do games have to be fun? - Games

i was having a conversation with my brother the other day, about whether games [I]need [/I]to have an element of good gameplay or not his stance was that games should be artistic, immersive, and have good story, and that they don't need to have any element of gameplay to be good. he claims more games should be made in this style because video games are an art. my stance is that yes, games do need to. that's what makes them games. and you can't get immersed in a story or atmosphere if you're completely bored out of your mind. plus, i also like to play games that are simply fun, such as tf2 (which he criticized me on). i dunno, i could be wrong. what do you guys think? do games need more than story?

fun = more sales

Kill your brother. Right now. He's the kind of dumb ass killing games.

Yes, fun is necessary. Take MW2 for example, it wasn't fun, and the FP community hated it.

video games aren't art trolling is a art though

[QUOTE=ZombieWaffle;25164421]fun = more sales[/QUOTE] sales =/= quality

I think they need to be fun to the person playing them. For me, a game your brother described [I]would [/I]be fun though, as I value a good story, and think it contributes to the game immensely. For a person who doesn't value story like that may not like the same game in the same way I do.

[QUOTE=Big Ben;25164427]Kill your brother. Right now. He's the kind of dumb ass killing games.[/QUOTE] HURF DA DURF, LETS PWAY GAMES FOR BEAUTY IN' SHIT INSTEAD OF ACTUAL FUN, I MEAN WHATS DA POINT OF GAMMIN IF YOU SEE NO BEAUTY AM I RITE HIPSTER SHITS? No no no, games have a balance of fun and immersion.

Games are a medium of entertainment. It depends on how you specifically are entertained.

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;25164473]HURF DA DURF, LETS PWAY GAMES FOR BEAUTY IN' SHIT INSTEAD OF ACTUAL FUN, I MEAN WHATS DA POINT OF GAMMIN IF YOU SEE NO BEAUTY AM I RITE HIPSTER SHITS? No no no, games have a balance of fun and immersion.[/QUOTE] Also this. They need to be a blend of both if they want to be very good.

[QUOTE=Achilles123;25164457]For me, a game your brother described [I]would [/I]be fun though, as I value a good story, and think it contributes to the game immensely. [/QUOTE] take for example if 'to kill a mockingbird' was somehow made into a game. it's a fantastic story, but it wouldn't be fun, would it?

I'm not voting as there's no option for "Both."

I think he was trolling you

[QUOTE=MadCatMkII;25164618]I think he was trolling you[/QUOTE] nope, he doesn't do that kinda thing i'm the one that's always trolling him

[QUOTE=Gravy;25164512]take for example if 'to kill a mockingbird' was somehow made into a game. it's a fantastic story, but it wouldn't be fun, would it?[/QUOTE] It would depend on how it was presented, and if I had read the book or not. If it was done right, I think it could be very fun, even if all you were really doing was adding a third element into the original story to make it more immersive.

As stupid as a game that [I]isn't[/I] fun sounds, it makes a lot of sense. How many of you would describe Amnesia as "fun"? I sure as hell wouldn't. It's adrenaline-draining and can be potentially emotionally difficult to play if you scare easily. And yet it's a [I]masterpiece[/I] of a videogame. The idea might make more sense if you apply it to movies. I mean, I doubt you walked out of [I]Saving Private Ryan[/I] saying "That was such an entertaining movie! I can't wait to watch it again!"

If it has a good story, is artistic, etc. then it's probably fun to play.

[QUOTE=Achilles123;25164665]It would depend on how it was presented, and if I had read the book or not. If it was done right, I think it could be very fun, even if all you were really doing was adding a third element into the original story to make it more immersive.[/QUOTE] personally i think that games should be fun, because if they have a good story and no fun gameplay then you might as well just read it or something [editline]08:10PM[/editline] [QUOTE=postmanX3;25164682]As stupid as a game that [I]isn't[/I] fun sounds, it makes a lot of sense. How many of you would describe Amnesia as "fun"? I sure as hell wouldn't. It's adrenaline-draining and can be potentially emotionally difficult to play if you scare easily. And yet it's a [I]masterpiece[/I] of a videogame. The idea might make more sense if you apply it to movies. I mean, I doubt you walked out of [I]Saving Private Ryan[/I] saying "That was such an entertaining movie! I can't wait to watch it again!"[/QUOTE] my definition of fun is basically 'not boring' and neither of those are boring

[QUOTE=Gravy;25164689]my definition of fun is basically 'not boring' and neither of those are boring[/QUOTE] Well on that definition, then yeah, games definitely have to be fun. But I think "not boring" and "fun" are very different things.

