think everyone should have to make a thorough academic argument to justify why they liked something?
Lord British
Member
Tell it to masturbation.
Jake Tower
Banned
A game can, in fact, be more fun than it is good.
You're making the same argument as that 4chan screencap, just in a more verbose way. Congratulations.
I, on the other hand, think that mindless fun is a perfectly legitimate defense for a videogame and, more commonly, movies. Fun is an amorphous concept that can't always be articulated. Some times, things are just fun because they're fun, and either can't be explained or don't warrant an explanation. I can't tell you why going out and having a catch with some friends is fun. I can't even tell you why I find pickup basketball fun. It just is. I like it. End of story. You don't need to justify the things you like, especially when you freely admit that any pleasure you derive from the experience is the "mindless" variety.
PigSpeakers
Member
I wish fun. wasn't real.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
But you can like something and have no idea why. "Fun" isn't always a rational, mindful thing. Sometimes things are fun because they are poorly designed.
I doubt your own favorite games would survive if you want to be that reductionist about it.
"This game is mindless. Stuff happens, then you have to respond and do other stuff and eventually complete some objectives."