• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Are you even having fun with gaming?

If you have a Wii U I don't see how you couldn't be having fun with the current selection of games.
 
I'm still having fun with gaming. Otherwise, I wouldn't be hanging out in gaming side on NeoGAF, wouldn't I? :D

Life is too short to get into a hobby you don't find entertaining anymore.
 
I don't play games for fun, read books for fun, or watch movies for fun. I participate in these activities because I'm interested in engaging in the experience they offer. If "fun" happens to be a side effect of that experience, then that's great. But if not and yet I found the experience to be engaging, then that's great too.

This makes absolutely no sense to me, but perhaps we simply have different ideas of what "fun" means. Would you mind providing an example of an engaging game you don't find fun (perhaps also with reasons) so that we could have some kind of foundation to the discussion?
 
But what makes you think that I consider the level of engagement I have with these mediums to be a chore or a job?

Just because I'm not having "fun" doesn't mean I equate my experience with my everyday job. I don't have to actually "enjoy" a game, book, or movie to have considered the time that I've spent with it to be worthwhile and enriching. I certainly didn't enjoy Schindler's List, but it was an engaging experience I don't regret having.

I really do believe that we do a disservice to the gaming medium by putting "fun" up on the pedestal that it occupies.

So if you're not enjoying it at all, why consume it?

Hmm, so are all Nintendo first party games devoid of offering any value to the gaming medium? Should gamers only deserve Gone Home and Braid and The Stanley Parable?

Video games are not movies, and they're not books. They are interactive media.

Yes, the medium evolves and yes the medium must cater to age demographics, but the primary foremost purpose of a game is to entertain.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I believe you're putting what is an interactive experience itself onto some idea that video games should be a certain way.

But I digress to the godfather of video games, Shigeru Miyamoto:

"The obvious objective of video games is to entertain people by surprising them with new experiences".

"When I'm making video games today, I want people to be entertained. I am always thinking, How are people going to enjoy playing the games we are making today? And as long as I can enjoy something other people can enjoy it, too".

"I don't want to criticize any other designers, but I have to say that many of the people involved in this industry - directors and producers - are trying to make their games more like movies. They are longing to make movies rather than making videogames".

That last quote is really the current landscape in a nutshell.
 
Bruh, I'm using my i5 4670k and GTX 760 PC to play OG 1997 Shadow Warrior right now. Why? It's a fun game.

Tech issues don't get to me unless they actually affect the playability of the game (annoying screen-tearing, uneven framerate, game-breaking glitches, etc.). I mean, 1080p 60fps is definitely ideal, but even since going almost full PC I can go back and enjoy a good console game even if it's 720p and 30fps.
 
I'll take that as a compliment, thank you very much!

Why? Even Ebert loved films because they were fun. To say you don't consume any media for fun just sounds weird. It's not like every film is Tokyo Story or every game is Ico. Some things are meant purely for entertainment and fun, but that doesn't mean it's lacking in engagement or anything compelling.
 
Atmosphere, graphics, and production values are tied very heavily for me, and are also among the biggest factors in me having fun at all. Sorry OP.
 
I definitely am. After picking up a Wii U, I've been teleported into another dimension where childlike wonder reigns supreme. I love it.
 
Why? Even Ebert loved films because they were fun. To say you don't consume any media for fun just sounds weird. It's not like every film is Tokyo Story or every game is Ico. Some things are meant purely for entertainment and fun, but that doesn't mean it's lacking in engagement or anything compelling.

He compared Schindler's List to video games.

It's safe to say no fun is allowed here.
 
Everytime I get bored it's inevitable that there will always be some game that appeases my sensibilities eventually.

At the end of the day sometimes it's about watching the development landscape and seeing what comes out and what works for me and what doesn't.

As it has and always will be.


When I get really bored I replay the games I really like, which is always entertaining.
 
I post about this in the recently purchased Wii U thread, but gaming for me recently had started to feel like a job

I play more games now than I have in my entire life. Almost all M rated shooters, horror, or open-world. I love those games, but Saturday I got a Wii U to join my PS4 and XBone and I have felt genuine joy for the first time in years.

Something about the MK8 emotes, the Wiiverse drawings, and the random comments/stamps in 3D world make me physically happy.

