Do Games Need To Be Fun?

[ProfMorrison]

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/2610 ... Be_Fun.php

Must a game be fun?

That was the question posed by designer Randy Smith of Tiger Style Games (Spider: The Secret of Bryce Manor) in a talk given at the Montreal International Game Summit, Smith, whose credits also include the Thief series and System Shock 2, firmly stated his belief that it possible to make games that deal with dark topics in a heavy way, while presenting an experience that is engaging, if not "fun" in the traditional sense.

"My thought is they don't need to be fun; they need to be engaging," the designer said.

Despite that sentiment, Smith's talk was more concerned with reflection and consideration of the topic than hard rules about so-called "not fun" games. "There's a chance that one of the only things I'll be able to do with this presentation is to get people to consider this question again," he admitted.

Many games deal with topics that are ostensibly dark, but they almost invariably treat them in a relatively light, "fun" way -- similar to action adventure films like those of the Indiana Jones series. When Indiana Jones takes out a Nazi on a motorcycle, "it was really fun that he dies," Smith pointed out.

But a film that treated that same subject matter with a heavy style might then cut to a distraught German child weeping at the gravestone of his father, who was killed by a rogue American archaologist. Most games do not saddle the player down with the weight of violence's implications, even if they don't necessarily play it off as comic relief.

Some have light topics with light treatment (Mario et al.), or dark topics with light treatments (most violent games), and it's generally impractical to do a heavy treatment of light subject matter in any medium, but few games attempt a dark treatment of dark material.

So could a game present dark material, without shrouding it in a layer of fun, but while still presenting an engaging and meaningful experience? Smith offered the hypothetical game Hospital Director, whose goal is to deal with the difficult realities of running a hospital. It would necessarily deal with numerous fairly grim themes: underfunding, illness, poverty, death, and "insurance companies who refuse to pay for stuff, because it's in the United States."

Structually, the game might play out closer to a choose-your-own-adventure book than the more traditional tycoon-style gameplay implied by the synopsis. Discrete stories and situations would be presented to the player, who would then have to make choices -- each with potentially positive and negative ramifications -- that would affect both those discrete events as well as the ongoing ecosystem of the hospital.

Unlike a choose-your-own-adventure book, however, these discrete scenarios would be the result of an underlying series of systems that weigh numerous variables, including the player's own actions -- similar to the likes of Civilization. And these discrete events would run underneath the larger overarching heartbeat of the hospital, including regularly scheduled tasks like board meetings, at which big-picture policy would be determined.

Ideally, the systems underpinning such a game could generate plausibly honest and meaningful stories about the NPC patients and staff who inhabit the hospital that the player would get attached to and invested in their lives. The believability of NPCs remains a weak point in games, but Smith believes it will continue to improve over time.

"There need to be game systems describing this stuff that are at the core of where the experience comes from," Smith reiterated. That core is what he calls the possibility space: "The possibility space is really the beating heart of this entire question."

The creation of honest and believable stories out of that possibility space is what would give such a game its engaging nature, even if the sobering realities of such a scenario would disqualify it from being described as "fun."

After all, said Smith, humans have an innate desire to see stories resolve. "Things that are just about to happen are really difficult for us to watch and not know what happens," he said. "If you're about to see a glass roll off the table, you really want to see it fall off so you know if it will break or not. Devoid of any other context, you're drawn to see actions complete. A story, whether it's happy or sad, manages to do this, to be compelling."

"This is the reason we watch so much Lost," he added. "They're always claiming things are going to resolve some day."

Some games succeed with "not fun" mechanics. Eric Chahi's Another World (Out of This World) requires the player to engage in a complex, finicky series of actions to save his friend; they aren't inherently fun, but they reflect the desperation one would feel in such a scenario, and it's relieving to succeed.

Smith also Positech's Democracy 2, which deals with the relatively not-fun topics of policy formulation and the passage of legislation. It demonstrates, however, a key potential stumbling point for "not fun" games: exposing so many of the systems' workings to the player that those systems can be "gamed" in a way that breaks through the intent of the game. "As the player, there's tons of stuff you can play with and tweak," Smith explained. "If Hospital Player was like this, it would totally fail, because you'd have the player zipping around this depressing environment and winning because they figured it out."

