Do Video Games Have to be Fun? - "We don't use the word 'fun'"

[From The Uncanny Valley]

Do books have to be readable?

 

[Pargon]

A game can be ten times as depressing as TLoU2 if it engages me. Give me a reason to give a shit, give me some opportunities to affect the world and make those opportunities based around mechanics that are responsive to control and give me a sense of being in the moment.

That is at the same time the bare-ass minimum I need to appreciate and enjoy a video game and too much to ask for roughly 50% of the games I wind up playing year over year, which is why I rarely game sober anymore.

 

[Sir Wesley Tailpipe]

Imagine if the first Avengers was depressing as shit and boring on top of it?

It would be Batman Vs Superman instead of Legion of Super-Buffys.

 

[Tanti-Fanti]

I'd argue games don't have to be fun on an "emotional" level. Certain games are depressing to play whether it's due to the story or knowing what's going to happen those characters you really like. However, on a technical level the gameplay should still be ENGAGING. The gameplay, in my opinion, should enhance the experience and vision that the developers have. There are plenty of depressing/emotional games that still find ways to engage the player without compromising on the gameplay itself. You can have a really engaging story, but if your gameplay is unappealing or not engaging enough, no one is going to want to experience it. This is why even games with crappy stories can still get by, because if the gameplay is fun most people are willing to let that pass or don't care.

Shadows of the Colossus, for example, is a dreary game. As a action adventure game it's pretty average, but the whole reason it's even that genre to begin with is to allow you to take in the scenery and the world that you explore. Having these wide angles and open spaces allows you to take in the size of the Colossi and their habits. That part of the game (at the very least) is meant to make the experience more engaging DESPITE the atmosphere.

Games should be fun in that the gameplay is something that you want to engage with and enjoy fully despite the circumstances of the story/characters/etc. If the game isn't something anyone would want to engage with, then what's the point of creating a game? Might as well make a movie. Even simple games like Visual Novels understand this which is why branching routes/endings are a thing. It's to encourage the player to engage even more with the gameplay by trying new paths or strategies. If your game fails to make the player want to engage in it, how can you properly convey a "message" to begin with? You really can't if no one wants to experience it for themselves.

 

[c-no]

Fun itself may as well be a vague term like "art" and "political." And since this can be the time where there could be serious discussion without someone sperging out of politics or feeling like "fun" is some dog whistle, I may as well say a game being fun is pretty much being entertaining and fulfilling. I can get fun from whatever game I play if I manage to enjoy what it has to offer, even if it's a game that would be too scary or would look boring to others. The thing with fun though is how much one can get out of it if said game appeals to them. If a game doesn't really leave me entertained and doesn't do much to satisfy or even justify a price of $60, then I can't even see the game as being worth the fun it could offer.

 

[אΩ+1]

If by fun you mean entertaining, yes.

If you want there being many paying customers to play it.

 

[JektheDumbass]

Games don't have to do shit because gamers are retards. AAA designers could literally smear shit on a blank CD and millions of gamers would still pay $120 for the elite preorder box set with extra shit.

 

[NIGGO KILLA]

I somewhat understand what these people mean when they said a game doesnt have to be fun. But they never follow up in what a game needs. These people think a game is good when It has faggot characters who are gays and minorities

I belive games needs to be engaging in order for it to be good. Either through gameplay,story, or just anything that catches my attention

 

[Gingervitis]

I honestly want to be closed-minded as everyone else is about the topic, but then I remember that one of my favorite movies is just a samurai version of King Lear, one of Shakespeare's most depressing plays (and one of his best imo). However, just like you should want to watch the movie, you should want to play the game.

 

[Miller]

Video games have to be fun, because they aren't art and they never will be art. Video games are toys, they're supposed to entertain you, to help you escape reality for a couple of hours so you can feel better. If some studio or dev wants to make a misery porn "narrative experience" or a walking/crouching simulator where you walk slowly during a 5-minute exposition dialogue from a sidekick, then he/she should make movies instead.

 

[Articuno4]

Depends what you mean by fun. If they're not engaging at all, then what's the point? But they can be dark, miserable, depressing as hell, as long as the player is interested. Not necessarily what I'd describe as 'fun,' but it should be entertaining. It has to make you care. If you don't care, then why are you even playing?

 

[Dom Cruise]

They don't have to be "fun" in the traditional sense but they do have to in some way be compelling.

For a random example look at the difficulty in From games like Dark Souls and Sekiro, there can be frustration that takes some of the "fun" out of it, but that feeling when you do succeed is very compelling, which justifies the loss of "fun"

 

[MysteriousStranger]

I don't think I'd describe the Vanishing of Ethan Carter as fun, but it was good. I still think about it sometimes.

It had several things going for it. It wasn't expensive. It wasn't long. It was pretty. It was essentially a single story. And the ending made all the many confusing elements suddenly make perfect sense. Which, as it turns out, was sad.

 

[msd]

Video games are meant to be entertaining. It doesn't have to be entertaining storywise, I've played plenty of games that made me feel like a piece of shit over my actions.

But every game needs to be fun gameplay and mechanics wise, because if the story isn't fun, and the gameplay isn't fun, you end up with a cluster fuck like what tlou2 is.

 

[Stoneheart]

No... i just tried to increase the number of princes in the HRE to 100. now my brain bleeds and im not sure if i will ever get there.

 

[Coach McGuirk]

They don't have to be "fun" but they have to be something that encourages and makes the player want to continue.

If your game is nothing but a preachy story, than there better be some sort of gameplay element, or interesting mechanic to make the game worthwhile.