Evil Within, Battlefield, and Red Dead games may always end up my go-to games in the future, but I know if I ever want to escape into a land of happiness, my Wii U has my back.
 
Anyone who is currently not having fun needs some nintendo in their lives. Was in the same boat, thinking most games are boring, but that changed with the Wii U and the games it provides. That, along with finding good gems on PC and Steam.

I have to say though, I honestly find older games, especially in the NES to PS2/GC/Xbox eras to have more fun in their fun factor. PS3/360 onwards, aside from some games and the DS, haven't really been that fun at all. Don't know about the Wii too much because simply running it with the motion controller was annoying.

EDIT: The poster above me understands, lol.
 
This makes absolutely no sense to me, but perhaps we simply have different ideas of what "fun" means. Would you mind providing an example of an engaging game you don't find fun (perhaps also with reasons) so that we could have some kind of foundation to the discussion?

Sure, those that immediately come to mind are Bioshock (the original), Planescape: Torment, Spec Ops: The Line, and Gone Home.

I didn't derive any sense of "fun" from these titles but the thoughtful, engaging experience they provided was well worth my time and effort!
 
So if you're not enjoying it at all, why consume it?

Hmm, so are all Nintendo first party games devoid of offering any value to the gaming medium? Should gamers only deserve Gone Home and Braid and The Stanley Parable?

Video games are not movies, and they're not books. They are interactive media.

Yes, the medium evolves and yes the medium must cater to age demographics, but the primary foremost purpose of a game is to entertain.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I believe you're putting what is an interactive experience itself onto some idea that video games should be a certain way.

But I digress to the godfather of video games, Shigeru Miyamoto:

"The obvious objective of video games is to entertain people by surprising them with new experiences".

"When I'm making video games today, I want people to be entertained. I am always thinking, How are people going to enjoy playing the games we are making today? And as long as I can enjoy something other people can enjoy it, too".

"I don't want to criticize any other designers, but I have to say that many of the people involved in this industry - directors and producers - are trying to make their games more like movies. They are longing to make movies rather than making videogames".

That last quote is really the current landscape in a nutshell.

Did the caveman realize the significance of the medium he witlessly discovered? How it would one day inspire the brilliance of Michelangelo or Da Vinci?

This Miyamoto and his caveman understanding of videogames would have us guffawing at jumpmen and their distressed consorts. That is not the true potential of this sacred medium. That is a child's plaything! A mere toy! This man is no artist, he is a peddler of snake oil. Nay, poison. His consumer the well of creative thought and human potential.

And all for the sake this crude notion of fun. Fun makes you laugh and laughs give you wrinkles! Go on. Enjoy your fun, and be ugly for all I care! I will be basking in the awe of the genius of David Cage and Naughty Dog, and I will be in good company.
 
So if you're not enjoying it at all, why consume it?

Hmm, so are all Nintendo first party games devoid of offering any value to the gaming medium? Should gamers only deserve Gone Home and Braid and The Stanley Parable?

Video games are not movies, and they're not books. They are interactive media.

Yes, the medium evolves and yes the medium must cater to age demographics, but the primary foremost purpose of a game is to entertain.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I believe you're putting what is an interactive experience itself onto some idea that video games should be a certain way.

But I digress to the godfather of video games, Shigeru Miyamoto:

"The obvious objective of video games is to entertain people by surprising them with new experiences".

"When I'm making video games today, I want people to be entertained. I am always thinking, How are people going to enjoy playing the games we are making today? And as long as I can enjoy something other people can enjoy it, too".

"I don't want to criticize any other designers, but I have to say that many of the people involved in this industry - directors and producers - are trying to make their games more like movies. They are longing to make movies rather than making videogames".

That last quote is really the current landscape in a nutshell.

Why is "enjoyment" necessary to appreciate a piece of media? Seriously, I'm honestly asking that question.

No, Nintendo first party titles VERY much enrich the medium through their mechanics and other factors. The fact that they're "fun" is a wonderful side benefit!

The issue I have with that last quote is that the vast majority of those in the industry who are attempting to make games more like movies are failing at both the "fun" and "engaging" aspects of the medium. Does anyone actually think "The Order: 1886" looks either fun or engaging from what we've seen so far of it? You have the stuff from David Cage that also fails both tests as well. Yet, saying that the "obvious" objective of video games is "to entertain" is quite narrow minded and unfairly constrains the medium.

