Topic: Do games really even need to be fun?

[Pittbboi]

Ok, before you guys light the torches and string me up, hear me out, for the past few days a series of questions have been formulating in my head, and I'd like to see what others think...

With Nintendo's new console, fun has been ushered in as the new buzz word. The concept of Wii games being "fun" is used a lot in debates with fanboys of other consoles. Surely the one thing Nintendo's Wii offers over the other consoles is the greater propensity to be fun (ohhh that sentence was dirty). With the introduction of the Wii comes a revitalization of the ever-present idea that games can't just look good, but they have to be fun to play.

But what is fun in a game, really?

For Nintendo, it seems that "fun" is bright colors, basic but functional controls, pick up and play appeal, and an overall simplified graphical style. With the exception of a few games (Zelda: TP and Metroid come to mind), they employ this idea with every game they make. And lately, despite the general movement of the rest of the gaming industry towards HD and realism, Nintendo and its fans have held fast to their "cartoony" style and the idea that fun is all you need, and surely games like Mario Galaxy and Animal Crossing are going to prove it.

But could this be an idea that can possibly hold Nintendo back in some areas? Do games need to be fun to play?

For me, the answer isn't always yes. There's a certain genre for me in which "fun" doesn't really apply: RPGs.

RPGs are by far my favorite genre. The longer they are, the more stuff there is to collect, the better. Rarely does my gaming library stray from the RPG. But never have I really considered RPGs to be "fun". To me, fun isn't the most accurate adjective to describe most of them, at least not in the same way fun describes other genres. Looking up fun on dictionary.com, most of the definitions imply action, and excited activity. In my opinion, playing RPGs is like a comforting pastime. I do it slowly and I savor it. Playing an RPG to me is like reading a good book, especially now that technology has finally reached a point where the story-telling aspects of the genre can really shine. I feel calling an RPG fun is like calling a book fun, and fun is not really the word to describe a good book. The collecting, level-grinding and strategizing; the slow-pacing and the traveling from town to town all to get to that next big juicy bit of story doesn't seem to fit into the same definition of fun that most other genres do, if it even fits at all.

Nintendo, in their quest to make all of their games "fun" may be overlooking a genre that, for the most part, doesn't fit in. And maybe that's why their presence has been sorely lacking these last few gens.

What do you guys think? Agree? Disagree? Are there games/genres that you feel don't necessarily equal this ideal of fun, but are nevertheless great games?    

[jasonditz]

Nintendo is responsible for the Fire Emblem series too. I guess by a dictionary definition most RPGs only technically qualify as "fun" during boss fights.

Of course, co-op Tales of Symphonia is just flat out fun from start to finish.

[Ian Sane]

The purpose of a game is to be entertained.  To me that and "fun" are the same thing.  If I'm entertained I'm enjoying myself and thus having fun.

"Fun" has unfortunately become a bullsh!t word used by Nintendo fanboys.  The suggestion being that Nintendo makes fun games and the types of games they don't make aren't fun and therefore Nintendo shouldn't focus on them.  It means nothing.  Good games are fun.  If you like RPGs then RPGs are fun.  You enjoy playing them.

All this "fun" talk is because Nintendo said that people were getting bored of gaming as is and a lot of people jumped on that and started acting as if they were bored with current gaming and thus needed the DS touchscreen and Wii remote in order to continue enjoying games.  It's just following what Nintendo says.

If you define fun as involving a lot of action and having to play a certain way then games need not be fun.  Games should provide entertainment.

[Koekoenutt]

It really matters I think. With a lot of RPGs, you have this feeling of accomplishing things while building who you are and your character in the game with levels and new items. I think in that perspective, that a lot of RPGs are fun. For example though, I think Final Fantasy III for the DS was a lot of fun and I enjoyed the game a lot. Although, a game like Children of Mana, I think it was way to simplified for a RPG and really lost my interest less than half way into the game, and I think that is a shame. If the game isn't completely repetitive, and you are over coming challenges that make you feel accomplished, I think that RPGs can really be enjoyable.

