I know, I know, the first thing that pops into your head when you read the title is "BLASPHEMY!" but here me out!

Or more specifically, hear Adam Sessler out (I swear to god, anybody who starts whining about G4 and crap better stay the fuck away from here!)

Here's the situation;

With "Six days in Fallujah" being announced by Konami, followed by a media outrage from people who thought that this game was going to be nothing but a glorification of the current war, the question started popping up "How will this game be fun if it's supposed to be serious?"

The thing is though, maybe the game doesn't specifically have to be fun to be a good game? After all, as stated by Sessler, there are many paintings that are "serious" but are still very "good". There are many documentaries and serious films out there that are inspiring yet still "good". There are plenty of books out there that are very detailed, depressing, but they are still "good" books that people can read.

With games however, it seems that no matter how serious the game is trying to be, the #1 thing that matters it the gaming being "fun" to play. Now, don't get me wrong, that should always be the most important factor in a game, but with certain games that try to portray the "horrors of war" or games that try to scare the shit out of you, sometimes making the game "fun" to play undermines the whole point of what it's trying to do.

Case in point, many war games like Call of Duty and Killzone 2 show off the "horrors of war" but end up being a glorified version of it with big, hulky men holding their guns with their huge cocks going in and decimating everything (more CoD than Killzone, but I'll shut up...).

Another example, the almighty "Shadow of the Collosus". A beautiful game, a work of art as some (most really) people would call it. But when playing it, did you really have "fun" in the sense that you were going "WOO HOOO KILLING GIANT FUCKOS FTW!!#%!"? Or were you just enjoying the experience for what it was?

So, discuss, do video games always have to necessarily be "fun" when trying to do something? Don't get me wrong, most games should be fun, but games like "Six Days in Fallujah" don't seem to have "fun" as the first thing to pop into their minds. It seems that "Six Days in Fallujah" wants to show that video games can show war as for what it is.

I had fun in Shadow of the Colossus...if I'm not having fun in a video game I turn it off...

But how does the saying go? "If every man knows the horrors of war none would made it."?

I don't think games have to be "fun", what they need to be is entertaining though. If it grips you and makes you keep playing it then I believe that makes it good.

Games don't have to be fun, but then they'd better be 'good'
..
I'm not sure if I'm making sense

Thing is, a documentary has you an observer to a REAL situation, therfore to make an impact it does not need to be "fun". A game has you interact with a FAKE situation, therefore to make any sort of impact it needs to have something to back it up, e.g. "fun".

Not sure if I made my point, but whatever.

If it's fun it would add playability rather than being boring but I can somehow imagine a game being interesting and gripping and being as playable as a fun game, so I guess we will have to wait until it gets here.

sneak_copter:
Thing is, a documentary has you an observer to a REAL situation, therfore to make an impact it does not need to be "fun". A game has you interact with a FAKE situation, therefore to make any sort of impact it needs to have something to back it up, e.g. "fun".

Not sure if I made my point, but whatever.

You did make your point, but there are still films that are not documentaries and STILL not fun to watch, even though they're good movies. (Irreversible comes to my mind).

Edit: I agree with the OP, but whenever I bring up that point, people would just yell at me saying I was wrong and what I said was bullshit.

Edit#2: I would even go as far as to say that no anti-war game should be fun at all, that would undermine the whole concept, it's possible to make the game thrilling anyways, but that might be just me.

I agree with you completely. I love serious games and sims. I would use games like Silent Hunter 4 as an example, but I do have fun playing it.

But the game doesn't necessarily have to be "fun", if it's interesting and good then you will have fun playing it. Or maybe you won't have fun, but it will still be good to play. And yes this comes close to not making sense but I think that's due to slightly variable definitions of the word "fun."

Games don't have to be fun, they have to be entertaining. Six days in Fallujah may not be fun, but it's a game, and while it has a serious message to get across it has to be entertaining (i.e, good gameplay, controls, challenge etc).

You use the analogy of movies, well movies don't have to be fun, they have to be entertaining. If a movie wants to get across a message, it could have a dude in a suit sitting on a chair telling you what the message is and why it is right, but it would suck. The message must be shown properly.

This is bullcrap, if games are not fun then i WONT play them, simple as that.

It really depends on what you define as fun. A game for me personally os "fun" if I find it enjoyable. If the game I am playing revolves around foreign policies and legislature, then I doubt I would find it "fun" and more along the lines of a chore. After all, I beleieve the original intent for "games" is for them to be fun and enjoyed by all. So I disagree with you, games DO have to be fun, but that depends on what the person finds fun.

So, I guess to sum up my point better I shall do this:

Fun = Enjoyable, Enjoyable = players game preference, game = fun.

