Do games need to be fun to be good?

[ryan_]

Maybe 'engaging' is a better term. As most people mentioned, fun is broad and subjective. Intellectual stimulation, reading, strategizing, planning, kinetic stimulation, introspection, dominating others, viewing aesthetically pleasing art, the list goes on for miles. All of these and many more are things that are varying levels of fun for different people.

I think it's really more of a question of: should video games be judged by one inflexible metric? And to that, I think the answer is no. I think the term 'games' is already too broad to be useful. What we consider games today, because of the system they're delivered through and the social groups that are drawn to them, are actually just a form of advancement of human communication which combines both media and activity into one holistic experience. Advancement from "Visual Media" to "Interactive Media" occurs on the same timeline as the advancement from "Oral Tradition" to "Written Word" to "Visual Media". What we call video games today are the first entry into this new media, but it is actually the gradual digitization of all activity and media: storytelling, journalism, sports, gambling, board games, etc, all of which have completely different audiences and rubrics for what makes them engaging.

So to me, do all 'games' need to be fun to be good is like... do all stories need to be fun? All sports? All gambling? All media and activity? Engaging on some level, I suppose. But it's such a dramatically broad concept. It's making me go down this mental rabbit hole of "is the purpose of life just to have fun?" I mean... probably not. But maybe, if you abstract it out super broadly?

[JackofTears]

Yes, but fun can come in many forms. Some people have fun playing games which challenge and frustrate them, other people have fun playing games with deep messages and unhappy endings, while others only have fun while always winning. The nature of the fun can vary and people experimenting with games may come to find new ways to have tun in the process. Before I tried Visual Novels, I didn't think they'd be fun; before I tried Tactical Stealth games, I didn't think I'd enjoy something like that. Fun is very hard to predict or define. Certainly, though, the game should be made with the intention of the players having fun and built with that end in mind.

[Aimi]

What is your take on the notion that a game needs to be fun to be good?

For me that holds true. I play games to have fun, so if it's not fun I don't think it's a good game. This can be applied to books, movies, anime, TV-series etc. However I know there are plenty of people who think otherwise.

Depends.

You could have a game where you take apart things and examine them to learn how they work and it could be a boring slog fest but really useful as a visual aid or for learning. Then you have games that might fall under art that might be boring but have amazing visualizes. Then you have adult games where the story could be absolute garage and the game play boring or poor but the adult content found within gives it value. Then you have concept games where they could be trash by themselves but show what something is capable up for example a lot of VR games. Then there's critical takes on video games that violate rules to demonstrate how video games are and work that could be boring but interesting.

Video games IMO are not only about fun, they are a massive medium of expression and although fun is a big part of it there are plenty of games that might lack fun or be boring that provide value to medium.

[Nella_Bolt]

I think what defines a good game is purely subjective, as is what fun someone derives from that game.

[Monkeyman04]

It's a game, games in nature have to have something that can keep you playing and being fun is probably the top reason to keep playing.

[Tuklofeign]

Dark souls is a miserable, horrible , brilliant and beautiful slog. I hated and loved every minute of it. I never felt like turning it on and then would find hours passed by.

Other than art style, I can't think of anything that truly made it good. But it was still fun. I wish they'd make a 4th.

Damn those mimics. lol First time I hit one of those it scared the crap out of me. We all probably know what they are but hitting that first one without expecting it...lol good times.

As for a 4th, if you have a PS4 try Bloodborne. I think you'll find it to your liking.

[True Sight]

Depends on the genre of game. Like an FPS that's not fun just sucks but an RPG that has shitty mechanics but a good story I would consider a good game.

[BrotherDust]

I guess Fun reminds me of Tatsebuds... everybody is into something different. Hard thing to put your finger on. Me and my daughter have a thing for really bad movies, we try to top one another with a new movie. we get more laughs from those then outright comedy genre....