I've been reading the DS thread about the New Super Mario Bros. here, and I think that is a good example of where some gaming is going. A lot of people found NSMB to be to easy, and not competitive enough. While others found a lot of fun finding the gold coins hidden in the area, and exploring and conquering this mission was fun to them. I heard mention that there were to many 1UPs in the game. Things like this can ruin a great game. I know some people that don't like the Zelda series, becuase they say it is too easy with hearts in every other pot.

I think it is just an userbase opinion of what fun is, and I think it also matters what type of mood you are in. Sometimes Im just not willing to boot up WarioWare, but when I have only 15-20 mins to sit down and play, then I really look towards WarioWare. Other than that, WarioWare really dulls the hell out of me, but I wouldn't say the game isn't fun or isn't a good game. Every gaming company has their ideas and directions, so of course each company will miss out in "Some areas".

[Strell]

Um.

Chrono Trigger, Earthbound, and FF6 were fun.  

This is why modern RPGs suck.  Because they are not fun.  They are bags of tired cliches and overused bullsh*t.
 

[MaryJane]

I agree with you on RPG's as they are also my favorite genre but aren't fun in the sense of WiiSports, or Excite Truck, or even Madden for Wii.

I disagree on this being the reason Nintendo's presence hasn't been felt. The complete opposite is true, to this point in time the Wii is Nintendo's most successful console since the SNES. I remember during the N64 and GC launch, the next month boxes sat cold on the shelves. I still can't buy a Wii for myself today. Fun is what is getting Nintendo's Wii to where they are now with the DS. I also think this it's a ploy by Nintendo, hey look our games are fun! Hey look it's Metroid! You know, start them on one thing, and them bring them something else.

Fun is really a general term, in a sense if you enjoy something it's fun. However, a lot of used to be kids that now consider themselves adults (people around my age) are afraid of having fun, and being grouped with children, I say let it live. I wish I was still a kid.


WOAH this thread blew up, it's in direct response to the first post, as I haven't even read those that managed to get in before me.

[bustin98]

How about defining what is fun by determining what it isn't?

If its not boring, not painful, not deadly, then maybe it is fun. Fun is more than running around laughing. And its so subjective. For some people, a little pain IS fun. So then you have to call in what defines pain.

I think you're being a little to simplistic in describing Nintendo games. But whatever. A game boils down to gameplay, not graphics. Its the timing, its the putting together clues, its the conversations with characters. The challange to accomplish the task set before you. Sure, Mario Tennis is bright and colorful, but unless your timing is spot on, you'll get your ass handed to you by someone who can hit the button at the right time while using strategy to move you to the wrong side of the court.

Same with RPGs. Its nice that FF has cool cut scenes that advance the story, but when you are playing, you have an objective to accomplish and as long as you are entertained while doing so, its fun.

I can be anal about collecting things in games, and so I will put up with alot just to collect. But when it stops entertaining, thats when a new game is popped in.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
But never have I really considered RPGs to be "fun". To me, fun isn't the most accurate adjective to describe most of them, at least not in the same way fun describes other genres.

I love RPGs, my favorite genre next to strategy games. I love them due to the sense of being able to build slowly overtime (which is why I loved Diablo 2 with the skill tree and careful selection of points to maximize potentional based on your concept for the build).

My love for the genre doesn't come from their stories alone, though, but really a mix of gameplay and storylines. My favorites in the genre, for example, tend to be Super Mario RPG, Tales of Symphonia, Diablo and the Pokémon series. Games which couldn't be said to have a great storylines, but the games were fun and are enjoyable to play. Strategy RPGs in particular catch my interest, and since we are getting Fire Emblem that's reason enough for me to be excited at this stage. For me a game has to be fun, regardless of the story, as if its not I likely won't continue to play it.  

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

"Fun" and "entertainment" are similar yet still distinct concepts, often used interchangeably.

Definitions gets obscured when people use "fun" to describe the sense of satisfaction they generate, which might not even apply to the nature of the game.

Nintendo's lack of RPG support is mostly due to being a "horrible" company that did not aggressively seek out 3rd party support and wasn't the market leader, who believed that "their" games had adequate strength to compete.  Nintendo the software developer is focusing on its fun games AS USUAL, but Nintendo the console market penetrator is responsible for expanding its userbase and support.  It was their "mistake" as a game platform provider to focus mostly on their own games.

