Do games need to be fun to be good?

[Verhoven 69]

@OP

But of course!

[Noobc0re]

I would say yes on a couple different concepts. It needs to be fun for it's player base. I saw someone mention dark souls. The Dark Souls player base actively enjoys dark souls BECAUSE it's so difficult. I don't think there's a game that is going to certified as good that ISN'T fun for who it's marketed towards.

Outside of that, there's the obvious and objective notions that are just requirements. The graphics and mechanics need to be appropriate and up to snuff for the game. And in some games, like racing games, Dirt Rally, F1, etc, the mechanics are almost the most important to making the game good. The cars need to drive appropriately, the physics need to feel right.

So I think there's objective components that can be called good, but they all have to be balanced correctly to make the game fun to it's target audience.

Main point, yes, it needs to be fun, BUT it's also subjective to the target audience. If it's not fun to you, it might be fun to someone else. I don't particularly enjoy Dark Souls, but I don't like games that are hard for the sake of being hard. They're not fun to me, but they're fun to a lot of other people, so I'd say it's a good franchise. Also, I don't want to sound overly passive on this. When a game's bad, you should know it's bad. Whether it's your type of game or not. When something's just bad, you know it. But If something is GOOD is a bit more dependent on the targeted consumer.

Those are still not objective though. You can't have things that are objectively good. You can have things that are objectively there, but they can only ever be subjectively good.

[ThyToaster]

I would say yes on a couple different concepts. It needs to be fun for it's player base. I saw someone mention dark souls. The Dark Souls player base actively enjoys dark souls BECAUSE it's so difficult. I don't think there's a game that is going to certified as good that ISN'T fun for who it's marketed towards.

Outside of that, there's the obvious and objective notions that are just requirements. The graphics and mechanics need to be appropriate and up to snuff for the game. And in some games, like racing games, Dirt Rally, F1, etc, the mechanics are almost the most important to making the game good. The cars need to drive appropriately, the physics need to feel right.

So I think there's objective components that can be called good, but they all have to be balanced correctly to make the game fun to it's target audience.

Main point, yes, it needs to be fun, BUT it's also subjective to the target audience. If it's not fun to you, it might be fun to someone else. I don't particularly enjoy Dark Souls, but I don't like games that are hard for the sake of being hard. They're not fun to me, but they're fun to a lot of other people, so I'd say it's a good franchise. Also, I don't want to sound overly passive on this. When a game's bad, you should know it's bad. Whether it's your type of game or not. When something's just bad, you know it. But If something is GOOD is a bit more dependent on the targeted consumer.

[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?)

[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/

[Saskia]

Thumbs up for mentioning X4: Foundations. Long time fan of the X series!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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....

[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.

[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.

[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.