Are we having fun yet? And do we need to?

[J T]

There are two questions that I’ve been thinking about a lot for the past several years. The first is, what makes a videogame fun? I’m not exactly sure what constitutes fun, nor am I sure of how videogames can create fun experiences. Like most people, I just know whether I’m having fun or not. Any dictionary definition of the word ‘fun’ includes lots of words like ‘whimsical’, ‘playful’, ‘merriment’, ‘pleasurable’, ‘amusement’, and ‘mirth’. These words all convey positivity. If something is fun, it shouldn’t make you feel bad. It should leave you with good feelings. These words all have a light-hearted airiness about them as well. They don’t convey seriousness or hard work; though they would still be engaging and hold our attention. So there is something of a relaxed intensity, if that makes any sense- fun is neither stressful, nor boring.

The words ‘fun’ and ‘play’ often go hand-in-hand as well. Playing almost always involves some form of imagination, of acting out a role, but with the negative consequences of that role removed. Children often play games that mimic adult activities like pretending to shave, or mow the lawn, or cook dinner. These are fantastical things for a child to imagine doing because they are beyond their current abilities. This is fun for them because there are no consequences for doing or not doing these things and it all exists in make-believe. They can play out these more serious adult tasks without being serious about it, and therefore they enjoy it and have a good time. These are activities that children aren’t quite yet ready to do, but these fun games also help prepare them for when they eventually will have to stop playing house, and start keeping house (with all the un-fun bills and responsibilities that entails).

When we play fun videogames, we play the role of characters that do things that are quite a bit more fantastical than our day to day lives. We play heroes that can single-handedly save the world from evil, sorcerers that can wield powerful magic, or even criminal anti-heroes that are not bound by social or moral constraints, answer to no-one, and manage to somehow evade a life in prison. Like children that pretend to be adults with abilities they don’t have, we are adults that pretend to be fictional characters with abilities we don’t have. Part of what makes games fun is that you use your imagination to play out something you are not. Also, videogames, even the M-rated ones, often tend to be campy and over-the-top, even a bit silly, which keeps the positive whimsy and merriment of fun in tact. If you ever thought a game like Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was meant to be taken very seriously, then you seriously missed the point. It’s all over-exaggerated mayhem and laughable corruption and violence. That's why it's fun. It’s a bit different than the more obvious whimsy of a Mario or Sonic or Kirby, (which is why it’s not for kids), but there is still whimsy.

Yet some games are not whimsical, or merry, or amusing. This brings me to my second question, how can a game still hold our attention without being fun? When I play Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, I don’t quite feel like I’m having fun. I actually get stressed out. The game is almost too realistic, macho, and serious to be fun. Granted, Captain Price has a hilariously awesome mustache, but for the most part, the game looks and sounds so much like real modern warfare, that I get more stressed than amused from playing it. Whenever I finish playing it for awhile, I leave the game a bit frazzled, and feel like I maybe need to do something to relax, which is ironic because I usually play games precisely to relax. The one thing about Call of Duty 4 that may qualify as being fun is the sense of mastery one feels over deftly maneuvering the controls. Run. Dive. Take Cover. Zoom. Head Shot! Aw, that’s the stuff! Still, this game is more serious business than fun; whereas, a game with much less seriousness and more humor, like say Katamari Damacy, is just a big huge ball of fun (literally).

So why do I play games I don’t think are fun? Well, it usually boils down to a few things. I think they are compelling in their artistry and narrative, I feel a sense of masterful skill over their control schemes, or they just use some psychological tricks to make them addictive. It is the fact that video games can be compelling though, that I am most interested in. I feel that video games are growing up as a medium because they are less and less reliant on being fun. In fact, I would argue that some video games should not be called games at all, because a game implies fun- they would be better labeled as some form of interactive media.

Now don't get me wrong, I still love fun games, and I will continue to purchase and play fun games, but I also advocate for games that are not fun. I think game designers and game players will both help the game industry flourish and develop in new directions if they give up the notion that a video game always has to be fun. Instead, games can be compelling, interesting, engaging, thought provoking, moving, or engrossing without relying on being fun to play. Movies like The Deer Hunter, Schindler’s List, or Taxi Driver are not fun movies, but that doesn’t detract from their established position as great movie classics. The same could be true for video games. I don’t think it is quite true for games yet though, and I don’t think it is true because we are attached to the notion of fun. We want games to be an escape or diversion, a chance to make believe something fantastical. I don’t disagree with those goals, but I would also like to include games that are not bound to fun and instead can focus on being expressive, meaningful, or simply artistic. Game designers, critics, and journalists are all talking about this notion of games as art, but one of the major impediments to games flourishing as an artform is that gamers won’t buy a game that isn’t fun. I think we should be aware of that.

A new palette is developing for game design and for once it isn't being driven by faster processors or better graphics cards. Designers are getting smarter about not only how to put together a game world with interactive characters, but also techniques for how to make those characters get you to feel something. Just keep an eye out for those moments that games hit your emotions, even if the feelings are negative, because those games should be acknowledged just as much as the fun ones. Don’t forget to have fun, but don’t let fun be your only deciding factor for whether a game is worthwhile or not. We’re reaching a point in video game history where visual and auditory realism have almost fully been achieved, but emotional realism is lagging far behind. As we as a consumer audience learn to appreciate video games for more than just games, the medium will become more powerful and provide increasingly awe inspiring experiences beyond what is currently available. If we get behind artistry in games, video games will develop beyond a limited scope of only being fun and playful diversions, but they will also be able to touch our hearts and provide meaning and discourse on the things we most value.

