Does fun = good ?

[IamLEAM1983]

A fun game is automatically good, yes - as long as "fun" is agreed to be a subjective concept. On the other hand, critically lauded games can be boring as all Hell to some. I've tried my best to get one of my friends into Minecraft, to no avail. It doesn't mean that Minecraft is any less of a good game; it means that my friend didn't consider it to be a *fun* game.

OP is making it sound a bit like the "Chicken or the Egg" debate, when it's really pretty simple. Fun should be the absolute value by which games are judged. Extremely well-crafted products can meet with disappointing sales, which might be a case of bad marketing, but also a case of the game not knowing how to reach its audience.

So, IMHO, Fun = Good, while Good =/= Fun.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Yes. Always. Every time. End of story.

A better question might be: Can a game be good if it ISN'T fun?

 

[dickywebster]

Id say fun doesnt always = good, but i think good does have to = fun at least a bit, otherwise why would you keep playing, if not for enjoyment?

 

[sage42]

Yes, though fun is a relative term, as many other have said. For Example, I thought the Fable series was fun so for me they're good. I didn't have fun with L.A. Noire so to me it was bad.

 

[CrawlingPastaHellion]

It is an implication, not an equivalence. At least to me it is. A good game is fun anyway. But a fun game is not necessarily good.

 

[4173]

Yes, if we are simply dividing games into a personal "good" or "bad." If we want to distinguish between games in the "good" category, making an attempt at something resembling a relativistic scale, fun isn't the only factor.


And it depends on how broadly one defines fun. Schindler's List (or something) isn't fun per say, but that doesn't mean it is bad or failed.

I love playing Minesweeper, but it isn't fun in the way I'd use the word to describe Mario Kart.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Yes. I would certainly think that the fundamental requirement for a game to be "good" would be that it be fun. Good does equal fun and vice versa. Presumably if you're having fun playing it, despite any flaws it may or may not have, then it must be good. Inversely how can you possibly call a game good if you're not having fun playing it?

 

[Druyn]

A fun game doesn't always have to be good. Some can be fun ironically or accidentally. But a good game always has to be fun. Even if its a serious game, you need to be able to look at it and answer positively to "Am I enjoying this?"

 

[Zeroandx]

Isnt that how we judge games? Weither or not their fun?

 

[the.gill123]

Yes, fun doesn't have to be good, the 2 Crank films, those films are a fun couple of films to watch, but are they good? I really don't think so, they're just fun, also Far Cry 2, that's a good game, but to be honest it's not that fun to play, so it does work both ways, but usually fun does mean good.

 

[Netrigan]

If you call a game fun, I don't think you can call it bad. It at least succeeded on one of the more important levels... unless there's a qualifier in there like "it's fun for a while, but the lack of variety gets boring after a while".

But there's a lot of fun games that completely fail to be great. I'd point to the recent RAGE as an example. It's fun. The shooting mechanics are good, you got a decent variety of ways to kill the baddies, and the driving breaks up the shooting well.

It just fails to rise above the sum of its parts. I finished the other day and it's already starting to disappear down the memory hole.

 

[Netrigan]

If you call a game fun, I don't think you can call it bad. It at least succeeded on one of the more important levels... unless there's a qualifier in there like "it's fun for a while, but the lack of variety gets boring after a while".

But there's a lot of fun games that completely fail to be great. I'd point to the recent RAGE as an example. It's fun. The shooting mechanics are good, you got a decent variety of ways to kill the baddies, and the driving breaks up the shooting well.

It just fails to rise above the sum of its parts. I finished the other day and it's already starting to disappear down the memory hole.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Not necessarily...as much as it sucks, griefing people in Four Swords or, Battle-Toads is a lot of fun, even if it does waste lives/ time.

Bad games can be fun too if you can find a way to mess with the thing enough. Like, cheating a chopper into existence in GTA4 and killing yourself with it over and over again. That's all I've got since my copy of Shaq-Fu was never delivered.

 

[FernandoV]

Halo 3 was fun but not good by my definition.

