"Scary games aren't fun." Really?

[Owyn_Merrilin]

What is it with this assertion? In every thread talking about games as art and how not all games should be fun (which I disagree with; they're called games for a reason), someone inevitably claims survival horror games aren't fun. Why is this? Do they not enjoy solving puzzles and figuring out how to survive against all odds? I find both activities to be fun, and they're the cornerstone of horror games. Any horror game without them is likely to either have some other fun mechanic (shooting in F.E.A.R.) or not be a game at all, but a glorified movie. Besides, being scared in a controlled, safe environment? Yeah, some people find that to be fun, too. It just seems like people are either playing games that they don't like for some reason, or are being obtuse specifically to back up a pointless argument.

Thoughts?

Captcha: Deep Waters, a warning about threads like this I'm sure.

 

[Neverhoodian]

Well, I stay away from horror games for the same reason that I steer clear of horror movies: I don't care for getting myself spooked.

But hey, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Starnerf]

I don't think I've ever observed this phenomenon, but I figure it's just a person broadcasting their opinions as the opinions of the whole community. I tend not to find early survival horror games fun, but that's more because of the controls than the actual game content. I find Eternal Darkness and RE4 quite fun but the earlier RE games were painful for me to play.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Well, they're not technically fun, if a horror has achieved that, I'd not call it horror.

You see, there's a small difference between fun and enjoyable, fun is entertaining, but enjoyable is more of a braoder sense.

Or maybe I'm just drunk and raving.

Did you read the post? Solving inventory puzzles (one of the mechanical cornerstones of the genre) is fun, and if you don't enjoy it, you have to at least recognize that it was meant to be fun. Also, being scared is fun. If you want to nitpick about the difference between fun and enjoyable... don't. It's a silly, hairsplitting distinction.

en·joy·a·ble   [en-joi-uh-buhl] Show IPA
adjective
giving or capable of giving joy or pleasure: a very enjoyable film.

fun   [fuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
something that provides mirth or amusement: A picnic would be fun.
2.
enjoyment or playfulness: She's full of fun.

Definition 1 of fun is the same as the definition of enjoyable, with slightly different word choice in using "mirth" instead of joy or pleasure, plus the added bonus of amusement being an optional, but not required part of calling something fun. And something that is enjoyable can easily be amusing too, it would just be a separate descriptor using this definition.

 

[pure.Wasted]

Any horror game without them is likely to either have some other fun mechanic (shooting in F.E.A.R.) or not be a game at all, but a glorified movie.

"Glorified movie"? Are you simplifying grossly specifically to back up a pointless argument?

Besides, being scared in a controlled, safe environment? Yeah, some people find that to be fun, too. It just seems like people are either playing games that they don't like for some reason, or are being obtuse specifically to back up a pointless argument.

Thoughts?

Was watching Schindler's List fun? How about Sophie's Choice, Black Swan, Primer, The Cave of Forgotten Dreams? What about documentaries, history/discovery channel programming?

They are all worthwhile pursuits that can (and should) be experienced on as many layers as they have to offer, but fun, I'm afraid, isn't one of them.

 

[tendaji]

I'm usually too busy hyperventilating during horror games to have it really be classified as fun. Engaging, on the other hand, yes it is quite engaging; but fun, not really.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

For me, fear is an undesirable state. I do not enjoy being scared so any time I do feel scared I will do whatever I need to do to end that feeling as fast as possible. Games I enjoy give me feelings of awe, humor or general bad assness, not feelings of terror. I also dislike horror movies and haunted houses (excluding Disneyland).

So no, survival horror games are not the least bit enjoyable for me and at my age I sincerely doubt that will ever change.

But by all means, if you enjoy being scared go and have a blast. Apparently a lot of folks do enjoy that type of thing so you have plenty of company.

Oh, and inventory puzzle games can suck it. Give me a weight limit any day. If I want to put a puzzle together I will open a box and do I on my table while I drink beer.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Any horror game without them is likely to either have some other fun mechanic (shooting in F.E.A.R.) or not be a game at all, but a glorified movie.

"Glorified movie"? Are you simplifying grossly specifically to back up a pointless argument?

