Do games have to be fun?

[ThisAdamGuy]

DO ME A FAVOR AND READ THE ENTIRE POST BEFORE REPLYING!

A couple years ago, Yahtzee Croshaw released a video while he was still with The Escapist on whether or not video games needed to be fun. You can check it out below if you want:

That wasn't a question I ever would have thought needed to be asked. What point does a GAME have if not to be FUN? But what he said really made me rethink my opinion.

His take on the subject is that video games have become too diverse to be summed up by a single word like "fun." Games are now capable of evoking all kinds of emotions, and not all of them are ones that you would generally consider to be positive feelings. He uses Scorn as an example. Scorn is disgusting, disturbing, depressing, and frustrating. He absolutely didn't have fun while playing it, but it was still a good game because those were the exact emotions that the developers intended to make him feel. Just like you wouldn't say Schindler's List is a bad movie just because it's not a comedy, games like Scorn and Silent Hill are still good games even though the emotions they make you feel are generally considered to be negative ones. And this isn't just limited to scary or depressing games. The kind of "fun" you have while solving a puzzle game like Return of the Obra Dinn is so different from the kind of "fun" you'd have hacking people limb from limb in God of War that it almost doesn't make sense to use the same word to describe them both.

All things considered, he thinks that "engaging" is a better word to judge video games by with. A game might not be "fun" in the traditional sense, but it can still be worth playing as long as it engages you in the way it's developers intended.

What do you guys think?

 

[Anonjohn20]

fun=enjoyment.
Enjoy=to be pleasured or amused.
Pleasure=the state or feeling of being gratified.
Gratify=to give in to a feeling or desire; to indulge.

Yes, games have to be fun

The kind of "fun" you have while solving a puzzle game like Return of the Obra Dinn is so different from the kind of "fun" you'd have hacking people limb from limb in God of War

This defeats your own argument; they might be different types of fun, but they are both fun.

 

[Snake99]

Yes, games are supposed to be fun.

 

[Racosharko]

What do you guys think?

Games do not have to be fun.

In my opinion no creation HAVE to be anything.

*Gets on soap box*

Thinking something has to be something is the counter current in any creative industry.

Knowing that something doesn't HAVE to be something is how people take risks. Taking that risk is how new style, new stories, new experiences are created.

 

[KidBuu699]

They don't have to be fun. But if they are not fun then they need give a feeling of accomplishment or pride in order for the person to justify playing it.

For an example just look at achievement hunters. The people who play games on console or pc just to get as many achievement points as they can. There are games out there they play not because they like them, but because they want to add the points to their account.

 

[Deleted member 84247]

Yes, games have to be fun. Or they have to be fun at the beginning but addictive enough for players to come back like League of Legends. The game is no longer fun, but we play it because we're addicted.

 

[Valmond]

Yes, games have to be fun. Or they have to be fun at the beginning but addictive enough for players to come back like League of Legends. The game is no longer fun, but we play it because we're addicted.

I think this is the witch asking us for help. Hmm…they’ll probably be fine.

 

[Daitengu]

The thing I question is, if you divide the story and the gameplay, can the story have to be enthralling enough to carry non-fun gameplay?

I say no. While the story of a game can be anything, the gameplay has to be fun enough to not repulse a player. It's why extremely hard games like Jump King or Contra will forever be niche, and have a low completion percentage.

 

[Anonjohn20]

fun=enjoyment.
Enjoy=to be pleasured or amused.
Pleasure=the state or feeling of being gratified.
Gratify=to give in to a feeling or desire; to indulge.

if they are not fun then they need give a feeling of accomplishment or pride

accomplishment and pride fall under gratification. therefore still considered fun.

 

[ThisAdamGuy]

I figured this would happen. People are just reacting to the thread title and not responding to what I wrote in the post itself.

 

[Deleted member 41774]

Yes, games have to be fun. Or they have to be fun at the beginning but addictive enough for players to come back like League of Legends. The game is no longer fun, but we play it because we're addicted.

Spoken like a true League player fully conditioned by Rito-sama. Me too--

 

[Anonjohn20]

fun=enjoyment.
Enjoy=to be pleasured or amused.
Pleasure=the state or feeling of being gratified.
Gratify=to give in to a feeling or desire; to indulge.

I figured this would happen. People are just react to the thread title and not responding to what I wrote in the post itself.

People are responding to your paragraph; here's the thing, even if the story inspires fear, sadness, disgust, etc. and immerses them into that world. They still need gratification from the experience itself, and if they are gratified, then they had fun.

 

[Theresaisnotmenhera]

Yes, games have to be fun. Or they have to be fun at the beginning but addictive enough for players to come back like League of Legends. The game is no longer fun, but we play it because we're addicted.

Or it is sunk cost fallacy for gacha games. If you have spent money on it, naturally, you have to spend more, right? After all, you did once already and the meta is shifting. What do you mean the game is not fun anymore? You just do not have enough units!

Jokes aside, I do suppose it is a problem with the language. However, the OP also mentioned 'fun' in the traditional sense, which I do imagine he has a separate definition for.

 

[Valmond]

Or it is sunk cost fallacy for gacha games. If you have spent money on it, naturally, you have to spend more, right? After all, you did once already and the meta is shifting. What do you mean the game is not fun anymore? You just do not have enough units!

Jokes aside, I do suppose it is a problem with the language. However, the OP also mentioned 'fun' in the traditional sense, which I do imagine he has a separate definition for.

You’re right on that. Few can say they will cut their losses and leave before losing more money. Others feel the need that they have to continue because they spent money, and so they spend even more money pushing themselves further into the negatives.

