I don't know if I'd say e.g. Schindler's List was fun or enjoyable, but still worth watching.
Similarly: Grave of the Fireflies. The film is amazing but I would hardly call it "fun".
Your problem here is again, entirely semantic. It's entirely because Rym used the completely useless word "fun."
The point is this. Despite both of those movies giving the audience negative feelings of sadness, despair, horror, etc. they are worth watching. People want to watch them. After they watch them, they don't regret having done so. There is a positive human experience that accompanies the surface level negative emotions. Just like a haunted house provides a surface level negative emotion, but can still be a positive experience.
There are some things out there that do not provide any positive experience whatsoever. The audience/player/whatever just suffers.
In the specific case of games there are some where winning is worthwhile, but losing is an experience that consists only of suffering. You should not play those games. For a game to be worth your time, it needs to be worth it whether or not you win or lose.
In the specific case of games there are some where winning is worthwhile, but losing is an experience that consists only of suffering. You should not play those games. For a game to be worth your time, it needs to be worth it whether or not you win or lose.
What if losing is only suffering, but it's worth it anyway?
... And maybe you have a pathological competitiveness disorder.
I would say that kind of works but then you are stuck with audience members who don't understand what you are saying until you define the word for them. I guess Rym used "fun" because that word can be parsed by the majority of the audience.
This morning I remembered another game which garnered critical praise and was somewhat interested in (though admittedly this came about at least partially due to the hubbub surrounding it) which could fit this topic: Depression Quest.
I have not finished it yet so this isn't meant as a full review or anything, but I can see where the game is coming from, why it is structured the way it is, and it made me actually contemplate the choices within it. It is engaging and interesting. It is also decidedly not fun. The game even tells you straight up when you open it: "Depression Quest is a game that deals with living with depression in a very literal way. This game is not meant to be a fun or lighthearted experience."
Another game I heard about (but haven't played) that isn't fun at all is Day Z, yet it there are people who absolutely love it despite, or perhaps because of, this lack of fun. That it presents a drab reality of survival without the thrill of overcoming obstacles and a promise of a happy ending, yet this is exactly what makes you emotionally invest and connect.
I've also heard similar stuff about This War of Mine, a game I plan on checking out at one point.
------------------------------
So yeah, there isn't a necessity to bake fun into a game. There are games, just like movies, books, music, and other forms of media, that aren't meant to be fun. They are meant to engage on a different emotion.
The problem I had with Rym's statement isn't that the point he attempts to convey is wrong in what he means. That you shouldn't play games that attempt to engage by being fun and fail at that, either because it is a genuinely bad game or because you aren't the target audience.
What annoyed me is that despite his knowledge of games, and his particularly dislike for people who insist only certain kinds of games are games and other types aren't really games and not worth playing, he propagated the meme that fun is the only emotional basis a game can and should engage its audience. A meme which I at least partially blame for douchebags calling experiences like Depression Quest or This War of Mine "not a game".
That he doubled down on this when I challenged it didn't help either.
Perhaps "games need to be engaging" isn't as catchy a phrase as "games need to be fun" but at least it actually conveys what is meant rather than being somewhat misleading and exclusionary.
Another game I heard about (but haven't played) that isn't fun at all is Day Z, yet it there are people who absolutely love it despite, or perhaps because of, this lack of fun. That it presents a drab reality of survival without the thrill of overcoming obstacles and a promise of a happy ending, yet this is exactly what makes you emotionally invest and connect.
Wait wait wait. So they play this game, claim to love this game, but aren't having "fun?"
Merriam Webster: "someone or something that is amusing or enjoyable : an enjoyable experience or person"
"an enjoyable or amusing time"
"the feeling of being amused or entertained"
So. it most certainly sounds like DayZ is fun to them, and that they're having fun playing it.
Where in that (or any) definition of the word "fun" does "the thrill of overcoming obstacles and a promise of a happy ending" come into play?
Fun, both from a dictionary perspective and in colloquial usage, just means a feeling or result: it makes zero assertion as to the source of said feeling, nor the reason for it. YOU are overloading the word in attempting to make your point, not me.
So yeah, there isn't a necessity to bake fun into a game. There are games, just like movies, books, music, and other forms of media, that aren't meant to be fun. They are meant to engage on a different emotion.
Any combination of emotional states can lead to fun. Watching a desperately sad movie is easily considered to be fun by people who enjoy such emotional manipulation by media.
Emotions can be used to create fun for someone. At no point did I say fun was an emotion, nor did I say that only particular emotions are fun. Horror games provide fun through fear, disgust, and/or dread. But they're still fun.
Ah yes, zero in on one example and dismiss everything else.
