Poll: Do video games have to be fun?

[LiberalSquirrel]

Hm. "Fun," perhaps not; the word implies kind of a giddy feeling. But "enjoyable" on some level, most definitely. "Enjoyable" can mean "I enjoy this on a visceral, shooting-up-everyone-that-gets-in-my-way level," or "holy crap, that was a creepy, horror-movie-like game", or even a more cerebral, "wow, this really made me think" sort of thing, but a good game should be enjoyable somehow.

 

[darlarosa]

I would say there is fun in the sense of something being entertaining, and then their is fun as something being "fun" in a lighthearted sense.

Of course a game needs to be entertaining. If I play past the tutorial level and am not enjoying the experience in a entertainment sense I usually stop.

But by no means does a game have to be fun in a lighthearted sense. There is a independent game called Irisu Syndrome, it's a puzzle game with a deeply interesting and dark narrative that keeps me thinking. I want to solve the mystery thus I play. There are so many games that focus on such enthralling themes that you get sucked in. Some games are frustrating at times to the point of annoyance, but their ability to make me think and feel keeps me going back.

 

[Khazoth]

Video games need to be entertaining.

'Fun' is encompassed by entertainment.

I second this notion and call BS on a loaded question. It's like asking if food is supposed to go into your mouth.......

Someone give this man the internet, he has clearly won it fair and square.

 

[wintercoat]

Video games need to be entertaining.

'Fun' is encompassed by entertainment.

They don't even need to be entertaining. They just need to be engaging, which encompasses entertaining, fun, and whatever the fuck EVE Online is.

 

[FalloutJack]

Video games need to be entertaining.

'Fun' is encompassed by entertainment.

I think I see what's wrong with this poll now. Too many people confusing their terms. Fun, entertainment, enjoyment, etc. These words all hook into each other, but you're thinking in the wrong direction. Fun was first, and the others its sub-categories. Fun is the umbrella that these words fall under.

This many people voting no is wrong, especially if you're doing it upon the simple count of wordplay.

 

[A Distant Star]

A game should be good, but that doesn't necessarily mean fun.

Art isn't always about positive emotions, some of the most captivating art is so involving because it explores the more solemn side of human emotion. Think if movies and books only existed to create happy joyful or visceral emotions. We would have no Schindler's List, no Grave of the Fireflies, no Obasan or Watchmen. Now games are a very different medium then movies books or comics, and how they will explore those themes will be different, but they are places games should go.

A lot of people have named survival horror as a reason for there answer to be no, and I disagree with this logic, at least partially. There is something thrilling and fun about having the shit scared out of you. It's a lot like riding a roller coaster. Stress and fun are conceptually tied together. Stalker I think is a better example of a game that is excellent yet not fun. Stalker is a good example of a game that is both engaging and really... kind of miserable. And going in the complete opposite direction, Journey. Now don't get me wrong, I love the shit out of Journey, what a moving game, but with perhaps the exception of the sand surfing level I don't think I found it fun in the classicle sense of the word. It's a moving game, more solemn then anything. A meditation if you will.

 

[Slayer_2]

No, I think it's about the experience. With current technology and societal pressures, most developers take the easy way out and use mindless shooting to rack up XP as a method to create "fun". One day I'd like to make a war game that is focused on the horror of war, instead of the "glory" of it.

 

[Arakasi]

They don't have to be fun, they have to entertain.
Fun and entertainment are different things.

 

[Freaky Lou]

No, I think it's about the experience. With current technology and societal pressures, most developers take the easy way out and use mindless shooting to rack up XP as a method to create "fun". One day I'd like to make a war game that is focused on the horror of war, instead of the "glory" of it.

You might want to take a look at Spec-Ops: The Line if you haven't already. This is the concept. I haven't played it myself so I don't know how well it's pulled off, but it's an attempt at the very least.

As for the example given, I own Pathologic! It's $10 on Amazon downloads and is very intriguing! It reminds me a tiny bit of Planescape: Torment in that even the meaningless civilian characters make interesting statements and serve atmospheric/expository purposes.

As for the topic's question, no. Art that attempts to elicit positive feelings is generally the basest and least compelling art.

 

[Slayer_2]

You might want to take a look at Spec-Ops: The Line if you haven't already. This is the concept. I haven't played it myself so I don't know how well it's pulled off, but it's an attempt at the very least.

As for the example given, I own Pathologic! It's $10 on Amazon downloads and is very intriguing! It reminds me a tiny bit of Planescape: Torment in that even the meaningless civilian characters make interesting statements and serve atmospheric/expository purposes.

As for the topic's question, no. Art that attempts to elicit positive feelings is generally the basest and least compelling art.

Heard it was good, but it was Yahtzee saying it, and I tend to take his "reviews" with a kilo of salt. The other issue is that 2K lost my interest a while ago. I will check it out when it bargain bins, though.

 

[GTwander]

A game just has to have a "reason" to continue playing it, and "fun" is such an overused catchphrase that it has nothing to do with it. I've played plenty of survival horrors that were an utter trial of my wits to get through, and I can state that the only REASON that I did, was because I was particularly intrigued to see what happens next. The same applies to many a JRPG. "Fun" had nothing to do with it.

This applies to plenty of movies, books and other mediums as well. Their worth is measured in INTEREST.

To put it in perspective - you will SUFFER something to meet it's conclusion - if it's interesting enough. Not fun, but worth it.

 

[Nexxis]

For me it does, considering how much games tend to cost, especially on a tight budget. I like to play fun games because I feel like I can play to the end of it. I don't want to waste $60 on a game that I don't play through.

On a more general note, I'm just gonna quickly repeat what others have already said, but "fun" is based on a personal taste. Some people may play a horror game to get scared since it's what they enjoy. Others might like a really good challenge. Others might want a deep game that makes them think. It's about preference.

 

[samaugsch]

For my money, yes, a game does have to be fun. I don't know how many other people share this particular opinion, but for me, gaming is a fundamentally different experience than movies or books. I'm not looking to have some big, emotional, deep experience- I just want to run around in a virtual space and blow off some steam.

This was the big problem I had with Braid, a game that sacrifices fun gameplay for a pretentious, pseudo-intellectual story.

Sounds just like Heavy Rain.

 

[samaugsch]

Just as an example take Dead Space 2. The scares were lackluster, the monster design was a bit of a mess albeit a slightly amusing one, the story was decent but was cliche as fuck and the controls were admittedly pretty responsive and all round good.

I love that game just because the aesthetic of the game is so interesting. That is literally the only thing I truly like about the game. Every environment the game throws at you is really fun to go through.

We can all admit that slidey doors that go *whoosh* are cool right?

Though i think multiplayer games have to rely purely on the fun side of things. Since any attempt at horror, mystery, etc etc will be instakilled by Mr XxXL33tHAX0r69XxX. The jerk.

Personally, there's just something about mutilating monsters that were already fucked up to begin with that I have fun doing.

 

[irishda]

"Engaging" would be a better term, which some people probably connect to fun. Movies can be more than just happy, fun stories, but the one thing they can't be is boring.

So really the answer to your question is yes and no. They don't have to be fun in the sense that they need to be "happy", but they do have to be fun in that the player has to be interested.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

I'd say yes for obvious reasons, but also no if you don't really care much. I remember playing Dark Souls and died 20 times at the first 2 skeletons after the tutorial area. I then realized that I wasn't even enjoying myself anymore, so I returned it. That game was cool, but holy fuck I could not enjoy it at that point