next »

[ChrisFranklin]

I don't know if fun is a particularly good or bad word either way - it's undeniably subjective and unhelpful unless you're speaking only for yourself or very abstractly.  But at the same time it's a word that does encompass that specific sensation of enjoyment in ways no other word does - "Happy" or "enjoyable" don't suffice.  In general, I'm agnostic to the word itself.  If you can come up with a more specific or colorful way to describe why you do or do not enjoy a game, use it.  If it's the only word that fits, it's the only word that fits.

The real problem is that fun, however you define it, is seen by just about everyone (including wide swaths of developers) as the de facto reason for games to exist.  I.E., a game can be poignant or moving or culturally relevant or politically and emotionally charged - but if it isn't fun then it has failed as a game.  The notion is just as absurd as saying that pictures need to be pretty or songs need to be catchy.  You can't boil an entire medium down to a single concept and judge all works based on it before any other consideration.  If there's one reason to remove "fun" from the designer's lexicon, it's that it is incredibly limiting when viewed as The One True Goal.  Not every mechanic and design choice should have the "But is it fun?!" litmus test applied.

I'd go so far as to say games will fail as a medium until this preconception is dropped, since it precludes us from exploring a ton of interesting design and thematic elements and relegates us to the realm of nothing more than various flavors of escapist entertainment.

[Gnarf]

Replace "Chrono Trigger" by any other game widely debated as the "best game of all time". You can replace "ET" with any game in contention for worst ever, too.

I didn't like Chrono Trigger either. But I can guarantee you that it's about a cubic mega-ton better than ET.

How about Out of this World? Do you think that it's better than ET? I'm pretty sure everybody else does too.

If you narrow your selection down to games that nearly everyone agree are good/bad, then you're not making much of a point by noting that a lot of people agree that they are good/bad.

I haven't played ET and I've hardly played Out of this World. However I think that Space Giraffe is a much better game than Chrono Trigger, a lot more fun. Many people disagree with me. That's pretty simple.

[Valter]

I don't know if fun is a particularly good or bad word either way - it's undeniably subjective and unhelpful unless you're speaking only for yourself or very abstractly.  But at the same time it's a word that does encompass that specific sensation of enjoyment in ways no other word does - "Happy" or "enjoyable" don't suffice.  In general, I'm agnostic to the word itself.  If you can come up with a more specific or colorful way to describe why you do or do not enjoy a game, use it.  If it's the only word that fits, it's the only word that fits.

The real problem is that fun, however you define it, is seen by just about everyone (including wide swaths of developers) as the de facto reason for games to exist.  I.E., a game can be poignant or moving or culturally relevant or politically and emotionally charged - but if it isn't fun then it has failed as a game.  The notion is just as absurd as saying that pictures need to be pretty or songs need to be catchy.  You can't boil an entire medium down to a single concept and judge all works based on it before any other consideration.  If there's one reason to remove "fun" from the designer's lexicon, it's that it is incredibly limiting when viewed as The One True Goal.  Not every mechanic and design choice should have the "But is it fun?!" litmus test applied.

I'd go so far as to say games will fail as a medium until this preconception is dropped, since it precludes us from exploring a ton of interesting design and thematic elements and relegates us to the realm of nothing more than various flavors of escapist entertainment.

You limit yourself by believing that fun is the only part of a game. You would equally limit yourself by deciding that games can be made without any elements of fun. I consider games to be two parts, fun and meaning. Games should be entertaining enough for the player to consider continuing with it, and they should have enough meaning to provide a reward that the player can actually take away from the game after playing.

There are lots of fun games that are totally pointless, and when you finish you are impressed with the game, but you have little reason to ever play it again. Yet the other extreme is just as bad, in my opinion. It's been seen in other mediums of art, like abstract paintings and Romanticism in literature (re: The Scarlet Letter). They have all sorts of hidden meaning, but they have no aesthetic pleasure to them. I consider such things to be worthless. A good painting can provide both beauty and symbolism, and a good book can provide both intensity and morality. Gaming should be no different.

Gnarf: Some games are good. Some games are bad. Thusly, your argument is false. Some things are more fun than others.

