Fun Vs Entertainment

[brimstone1392]

I keep hearing/reading that games have to be fun. They are inherently a form of entertainment and, as such, if they're not fun, then the developers have failed. I disagree.

In much the same way that other entertainment-based industries have separated fun from entertainment as a whole, the games industry has to as well. Let me give you an example:

Have you ever seen the movie Schindler's List?

Is it entertaining? Sure. It's a very thoughtful movie (films also being a form of entertainment) that presents its message in a way that keeps the viewer both informed and engaged.

Is it fun... Well, no. I would never call it a "rip-roarin' good time." Others may, but I choose to disassociate myself from such people.

You see, and hopefully that example sums it up, that entertainment isn't just having fun. It can be so much more. Compelling story, poignant character developments, and (to put it as briefly as possible) ideas that make you think about the world around you and how it/you got there are every bit as entertaining as pure, unadulterated fun.

So where does this leave gaming as a whole? Let me break this down pseudo-mathematically:

Games = fun = Good
Games = entertaining = great
Games = not entertaining/or fun = missing the point of games in general and trying desperately to be another medium which the creator of such has also failed to fully grasp.

Now, I should add that I am DEFINITELY one of those "games-are-art" fag-fer-sexuals that so many on both sides of the argument have bashed. I should also state that I love mindless platformers, bullet-hell games, and even Sudoku variants. That being said, I feel that if the medium I love so dearly is to evolve to a point that it can be called an art by all, that we need to disassociate (there's that word again) fun from entertainment.

That's my take on it. Where do the rest of you stand?

(Also, why does the word "platformer" trigger the incorrect spelling response on the forum of a gaming website? I know it's not recognized as legitimate, but we all use the word... It just bothers me!)

 

[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.

 

[kasperbbs]

I agree with the op, some games are just 'fun' by doing over the top stuff and some games engage you into a compelling story that you want to see through even if the gameplay mechanics aren't all that great, 'indigo prophecy' would be one of these games for me, it was just a bunch of quick time events and some puzzles, but the story kept me going, even if it turned into 'wtf matrix' at the end.

 

[darth.pixie]

There is a difference between watching a movie and playing a game. Mainly, if you get bored with a game, you don't finish it. It's longer than a movie and it needs the player to show things. A movie has much more freedom in that, it can stand on its own. You can be captivated by just the story.

The difference between the games and movies makes it impossible to compare them. The gameplay is like camera-view. Could you watch every movie ever made in the Blair Witch style of moving camera, blur and awkward shots of feet? That's what bad gameplay sort of equals to, for me.

I prefer them to be fun. It's not actually hard to make a fun game, really. After all, most people just want to do something badass from time to time, cause some mayhem and not have too many crashes. If you can put something deep and artsy in it, great.

I must mention that I don't really care if games are considered art, toys or whatever. I just like them and that's that.

 

[Russano_Greenstripe]

I'm going to have to agree with the original poster here: there are definitely times where I would rather play a game that was more entertaining than it was fun. The only issue I have with this concept is that I can't come up with an actual game that was entertaining without being fun; most of gaming's engagement is based on the player enjoying the actions they take, and being happy at their successes or steadfast in their failures. Even scenes or events that weren't necessarily adrenaline-fueled crazy-awesome action-fests are fun for me in retrospect because I'm often proud of the fact that I was the one that did them: I was the one that blew a gaping hole in the ocean in Minecraft, or the one who made the galaxy a better place in Mass Effect games, or the healer that kept the raid alive in World of Warcraft.

I think the game that consistently fills the reader with a sense of melancholy and sadness but is still engaging and entertaining will be a strong contender, as much as a cliche the statement is, for the title of "Video Gaming's Citizen Kane."

 

[Casual Shinji]

Screw the movies, I have a perfect game example for you; Silent Hill 2.

That game is by no means fun, but it is engaging. And that's what every game needs to be. I've played games that were fun, but ultimately pointless and boring because they weren't engaging. Like Just Cause 2.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I agree but most games aim for fun. Although for me if the gameplay is not fun its not quite as good but a good story and characters make the game worth playing.

 

[Fanboy]

You used a film as an example for an entertaining experience that was not fun, but can you think of any entertaining game that is not fun? I can't think of any.

I think the reason for this is that a game is defined by being interactive, and it is fun to interact. To use your example of schindler's list, I am sure the actors all had fun playing their parts, even if it was in a sad movie.

If a game is not fun to interact with it, it has failed as a game, at least in my case. Even if I continue to play despite not having fun in order to experience the story, it might as well have been a film or book if I'm not enjoying the gameplay... a film or book that I have to press buttons while watching.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

Games are interactive. Their 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.

This, oh so many times.

