Topic: Do games really even need to be fun?

[wandering]

Quote
Does food really need to taste good?

I think people who like marmite would argue that it does not.

[Kairon]

Pittboi, you'll notice that in my first post in this thread, I use exclusively Nintendo or Nintendo licensed games to show how Nintendo's actually come to encompass a wide range of actual engaging activities beyond the Miyamoto definition. It may have been true that Nintendo defined fun strictly before, but now they've been the most guilty of expanding the word's use.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[oohhboy]

Yes games I play have to be fun or at least entertaining, even if it does include pain. F it. Give me my endorphines.

[denjet78]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
But yeah, after reading the responses I guess if we extend fun and look at it in a purely subjective sense, then anything that doesn't cause death can be considered fun. However, I was more thinking of fun as it relates to gaming today, specifically Nintendo's stance on it. Nintendo definitely has a more specific definition of what fun is in their philosophy, it's how their explaining the Wii. Miyamoto actually has an even more specific idea of "fun" than Nintendo's official stance on it.

Maybe it's a little erroneous to say that RPGs aren't fun, but I still feel that RPGs are an example of of the genre that almost completely exists outside of Nintendo's current definition of fun (except maybe Kingdom Hearts). People may not agree, but I'd like for this to be a discussion, and I'd rather hear about what RPGs mean to them instead of how I'm so wrong and just trying to be a mini Ian.

Well today when I think of Nintendo and "fun" I think visceral. I think engagement at the lowest levels of emotion. Just stripping all the crap off that's been built up over the years by developers trying to make their games seem better than what came before. I think that's encapsulated by the whole "non-game" idea. A lot of people are terrified of that label but to me it just means a game that is pure in it's intentions of simply trying to entertain without needing to resort to cheap theatrics and the fact that almost anything, if done right, can be made fun.

I'm actually surprised that turn based RPGs haven't gone extinct yet. I heard their death knell when I first played SoM on the SNES. How strange it is that the action RPG didn't take over the genre outright. And I, for one, did (and still do) have fun playing RPGs. It's not the same kind of fun that you get playing other games. It's the joy in the knowledge that you're helping these small and often weak characters to grow stronger. Strong enough to do almost anything. Even save the world. It's a very engaging and rewarding experience for those who have the patients for it. I used to like to think of them as interactive novels. Too bad now a days they've been trying to turn them into interactive films.

Anyway, I do find RPGs to be fun. I even find level grinding to be fun... in moderation. It's the feeling you get when all you need is 20 more gold pieces before you can buy that new suit of armor. Of just that one more level and you'll certainly be able to defeat that next boss. Accomplishment is what it's all about and that makes me feel good. That makes me happy. And what makes me happy can automatically be considered fun as well.

As for Nintendo and RPGs, they've never been masters of storytelling. They're so great at getting the gameplay down that they've never really needed to worry about it. When they have dipped their toe in though their desire to simply entertain shines through. The Mario RPG titles, Earthbound, even Fire Emblem if you want to throw that one in as well. They're all rather simple yet highly engaging. In the end Nintendo believes that a game needs to be fun first and foremost. RPGs tend to distance the gamer from the actual game, the reason why most people who don't like RPGs tend to feel the way that they do. They're not instantly accessible. To really get anything out of them you need to invest a lot of time and effort. I think Nintendo has seen that as a wall and have simply decided to avoid it as much as possible.

I don't think they bare RPGs any ill will. I simply think that they feel the experience should take center stage. That it should be up front and in your face. By comparison, RPGs are extremely subtle. I don't think either is any better than the other, which is why we still have books as well as film/television even to this day. There will always be a place for the lingering, the subtle. Just don't expect it from a developer like Nintendo.

[KDR_11k]

Erm, any number of things that aren't "fun" can stimulate endorphin production--from strenuous physical activities to certain foods. So I don't think endorphin production is an accurate measure of how "fun" something is or whether or not something is fun at all.

You know, I would define those as fun, too. There would be zero disagreement in this thread had you just expressed yourself properly and said "Do games really need to be for everybody?". Fun is a word with too many possible meanings which makes debate impossible since we don't really speak the same language anymore, "for everybody" is a clear and concise term.

Therefore:
The question in this thread is whether all games should be for everybody, not whether they need to be "fun".

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78
Actually, it isn't all subjective. If no one finds a game fun in any way, then no one will buy it. Someone has to find fun in the game. What is subjective is what they find to be fun.

The adjective "fun" is 100% subjective. Just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so too is fun in the heart of the player.

Also, you're wrong: plenty of people will likely still buy the game even if it isn't fun because they didn't read reviews and got fleeced by misleading ads.

However, let me address the larger point of this thread...