Besides, being scared in a controlled, safe environment? Yeah, some people find that to be fun, too. It just seems like people are either playing games that they don't like for some reason, or are being obtuse specifically to back up a pointless argument.

Thoughts?

Was watching Schindler's List fun? How about Sophie's Choice, Black Swan, Primer, The Cave of Forgotten Dreams? What about documentaries, history/discovery channel programming?

They are all worthwhile pursuits that can (and should) be experienced on as many layers as they have to offer, but fun, I'm afraid, isn't one of them.

And does a single one of those have gameplay? Or are they all movies? And would a game that tried to do exactly the same thing as any of those, with no puzzle solving, no shooting, no gameplay mechanics of any kind aside from moving the camera around really be a game? Or would it just be a movie with terrible scene composition? Because that right there is my point. If you have an idea for something like that that would be a game, please share it, because just moving the camera around isn't really interactivity. You could do that with the DVD of the Planet of the Apes remake, but that didn't make it a game.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It just seems like people are either playing games that they don't like for some reason, or are being obtuse specifically to back up a pointless argument.

Thoughts?

Horror games and films and stories are kind of an unusual form of entertainment. If they're ineffective, they're boring and unpleasant. If they're effective, they're scary and extremely unpleasant.

Presumably it's the adrenalin rush people get when they're scared that they're coming back for, not the actual "being scared" part, which is actually a fairly miserable feeling while its going on.

 

[Lilani]

Well, I stay away from horror games for the same reason that I steer clear of horror movies: I don't care for getting myself spooked.

But hey, whatever floats your boat.

Same here. I do not find any amount of pleasant amusement in getting myself totally freaked out. And, as others have stated, the ones that don't get you freaked out are unpleasant because they are ineffective and usually unentertaining.

 

[DoPo]

They are fun by my definition of fun. I am amused and engaged in the action. I am not laughing nor am I feeling happiness - but I am finding the action interesting, so it holds my attention. Fun is the opposite of boring in this case.

Although I agree, "engaging" is a better term for it. I don't know who came up with mandatory "fun" for games. Was it the person with "Are games games?" thread. "Amusing", "engaging", "captivating", "engrossing", "capable of holding the attention" are all substitutes of "fun" and are all equally, if not more, valid for what games do and should do.

However, it's still up to each individual person to find that quality in a game. I find sports games boring. They aren't "fun" to me or whatever substitute you use for that word. And yet I know people play them for months and years. There is obviously some form of "fun" there just not for me.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

It just seems like people are either playing games that they don't like for some reason, or are being obtuse specifically to back up a pointless argument.

Thoughts?

Horror games and films and stories are kind of an unusual form of entertainment. If they're ineffective, they're boring and unpleasant. If they're effective, they're scary and extremely unpleasant.

Presumably it's the adrenalin rush people get when they're scared that they're coming back for, not the actual "being scared" part, which is actually a fairly miserable feeling while its going on.

yupp exactly

once upon a time i used to play any and all games, however (i'll use survival horror for this instance) i realized i wasn't having any fun at all actually playing the games, which is the #1 thing i look for when actually playing the games, so i just stopped playing them all together. that and they usually either use some kind of annoying trope involved with it (the enemy can't be killed, the enemy can't be touched at this time so you are forced to run for it with little more than the stick you are carrying with a horrible camera angle.)


OP you may have fun with them, heck quite a few people probably do, but I certainly don't and quite a few people seem to share that same distaste for it, so don't be so surprised.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

It just seems like people are either playing games that they don't like for some reason, or are being obtuse specifically to back up a pointless argument.

Thoughts?

Horror games and films and stories are kind of an unusual form of entertainment. If they're ineffective, they're boring and unpleasant. If they're effective, they're scary and extremely unpleasant.

Presumably it's the adrenalin rush people get when they're scared that they're coming back for, not the actual "being scared" part, which is actually a fairly miserable feeling while its going on.

yupp exactly

once upon a time i used to play any and all games, however (i'll use survival horror for this instance) i realized i wasn't having any fun at all actually playing the games, which is the #1 thing i look for when actually playing the games, so i just stopped playing them all together. that and they usually either use some kind of annoying trope involved with it (the enemy can't be killed, the enemy can't be touched at this time so you are forced to run for it with little more than the stick you are carrying with a horrible camera angle.)


