Games Don't Always Have to Be Fun Pages 1 2 3 NEXT | |
I agree with your reasoning. I think entertainment is now a more relevant word in gaming than fun. Journey is fun, but that's not why I love it. It's an emotional experience, it looks gorgeous, the music is bloody awesome, all of these things are why I keep going back to it. Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 is fun, but it's also competitive, when I'm up against another player, my concentration levels are through the roof, and that high I get from winning a difficult fight is awesome. Fun is great, but there's usually something else that keeps me coming back for more. | |
Question: does Silent Hill have puzzles and/or combat? Because if so, it's at least trying to be fun. For that matter, a lot of people find scary things to be fun. I really hate this line of reasoning, because yes, games are games, they do need to be fun, and to claim otherwise really is pretentious and hipsterish. | |
And now we are three. Fun is not a requirement for any form of entertainment media to be a valid one. It is only one of many different emotional responses people seek out to enjoy. A lot of my favorite movies, books and musical pieces are not at all 'fun' in the strict sense of the word, but I still thoroughly enjoy their experience. Why should games be any different? Confining a medium to a single stream of thought will never see it grow into something more. For example, film was once widely thought of as an amusing, but nonetheless mindless diversion (exceptions did exist). Until people started experimenting with the medium's possibilities. The rest is history. Daystar Clarion, having mentioned Journey, I recently finished it with someone called Daystar. Was that you? | |
I suppose the real argument is one of semantics. I think it relies on whether you think fun and entertainment are interchangeable terms. | |
My PS3 tag is Daystar_Clarion, so if it was just 'Daystar' then no, it wasn't me. | |
Depends how you define fun. I think games need to be entertaining but thats not always true even then. Look at WOW - I've played quite abit of it (nowere near some people) and I enjoyed my time, but I wouldn't say its a fun game, its a rewarding one. So yeah I would say Games don't have to be fun to be good. | |
As I always post in this thread, I agree that games don't have to be fun. They just have to be something someone would want to experience. | |
Yes they do. If a game is not fun then it can fuck right off. Different people however enjoy different things. I find a games like Dark Souls fun, others want to bash there head through a wall after playing it for five minutes. | |
I see where you are coming from, but I think the word "fun" has a very broad definition. It is basically anything entertaining or amusing. For example watching a scary movie for the thrill of fear is still a form of "fun". | |
If it comes down to semantics, look at it this way. Schindler's List is not fun, but it entertains. | |
Indeed. All fun is entertaining, but not all entertainment is fun. | |
It would also make an absolutely terrible videogame. | |
I'm having fun when I'm entertained, but if I'm not enjoying the experience, I wouldn't call it entertainment. I think this comes down to semantics. | |
Pretty much this. I can have fun watching "Schindler's List", and it's not exactly a "funny" movie. It does all boil down to semantics. | |
So I think what we're getting at here is a distinction between "fun" and "engaging." In that fun is always engaging in some way, but for something to be engaging it doesn't necessarily have to be "fun" (at least in the typical jubilant sense of "fun.") | |
I'm of the opinion that you can make a good game out of anything. If it's good enough for a film, it's good enough for a videogame. | |
You don't need to see where OP is coming from, it is clear he is wrong. Games are fun. "Fun" does not mean "funny". Fun does not mean "makes me happy" or "makes me laugh". Fun is "enjoyable", "amusing" or "engaging". If you say you liked Silent Hill even though there was not a drop of happy feelings in it, then you still found it fun. If another game tackled entirely different emotions but still nothing about "happiness" in general and you found that game interesting, then again - it was fun. So yes, it's semantics - it semantics that people leave out on purpose, it seems, so they can raise an argument about...semantics again. | |
What video games should be is thrilling. Thrilling is fun. Thrilling does not necessarily mean "happy" Thrilling can be fear, excitement, sadness, pain, suspense, shock, surprise, tension, or the thrill one gets from going up against a particularly difficult challenge with a high risk of failure. Video games should never be dull, disappointing, boring, aggravating... you see we're mincing words with a lot of variable definitions here... But then again, everyone has their own idea of 'fun' Players needn't always feel 'good' when playing a game. But ultimately playing a game shouldn't feel like a chore or punishment... it should be satisfying. This is also a problem with stories in games touched on in another thread. That playing a game should be fun and exciting but stories needn't necessarily always be, nor should they be expected to. Stories are meant to be sad, tragic, painful, demoralizing... but a game shouldn't play that way. Cleaning out a gutter, for instance, isn't a game because it isn't fun. So a game shouldn't ever play similarly. | |