[Jerkface Killah]

Wow. Pretty good post, although it reads more like an editorial than a forum post. I was worried it was going to come off a little to (I dont know what) as some of these points have been made before. But I was pleasently surprised.
This reminds me of a great article on GameSpot I read a while back. It was the top 10 videogame review co-outs or something. Number 1 was calling a game "fun". What's fun to me may not be fun to you. And like the poster of this thread, I may not want to play a fun game at all.

JFK

[Anapan]

Nice post.
When a game starts trying to lay on the drama it usually turns me off.
I do get a lot of pleasure out of both tedious and/or aggravating games tho.

[Capcomwarrior]

Thanks, my friend. Really enjoyable read!

I agree that video games have pretty well maxed on graphical improvements. Obviously there are little tweaks and minor improvements that we will continue to witness, but for the most part, they are going to need to offer something more. While that "something" is already developing with the added depth to online, multiplayer gameplay mechanics, motion controls, 3d (?), and many other features, I agree that it seems like we are missing the "touching" aspect that you speak of. Even stepping up the voice acting would help a great deal. You named some of my favorite movies there and I would love to see video games put out titles of such artistic depth!
Its tricky, because I don't really like to use the word "artistic" in the sense of "it needs to be more artistic", since damn near everything can be considered art, be it "good" or "bad" art (labeling art good or bad is tricky as well), but I would like to see more diversity in our video games' artistic direction.

[aeon]

Thanks for writing that out man, felt like I was reading a Kotaku article.

I absolutely love the challenge in games, and will most often seek it out to feel the fulfillment of completing something seemingly impossibly (Ikaruga anyone?). Sometimes it seriously does feel like a chore--like completing Mega Man--but I know that each robot master I destroy gets me further towards the 'fun' of completion. Especially in roleplaying, I believe fun is achieved when specific goals are met and conquered in the realm of your character. For example...

When I was a kid playing Sonic the Hedgehog 2 I would get so intense about defeating Robotnik. I would read the instruction manual over and over again at school, getting so pumped to play the game when I got home. Usually I would have a blast playing it no matter how far I got, but once you get to a new level there is a feeling of fear and awe that is absolutely inescapable as a child. When I first got to Oil Ocean Zone and heard the level music and saw what I was up against, that was when the fear and awe hit me. And when I finally defeated Robotnik (like a year after owning the game) and Sonic goes spinning down to the planet I was hyperventilating I was so excited. The chance to overcome the challenge is what makes it fun, no matter the difficulty.

Or Ninja Gaiden for example. That game is such a chore for the first week you play it, but now years later I can breeze through four levels without much trouble. That feeling of conquering a game to the point where it is mindless to complete it is also the fun I seek in games. Once you have mastered a game, you can enjoy what once was stressful 'fun' as relaxing 'fun'.

There are many other examples of fun. In Modern Warfare when the nuke hit the city (when you are in the helicopter) I absolutely lost my shit- that was when I was having fun. Or in Half Life 2 that feeling you get in Ravenholm... that creepiness is fun. Or why the hell did I play through Dead Space when I screamed like a child at least a dozen times in that game? I think the fear and stress of the situation, as well as the disassociation makes it fun.

Really I think fun boils down to pure enjoyment. We all enjoy our games in different ways, but there is so much fun to be had that it is hard to peg a serious definition of it.

[MrPopo]

Yet some games are not whimsical, or merry, or amusing. This brings me to my second question, how can a game still hold our attention without being fun? When I play Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, I don’t quite feel like I’m having fun. I actually get stressed out. The game is almost too realistic, macho, and serious to be fun.

We play games because we enjoy them. This enjoyment can come from light hearted whimsy, or it might be from overcoming the myrid of challenges strewn throughout. It depends on the player. Sometimes it might be something as simple as a compelling story keeps you going even as you curse that goddamn slowdown and the random trash shit in the Belial fight with Velvet.

[ieatramen]

Great post. It's funny because I get freakin stressed out playing modern warfare as well!

[Ivo]

David Sirlin has some good stuff written about this. Not all games need (or indeed should) be fun.

http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2006/10/10/d ... e-fun.html

Ivo.

[J T]

Wow. Pretty good post, although it reads more like an editorial than a forum post.

Heh, yeah, I guess it does look a bit like an opinion piece. I was just going to start a discussion asking 'what makes games fun, and do they have to be fun?", but I realized I had a lot to say about the matter already and just kept typing. I'm still interested in both questions though if people want to have a dialogue. I still haven't really figured out how game designers engineer the experience of fun in their games.

There's also a lot left to say about how games can reach greater emotional depths and become more meaningful.

[AgentCupcakes]

Well games can be fun but like some people I play games to get the satisfaction of finishing one. However if a game is fun you can just play to play. That's the best I could word that.