OP you may have fun with them, heck quite a few people probably do, but I certainly don't and quite a few people seem to share that same distaste for it, so don't be so surprised.

I'm not talking about personal preference, though. I get disliking the genre; I'm not particularly crazy about RTS games myself, but I understand why people like them (I prefer turn based, for the record.) However, there's people who claim to enjoy the genre using it as an example of one that manages to be good without being fun, claiming a huge line in the sand distinction between "fun" and "engaging" and using movies like Schindler's List (which would make a /horrible/ videogame) as examples of the kind of non-fun games we need made. Survival horror games are intended to be fun, there are people who have fun with them, they aren't meant to be part of some un-specific "worth doing but not fun" category of games. My question is why anyone would claim otherwise.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

It just seems like people are either playing games that they don't like for some reason, or are being obtuse specifically to back up a pointless argument.

Thoughts?

Horror games and films and stories are kind of an unusual form of entertainment. If they're ineffective, they're boring and unpleasant. If they're effective, they're scary and extremely unpleasant.

Presumably it's the adrenalin rush people get when they're scared that they're coming back for, not the actual "being scared" part, which is actually a fairly miserable feeling while its going on.

yupp exactly

once upon a time i used to play any and all games, however (i'll use survival horror for this instance) i realized i wasn't having any fun at all actually playing the games, which is the #1 thing i look for when actually playing the games, so i just stopped playing them all together. that and they usually either use some kind of annoying trope involved with it (the enemy can't be killed, the enemy can't be touched at this time so you are forced to run for it with little more than the stick you are carrying with a horrible camera angle.)


OP you may have fun with them, heck quite a few people probably do, but I certainly don't and quite a few people seem to share that same distaste for it, so don't be so surprised.

I'm not talking about personal preference, though. I get disliking the genre; I'm not particularly crazy about RTS games myself, but I understand why people like them (I prefer turn based, for the record.) However, there's people who claim to enjoy the genre using it as an example of one that manages to be good without being fun, claiming a huge line in the sand distinction between "fun" and "engaging" and using movies like Schindler's List (which would make a /horrible/ videogame) as examples of the kind of non-fun games we need made. Survival horror games are intended to be fun, there are people who have fun with them, they aren't meant to be part of some un-specific "worth doing but not fun" category of games. My question is why anyone would claim otherwise.

ah that is quite a simple answer my friend, you see:

Spoiler: answer to life

but really, I'm not quite sure...they get some kind of hipster elitist enjoyment out of it? "I play it because it's meaningful and edgy, not because it is fun, fun is too mainstream"

once again, I'll never know.

(kudos to you btw, i also prefer turn based )

 

[pure.Wasted]

And does a single one of those have gameplay?

I didn't realize that we were implicitly working with the rule that movies are allowed to be whatever they want to be (fun or otherwise) while games aren't.

I also see no immediate reasons to agree with this rule.

Or are they all movies?

Everything I said before "documentaries" is indeed a film, which is not to say that documentaries can't be films. They can. Cave of Forgotten Dreams is just that. Which means the line between history/discovery channel programming and films isn't as clear as you suggest.

And would a game that tried to do exactly the same thing as any of those, with no puzzle solving, no shooting, no gameplay mechanics of any kind aside from moving the camera around really be a game? Or would it just be a movie with terrible scene composition? Because that right there is my point. If you have an idea for something like that that would be a game, please share it, because just moving the camera around isn't really interactivity. You could do that with the DVD of the Planet of the Apes remake, but that didn't make it a game.

Moving the camera around is indeed interactivity. It is very poor interactivity, but interactivity nonetheless.

The minute you begin questioning the validity of some forms of interactivity and not others, every single text-based adventure game or RPG goes right out the window. Every single one of them could have been a Choose Your Own Adventure novel.

Whether that makes it a "game" or not is an open question. I don't like the word game precisely because of this idiocy, all of a sudden gameplay seems implicitly necessary. Your argument wants to draw lines in the sand and say, this is a movie, this is a game, this is a movie that's pretending to be a game. But these lines are arbitrary. When we bring in actual examples and talk about specific games, people aren't going to agree on just how gamey a game needs to be to not be a movie pretending to be a game. Not nearly as much as you think.

