Do games have to be fun?

[SeeIn2D]

They don't have to be fun in the conventional sense. I think in order for them to be actually enjoyable to play they have to be entertaining, which is a different meaning then fun. You could go see a movie like X-Men: First Class, it was a fun movie, or you could go see a movie like The Prestige, which was not a fun movie in the slightest, but was still entertaining. So when considering the conventional sense of fun, no, games do not necessarily have to be fun. I think overall a game should be fun in the conventional sense just because that fits my play style and what I enjoy in games. Games like Mass Effect with extremely serious undertones (from what I understand, I have only played the first one briefly), will usually be entertaining but not exactly fun.

 

[dimensional]

Is fun different from enjoyment? I am unconvinced but certainly there are different subsects of enjoyment such as the primitive (is this closer to fun?) or intellectual enjoyment to name two the problem is the word has different meanings to different people based on their ability and experience.

As for whether games have to be fun no they dont they just have to be or seem worthwhile to play such as with educational games like proper flight sims or of course the huge number of gambling games or pub quiz games take away the prospect of any sort of reward and people would not play them (or at least most wouldnt)

 

[brownie212]

i have to enjoy a game, if it wants a 2nd play through the gameplay has to be fun, this is why i have played through spiderman more times than any final fantasy game, now there's no way spiderman is better game than final fantasy, well maybe 13 but that's by the by, but spiderman is just epically fun to play as a swinging simulator. fun game does not equal a good game but if the game is not enjoyable i stop playing and chop it in for another game, so no it doesn't need to be fun per se, just enjoyable enough to keep me engaged with it.

 

[rob_simple]

I would argue that games don't have to be fun or even necessarily enjoyable.

To use a film as a point of reference, when I watched A Serbian Film I didn't find it entertaining in any sense of the word, but I wanted to see it. And I am glad I have seen it, but I could never think of a word to describe the feeling.

Similarly, a game like Silent Hill 2, to me, wasn't enjoyable at all. I felt drained every time I played it, but it was still an utterly compelling experience.

 

[Sylveria]

Fun is a very subjective thing. I'd like to say yes, but there's certain games that may not be "fun" but they are certainly engrossing and that is what keeps me going forward; to see what happens next. I think "enjoyable" is a better term when talking about games. You should never be bored unless you're intentionally doing something boring; like grinding or running obnoxious fetch quests to get some uber item or upgrade where you're doing stuff more for the reward, which will hopefully make the rest of the game experience more enjoyable.

 

[Sylveria]

To use a film as a point of reference, when I watched A Serbian Film I didn't find it entertaining in any sense of the word, but I wanted to see it. And I am glad I have seen it, but I could never think of a word to describe the feeling.

I hope the word you're looking for to describe the feeling that movie brings is "disturbed" otherwise... you really scare me.

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

...I would think that is the entire point of playing a video game, is to have fun. Because, you know, it's a video game. Trying to play a video game while not having fun might as well be a job that doesn't pay you at all.

You watch movies because they are entertaining.

You play video games because you want to entertain yourself. AKA, have fun.

 

[rob_simple]

To use a film as a point of reference, when I watched A Serbian Film I didn't find it entertaining in any sense of the word, but I wanted to see it. And I am glad I have seen it, but I could never think of a word to describe the feeling.

I hope the word you're looking for to describe the feeling that movie brings is "disturbed" otherwise... you really scare me.

Well, it certainly wasn't pleasant to watch, the only way I can describe it is 'an experience'.

Soundtrack was bitchin', though.

 

[Kalikin]

There's an oldish video on Youtube on game design where James from Extra Credits gets asked at the end if games have to be "fun". His view is that fun isn't the only quality, or necessarily the primary quality, a game should have (depending on its intent, of course).

I think of it like this - I've been reading Plato for the last five hours. It certainly wasn't "fun", but it was definitely enjoyable. I would love to play a game that gave me the same sensation as reading Plato as much as I would enjoy blasting zombies for the sake of blasting zombies.

 

[Cazza]

Gameplay isn't the only way a game can be fun. I have played many games shit in gameplay but with an awesome story. Sometimes I play GTA just the listen to music. Driving to music is better then just listening to music. Sure the driving by itself is boring but with music it's great.

 

[ThePilgrim101]

Yes.

/thread

 

[Gammayun]

Considering a game, by it's very definition, is a recreational activity, you would think fun would be a key factor.

But would you say that definition really apply now, video games were given that definition over 40 years ago and you see video games have change so much in that time.

 

[DeadWaker718]

I think it ultimately amounts to whether you view games as entertainment, or as a form of artistic expression. Although a LOT of games that are not fun are poor, there are notable exceptions.

Case in point, Silent Hill 2, the game is largely uneventful, and consists largely of walking through an empty foggy town. But at the same time, your natural curiosity about the surrounding area, and the tension that it creates are enough to keep you playing. For that matter, a LOT of the horror genre fits into this category.