 

[docSpitfire]

In fact, you cannot make the gameplay ironically bad, because games are interactive. If you're trying to make a satirical point through gameplay, it will be shit, because you end up playing a game with broken mechanics. No one will take that as a joke unless they're trying desperately to look like they appreciate "true irony".

I'm not saying your wrong, and this is mostly to play Devil's Advocate, but what about "I wanna be the guy"? I consider apples that fall up, invisible platforms as the only means of proceeding examples of breaking the rules of gameplay mechanics 101. (Note I did not get that far) However I'd say that's an example of a game that people like ironically. I'll even admit to liking it for the whole 20 mins that I was playing it before I realized that I'm terrible at video games and hate my life and shouldn't bother anymore. (slight exaggeration.) However it's because every screen breaks fundamental rules of game play that it is interesting, I wouldn't personally call it fun though. I found their rule breaking entertaining and interesting, but I found all those unpleasant parts, where I had to play the character (or replay a screen) to find out what new zany ways they defy my expectations, more frustrating than fun.

 

[Druyn]

A fun game doesn't always have to be good. Some can be fun ironically or accidentally. But a good game always has to be fun. Even if its a serious game, you need to be able to look at it and answer positively to "Am I enjoying this?"

i dont know if enjoying is the word
engaged might be better. When i played metro 2033 today (woooo steam sale) i was awed by the graphics and enthralled by the setting, the story kept me engaged, it was less a case of enjoyment.

Or am i just being pedantic.

Nah, I get what you're saying, we're just using different enjoyments. I don't mean it in the "happy, oh this is so entertaining" way. I'm using it s a blanket term for anything that catches and holds your attention and makes you want to keep playing. Games like amnesia or metro can still be enjoyed just because you want to keep playing, not because its lighthearted.

 

[Racecarlock]

Definition of "Game" from wikitionary. game (countable and uncountable; plural games)

1. (countable) A pursuit or activity with rules performed either alone or with others, for the purpose of entertainment. In many games, the objective is to win by defeating the other player or players or being the first to reach a specified goal, while in others, role-playing or cooperation is emphasized.

Shall we play a game?




So if a game is not fun, well, then it really isn't much of a game. Those art games, they're not games. They should be called "Interactive Experiences" or something like that, because if you're not having fun, then is it really a game? Being interactive does not make something a game. This does not mean games can't be fun and introspective and a good criticism of culture or minds at the same time. But if an interactive thing is not designed to be fun or to be used for fun, then it's not a game. It's either a simulation (which can still be fun if you're simulating flight or being the bridge commander on a star trek ship or a star wars fighter pilot) or an interactive art piece. And that's fine. I just think they shouldn't be called games unless there's at least one entertaining aspect. So does fun make a game high quality? No. Does it make it good? Not necessarily, but I will play any game that I derive enjoyment from.

 

[plugav]

I think that you can enjoy bad games just like you can enjoy bad films. My usual example is Clive Barker's Jericho: broken AI, unabashedly linear and repetitive gameplay, ridiculous aesthetics... And I still loved it, just like I loved the terrible, terrible Hellraiser series.

A good game that I'd hesitate to call fun? Condemned: Criminal Origins. The atmosphere is quite heavy and clubbing homeless junkies to death with a lead pipe is not exactly joyful slaughter, but I've played it to the end and feel richer for it. Even if the story seems like just an excuse to make you visit all those scary places and do all those horrible things.

 

[Togs]

Not always, Ive played some right turkeys that where good fun- one Ive recently been reminded of is Dynasty Warriors, its shallow repetitive and ugly but by god is it satisfying.

A more recent one is Space Marine- its workmanlike and mediocre to the point where its an actual achievement but again its very satisfying and fun to play.

Yet another that just popped into my head is arguably (and Im gonna need a flame shield for this) Oblivion- buggy as hell, ugly as sin with so many poor design choices that its mod community pretty much completely overhauled the entire game by the end of its life span, but I must of played it (without the mods) for almost 400 hours.

Im sure we can all look back through our gaming library and spot games that really weren't very good for one reason or another but yet we still played to death and enjoyed.

 

[Sehnsucht Engel]

I don't have a good example about games, but the movie the room is funny, but it isn't good.