I would much rather talk about games as interactive fiction, or interactive simulations, or what have you, because as soon as we do that, the inherent, implicit, and unnecessary suppositions about games fall away. You don't need "gameplay." (Plenty of "games" already lack it.) You don't need "fun." (Plenty of "games" already aren't.)

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

And does a single one of those have gameplay?

I didn't realize that we were implicitly working with the rule that movies are allowed to be whatever they want to be (fun or otherwise) while games aren't.

I also see no immediate reasons to agree with this rule.

Or are they all movies?

Everything I said before "documentaries" is indeed a film, which is not to say that documentaries can't be films. They can. Cave of Forgotten Dreams is just that. Which means the line between history/discovery channel programming and films isn't as clear as you suggest.

And would a game that tried to do exactly the same thing as any of those, with no puzzle solving, no shooting, no gameplay mechanics of any kind aside from moving the camera around really be a game? Or would it just be a movie with terrible scene composition? Because that right there is my point. If you have an idea for something like that that would be a game, please share it, because just moving the camera around isn't really interactivity. You could do that with the DVD of the Planet of the Apes remake, but that didn't make it a game.

Moving the camera around is indeed interactivity. It is very poor interactivity, but interactivity nonetheless.

The minute you begin questioning the validity of some forms of interactivity and not others, every single text-based adventure game or RPG goes right out the window. Every single one of them could have been a Choose Your Own Adventure novel.

Whether that makes it a "game" or not is an open question. I don't like the word game precisely because of this idiocy, all of a sudden gameplay seems implicitly necessary. Your argument wants to draw lines in the sand and say, this is a movie, this is a game, this is a movie that's pretending to be a game. But these lines are arbitrary. When we bring in actual examples and talk about specific games, people aren't going to agree on just how gamey a game needs to be to not be a movie pretending to be a game. Not nearly as much as you think.

I would much rather talk about games as interactive fiction, or interactive simulations, or what have you, because as soon as we do that, the inherent, implicit, and unnecessary suppositions about games fall away. You don't need "gameplay." (Plenty of "games" already lack it.) You don't need "fun." (Plenty of "games" already aren't.)

Have you ever played a text adventure? There's a lot more gameplay to them than there is in a choose your own adventure novel. It's not just choice A B or C; they're basically graphical adventure games with text descriptions instead of pictures. And it's not "all of the sudden" that people are saying games need gameplay; it's that suddenly people are saying they don't. As for moving the camera being very poor interactivity: that's exactly my point; it's terrible as a method of gameplay. If the only interactivity you have is moving the camera angle around, you've made something that is neither a good game nor a good movie, but is closer to a movie than a game. Stuff like that is not the future of gaming; in ten years we'll be looking back on it, shaking our heads just as strongly as we do at the FMV game "interactive movies" of the 90's.

 

[pure.Wasted]

Have you ever played a text adventure? There's a lot more gameplay to them than there is in a choose your own adventure novel. It's not just choice A B or C; they're basically graphical adventure games with text descriptions instead of pictures.

I've played my fair share, and I've yet to come across a single text adventure that could not have been a Choose Your Own Adventure novel. A very long CYOA novel, definitely. With different pages for whether you picked up the screwdriver or not, whether you picked up the keys or not, whether you have both the keys and the screwdriver or not. But it's a CYOA novel, nonetheless.

And once again you're stuck drawing arbitrary lines in the sand, because that's all your position leaves you with. You're going to say that if the CYOA novel is long enough or complicated enough, it's not a CYOA novel anymore, but a game. But there are no rules governing this, there is no rule stating that a 200 page long novel is a novel but a 201 page novel is a game (and I hope you can tell how silly and useless it would be if it existed), there is no rule stating that opening the door is OK for a novel but picking up a key to open the door makes it a game (likewise).

You're stuck in the unenviable position of trying to define "game" (not "good game" or "bad game" but simply game) in a way that somehow includes text RPGs and MW3 but doesn't include CYOA novels and Heavy Rain. I'd much rather do away with that silliness, accept them all, and then talk about quality.

A motion picture is still a motion picture if it has a 5-minute long scene with no moving pictures, just a voice over. It might not be a good one, although Solyaris and 2001 do something very close more than once, and they're considered some of the greatest films ever made. But it's still a movie.