[ChrisFranklin]

You limit yourself by believing that fun is the only part of a game. You would equally limit yourself by deciding that games can be made without any elements of fun. I consider games to be two parts, fun and meaning. Games should be entertaining enough for the player to consider continuing with it, and they should have enough meaning to provide a reward that the player can actually take away from the game after playing.

There are lots of fun games that are totally pointless, and when you finish you are impressed with the game, but you have little reason to ever play it again. Yet the other extreme is just as bad, in my opinion. It's been seen in other mediums of art, like abstract paintings and Romanticism in literature (re: The Scarlet Letter). They have all sorts of hidden meaning, but they have no aesthetic pleasure to them. I consider such things to be worthless. A good painting can provide both beauty and symbolism, and a good book can provide both intensity and morality. Gaming should be no different.

What's wrong with saying that games can be made without any intrinsically or traditionally "fun" elements?  It's expanding rather than limiting to say that the medium can support games made with balls-to-the-wall action and kickass graphics as well as somber, serious, or even uncomfortable games.

To say that a game lacks fun is not to say they're not engaging on other levels, and I'm not promoting some Bogostian universe where being outright boring is a legitimate aesthetic (that's a debate for a different day).  A game that puts players in the uncomfortable position of a loveless marriage while trying to hide a passionate affair probably shouldn't be "fun" in a traditional sense, but it certainly could hold player's interests.  A game where the player is in a concentration camp during the Holocaust shouldn't be fun, but could be full of tension and drama.  While there's nothing wrong with them, there's more to the medium than shootin' dudes, racing cars, and earning points.

[Valter]

What's wrong with saying that games can be made without any intrinsically or traditionally "fun" elements?  It's expanding rather than limiting to say that the medium can support games made with balls-to-the-wall action and kickass graphics as well as somber, serious, or even uncomfortable games.

To say that a game lacks fun is not to say they're not engaging on other levels, and I'm not promoting some Bogostian universe where being outright boring is a legitimate aesthetic (that's a debate for a different day).  A game that puts players in the uncomfortable position of a loveless marriage while trying to hide a passionate affair probably shouldn't be "fun" in a traditional sense, but it certainly could hold player's interests.  A game where the player is in a concentration camp during the Holocaust shouldn't be fun, but could be full of tension and drama.  While there's nothing wrong with them, there's more to the medium than shootin' dudes, racing cars, and earning points.

You're using some bizarre definition of "fun", where it can only be applied to frenetic action. Why is that? Fun can refer to aesthetics like graphics and music. Fun can refer to tension and drama. "Fun", "Engaging", "Exciting", "Tense", "Dramatic", they all mean the same thing. Fun doesn't just mean shootin' dudes.

[agj]

So I favor figuring out whether a game is fun or not, through playtesting. If you let 20 people try out the game and 19 find it fun, yay. If none of them do, you have a problem. If only three of the those 20 do, you probably have a problem but it could also work as a very niche game.

I bet that your playtesters are mostly male and mostly in the 17 to 30 year range, users of computers and other technological devices, videogame players, and from the US. If this is true, then it is not hard at all to find things that most of them will find fun, as they share the same kinds of interests. I'm just pointing out here that tastes vary a lot more than you seem to realize. Also, catering to mass appeal only leads to increasingly similar games.

Fun can refer to aesthetics like graphics and music. Fun can refer to tension and drama. "Fun", "Engaging", "Exciting", "Tense", "Dramatic", they all mean the same thing. Fun doesn't just mean shootin' dudes.

You just stumbled upon the reason I made this thread!

[Valter]

I bet that your playtesters are mostly male and mostly in the 17 to 30 year range, users of computers and other technological devices, videogame players, and from the US. If this is true, then it is not hard at all to find things that most of them will find fun, as they share the same kinds of interests. I'm just pointing out here that tastes vary a lot more than you seem to realize. Also, catering to mass appeal only leads to increasingly similar games.

I bet 90% of all gamers fit into that category.

