canadamus_prime:
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 mean elephants dont grow on trees!?!

(jokes)

This appears to be the new new 'Hot Topic.' Games Video games are entertainment products, they do not have to be 'fun,' just entertain the buyer.

Of course they don't need to be fun, but they should be a, lets say 'positive experience'. Not all books are or attempt to be fun, nor movies or plays or what-have-you. Games are not simply children's toys, they do not all need to be fun.

But there does need to be some reason to play the game, some people just assume that the only thing that games can offer is fun. That something prevents a game from being anything else. This is absurd, only the most inane semantics can make this true.

I think the problem is that "fun" seriously varies from age-to-age. I mean, I find analyzing and pulling apart some postmodern weirdness like MGS2 positively thrilling. Or I hear about Ico and think "that concept really speaks to me."

Games are almost never going to be not fun when they're good. This is why even good, well-written, important games like the Metal Gear, Legacy of Kain, Team Ico, and early Final Fantasy titles are all fun, despite half of those featuring mediocre gameplay. Only the really depressing stuff like Silent Hill or Freedom Bridge is going to be not fun, but that's because that's what they want to be.

Not fun games are only bad when they intended to be fun.

BreakfastMan:

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.

Oh God no, I'm one of those people who just game, ya know. Anyone is allowed to enjoy what they want as long as they can respect other's tastes. If you like your art, cool, if you like your over the top insanity, cool, hell, if you love Call of Duty, that's alright.

HarryScull:

canadamus_prime:
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 mean elephants dont grow on trees!?!

(jokes)

You know, I was kinda expecting someone to do that.

I don't think so. Often times when I'm playing a game I'll ask myself if I think it's fun, and a lot the time I'll say that no it really isn't.

But I'll still continue playing it because I find it to be very engaging for one way or another.
There are only a few games I can actually say I find fun, and I've played lots in my time.

They don't *have* to be fun, but it helps if the developer is looking to garner an audience - ergo, to make a few bucks.

As games haven't quite hit the same stride as the film industry in terms of their overall production, I doubt we'll see something akin to, say, a Peter Greenaway flick anytime soon. A game version of "Prospero's Books" would attract the Lit Geek crowd, the Art Games crowd and a few critics with a propensity for this kind of stuff.

Would that project garner a huge following, though? Probably not.

Unless the team pulls a Dante's Inferno and somehow manages to take a riff on Shakespeare's works and turn it into some sort of weird shooter where Old Man Prospero has to heft a gun against Caliban or some shit, I don't see that happening.

There's just something about the medium's nature that turns the basic concept of fun into the glue that keeps some premises together, like Bulletstorm's. On the other hand, while Dear Esther is extremely daring and thought-provoking and while I consider it to be a novel experience; it's just not something I'll ache to go through two or three times in a row. This makes me question the validity of my paying ten bucks for something that's essentially over in one sitting.

On the other hand, Minecraft keeps on giving. I can keep rebuilding Shepards for the three Mass Effect games and experience things differently each time. Art games seem to be like books, in that while they might be memorable and deeply touching; they're designed to be linear because they're meant to provoke a very specific set of reactions.

In more traditional games, even the most linear of all setups can give me ample opportunities to be engaged differently, to approach things differently. Art games can be compared to novels, while actual games could be compared to Choose Your Own Adventure books.

So to me, fun is really a byproduct of choice. I can be engaged intellectually and emotionally by Dear Esther - but will I have fun? Probably not.

ArnRand:
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. It wasn't fun. It was still something I consider a game, and it left a big impression on me.

So you had your fun then.

ArnRand:

Sitting through a twenty hour AAA game that isn't fun to play is going to suck, yes.

Colour me puzzled, but i fail to understand who and why should spend 20 hours of his life playing such game ? Aren't there any better alternatives ? O_o

ArnRand:

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.

In my world we call it "fun". ;]

BTW :
You preahem,khem, khem, hem, ahem... Sorry, i couldn't resist. ;]

Of course they don't have to be fun. They also don't have to make money or do well but fun is the best selling point at the end of the day. There aren't many substitutes for it.

EDIT: They at least have to be engaging in some way. No-one is going to play something that isn't fun and doesn't grab their attention in any other way.

Fun? Nope, not really. Engaging for the player to buy, own and complete the title? Yup, totally.

yes it does
that why its called a GAME!
game=fun

Short answer: Yes.