Screw the whole games as art thing, screw 'deep immersive stories', screw 'open intricately crafted worlds', screw 'your actions impacting the world around you, screw other stuff that just isn't true.
Why not just accept games for they're supposed to be and leave it there? Games should focus more on allowing the player to chill out for a short while, and not to try and completely suck in the player to the previously mentioned 'deep immersive intricately crafted world'.

Whatever, point is games don't have to be chock full of story and 'moral choices' to be good, and I strongly think that the entire gaming community as well as industry will be much better off upon realising this.

Just what the hell happened to the idea of something being 'fun' anyways?

 

[Laser Priest]

Games are interactive. Their 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.

This, oh so many times.

Screw the whole games as art thing, screw 'deep immersive stories', screw 'open intricately crafted worlds', screw 'your actions impacting the world around you, screw other stuff that just isn't true.
Why not just accept games for they're supposed to be and leave it there? Games should focus more on allowing the player to chill out for a short while, and not to try and completely suck in the player to the previously mentioned 'deep immersive intricately crafted world'.

Whatever, point is games don't have to be chock full of story and 'moral choices' to be good, and I strongly think that the entire gaming community as well as industry will be much better off upon realising this.

Just what the hell happened to the idea of something being 'fun' anyways?

I wouldn't say that all of those are bad, I'm just saying that the feeling that all games need them, that a game is lesser for not having them is certainly not doing anything good for gaming.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

Games are interactive. Their 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.

This, oh so many times.

Screw the whole games as art thing, screw 'deep immersive stories', screw 'open intricately crafted worlds', screw 'your actions impacting the world around you, screw other stuff that just isn't true.
Why not just accept games for they're supposed to be and leave it there? Games should focus more on allowing the player to chill out for a short while, and not to try and completely suck in the player to the previously mentioned 'deep immersive intricately crafted world'.

Whatever, point is games don't have to be chock full of story and 'moral choices' to be good, and I strongly think that the entire gaming community as well as industry will be much better off upon realising this.

Just what the hell happened to the idea of something being 'fun' anyways?

I wouldn't say that all of those are bad, I'm just saying that the feeling that all games need them, that a game is lesser for not having them is certainly not doing anything good for gaming.

Thats exactly what I mean.

Of course if a game does have some really great aspects not directly related to gameplay then thats awesome, its just that theres this ridiculous mentality that every game needs, absolutely needs, something like what I mentioned or else it isn't a good game.

 

[Vault101]

all games are "fun" in their own way, thats why we play them, but theres different kinds of fun

Like some of the really heavy moments of Bioshock I found "fun", but fun isnt really the right word to describe it as in afterwads I can say "whoa that was a blast!"or "whoa that blew my mind!"

or I can have fun launching myself into traffic in saints row 2..

but there are different kinds of fun

Games are interactive. Their 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.

This, oh so many times.

Screw the whole games as art thing, screw 'deep immersive stories', screw 'open intricately crafted worlds', screw 'your actions impacting the world around you, screw other stuff that just isn't true.
Why not just accept games for they're supposed to be and leave it there? Games should focus more on allowing the player to chill out for a short while, and not to try and completely suck in the player to the previously mentioned 'deep immersive intricately crafted world'.

Whatever, point is games don't have to be chock full of story and 'moral choices' to be good, and I strongly think that the entire gaming community as well as industry will be much better off upon realising this.

Just what the hell happened to the idea of something being 'fun' anyways?

what? so you mean no more....

Bioshock
read dead redemption
Portal
shadow of the colussus
Mass effect
dragon age
planescape torment
dead space
fallout
assasins creed
silent hill 2
beyond good and evil
half life
saints row 2 (thats right I said saints row 2)
elder scrolls
Deus ex
and many many more...


you want to go back to the days of packman? yeah have fun with that

you know theres a REASON I dont play mario...I simply cannot make myself give a shit about him and his dysfunctional relationship with peach, at some point it feels more liek work than playing

hey did you know why I made it to the end od dragon age orrigins? was it because I enjoyd the gameplay? hell no, I never played an old school RPG I sucked at it

but the STORY and charahcters made up for that

bottom line people have different tastes to you, dont act liek yours are supirior

EDIT: ok so your point is not EVERY game needs a good story, but you sure as hell came across as we should drop the idea all together

EDIT#2: oh and why does everyone act like it one or the other? a GOOD game can have both, somtimes they fail somtimes they succeed

 

[BlackIvory]

Fun = entertainment. You can't say a game wasn't fun but was entertaining.like you wanted to leave but sill cared about the ending. Like it was said above me games are not movies. And even in movies, if you are not entertained it means you are not having fun

 

[brimstone1392]

Having read all your responses up to this point, I feel the need to add a bit: It's not that I think fun and entertaining can't coexist, or that I think games need/should currently be considered an art. I just think that if games will become an art, that will only happen when when the two concepts of fun and entertainment are separated correctly.