Do no forget that the popular RPGs are provided by finnicky 3rd parties.  They'll jump into the swimming pool with most space, even if Nintendo's VIP jacuzi has bubbly jets and scented water.

[JonLeung]

I also love RPGs.  If I do have to level grind (within reason), look for things, find secrets (that could go for any genre, really), etc., I may be able to derive fun (or be entertained) from the feeling of accomplishment and/or completionism.  I may not be laughing giddily while I'm doing it, but I will be happy when I do complete it.

Perhaps I'm too forgiving.  I kep bragging about getting maximum Bells (one short of a billion) in both Animal Crossing and Animal Crossing: Wild World.  But both involved tedious daily tasks that I had to do every day for a couple months.  If you were to ask me at any time during those months if I was having fun, well, I don't think I'd be exactly joyous.  However, at the end and even now when I could show off that post office model/town hall model and gloat in your face, I could be having fun.

Similarly, I play Wii Sports (Fitness Age) every day even when I'm physically tired, and Brain Age every day even when I'm mentally fatigued.  I think I do enjoy it - most of the time.  Some days I feel like I'm just obligated to, or even that Nintendo has enslaved me via their daily-based games.  o_0  But when I finish all of the Daily Training in Brain Age each day, I do feel like it's another accomplishment.

Accomplishments = satisfaction, which can be part of that entertainment and fun.

[Kairon]

To IanSane, Fun and Entertaining are the same thing. So let's call it entertaining, since that has less connotations. Actually, let's go beyond that. Engaging. Games are supposed to be "engaging."

So, definitely Mario games are engaging. And so are Zelda games, which are more atmospheric than the gameplay-focused Mario games. And then Mario Superstar Saga had story and humor tied into it's action-platform-rpg gameplay that made it the game it was and made it beloved by all. In fact, it's the quick and toilet-witty humor that seems to captivate you enough to make you want to commit to playing Wario Ware for 2 hours in 5 seconds chunks: where's the gameplay in hitting A as many times as possible to sniff the snot back upin your nose(which, by the way, is pure genius)? For that matter, what's so engaging in petting dogs, or throwing frisbees? There can't really be much, but by god Nintendogs had something about it or Famitsu wouldn't have given it a 40/40 and it wouldn't have sold 11+ million copies worldwide. And if we're taking dogs for walks... why can't we improve our brain? Why can't we count things and read out loud and why can't we do sudoku puzzle?

Why can't we go from Platform, to Action-Adventure, to Action-RPG, to Humor Based Minigames, to Minigame based Virtual Pets, to Brain exercising software and... if its engaging all the way through... why can't we call all those things games? And why shouldn't they exist, and be respected, and be seen as as much a part of the industry as bald space marines shooting aliens with plasma rifles?

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

[GoldenPhoenix]

Kairon once again speaks the truth, I hate nitpicking and saying "Oh I am too good for a simple game for Ndogs, instead I'm going to play Final Fantasy XIIIIIIII", both games have a place and both can be entertaining, even to "Gasp" the same individual!

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

If all those things were respected, anonymous interweb peoples wouldn't be able to generate a sense of superiority on a forum or blog and have the emotional drive to produce graphics-intensive signatures.

[Rhoq]

"Fun" is a matter of opinion and a subject of interpretation.  

[Pittbboi]

To me, gameplay in an RPG can add a fun aspect to it sometimes, but I still don't think fun is the main attraction. Do people read books because they're fun? Or collect stamps? or knit? They're engaging, they comfort you, they pass the time. But how many people actually consider these things "fun"?

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
To me, gameplay in an RPG can add a fun aspect to it sometimes, but I still don't think fun is the main attraction. Do people read books because they're fun? Or collect stamps? or knit? They're engaging, they comfort you, they pass the time. But how many people actually consider these things "fun"?

I consider reading to be fun and engaging, along with both "casual" and "hardcore" games as well. It is possible to be both.

[MaryJane]

I was thinking about this out the context of video games, but still entertainment.

Movies; Half Baked was a fun movie, because, well, it was funny. Braveheart is one of my all-time favorite movies, but I wouldn't call it fun, it wasn't even fun watching it especially since he dies at the end, but it was very enjoyable, I think engaging would be the best term for it.