Long Answer: Why would I bother to play if they weren't fun? Of course.

They need to be fun if they want me to buy them.

HarryScull:
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

When someone describes the experience of reading a good book or watching a good film, "fun" isn't a word that is normally used to begin with because it isn't a suitable description for those types of activities. Fun is more something used for a medium that requires a great amount of interactivity such as skydiving, rock climbing and of course gaming. Films and books, which only require your observation as the way of interacting are described as being "enjoyable" or "good" in the same way as you would describe watching a monkey drinking his own urine as "amusing" and not really "fun".

Fun is highly subjective here but yes, in some way, shape or form it NEEDS to be fun. I think while playing it or after you put it down you needed to realize, I had a good time here. Why you had a good time will vary of course(whee!, I was SOOO scared there! ect.)
Perhaps a better way to put it would be the game needs to be enjoyable in some fashion.

Well, I certainly won't play a game that I don't think is fun to play.

They do not have to be, but if your game is not fun to some degree, you wont get a sale from me, because there are two reasons I play games, the fun and the competition.. If a game has neither, then I don't see the point of it being a game to begin with.

Also, by competition, I don't mean competitive Multi-player, I just mean any game that has a win/lose rule set where I must succeed using mental cognition and dexterity.. So 'games' like Dear Esther (the HL2 mod) are not competitive because you don't win or lose, you just kinda walk and listen to the story, not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, its just not a game to me, nor is it fun.

HarryScull:
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

They need to be enjoyable, though. A good movie is a movie you enjoyed watching, a good book is one you enjoyed reading, and a good game is a game you enjoyed playing. That's where this slightly pedantic debate comes from: The idea that if you play a game, playing something should be fun as opposed to enjoyable.

In other words everyone, if by fun you mean enjoyable, then yes.

Fun is just one way to keep the player wanting to play, which is what's necessary.

i think a problem with games is the time invested, with movies i can dig a good one that is two hours even if it's hard to watch because the topic it deals with makes me uncomfortable.
but when i spend 40€ on a game i want my 10-100 hours to be mostly fun, i will most likely not play a game that is ten hours long if the game is not fun

whats with the distinction between "fun" and serious? why cant i have fun with a serious story?

They definitely HAVE to grab your attention in the first two hours. Other than that, not all games require fun.

I believe a game needs to be fun but what you described I wouldn't really call a game. Its a game the same way a poem is a song.

The main differnce between games and movies is that games are more immersive. You control what happens to the main character, even if it's a completely linear gmae. With a movie, everything is fixed from the beginning. None of your own actions have consequences. That is why I think games have to be fun. If you put a message in a movie, it's easier for people to get it, because they don't have to pay attention at what they are doing, only the message counts. I like to think games are very black and white at this point: They're either fun or they're boring. And you stop playing boring games.

Games don't 'need' to be anything.

I do however prefer to have fun when I play games, but that doesn't mean all games have to be fun.

I know your talking about video games but look at The Mechanic is the Message games by Brenda Brathwaite.
The New World is a game it is not fun.
Síochán leat is a game it is not fun.
Train is a game it is not fun.
These are good well made games made by an experienced game designer, these games are engaging but they are not fun.
If you don't know who Brenda Brathwaite here is one of her shorter talks:

Depends on what people consider fun. I love having my pants soiled by scary videogames and consider it fun, others might not. I don't like MMORPG and don't really have fun with them, others do.

Games are games, the fun they give you depends on the person playing them.

(you pretentious wanker xD)

[that was a joke]

The gameplay should be fun that is the most important bit if you have a message you want to deliver then that is great go for it but if you make the gameplay shit and boring then i'm not interested.

Basically game designers should go is this still fun if I take the important message out of the game.

dimensional:
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.

Yeah, there's a whole genre of games called "serious games", which are basically educational games, simulations, etc. These are often widely used to train new recruits in the military or fire department or even medical care; not exclusively private use.
Ergo, games do not need to be fun to be games - and since something being fun does not mean it's a game, you can cross out any correlation between fun and games. ;) I joke.

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

Quoted for the truth.

You basicly said what I wanted to say. Some great moments in gaming are when a character that you liked dies, that isnt fun but it is something that sticks with you and does what a game should do, bring some kind of emotion to the player.

The ending of Red Dead Redemption was fun as hell, wasnt it? Yet it is the best part of the game.