As for games not being similar to films or books because of "interactivity", I tend to view interactivity from the standpoint of my mental engagement with the medium rather than physical engagement. Games present a "false" sense of agency/interactivity (that's their beauty) because ultimately you are still being "guided" through the game by the designer in the same way as an author or film director guides the reader or viewer through the book or movie. Your ability to alter the direction of the game is relatively constrained, just not as constrained as with a book or film. Thus, from this perspective, my level of engagement with a game, movie, or book is relatively the same.

He compared Schindler's List to video games.

It's safe to say no fun is allowed here.

That's a very disingenuous characterization of my position.
 
I am happier playing games now than I have been in the last 20 years.

I bought a Wii U and have been stupid happy with Mario Kart, Pikmin 3, 3D World and Wonderful 101.

And since I am now a Dad and don't have time for more than a few full games a year I'm all set.

And for the in between times I have an iPad and there is sooo much good short length content.

When I was a young adult I had all the systems and graphics/system wars mattered. Now I just play what I want. No pretense.

Super happy with gaming these days.
 
My job is as CTO of a software company. I have so much fun every day at work. I love my job and the challenges I face there every day.

When I get home from work Im not only looking for fun, Im looking for new experiences. It could be something new to eat or a game which lets me experience something totally new. Like No Mans Sky maybe will,

So thats kind of odd I guess.
 
I'm still having fun with gaming. Of course, I don't play as many games these days, and only pick up the things that truly interest me. Most of those titles seem to be downloadable games, which is fine. That seems to be where a lot of the creativity in the industry is coming from. I'll grab a full-priced retail release without hesitation if it's something I'm truly into. It used to be that I'd be picking up anything that looked like it might be decent, just so I usually had something new to play. I've got other hobbies, though, so I don't mind that I don't play as many games as I used to.
 
I initially thought, "Yeah, I have fun with games!" and then I started to realize that's not always the case. I review as many games as I can throughout a year for my site. Some are great, some, not so much.

Gaming, for me, used to always be about having fun. Now, if I have to review something, I still have fun but it's not all about fun. I have to be critical now. I have to see things I would typically overlook (or outright miss) when just mindlessly playing for amusement. I have to now be aware of flaws or things that strike me as odd, or mentally compare such and such a game to another in the series or similar genre. Sometimes, there just isn't time for fun. Sometimes I just get burnt out on games that I feel like I've played a hundred times before. For instance, I loved Batman: Arkham Asylum. When Arkham City came out I was really excited but I never really played more than an hour of it since its release. I've started it twice but another game, perhaps one I have to review, either ends up taking my time or I just end up becoming bored with it and I stop. It sits on my Steam list for weeks, possibly months. I think about playing it and simply uninstall it, or if I do start it up again, it resets the clock and it'll sit there for weeks on end again. And don't get me wrong, I'm not singling out the Batman franchise, it's just an example. This has certainly happened with other games as well (Deus Ex: HR, Assassin's Creed 4, Splinter Cell Blacklist, Fallout: NV, etc.).

I do try to find a balance between "having fun" with games I'm not reviewing but sometimes previews and reviews for other games dominate my time and the "fun" has to take a back seat to my having to do my job. Thankfully some of the rush on games has slowed down (until Fall) so I have a bit more time to just play whatever I want. I picked up Flower the other night for the PS4 and I absolutely adore it.

Edit: I think a lot of my problem has to do with the over abundance of gaming options I have. I have a ton of games on PC to choose from. I have a large number of 360 games to choose from and I have a growing number of PS4 games to choose from. I'm overwhelmed with games and that, if you can believe it, actually leads me to be bored. I can never really decide what I want to play as no singular title really sounds interesting to me when I actually have the free time to spend.
 
Yes, beautiful graphics automatically kill the "fun" component. It is a known fact and the reason why everyone are still playing their Atari VCS and IntelliVisions. The sheer fun of it.
 
Did the caveman realize the significance of the medium he witlessly discovered? How it would one day inspire the brilliance of Michelangelo or Da Vinci?