Contrary to your dictionary definition, I'd call "fun" is an emotion of amusement and enjoyment. The amusement part is pretty much the important thing, considering it is the only word appearing in all three of the definitions you pulled (though insisting on dictionary definitions rather than what is colloquially understood by people is pretty much the definition of pedantry).
You can love something without that thing being fun. I love Grave of the Fireflies and I love Spec Ops: The Line. I don't consider watching/player either as fun because neither is amusing.
Contrary to your dictionary definition, I'd call "fun" is an emotion of amusement and enjoyment. The amusement part is pretty much the important thing, considering it is the only word appearing in all three of the definitions you pulled (though insisting on dictionary definitions rather than what is colloquially understood by people is pretty much the definition of pedantry).
First off, "enjoyment" is defined primarily as:
"the state or process of taking pleasure in something." " a feeling of pleasure caused by doing or experiencing something you like"
So everything I've said still stands. You're still the one making up definitions and putting words into my mouth to try and prove your point.
As for pedantry? I POINTEDLY and REPEATEDLY made it clear that I'm coming from both the dictionary AND colloquial direction. To almost everyone (except you apparently), the word "fun" is super generic, and just means enjoying something.
I enjoy feeling scared, so I play horror games for fun.
Why do people play DayZ? Do you honestly want to argue with me and them to say that they specifically aren't having fun? That the don't play DayZ because they enjoy it?
Ah yes, zero in on one example and dismiss everything else.
That aside...
1. If you as a person don't enjoy purely edifying activities (e.g., reading a textbook for pleasure), then no, you as a person should probably not play Depression Quest.
2. Yes, there are edge cases. There are edge cases and exceptions to every fucking rule. How clever of you. My grand ruse is defeated. My mighty castle collapses as the potemkin village that it is.
Depression quest is like a textbook. If you don't enjoy reading textbooks, then unless a doctor, teacher, professor, or similar figure requires you to play it, or unless you have a friend who is depressed and you want to better understand it, then no, you probably shouldn't play it. You won't enjoy it, and you won't enjoy what you've gained from it.
3. Most games that try to "teach a lesson" of some kind are not fun not because the lesson is bad, but because they're poorly designed. Games like that should be fun AND should teach the lesson. Otherwise, they're not well made. Depression Quest is a thought experiment, but it's not particularly well made from a craft perspective.
If there are exceptions, then it isn't a rule unless the exception is an explicit part of the rule.
The problem here is that you use an overly broad definition of "fun" as simply something that is "enjoyable" when for many people fun has a positive connotation. Fun is something that makes you smile or laugh, that is entertaining, that gives you a positive feeling, that makes you happy.
However, this is not the only emotional basis a narrative device can or even should attempt to connect with the audience. That is true for games as well as books, movies etc. Not every story is a positive one, and there needs to be room for games that come from a negative emotional space if games should ever be taken seriously as a story telling medium.
The meme of "games need to be fun" is exclusionary for this very reason, and I blame it in part for people declaring certain games as "not games", a cause you rally against.
The problem here is that you use an overly broad definition of "fun" as simply something that is "enjoyable" when for many people fun has a positive connotation. Fun is something that makes you smile or laugh, that is entertaining, that gives you a positive feeling, that makes you happy.
You keep saying that over and over, but it doesn't make it true. You're literally arguing that the people who play DayZ don't have fun and aren't enjoying it. I think they would disagree.
And again, the colloquial definitions of "fun" and "enjoyment" are broad. Do you want dictionary definitions or colloquial ones. If you're actually going to base your argument on this, then you only get to pick one or the other. Both support my statements.
Not every story is a positive one, and there needs to be room for games that come from a negative emotional space if games should ever be taken seriously as a story telling medium.
Where have I or anyone (other than you) said that fun excludes negative emotional spaces. Fun isn't an emotion. You keep acting like it is. It isn't. You're heavily conflating terms.
The meme of "games need to be fun" is exclusionary for this very reason, and I blame it in part for people declaring certain games as "not games", a cause you rally against.
What I said was that people shouldn't play games that aren't fun for them. If you don't enjoy something, don't do it for pleasure. Games that aren't fun for you are bad games for you.
This morning I remembered another game which garnered critical praise and was somewhat interested in (though admittedly this came about at least partially due to the hubbub surrounding it) which could fit this topic: Depression Quest.
Depression Quest is not a game. It's a choose your own adventure book.
This morning I remembered another game which garnered critical praise and was somewhat interested in (though admittedly this came about at least partially due to the hubbub surrounding it) which could fit this topic: Depression Quest.
Depression Quest is not a game. It's a choose your own adventure book.
Choose Your Own Adventure books are games.
