Do games need to be fun?

Do you think a game needs to be fun?

  • Yes

    Votes: 139 77.2%

  • No

    Votes: 41 22.8%
  • Total voters
    180
If I want to ruminate on something on a deep level I read a book.

I play games because they provide fun in a highly structured and fair manner - which of course real life doesn't provide.

Maybe I'm out of date though, and not fully comprehending what games can offer as a medium.
 
Aenima said:
No. They need to be entertaining. But its all subjective cuz whats entertaining and fun to one person might not be to another.
Click to expand...

The definition of FUN is: "providing entertainment, amusement, or enjoyment."

If someone isn't entertained, amused or enjoying a game why would they continue to play it?
 
Been playing too many games lately that have dark serious stories and mostly has the main character die in the end or at some point, so I need a break from all that. Gonna vote fun because I am burned out from all the dark cynicism in the games I have been playing lately. Need to go play a Mario game or 10 in order to purge my brain of games like TLOU and Nier Automata I have been playing lately.
 
Depends on your definition of fun.

I believe a game needs to be entertaining. Some say, if you are entertained, then you had fun, but that is hard when you watch a movie like "Schindler's List" or "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" or documentaries like the lates Dahmer stuff. Most would not say they are fun, but will say they are entertaining.

As long as the interactions you are having with the game is providing entertainment and not boring the player, I think the game is a success.
 
Ghost of Caelid said:
One of my favorite films ever Eraserhead is such a miserable experience to watch but extremely impactful...fun fact kojimas baby design in PT is heavily inspired by eraserhead.

eAc76CdqKp4RAd_MW-iyMQPe43oEYPWtlQnapW-Glx8.png
Click to expand...
Yeah, David Lynch movies do have some really haunting and fucked up shit in them from time to time but most of them offer such a range of emotions and depth that it doesn't feel self-indulgent at all, and it leaves a lasting impression. It gives you something to think about long after the film is over, and it's usually something meaningful.
 
Ghost of Caelid said:
An impactful experience that sticks with you because of it's themes/ messages?
Click to expand...
If I'm not having fun or having a good time with the game, it won't matter as I won't stick with the game to find out.

I play games to unwind and enjoy myself.

If the game has a great story and impact then that is a bonus.

But if the game is an absolute chore to play, I tend to not bother.

I dropped uncharted 4 due to how painfully boring it was, huge shame as I thought Nathan and Sully were very likable/interesting.
 
Abso one thousand percent yes; if your game isn't fun in any way, then you've failed as a game designer.

The key is knowing your target audience and making sure you present your players with the thing they like; and if your game is light on mechanics, make sure those mechanics are air tight.

I've worked on a couple applied games in the past, and them being "fun" was absolutely critical.
 
anthony2690 said:
If I'm not having fun or having a good time with the game, it won't matter as I won't stick with the game to find out.

I play games to unwind and enjoy myself.

If the game has a great story and impact then that is a bonus.

But if the game is an absolute chore to play, I tend to not bother.

I dropped uncharted 4 due to how painfully boring it was, huge shame as I thought Nathan and Sully were very likable/interesting.
Click to expand...
Thats fair, I think people game for different reasons. Alot of people watch only MCU movies or summer block busters...some enjoy films like there will be blood or mother...taste is a matter of what you enjoy but gaming, for the most part caters to the former. I think people who enjoy games beyond "this is a blast" don't have as many options. Or games that try to be deeper get sidetracked by also trying to be fun. Death stranding is one of the few AAA games that didnt sacrafice its story in order to make it more fun...you literally cannot kill enemies in the game without massive reprecussions. Id love to seem ore games attempt that.
 
Yes, a game has to be fun no matter what Neil Druckmann wants us to feel while playing. I had fun murdering people in TLoU2 with unprecedented graphic, horrifying realism because it wasn't real. Plus they were mostly assholes anyway. And the gameplay was brilliant. So I enjoyed it. Sorry Neil.

If it's not fun, I get bored. I don't play videogames to be bored, quite the opposite.
 
No.

Am I a child? I dont need everything to be "fun".

This is why the name should no longer be video "games"

It limits what to expect from the medium.

Film.

Television.

Books.

Music.

Games…

It automatically makes you think of it as something geared towards children and young adults. How will the medium grow?

When you watch The Wire, is it fun?
Is Breaking Bad fun? Or are they just compelling. Fun is not a requirement for greatness.

If a dev makes their main and only focus "Fun" then what you get is Fall Guys.
 
Last edited:
giphy.gif



Represent. said:
No.

Am I a child? I dont need everything to be "fun".

This is why the name should no longer be video "games"

It limits what to expect from the medium.

Film.

Television.

Books.

Music.

Games…

It automatically makes you think of it as something geared towards children and young adults. How will the medium grow?

When you watch The Wire, is it fun?
Is Breaking Bad fun? Or are they just compelling. Fun is not a requirement for greatness.

If a dev makes their main and only focus "Fun" then what you get is Fall Guys.
Click to expand...
It's quite apparent that you have idea what the word fun means.
 
Last edited:
Ghost of Caelid said:
Thats fair, I think people game for different reasons. Alot of people watch only MCU movies or summer block busters...some enjoy films like there will be blood or mother...taste is a matter of what you enjoy but gaming, for the most part caters to the former. I think people who enjoy games beyond "this is a blast" don't have as many options. Or games that try to be deeper get sidetracked by also trying to be fun. Death stranding is one of the few AAA games that didnt sacrafice its story in order to make it more fun...you literally cannot kill enemies in the game without massive reprecussions. Id love to seem ore games attempt that.
Click to expand...
I think I'm lucky as I tend to enjoy the majority of games/genres (not too interested in sports)

But I do see some people here that will only play the big triple a blockbuster game or a specific genre and are probably quite limited with their choice.

I would hope they are having fun with the game though and not only playing because they think the story is good/impactful.

But everyone has different tastes like you mentioned :)
 
Gaming is a hobby, generally I partake in hobbies to have fun. If I'm not having fun with my hobby, I need to find a new hobby.

Even a game full of sadness and misery can be fun to play, especially if you like watching others suffer as I do.

Represent. said:
No.

Am I a child? I dont need everything to be "fun".
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Also, it's funny to think that one of my favorite video games of all time, and arguably one of the most profound ones, takes a stab precisely at this question and it makes me kinda sad that no one mentioned it ITT as of this post.

I'm talking about this little gem:
558948-spec-ops-the-line-windows-front-cover.jpg


Typically, an arthouse and thought-provoking video game means that it's some self-masturbatory walking simulator or a 2D visual novel with barely any gameplay to speak of, while good and fun shooters typically don't offer quality storytelling that's deep and thought-provoking. This is one example of a game that manages to deliver both and also does it successfuly.

On the surface, it is a fun game, or at least aims to be by being an action packed military cover shooter that's like this combination of Call of Duty, Gears of War, and Uncharted. But under the surface and on a narrative level it's so much more, and it flips the concept on its head completely, and ultimately leaves you feeling like shit by the time you reach the end credits. But it's the good kind of "shit" because it's a solid food for thought. It makes you question the very nature of the genre that it represents and other games like it that play into the ridiculous jingoism rather than providing a critique on it. It's way more than you'd normally expect out of a game like this. I remember being so shocked by this game because I knew close to nothing about it before I first played it, and obviously made assumptions about it after playing the first few chapters, only to be sucker punched by it once I reached that moment in the story. And it only got better from there.

It is such an incredible game because it's both fun to play (to an extent) but also deals in heavy themes that you'd normally only find in those artsy-fartsy indie games. And it also does it in such a way that simply couldn't be achieved in any other format, and I love it for that. It is as close to the kind of serious game that's also not a drag to play as you can probably get.
 
Ghost of Caelid said:
I think games yearn to pursue fun can be a negative to experiences that would be far more impactful if that gameplay supported the message being conveyed.
Click to expand...
Maybe the message is, "it's fun to kill people you sick fuck". Especially if you don't see them as 'people' or humans. Hard to convey something different in a video game. Even from the age of six years going, as proven, children can already differentiate between reality and fiction and know "this ain't real people". And if you don't have that very import aspect, killing is probably as easy as breathing (see several genocides because those cultures/peoples weren't seen as 'humans', Christians, believers, etc; the brutal shit humans did and still do to other humans? That's only possible with no attachment or care whatsoever for the opponent as a living being, or is only possible with great rage and anger).

Plus, there's probably something destructive well within our DNA, that make even small children enjoy destroying towers made of building bricks by other children and find it fun, especially when the other child starts crying. Behind our 'civilized' mask there's a primeval, antediluvian, brutal and violent truth that wants to come out and is probably never going to be erased but only impeded by education, laws and acquired social norms and conscience.
 
I think the right word for videogames is entertaining. Not all movies are fun, nor books and music.
TLOU wasn't fun. Heavy Rain wasn't fun. The Stanley Parable wasn't fun. All of them were entertaining.
 
Last edited:
Filben said:
Maybe the message is, "it's fun to kill people you sick fuck". Especially if you don't see them as 'people' or humans. Hard to convey something different in a video game. Even from the age of six years going, as proven, children can already differentiate between reality and fiction and know "this ain't real people". And if you don't have that very import aspect, killing is probably as easy as breathing (see several genocides because those cultures/peoples weren't seen as 'humans', Christians, believers, etc; the brutal shit humans did and still do to other humans? That's only possible with no attachment or care whatsoever for the opponent as a living being, or is only possible with great rage and anger).

Plus, there's probably something destructive well within our DNA, that make even small children enjoy destroying towers made of building bricks by other children and find it fun, especially when the other child starts crying. Behind our 'civilized' mask there's a primeval, antediluvian, brutal and violent truth that wants to come out and is probably never going to be erased but only impeded by education, laws and acquired social norms and conscience.
Click to expand...
You really went off on a tangent there.
 
To have fun? But why ever... People just want frustration and resentment. lol
People are looking for involvement I think... involvement doesn't have to be fun, it can be sad sometimes, but it's always about involvement.
 
Filben said:
Maybe the message is, "it's fun to kill people you sick fuck". Especially if you don't see them as 'people' or humans. Hard to convey something different in a video game. Even from the age of six years going, as proven, children can already differentiate between reality and fiction and know "this ain't real people". And if you don't have that very import aspect, killing is probably as easy as breathing (see several genocides because those cultures/peoples weren't seen as 'humans', Christians, believers, etc; the brutal shit humans did and still do to other humans? That's only possible with no attachment or care whatsoever for the opponent as a living being, or is only possible with great rage and anger).

Plus, there's probably something destructive well within our DNA, that make even small children enjoy destroying towers made of building bricks by other children and find it fun, especially when the other child starts crying. Behind our 'civilized' mask there's a primeval, antediluvian, brutal and violent truth that wants to come out and is probably never going to be erased but only impeded by education, laws and acquired social norms and conscience.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that games often provide an escapism that sometimes taps into our deeper primal states. I know games do not make people more violent, but at the same time I'm not just talking about a real world impact, but an impactful story told in a way that deviates from the "murder everything" norm. I think we are in the studio era film once was where everything has to be a big spectacle, before the transformative auters like Kubrick and Copala transformed the idustry from what their peers were doing. They didn't make it better but different. Outside of Kojima are directors like Barlog, Miyazaki, Neil Druckman doing anything different on a core level? The stories and gameplay is different but it comes down to kill a ton of enemies in pursuit of story. I think when the non indie director comes and goes, "how can we do this but different" we see a new way of gaming for a specific niche.
 
Yes.

Fun is a very broad term though. Are you entertained? Then you're having fun. Do you keep playing because you find the game interesting? Then you're having fun. Etc. Etc. Etc.
 
Ghost of Caelid said:
but an impactful story told in a way that deviates from the "murder everything" norm.
Click to expand...

Ghost of Caelid said:
gameplay is different but it comes down to kill a ton of enemies in pursuit of story.
Click to expand...
Yes, that would be great! Mowing down no less than hundred of enemies kind of makes you apathetic to the whole thing.

But it's probably that the masses like to do things in a video game and if the protagonist isn't killed off the only way is usually more baddies trying to kill the hero, resulting in more killings in order to defend him or herself.

I don't know if a film like Apocalypse Now would work as video game, where Willard is in many instances just a bystander and neutral observer being cast from one shithole into the next. The same thing could be said about Full Metal Jacket and Joker, who IIRC only kills one person in the entire film and is also, by his very job description, 'only' an observer. This works amazingly well in films and books, but it would be hard to pull off in a video game where people expect an active part and want intricate gameplay mechanics.
 
To me yes, but fun doesn't have to be some colorful platform game, it can be TLoU 2 gameplay where i had amazing time playing.
The core of the game for me must be fun, games that i didn't enjoy the gameplay enough made them a less good game for me.
 
Last edited:
Ghost of Caelid said:
All mediums evolve to the point where we ask whats the purpose/possibilities with it. I think people resistant to that aren't helpful to the medium at all. Imagine if all music was made to make you happy, or all movies were rollercoaster rides of adrenaline...gaming expanding beyond just "this is a fun experience" is important to ask. How can it evolve.
Click to expand...
The main point of a game is to be fun. If your game isn't fun then you have failed as a developer.

Like someone else said already you can have all your artsy fartsy in your games and also be fun at the same time. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
 
Fun is subjective.

Games need to be an engaging experience. If an individual finds a game to be engaging then it's more likely they will be having fun.
 
yes, but fun (though entertainment is a better term) doesn't necessarily need to come from the gameplay. it can come from the story, the music, gawking at the visuals.... etc
 
Games need to be fun, just like movies and books. They are a form of entertainment after all.

However, even depressing games like TLOU 2 can be and are fun. They can have amazing gameplay segments, advanced AI, and an immersive storyline that makes the game fun. On the other hand, there are games like Vampire Survivors that are also fun without much story, narrative or emotional impact.