Now, to address individual posts:

"If it's not fun to play, it would have been better of as a book or a movie."
Really? Would it? Can you think of one example (from the plethora that games have given us in the last twenty or so years) of a time when you where playing a game, got bored, and thought "They should have just written a book/movie. Yeah, I would have read/seen that!" Black Swan the game, anyone? Go on, think about it.

"I have a perfect game example for you; Silent Hill 2."
STOP READING MY MIND! WITCH! WITCH! Anyway, that's a great example of this idea in concept. Honestly, I've never thought of the idea of being trapped in a vague depiction of demonic hell, brought on by my own psyche, to be fun. In practice, however, it is very entertaining... case in point, if you will.

"There is a difference between watching a movie and playing a game. Mainly, if you get bored with a game, you don't finish it."

And you've never watched a movie that lost your attention ten minutes into it and resulted in you not seeing it through? Do you get the Syfy channel?

"I must mention that I don't really care if games are considered art, toys or whatever. I just like them and that's that."

Thanks for the honesty. Really, don't read the last part as any kind of insult. So, you don't view games the same way I do. To be honest, I don't care. As long as your enjoying them on some level, games will always be a part of your life. That's more than enough for me. Thanks for your insight, most of all.

EDIT: I should also add that the whole point of this is that I believe gaming can evolve from it's current medium as an escape into something more, though it doesn't have to. that's just my opinion.

 

[General_Potatoes]

you know theres a REASON I dont play mario...I simply cannot make myself give a shit about him and his dysfunctional relationship with peach, at some point it feels more liek work than playing

Yeah and then you find out she's not in the right castle for the 4th time. And when you finally find her, She get kidnapped two hours later.

 

[Vault101]

you know theres a REASON I dont play mario...I simply cannot make myself give a shit about him and his dysfunctional relationship with peach, at some point it feels more liek work than playing

Yeah and then you find out she's not in the right castle for the 4th time. And when you finally find her, She get kidnapped two hours later.

plus where did all of bowsers children come from? you think peach is really as useless as she makes otu to be? or is she just playing some kind of sadistic game between bowser and mario...

 

[General_Potatoes]

you know theres a REASON I dont play mario...I simply cannot make myself give a shit about him and his dysfunctional relationship with peach, at some point it feels more liek work than playing

Yeah and then you find out she's not in the right castle for the 4th time. And when you finally find her, She get kidnapped two hours later.

plus where did all of bowsers children come from? you think peach is really as useless as she makes otu to be? or is she just playing some kind of sadistic game between bowser and mario...

The second one. She's a psycho biatch

 

[Fanboy]

"I have a perfect game example for you; Silent Hill 2."
STOP READING MY MIND! WITCH! WITCH! Anyway, that's a great example of this idea in concept. Honestly, I've never thought of the idea of being trapped in a vague depiction of demonic hell, brought on by my own psyche, to be fun. In practice, however, it is very entertaining... case in point, if you will.

I found Silent Hill 2 to be both fun and entertaining.

I had fun exploring the town and discovering it's secrets. I had fun solving the complicated puzzles. I had fun feeling my bladder empty at the sound of radio static. At no point did I feel like I was not supposed to be having fun.

I would not have enjoyed it as much if I were watching somebody else play, somebody else wetting their pants. It still would have been an entertaining story, but it wouldn't have been fun. The fun comes from involving myself, and that's what games are all about.

My point is, at least in my opinion, it's impossible for a game to not be fun when it is entertaining, since interaction in itself is fun.

Also, I don't think there is a need to separate the two terms for games to be taken seriously as art. That is bound to happen anyways when all the people who didn't grow up playing video games die off.

 

[badgersprite]

Absolutely, games can be depressing and still be entertaining. Silent Hill 2, for example (ninja'd on the game, but whatever). Hugely entertaining. Likewise, games can be funny and be entertaining. Maybe the gameplay isn't sheer mindless fun, but it's certainly witty and entertaining.

Most games that I think are excellent hit that sweet spot between sheer mindless fun, genuine entertainment, and all around good storytelling. I can't really think of any games that are just exclusively "Fun" or exclusively "srs bsns entertainment with no levity etc". Well, not any good ones, anyway. Both in combination is what produces something really fulfilling and worth coming back to, same as with movies or TV shows or books or anything else. There's always a reason why we like things, whether it be because they're deep meaningful experiences that change our lives, or because they're so blitheringly stupid that they go full circle and become 100% genuinely entertaining.

Allow me to illustrate: