Should ALL video games be "fun?"

  • 110 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for frostyryan
FrostyRyan

2936

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This is something I think about constantly. I absolutely think not all video games should be "fun" in the traditional sense. These games usually fall into the survival/survival horror category. Resident Evil for gamecube is my favorite RE game and one of my favorite horror games of all time, but it's not fun at all to me. It's stressful, brooding, and tense. That's brilliant to me. That's how a game like that SHOULD be. I don't WANT games like that to be "fun," I want to be pulling my hair out. We're at a point now where video games can offer a plethora of different and exciting experiences. I don't find games like Silent Hill, old school Resident Evil, The Last of Us, or Amnesia fun and I'm glad they aren't. Hell, even the Souls games should be extremely frustrating half the time and they've certainly succeeded at that.

So what do you guys think?

Avatar image for corevi
Corevi

6796

Forum Posts

391

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#2  Edited By Corevi

No.

Avatar image for excast
excast

1392

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No, I just think they should all strive to be an interesting experience.

Avatar image for xite
xite

970

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Yes and fun is subjective.

Avatar image for frostyryan
FrostyRyan

2936

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I only ask because I still see people on the internet saying games need to be fun to be good. It's bothering me a bit.

Avatar image for gunstarred
GunstarRed

6071

Forum Posts

1893

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 10

#6  Edited By GunstarRed

Maybe?

Avatar image for 71ranchero
71Ranchero

3421

Forum Posts

113

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Well video games are toys so on a base level, yes they should be fun. Everyone has a different idea of what the consider fun so not every game needs to be fun for everyone.

Avatar image for oldirtybearon
Oldirtybearon

5626

Forum Posts

86

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

I don't think all games need to be "fun", but they do need to be engaging.

I am not having "fun" when I'm shitting my pants playing through Outlast or Silent Hill 2, but I am engaged by the game. I think the real problem people have with this discussion is that there are a lot of people who think time well spent = fun, when the real word they're looking for is engaging.

Avatar image for oldenglishc
oldenglishc

1577

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

People keep paying Compile Heart to make games, so no, all video games do not have to be fun.

Avatar image for frostyryan
FrostyRyan

2936

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for ll_exile_ll
ll_Exile_ll

3382

Forum Posts

25

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#11  Edited By ll_Exile_ll

Absolutely not. A game can be good without being fun. In fact, I think fun could actually be a failing in some cases. If you're having fun playing a horror game it has absolutely failed as a horror game. A horror game should tense and unsettling, two emotions not typically associated with fun. There is merit in a wider range of experiences than simple fun, and those think that's all games have to offer are imposing artificial limits on the medium that undermine the potential of what games can be.

Avatar image for mortuss_zero
Mortuss_Zero

744

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

I dunno, if something is enjoyable and/or engaging, is it fun?
Fun isn't really the most defined word, so I don't know if there's a clear cut answer.
I know in my case, not everything needs to be laugh out loud enjoyable, but they do need to draw me in one way or another. Gameplay might be weak, but I might get a lot of pleasure from watching a character's arc play out for example.

Avatar image for frostyryan
FrostyRyan

2936

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I dunno, if something is enjoyable and/or engaging, is it fun?

Fun isn't really the most defined word, so I don't know if there's a clear cut answer.

I know in my case, not everything needs to be laugh out loud enjoyable, but they do need to draw me in one way or another. Gameplay might be weak, but I might get a lot of pleasure from watching a character's arc play out for example.

I agree about the definition, hence why I kept putting "fun" in quotes. It's a flexible word.

I actually think my most hated word on the planet is "art." I seriously just fucking hate that word. Anything is art basically. Then there are people who like to label things as "high" art or "low" art. Just, whatever man. Art is something you create I guess.

Avatar image for dijon
Itwastuesday

1269

Forum Posts

38

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#15  Edited By Itwastuesday

i say "ENUF IS ENUF" with "FUNE" games

Avatar image for justin258
Justin258

16683

Forum Posts

26

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 8

They don't necessarily have to be fun, but they do have to play well and be engaging.

Avatar image for maxb
maxB

414

Forum Posts

737

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

In my opinion games, like all other artistic mediums, need to be interesting in one way or another to be considered good. It all has to do with what the player finds interesting, some people like mechanics focused games, while some people are more focused on the visuals or the storytelling.

Avatar image for sterling
Sterling

4134

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Define fun.

Avatar image for starvinggamer
StarvingGamer

11533

Forum Posts

36428

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 25

No

They don't necessarily have to be fun, but they do have to play well and be engaging

I'd argue that they don't have to do either of those things either

Avatar image for geraltitude
GERALTITUDE

5991

Forum Posts

8980

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 2

#20  Edited By GERALTITUDE

Yes.

But yeah, like you said, we have to consider what Fun means. For me, a slow, tense experience a la RE is fun. So are stealth games where you trial and error your way through a room 1000 times over.

But to others, nothing about this is fun.

Take Mario Brothers. Give it to 100 kids. Some will have fun, some won't. It's not the game. It's the playa.

Now, all semantics aside, I think you're real question is something more along the lines of should games create feelings other than pleasant ones, for example: Tension, Frustration, Impatience, Rage, Psychointernal Confusion (MGS).

While listening to the most recent Bombing, I noticed Alex going on about how bad a design Gods Will Be Watching is because none of it is "fun". Or when Mr. McElroy said Papers Please was too boring to be fun. Well, I find both those games to be very fun. So, yeah. It depends on you, not the game. Again though, to try to get back to what I think the "real" question is:

No, games do not need to try to ensure you are having a light-hearted, sequence of successful, positive feelings. Dark Souls is probably the best example of how there are many different, legitimate ways to create fun.

Avatar image for frostyryan
FrostyRyan

2936

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No

@believer258 said:

They don't necessarily have to be fun, but they do have to play well and be engaging

I'd argue that they don't have to do either of those things either

I'll give you "play well" but you sure a game doesn't have to be engaging? If a piece of entertainment doesn't engage the person taking it in, what's really the point?

Avatar image for sravankb
sravankb

564

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#22  Edited By sravankb

No, of course not. Everyone comes to gaming for different reasons. Some like good stories and are willing to tolerate bad / mediocre gameplay for it.

I'm not one of those people. So if your question was "Should games be fun for you to like them?", then yes - absolutely. I need good gameplay, first and foremost. A good story (or an examination of the "human condition") is secondary. If it's good, that's an added bonus. It's the icing on the cake.

But I still need that proverbial gameplay cake to appreciate the icing.

Avatar image for the_tolman
The_Tolman

460

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

I don't think Dota 2 is fun but its still definitely a game and an extremely important one at that, so no.

Avatar image for pweidman
pweidman

2891

Forum Posts

15

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

No, just compelling in some way if not. Last of Us is a great example. It wasn't fun for me per se, and actually very hard to watch at times, but it was an experience I'm grateful I didn't miss(PS4).

Avatar image for tobbrobb
TobbRobb

6616

Forum Posts

49

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 13

No, every game shouldn't be fun. But every game I personally play should probably be fun.

Avatar image for justin258
Justin258

16683

Forum Posts

26

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 8

@starvinggamer said:

No

@believer258 said:

They don't necessarily have to be fun, but they do have to play well and be engaging

I'd argue that they don't have to do either of those things either

I'll give you "play well" but you sure a game doesn't have to be engaging? If a piece of entertainment doesn't engage the person taking it in, what's really the point?

Perhaps a person can enjoy a game that doesn't play particularly well, but that doesn't mean it's OK for a game to play badly if, say, the story's really good or the atmosphere is excellent. It should play well in any case. By "play well", I mean, controls. Is it responsive? Intuitive? Can I do everything I need to, as quickly as I need to, without feeling like I'm wrestling with the controls?

