Video Games Don't Need to Be Fun - Reboot Episode 6

This made me realise something about my gaming habits over the years. When i was young and teen's age i would play games as the typical escape from normal life or just to have fun doing things you cant do in real life. like being a dragon named spyro or a awesome soldier like solid snake. but now that i am in my 30s i find more and more that the games i play and the reasons i play them are much more detailed varied and sometimes meaningful than i realized. eg. i will play something colorful and whimsical, funny and cute such as snake pass, little big planet on days that i feel like a kid again or want to feel like one, or if its been a hard day or stressful week i will go for something more aggressive and fast paced to get the stress out like neir automata, MGR or vanquish. and by the same token if i will sometimes crave to play a horror game solely because i want to overcome or face that fear even though i am afraid of said thing. so while not a joyous fun in them all they all have a time and place that help with a certain emotion, moment in life, or just to pass time. well this was my 2 cents anyway :)

Is the same bullshit as those "Gamers are Dead" articles?

These intersectional feminists kill everything they touch. No joy. No fun. Everything must be about brainwashing and training to self-identify as a victim. F that. Games, by definition are supposed to be something that presents output that is equal to input modified by rules. Fun has varying definitions, but the crap these whackos advocate isn't one of the,.

<beats head against desk> No. Just no. Video games are still games. If they are good, you are driven to continue playing them, because the playing of them is fun (not funny, as in inspiring good humor and such, as even good games with dark themes can be fun, but fun as in something you enjoy doing). Like 90% of independent filmmakers, we are now encountering navel-gazing game developers who are so driven to be different that they don't care that their product is interesting or as much fun as a root canal. There are plenty of games with sad stories, very challenging gameplay, and/or scary imagery that are nonetheless fun; they have gameplay and/or stories that make you want to come back repeatedly, day after day, even after you've completed them. But making a "game" with minimal or boring gameplay so you can spread some "deep" message ("War is bad y'all..." no really, thanks for pointing this out Sherlock, "Police states are scary..." well, duh, "Shooting kids is evil" YES, EVERY SANE PERSON ALREADY KNOWS THIS, YOU AREN'T BEING DEEP) is just writing a blog with some sort of graphics. Whoopee. The best of games are about balance, having a good narrative backed up by fun gameplay, so when folks are essentially talking about cutting out the "fun", if not gameplay altogether, it's like making the world's coolest monster truck but deliberately refusing to put wheels on the bloody thing. Because of... art I guess. Not every game can, or should, be Kirby's Fluffy Adventure of Candy Awesome and Kittens!™, but making a game that lacks any fun is like making a boring movie. Yes, you can do it, but don't whine about how no one appreciates your brilliance when only hipsters buy in.

PERSONAAAAAA!

Games like Dark Souls or Pathologic weren't exactly fun but are some of the best I've played.

Lol you thought the Tom MCShea days were over.

To each their own, but I'm going to stick to games that I enjoy and stop playing games that I don't.

lol this is exactly what I was telling people in the comments for episode 5 about war.

The most important thing in a game should be engagement. Games should make you feel engaged. And you can still enjoy a game that doesn't feel fun. It doesn't need to make you feel happy or excited.

Some people will never understand this though, and will forever insist that this medium is a toy that needs to entertain you.

Ah, the old "not a game" debate is alive and well. This is a thoughtful youtube video worth a watch, love this guy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFax_DbbJls

This whole conversation hinges on what "fun" means to you. Is it a catch-all term that represents positive feelings about a given experience with a game? Or is fun something more specifically frenetic "pop-corn" entertainment? At the very least you have to admit that there are different kinds of "fun". Deep immersion, Rewarding/Fulfilling/satisfying, fast-paced action, etc. If you are stuck in a daily grind that makes you feel dead inside, any game that can reach out and touch on your emotions, enhanced from the immersion of video games, can be profound and worthwhile even if not strictly "fun". None of these qualities are mutually exclusive of course, but I think they all have value.

They should be entertaining well developed, not the boring, presumptious, bugged out shit like that cancer kid game. Take This War of Mine, it tackles heavy themes but don't forget to make an engaging game. People are to quick to accept buggy borefests, because they are 'poignant' and 'contemplative',

GS Makes a video about whether games need to be fun. Puts Outlast 2 right up front. Discusses the witness as a prime example. Forums discuss only walking simulators.

I think "fun" isn't the best word to describe a good video game. I think "engaging" is far more appropriate.

The guy is mixing up his emotions, he means happy, not fun, the antonym of fun is boredom, I don't think a boring game can be enjoyable, but a sad game can be.

Video Games Don't Need to Be Fun

Then what's the point of participating in entertainment you don't enjoy? That's meaningless. Try to phrase your title better next time if you tried to mean something else.

Put 87 hours into 'Papers, Please'. I've not been the same.

I solely play games for fun, so it should be fun. Life, if you want it to be successful, is highly stressful and competitive. This is a hobby of mine for escapism from real life and there is no way I am playing it if it is not for fun. Whether murder, stealing whatever, if it is fun, it is fun. It is just a game.

Maybe just say games need to be engaging? or compelling and that could mean "fun" Also fun is very subjective. I think destiny/diablo type games are fun I love grinding someone might think that very dull and the opposite of fun. My only beef is these type of arguments always end up belittling people who don't think games like Gone home are the pinnacle of gaming and criticizing games like doom because they aren't engaging or intellectual or whatever.

Load more comments button works exactly like IGN's: it goes to the bottom of the comments. Very convenient.

Fun games are not that big anymore. Look at PS2\Xbox era (for time reference). There was massive amount of fun\niche games. Not even close these days.

Where good old fun BMX games, even BMX XXX :D, Street sports games, arcade sports and such. Im not saying there arent any, well even less now than on PS3\360 but not as many at all and not as many that are actually good. Thats a definition of fun kind of games for me.

Great video, Mike. Although there will be semantic differences here and some nitpicking. Because, after all, a game that you like is definitely a game that you had fun with. The distinction is that are you getting a game because you think it is fun, or are you getting a game and then having fun with it. For developers, it would arise in the decision whether to make a fun game, or simply make a game and let people decide whether it is fun. Our idea of what is fun differs vastly from things that actually turn out to be fun. 'Partying', in the traditional sense, is supposed to be the epitome of fun. But I will always choose to read a good book over attending a party even if I'm interested in the party. That's how we work.

The gaming community will try to box games into a retrogressive medium which revolves strictly around restrictive conceptions of 'fun'. But unwittingly these same customers will be demanding more variety, and the developers will be giving them that.

Hell yeah bro! I'm diggin' what yr layin down!

wOAH, you got me pretty pumped up there at the end. phew. LET'S DO THIS

I personally think we have to evolve from the notion of calling them video games, that pigeonholes the medium to an archaic term that was coined nearly three decades ago, to a medium that's outgrown the simplicity of that terms meaning. They are digital interactive experiences now. Some fall into the more traditional tropes of games that use staples in design, direction, and rhythm. Games have evolved from being just fun, or time sinks, they have different purposes motives and are as i said before, are more tailored experiences that appeal to certain segments of the population. They are vastly more interactive than lets say, a horror film--and film period. Films are just a canvas to tell a story but interactive digital entertainment are vastly more complex. They can alter moods, relieve stress, act as coping mechanism far beyond the reach of any other form of media. We need to move past calling them games, we need to fine tune what they are, what they can become. Beyond canvases as superior teaching tools, ways we as people can share experiences beyond a written or visual non-interactive medium.