Just like in the movie industry, where both Marvel's Avengers and Shawshank Redemption can exist, all types of games can co-exist in the video games industry. However, they all need to be good in their own ways.
 
Represent. said:
This is why the name should no longer be video "games"
Click to expand...
ok what name is better than this? video interactive movies? video interactive simulators? At the end of the day these require some form of engagement, via a 'game'. otherwise your 'game' could work better as a movie or TV series than a game. The engagement, the interactivity is the main strength of the medium to begin with.

besides, the stereotypes and connotations video games once held have all died out since the late 2010s, people now know video games as a form of art. it's a name that works.
 
Last edited:
It's literally the requirement of being a video game. Fun doesn't have to be like "smiling and laughing" at all times, it just means you're enjoying what you're doing. If you don't have fun playing a video game you probably shouldn't be playing that video game
 
For me? Yes. Honestly don't give a shit how deep or meaningful or realistic it is. If it's not fun to play, I'm not playing it. And if your game sacrificed fun for the sake of those things, you screwed up as a game designer.

If I want to explore the human condition I'll watch a movie or read a book. Games are for fun.
 
64bitmodels said:
ok what name is better than this? video interactive movies? video interactive simulators? At the end of the day these require some form of engagement, via a 'game'. otherwise your 'game' could work better as a movie or TV series than a game. The engagement, the interactivity is the main strength of the medium to begin with.

besides, the stereotypes and connotations video games once held have all died out since the late 2010s, people now know video games as a form of art. it's a name that works.
Click to expand...
The term video games does hold alot of connotation. A game like fortnite and an experience like immortality couldn't be more different. i think interactive experience is a fine term for some of them. I'm playing Pentiment now this. I would put under an interactive experience over a "game".
 
No, that's like saying "Does all food need to be sweet?" Candy should be sweet, but there are other foods.

Games need to make you feel something you want to feel, but that doesn't have to be "fun" necessarily. Horror games are arguably not "fun" in the normal sense of the word. Games like Florence or Gone Home can make you feel some kind of empathy but aren't necessarily "fun." Spec Ops The Line was famously miserable but that was in service of the narrative and the game was great.

Obviously most games want to be fun and if they fail at that they're not good. But there are definitely games that are trying to communicate other feelings and do so effectively.
 
Last edited:
They should be "Compelling." That can mean "fun", but it can also mean "thoughtful" or "interesting" or even just simply "entertaining."
 
My answer to this used to be no, but I was made aware that "fun" could be a bunch of things. I originally didn't consider most survival horror games "fun" experiences since fun isn't really what I'm trying to get out of it, but it's my favorite genre for a reason. If the feeling of fear/stress/isolation I get from these kinds of games is what I enjoy, maybe that's "fun" for me. "Fun" doesn't necessarily have to be Sunset Overdrive or Just Cause 3 (both of which bore me after 10 min).

So yeah, I guess. All games have to be fun to someone. Getting a certain type of experience you cant get from another game is fun.
 
The medium was born for fun. Video games at their core were timekillers. That's why all the "plot" a game needed was "girl gets kidnapped by gorilla, go save her!" - which is somehow unacceptable and even "toxic" nowadays.

A game that isn't fun in a matter of minutes will get turned down by me very easily. Pretentious, overproduced stuff that takes itself way too seriously like A Plague Tale is definitely not the direction I'd have taken games. Even a lot of games that are ultimately fun are weighed down by way too much crap - Persona 5 takes ages to even get properly started.

Looking back, it's ironic to me how Kojima, who is one of the people more responsible for the heavy shift of games towards cinema, struck a very good balance with MGS1 (MGS2 was the tipping point - there is no world where fighting multiple Metal Gear Rexes or listening to hours upon hours of codec conversation can be considered fun in any measure).

This is why I don't care about the best production values if the game isn't fun.
 
I don't care so much about the themes and tone of the game. If they are well done, I can enjoy fun themes, serious themes or outright dramas.

The thing is, what's 100% sure is that the game has to be fun to play. I don't care if a game has the best story ever or the best graphics of history; if it isn't fun to play, I'll pass on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Games that lock fun behind bloated intros need to stop
Opinion Cringe  2
77
149
Deerock71 replied
Wait, why do I need my original switch to redownload my digital games?
43
892
Luipadre replied
Dark souls 1 lovers… how soon do you do… what you need to do? Example:
2
59
452
CrimsonTide replied
Are Games Actually Fun Anymore?
2 3 4
167
9K
Roufianos replied
Full screen menus need to die in multiplayer games.
1
89
Loomy replied
Top Bottom