But then, I'd have a hard time getting past games that don't control well.

In any case, if something is not engaging, then why would you take part in it? At the very least a game should hold your attention.

Avatar image for hunter5024
Hunter5024

6708

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

#27  Edited By Hunter5024

I think games should be whatever they want. However if the audience hates a game because it's not fun, engaging, or interesting, then the developer doesn't really have any room to complain about it.

Avatar image for themanwithnoplan
TheManWithNoPlan

7843

Forum Posts

103

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 14

I think video games should be whatever the people developing them want them to be. Whether that be a sobering emotional experience or a fun shootem up, I think there's room for everything.

Avatar image for killroycantkill
killroycantkill

1608

Forum Posts

7870

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 13

The great thing about games, and all other forms of art for that matter is that it doesn't have to be anything. Obviously you'll be more successful with something engaging to the people experiencing whatever it is but games don't have to be anything.

Look at something like Dear Esther I think that walking simulator is hot garbage but it is a game nonetheless, and because "fun" is so subjective other people who are not me think that game is amazing.

That's the great thing about games moving forward and the indie scene. Everything we thought videogames were and have been are being thrown out the window and we're seeing that games don't have to be fun in order to be games. They're another medium to experience a story with our own hands and interaction rather than sitting in a chair purely watching something unfold.

Avatar image for truthtellah
TruthTellah

9827

Forum Posts

423

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

I think videogames should be entertaining and/or communicative.

Fun? Well, I hope plenty of games will be fun, but they shouldn't be limited by it.

Avatar image for csl316
csl316

17000

Forum Posts

765

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#31  Edited By csl316

Not necessarily. Ideally, they strike a perfect balance between being tense and fun (like Last of Us, or even Metal Gear). But letting go of having to be fun opens up a lot of doors.

Avatar image for bocam
Bocam

4099

Forum Posts

3868

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#32  Edited By Bocam

I have "fun" playing "games" like "Kimi to Kanojo to Kanojo no Koi." and "Subarashiki Hibi ~Furenzoku Sonzai~" even though by the end of reading ether one I felt like digging a ditch, lying down and just waiting to die would have been a happier experience.

Avatar image for professoress
ProfessorEss

7962

Forum Posts

160

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

No, but for me the best ones always are.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a72087901fb1
deactivated-5a72087901fb1

106

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I hate definitions and labels, they are limiting. I especially don't like it when people try to define games. The problem with games is the label.. "games". It's BS. What about Films? Books? Music? I think everyone has a much more sensible attitude to those media, people generally realise and accept there will be some artists striving to get across beautiful ideas in music and writing and there will be films that are deep and meaningful and serious and films that are fast food action "fun" nonsense, music that's almost entirely computer generated or background music with no meaning and books are the same; poetry or literal, plain, designed for kids. It's all fine, we all have different tastes. But games have to be "fun"? Games have to have "failure states"? It limits what "games" can be. "Games" is the media with the greatest potential. A great author could write a book and design a simplistic "game" that is little more than ways to reach the next wall of text to be read. An artist could paint a series of incredible oil paintings and design a simplistic "game" such as moving around a virtual gallery. Several games have shown what can be done with music such as FRACT and the new Sentris. "Books" are just words, music is just sounds (listen to harry partch - it's definitely music) and films are just moving images perhaps with sound. I hope everyone would criticize anyone who said "this book shouldn't exist" or "this painting shouldn't exist", and I'm sure everyone would laugh at anyone who said "this painting is not a painting" because of it's content.

"Games" is all of that plus more with the addition of interactivity, combined into one with infinite potential and the only rule is there must be no rules.

