next »

[Seth]

the whole point of games is for people to have fun.

I really wish more game designers would demand that their games be interesting, not fun.  Fun is OK, but I don't understand why it should be the ultimate goal no matter what.  Is it because someone back in the day decided to call Pong a "video game"?  Why should we be restricted to the associations of this term?  If we have to abandon the word "game" so we can allow ourselves to make something that's not just for the fleeting pleasure of the player, I say we do it, though I think that's a rather silly way to go about things.

EDIT:  In other words I wish more game developers were more concerned with having meaningful relationship with a player instead of giving a really good hand job.

[Shambrook]

In other words I wish more game developers were more concerned with having meaningful relationship with a player instead of giving a really good hand job.

Sex is an important part of any good relationship.

See I have no problem with people attempting to make there game interesting or diffrent, but I don't see why it can't be fun at the same time.
If you can't convey the message you want in an enjoyable game, why make it a game instead of some other form of art?

[Seth]

See I have no problem with people attempting to make there game interesting or diffrent, but I don't see why it can't be fun at the same time.

Fun, I think, can be distracting.  There's a difference between something being enjoyable and being fun.  Actions movies generally are interesting because they are fun, and so are comedies.  But there are tons of movies that are interesting for other reasons than being fun, and I don't think they are any less valid for not being fun.  If we took the Godfather and injected it with a whole lot of fun, I think the main themes of the story would lose a lot of significance.

Survival Horror I think is a good example of a non-fun genre (at least, imo, when they're at their best).  Nerve wracking and intense, but not fun, and that's where they get their interest.  To make them super fun would detract from the overall experience.

[Lucaz]

Fun isn't the only thing the game can try create in the player, as well said Seth. There a whole spectre of emotions. Even boredome is an emotion that some books and movies try to create. There great games that are far from fun. Fl0w is one, and Knytt Stories wasn't exactly a party. Also, why a game has to be fun, why a book or movie can be as un-funny as they want?

A question. Do you mean fun, in the sense that you have a funny time and laugh, or in the sense of the game being an enjoyable experience, that doesn't bores you?

[Shambrook]

I would call a good survival horror game fun, if you enjoy being scared then you're going to have fun playing the game.

The cheif diffrence between say this and the godfather is that watching the godfather is a passive experience. When you are watching it the only thing you are focusing on is the plot and charecters etc. When you're playing a game, you're actully having to participate in it. At wich point that participation should be enjoyable.

I'm not saying it has to be fun in a bright colourfull flowers singing kind of way, but the gameplay of the game should be an enjoyable experience. The game should be able to stand on it's own with it's game play mechanisims and still be atleast a mildly enjoyable experience.

Take you're example of a survival horror game again. Look at say Silent Hill, the gameplay isn't perfect and it's deffintly been improved upon in later iterations, but at it's core it's still a solid third person shooter game with some cool puzzles. If the core gameplay, if running around as the main dude shooting monsters was repetitive, tiresome, frustrating etc then the game wouldn't work as well.
Look at Resident Evil, most people consider 4 to be the best in the series, because it finnaly nailed having gameplay that was actully fun as opposed to a great setting with horrible gameplay.

EDIT

A question. Do you mean fun, in the sense that you have a funny time and laugh, or in the sense of the game being an enjoyable experience, that doesn't bores you?

I mean that it should be enjoyable. Games deffintly don't need to be funny haha kind of thing, that'd be stupid.

[Hajo]

Fun?

- happiness
- enlightenment
- insight
- challenge
- relaxation
- stress, hard work?
- socialize
- compete
- build/construct/create
- destroy
- watch progress
- decisions, dilemmas, moral, ethics, strategy
- beautiful
- thrilling
- inspiring

... I think the term "fun" and the phrase "games should be fun" are too short sighted on what games can be. (Would give more words, but I'm out of time.)

And I think any kind of dogma is rather a jail for ideas than a source of inspiration. Think of what games can or could be first, and then pick what you want them to be, and make what you like best.

[muku]

There's a difference between something being enjoyable and being fun.  Actions movies generally are interesting because they are fun, and so are comedies.  But there are tons of movies that are interesting for other reasons than being fun, and I don't think they are any less valid for not being fun.

This is exactly what I wanted to write, so thanks for sparing me the time.

I think a lot of the disagreement here comes from a gap in terminology. Benza seems to use "fun" and "enjoying something" interchangeably, while many others differentiate. I personally believe that one should differentiate. I can watch a difficult movie like The Fountain, and I certainly don't have "fun" in the sense of a happy fun ride, but I enjoy it immensely in a deeper sense: the beautiful imagery appeals to my aesthetic instincts, the plot stirs up emotions inside me, and my mind is busy trying to figure out how the different layers of the narrative relate and deciphering the symbolism.

No game so far has done this to me in such a profound way. But I certainly hope that the day will come.

[increpare]

Games should be made for the player, not the designer.

What does this mean?  Do you mean that a designer should not be too bothered about whether she wants to play the game she is programming?  Should she work exclusively from marketing statistics?  I don't mind people working in this way if they choose to do so, but the idea that this is the best way to go about making a game is pretty preposterous to me.

Sex is an important part of any good relationship.

Oedipus anyone?

dangerously elitist

Who is being elitist here?  You are the one who wishes to dictate other people's creative output.  How is anyone else being elitist.

Benza seems to use "fun" and "enjoying something" interchangeably,

He only seems to do this insofar as it suits his argument.  He treats them interchangeably to brush away direct points, when chooses to respond to them at all, and then goes back to his assertion that games should be 'fun' and that he doesn't 'get' art games, completely ignoring, insofar as I can see, the logic of his own assertions.

[Thorst]

...games as entertainment has run its course, and its time for alternatives.

...something besides entertaining games. ...other directions in game development.

...something that's not just for the fleeting pleasure of the player

You know it's gonna be alright, alright, alright.

There have always been interactive experiences that go beyond entertainment.  For example, if mafia games are too fun for you, then you can always join the mafia.

[agj]

This thread got derailed. Why don't we get back on course? That's to say, for those who support the idea that games can also be something other than entertainment, and that restricting what's usually taken for granted helps creativity and focus: where do we stand on the 'vow of chastity'?