Perhaps surprisingly, Smith revealed that he himself might not even fall into the target market for Hospital Director: "I don't even like depressing media very much," he said. "It kind of depressed me just to work on this presentation. But the stuff I do like doesn't shy away from not-fun stuff, and that seems the most honest to what real life is like."

Honesty is the key, Smith said. Great stories aren't afraid of dark or uncomfortable subject matter, even if the story is not relentlessly dismal. The ideal, at least for Smith, boils down to "games that have their fun monents, but at appropriate moments hop over to experiences that aren't fun."

"I think this is really hard, but I don't think it's impossible," he concluded. "My honest guess, after being a game designer for 12 years, is that you could do this and it would work."

[HammerAndSickle]

Would you take a drug that didn't dilude reality? Ugh, probably not. What makes games good is all the excitement and none of the consiquences. If I wanted to get shot, put on death row, or actually kill someone i would but games are fun because i can mow down an airport full of innocent people with no consiquence.

I'm sure there is a market for games that, "deal with the difficult realities of..." life but it is probably a small and fairly unprofitable market. this is the age of instant gratification, i just want to run around blowin the frack outta people not sit around for hours signing paychecks in a hospital because games shouldn't be a second job (WOW?).

Do games need to be fun? Though fun is relative, right now fun is action minus consequences, not watchin some old guy die of cancer.
Maybe when the Victorian Age makes a comeback, when men shout "My Word!" when a women flashes her heel, and we all live life to its most mediocre these games will have a home, but not here, not now.

[bkavitsky]

Would you take a drug that didn't dilude reality? Ugh, probably not.

Millions of people do that every day; and though it's fairly obvious you are referring to the use of illicit substances there are plenty of drugs that do nothing to delude the user into a state of altered reality. Various pharmaceuticals as well as nicotine and caffine to name a few.

What makes games good is all the excitement and none of the consiquences. If I wanted to get shot, put on death row, or actually kill someone i would but games are fun because i can mow down an airport full of innocent people with no consiquence.

Games are fun because they allow us a temporary escape or reprieve from the real world that manifest themselves as various stories, worlds, gameplay styles and mechanics. The idea is deeper than the simplistic view of "because I can't do it in real life". Plenty of people find the Postal series revolting rather then fun. Frankly I'm not sure how much fun is still to be had when so many games rely on the same formulas and only an iota of content to set it apart from the pack.

Morrison could be correct though; I could just be a cynical bastard.

I'm sure there is a market for games that, "deal with the difficult realities of..." life but it is probably a small and fairly unprofitable market. this is the age of instant gratification, i just want to run around blowin the frack outta people not sit around for hours signing paychecks in a hospital because games shouldn't be a second job (WOW?).

You make quite an assumption about people here, though it may not be far off you opinion of fun remains just that: Your opinion.

Do games need to be fun? Though fun is relative, right now fun is action minus consequences, not watchin some old guy die of cancer.
Maybe when the Victorian Age makes a comeback, when men shout "My Word!" when a women flashes her heel, and we all live life to its most mediocre these games will have a home, but not here, not now.

Fun is relative and therefore CANNOT be one but not the other; there are sadists out there that would enjoy watching an old man suffer his final breaths.



In conclusion: Games are always fun. Some like mindless repetitive killing. Some like mindless repetitive stat math. Some enjoy challenging puzzles; and some, games that throw in puzzles that look challenging only to have them essentially solved for you by the game telling you exactly how to complete them.

... and some like a game that gives you one life and no saves.

[ProfMorrison]

Brandon you truly are cynical, but make some quite valid points, I always thought the entire point of "Playing" something was to experience fun, nes pas'?

[bkavitsky]

Indeed the point of play is to have fun; and I certainly forgot to mention that the only way to discern what games are fun for the player is to try them. Regardless of how I may have felt about Halo, Halo 2 was different, as was 3. While I often deride many games at times for being so full of common tropes that the heroes and villains appear entirely interchangeable, I can sit down and enjoy every one of them.

To be honest, being cynical is fun for me. A friend of mine and I often co-op through games that support it and I'll constantly be pointing out this or that while he asks me if I'm done complaining. In this case it adds to the camaraderie of two drunken gamers trying to blaze through a game in a single night on the hardest available difficulty.