There are plenty of games that aren't what I would say are "fun", yet the mystery of the story that drives you to complete the game. Like BioShock for example, it's not a "fun" game. Yes you can run around shooting things and lighting them on fire, but then you'll run out of ammo and find yourself in a sticky situation. Yet it was that intense, dark atmosphere that make you dive deeper into. You're drawn to that conflict, and you want to know what the hell happened and why everything is so fucked up. Then, when it all comes to an end, your left in awe because of the amazing, in-depth experience you had.

I didn't have fun in BioShock. I still haven't made it to the end.

Gladion:

sneak_copter:
Thing is, a documentary has you an observer to a REAL situation, therfore to make an impact it does not need to be "fun". A game has you interact with a FAKE situation, therefore to make any sort of impact it needs to have something to back it up, e.g. "fun".

Not sure if I made my point, but whatever.

You did make your point, but there are still films that are not documentaries and STILL not fun to watch, even though they're good movies. (Irreversible comes to my mind).

Ahh, but it still physically happened. If it happened to real people in a real enviroment, then it will make more of an impact than a couple of pixels.

Anyway, thanks for agreeing with me. Not many people do that.

i'm not entirely sure why that game wouldn't be fun anyway. maybe i'm being offensive seen as it's set in a current war and stuff. but i mean, i don't really care about the war anyway, people are dying for a stupid reason and if they make a game about it, why shouldn't i have fun playing it? unless i'm missing the point here?

Dictionary definition of a game: An amusement or pastime

Games are, by definition, supposed to be fun. A "game" that is not fun is just an video interface.

In regards to this game in particular, the question about how "fun" it is has to do with the controversity this latest war has caused and the game's relevance to the real world. Meaning that, say, Call of Duty is a fun shooter (where fun=enjoyable), while following a historical conflict, because you get to down an enemy that History has classified as evil and faceless (beyond Hitler's mustache). Other war games, despite pro or against subtext and stereotypes, tend to follow fictional wars against fictional terrorists that are bad within the game's context. With this game, we have a very real conflict that's still going on and has the world divided. That's probably what people question; how are they going to make a game enjoyable, if it's bound to offend?

You might argue that the same could be said about movies of the same sort, but movies aren't interractive. The fun to be had in games is, mostly, by playing; acting within the game's boundaries. That's why the argument holds water.

I personally don't care either way, the game will have to rock the world's socks off for me to even consider getting it, but I get where the scepticism comes from.

Jumplion:
I know, I know, the first thing that pops into your head when you read the title is "BLASPHEMY!" but here me out!

Or more specifically, hear Adam Sessler out (I swear to god, anybody who starts whining about G4 and crap better stay the fuck away from here!)

Here's the situation;

With "Six days in Fallujah" being announced by Konami, followed by a media outrage from people who thought that this game was going to be nothing but a glorification of the current war, the question started popping up "How will this game be fun if it's supposed to be serious?"

The thing is though, maybe the game doesn't specifically have to be fun to be a good game? After all, as stated by Sessler, there are many paintings that are "serious" but are still very "good". There are many documentaries and serious films out there that are inspiring yet still "good". There are plenty of books out there that are very detailed, depressing, but they are still "good" books that people can read.

With games however, it seems that no matter how serious the game is trying to be, the #1 thing that matters it the gaming being "fun" to play. Now, don't get me wrong, that should always be the most important factor in a game, but with certain games that try to portray the "horrors of war" or games that try to scare the shit out of you, sometimes making the game "fun" to play undermines the whole point of what it's trying to do.

Case in point, many war games like Call of Duty and Killzone 2 show off the "horrors of war" but end up being a glorified version of it with big, hulky men holding their guns with their huge cocks going in and decimating everything (more CoD than Killzone, but I'll shut up...).

Another example, the almighty "Shadow of the Collosus". A beautiful game, a work of art as some (most really) people would call it. But when playing it, did you really have "fun" in the sense that you were going "WOO HOOO KILLING GIANT FUCKOS FTW!!#%!"? Or were you just enjoying the experience for what it was?

So, discuss, do video games always have to necessarily be "fun" when trying to do something? Don't get me wrong, most games should be fun, but games like "Six Days in Fallujah" don't seem to have "fun" as the first thing to pop into their minds. It seems that "Six Days in Fallujah" wants to show that video games can show war as for what it is.

I'll have to agree with Jumplion (what is that? like a jumping lion...) on this one.

Most of the time when I'm playing Call of Duty or whatnot it's not because it's "fun" but because it's gets the adrenaline going.

I can see where you're going with this, and I have to say that I agree, but it is a plus if the game is enjoyable. I mean, if a game is made to teach you something, like that Darfur thing, then I think the message might (just might) stick better if the game was enjoyable. Enjoyable doesn't have to mean "haha-fun", or "locust-go-boom fun", but enjoyability in being told a good story with a point...if i'm making any fucking sense.

Hardcore_gamer:
if games are not fun then i WONT play them, simple as that.

My feelings exactly. Games don't have to be fun but I only play those that are.
I already spend a lot of time on something called "work" that is not fun most of the time.

it's not because it's "fun" but because it's gets the adrenaline going.