This Miyamoto and his caveman understanding of videogames would have us guffawing at jumpmen and their distressed consorts. That is not the true potential of this sacred medium. That is a child's plaything! A mere toy! This man is no artist, he is a peddler of snake oil. Nay, poison. His consumer the well of creative thought and human potential.

And all for the sake this crude notion of fun. Fun makes you laugh and laughs give you wrinkles! Go on. Enjoy your fun, and be ugly for all I care! I will be basking in the awe of the genius of David Cage and Naughty Dog, and I will be in good company.

10/10 you beautiful auteur.

citizen-kane-clapping-gif.gif


No, Nintendo first party titles VERY much enrich the medium through their mechanics and other factors.

The issue I have with that last quote is that the vast majority of those in the industry who are attempting to make games more like movies are failing at both the "fun" and "engaging" aspects of the medium. Does anyone actually think "The Order: 1886" looks either fun or engaging from what we've seen so far of it? Yet, saying that the "obvious" objective of video games is "to entertain" is quite narrow minded and unfairly constrains the medium.

As for games not being similar to films or books because of "interactivity", I tend to view interactivity from the standpoint of my mental engagement with the medium rather than physical engagement. Games present a "false" sense of agency/interactivity (that's their beauty) because ultimately you are still being "guided" through the game by the designer in the same way as an author or film director guides the reader or viewer through the book or movie. Your ability to alter the direction of the game is relatively constrained, just not as constrained as with a book or film. Thus, from this perspective, my level of engagement with a game, movie, or book is relatively the same.

That's a very disingenuous interpretation of my position.

I mock your position because it is contradictory to the purpose of video games themselves. Schindler's List was a movie based on a true story and stated a clear message to the audience about the horror of humanity and how one person single handedly protected other humans vs choosing to remain a capitalist. How that relates to an interactive medium primarily designed for enjoyment is beyond me.

Nintendo first party titles are designed for children. Their primary motivation is to entertain and to incite fun. I don't see how they can "enrich the medium" when their core designs are around the gameplay being simple and fun to enjoy and not around telling a deep narrative.

I'm glad you find enjoyment in the mechanics of the consistent game design, but the game itself is meant to elicit enjoyment, thus fun. So if you like Nintendo first party, you have SOME semblance of what fun is.

The Order 1886 can be a form of fun to those who find the subject matter interesting. So can open sandbox games like GTA. Hell, the RoosterTeeth guys make a business out of showing other gamers how to enjoy that game besides following the main storyline.

"I tend to view interactivity from the standpoint of my mental engagement with the medium rather than physical engagement".

Ok this needs an explanation.

Games present a "false" sense of agency/interactivity (that's their beauty) because ultimately you are still being "guided" through the game by the designer in the same way as an author or film director guides the reader or viewer through the book or movie.

Once again, your interactions in video games are not as scripted as you may want to believe. You don't have to stick on rails to enjoy a game.

Your ability to alter the direction of the game is relatively constrained, just not as constrained as with a book or film. Thus, from this perspective, my level of engagement with a game, movie, or book is relatively the same".

So you take this approach with all media and you garner the same reaction from all media?
 
I mock your position because it is contradictory to the purpose of video games themselves.

Since when do video games -- or any other form of media/art -- need to have a purpose? The purpose of any piece of media/art is always in the eye of the beholder which means that it is entirely subjective and can therefore be non-existent. I reject the notion that video games should be an "interactive medium primarily designed for enjoyment". They should be an interactive medium primarily designed for engagement with enjoyment, fun, pleasure, etc. being a wonderful ancillary benefit.

Nintendo first party titles are designed for children. Their primary motivation is to entertain and to incite fun. I don't see how they can "enrich the medium" when their core designs are around the gameplay being simple and fun to enjoy and not around telling a deep narrative.

I'm glad you find enjoyment in the mechanics of the consistent game design, but the game itself is meant to elicit enjoyment, thus fun. So if you like Nintendo first party, you have SOME semblance of what fun is.

Deep narratives are certainly NOT necessary to enrich the medium, far from it. In fact, the medium has yet to convince me that it can actually relate a truly "deep" narrative. And that's quite alright - it doesn't have to be able to do that at all to provide an enriching experience!