They're two completely different types of media. Last I checked, games were interactive. Schindler's List, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, these are all classic films, and none of them would make a decent game. You might be able to make a halfway decent point and click adventure game out of Casablanca, but at the cost of pretty much everything that made it good in the first place. That's the problem with most of these art games; they're not good games, and they're not good art, either. I'm of the opinion that if you really want to make a movie, you should make it. Don't make it a game with interactivity limited to changing the camera angle and the occasional quick time event. | |
Depends on what your definition of "fun" or "entertainment" is. | |
I always thought that things that were entertaining where fun. I am trying to think of a time where something was entertaining but not fun, or funny I guess. | |
So are books and films. That never stopped anybody. Also, you are pointlessly reducing the possibilities of what the game could be by pigeonholing it into a single genre (because genres change absolutely all the time). However, I can actually imagine a game version of Schindler's list that could win awards. The gameplay would mostly be like a typical business simulator or something. You have to decide how much to work your jews, how many dud bombs to build, how many jews to employ. All the time, nazis are watching your results, keep them happy so your jews can live but the more you try to please them, the more people are dying thanks to your bombs. Every now and then you have to face choices regarding who to save and who dies: a couple of your jews has a baby, a) if you help them hide it, they don't have enough to eat, production drops and the nazis send the couple off to Auzchwitz, b) you help them send it away, if you're caught redhanded it's game over, c) you tell them you'll send it away and actually drown it in a bucket of water. This is basically every RPG I've ever played but instead of being in some pointlessly lame fantasy setting, you are actually playing through real events and experience horrors that really happenned first hand. That's the power of videogames. You can create harrowingly real situations and make the player participate in those events. It can move people more easily than any medium I've ever seen and yet we choose to do the most banal timewasting on it. | |
I disagree. The term "game" carries this whole connotation that it's for fun. "Interactive Narrative" works fine to describe other types of interactive experience. | |
We could argue semantics about "fun" and "entertaining" until the cows come home there is one thing that is pretty true. Entertaining is its own form of fun. It also makes many things in some games stories not work. Taking your Silent Hill 2 example even when you are really scared you are still having an enjoyable time. Enjoyable and scared are pretty mutually exclusive things. It's like being fake scared which is a thing that not just games but a lot of movies do too. If you can put us in a situation where we can be manipulated into being scared you're feeling fear but having a good time. If you were really in Silent Hill it wouldn't be a good old time because you're really scared, not imitation scared. | |
I agree. I would say that they do need to be stimulating or engaging in some way. | |
I believe fun and entertaining have some relevant correlation, though. That's... really all I can say. | |
Agreed - I know I say it a lot, but I really have played enough weird indie games to get your point. Today, I share with the dissenters A Brief History Of Cambodia. You know it's going to be good when it recommends headphones :P Edit: And I know I haven't quoted, but I'd really like to see your thoughts on this, Owyn. | |
You're right. They don't. And I don't have a problem with people like you asking the AAA publishers and developers deliver more of those artsy games. What makes me want to tear my hair out is when the more extreme art people start claiming that first person shooters are destroying the industry and that first person shooters and other such fun games need to be eliminated. And it doesn't help when they call me an immature child based solely on my entertainment preferences. So, you know what? I'm sorry. I'm sorry that you hardcore RPG players and art game enthusiasts aren't getting as many games as you'd like to. But don't take it out on me. Instead, just do all you can to get at least one AAA publisher to look your way and send you difficult games and arty games. Ask them repeatedly, buy them when they do come out, spread word to your friends and ask them to to the same so the game gets a stable fanbase and with it a stable income source, and problem partly solved. How do you think FPS games got so popular in the first place? | |
