It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Extra Credits: Why can't games go beyond fun?(24 posts)(24 posts)
(24 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted October 13, 2012
Forum ate my post, so here is the abridged version:

Games can be engaging & interesting without being "fun". Some successful examples include:
Planescape Torment (which for the most part was not "fun", with some exceptions), Spec Ops: the Line, Dear Esther.

There games are entirely devoid of "fun", but neither are the most engaging books & movies, like Crime & Punishment or The Godfather, but "fun" is not the main thing in those, much like the above mentioned games.
Posted October 13, 2012
avatar
Gazoinks: A movie doesn't have to be "fun", because you're not doing anything
avatar
Starmaker: Sitting for two hours not doing anything had better be the most fun thing imaginable. Except it's usually not, which is why I don't watch movies.
This is actually the reason why I don't watch TV or movies all that much with some notable exceptions such as LOTR, Community, Doctor Who, or Misfits. I'd rather play my games instead – I'd rather be a part of the action rather than just watching it.

avatar
AFnord: Forum ate my post, so here is the abridged version: Games can be engaging & interesting without being "fun". Some successful examples include: Planescape Torment (which for the most part was not "fun", with some exceptions), Spec Ops: the Line, Dear Esther. There games are entirely devoid of "fun", but neither are the most engaging books & movies, like Crime & Punishment or The Godfather, but "fun" is not the main thing in those, much like the above mentioned games.
But there's some degree of subjectivity in that, isn't there? Dear Esther and PS:T are excellent examples of that; some people think it's the greatest thing in gaming since sliced bread; others would barely even consider it to be a "game" at all. Likewise, I know a lot of people (including me) who'd classify reading stuff like Dostoevsky as being fun.
Post edited October 13, 2012 by rampancy
Posted October 13, 2012
avatar
mistermumbles: I'm sorry, but I don't get the point... at all. Games are supposed to be fun, aren't they? At least as far as I'm concerned, if a game isn't enjoyable on some level it isn't worth playing. Even the handpicked games he was using as examples for 'beyond fun' fit relatively poorly in his argument.
avatar
Gazoinks: ^This. I haven't had a chance to watch the whole thing yet, but there's a fundamental difference between a game and a movie, which is that a game is an active experience, whereas a movie is passive. A movie doesn't have to be "fun", because you're not doing anything, but you need to eke some enjoyment out of a game or it's not worthwhile, just like any other activity. And besides, even depressing movies and such are entertaining. The main misnomer here, in my opinion, is that of "light-hearted fun", as if it's impossible for a "serious work of art" to be fun. But fun doesn't have to be light-hearted. For example, I find Dark Souls really fun, but it's certainly not light-hearted. And even games that you wouldn't necessarily ascribe the description of "fun" to (Amnesia, for example) still are enjoyable, just like any other media. What's the point if you don't enjoy it? I'm a strong proponent of games as a legitimate media, but saying that you a serious game can't be fun is trying to make games what they aren't.
This is just another example of something I've been noticing lately: half the terms we use are actually ambiguous as hell once you start to break them down. What is "fun?" What does it mean for games? What's the difference between "fun" and "engaging? Is the experience I have playing STALKER any less "fun" than the experience I have playing Serious Sam?

And Amnesia... It was a labor of love getting through that game, I'll tell you.
Post edited October 13, 2012 by jefequeso
Posted October 13, 2012
avatar
Elmofongo: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/beyond-fun
I haven't watched this episode yet, but does Spec Ops: The Line qualify? I'm not sure I could call very much of that game fun, somewhat satisfying at times, mostly horrifying, though.
Posted October 14, 2012
avatar
Elmofongo: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/beyond-fun
avatar
orcishgamer: I haven't watched this episode yet, but does Spec Ops: The Line qualify? I'm not sure I could call very much of that game fun, somewhat satisfying at times, mostly horrifying, though.
PenutBrittle ninja'd you.
Post edited October 14, 2012 by Elmofongo
Posted October 14, 2012
avatar
jefequeso: This is just another example of something I've been noticing lately: half the terms we use are actually ambiguous as hell once you start to break them down.
Come on, it's just that developers make their games too much fun therefore not enough fun because too much fun and that's no fun.
Posted October 14, 2012
avatar
PenutBrittle: Haven't watched the episode, but that's a stupid statement. There are so many games that go beyond fun. Whether it's with emotional low-points like deaths, deep melancholic storylines, horror elements or just unenjoyable but still fascinating game mechanics. I did not have fun playing Spec Ops: The Line, but I did enjoy it because it went beyond dumb fun. Playing the Walking Dead exhausts me and isn't fun at all, but I need to see how the characters keep surviving. I would say Planescape is not a fun game to play, but the story is so well written that it engrosses you. There are hundreds of more examples. If you think games can't go beyond fun, play better games.
That's pretty much it. We use the term fun to describe most games that we found to be enjoyable, but I think if we look at it objectively, they often weren't so much fun as engaging.

Some of my favorite games in recent years, FO:NV, AC2, Batman; AA, OpenTTD aren't fun in the way that I would usually define fun, but they're engaging and particularly with FO:NV and AC2 there's a fair amount of emotion involved in the game.

And don't forget about Prototype and Infamous which were both quite engaging for things other than fun,even if portions of the game were quite fun.

Yes, there's a ton of games where fun is the primary and only objective, but I think those are mostly casual games, there's probably more games that go beyond fun now than ever before.
Posted October 14, 2012
avatar
rampancy: But there's some degree of subjectivity in that, isn't there? Dear Esther and PS:T are excellent examples of that; some people think it's the greatest thing in gaming since sliced bread; others would barely even consider it to be a "game" at all. Likewise, I know a lot of people (including me) who'd classify reading stuff like Dostoevsky as being fun.
There always is, yes. I for one would not classify Dostoevsky as "fun". Interesting, engaging & rewarding, but not fun. But I guess others see things quite differently.




And just to avoid the regular argument that pops up whenever people talk about this:
No no-one is saying that we should stop making/playing "fun" games. They are not going away, and we don't want them to go away. The problem with the industry is how a large portion of the AAA (and the part that tries to imitate the AAA part, but don't have the budget for it) almost always see "fun" as the only goal.
Posted October 14, 2012
avatar
jefequeso: This is just another example of something I've been noticing lately: half the terms we use are actually ambiguous as hell once you start to break them down.
avatar
Telika: Come on, it's just that developers make their games too much fun therefore not enough fun because too much fun and that's no fun.
englishmotherfucker.jpg
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Extra Credits: Why can't games go beyond fun?(24 posts)(24 posts)
(24 posts)