Edit: that embedded without the start time. Go to "youtube/watch?v=zCu9IHyyS2s#t=739"
Not to mention Hitman Go, every adventure game ever, the peg game on the table at the Cracker Barrel, the solitaire game of Caverna (although the jury's still out on whether we've found the highest possible score)...
This morning I remembered another game which garnered critical praise and was somewhat interested in (though admittedly this came about at least partially due to the hubbub surrounding it) which could fit this topic: Depression Quest.
Depression Quest is not a game. It's a choose your own adventure book.
Choose Your Own Adventure books are games.
No, they're not. Text adventures and stuff like Myst are also not games. They are literature with multiple/modular plotlines. There is no element of skill, chance, or competition.
No, they're not. Text adventures and stuff like Myst are also not games. They are literature with multiple/modular plotlines. There is no element of skill, chance, or competition.
That's a bullshit argument and a bullshit sentiment.
In colloquial use, they're definitely games. Ask any average person on the street if Myst is a game and they'll say "of course." They'll say the same thing about tag, Candyland, patty-cake, and every adventure game ever made.
But NO, you mean to use a dictionary definition instead of how everyone else in the English speaking world uses the word "game."
Fine.
a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure
activity engaged in for diversion or amusement
Nothing there requiring skill, chance, or competition.
How about the definitions we use in all of our lectures, which themselves derive from what game designers use to define "games" or "good games?"
1. "competitive test of skill" or Garfield's orthogame definition of "A competition between two or more players using an agreed-upon set of rules and a method of ranking."
2. "a series of interesting/meaningful decisions"
3. "an interactive amusement"
Oh. At least one of those applies to every single one of your examples. Game designers also thing by and large that these things are games.
So, pray tell good sir, what made-up definition of the word "game" do you personally use to make this argument?
Comments
The point is this. Despite both of those movies giving the audience negative feelings of sadness, despair, horror, etc. they are worth watching. People want to watch them. After they watch them, they don't regret having done so. There is a positive human experience that accompanies the surface level negative emotions. Just like a haunted house provides a surface level negative emotion, but can still be a positive experience.
There are some things out there that do not provide any positive experience whatsoever. The audience/player/whatever just suffers.
In the specific case of games there are some where winning is worthwhile, but losing is an experience that consists only of suffering. You should not play those games. For a game to be worth your time, it needs to be worth it whether or not you win or lose.
... And maybe you have a pathological competitiveness disorder.
I agree with Scott, the word "fun" can mislead audience members.
Replace "fun" with "worth your time".
I have not finished it yet so this isn't meant as a full review or anything, but I can see where the game is coming from, why it is structured the way it is, and it made me actually contemplate the choices within it. It is engaging and interesting. It is also decidedly not fun. The game even tells you straight up when you open it: "Depression Quest is a game that deals with living with depression in a very literal way. This game is not meant to be a fun or lighthearted experience."
Another game I heard about (but haven't played) that isn't fun at all is Day Z, yet it there are people who absolutely love it despite, or perhaps because of, this lack of fun. That it presents a drab reality of survival without the thrill of overcoming obstacles and a promise of a happy ending, yet this is exactly what makes you emotionally invest and connect.
I've also heard similar stuff about This War of Mine, a game I plan on checking out at one point.
------------------------------
So yeah, there isn't a necessity to bake fun into a game. There are games, just like movies, books, music, and other forms of media, that aren't meant to be fun. They are meant to engage on a different emotion.
The problem I had with Rym's statement isn't that the point he attempts to convey is wrong in what he means. That you shouldn't play games that attempt to engage by being fun and fail at that, either because it is a genuinely bad game or because you aren't the target audience.
What annoyed me is that despite his knowledge of games, and his particularly dislike for people who insist only certain kinds of games are games and other types aren't really games and not worth playing, he propagated the meme that fun is the only emotional basis a game can and should engage its audience. A meme which I at least partially blame for douchebags calling experiences like Depression Quest or This War of Mine "not a game".
That he doubled down on this when I challenged it didn't help either.
Perhaps "games need to be engaging" isn't as catchy a phrase as "games need to be fun" but at least it actually conveys what is meant rather than being somewhat misleading and exclusionary.
Merriam Webster:
"someone or something that is amusing or enjoyable : an enjoyable experience or person"
"an enjoyable or amusing time"
"the feeling of being amused or entertained"
So. it most certainly sounds like DayZ is fun to them, and that they're having fun playing it.
Where in that (or any) definition of the word "fun" does "the thrill of overcoming obstacles and a promise of a happy ending" come into play?
Fun, both from a dictionary perspective and in colloquial usage, just means a feeling or result: it makes zero assertion as to the source of said feeling, nor the reason for it. YOU are overloading the word in attempting to make your point, not me.
