NOTE: Read to the whole post please! I'm not saying we should ban COD or anything! Please don't call me a pretentious wanker!

Anyway, in that weird 'are games games?' topic a lot of people said that games needed to be fun to be considered games.

I call bullshit. Yes, the majority of games are and should be fun to play (even the majority of indie games, and even the majority of indie games about serious topics). But not ALL of them. I played this little internet game that was meant to be about the North Korean border where you basically crawled through some barbed wire and died. (EDIT: it's called freedom bridge, thanks, whoever mentioned it in the thread.) It wasn't fun. It was still something I consider a game, and it left a big impression on me.

Sitting through a twenty hour AAA game that isn't fun to play is going to suck, yes. But smaller budget games almost need to be not quite as fun, to be able to tackle big topics like racism or whatever, topics that aren't inherently amusing but are worthwhile being explored in a game.

A game has to hold your attention in some way. Being fun is a very easy way to do that. But there are other ways, like an interesting concept, or a thought provoking idea, or even just suspense and tension. For example, you wouldn't want a game about genocide to be fun, if you were a character doing it. Yet such a game would be a powerful experience.

An example from the film world is the film Downfall, about the last days of Hitler. I can't honestly say I enjoyed that film, it was pretty grim, and there wasn't much redemption or anything. It was a great experience, because it said things about the human condition and made you think about stuff, etc., etc., I'm not a film critic, but the point is, well, games don't have to be fun, and maybe a few more less fun games would be a good thing.
I repeat: Please don't call me a pretentious wanker!

*cowers*

Why should what games are have anything to do with a movie you happened to watch? Maybe we could have a game like tetris themed with nazi insignia that after every level showed a clip from Downfall. Would that count as making a very memorable game that wasn't fun?

Nope but it tends to help if they are. People are more inclined to play something fun than something serious and grim.

No reason they need to be fun - they just have to be something someone would want to experience.

No, I don't think they need to be "fun," but they do need to be engaging. People get engrossed in movies and paintings because they are engaging, they latch onto them in some way. If a game isn't even compelling people to consider it, then it doesn't have much of a purpose.

EDIT: Oh Kahunaburger, you ninja you.

a good movie doesn't need to be fun
a good book doesn't need to be fun
so why do we think games have to be fun?

they have to be engaging which can be achieved by fun but that doesn't have to be fun

No, they don't.

But I don't think an interactive medium lends itself well to experiences other than fun.

I think there needs to be a level of satisfaction gained from playing and perhaps the easiest way to achieve that is just to make something that hits the "fun" spot. I don't think that level of satisfaction, however, can only be reached by having the game be fun.

It's also fairly important to keep in mind that fun can be rather subjective. Something like Dark Souls, to pick a popular game, is not necessarily going to fun for everyone who plays it though I think most people are likely to find success in it at least somewhat satisfying.

No they dont they usually market themselves as entertainment though and those do need to be engaging usually by being fun.

You do also get serious games whose aim is to teach you or show you about something going on in the world such as a famine in a country or how difficult it is to tackle global warming etc. You also get flight sims which are games but at the highest level actually teach people to fly in a safe and controlled environment minimising risk.

In fact games can and have been used for a lot of things but being fun is important and not just for games but everything because its a fantastic engagement tool and once people are engaged then you can start adding other things in there like a strong message you feel is important or complex sums that need to be solved for scientific breakthrough (just guessing now) but as long as its engaging people will play along.

Nope. Though they at least need to be engaging. Take puzzle games for example. They're not really fun, but engaging. They can be fun, but more often than not, that's not their aim. The fun is a byproduct of your engagement.

Yes they do need to be fun . Or at least try to be . Remember just because it's not fun for you , doesn't mean it isn't fun for someone else . You example of " game about genocide" can't be fun is bullshit . Just because a theme of a game is serious , doesn't mean the game can't be fun . The original CoD was about war , and the game was fun . Brothers in arms is about war , and that game is fun . Catherine is about relationships and that game is fun . Elderscroll games are about racism ( yes it is always an underlining theme ) and that game is fun .

In short: no. Many of the best games ever made have almost zero "fun" factor: Silent Hill 2, for example. Shit, that game's not even particularly well-designed, it's just designed in a way that matches it's artistic intentions, which is far more important.

The idea that games should be fun is kind of bullshit. One of my favorite games of last year was Dark Souls. It's a fantastic game, but for most of my time playing it my primary emotions were: fear, malaise, and anxiety. Occasionally, awe when I discovered something new, or relief when I cleared a boss. Does any of that equal fun? It's a rewarding experience, but when I think of having fun I think of drinking a beer with friends, not putting myself through hell in Lordran.

Yes.

Games are entertainment = For Fun.

Chairman Miaow:
I think that games have to be fun. What you described I would more describe as an interactive narrative.

This. Games that aren't fun are iterative narratives. Same goes for some movies, I wouldn't call "Saving Private Ryan" entertainment, it's a grim narrative of war.

I define anything that I enjoy as fun. So a grim, dark depressing game trying to make me think or send a message is just as fun as any other type of game I enjoy. It's not that a game "needs" to be fun, it should be fun. It fails if it's boring, not because it's not light hearted non-taxing.

Not necessarily 'fun', but they do need emotional engagement of some kind.

Looking back I don't remember Red Dead Redemption being much 'fun' (ok, picking off 6 bandits with consecutive headshots in slow motion on horseback was kinda fun, but anyway), but it did leave a powerful emotional impression on me. There is absolutely no part of Silent Hill 2 that I would describe as fun, not one, but it is indeed a game and a damn good one at that. These are mainstream games too, not just indie titles.