Games don't need to be fun, they need to be distracting. "Fun" is merely a side effect of a well-crafted piece of software, but there are plenty of non-games like Brain Training, English Teaching, etc. which don't elicit the same glee from the player as other games on the DS but they provide a worthy distraction.

It's like this: the job of any game, non or otherwise, is to deactivate that voice in your head which keeps saying, "You have better things to do right now..." so that you can relax and enjoy yourself while playing. It's a quantifier addressing whether or not the game counts as a worthy pursuit as far as your time is concerned. If the game can accomplish this through making you feel as though you are learning something, then it does not need "fun" to hold the player's attention.

However, fun is typically the easiest method of enticing players, as you can often find a simple game of clicking on enemies entertaining whereas creating a game which engages and teaches is vastly more difficult.

[NWR_pap64]

S_B, humor can be considered subjective. What may be funny and even hilarious to someone might be stupid or pointless to someone else. I know this because I've seen videos where people are laughing their asses off, but I find it too stupid to be worth a chuckle.

[JonLeung]

I think the question is if you yourself find a game to be worth your time, regardless of how you define it.  If it's fun, or stimulating, or engaging, or fulfills some kind of need, then it's worth playing.  Otherwise by default you wouldn't play it, now would you?  So of course the answer is a given when the question is phrased like that.

I think "fun" has turned into a more restrictive term...it sounds like it's childish or simple.  (Which is why I prefer words like "engaging" or terms like "worth your time".)  Society has turned into this super-serious thing where you apparently shouldn't have too much "fun".

Things are subjective, but man, do I not understand other people's tastes.  What's so fun about sports games and WWII-based games?  

If only there was a formula for something that everybody could find fun, with no stigma of having lots of it.  Some people are too embarrassed about the overly childish or overly sexual, so those extremes are out.  Somebody crack the code of the human brain, please.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: pap64
S_B, humor can be considered subjective.

When did I say it couldn't be?

[couchmonkey]

I wrote a huge post, and then I changed my mind, here's the abbreviated version:

- people liked different games for different reasons over time
- in the mid 80s - early 90s people thought all-out action was fun, now they're seen as "primitive", "for kids" and lacking "depth"
- in the mid 90s - now, people thought epic narrative games with big movies and lots of hours of gameplay were fun
- in the future, social interaction will be the main source of fun, narrative epics will be seen as "too long", "boring", and "nerdy/introverted"
- for example: World of Warcraft, Wii Sports, Pictochat (yeah, I know it's not even a game)

Any type of game can be fun, it just depends on what your interests are.  This is why Nintendo is putting out products like Brain Training and Wii Music - the industry relies heavily on sports, fantasy and sci-fi right now, Nintendo is bringing more genres to the people.

[UltimatePartyBear]

Here's a new word for those of you having trouble with the semantics of fun and entertainment:  edifying.  It means intellectually or morally enlightening.  It's a good word for explaining why people participate in forms of entertainment that they might not classify as fun, such as tragedy or drama.

That said, I agree with denjet78.  Most of this discussion is just splitting hairs.

[Ian Sane]

"The question in this thread is whether all games should be for everybody"

If that's the question my answer is NO.  I feel that most of the time a game for everybody is really a game for nobody because it tries so hard to appeal to everyone that it lacks anything interesting about it.  Therefore no one truly can connect with it.  At best it becomes a fad but no one REALLY cares.

We see mass audience stuff do well all the time but it rarely becomes part of people's lives.  The number one movie in America might be a horrible mass market comedy that no one with a real sense of humour would find funny.  It makes a profit and does well in theatre but ten years later no one remembers it even existed.  No one cares because it had no identity.  It was just a product designed so that everyone COULD like it.  There are exceptions but mass market stuff usually is forgetable.  Case in point EA games which are forgotten about the second a sequel comes out.

The secret to a successful console is a LIBRARY that's for everybody in that everyone can find something they like.  Variety is what truly attracts everyone to a console.  That kind of variety is what made the NES, SNES, PS1 and PS2 so popular.  Any genre and any style was represented in some way.  Everyone can buy the console and enjoy it but fall in love with totally different games.

[KDR_11k]

I meant "for everyone" in the way Nintendo uses it, i.e. "rated E". Not that it would change the answer.

I think maybe another word for what we're debating here could be "upbeat". Games that get described as "pure fun" usually are very upbeat.  

[NWR_pap64]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother

Quote
Originally posted by: pap64
S_B, humor can be considered subjective.

When did I say it couldn't be?

Nowhere, it was a random thought that came to my mind when discussing the subject of fun and entertainment. Humor and comedy is part of entertainment, which itself is part of the definition of fun and this thread proved that these concepts are all subjective.

Everything fits, no? :p