To contradict myself entirely the problem isn't actually the "games" label but peoples understanding of what games are. The truth is almost everything in life is a game. The arrangement of notes into music is a game, learning how to play a piano, to move your fingers in such a way that the desired outcome is achieved is a game. To fail again and again at maths until you work out the mental gymnastics required to start getting it right and the pleasure that can bring to some is a game. Practising running until you get good at it, practising kicking a ball until you are accurate, putting them together so you can play the game of football. Learning to read peoples emotions and respond to them in such a way as to get them to buy the thing you are trying to sell them is a game.

You can do all of these things with a serious expression on your face and turn them in to a chore, just like you can turn a game of counterstrike or chess in to a chore. All of these things can be fun if you approach them with the right attitude. The question isn't whether games are or should be fun, but whether a game is good at putting you in a happy, playful state of mind. More importantly if you learn the ability to approach any problem of your choosing with a happy, playful state of mind, then any problem can become a game you enjoy and will want to keep playing.

There is room for games that are aimed entirely at people who are experts at turning frustrating problems into playful, fun games, and perhaps some of those people want games you would find entirely frustrating and pointless.

Avatar image for mikkaq
MikkaQ

10296

Forum Posts

52

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

No, but I tend to only play the fun ones. I really don't like horror games for the most part and I've never really been interested enough to try games like Dear Esther or Gone Home. The 'non-games' I like tend to just be simulators which to me are fun.

Avatar image for vigorousjammer
vigorousjammer

3020

Forum Posts

66164

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 41

#36  Edited By vigorousjammer

Games don't need to be fun. I feel like there's definitely room for games that focus on a different experience than a "fun" one.

However, when it comes to my own subjective taste, I'd say I have zero interest in that kind of game.
I personally put a lot of stock into how a game plays, more-so than the narrative elements, which usually come second.
It's fine if somebody else is into it, but a game that focuses solely on the narrative while foregoing having satisfying gameplay is just kind of an empty experience to me.

There's certainly ways to do both gameplay and narrative successfully, and I feel like the games that do both well, usually end up being the most entertaining. However, I feel like if I had to choose a game that was only strong in one of the two categories, I'd go with gameplay every time. That's not because I don't enjoy a good story, but I guess mostly because I'm playing a game, and a game's gameplay is the most closely linked part of playing a game... so I'd want that part of it to be good.

TL;dr - There's still room for narrative-driven games... they're just not for me.

Avatar image for redhotchilimist
Redhotchilimist

3019

Forum Posts

14

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

They don't have to be fun, but they have to be engaging. What's the point in making something boring? Even if you're making a game or telling a story or whatever about something mundane or slow, it can be fun to make an experience around it or an interesting documentary. That's probably what people on the internet tell you means too, right? No one sits around laughing whenever they play a game, but if it's not engaging, there's no reason to engage with it.

Avatar image for tirion
Tirion

200

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#38  Edited By Tirion

Movies like Schindler's List aren't "fun", but still interesting and moving. And I would like to see more games that evoke that kind of emotions and thoughts.

Avatar image for l4wd0g
l4wd0g

2395

Forum Posts

353

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

Games should be entertaining.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a72087901fb1
deactivated-5a72087901fb1

106

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Would you argue that a painting is not a painting because of its content?

Avatar image for ssully
SSully

5753

Forum Posts

315

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Nope. Game's are so expansive now that different developers can strive to make any sort of unique experience.

Avatar image for giantstalker
Giantstalker

2401

Forum Posts

5787

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 2

#42  Edited By Giantstalker

I think of fun as some kind of immediate thrill, almost some kind of a rush or something, but totally distinct from actual enjoyment.

As an example, I found enjoyment in what I did in EVE online... but very little of it was particularly fun. Fun can sometimes even come at the cost of enjoying the overall experience... especially "mandatory fun" which doesn't mesh well with the rest of the game.

Avatar image for amyggen
AMyggen

7738

Forum Posts

7669

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#43  Edited By AMyggen

Some great books, movies etc. are not "fun" in the traditional sense, but still absolutely fantastic. So no. As long as it's engaging, thought provoking or interesting in some other way, that's enough. To limit a medium to just being "fun" is to limit the medium to be played by 10 year olds.