I couldn't count how many times I pulled him out of the squat in GoW or Ao2, or one of us got distracted, got utterly separated and forced us to restart from the same checkpoint for the twelfth time. From this I've always found that an inherent part of "fun", is where the game or activity challenges the player just enough to breed that ever so rare "good frustration".

That's the kind of frustration that drives you to beat the game because you keep getting closer, because you refuse to be beaten by the game. This is why I believe games are always fun; even when we are beaten and abused by the developers we are all just slightly masochistic. We all enjoy challenging our minds and our reflexes all while saving the world and or killing a mall full of innocent civilians.
In order for a game to not be fun it would have to be missing many of the elements that would define it as a game.





Verbose enough for you?

[HammerAndSickle]

Millions of people do that every day; and though it's fairly obvious you are referring to the use of illicit substances there are plenty of drugs that do nothing to delude the user into a state of altered reality. Various pharmaceuticals as well as nicotine and caffine to name a few.

Even though the effect are less severe caffine and nicotice do dilude reality since you feel bad and when you take them you feel slightly better. Just because innatimate objects aren't suddleny breaking into song and you can't see the solor of sound doesn't mean reality is being altered it just means it is very weak.

What makes games good is all the excitement and none of the consiquences. If I wanted to get shot, put on death row, or actually kill someone i would but games are fun because i can mow down an airport full of innocent people with no consiquence.

Games are fun because they allow us a temporary escape or reprieve from the real world that manifest themselves as various stories, worlds, gameplay styles and mechanics. The idea is deeper than the simplistic view of "because I can't do it in real life". Plenty of people find the Postal series revolting rather then fun. Frankly I'm not sure how much fun is still to be had when so many games rely on the same formulas and only an iota of content to set it apart from the pack.

Ummm... yeh i did say none of the consequences which means reprive... Though i did forget the story aspect, even though i could say that a consequence of life is there is no good story or dragons to slay.

I'm sure there is a market for games that, "deal with the difficult realities of..." life but it is probably a small and fairly unprofitable market. this is the age of instant gratification, i just want to run around blowin the frack outta people not sit around for hours signing paychecks in a hospital because games shouldn't be a second job (WOW?).

You make quite an assumption about people here, though it may not be far off you opinion of fun remains just that: Your opinion.

I make my "assumptions" about humans because they aren't complicated, and i am also basing my theories off of what sells and what doesn't and since we aren't making games just for ourselves or the minority, we make them ideally for the majority to sell the most and since the majority are gun toting madden loving instant gratification...ists my "opinion" happens to be the right one.

Do games need to be fun? Though fun is relative, right now fun is action minus consequences, not watchin some old guy die of cancer.
Maybe when the Victorian Age makes a comeback, when men shout "My Word!" when a women flashes her heel, and we all live life to its most mediocre these games will have a home, but not here, not now.

Fun is relative and therefore CANNOT be one but not the other; there are sadists out there that would enjoy watching an old man suffer his final breaths.

Again, catering to the few sadists wouldn't be very profitable, and in the business fun IS WHAT TO MAJORITY OF CONSUMERS DEFINE IT AS (see i can use caps too).
And i said right now, to imply the majority of people buy games like the COD's and Halo's because i am not really here to argue the fundamental and philisophical meanings of fun, i am here dicussing the market and business definition of the word which is what i have already stated.

In conclusion, "Do games need to be fun?" Yes if you want to sell any. What is fun? Whatever the profitable enouogh group of consumers define it as.

[bkavitsky]

Even though the effect are less severe caffine and nicotice do dilude reality since you feel bad and when you take them you feel slightly better. Just because innatimate objects aren't suddleny breaking into song and you can't see the solor of sound doesn't mean reality is being altered it just means it is very weak.

Delude: meaning to trick, or to fool or to mislead the mind or judgment of.
Caffeine and Nicotine do neither of these. They don't trick a person into thinking they feel better or have more energy, they create a chemical reaction and physically affect the body and thus are real. Antibiotics are a drug, they don't trick you into feeling better. Perhaps you are simply using delude improperly or don't understand what the word entails.

Ummm... yeh i did say none of the consequences which means reprive... Though i did forget the story aspect, even though i could say that a consequence of life is there is no good story or dragons to slay.

