Pure gameplay examples and why are they fun?

[jeffro11]

Funny how all those sports, any abstract game, most boardgames and paintball are not "worth playing" because they don't have a "story".

Your taking offense to my opinion. Get your head checked.

[J T]

In summary a game without a story is a game not worth playing at all. Pacman and Pong I will not play because of this. They bore me to death a thousand times. But this is just opinion and no one can agree on what makes something fun.

Funny you should mention Pac Man, as it was once considered controversial for having too much story. Those little cut scenes between stages where Pac Man and the ghosts run around or where he kisses Ms. Pacman, those were considered distractions from the game at the time.

And you do realize that your opinion would mean that games like Tetris, Bejeweled, Chess, Go, Poker, Connect Four, Twister, and almost any sport are all not worth playing? While I would agree that good story enhances games immensely, I don't know why you would even play video games if you only cared about story. You'd be better off watching movies and reading books instead. Surely, you must enjoy the game aspect of video games to some extent, or why would you be doing this? I can understand that the whole is greater than the sum of its part in a game because story and gameplay can interact in profound ways, but sometimes it's nice to focus on just one side of the equation too-- either all story or all game.

[jeffro11]

I think a games replayability factor is based purely on the gameplay not the story.

Very true and I agree with this. I was just focusing on RPG's in this post and before how people quickly dismissed a story and only focused on the gameplay aspect which i find is not worth it without an underlying meaning as to why I'm doing something.

Many RPG's have abysmal gameplay. Unlimited Saga comes to mind... These are not worth a second play through.

Gameplay at its core to me personally is something that MUST feel natural and purposeful. Again pacman or pong does not supply me with the satisfaction that I have accomplished something. I have collected pellets and I have scored on an opponent. Lets take a look at first person shooters. These are special in that you can play them without needing a whole lot, yet you get a ton of satisfaction out of them. They combine problem solving, mathematical skills (yeah its true), Spacial Dynamics and other things. These things coupled together give you a eurphoric feeling like your accomplishing something. THAT is where the fun comes from.

Platforming same thing. Your brain is doing some serious work here calculating a ton of things at once. When you make that hard jump, what do you feel? You feel joy of course. This may sound like I'm contradicting my previous statements of needing a "hook" to get into a game. But that point still stands. Without a proper hook, there is no way you'll enjoy a game because you probably wont even give it a second chance based on first glance.

Games have changed so much over the ages. What may have been fun to someone who is part of a different generation may be COMPLETELY different to what another from a younger generation likes. There is no denying that as newer generations are growing up, they find different things that they like. It's almost as if brains are being wired differently.

Again this is all opinion and you cannot just say what makes a game fun. It is personal and only applies to YOU. This topic should be titled "What gameplay examples make a game fun for yourself". Because like I said I will absoluetly not play Pacman, Pong, and many other arcade games because high scores simply do not interest me in the least.

@JT This is true for me for the most part. However with sports I don't view them as games so much as exercise and a social activity. Which I will gladly take part in.

[Erik_Twice]

Your taking offense to my opinion. Get your head checked.

Offense? You think too much of yourself

BTW, It's "you're".

EDIT: Dude, I don't want to pick any fights. There's absolutedly nothing in my posts that indicate that I'm angry, offended or anything else. I just point the consequences of your reasonings.

[NeverGoBak]

Turmoil for the Atari 2600. Great game. I feel gameplay is very, very slightly the most important part of the game, it could still be okay without any of the other major components, but tons of the magic, feel and fun would evaporate if, say, Super Mario World was stripped down to black and white, everything was just cubes, there was no music, and no storyline. It would still be kind of fun, but I think I'd rather attempt to play GTA with a Guitar Hero controller at this point.
EDIT: Looking back, no that SMW would not be fun at all.

You'd play plot-less games for the same reason you'd play non-video games, which I don't do as often. Pong and a large number of Atari/Arcade titles were fun because of the same reason Pinball, Poker and Thumb Wrestling are. A video game only begins to feel distinctive from these games, once you add some type of story.

Have you guys ever played a board game with a good plot? I have, they tend to be immensely more fun than something like Trouble, Monopoly or Sorry, you become immersed in them, and get excited while playing.

[J T]

Again this is all opinion and you cannot just say what makes a game fun. It is personal and only applies to YOU.

I don't believe this. I think there are certain things that are more-or-less universally fun. That's my reason for making this thread. Sure there will be individual differences, but I want to understand what makes certain gameplay rules and controls entertaining to play for most people. We can add the caveat of "results may vary" if you like.

It's not that I think games without story, graphics, or sound are better. I don't think that at all. Why I think these kinds of games are interesting though is that they are clearly fun for the 'game' aspect and nothing else. I want to better understand what it is about the 'game' aspect of games that makes them fun. I think it gives a better understanding of what makes modern games fun if we can discuss this aspect of games beyond saying something vague and uninformative like "the gameplay is tight". I want to develop my vocabulary for discussing good gameplay beyond just saying that it is good gameplay.