I think games are the same way, but because of their interaction the term can meld more. WiiSports is just pure fun. Zelda on the other hand is adventurous, and to use the word again, engaging, but there are fun parts like when puts sheaths his sword with all that extra unneccessary movement, I smiled every time he did it, and would often do it just for fun, riding Epona, then getting off just to kill somethin insignificant, just to see him sheath his sword in that manner.

[Kairon]

Engaging just worsk better as a term for this experience than "fun."

For example, I find Brain Age's calculation's exercise engaging. I love doing simple math problems as fast as I can, it's like a quick-button-pressing-minigame-sequence!

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

[Strell]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
To me, gameplay in an RPG can add a fun aspect to it sometimes, but I still don't think fun is the main attraction. Do people read books because they're fun? Or collect stamps? or knit? They're engaging, they comfort you, they pass the time. But how many people actually consider these things "fun"?

You live in a sad world.  Filled with sad things.  In a very sad way.

[Pittbboi]

WTF does that even mean?

Some things that people do in their spare aren't fun. Sometimes fun isn't the right description. If you can explain to me why you would call sitting in a comfortable chair with your favorite blanket, pleasant music in the background and good book and cup of coffee "fun!" go right ahead.  To me, that's pleasant, that's comforting and relaxing. But it's not fun. Fun implies something missing from the experience. I put most RPGs I play into the same category.

[IceCold]

Quote
. I do it slowly and I savor it. Playing an RPG to me is like reading a good book, especially now that technology has finally reached a point where the story-telling aspects of the genre can really shine. I feel calling an RPG fun is like calling a book fun, and fun is not really the word to describe a good book. The collecting, level-grinding and strategizing; the slow-pacing and the traveling from town to town all to get to that next big juicy bit of story doesn't seem to fit into the same definition of fun that most other genres do, if it even fits at all.

Nintendo, in their quest to make all of their games "fun" may be overlooking a genre that, for the most part, doesn't fit in. And maybe that's why their presence has been sorely lacking these last few gens.

I'll have to strongly disagree with this. If you play today's RPGs for the story, and actually consider them good, then there is nothing I can do to help you. 99.99% of videogame stories are cliché, trite and just poorly written in general. There are few exceptions, Eternal Darkness being one. The worst culprits are the RPGs today. I didn't play Tales of Symphonia for the horrible story, but rather for the gameplay experience. If you want good stories, I'd advise you to look elsewhere. Strell had a wonderful quote a while back about Final Fantasy games that perfectly describes my opinion on them - something to do with pre-pubescent children and artefacts. Wish I could find it.

I wonder, do you find The Da Vinci Code to be a good book? Because that would explain a hell of a lot. Personally, I found that book reads like something which came straight out of a high school English class. Not only that, but it's like the student plagiarised from a history text and inserted the very same words into the dialogue. Yeah, it's that bad.

I guess that's why I love Nintendo/Miyamoto games so much. A plot that works within the context of the game, and serves to complement the gameplay. Not a pretentious, superfluous script which tries to be relevant. Kojima and his political commentaries in his games is one such example. In Mario games, if you can see it you can reach it. If you can think it, you can do it. They make your dreams come true. That matters infinitely more to me than the story.

By the way, I consider reading books to be great fun. I don't do them to pass time; I find reading good books to be incredibly enjoyable.    

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold

Quote
. I do it slowly and I savor it. Playing an RPG to me is like reading a good book, especially now that technology has finally reached a point where the story-telling aspects of the genre can really shine. I feel calling an RPG fun is like calling a book fun, and fun is not really the word to describe a good book. The collecting, level-grinding and strategizing; the slow-pacing and the traveling from town to town all to get to that next big juicy bit of story doesn't seem to fit into the same definition of fun that most other genres do, if it even fits at all.

Nintendo, in their quest to make all of their games "fun" may be overlooking a genre that, for the most part, doesn't fit in. And maybe that's why their presence has been sorely lacking these last few gens.