Fun can refer to aesthetics like graphics and music. Fun can refer to tension and drama. "Fun", "Engaging", "Exciting", "Tense", "Dramatic", they all mean the same thing. Fun doesn't just mean shootin' dudes.

You just stumbled upon the reason I made this thread!

All those words I used are equally vague as "Fun". Just as you said that fun doesn't describe why a game is good, none of those other words describe why a game should be labeled thusly. You would really rather just get rid of "fun" in favor of people just hitting the thesaurus for equally vapid terms?

[Gnarf]

You limit yourself by believing that fun is the only part of a game. You would equally limit yourself by deciding that games can be made without any elements of fun.

No. That games must have "elements of fun" is a limitation. Deciding that games can be made without any elements of fun is just getting rid of that limitation. Without the limitation you allow for games that are fun and games that are not fun, while with the limitation you allow for only one of those two categories. That's how limitations work. It might be a good limitation to have or whatever, but calling the lack of a limitation a limitation is ridiculous.

Gnarf: Some games are good. Some games are bad. Thusly, your argument is false. Some things are more fun than others.

What I was responding to was: "You're still going on about how everybody has totally different opinions, and someone's going to like something even if you don't. But that's not even a little bit true."

I've given examples of things someone's liking even though I don't and things I like even though others don't. That contradicts what you said. What you seem to say now is that my argument is false because it doesn't fit the conclusion you've jumped to.

[Paul Eres]

So I favor figuring out whether a game is fun or not, through playtesting. If you let 20 people try out the game and 19 find it fun, yay. If none of them do, you have a problem. If only three of the those 20 do, you probably have a problem but it could also work as a very niche game.

I bet that your playtesters are mostly male and mostly in the 17 to 30 year range, users of computers and other technological devices, videogame players, and from the US. If this is true, then it is not hard at all to find things that most of them will find fun, as they share the same kinds of interests. I'm just pointing out here that tastes vary a lot more than you seem to realize. Also, catering to mass appeal only leads to increasingly similar games.

You'd lose that bet -- see my playtesting tutorial thread for why I specifically think it's a bad idea to limit yourself to one particular group like that. Besides, I hate most 17-30 year old males and if there's anybody I wouldn't want playing my games it's that group (even though I'm in that group myself, barely, being a 30 year old male).

And trying to make a game fun for people is not catering to a mass appeal. The only alternative is not to use others to determine what parts of your game are fun or not, which leads to some pretty horrible games in practice.

It's also kind of contradictory to say that it's a bad idea to limit yourself to only a particular type of playtester and to simultaneously say that it's a bad idea to try to make your game fun for "the average man" or whatever. I mean, which is it, what are you saying -- is it bad to appeal to the average (in which case using a select group that isn't representative of the average would be okay), or is it bad to use a select group because it wouldn't be representative of that average?

[agj]

I bet that your playtesters are mostly in [group]

You'd lose that bet

Then I congratulate you, that's a very good thing.

And trying to make a game fun for people is not catering to a mass appeal. The only alternative is not to use others to determine what parts of your game are fun or not, which leads to some pretty horrible games in practice.

Nope, another alternative is to choose a subset of the total population: a target demographic.

It's also kind of contradictory to say that it's a bad idea to limit yourself to only a particular type of playtester and to simultaneously say that it's a bad idea to try to make your game fun for "the average man" or whatever.

Nah, it was just two different points. First I said that your group was potentially very slim, thus that 'fun' was more diverse than you believed. Then I said that trying to make a game that pleases everyone tends to homogenize games. See point above about target demographics.

[Paul Eres]

I don't think it necessarily tends to homogenize games actually. I think that homogenization is more a symptom of marketing and copying last year's successes than it is a symptom of actually figuring out what people are find fun. I think we get sequel-itis more because of marketing, not because of playtesting.

Anyway, I'm not against catering a game to a specific subset either. That can be valid too. Strategy games tend to be geared toward smarter, more cognitive folk. Text adventure games tend to be targeted toward people who are more well-read than average. And that's fine. But I do think that, below that, there are basic things that anybody finds fun. Things like Tetris: most people find it fun, it doesn't matter what age bracket or other category they're in, most people who try it out enjoy Tetris. I'm not saying you have to target those broad things more than the niche things, just that you can and it's fine to do so, and it doesn't amount to catering the game for mediocrity. Just because something can be enjoyed by most everyone doesn't mean it's bad.