Of course I have "some semblance" of an idea of what fun is! I just don't consider it to be the "be all and end all" of the videogame medium.

So you take this approach with all media and you garner the same reaction from all media?

My reaction to the media with which I'm interacting largely depends on my level of engagement with it.
 
I almost exclusively play League of Legends, and I probably very rarely consider myself actually to be having "fun", so no I'm basically masochistic. :P
 
Since when do video games -- or any other form of media/art -- need to have a purpose? The purpose of any piece of media/art is always in the eye of the beholder which means that it is entirely subjective and can therefore be non-existent. I reject the notion that video games should be an "interactive medium primarily designed for enjoyment". They should be an interactive medium primarily designed for engagement with enjoyment, fun, pleasure, etc. being a wonderful ancillary benefit.

Deep narratives are certainly NOT necessary to enrich the medium, far from it. In fact, the medium has yet to convince me that it can actually relate a truly "deep" narrative. And that's quite alright - it doesn't have to be able to do that at all to provide an enriching experience!

Of course I have "some semblance" of an idea of what fun is! I just don't consider it to be the "be all and end all" of the videogame medium.

My reaction to the media with which I'm interacting largely depends on my level of engagement with it.

It seems like we'll never agree on this, so I'm going to let it be.

You have your opinion and I have mine.
 
Yes but then I come here and it's ruined about resolution/fps and race/gender/sexual preference in games/game characters.

Videogames should be fun and not full of political correctness BS.
 
I don't enjoy it as much as I did back when I was a kid and in grade school. Now that I have college and a job to focus on, it's less time to play games. Nothing much out now that has huge replay value, and my backlog is filled with 60+ hour JRPGS.

I find myself playing games from 2004 more often than newer games. Back then, people really never complained about visual fidelity, bullshots were uncommon, and what you paid for is what you got, no DLC crap. Now it's all just audience pandering, DLC, visual downgrade messes. Any game that doesn't have 1080p or 60FPS is already regarded as shit and unplayable to a majority of people. What happened to playing a game to enjoy it? I wish I could enjoy games as much now as I did then, I really do.
 
I have fun playing video games. However, that's because I look beyond the graphics and physics available in a title. I look at the plot, the gameplay, level design, characters, enemies and so on. Admittedly some games get my attention for their graphics or physics, but it's either when they do it right by giving an unique style and feeling, or when they do it wrong and the game looks dated or doesn't offer anything truly remarkable as an image.

Sincerely however, I avoid certain multiplayer games such as Dota 2, as the multiplayer community felt more toxic to me and actually made my enjoyment worse. There are other games where griefing is typical for the game, but those games don't bother me as I don't perceive griefing as something toxic, but rather part of a build and destroy relationship within a game.
 
Sure, the two that immediately come to mind are Spec Ops: The Line and Gone Home.

I didn't derive any sense of "fun" from these titles but the thoughtful, engaging experience they provided was worth my time with them.

I see. Perhaps, the, to you "fun" is the sense of "excitement"?

I unfortunately haven't played Spec Ops: The Line, but to me, Gone Home is actually pretty fun. I explore and piece narrative together. I am exposed to a thoughtful contemplative story. I then discuss it with friends and on internet forums. I think those are enjoyable. To discover, to be amazed, to be enlightened; I think these are fun.

Now for games I find engaging but not fun:
- Any competitive game: I am highly competitive, but these games more often than not end up stressful to me.
- Games with meaningless collectibles: my obsession to complete everything sometimes make me waste hours doing this, but afterwards I always feel empty.
 
I have so much fun with video games it's insane. They're places where I can let my imagination run wild no matter how much the game I'm playing tries to spoon feed me a direct story I always imagine alternate scenarios or what is happening to other characters or what the rest of the game world is like.
 
I've been having fun alright, but recently MGSV:GZ just rekindled my gaming spirit, something I've only felt a few times(Mario 64,FF7,OOT,MM,Halo:CE...you know what I'm talking about).

I just can't wait for The Phantom Pain.
 
Played through Hotline Miami again yesterday. It was pretty dope. Spent an hour or two PVPing in Dark Souls 2 also. Today I put an hour into Fallout 1 again and I started playing Ni no Kuni for the first time.

So yeah I'm having fun.