In the days of the Atari 2600, for example, gameplay was about all you had. The games had to be enjoyable to play. They couldn't fall back on fancy graphics, cut scenes, exposition, etc. to make the game entertaining. The 'game' aspect had to stand out as the strongest part of the game.

Pacman, for example is fun because it is about evading an opponent AI while collecting items, and because it allows for a power role reversal with the large power pellets. I see the shadows of Pacman in thousands of modern games. As just one example, aren't most all Resident Evil games also about evading scary opponent AI while collecting items, and hopefully finding some badass weapon that provides a temporary power role reversal? Naturally, the settting, story, sound, and graphics of the Resident Evil games makes them much more thrilling, but at their heart there are Pacman principles.

It's hard to see that this is part of what is behind the enjoyment of a Resident Evil game because there are so many components of what comprise it beyond the gameplay and game rules. Pacman, on the other hand, has a purity to the gameplay because there isn't much else to it. I'd like to understand though, what it is that makes those particular principles of evading, collecting, and overpowering so much fun across multiple games.

[jeffro11]

It's the thrill of accomplishing something. Were all ingrained with the notion of getting rewarded for doing something. This applies to basically anything in life.

There is indeed universally fun things. These are basically anything that gets our brain thinking. It's my personal belief that anything involving complex timing and calculations, spacial dynamics we typically all find universally fun. As humans we excel at these certain things and they come natural to us. We don't have to think particularly hard about making these calculations either, as such were expending less energy. I think this is why a platformer like Mario is typically deemed as universally fun. It has all the qualities that we excel at (some more so then others).

[DinnerX]

Yes, I think puzzle games are the best examples because they rarely rely on graphics and sound at all. Your explanation as to why they are fun is accurate, but it still leaves me wondering why those things (learning about the game, developing techniques for success, etc) are fun. Like, why is it that dropping a perfectly placed line piece in Tetris is so satisfying? What is it about humans that we would enjoy ordering blocks and feel so satisfied when we order 4 lines at once? Is it some need to feel like we can order the world around us? Is it a sense of accomplishment from being given a task and then completing it? Are these cognitive skills that we are hard wired to feel pleasure for practicing because it gives us some evolutionary advantage as a species to develop our brains in this way?

Learning, accomplishing tasks, and overcoming challenges are all pretty important for life so it's good that we enjoy them. As for why humans are the way they are, well, it's a question that's been around for ages. I think we were made this way.

[J T]

I recently read this article on What Makes Games Good that I rather enjoyed (particularly the part about promise):

http://www.pentadact.com/index.php/2011 ... games-good

[molotovwars]

What makes a game fun is:
- being able to pick up and start playing it right away
- replay value is
- no load times
- simple controls - easy to learn but a life time to master
- rewards worth unlocking
- familiarity (this can be with controls, but also with game type)
- lack of realism (for sports games for me, but also in games like GTA that let me do things I can't in real life

One of my favorite games of all time is Lumines. The game has no limit for me. There is no end to the game. If you max out the score the game doesn't just stop. The stages loop and you can continue to play on faster stages. When I've only got a few minutes I can do timed challenges and see if I can beat older records. Music is a part of the game, and is tied to the gameplay. As I play faster and rotate blocks and make combos, the music is slightly altered.

Some other favorite games of mine are Sonic 2 and Vectorman. I can pick these games up whenever and it doesn't matter that I've beaten them. I still enjoy playing through the levels even if it gets easier every time. Each game uses only 1 or 2 buttons, but the game still develops and adds "capabilities" (powerups etc) without hindering or changing the control scheme.

Of my playstation 2 games, the first Time Splitters game is probably what I played most. I completed the games story mode, but I often introduced this game to my friends so I spent a lot of my time doing challenges to unlock stuff. There were tons of new characters and modes and things, and when you got a new character it was something goofy and fun like Elvis or a Duck. Those characters and unlockables continued to add to the games personality and I wanted to play it more.

I also enjoy fighting games that aren't too competitive. I used to really enjoy Dead or Alive 2 on the Dreamcast, as well as Soul Calibur. I never really saw those as competition games like Marvel vs. Capcom or Guilty Gear/Blaz Blue. I enjoy Super Smash Brothers games in their original state. People enjoy altering them (Brawl+ etc) to make them more competitive and balanced, but I've always liked whats familiar and fun.

Writing the word "familiar" above sparked another idea. People have fun with games that play to their interests. Sports game are fun to pick up and play and can often have simple controls, but I'm not too interested in sports so they're not too fun to me (even though they meet other things I like in game). My roommate used to play high school football and has always had a thing for Madden, the Gran Turismo games probably apply to car buffs in the same way. I have however enjoyed "less realistic" sports games like the NBA street series, NBA Jam, NFL Blitz, and most of the Mario sport and racing games. Those games took what was fun in a sport and stripped it to its core then exaggerated it a little.

I also considered adding "games that require minimal thinking" but I'm not sure how I feel about that idea yet.