I'm not sure why you would let movies get away with so much, and games, a medium that is undeniably more flexible and broader in scope, that can do every single thing that a movie can do and more, you try to restrain.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Have you ever played a text adventure? There's a lot more gameplay to them than there is in a choose your own adventure novel. It's not just choice A B or C; they're basically graphical adventure games with text descriptions instead of pictures.

I've played my fair share, and I've yet to come across a single text adventure that could not have been a Choose Your Own Adventure novel. A very long CYOA novel, definitely. With different pages for whether you picked up the screwdriver or not, whether you picked up the keys or not, whether you have both the keys and the screwdriver or not. But it's a CYOA novel, nonetheless.

And once again you're stuck drawing arbitrary lines in the sand, because that's all your position leaves you with. You're going to say that if the CYOA novel is long enough or complicated enough, it's not a CYOA novel anymore, but a game. But there are no rules governing this, there is no rule stating that a 200 page long novel is a novel but a 201 page novel is a game (and I hope you can tell how silly and useless it would be if it existed), there is no rule stating that opening the door is OK for a novel but picking up a key to open the door makes it a game (likewise).

You're stuck in the unenviable position of trying to define "game" (not "good game" or "bad game" but simply game) in a way that somehow includes text RPGs and MW3 but doesn't include CYOA novels and Heavy Rain. I'd much rather do away with that silliness, accept them all, and then talk about quality.

A motion picture is still a motion picture if it has a 5-minute long scene with no moving pictures, just a voice over. It might not be a good one, although Solyaris and 2001 do something very close more than once, and they're considered some of the greatest films ever made. But it's still a movie.

I'm not sure why you would let movies get away with so much, and games, a medium that is undeniably more flexible and broader in scope, that can do every single thing that a movie can do and more, you try to restrain.

I take it you've never heard of the concept of "game books?" Because that's a distinction that already exists.

As for the whole thing about movies with a five minute section of still picture: so? That's the equivalent of a cutscene in a game. I'm talking about something that's nothing but one giant Half Life style "you control the camera" cutscene. That's not really a game, it's a movie where you control the camera.

 

[pure.Wasted]

Have you ever played a text adventure? There's a lot more gameplay to them than there is in a choose your own adventure novel. It's not just choice A B or C; they're basically graphical adventure games with text descriptions instead of pictures.

I've played my fair share, and I've yet to come across a single text adventure that could not have been a Choose Your Own Adventure novel. A very long CYOA novel, definitely. With different pages for whether you picked up the screwdriver or not, whether you picked up the keys or not, whether you have both the keys and the screwdriver or not. But it's a CYOA novel, nonetheless.

And once again you're stuck drawing arbitrary lines in the sand, because that's all your position leaves you with. You're going to say that if the CYOA novel is long enough or complicated enough, it's not a CYOA novel anymore, but a game. But there are no rules governing this, there is no rule stating that a 200 page long novel is a novel but a 201 page novel is a game (and I hope you can tell how silly and useless it would be if it existed), there is no rule stating that opening the door is OK for a novel but picking up a key to open the door makes it a game (likewise).

You're stuck in the unenviable position of trying to define "game" (not "good game" or "bad game" but simply game) in a way that somehow includes text RPGs and MW3 but doesn't include CYOA novels and Heavy Rain. I'd much rather do away with that silliness, accept them all, and then talk about quality.

A motion picture is still a motion picture if it has a 5-minute long scene with no moving pictures, just a voice over. It might not be a good one, although Solyaris and 2001 do something very close more than once, and they're considered some of the greatest films ever made. But it's still a movie.

I'm not sure why you would let movies get away with so much, and games, a medium that is undeniably more flexible and broader in scope, that can do every single thing that a movie can do and more, you try to restrain.

I take it you've never heard of the concept of "game books?" Because that's a distinction that already exists.

As for the whole thing about movies with a five minute section of still picture: so? That's the equivalent of a cutscene in a game. I'm talking about something that's nothing but one giant Half Life style "you control the camera" cutscene. That's not really a game, it's a movie where you control the camera.

OK, let me see if removing everything but my MAIN POINT from a post will help you to focus on it.