I also get excited for new developments and new tech and higher paradigms of art and music too! Is being able to enjoy many things differently than you such a bad thing?
 
Well yes and no. The most recent games I've played have been great, and I've had fun, but it doesn't really lift me out of some of the personal shit I've been going through. Plus I'm having a hard time with my favorite series right now, cause people keep demanding or arguing for changing a character I care for deeply, which is causing a lot of anxiety cause I have no idea what the people in charge of the series are going to do and I'm deeply worried they're going to change it too drastically.

I guess you could say I've become far too invested in gaming to really enjoy it like I use to.
 
I'm playing Watch Dogs and Mario Kart. And I'm having a ton of fun with both, specially multiplayer mario kart


and ppl seem to be losing their shit. Then there's No Sky Man game i checked out and ppl are going nuts for it, yet no one really knows how it plays.

So we can't get excited about a game unless we have played it?
IMO, Everything about no Mans Sky that they have shown looks great. Be it the art direction, the size of the world or the glimpses at actual gameplay and all what they have talked about the gameplay

But I'm not allowed to be excited about a game that has shown nothing but positive stuff to me?
Is it wrong that I think the concept of an infinite universe were I can travel from one planet to the other sounds incredibly fun?


PS: Also, these new consoles just came out. Of course people want to see pretty graphics and will be excited to show you how good games look on their new system. It's nothing new, even back in the NES to SNES era people wanted to show their friends how cool thos 16 bits games looked
 
Sure, those that immediately come to mind are Bioshock (the original), Planescape: Torment, Spec Ops: The Line, and Gone Home.

I didn't derive any sense of "fun" from these titles but the thoughtful, engaging experience they provided was well worth my time and effort!
In a way I kinda understand where you're coming from, because there are quite a number of games I've played that I didn't enjoy but I ended up completing because of something other than the fun factor. I will never go through those games again, but it was an interesting experience.

Granted I'll always say fun trumps all, but I sorta get you. Different strokes for different folks.

To answer the op, yeah sometimes I realize I'm not having fun playing my games and I'm playing them just to say I finished them.
 
It's gotten to a point where i wish every single game was a different Ratchet and Clank. That series defined gaming for me. Pure pure pure mindless fun and enjoyment.
 
Something I've been thinking about the past few years. I saw this today.

"turbulent weather rolls in, skies thickening before bursting onto the roads. Crowds at the side of the track reach for their macs and umbrellas, winds tug at the trackside scenery while puddles form in the divots and dips of the road surface,"

"The heat from the sun dynamically melts the snow, with northern-facing surfaces reacting first."

and ppl seem to be losing their shit. Then there's No Sky Man game i checked out and ppl are going nuts for it, yet no one really knows how it plays. I was at a side chicks house last weekend and invited my boy over to cotch. He brought his PS4 and was eager to show me games like infamous and killzone. He was taking close ups of walls n shit and showing me excitedly.

But all this shit, at the end of the day just seems like people are playing games (GAF and enthusiasts) to be impressed on a technical/art level than having fun.

Take a step back for a min n really see if you're having fun with the games u play.

Lately i rarely have real fun with games, in the classic sense

But there are some big exceptions, Demons and Dark Souls, i had genuine fun with them, like when i was first playing Zelda OOT

And Zelda on 3DS, this was pure fun through and through

So, there is still games focused on fun than amaze with visuals, they are just getting very few
 
Plenty between playing games like Towerfall, Lego games, Disney Infinty with my daughter, to games like Destiny, FFXIV with friends, and enjoying Wolfenstien, Hotline, Infamous, etc. I am having a ton of fun with videogames. Imo there has not been a better time for social interaction in games, and that just makes it even better.
 
Tons of fun, recently beat RE1 on PS1, playing New Vegas with all the DLC right now.

Gotta either expand your horizons or take some sort of break if you ain't having fun. Pop in a game you haven't played in years, replay something you forgot you owned.
 
Love it as much or more than ever, there's more variety now and it's so affordable compared to the ridiculous and limiting prices in my youth.

I'm always kind of weirded out by people hanging out at GAF while not actually loving games. Seems like it would be a better allocation of time to drop reading about stuff you don't love and put it towards another hobby
 
Top Bottom