Also Heavy Rain, the gameplay on the whole was rather bland, but the story and characters were so fascinating you wanted to experience with them how everything played out

I think the answer to your question however comes down to one question:
Are you invested in the story enough to see it through to the end?

If the answer is yes, then the game need not be necessarily fun, so long as it allows you to take part. Also fitting in this area to me are JRPGs, but thats another matter

If the answer is no, that isn't a bad thing. One cannot say they are wholly enraptured by the bird's plight, and their struggle to recover their young in Angry Birds, it just means that the story is merely the vehicle by which the gameplay is driven, and it is what makes gaming special. It becomes about the journey rather than the destination.

 

[SilentCom]

Games are pretty much whatever people make them to be now. Most are fun, some are artistic, and some just spur competition among players.

 

[krazykidd]

Well isn't that the point of games? To entertain you? If you're not having fun then you shouldn't be playing it..

Entertaining does not equal fun

Depends on your definition of "fun".
Yes every game must be fun to be any good, but wether that fun is being engrossed in a deep storyline, coming up with complex strategies to overthrow an opponent with a huge technical advantage, or just shooting peoples heads off, is... I was gonna say "subjective" but it more defines the target market really...

This is my opinion and i think soulsalmon hit the nail on the head . I like my games to be challenging , i find challenge enjoyable if not fun .

 

[LiliumSnow]

I found that my favourite games - "Dragon Age: Origins", the "Mass Effect" series and "Silent Hill 3"- aren't what I would call "fun" games, but I like them anyway because I love their story and I like the characters. Honestly I don't really play games for the gameplay itself, but for their stories and characters.

 

[Weaver]

I don't think games have to be fun. If they want to tell a dark philosophical story then go for it. My problem is that no games are trying to be fun any more. Furthermore their stories usually blow.

I like pizza but I don't want to eat it every day for every meal.

 

[Gyrohelix]

The other day i was playing through mass effect 2 came to the thought that at some points in the game i was not having fun but i wasnt bored, though was very much engadged in the universe and story. i was enjoying myself though i wasnt really having fun.

Yes the definition of fun is "the enjoyment of pleasure" and i while this certainly fits into the category because i certainly was get pleasure from playing it, it doesnt really fit my perseption of what is fun.

Its hard for me to discribe but I will try; In just cause 2 you hijack a plane, and then use it to crash into a colonel but still it didnt quite kill him so you have to fire a rocket up his arse, now thats fun. But in l.a. noire trying to work out if someone was lying isnt fun but i do enjoy it.

Am i just overthinking what fun actually means or do i have some goods point? And can games be engaging rather than fun? This is something that really confusing me, anyone got any thoughts on this?

You seem to be overthinking it, mate.

 

[BlackLurker]

A Good Story is fun to hear.
A Good Brawl, alongside your bros or you against this entire planet of gamers, seems like a bitchin' party.
A Good Beat Down, well, some people enjoy that kind of thing.
A Good Battle of Wits and the Mind, no matter if it seems boring to those outside it, are as an epic clash to those within or that understand it.

This is the weirdest thing about "Hard Core" players who think the "Casuals" have "Bad Games". The games they play are fun to them. Who the hell are you to say that they can or can't have fun doing whatever they like?

Before my descriptions and thoughts become any more crapy and invite any issue, games are suppost to be fun. Good Strategy, Good Game Play, Good Story, Good Anything, there are a number of factors that lead to you enjoying your game. And that's how it is suppost to be. The style, abilities, and quality of gaming has changed, but I don't think anyone has revolutionized gaming to the point where the base definition (which is to me: "enjoyable electronic stimulation that you have input into beyond simply activating the first step and watching") has changed.

If you play a game, and no part of it is fun, that is that there's absoltely nothing about it that you can like about playing it, whether or not you enjoy being immersed within the universe, or enjoy playing alongside your friends (or on the flipside, enjoy being able to slaughter everyone you see without a single hint of regret or issue), or whatever it is you would enjoy...

Why the hell are you playing it? If you aren't getting payed to do so, why would you do something that you have absolutely no enjoyment from?

 

[remnant_phoenix]

This is a semantic question.

The statement "Games should always be fun," does get thrown around a lot.

If "fun" is synonymous with "enjoyable," then yes, I would say that games should always be fun, and it's possible to derive enjoyment even if a game is making you think, or making you sad with its well-done poignant story moments.

But if "fun" is synonymous with "frolicking revelry," then you have a point. Games don't always need to be fun. I enjoyed the dream sequences in Lost Odyssey even though I was contemplating the human condition on all of them and fighting back tears on a handful of them. By this definition of "fun," the game was not "fun" at this point. It was deep, poignant, engaging, but not "fun."

So I would conclude that a game always needs to be enjoyable and engaging, and it's possible derive enjoyment and engage with any number of things, even if they don't fall into what many would consider "fun."

EDIT: And the statement "Games should always be fun," can be right or wrong, depending on how you define "fun."