I'll have to strongly disagree with this. If you play today's RPGs for the story, and actually consider them good, then there is nothing I can do to help you. 99.99% of videogame stories are cliché, trite and just poorly written in general. There are few exceptions, Eternal Darkness being one. The worst culprits are the RPGs today. I didn't play Tales of Symphonia for the horrible story, but rather for the gameplay experience. If you want good stories, I'd advise you to look elsewhere. Strell had a wonderful quote a while back about Final Fantasy games that perfectly describes my opinion on them - something to do with pre-pubescent children and artefacts. Wish I could find it.

I wonder, do you find The Da Vinci Code to be a good book? Because that would explain a hell of a lot. Personally, I found that book read like something which came straight out of a high school English class. Not only that, but it's like the student plagiarised from a history text and inserted the words into the dialogue. Yeah, it's that bad.

I guess that's why I love Nintendo/Miyamoto games so much. A plot that works within the context of the game, and serves to complement the gameplay. Not a pretentious, superfluous script which tries to be relevant. Kojima and his political commentaries in his games is one such example. In Mario games, if you can see it you can reach it. If you can think it, you can do it. They make your dreams come true. That matters infinitely more to me than the story.

By the way, I consider reading books to be great fun. I don't do them to pass time; I find reading good books to be incredibly enjoyable.

I agree completely, people do different things to have "fun" to enjoy themselves. That can be anything from knitting, to reading a book, to watching a movie, to listening to music, to well ANYTHING that they find pleasant that helps to pass the time since it ENGAGES them. I would agree there could be different TYPES of fun, but to state that stuff like reading or any other activity besides playing games isn't "fun" is ludicrous to me.  

[Nick DiMola]

Fun and engaging definitely are not the same thing. Something that is fun is engaging, while something engaging isn't always fun. Sometimes I will sit down and do something and it is engaging (like programming) but it definitely isn't fun (well, sometimes). As long as a game is engaging, that is all that matters. Usually gimmicky type stuff is pretty fun, but once the gimmick wears off it is either engaging or it is garbage. The Eyetoy is a great example. It was fun when I first got it, but once the gimmick wore off, it was just plain boring. If it were a little bit more engaging I may have stuck around and played it some more.

Whether people want to admit it or not, alot of the Wii stuff is pretty gimmicky, but there are some great uses for the Wiimote and underneath the gimmick is some very enjoyable stuff. The whole "fun" push Nintendo has right now will eventually fall away and they will come up with some other marketing speak to lure in potential buyers.

[Pittbboi]

Quote
If you play today's RPGs for the story, and actually consider them good, then there is nothing I can do to help you. 99.99% of videogame stories are cliché, trite and just poorly written in general.

Well, I'm not saying RPGs are going to be winning any literary awards, but I've always had a fondness for the art of storytelling, and most stories will do. For me, I play jrpgs for the same reason I watch anime. Most don't ever leave the realm of the cliche (though FFXII certainly did give it a shot), but I can appreciate the various ways they deliver their stories.


Oh, and I love reading, too. I described reading as much more than just a pastime. However, if I'm in the mood to have fun, I don't sit down and read a book, I go out and do something with friends. When I want to have a quiet afternoon/night in I generally pick up a book. I think that's the difference. When someone yells out "hey, let's have some fun!" I don't think reading is usually considered an option.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
Fun and engaging definitely are not the same thing. Something that is fun is engaging, while something engaging isn't always fun. Sometimes I will sit down and do something and it is engaging (like programming) but it definitely isn't fun (well, sometimes). As long as a game is engaging, that is all that matters. Usually gimmicky type stuff is pretty fun, but once the gimmick wears off it is either engaging or it is garbage. The Eyetoy is a great example. It was fun when I first got it, but once the gimmick wore off, it was just plain boring. If it were a little bit more engaging I may have stuck around and played it some more.

Whether people want to admit it or not, alot of the Wii stuff is pretty gimmicky, but there are some great uses for the Wiimote and underneath the gimmick is some very enjoyable stuff. The whole "fun" push Nintendo has right now will eventually fall away and they will come up with some other marketing speak to lure in potential buyers.

You have the time to argue with me here but not reply to my PM! Shame on you :-P. Anyway I do agree to an extent, but I could argue that even the gimmicky games that get boring are engaging for a bit which I consider to be fun .