Silent Hill games aren't traditionally fun, but they have a strong fan base because of the original games charm/horror. They balanced the clunky gameplay with endearing stories, designs and the horror setting gave reason for the clunky combat.

But if your game is just a boring story, and boring combat, than theres no reason to play it.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

People forget, but many years ago RPS used to be good, and when it was good it was really good. And one of the things it wrote when it was good was this retrospective on Pathologic that EVERY VIDEOGAME ENTHUSIAST SHOULD READ. One of the many brilliant things it articulates on is the untapped potential for videogames to explore negative emotions.

Pathologic's great, but I can't get over how up its own ass so much of its fanbase is. The original has a sequence where the developers essentially talk with you inside of the game itself, and yet that fails to be anywhere near as pretentious as the people that try to pen essays about this shit. Pathologic (and its sequel) are part of the reason I don't really want games to be seen as art, even if it clearly is an artistic medium. The worst part of reading Kafka is reading what other people think about Kafka and what he might've meant by X-Y-Z, and seeing that same stuffy shit get applied to video games is tedious.

When you read a story, you might miss certain connections that others will catch; you might read it with experiences that are truly unique to you, and feel something totally unintended. Games can deliver this just as well - even down to the shit that just barely qualifies, like visual novels or walking simulators. Yet what's implied there is a connection - something that engages you. Fun is the easiest way to do this, I think, and it's probably the most unique to the medium. When you start to drift away from game mechanics and design, you enter into worlds of subjectivity and personal taste and so-on, so-forth -- but all you need is for the complete package to be engaging.

Druckman's idea that you can use games to explore anguish and suffering isn't really a bad one, but he's just stating something we've been aware of for well over a decade. Problem is, his idea of anguish and suffering is... really, really childish. You've got a boilerplate setting, a boilerplate narrative, gameplay that left much to be desired the last time it peeked its head out, and then your main 'hook' to the game is something an edgy 14-year-old sociopath might scrawl. Great!

I think I strongly agree with the already expressed idea that AAA games have to be on some level primarily fun. Your story can be miseryporn just fine if your shooty-tooty bits are extra tasty. I adore artsy-fartsy shit like SUDA51's Let It Die trilogy, but most people aren't going to get engaged by surrealist nonsensical narratives any more than they would be engaged by watching a dog die in agony to deliver the point of LIFE CAN BE ROUGH U KNO???

 

[Spatula]

Games are the only form of entertainment that can make you feel like you have accomplished something despite the odds and make you feel happy about it.
That is where the fun comes from.

 

[Screw Danlon]

The thing about asking this question is that there is no universal definition of fun.

Some people find the Souls games fun, some don’t.

If you’re playing a game and it isn’t fun, stop. Just put it down and do something you enjoy instead.

Well, see, this is an interesting example, because I don’t find the Souls games “fun” and I’m not even sure I find them “rewarding”, but I do find myself drawn back to them again and again.

Tom Chick made a point (similar to @Dick Justice ’s) once that “fun” is subjective and purely opinion, and therefore is a terrible metric for games. I’m not even sure I like ‘engaging’ or ‘emotionally satisfying’. At some point this gets directly to the classic question of ‘is a video game a game’, right?

For instance, I hate Age of Empires. But I play it once or twice a month because all my friends love it and I’m a nice friend. I’m still having fun, but I’m having fun in spite of the game.

On the other side of the coin, I love Touhou, but I find it stressful, and sometimes frustrating. But it’s also one of the best games for clearing my mind because it’s too hectic to think, and strangely soothing. It’s not ‘fun’ per se, but I’m still getting something out of it.

Likewise, I have trouble calling games like Football Manager, Total Extreme Wrestling, and other sports management sims ‘fun’ in the traditional sense. But I do get a sense of satisfaction out of planning a good card or winning a match.

’Engaging‘ feels wrong, because anything that keeps your attention can be engaging, it’s not inherently positive or negative. Fun and satisfaction are both too subjective. I like meaningful or interesting, but those are still impossible to quantify.

On a quantifiable note, I think a game needs 3 things -
An objective that feels worth attaining (whether a good story, beating an opponent, whatever.)
A multi-level obstacle to achieving that objective
A reason for the player to want to overcome that obstacle.

I think that third is the part that is hard to quantify and is different for different people. For a party game, the reason is humor or socialization. For something like a horror game that might be to prove courage or the adrenaline rush. For a game like The Stanley Parable it’s to see what the game is trying to tell you. For a jrpg it’s probably to see the story. For a masocore game it‘s obsession or reward. Etc.

(sorry, I think a lot about this stuff ever since I started trying to design games, and it’s such a dense topic to unpack.)

 

[MAPK phosphatase]

Video games, if they are to be good, should be appealing.

To paraphrase Kant: if you say you liked something nobody can argue because that is your own subjective experience, but if you say something is good (or beautiful) then you have made a value judgement that there is some aspect of the aesthetic that appeals universally. Appeal extends beyond pleasure. For example Grave of the Fireflies is an appealing but not pleasurable experience. You are drawn in by the characters and their experiences, which makes the hurt of the film hit all the harder.
A game, being an interactive medium, must be appealing to interact with. The game must have appealing gameplay. This usually means fun, but games can still be appealing and not be fun.
What appealing gameplay constitute is difficult to define but there isn't a lack of literature on it. The relevant books I can remember off the top of my head are Game Feel: A Game Designer's Guide to Virtual Sensation, The Design of Everyday Things (discusses human-thing interactions broadly, not just gameplay), and Level Up! The Guide to Great Video Game Design.