Fun Vs Entertainment

[Keava]

I think you kinda of miss the whole point of the 'games should be fun' complaint.

See, games are interactive medium and the whole concept of fun is not about the plot, setting or issues raised by the game but more about the core of gameplay. If the way you interact with said game, no matter how interesting it would be, is not fun in itself the whole game suffers.

To use your example with Schindler's list, imagine if the film had the same story but was directed at subpar level, the actors were just plainly bad, the music score would make you want to bite your own ears off and the camera work was just terrible. Would still be able to find the entertainment value in it ? Doubtful.

Fun in game is one of means of reaching the player, if the player gets bored/annoyed by how the game is played, no matter how great the story behind it is, it won't be a good game.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Allow me to use an unusual example:

Was this [http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/555181]...

...a fun game?
No. Not by any means was it a fun game. In fact, it's even difficult to call it an "entertaining" gmae. But it was a complete and utter mindfuck as anyone who has tried it will tell you, and an epic, epic piece of art. Sure it's 3 minutes long. Sure the "gameplay" is "move right". But it's still more entertaining than several AAA titles mashed together with duct-tape.

Another, less unusual, example is Dragon Age: Origins. That game had a good story, awesome Dialogue presented with respectable gusto, painful moral decisions, Great characters.....and absolutely lousy combat. The gameplay started out okay, but at one point just became so Goddamned Boring that it urged me to stop playing the game for a full Six months. That's one of the few situations where a lack of "fun" actually trumped an engaging story.

...But here's the thing. I came back to it, and I finished it. Why? Because "engaging" is more memorable than "fun" imo. Whenever people talk about games, they ALWAYS talk about the games that enriched them, NOT games that they just had a ball with(for proof, look above). In THAT sense, it is better to be engaging than to be fun, yes.

 

[SammiYin]

If a game isn't fun I won't play it, what would I gain from an interactive 20 hour film [like Dragon age] when I can watch a film with less effort and boredom

 

[trooper6]

brimstone...I agree with you...but I take issue with your terminology.
I wouldn't set this up as fun vs. entertainment. Because entertaining I don't think gives the right feeling.

I'd go with fun vs. engaging.

You can be fun and engaging.
You can be fun and not engaging.
You can be not fun and engaging.
You can be not fun and not engaging.

Since both of these terms are subjective, my version of "fun" and "engaging" would be different than someone else's.

So for me--

Fun + Engaging: Advent Rising or Mass Effect. I'll play the heck out of those games.
Fun + Not Engaging: Hm...Probably something like Bladestorm: Hundred Years War or maybe something like Minecraft. I enjoy playing it, but I do get bored very quickly and can't play the game very long before I want something with more story.
Not Fun + Engaging: Silent Hill 2. Horror isn't "fun" for me, it is scary. But I find that quite engaging. Though...there are other survival horror games that aren't engaging either--I think I was so engaged in Silent Hill's amazing writing.
Not Fun + Not Engaging: I'm not a big fan of fighter games. I don't find the multi-button combos fun and the lack of story makes it not that engaging.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Fun can mean many many things and one of those is entertaining. Just because your having fun doing something does not automatically mean a rip-roarin' good time. The problem is that fun is such a broad term that it is hard to define. You are actually spliting it up and comparing one half the definition to the other half and saying they are different things.

...But here's the thing. I came back to it, and I finished it. Why? Because "engaging" is more memorable than "fun" imo. Whenever people talk about games, they ALWAYS talk about the games that enriched them, NOT games that they just had a ball with(for proof, look above). In THAT sense, it is better to be engaging than to be fun, yes.

I think you were having fun while playing that game. To prove that I have to ask why was the game engaging. You have to be enjoying some part of the game or you would not have came back to it. Fun is an extremely broad term and most people in this thread are trying to give it a very narrow definition. It actually reminds me of one of my philosophy classes when we were discussing the definition of love. Much like love fun is one of those words that although we all know what it means its impossible to actually properly define.

As far as I could gather, this thread tacitly assumed "fun" to be the "the visceral joy of pure gameplay". While you ARE right that I was technically having "fun" doing all the non combat sections of DA:O, it's not the same "kind of" fun that the OP is talking about.... if that makes any sense?

 

[Zhukov]

I agree fully.

It irritates the hell out of me when people assume that the only legitimate kind of fun is the oh-hey-I-totally-just-ripped-a-dude's-head-off-and-fucked-his-bleeding-throat-stump flavour offered by Gears of War and such.

Sure, I enjoy that too. But often I want something else.

Sometimes I want to have fun exploring an awesome setting. Sometimes I want to have fun meeting good characters. Sometimes I want to have fun solving puzzles. Sometimes I want to have fun getting the crap scared out of me. Sometimes I want to have fun with a tragic story that makes me want to cry.

So fuck "games should just be fun".