A reprieve is a temporary relief, used as in an escape from the world. Again, games aren't fun because you can do anything in them without consequences, they're fun because they can be thought of as little vacations. They're fun because they are games, not because of what they let you do.

I make my "assumptions" about humans because they aren't complicated, and i am also basing my theories off of what sells and what doesn't and since we aren't making games just for ourselves or the minority, we make them ideally for the majority to sell the most and since the majority are gun toting madden loving instant gratification...ists my "opinion" happens to be the right one.

The problem is you are trying to define fun within a tiny category of big named games that have all sorts of clones and pretenders. Games can have all of this and yet be terribly unfun. Though I'm not really sure how instant gratification fits into Madden and games like CoD being popular and fun.

Again, catering to the few sadists wouldn't be very profitable, and in the business fun IS WHAT TO MAJORITY OF CONSUMERS DEFINE IT AS (see i can use caps too).

Would you argue that Mario isn't fun because a majority might not own or play it? Would you argue that a game stops being fun because it's old?
Business fun is making money. But we're not talking about business being fun, we're talking about games being fun.

And i said right now, to imply the majority of people buy games like the COD's and Halo's because i am not really here to argue the fundamental and philisophical meanings of fun, i am here dicussing the market and business definition of the word which is what i have already stated.

Market and business really don't have a definition of the word; I'm fairly sure no board of directors ever asks "Is this fun?" rather "Will this turn a profit?" What's fun is different for everyone and thus all games are inherently fun. Fun games can turn profit or not turn profit; and games that some would not find fun can do either as well.

And even when a game is fun, and has those things you defined as fun it can still do very poorly.
Darkest of Days: Incredible opening sequence at Custer's last stand. Handed a futuristic assault rifle and told to thin the Confederate soldiers numbers as you travel through time with a massive technological advantage.
Result: Bombed. Like Hiroshima Bombed.

In conclusion, "Do games need to be fun?" Yes if you want to sell any. What is fun? Whatever the profitable enouogh group of consumers define it as.

This is how business ruins things, fun is not numbers in a checkbook, that's profit/profitability. Fun is the feeling you get when you enjoy what you are doing.

[HammerAndSickle]

Caffeine and Nicotine do neither of these. They don't trick a person into thinking they feel better or have more energy, they create a chemical reaction and physically affect the body and thus are real. Antibiotics are a drug, they don't trick you into feeling better. Perhaps you are simply using delude improperly or don't understand what the word entails.

Im pretty sure all drugs have a chemical reaction so dont quite see what you are getting at, and nic/caf definately dilude reality considering when you stop using you go into withdraw and taking them again raises you mood back up like other drugs do, and why are you still bringing up prescriptions? i thought i didn't respond to that caus i meant the "bad" drugs and not medicine. and besides this isn't the topic so im gonna stop it there.

A reprieve is a temporary relief, used as in an escape from the world. Again, games aren't fun because you can do anything in them without consequences, they're fun because they can be thought of as little vacations. They're fun because they are games, not because of what they let you do.

way to talk in circles. "used as an escape from the world" 's consequences. you agree with me and still argue. That last sentence just makes me want to smash my head into the wall.

The problem is you are trying to define fun within a tiny category of big named games that have all sorts of clones and pretenders. Games can have all of this and yet be terribly unfun. Though I'm not really sure how instant gratification fits into Madden and games like CoD being popular and fun.

Now i barely know who you are arguing with, but ill try... "Most games do not saddle the player down with the weight of violence's implications, even if they don't necessarily play it off as comic relief." which is why COD can be considered fun and this hospital game not fun (which it needs to be), but i know there are always ripoffs but i am just saying that the concepts that those games have is what makes a game fun, it is merely the presentation that they screwed up. And it is instant gratification caus you dont have to spend time training in a army base and being taught how to fight in order to play the role of a soldier you just pop in a dics and tada your a soldier in the army. (don't even know if i needed to argue that but that is something else we should probably just drop)

Would you argue that Mario isn't fun because a majority might not own or play it? Would you argue that a game stops being fun because it's old?

I believe i already refrased that as profitable majority (profitable enough group). Why are you now trying to pick a fight over things that have nothing to do with what we were talking about??? but ok... Mario if you were referring to the old one did sell alot so it was fun and since they are realeasing the almost the same thing then it still is fun.