The position you've taken forces you to draw an arbitrary line in the sand. "This amount of interactivity is enough for a game to be a game. Anything short of this is not a true game." This is silly. The moment you do that, I get to say "OK what if we take the not-game that lasts 5 hours and add in a QTE? Still not a game? OK, what if we add in one more QTE? Still not a game? OK. What if we add another QTE?

Eventually you're going to say "OK, it's a game" and I'm going to ask what the difference was between 49 QTEs and 50, and why 50 fundamentally makes it a game but 49 does not. It's a uselessly arbitrary distinction, and not a single other person on the planet will agree with you on the specific number of QTEs, camera/character movements, or mini-games that it will take to make a "glorified movie" into a game.

So instead of talking about an objective medium of expression, we're now talking about your (or my) subjective interpretations and gut feelings. Can you guess which one of these is productive and useful to analysis and discussion and which one isn't?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Have you ever played a text adventure? There's a lot more gameplay to them than there is in a choose your own adventure novel. It's not just choice A B or C; they're basically graphical adventure games with text descriptions instead of pictures.

I've played my fair share, and I've yet to come across a single text adventure that could not have been a Choose Your Own Adventure novel. A very long CYOA novel, definitely. With different pages for whether you picked up the screwdriver or not, whether you picked up the keys or not, whether you have both the keys and the screwdriver or not. But it's a CYOA novel, nonetheless.

And once again you're stuck drawing arbitrary lines in the sand, because that's all your position leaves you with. You're going to say that if the CYOA novel is long enough or complicated enough, it's not a CYOA novel anymore, but a game. But there are no rules governing this, there is no rule stating that a 200 page long novel is a novel but a 201 page novel is a game (and I hope you can tell how silly and useless it would be if it existed), there is no rule stating that opening the door is OK for a novel but picking up a key to open the door makes it a game (likewise).

You're stuck in the unenviable position of trying to define "game" (not "good game" or "bad game" but simply game) in a way that somehow includes text RPGs and MW3 but doesn't include CYOA novels and Heavy Rain. I'd much rather do away with that silliness, accept them all, and then talk about quality.

A motion picture is still a motion picture if it has a 5-minute long scene with no moving pictures, just a voice over. It might not be a good one, although Solyaris and 2001 do something very close more than once, and they're considered some of the greatest films ever made. But it's still a movie.

I'm not sure why you would let movies get away with so much, and games, a medium that is undeniably more flexible and broader in scope, that can do every single thing that a movie can do and more, you try to restrain.

I take it you've never heard of the concept of "game books?" Because that's a distinction that already exists.

As for the whole thing about movies with a five minute section of still picture: so? That's the equivalent of a cutscene in a game. I'm talking about something that's nothing but one giant Half Life style "you control the camera" cutscene. That's not really a game, it's a movie where you control the camera.

OK, let me see if removing everything but my MAIN POINT from a post will help you to focus on it.

The position you've taken forces you to draw an arbitrary line in the sand. "This amount of interactivity is enough for a game to be a game. Anything short of this is not a true game." This is silly. The moment you do that, I get to say "OK what if we take the not-game that lasts 5 hours and add in a QTE? Still not a game? OK, what if we add in one more QTE? Still not a game? OK. What if we add another QTE?

Eventually you're going to say "OK, it's a game" and I'm going to ask what the difference was between 49 QTEs and 50, and why 50 fundamentally makes it a game but 49 does not. It's a uselessly arbitrary distinction, and not a single other person on the planet will agree with you on the specific number of QTEs, camera/character movements, or mini-games that it will take to make a "glorified movie" into a game.

So instead of talking about an objective medium of expression, we're now talking about your (or my) subjective interpretations and gut feelings. Can you guess which one of these is productive and useful to analysis and discussion and which one isn't?

I see the problem here: you nitpicked on my claim that Dear Esther and The Path, neither of which are anything but camera movement in terms of interactivity (no quick time events or anything like that) are more movie than game, which they are. My main complaint is that people think it's a good idea to have games with terrible, unfun gameplay in the name of "art," to which I say "go watch a movie or read a book, the two mediums are better at it then videogames." Get it now?

Also, if you want to make the definition of "videogame" that broad, then microsoft office is the bestselling game of all time. It's got boatloads of interactivity, afterall.