Avatar image for mysterysheep
Mysterysheep

450

Forum Posts

700

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

I feel like this will inevitably become a discussion over semantics. It's worth noting with the horror games you mention, it's not all about the frustration and tension. There needs to be a release in there of sorts, a sense of reward of some kind. It's that kind of playful back and forth that can make games feel exhilarating and some might even call that feeling of exhilaration "fun". Even in games like The Last of Us, that feeling exists in spite of some people saying that it isn't a "fun" game. When you're overwhelmed by enemies and low on bullets but you just manage to survive at the end, that's exhilarating feeling. Maybe even "fun". Semantics.

Avatar image for pyromagnestir
pyromagnestir

4507

Forum Posts

103

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 23

Games don't have to be anything, maaaaaaaaaan. They can be whatever you want.

If there's a game designer wants to make a game the provokes any type of reaction, even no reaction at all, it's all cool.

@believer258: You gotta step outside the box man, and expand your horizons and just learn to be, man.

Just nobody should go investing millions of dollars into making some strange game game designed to be off putting and control terribly and expect to make their money back. Because if someone were to make some weird avant garde game there may not be a large audience for it, or any audience at all even. But nobody in existence can or should tell that person not to go through with their idea because it's not fun or whatever.

Unless it's actively dangerous or harmful, like a game that's designed to give people seizures or secretly inject them with heroin or something.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a72087901fb1
deactivated-5a72087901fb1

106

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

There is no need for any of the things people have said games need. it is a medium, you damage it by limiting it. You should talk about what you prefer a game to be, like you prefer watercolor paintings rich in blue and orange sunsets but a painting is a painting and it needs only paint. As "games" are a combination of all previous media with the addition of interactivity, games have less requirements than any other media. Games can consist entirely of words or entirely hand drawn art or entirely sound.

Avatar image for rejizzle
Rejizzle

1488

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#47  Edited By Rejizzle

Yes. Especially due to the interactive nature of the medium I believe that fun is paramount. Games can be used for artistic expression, but if I am not actively enjoying my experience then the creators vision is most likely better suited to a different form of media in which they could be actively enjoyed.

To be clear: I've been entirely unnerved by movies (such as A Clockwork Orange), novels (like A Handmaid's Tale), comic books (Stitches comes to mind), and video games (let's go with Shadow of the Colossus) but I've thoroughly enjoyed my experience with them.

Avatar image for cocoonmoon
cocoonmoon

254

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

"Fun" is a lot of things for me. Like, pretty much interchangeable with "engaging", for example.

Avatar image for aceblack19
AceBlack19

115

Forum Posts

17

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 2

I think video games should be whatever the people developing them want them to be. Whether that be a sobering emotional experience or a fun shootem up, I think there's room for everything.

Nailed it. I think of games as a medium. They can be used to create something for fun, but they're also excellent tools for self-expression, satire, cultural critique; whatever the designer seeks to create.

Avatar image for starvinggamer
StarvingGamer

11533

Forum Posts

36428

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 25

@believer258: @frostyryan: It's a bit tricky, because whether or not you find something engaging is so subjective. No matter what the game is, there are some people who will find it engaging and some people who won't. But that lack of engagement can be just as important to a game's expression as anything else. The example that immediately springs to mind is Papers, Please. Plenty of people had bad things to say about that game when it hit so many GotY lists because they found it to be such a boring treadmill of a experience. They were unable to engage with the elements of humanity that kept other people playing, despite the fact that most of the praise the game received came along with the caveat that the actual mechanics of it were not "fun". When you think about the sense of detachment some people experienced, their ability to transform a job, where a single decision could be the difference between life and death for a stranger, into a faceless numbers game, it reveals one of the most interesting wrinkles to the overall expression of Papers, Please.