They need to make you feel something, to provide some kind of emotional catharsis that takes you out of your day to day existence. It can be enjoyment, sadness, fear, whatever; so long as it's something. The only thing a game is not allowed to be is boring.

I completely agree. A game does not have to be "fun" to be good, it just needs to be engaging and interesting. Basically, it needs to give the player a reason to want to keep playing. Same can be said for any other medium. I don't listen to Black Sabbath because I like to dance to it, I listen to it because I enjoy the dark themes and unique (for the time) song structures. I don't read Powers because it is funny, I read it because I like the characters and seeing them face their struggles. I don't watch the works of David Croneberg because they are a good time, I watch them for the unique designs, suspenseful horror, and intriguing themes. I don't play Silent Hill games because they are fun, I play them for the unsettling world, well done plot twists, and mature themes. Saying that games need to be "fun" is needlessly limiting.

Nahhhh not really but I won't play a game if it's not fun. Yes, how pretentious of me.

I'll take Vanquish over Limbo any day.

skywolfblue:
Yes.

Games are entertainment = For Fun.

Chairman Miaow:
I think that games have to be fun. What you described I would more describe as an interactive narrative.

This. Games that aren't fun are iterative narratives. Same goes for some movies, I wouldn't call "Saving Private Ryan" entertainment, it's a grim narrative of war.

I dunno, that seems unnecessarily obtuse and complicated. I mean, going by your movie example, The Shining (which I did not find entertaining) is not a movie, but a grim experience of madness and isolation, while Phantasm (which I did) is a movie?

Besides who are you to say what games are "for"? For some they are a form of entertainment, for others a form of escapism, for others a hobby.

kman123:
Nahhhh not really but I won't play a game if it's not fun. Yes, how pretentious of me.

I'll take Vanquish over Limbo any day.

Just so long as you don't look down on those of us who tend to enjoy the later more than the former, everything be cool.

Kahunaburger:
No reason they need to be fun - they just have to be something someone would want to experience.

Like Zhukov said, /thread right here.

I can count plenty of times I've been enjoying a game while playing - But not necessarily because I was having "fun" at the time. I wouldn't say Amnesia: The Dark Descent is a particularly "fun" game, but I certainly enjoyed my time with it.

Here I was, all ready to smack you down and such. But you made some good points, and have swayed my opinion. Also, I've played this game.

ArnRand:
I played this little internet game that was meant to be about the North Korean border where you basically crawled through some barbed wire and died. It wasn't fun. It was still something I consider a game, and it left a big impression on me.

Anyways, don't really worry about

They need to be entertaining.

However, if you want me, or millions of others, to buy your game - it had better be fun, though the definition of 'Fun' will change from person to person {I personally don't find CoD or anything fun, whilst playing Sins of a Solar Empire, or Civ IV, or Arkham City, or a number of other games, I do find fun}.

Not necessarily, "fun" to play, but "entertaining". A game's purpose is to engage the player. It can do this by being fun. Or it can make you think, should that thinking lead you to wanting to play more. All in all, games have to be an experience that you want to partake in. Same as any other medium: book, movie, television, painting, sculpture, interpretative dance show, etc.

Nope. A game simply needs to be engaging. It needs to get you interested in the game and make you want to continue playing it. Most of the time it IS done by being fun, but it's also very possible to make a game that you wouldn't say "Oh joy, I had a grand ol' time playin' that one!" but you still come out of the game satisfied.

I am more often than not, attracted to games that are heavily invested in story telling, these don't have to be "fun" for me to find them engaging, and I don't find a lot of things "fun" that others do. I played through COD4 recently and while I found it occasionally fun (Charlie don't Surf is fun I can't think of much else that is though) the sory was engaging enough (and the games reputation was strong enough) for me to keep playing.

Fun is subjective though. I can't stand the AssCreed games, I'm not a huge fan of run 'n' gun single player shooters, and fighting games and platformers make my eyes glaze over in boredom. These games are not fun for me. I do like methodical tactical shooters and stealth games, dogfighting and racing sims, RPGs and turn based strategy, these things are fun to me and not to others.

Yes, games need to be fun.

Also, water is wet, the sky is blue, and the Pope is Catholic.

Maybe not 'fun' per se, but they should at least be enjoyable and engaging.

HarryScull:
so why do we think games have to be fun?

Presumably because most people associate the word 'game' with the word 'fun.' As as result the concept of a type of game that isn't doesn't have to be fun is probably a preposterous idea like saying that elephants grow on trees or something equally as absurd.

EDIT: Corrected myself.

YOU PRETENTIOUS WANKER! (sorry, couldn't resist. I don't really mean it)

Yes, I do firmly believe that games need to be fun.

If a game has a nice story, that's nice. But I'm not paying 60 bucks when I can get a better story that will probably last me longer for about 8 bucks.

Fun should always be the primary objective of a video game, and some games create fun through different means, and people have fun through different things.

Whether it's fun through challenge, engagement, or even just watching and listening while characters interact, you should be having fun when you play a video game.

If you're not having fun, than why are you wasting your time when you could be doing something productive...or at least something that actually is fun.

all a game has to do is engage on some level. Fun is just one way to engage a player and not always the best one.

They should be engaging. I don't have fun reading Cormac McCarthy, but I'm deeply enthralled and the experience lingers with me after I put the book up.