Business fun is making money. But we're not talking about business being fun, we're talking about games being fun

If we were to argue if a game can be... a game if it wasn't fun just for the sake of arguing it would be "as useless as a poopie flavored lollypop" because im pretty sure the guy in the article had the intent to sell and market his game so we are arguing the buisness aspect of fun.

Market and business really don't have a definition of the word; I'm fairly sure no board of directors ever asks "Is this fun?" rather "Will this turn a profit?" What's fun is different for everyone and thus all games are inherently fun. Fun games can turn profit or not turn profit; and games that some would not find fun can do either as well.

If you are on the board of directors and you never play games and you asked yourself what makes a game sell, the answer would be if it is fun it will sell. so they are one in the same. And way to blanket statement over exsistence caus im pretty sure everything can or cant do something.

And even when a game is fun, and has those things you defined as fun it can still do very poorly.
Darkest of Days: Incredible opening sequence at Custer's last stand. Handed a futuristic assault rifle and told to thin the Confederate soldiers numbers as you travel through time with a massive technological advantage.
Result: Bombed. Like Hiroshima Bombed.

As I said, they had the basics right but lacked in the presentation.

So in hopes of ending this futile debate ill just say i'm right in the business aspect of it all, because if you ask "Do games need to be fun" chances are there is a $ floatin inbetween the lines. And you are right in the theoretical sense of the word fun in that anything can be to certain people.
And also i dont think neither of us is actually arguing the article because neither of us answered with a "no"


"In conclusion, "Do games need to be fun?" Yes if you want to sell any. What is fun? Whatever the profitable enough group of consumers define it as."
A point which still remains valid and more practical than any other definition of fun.

This is how business ruins things.

Well, looks like I ended up winning the argument in another way (coughs and points at gamerpic)
Yeh thats what capitalism tends to do but that's the world we live in (for now )

[envoyoffreedom89]

so i'm lookin through the forums reading peoples posts (trying to procrastinate as much as possible) and after reading you two go back and forth... all i have to say is game, set, match... brian wins

[bkavitsky]

Im pretty sure all drugs have a chemical reaction so dont quite see what you are getting at, and nic/caf definately dilude reality considering when you stop using you go into withdraw and taking them again raises you mood back up like other drugs do

That’s physical dependence and chemical imbalance not illusory deception. And I was referring to the chemical reactions and how they affect the mind and body.
What you’ve just described is not a deception on the part of the drugs or even the mind; as your mind and body are suffering the effects of a lack of a chemical it requires, and craves that chemical to restore balance to the system. While we could certainly say you would feel better (in time) without the chemical, the continued requirement of said chemical for a well feeling body and mind is no illusion or deception; you would be craving a chemical you truthfully need to rebalance the system. Willpower may fight the cravings, and even dampen the withdrawal effects but that is a case of mind over body, the effects exist and are part of reality, not illusion.

way to talk in circles. "used as an escape from the world" 's consequences. you agree with me and still argue. That last sentence just makes me want to smash my head into the wall.

I wasn’t talking in circles: consequences are a result of actions. We play games to take a break from reality, from the mundanity of everyday life. Not because they’re a world with a suspension of penalty where we may do anything we want. Suspension of consequence is a part of what makes it a game, not the reason to play the game.
Frankly anyone who looks at games with the latter perspective likely needs a bit of psychological help.

Also, you can’t simply tack words on to something I said, inherently changing the entire meaning of the sentence and trying to claim it actually backs up your own statement. Perhaps you should smash your head into the wall however, you know what they say about arguing with idiots; and I have no doubts that the man on the other side of the fence always believes his opponent the fool.

Now i barely know who you are arguing with, but ill try...

I quoted you didn’t I?

"Most games do not saddle the player down with the weight of violence's implications, even if they don't necessarily play it off as comic relief." which is why COD can be considered fun and this hospital game not fun (which it needs to be), but i know there are always ripoffs but i am just saying that the concepts that those games have is what makes a game fun, it is merely the presentation that they screwed up.

Here, I’m not disagreeing with you that the hospital game needs to be fun; just that you seem to be claiming it will never be fun. Whereas I am saying if it can even be defined as a “game” then it is fun. A game that isn’t fun is closer to a simulation. It would still lack the consequences all the same as a game, (unless it were a training simulator operated by various outlets) but as it lacks elements that make it a more exciting and enjoyable experience it would no longer be a “game”.

