Do games need to be fun to be good?

[Nella_Bolt]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Screamin Soul]

Depends, do you count Dark Souls as fun?

I fucking hate that game but its such a good game.

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.

[SigSal]

Well I guess the definition of fun depends on my mood. Grind some resources. Play some end game OP content. Build something random (physics or no physics) Slaughter low level NPCs (or players ). For me though generally a game doesn't have to be considered 'fun' for it to be a good game. Interesting story, solid gameplay mechanics or even artful style; I'm sure I have some internal flowchart that I subconsciously reference when determining whether or not a game is good.

[MrNiceGaius]

I'm seeing quite a bit of mentioning that it's subjective. Of course it is. A lot of things are.You can't really talk about games in purely objective terms, it becomes a performance report at that point.

The point of the question is about your definition of fun and whether you need the game to be fun in order to think it's a good game?

I think it'd pointless for anybody to put time into video games they don't find fun. The whole point of games is for them to be a hobby.

However, there are some games I've been able to step back and objectively say they are good games, even if I don't personally find them fun.

[SigSal]

LOL! Beat me to it. Although some people do find great enjoyment/fun from merciless grinding.

[Tuklofeign]

I think they need to be fun on some level in some way. At the very least they need to be engaging or immersive. But that in itself leads to some sort of fun.

[Noobc0re]

I'm seeing quite a bit of mentioning that it's subjective. Of course it is. A lot of things are.You can't really talk about games in purely objective terms, it becomes a performance report at that point.

The point of the question is about your definition of fun and whether you need the game to be fun in order to think it's a good game?

[UberDerp]

Define fun............



You hate it, but you love the good feeling it gives you when you beat it, eh?
That it is an achievement to have done so.....something that none of the "achievements" really give you.
I know, that's how I feel about them.

And I agree with Zenryu and PixelTheory that part of the fun can be your growth in skill you finally beating that tough enemy or mastering that major challenge.

Some of my most satisfying games to play have been iron tough, like say the Gothic Series, the Arma Series, Project IGI, Falcon 4.0 in it's various Guises, various racing sims like Asetto Corsa, rfactor, Raceroom Racing Experience, Project Cars or the Xseries.

Games that gift you nothing, games that do not hold your hand, games where one error at the last second, in the last corner can ruin your race/mission/game.
But also games where each achievement was your own, hard fought for and won, by your own skill, not gifted to you by the games's systems.

Precisely, I dont think a game has to be inherently fun, but the challenge and achievement is what makes a game good.

[isturbo1984]

Yes. It does. A game that is not fun is called a bad game.

[Wolf]

Define fun............

Depends, do you count Dark Souls as fun?

I fucking hate that game but its such a good game.

You hate it, but you love the good feeling it gives you when you beat it, eh?
That it is an achievement to have done so.....something that none of the "achievements" really give you.
I know, that's how I feel about them.

And I agree with Zenryu and PixelTheory that part of the fun can be your growth in skill you finally beating that tough enemy or mastering that major challenge.

Some of my most satisfying games to play have been iron tough, like say the Gothic Series, the Arma Series, Project IGI, Falcon 4.0 in it's various Guises, various racing sims like Asetto Corsa, rfactor, Raceroom Racing Experience, Project Cars or the Xseries.

Games that gift you nothing, games that do not hold your hand, games where one error at the last second, in the last corner can ruin your race/mission/game.
But also games where each achievement was your own, hard fought for and won, by your own skill, not gifted to you by the games's systems.

[Dub-Z]

Fun is subjective. If I'm enjoying it, it's fun to me.

Even to this day, I see stray comments saying that Souls games are masochistic and people just hate themselves playing "hard" games. No, it feels good. It feels satisfying. The stakes and tension are exciting and exhilarating. The sense of accomplishment and gradual mastery is euphoric. Some people just don't feel enraged or crushed when they lose, 'cause it's all part of the game. I must have lost against the guy who taught me to play chess 50 times before I finally beat him, but every match was super fun

Same for games that seem bleak, melancholy and studious. Some people love a rainy day. Some people find them depressing. I think games with "serious" themes and no moments of levity will be like this as well.

True as well for horror. It's too much stress and anxiety for some, not enough for others.

Obtuse, head scratching puzzles and dense game systems... stimulates one person, infuriates another.

[Zenryu]

I think the fun factor is definitely important, but shouldn't be the only factor either. I do want to feel frustrated in a game, which is generally not seen as fun. The best feeling imo is to feel the sense of accomplishment after getting through a difficult challenge, something that many games these days seem to try to avoid. On top of that, fun is very subjective. one person could be having the time of their life in a game while another person may hate every moment of it with a passion.