 

[ShrimpShady]

I've had this exact kind of thought while playing through the endgame of RDR 2. Just riding around the gigantic map while doing nothing was weirdly therapeutic. Definitely not what I would call "fun", but it was compelling enough to do for hours on end. I'd say it was even more compelling than the gunplay that made up most of the main game content.

Games are an art form after all. I think the idea of games as these "toys" that exist primarily for a quick dopamine rush is a relic from when they were a lot more limited technically. You had to be fun because you couldn't really be anything else. Nowadays devs can explore all sorts of ideas through the medium and indie games especially can break away from this idea of quick entertainment. They aren't bound to profit and sales in the same way larger releases are, so you get a lot more games that dive into concepts that might go against our conceptions of "fun". Scorn's a great example of this, where it not necessarily being "fun" is part of the point. Indika and One Last Game are some others that I can think of. If they were fun, they'd kind of be missing their own points.

So yeah, I don't think games have to be "fun", in the same way that some movies or books aren't meant to be fun. Art has always been experimental and subversive. Art's just another way we communicate when simple words fail.

 

[SternenklarenRitter]

Games need to be fun in the same way that art needs to be beautiful: they don't. However, it is much easier to make a good game by making one that is fun, just like how its easier to make good art by making beautiful art. But just like how art that is not beautiful has generated important developments in our culture, games that are not fun have done the same. Not to say that games aren't art, or that art in not entertainment, but most games place entertainment first and artistry second, like most art also places expression first and entertainment second.

 

[Tempokai]

DO ME A FAVOR AND READ THE ENTIRE POST BEFORE REPLYING!

A couple years ago, Yahtzee Croshaw released a video while he was still with The Escapist on whether or not video games needed to be fun. You can check it out below if you want:

That wasn't a question I ever would have thought needed to be asked. What point does a GAME have if not to be FUN? But what he said really made me rethink my opinion.

His take on the subject is that video games have become too diverse to be summed up by a single word like "fun." Games are now capable of evoking all kinds of emotions, and not all of them are ones that you would generally consider to be positive feelings. He uses Scorn as an example. Scorn is disgusting, disturbing, depressing, and frustrating. He absolutely didn't have fun while playing it, but it was still a good game because those were the exact emotions that the developers intended to make him feel. Just like you wouldn't say Schindler's List is a bad movie just because it's not a comedy, games like Scorn and Silent Hill are still good games even though the emotions they make you feel are generally considered to be negative ones. And this isn't just limited to scary or depressing games. The kind of "fun" you have while solving a puzzle game like Return of the Obra Dinn is so different from the kind of "fun" you'd have hacking people limb from limb in God of War that it almost doesn't make sense to use the same word to describe them both.

All things considered, he thinks that "engaging" is a better word to judge video games by with. A game might not be "fun" in the traditional sense, but it can still be worth playing as long as it engages you in the way it's developers intended.

What do you guys think?

The games advertise on being "fun" and "interactive." Sure, they're "art," but being "art" doesn't simply justify being "fun." "Art" is to be speculated upon, debated upon, theorized upon. But "art" always comes second to "gameplay," which is "interaction." If "interaction" is bad, therefore the game is failing to be "engaging." There's a reason people don't play walking simulators, most of the time they just watch some youtuber playing it, therefore not having proper "engagement" with it, treating it as "art." So yes, games must be "fun," or else it will be treated as "art," not as a "game."

 

[Sabruness]

They don't have to be fun. But if they are not fun then they need give a feeling of accomplishment or pride in order for the person to justify playing it.

For an example just look at achievement hunters. The people who play games on console or pc just to get as many achievement points as they can. There are games out there they play not because they like them, but because they want to add the points to their account.

arguably, that's still 'fun' for achievement hunters.

i think some people in this thread postulating that games dont need to be fun perhaps are working from a specific perception of fun. i believe that is a flawed position.

games need to be able to provide *some form of fun/enjoyment*. what that form takes, however, is up to the individual as one person's fun is different from another's.

 

[Corty]

It is the same as food. You can eat astronaut paste and get the nutrients you need, but nothing beats a freshly made pizza.

They don't need to be fun; they MUST BE fun.

 

[ElijahRyne]

DO ME A FAVOR AND READ THE ENTIRE POST BEFORE REPLYING!

A couple years ago, Yahtzee Croshaw released a video while he was still with The Escapist on whether or not video games needed to be fun. You can check it out below if you want:

That wasn't a question I ever would have thought needed to be asked. What point does a GAME have if not to be FUN? But what he said really made me rethink my opinion.

His take on the subject is that video games have become too diverse to be summed up by a single word like "fun." Games are now capable of evoking all kinds of emotions, and not all of them are ones that you would generally consider to be positive feelings. He uses Scorn as an example. Scorn is disgusting, disturbing, depressing, and frustrating. He absolutely didn't have fun while playing it, but it was still a good game because those were the exact emotions that the developers intended to make him feel. Just like you wouldn't say Schindler's List is a bad movie just because it's not a comedy, games like Scorn and Silent Hill are still good games even though the emotions they make you feel are generally considered to be negative ones. And this isn't just limited to scary or depressing games. The kind of "fun" you have while solving a puzzle game like Return of the Obra Dinn is so different from the kind of "fun" you'd have hacking people limb from limb in God of War that it almost doesn't make sense to use the same word to describe them both.

All things considered, he thinks that "engaging" is a better word to judge video games by with. A game might not be "fun" in the traditional sense, but it can still be worth playing as long as it engages you in the way it's developers intended.

What do you guys think?

Being fun is a great bonus. But if it isn’t fun to play, it must be entertaining/engaging. For example Mouthwashing isn’t a ’fun’ game to play, however its story is extremely engaging. A storyless/non-story focused game would need to be fun, or at least addicting, to some degree to succeed, but a story driven one only needs to be engaging/entertaining.