Or rather, fuck narrow definitions of "fun".

 

[No_Remainders]

snip

It's people like you that really make me despise the "Games should be art" movement.

Those who say "Oh, well if we don't demand that they're art we may as well all go back to playing Pacman"

No. Not at all.
That's a stupid comment and I should smack you on the nose with a rolled up newspaper as I would do to a dog if he had done something wrong.

A game does not need to be art to be better than something previous to it.
It just needs to be fun. Honestly I have no problem playing mindless shooters like CoD because I enjoy the flow of the game far more than the boredom which was brought upon me by Red Dead Redemption.

Sure, who cares if RDD was supposedly amazing because of its vast world and "interesting story".

I honestly found Marston to be unlikeable and the supposedly "amazing" world seemed so samey that I wasn't actually sure where I was until I got up north and there was snow. Yeah. That was the only defining feature of any of the wilderness. "Oh look, a big rock... Ok."

The problem I have with people who declare that games MUST be art for the industry to advance is the fact that they're wrong. Games MUST be entertaining for the industry to advance, but the two are mutually exclusive. You can have the most artistic and intuitive game ever, but it still probably won't entertain anyone who isn't a douche.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I have to agree with you there. 'Fun' and 'Entertainment' are two very different things. Did I have 'fun' with Silent Hill 2, a game that messed with my head and often times made me very uncomfortable/paranoid? No, I did not. So, why then, if fun is supposed to be the most important part of any game, is a game that is distinctly lacking in it considered one of the greatest games of all time? Because it was entertaining. It kept my attention and made me want to play to the end, despite the fact that the game itself was not exactly the 'funnest' game I have played. Same goes for many other games, like Deadly Premonition, SH3, or killer7. I think we should not demand that games be 100% fun all the time. I think we should instead demand that they should be 100% entertaining all the time. That is what will help the form evolve and grow.

EDIT: Dangit, ninja'd on my example like 3 times.

 

[Laser Priest]

Games are interactive. They're games for fuck's sake. I don't care how emotional or deep it is, if it's not fun to play it would have been better off as a book or a movie.

Interactivity and fun are not synonymous. Heavy Rain is one of the most interactive games I've ever played, and I enjoyed it immensely, but it wasn't remotely fun. It is a game because it's interactive. Whether videogame is a good definition is irrelevant now as compound words don't always retain their singular word etymologies. Interactive doesn't mean only killing 300 people or jumping around or competitive gameplay mechanics. It can just be a great engaging role playing experience. Of my top 10 games of all time, they are rarely fun and the main reason they are my favourites are because of the memorable settings and narrative. My most played games of all time though are all about fun, but it's not the fun of pure gameplay mechanics. It's the fun of social interaction. That people only want mindless fun from this medium is what's holding it back and making it puerile and just pathetic really. Fallout new vegas and red dead redemption were my 2 favourite games last year. I didn't have a moment of fun in the over 100 hours I put into them. They have great memorable settings and characters. The combat is just filler to hinder progress and make the game more meaningful.

Heavy Rain is one of the least suitable games to turn into a movie. I really wish people would stop parroting this ignorant line that narrative games would be better as books. Can you role play in a book or movie? Please stop spreading your ignorant crap just because you're still an infantile philistine who can't bear to think that a game might be intellectually engaging.

Personal insults are classy.

Anyhow, I did not say that no games are allowed to be intellectual. I said that fun is first and foremost. If they're deep and meaningful, more power to them. If they're trying to be art for art's sake and/or tell a horrible story without being so much as mildly entertaining *cough Heavy Rain cough*, then they're doing something wrong.

But then again, you're better than me and your opinion is fact, so I guess a worthless insect like myself has no right to say anything on the matter.

 

[FalloutJack]

Okay okay... I'm a "Fun in games" guy. I have a stake in this. Let's talk.

My perception of things is that fun in games IS entertainment, meaning that you are enjoying yourself in the game, doing whatever it is you're suppose to be doing in it. If you are not loving the experience you get from it, then it may not be fun and it may not be a good game. OR, in the case where the gamer is at fault, if you are a player who gets into games just to be competitive and HAVE TO win and be better than anyone else to just to feel better than anyone else...you yourself have missed the point of a game.

NOW THEN, these were examples, and probably boiling down to the crux of the matter. However, I would not compare games to other media. You don't play Schindler's List. You watch it. (And no cracks about the cut scenes in video games, please.) Games are played. You are slapped into their universe as a form of interactive entertainment. This...should be...FUN. Even if you say that you are being entertained by some other means in the game, you are enjoying this entertainment and having fun at some level. It all goes back to that three-lettered word and I can philosophize it 'till the end of time if you like.

 

[Vault101]

snip

It's people like you that really make me despise the "Games should be art" movement.