Any combination of emotional states can lead to fun. Watching a desperately sad movie is easily considered to be fun by people who enjoy such emotional manipulation by media.
Emotions can be used to create fun for someone. At no point did I say fun was an emotion, nor did I say that only particular emotions are fun. Horror games provide fun through fear, disgust, and/or dread. But they're still fun.
Contrary to your dictionary definition, I'd call "fun" is an emotion of amusement and enjoyment. The amusement part is pretty much the important thing, considering it is the only word appearing in all three of the definitions you pulled (though insisting on dictionary definitions rather than what is colloquially understood by people is pretty much the definition of pedantry).
You can love something without that thing being fun. I love Grave of the Fireflies and I love Spec Ops: The Line. I don't consider watching/player either as fun because neither is amusing.
First off, "enjoyment" is defined primarily as:
"the state or process of taking pleasure in something."
" a feeling of pleasure caused by doing or experiencing something you like"
So everything I've said still stands. You're still the one making up definitions and putting words into my mouth to try and prove your point.
As for pedantry? I POINTEDLY and REPEATEDLY made it clear that I'm coming from both the dictionary AND colloquial direction. To almost everyone (except you apparently), the word "fun" is super generic, and just means enjoying something.
I enjoy feeling scared, so I play horror games for fun.
Why do people play DayZ? Do you honestly want to argue with me and them to say that they specifically aren't having fun? That the don't play DayZ because they enjoy it?
Depression Quest is a game that is explicitly attempting to not be fun. Does that make it a bad game that nobody should play?
1. If you as a person don't enjoy purely edifying activities (e.g., reading a textbook for pleasure), then no, you as a person should probably not play Depression Quest.
2. Yes, there are edge cases. There are edge cases and exceptions to every fucking rule. How clever of you. My grand ruse is defeated. My mighty castle collapses as the potemkin village that it is.
Depression quest is like a textbook. If you don't enjoy reading textbooks, then unless a doctor, teacher, professor, or similar figure requires you to play it, or unless you have a friend who is depressed and you want to better understand it, then no, you probably shouldn't play it. You won't enjoy it, and you won't enjoy what you've gained from it.
3. Most games that try to "teach a lesson" of some kind are not fun not because the lesson is bad, but because they're poorly designed. Games like that should be fun AND should teach the lesson. Otherwise, they're not well made. Depression Quest is a thought experiment, but it's not particularly well made from a craft perspective.
The problem here is that you use an overly broad definition of "fun" as simply something that is "enjoyable" when for many people fun has a positive connotation. Fun is something that makes you smile or laugh, that is entertaining, that gives you a positive feeling, that makes you happy.
However, this is not the only emotional basis a narrative device can or even should attempt to connect with the audience. That is true for games as well as books, movies etc. Not every story is a positive one, and there needs to be room for games that come from a negative emotional space if games should ever be taken seriously as a story telling medium.
The meme of "games need to be fun" is exclusionary for this very reason, and I blame it in part for people declaring certain games as "not games", a cause you rally against.
You keep saying that over and over, but it doesn't make it true. You're literally arguing that the people who play DayZ don't have fun and aren't enjoying it. I think they would disagree.
And again, the colloquial definitions of "fun" and "enjoyment" are broad. Do you want dictionary definitions or colloquial ones. If you're actually going to base your argument on this, then you only get to pick one or the other. Both support my statements. Where have I or anyone (other than you) said that fun excludes negative emotional spaces. Fun isn't an emotion. You keep acting like it is. It isn't. You're heavily conflating terms.
What I said was that people shouldn't play games that aren't fun for them. If you don't enjoy something, don't do it for pleasure. Games that aren't fun for you are bad games for you.
Edit: that embedded without the start time. Go to "youtube/watch?v=zCu9IHyyS2s#t=739"
In colloquial use, they're definitely games. Ask any average person on the street if Myst is a game and they'll say "of course." They'll say the same thing about tag, Candyland, patty-cake, and every adventure game ever made.
But NO, you mean to use a dictionary definition instead of how everyone else in the English speaking world uses the word "game."
Fine.
a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure
activity engaged in for diversion or amusement
Nothing there requiring skill, chance, or competition.
How about the definitions we use in all of our lectures, which themselves derive from what game designers use to define "games" or "good games?"
1. "competitive test of skill" or Garfield's orthogame definition of "A competition between two or more players using an agreed-upon set of rules and a method of ranking."
2. "a series of interesting/meaningful decisions"
3. "an interactive amusement"
Oh. At least one of those applies to every single one of your examples. Game designers also thing by and large that these things are games.
So, pray tell good sir, what made-up definition of the word "game" do you personally use to make this argument?
http://geeknightsrym.tumblr.com/post/57334608124/idiogames-better-definitions-of-the-word-game