I think this discussion is silly. Games don't have to be fun, but you have to feel some kind of thrilling experience while you play it. Fun is defined as enjoyment or pleasure. If you don't feel either of those while doing something supposed to be entertaining then that's clearly a failure. You can watch a holocaust movie and you should expect the experience to bring you some kind of pleasure. Sure it might not be fun in the haha way, but you feel you've been pleasured by the experience nevertheless. Fun isn't just a feeling that has to be about laughs. It's about sanctification. Games should always be fun. You want to differentiate between your hobby and paying your taxes. | |
Disagree completely, as I found Silent Hill 2 to be tremendously fun. Being scared IS fun for many people. As people have said, it's all about semantics. Personally, I think "entertained" is just a cop out, like how people don't want to say looking at a car crash is "fun" so they are just "entertained" by it, or simply shocked by it. I say face it, you're having fun. | |
In my opinion, if something isn't fun, it's boring. Work can be fun, school can be fun, and my leisure activities better be fun, or I'm not going to waste my time with them. So I would say that yes, video games do need to be fun. But by fun I just mean engaging and stimulating. Even the longest, slowest film can fit that description. But I have no problem with people saying games don't need to be fun, because the definition is pretty loose. As long as you don't expect me to play a boring game because of some supposed artistic merits. I'm looking at YOU, TALE OF TALES. | |
Well, I suppose if we look at the definition of "fun" courtesy of google: fun/fən/ Then any level of enjoyment could be construed as "fun". I suppose this is an instance where it is important to differentiate between the commonly accepted definition of fun as it is used by society as large, and the dictionary definition (both of which are equally as important). When most people say something is "fun", they usually mean it in a lighthearted manner. As an example, I recently watched the film "Begotten" - it was weird as shit, and at no point in time was I deriving any sort of "lighthearted pleasure" from the experience. However, I did derive a certain level of "enjoyment" from the film if only because it was a very unique experience. Going back to the OP, I think if we're going by the commonly accepted definition of fun, then absolutely, games do not always have to be fun, and saying that they do is a restriction to the medium. However, if we're going with the more pedantic definition of fun as presented by the dictionary - providing the gamer with a certain level of enjoyment - then yes, it is necessary for games to be "fun". Otherwise, nobody would want to play them. | |
Fun and entertainment are the same thing. All on how you believe in the definition, I believe fun=entertainment. | |
I'll take on the Silent Hill scenario. Fear from game's atmosphere = adrenaline = release of endorphins afterwords = Fun I don't know about you but I find the biochemical release as a good definition of "fun." | |
| Pages 1 2 3 NEXT | |
Bear with me a second while I try to point out one of those ridiculous truths that apparently everyone has forgotten. Games don't always have to be fun. My favourite game ever, Silent Hill (1 through 3 can't decide), is not fun. It's scary, it's emotional, it's deeply compelling and yet never is it fun. What it definitely is, is entertaining.
Good games have to be entertaining, but they don't have to be fun. I play Limbo pretty often, it never gets boring for me, but it isn't really fun either. When you look at the kind of games that get massive amounts of praise by experts (Shadow of the Colossus, Killer 7, Limbo, Journey, Silent Hill) I think there is a feature that joins them. They may be fun, but they aren't only trying to be fun. Their goals are somewhere completely different. They are trying to get a theme across, they are trying to draw out and emotion. This is a great (if difficult) way of engaging the player and it's just as valid as plain old fun, however, nowadays the "games have to be fun" has almost turned into this mantra that everybody keeps repeating without ever questioning it's validity.
All being said, while I'm not insinuating ALL games should stop being fun, I will say that fun, like any other emotion in a medium, needs to be mixed up and dosified for maximum effect (like how Journey limits the jumping making it all the more compelling).
Strawman argument: "Hurr durr, of course games NEED to be fun. Stop being a pretentious hipster."
If someone really feels the need to say anything like this my answer is that these aren't JUST games, they're videogames, they have unlimited potential and they can be whatever they like.
I'm expecting much rage regardless.