[QUOTE=postmanX3;25164734]Well on that definition, then yeah, games definitely have to be fun. But I think "not boring" and "fun" are very different things.[/QUOTE] it's what i meant, anyway [editline]08:12PM[/editline] for lack of a better word

[QUOTE=Gravy;25164750]it's what i meant, anyway [editline]08:12PM[/editline] for lack of a better word[/QUOTE] Boring is completely dependent on the person. For me, it wouldn't be.

[QUOTE=Gravy;25164750]it's what i meant, anyway [editline]08:12PM[/editline] for lack of a better word[/QUOTE] In that case, then yeah, your brother is an idiot.

Yeah, I play games that were designed not to be fun. :downs:

i can see where he's coming from, he really appreciates video games sometimes so much that his opinions are a tad extreme

It took me a while to realize why I was quickly becoming bored with video games and I realized they were getting boring because I didn't find them fun at all. Fun is the #1 thing you need in a game.

So you want a game to be boring? A non-actioney game can be fun.

Ugh, I think we should stop using the word "fun", but rather use something like "Entertaining". For instance, "Dinner for schmucks was quite fun to watch, yet I wouldn't call "Children of Men" fun persay, but still enthralling, intense, good story, etc. EDIT: Hell, let's define it as "a game you'd want to play". It doesn't have to be adrenaline inducing to attain this. If a game has zero redeeming qualities, it's simply a shit game. Don't blame it on the 'artsyness', but rather the lack of development.

[QUOTE=FalcoLombardi;25164914]So you want a game to be boring? A non-actioney game can be fun.[/QUOTE] i'm not saying games need to be action-y, games need to have more than story to make them interesting

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;25164473]HURF DA DURF, LETS PWAY GAMES FOR BEAUTY IN' SHIT INSTEAD OF ACTUAL FUN, I MEAN WHATS DA POINT OF GAMMIN IF YOU SEE NO BEAUTY AM I RITE HIPSTER SHITS? No no no, games have a balance of fun and immersion.[/QUOTE] Hello, I'm the brother in question in this story, and I'd like to present my opinion. My knee jerk reaction is to blurt out thet you're all "Multiplayer playing douche bags" but, this being one of the biggest gaming forums in existence, I'd imagine this isn't the case. Regardless: I hate the title of "Video Games", it's not a fir assessment of what the medium can do, or even has done. (I'll refer to them as "Games" regardless, due to a lack of a better term) A game is a sort of tey with a goal, where you go, maybe get some points, and win. The only reward or point to a game is the "game play" it's self. However, we all know that video games are much more than this. Half Life 2, Silent Hill 2, Shadow of the Colossus, are all games that hold emotional value. Now, you may have noticed that everything I mentioned was fun, and I'm not denying that, there still needs to be games that are fun, or else the industry will die out, and not bloom into the power house it could be. But a game is simply an interactive experience, and I'd really like to see more art being made with this in mind. Take for example "Shindler's List", among the most critically acclaimed movies of all time, and one of my personal favourites. However, this is not a fun move, rather, it's engaging. It's an immersive exploration into one of the most horrifying moments in history, and conveys emotions strongly and effectively. Could it not be intensified if the experience was interactive? If the "player" was an integral part of the story, and was forced to actively pay attention, rather then the passive viewing experience that movie goers feel, could the emotions not be multiplied? My argument is not that fun shouldn't exist, it's that not every game needs to be fun to be enjoyed. Now, to answer Mr.DesolateGrun here, visuals are but one aspect of a game. Remember how in Silent Hill 2, everything about it seemed to be tailored to be terrifying? The fog was so thick, you could barely see across the street, the ambient noises startled you ever so slightly, the clunky controls made it harder to deal with monsters, the town seemed deserted and made you feel unwanted, even the now lacking graphics made the monsters less coherent, and our imaginations filled in the rest. And I'm not a hipster. Low blow, dude. EDIT: Just read DoctorSalt's post: It seems you understood my point before I even posted it, thanks dude.

yeah, let's use 'interesting' instead