next »

[Strong]

The fact is, no matter how morality-focused or story-driven they can be, video games are still games. Being fun is pretty much in the definition.

If it is in the definition then it is not a game if it is not fun. I'd be surprised if that is what you mean (i.e. if you don't think there are any games in existence that are not fun). I'd say being fun or enjoyable or some such tends to be part of their purpose though.

Yeah, I do mean that a video game that isn't fun isn't a video game. It is something, but the fact is it it isn't fun- if it doesn't have any elements of fun or try to be fun in the first place- than it isn't a game, because games in general are fun, video or not.

[Gnarf]

It helps sell more.

Sure. I can see that there's a relation between broad appeal and sales. It's just that I haven't said anything about what makes games sell more, what makes them good, or any effects of having broad appeal. If sales is what he's getting at, I've no idea what that has got to do with the text he quoted before saying that. I'm not sure if it's supposed to contradict what I said or if it is some kind of neat additional information about broad appeal or whatever.

Yeah, I do mean that a video game that isn't fun isn't a video game.

Um... okay. That sounds like it has some interesting consequences. I find some videogames to be fun or not fun depending on my mood, how much I've played them, etc.

[Biggerfish]

Too be honest I don't think people should go about saying what they think a game should or should not have. Everyone has their own opinions on the subject and who has the right to say what a game should or should not have? I can easily come and say that games should use no less than 3 buttons for input and I don't see any difference in that than saying that games should be "fun".

I see the definition of games to be like the definition of music. It varies from person to person and from culture to culture, there are certainly things some people call music that others don't bat an eyelid as dismissing as rubbish and there is no standard definition for it. Same with games, everyone has a general idea as to what they are, but we are lost on specifics.

The fact is, no matter how morality-focused or story-driven they can be, video games are still games. Being fun is pretty much in the definition.

If it is in the definition then it is not a game if it is not fun. I'd be surprised if that is what you mean (i.e. if you don't think there are any games in existence that are not fun). I'd say being fun or enjoyable or some such tends to be part of their purpose though.

Yeah, I do mean that a video game that isn't fun isn't a video game. It is something, but the fact is it it isn't fun- if it doesn't have any elements of fun or try to be fun in the first place- than it isn't a game, because games in general are fun, video or not.

I don't find Mega Man fun, is it still a video game?

(Though, for what it's worth, you're making something that appeals to just a certain collective of people by making a game.)

Uh, there's a reason Wii Sports is now the #1 selling video game ever now. Nintendo realized that they could appeal to more than just the 20% of people on earth who play video games. And their broader appeal worked, and now there's a Wii in every fucking home anywhere. See how broader appeal helps?

Helps them sell. Just because you are able to appeal to a wider audience, there is nothing that says you should. People make games for different reasons and I don't think you should tell them what they should aim for when making a game. I might want to make a game that hardcore shmup players find fun, why should I try to broaden my appeal if I have a specific market in mind?

[OmniMuffin]

I think fun means something that is enjoyable and something you will remember

[Strong]

You don't have to find it enjoyable personally, but it has to try to be enjoyable. Some aspect of the game has to be fun to some people.

[OmniMuffin]

You don't have to find it enjoyable personally, but it has to try to be enjoyable. Some aspect of the game has to be fun to some people.

Exactly!

[Lucaz]

You don't have to find it enjoyable personally, but it has to try to be enjoyable. Some aspect of the game has to be fun to some people.

Are you saying games have to be enjoyable, or fun? 'Cause those aren't the same thing. Lots of games are enjoyable but not fun. I can enjoy Master of Orion or Civilization, but I don't think anyone will say they have fun with them. I mean enjoying something is like "That was good, I liked it", and fun is like "Haha, that was fun!".

[Biggerfish]

You don't have to find it enjoyable personally, but it has to try to be enjoyable. Some aspect of the game has to be fun to some people.

What gives you the right to say what games should and should not have?

[Strong]

You don't have to find it enjoyable personally, but it has to try to be enjoyable. Some aspect of the game has to be fun to some people.

What gives you the right to say what games should and should not have?

The dictionary, under the definition of the word "game".

Don't misinterpret any of this as saying that I think certain games have more merits than others, because I don't. I just use the more literal translation of the word "game".

[Gnarf]

The dictionary, under the definition of the word "game".

Which definition? "Game" has several meanings.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/game

When we're talking about videogames, I'd say the most fitting one is:

[2.]a. A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules: the game of basketball; the game of gin rummy.

[Biggerfish]

You don't have to find it enjoyable personally, but it has to try to be enjoyable. Some aspect of the game has to be fun to some people.

What gives you the right to say what games should and should not have?

The dictionary, under the definition of the word "game".

Don't misinterpret any of this as saying that I think certain games have more merits than others, because I don't. I just use the more literal translation of the word "game".

My apologies then.  (Also for sounding rude)

But I don't agree with the idea that it has to fun for it to be a video game. If the only thing that differs between it and a "regular" game is the intention of the developer(s) (they don't aim to make it fun), then what is it?

When we're talking about videogames, I'd say the most fitting one is:

[2.]a. A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules: the game of basketball; the game of gin rummy.

I don't think that really fits at all. There are many single player games and games that aren't played to be competitive, but moreso played for enjoyment (RPG's, say, aren't competitive).

[Gnarf]

In the last single player RPG I played, bunch of goblins tried to kill my party, but I totally wouldn't let them so I tried to kill them first. You could say we were competing against each other. In the last multiplayer RPG I played, we got to enter little arenas and compete against other players.

You still tend to play to win, no matter if your competition is human or not. And the games where you don't are often called non-games or toys or something.

[Jad]

Thus, you somehow need to change the definition so that the challenge and competition does not explicitely involve other players O:

I found this definition on the same page:

"6.  Informal
a. An active interest or pursuit, especially one involving competitive engagement or adherence to rules.

Oh well, I'm wrong, it seems. This seems to be the informal variant where you call non-games 'the game', etc.

Then if you are to follow the topmost definition on the page: "1.  An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.", then they supposedly have to be entertaining/amusing

[Lucaz]

Considering game isn't a technical word, using a dictionary definition to decide what is a game and what isn't is quite unadequate and limiting.

[Jad]

Surely you lie! Language is not created by humans, it is created by dictionaries! (jadspam stops here. sorry)

[LaserBeing]

I just lost The Game.

[Gnarf]

Thus, you somehow need to change the definition so that the challenge and competition does not explicitely involve other players O:

Or consider the computer/game to be the other player(s). Or whatever.

I didn't really mean to say that it's the ultimate definition of "game" that sorts everything out. Just that that out of the ones on that particular site, that is the one that gets at the meaning of "game" in "videogame". That videogames are called games for the same reason that soccer and chess are called games, and not for the same reason that "a game of pretending" is called a game or for the same reason that some rabbit or something is called game.

[Anthony Flack]

I thought we were in the business of making interactive computer entertainment?

[Gnarf]

And a subset of that "we" are in the business of making computer games?

[Shambrook]

I just lost The Game.

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU


I just lost the game....

Personly I don't think this conversation is meta enough, I think we should really examine the merits of changing the spelling of fun to a less phoneticly correct phun could be used to differentiate diffrent kinds of fun or phun experienced while playing a video game.