[Xerachiel]

No, a game has to be entertaining.
Same as books, movies, etc.
A story can be not fun at all, like a drama for example, and still be worth. And that's because it entertains you

[Doomie]

As some have said, some games take a while before they get good. It took me nearly a year to slog through the beginning of Nuclear Throne, but once I knew what I was doing, and I learned all the bullshit traps (jk I'm still learning them the hard way) it becomes the single most fun and addictive game I've played in a long time.

[Smackems]

Imo a mediocre game can still be good if the story is really good. Once we dip below mediocre gameplay though not even a good story can save it.

[ryvrdrgn14]

A game doesn't have to be 100% fun. I don't think anything can be like that. Something is good only because there are bad things to compare it too. A game should leave you with a sense of fulfillment or satisfaction after you play it, regardless if there was some unfun elements in it. It's the proper amount of challenge and incentive and the ups and downs that make the point of completing the game or accomplishing something in a game enjoyable.

[TheQuarianGuy]

Depends on the game really.

The Term "Fun" will not be the same between two games such as "Journey" and "Monster Hunter World" since both offer different experiences.
The fun you will have from Journey will leave you relaxed but engaged probably while MHW will leave you satisfied and perhaps spent.
In the end yes games have to be fun but that fun can come from different ways and feelings.

[Cat]

....
So to me, do all 'games' need to be fun to be good is like... do all stories need to be fun? All sports? All gambling? All media and activity? Engaging on some level, I suppose. But it's such a dramatically broad concept. It's making me go down this mental rabbit hole of "is the purpose of life just to have fun?" I mean... probably not. But maybe, if you abstract it out super broadly?

I think you've gone to far here with defining games - i'll give you that "fun" is way to subjective though ; )

Take a look at the infamous example of the board game "Diplomacy" - it just seems awful and a long tiring experience... but there are indeed a few masochists out there

https://www.citylab.com/design/2013/...endships/4905/

[ryan_]

I think you've gone to far here with defining games - i'll give you that "fun" is way to subjective though ; )

Take a look at the infamous example of the board game "Diplomacy" - it just seems awful and a long tiring experience... but there are indeed a few masochists out there

https://www.citylab.com/design/2013/...endships/4905/

Did I, though? That's kind of my point, video games is too broad a term to be useful. I mean here are some things that are defined as video games today:

Playtika's Texas Hold'em Poker
Rockstar's LA Noire
Riot Games' League of Legends
SpectreVision's Transference
Lucas Pope's Papers Please
Pixelberry's Choices
Konashion's Super Deepthroat
Maxis's The Sims

Setting aside the term video games for a second, if you didn't know the history of non-digital movies, books, sports, etc, would you reasonably conclude these are all the same thing? Does Choices have more in common with League of Legends (both video games) or analog choose your own adventure novels? Does LA Noire have more in common with texas holdem poker or the film Chinatown? Does super deepthroat have more in common with Papers Please or Big Dicks Gangbang 5? Does The Sims have more in common with God of War or physical toy dollhouses?

These are all popular games with large audiences. They have little crossover appeal on their own merits. The audiences for all these things are wildly different and as time goes on they're more and more divided. None of these games can conceivably be judged by the same rubric beyond form based things, like aesthetic and construction quality, and these differences will only grow as time goes on as more things from the past get adapted to this format, and older formats lose relevance. The only things they have in common are that they're digitally produced, visually representative and interactive.

Games is not a permanent term. To make it work you either need to redefine what a game is to include practically any activity or media or start excluding wide swaths of things people already lovingly categorize as video games. Before games was settled on people were calling this medium digital entertainment. That's more accurate but still not very useful. Is Papers Please even really entertainment? At a certain point we have to recognize these are different things, especially as games achieve ubiquity over other forms, older formats add interactive components to maintain relevance and the lines blur even further (Netflix is working on a spat of choose your own adventure tv shows and movies for instance -- are those games? If they're not, then why are Choices or LA Noire?)