do games have to be fun? - Games

[QUOTE=Gravy;25164939]i'm not saying games need to be action-y, games need to have more than story to make them interesting[/QUOTE] Heavy Rain I hear is interesting. Just not to all people.

[QUOTE=FalcoLombardi;25165047]Heavy Rain I hear is interesting. Just not to all people.[/QUOTE] no, i like it. but the game is quite intense and does in fact have gameplay

You cannot put "fun" into a video game. And there are plenty of enjoyable games that aren't "fun" in the slightest. Take horror games for example.

Your choices are bad. Games don't have to be fun, but they don't have to be artsy or immersive.

[QUOTE=Big Ben;25164427]Kill your brother. Right now. He's the kind of dumb ass killing games.[/QUOTE] Um no he isn't. Video games that are truly immersive and have a good story these days are few and far between. If anything, there needs to be more of them made. Sure I love fun games, but these days singleplayer just seems like an extra for the multiplayer, while it should be the other way around.

[QUOTE=JesterUK;25164488]Games are a medium of entertainment. It depends on how you specifically are entertained.[/QUOTE] Thanks for hitting the nail. I feel bad for voting, but in my defense, it's because I just came back from playing a boring game which I stopped in the middle of.

[QUOTE=Jund;25165456]Um no he isn't. Video games that are truly immersive and have a good story these days are few and far between. If anything, there needs to be more of them made. Sure I love fun games, but these days singleplayer just seems like an extra for the multiplayer, while it should be the other way around.[/QUOTE] you're missing my point yes, i think there should be more immersive, well-made games but i think they need an aspect of gameplay that makes it interesting, not just story 'fun' was just a poor choice of wording on my part

[QUOTE=Thinkertron2000;25164943]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?[/QUOTE] Not sure about you, but I find that being an integral part of a story is fun. Point me to a game that isn't fun, but can still keep my attention. Then I will reconsider my opinion, but until I find one, I can't easily change it, but I will try.

Penumbra was extremely enjoyable, but I wouldn't call it a "fun" experience.

No, they have to look like crysis :downs:

Your poll answers are way too subjective and open ended to really vote on, so I'm not voting. To me, I get a great deal of FUN and ENJOYMENT out of a game with a killer story and immersion. A game that really is complelling and engaging is fun. I enjoy playing games like the above much more than playing games based around simple "pure fun formulas". I feel like they are too formulaic and they don't engage me at all, even if the gameplay is fun at a raw level. I can games like that and enjoy them, but I won't likely stick around playing them for more than 5 hours or really have a strong drive because I'm not really compelled to. I don't find myself getting excited to play a game that is only "raw fun" in a gameplay sense. Those are games I consider time-wasters and things to do when you are really bored or with friends. Games that excite me, games that I love to choose to play on my own are games that usually offer more to the table than "fun mechanics". Because I end up with a higher quality of fun playing games like that (I.E. immersive, deep, interesting story, etc). So that is what fun to me means. Fun = being able to get completely engrossed in a game experience. Games that focus completely on the gameplay tend to not have the capacity to do that. Now I don't mean that it's okay to design a game with terrible/repetitive/etc mechanics. Bad game design is bad no matter how you dress it. And doing bad game design ON PURPOSE as a means to convey a convoluted "message" is even worse. There's no excuse for terrible design. But I certainly would rather play a game like Braid/Shadow of the Collosus/X3:TC than games like Plants vs. Zombies or most action-packed linear shooters.

If your gameplay isn't at least okay and your story is great you're telling your story in the wrong medium.

[QUOTE=Juniez;25165596]Penumbra was extremely enjoyable, but I wouldn't call it a "fun" experience.[/QUOTE] Fun: activities that are enjoyable or amusing. I enjoyed it, therefor I found it fun. I found Penumbra fun.

Well generally, an immersive games with a good story (like oblivion) tend to be fun because of it.

edited OP with better wording

No, because games are art and don't need to be fun for any reason at all ever. [/sarcasm]

Fun is "what provides amusement or enjoyment". This, to me, is a perfectly acceptable word to use in this context. If you are not amused by, or do not enjoy a game there is no reason for you to spend your time playing it. But, this definition would only work if you consider satisfying your curiosity alone to be enjoyable. After all, curiosity is what drives a story along. I think a better term would be skill. One brother seems to claim that skill isn't a requirement to make a good video game. The other brother claims that skill is an integral component of a good video game. The second problem here is that we have failed to define the word game. Game is a word with multiple meanings. In this context it can either mean "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement" or "a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other". In this case the direct opposition could be either another human player, or the artificial intelligence created by another human to challenge the player. Furthermore, I'm going to claim that the second definition is preferable, because most people will instantly associate a certain level of skill with the current video game medium. I propose that, instead of claiming video games don't require skill to be good, we bypass the ambiguity and instead create two separate terms for each brother's definition. We will leave games that require skill and a challenge as well as story "Video Games" and we will call the games that don't require skill "Interactive Video Stories". This would make it clearer to consumers exactly what it was that they are purchasing as well as put an end to this argument over semantics. All definitions were taken from Merriam-Webster.com

What a stupid thread. Of course they need to be fucking fun. Otherwise what's the point in playing if you're not having fun?

How about all three?

Games should be a balance of both fun and immersive but I still like 'games' like heavy rain where the main focus is on the story

[QUOTE=Rubs10;25165645]Fun: activities that are enjoyable or amusing. I enjoyed it, therefor I found it fun. I found Penumbra fun.[/QUOTE] Yeah. For those of you who say that horror games aren't fun: You were entertained. Entertainment equals fun. Therefore, horror games are fun.

Over the years I have found that I see games more as art due to their major improvements in graphics technology. So as I do enjoy a good fun game, I would rather now (Strangely) goggle over the graphics (Uncharted 2, Killzone 2 looking at you)

[QUOTE=FalcoLombardi;25166437]Yeah. For those of you who say that horror games aren't fun: You were entertained. Entertainment equals fun. Therefore, horror games are fun.[/QUOTE] The way the OP was worded it made it sound like he was only talking about the positive kind of fun, not the "fear" kind. If you mean it in a broad sense, then yes games you play are fun. If they weren't you wouldn't be playing them. This is more of a gameplay vs. story and immersion argument than anything else. I guess the OP just worded it differently because he equates gameplay with fun.

Indigo Prophecy and Heavy Rain isn't 'fun'. Yet, they are enjoyable for their storyline.

Normally having a good storyline/good gameplay is fun for me.

wake up get in car file papers HOLY SHIT HOW IMMERSIVE THIS GAME IS

There are genres for a reason. Role-playing/enigmatic storytelling = immersive games that are good. Action/adventure = mostly for fun with some storytelling. Still good.

Usually a piece of entertainment is fun.

I play games to have fun.

Ain't nothin' wrong with a good story and art in a game.