[Paul Eres]

Another thing is this: and this is important: not enjoying a game does not necessarily mean that that person could not enjoy that game. Often things get in the way of a person having fun with a game, through no fault of the game's own and through no fault of that person. A good example is how some FPS games make some people (such as myself to an extent) dizzy/nauseous. They'd likely enjoy that genre if they could play it without that effect.

So I don't think it's how fun works that varies between people, it's other factors, some of which get in the way of fun. It's not a matter of fun being subjective, it's a matter of fun being contextual, which isn't the same thing.

[Gnarf]

It's not a matter of fun being subjective, it's a matter of fun being contextual, which isn't the same thing.

I think the idea is that the player is the subject (of the experience of playing the game). So if what player it is is what makes a difference in how fun it is, then yes, that is subjective. For example, dizziness in an FPS game is subjective. I suppose you can say that the player is part of the context and call it contextual (as well or instead), but so what?

[Marmaduke Slam]

Gnarf: Some games are good. Some games are bad. Thusly, your argument is false. Some things are more fun than others.

Some games are seen as good by the majority, some games are seen as bad by the majority. Even though I am one for fun being subjective I don't disagree that many people share the same traits, leading to commonly accepted definitions of 'good' and 'bad', etc. I don't doubt that I would disagree with you that ET is a bad game, it is just that I think it stupid to seriously say that nobody will ever enjoy the game. The point I was trying to make is that the quality of the product is not in the product itself but in the perception of the product by the person, hence there being no universal "good/bad" scale. This is pretty irrelevant now though, so I'm not going to say any more after this.

A fancy spoon could make food taste better, sure -- there's a lot of psychology that goes on there. When I eat with a silver spoon I especially enjoy the meal. I definitely don't think the game is like the food, because I can have fun without games, but I can't eat without food.

While I don't disagree with you, I think of games more as food because there are types of food that the majority of people like (fruit, say), and there are foods that some people enjoy and others don't (chilli, for example), and there is food that a very small amount of people enjoy (haggis, for example's sake). The spoon is like the interface between the game and the player, the game can be enhanced or detracted from by how I can interact with it. I may really enjoy soup, but I'm not going to enjoy it as much if I have to eat it with chopsticks.

That is, if all you can do is eat the food and nobody takes it away from you.

[Valter]

You limit yourself by believing that fun is the only part of a game. You would equally limit yourself by deciding that games can be made without any elements of fun.

No. That games must have "elements of fun" is a limitation. Deciding that games can be made without any elements of fun is just getting rid of that limitation. Without the limitation you allow for games that are fun and games that are not fun, while with the limitation you allow for only one of those two categories. That's how limitations work. It might be a good limitation to have or whatever, but calling the lack of a limitation a limitation is ridiculous.

I suppose this is still a problem of subjectivism. You think you could enjoy a game with no elements of fun, and I don't. My greatest trouble with this is that "fun" to me seems just as necessary as visuals in a TV show. It's one of the components, and without it, I don't think any video game could last very long.

And the biggest problem, to me, is that you're trying to say that a game with a moral objective could be more enjoyable than the same game only more exciting.  How about a game in which you kill children to grow more powerful? Do you think that that technique by itself would be enjoyable or memorable? Bioshock used that mechanic, but it also laced in creepy visuals, complex gameplay, a gripping story, and eerie music. Nothing, by itself, can accomplish much.

Besides, wouldn't it be more effective to include fun in moral video games? If a person were to play a boring video game about killing children, he would finish up and say "Well, of course I wouldn't do that!" But if he were to play Bioshock, and actually take enjoyment out of seeking out and killing children, he would be more likely to think about what he had done later on. Adding fun to a gruesome encounter would give more reason for people to think about why they would enjoy ripping apart an innocent.

That's why I think that morality and enjoyment should go hand-in-hand. They compliment each other, and make each part more effective.