And it is instant gratification caus you dont have to spend time training in a army base and being taught how to fight in order to play the role of a soldier you just pop in a dics and tada your a soldier in the army. (don't even know if i needed to argue that but that is something else we should probably just drop)

You did need to argue that because it goes back to you defining fun as what you deem to be fun.

this is the age of instant gratification, i just want to run around blowin the frack outta people not sit around for hours signing paychecks in a hospital because games shouldn't be a second job (WOW?).

Firstly, if a challenging and inspired game mechanic could be worked up to make signing paychecks fun I bet “Hospital Hero” would sell like water in the Sahara. Secondly you just inferred that WOW is not fun because it, and I’m sure you’ve other games on that list, is like a second job.
Some people find that fun; which you admit I have a point about later in that post.

I believe i already refrased that as profitable majority (profitable enough group). Why are you now trying to pick a fight over things that have nothing to do with what we were talking about??? but ok... Mario if you were referring to the old one did sell a lot so it was fun and since they are realeasing the almost the same thing then it still is fun.

Is it? Have you played it?
This is exactly what we were talking about btw; you defining fun as things that sell.

If we were to argue if a game can be... a game if it wasn't fun just for the sake of arguing it would be "as useless as a poopie flavored lollypop" because im pretty sure the guy in the article had the intent to sell and market his game so we are arguing the buisness aspect of fun.

Again, a game that isn’t fun is likely lacking all the aspects that make it by definition a “game”.

If you are on the board of directors and you never play games and you asked yourself what makes a game sell, the answer would be if it is fun it will sell. so they are one in the same. And way to blanket statement over exsistence caus im pretty sure everything can or cant do something.

Exactly, if it’s fun it will sell. It doesn’t matter if there is a boner-inducing violence trend, or a JRPG trend or a sandbox trend. It doesn’t matter if one customer or one million customers buy the game. Fun is not defined as “appealing to the majority” as you’ve tried to state, “Fun” is a game. That’s where my “blanket” statement comes in; it’s not a blanket statement it’s the truth. Not all games that didn’t get majority popularity, or even a modicum of popularity weren’t fun, they just didn’t appeal to as many people as other games did.

As I said, they had the basics right but lacked in the presentation.

How so exactly? If you mean mechanics and gameplay which is what tends to contribute to how much fun a player has I will be the first to disagree. DoD was very, very fun.

So in hopes of ending this futile debate ill just say i'm right in the business aspect of it all, because if you ask "Do games need to be fun" chances are there is a $ floatin inbetween the lines. And you are right in the theoretical sense of the word fun in that anything can be to certain people.
And also i dont think neither of us is actually arguing the article because neither of us answered with a "no"

Neither of us disagrees with the article: You’ve answered “yes, because otherwise they wouldn’t sell”, I’ve answered “yes, otherwise they wouldn’t be games”.

And that is not the "theoretical sense of the word fun", that is the very definition of the word fun. Something that brings mirth or enjoyment.

"In conclusion, "Do games need to be fun?" Yes if you want to sell any. What is fun? Whatever the profitable enough group of consumers define it as."
A point which still remains valid and more practical than any other definition of fun.

A practical definition perhaps if one wishes to make profit regardless of what it takes; but a more perverse one I couldn’t imagine.

Well, looks like I ended up winning the argument in another way (coughs and points at gamerpic)
Yeh thats what capitalism tends to do but that's the world we live in (for now )

True capitalism always favored Innovation, Socialism favors uniformity; complacency is what creates profit for imitators.

[Ideawizard]

I won't waste any one's time with a boring Three paragraph long blog statement, so here's my opinion in a nutshell.

Movies with sad stories are box office smashes(BrokeBack Mountain, Million Dollar Baby, Citizen Kane), Published books with sad stories are reguarded as classics ( Old Yeller) so why can't a game with similar topics be labeled game of the year? Heavy Rain seems to be leaning in that direction

[ASandoval]

The right answer is: Depends on who the game is for. Serious games don't need to be fun, at least not as a first priority. Any edutainment title looks to teach first, fun second. The point of what he's saying isn't that all games don't need to be fun so long as they're engaging, it's that engagement is the most important aspect regardless of what you're making.