I'm pretty sure that's still fun.

This topic is based on the straw man that "fun" and "entertaining" is the same thing, it's not. For example, the movie "Godfather" is entertaining, which means that it keeps you interested for the duration of the film, but it's not fun, as in, I don't laugh when the guy finds the decapitated head of a horse in his bed. The same thing applies in video games - the gaming experience can vary depending on what genre you play, from the thrilling suspense of horror games, the adrenaline rush of action games or the fun from comical games like Grim Fandango, and if you're entertained by those feelings, you'll keep playing. If they bore you or otherwise don't appeal to you, you won't.

nilcypher:
The comparison I like to make when this discussion comes around is to the movie Schindler's List. There is no scale or metric I can think of by which Schindler's List can be considered 'fun'; instead it is engaging, compelling and moving.

Games could do this as well, and as a secondary effect, increase their appeal to a wider market, if developers could just get over the idea that video games have to be 'fun'.

Sweet, I made a thread worthy of moderator attention. The good kind!

Jumplion:
Another example, the almighty "Shadow of the Collosus". A beautiful game, a work of art as some (most really) people would call it. But when playing it, did you really have "fun" in the sense that you were going "WOO HOOO KILLING GIANT FUCKOS FTW!!#%!"? Or were you just enjoying the experience for what it was?

That implies that I have to be thinking "WOO HOOO KILLING GIANT FUCKOS FTW!!#%!" to be having fun in a game. Which I don't. The challenge of figuring out how to beat a Colossus then actually going through with it is fun. "Enjoying the experience" as you put it, was indeed fun

The concept of it sounds interesting and its definitely something no one ever tried before but it remains to be seen how they pull it of. I personally hope its gonna be good

Jumplion:
I know, I know, the first thing that pops into your head when you read the title is "BLASPHEMY!" but here me out!

Or more specifically, hear Adam Sessler out (I swear to god, anybody who starts whining about G4 and crap better stay the fuck away from here!)

Here's the situation;

With "Six days in Fallujah" being announced by Konami, followed by a media outrage from people who thought that this game was going to be nothing but a glorification of the current war, the question started popping up "How will this game be fun if it's supposed to be serious?"

The thing is though, maybe the game doesn't specifically have to be fun to be a good game? After all, as stated by Sessler, there are many paintings that are "serious" but are still very "good". There are many documentaries and serious films out there that are inspiring yet still "good". There are plenty of books out there that are very detailed, depressing, but they are still "good" books that people can read.

With games however, it seems that no matter how serious the game is trying to be, the #1 thing that matters it the gaming being "fun" to play. Now, don't get me wrong, that should always be the most important factor in a game, but with certain games that try to portray the "horrors of war" or games that try to scare the shit out of you, sometimes making the game "fun" to play undermines the whole point of what it's trying to do.

Case in point, many war games like Call of Duty and Killzone 2 show off the "horrors of war" but end up being a glorified version of it with big, hulky men holding their guns with their huge cocks going in and decimating everything (more CoD than Killzone, but I'll shut up...).

Another example, the almighty "Shadow of the Collosus". A beautiful game, a work of art as some (most really) people would call it. But when playing it, did you really have "fun" in the sense that you were going "WOO HOOO KILLING GIANT FUCKOS FTW!!#%!"? Or were you just enjoying the experience for what it was?

So, discuss, do video games always have to necessarily be "fun" when trying to do something? Don't get me wrong, most games should be fun, but games like "Six Days in Fallujah" don't seem to have "fun" as the first thing to pop into their minds. It seems that "Six Days in Fallujah" wants to show that video games can show war as for what it is.

You should look up the term "fun". Fun doesn't neccessarily mean to get adrenaline kicks or get entertainment by simple stuff, as shooting someone in a game. It just means "entertaining". And entertainment can be achieved by any possible means. Even gritty, depressing stories can be "fun" in the term that they're interesting and you're willingly to go more into it, therefore that you're entertained. Look up the word "game" and it will say: "an amusement or pastime", and the word fun, if you look it up, will say as an adjective: "something that provides mirth or amusement". So yes, games need to be fun, but it can be different kinds of fun.

What do you call fun?
Fun is a subjective term.

I enjoy competitive play.
I enjoy noncompetitive play.
I enjoy and appreciate art.
I enjoy being drawn into a story, even if I'm not controlling the character while it unfolds. (I LIKE MOVIES LOL)
I enjoy being drawn into a story, even if I'm controlling the character while it unfolds.
I enjoy creating my own story, my own legacy...

A lot of things are fun to a lot of people.

I'm sure something like what you described would please plenty of demographics.

Also, I think there's the blend of every aspect of a game that makes it fun. A good story with solid gameplay, mixed with the right amount of action and emotion is also what makes a game fun.

Just like how you used Shadow of the Colossus as an example. It's got everything that makes it a fun and interesting game.