Those who say "Oh, well if we don't demand that they're art we may as well all go back to playing Pacman"

No. Not at all.
That's a stupid comment and I should smack you on the nose with a rolled up newspaper as I would do to a dog if he had done something wrong.

A game does not need to be art to be better than something previous to it.
It just needs to be fun. Honestly I have no problem playing mindless shooters like CoD because I enjoy the flow of the game far more than the boredom which was brought upon me by Red Dead Redemption.

Sure, who cares if RDD was supposedly amazing because of its vast world and "interesting story".

I honestly found Marston to be unlikeable and the supposedly "amazing" world seemed so samey that I wasn't actually sure where I was until I got up north and there was snow. Yeah. That was the only defining feature of any of the wilderness. "Oh look, a big rock... Ok."

The problem I have with people who declare that games MUST be art for the industry to advance is the fact that they're wrong. Games MUST be entertaining for the industry to advance, but the two are mutually exclusive. You can have the most artistic and intuitive game ever, but it still probably won't entertain anyone who isn't a douche.

ok sure not ALL games have to be "art" or what ever,

but Im just saying some people actually enjoy being blown away, being surprised being drawn into a world

its like if all games now were essentially casual games (good casul games), sure they are excellent games...but personally for me I might spend a while playing..but other that a little fun Im not getting much out of it, the novelty wears off

bottom line, ok I get people have different tastes,

 

[Vault101]

I agree fully.

It irritates the hell out of me when people assume that the only legitimate kind of fun is the oh-hey-I-totally-just-ripped-a-dude's-head-off-and-fucked-his-bleeding-throat-stump flavour offered by Gears of War and such.

Sure, I enjoy that too. But often I want something else.

Sometimes I want to have fun exploring an awesome setting. Sometimes I want to have fun meeting good characters. Sometimes I want to have fun solving puzzles. Sometimes I want to have fun getting the crap scared out of me. Sometimes I want to have fun with a tragic story that makes me want to cry.

So fuck "games should just be fun".

Or rather, fuck narrow definitions of "fun".

oh...and what he said x100

snip

It's people like you that really make me despise the "Games should be art" movement.

Those who say "Oh, well if we don't demand that they're art we may as well all go back to playing Pacman"

No. Not at all.
That's a stupid comment and I should smack you on the nose with a rolled up newspaper as I would do to a dog if he had done something wrong.

A game does not need to be art to be better than something previous to it.
It just needs to be fun. Honestly I have no problem playing mindless shooters like CoD because I enjoy the flow of the game far more than the boredom which was brought upon me by Red Dead Redemption.

Sure, who cares if RDD was supposedly amazing because of its vast world and "interesting story".

I honestly found Marston to be unlikeable and the supposedly "amazing" world seemed so samey that I wasn't actually sure where I was until I got up north and there was snow. Yeah. That was the only defining feature of any of the wilderness. "Oh look, a big rock... Ok."

The problem I have with people who declare that games MUST be art for the industry to advance is the fact that they're wrong. Games MUST be entertaining for the industry to advance, but the two are mutually exclusive. You can have the most artistic and intuitive game ever, but it still probably won't entertain anyone who isn't a douche.

 

[juliett_lima]

Snip!

I did my honors dissertation on something similar - a theatre audience can "enjoy" a show, but they can also "appreciate" it. enjoyment (fun) implies a positive reaction - however, a negative or neautral reaction can sometimes be more powerful (entertainment/appreciation)

I can't really say I enjoyed watching a show about a man who has sex with pigs and murders people, and ultimately corrupts the rest of society, but I sure as hell appreciated the feelings of revulsion that it gave me, and the design/art that went into making me feel that way.

 

[brimstone1392]

Okay... only read through a few posts since my last, but I WILL give all of the new ideas presented to me the time they actually deserve:

1. You can be fun and engaging.
You can be fun and not engaging.
You can be not fun and engaging.
You can be not fun and not engaging.

See, this is where the "terminology" argument, as you brought up, comes into play. If my terminology is correct, then the math I used to present my argument is. If your terminology is correct, then the math you used is right. If we can ALL decide on the right terminology (any science/art is a fickle ***** in this regard) then that part of the argument can be settled and we can ALL move on.

"I found Silent Hill 2 to be both fun and entertaining."
Witch... OR masochist... I'm going with WITCH! to make this more humorous.

"Absolutely, games can be depressing and still be entertaining."
BUT I'm not saying depressing. I'm talking about entertaining - exploring facets of ourselves we otherwise wouldn't. Though, yes, depressing can/does factor into that.

"Allow me to use an unusual example"
PENIS... an unusual example deserves an unusual response... C'mon! that was kinda "funny"!

To any I have missed, I'll be back to talk about it when I'm sober enough to keep my head up. Until then, remember this: Purple monkey's got me by the brain banana! And THAT has made all the difference.