Videogames, for the most part, aren't good media yet. I tentatively agree with you, or at least I understand where you're coming from. Fun isn't enough, that's for sure. I definitely agree that it should be about so much more than mindless entertainment. So, great post. It's something to keep in mind.
Fun is a dreadful word, because it's so imprecise. Game designers really need to develop a better vocabulary for talking about these things.
My own guideline is that the games that I make have to be "compelling". That's a fancy way of saying that they can't be boring. Boring your audience is the one unpardonable sin that I can't let any creative type get away with.
And yes, I've seen Waiting For Godot and its ilk. If you want to talk about the unbearable tedium of existence, chat with your dog; don't write a play.
My own guideline is that the games that I make have to be "compelling". That's a fancy way of saying that they can't be boring. Boring your audience is the one unpardonable sin that I can't let any creative type get away with.
And yes, I've seen Waiting For Godot and its ilk. If you want to talk about the unbearable tedium of existence, chat with your dog; don't write a play.
Do you think a big problem could be that we have all become Pavlov's dog in simply expecting "fun" to be the outcome of gaming? It's whole existance up to now has been dictated around fun so, from many devs standpoints, why fix a system if they don't see it as in need of repairs? Even in serious games there seems to be a "fun factor" involved. I totally would appreciate what you are proposing to be realized but I ponder the ability for these to be games then. If you make a game that is all about emotion, would replayability still exist? Does that even matter? Are we just programmed to expect a game to play over and over? I'm not saying it can't be done just that it would be really hard to be able to market these. Would we still call them video "games" and not video "experiences"?
"maybe one day videogames will be more than just lowbrow entertainment."
Really? Really! I mean I'm not denying that this is sadly the best blog that been written today but I don't think I can ever agree with someone that thinks like you do or at least expresses themselves like you. I agree with the sentiments that games have the potential to be so many different things and evoke so many different reactions but you act as if there is only one true way for games to progress and that completely nullifies those thoughts.
We shouldn't ignore games that don't attempt to not just be fun. Wesley linked to Anthony's Rev Rant and that is the sort of thing I could get behind. Not a complete segregation of the entire video game industry but the increased production of artistic expression in games. Why can we not value games for what they are instead of what they can be. Expect mainstream games to be mainstream with hints of "art" and art games to be artsy with hints of fun. Simples.
Really? Really! I mean I'm not denying that this is sadly the best blog that been written today but I don't think I can ever agree with someone that thinks like you do or at least expresses themselves like you. I agree with the sentiments that games have the potential to be so many different things and evoke so many different reactions but you act as if there is only one true way for games to progress and that completely nullifies those thoughts.
We shouldn't ignore games that don't attempt to not just be fun. Wesley linked to Anthony's Rev Rant and that is the sort of thing I could get behind. Not a complete segregation of the entire video game industry but the increased production of artistic expression in games. Why can we not value games for what they are instead of what they can be. Expect mainstream games to be mainstream with hints of "art" and art games to be artsy with hints of fun. Simples.
You claim that for video games, or anything else, to really be "worth" anything they need to "challenge" us in the sense that they encourage us to "expand" ourselves, to take in new ideas and views, to be aware of more afterwards than we were beforehand, to somehow be changed by them. You seem to apply this idea to more or less "universal" ingredients - "emotions", "experiences", "ideas".
My question is, can a game "expand" the player, not necessarily by taking on some sort of universal truth, but simply though the quality and creativity of its craftsmanship, the way it's put together to deliver what the creators intended, even if this is just "fun" in the sense you describe it? Do you need to know the symbolism behind Michelangelo's David to see it as an enduring masterpiece in its medium, or can it still be appreciated just for the sheer amount of skill and effort the artist put into it, and the way he was able to channel all of that into an exceedingly worthwhile result? Can video games similarly "expand" us by setting a higher standard for a cohesive, polished product, thus changing our perception of what a "fun" game should be?
My question is, can a game "expand" the player, not necessarily by taking on some sort of universal truth, but simply though the quality and creativity of its craftsmanship, the way it's put together to deliver what the creators intended, even if this is just "fun" in the sense you describe it? Do you need to know the symbolism behind Michelangelo's David to see it as an enduring masterpiece in its medium, or can it still be appreciated just for the sheer amount of skill and effort the artist put into it, and the way he was able to channel all of that into an exceedingly worthwhile result? Can video games similarly "expand" us by setting a higher standard for a cohesive, polished product, thus changing our perception of what a "fun" game should be?
Fun is like the carbonation in my Coca-Cola(TM). Without it, it just tastes terrible.
I need to be entertained. The only way video games, books or movies can get away without "fun" is if I'm either bettering myself (exer-gaming) or learning something. And even then I still need to be a bit entertained or else boredom sets in and I go do something else. Like coke. *snort*
I need to be entertained. The only way video games, books or movies can get away without "fun" is if I'm either bettering myself (exer-gaming) or learning something. And even then I still need to be a bit entertained or else boredom sets in and I go do something else. Like coke. *snort*
Great blogpost. I'm not sure I would equate 'fun' with 'flow.' A flow state as I understand it would apply to something that requires intense concentration to trigger it - an example,using gaming, would be playing through an extremely difficult game like Mega Man where you get into the 'zone' and blaze through levels without dying or getting hit.
Anyone that has spent even a few minutes with a Mega Man game will know that to get to the point where you can achieve this type of 'flow' it requires setting aside 'fun,' dealing with frustration and focusing on skill. It takes a lot of patience, trial and error and frazzled nerves - that shit is not fun.
On the other hand games like Farmville which are indeed mindless and addicting require no 'flow' state at all. Many people consider them fun - yet they require little concentration and minimal engagement.
Seems to me that the concept of "Flow" is pretty distinct from what you are calling "fun."
Anyone that has spent even a few minutes with a Mega Man game will know that to get to the point where you can achieve this type of 'flow' it requires setting aside 'fun,' dealing with frustration and focusing on skill. It takes a lot of patience, trial and error and frazzled nerves - that shit is not fun.
On the other hand games like Farmville which are indeed mindless and addicting require no 'flow' state at all. Many people consider them fun - yet they require little concentration and minimal engagement.
Seems to me that the concept of "Flow" is pretty distinct from what you are calling "fun."
Great blogpost. I'm not sure I would equate 'fun' with 'flow.' A flow state as I understand it would apply to something that requires intense concentration to trigger it - an example,using gaming, would be playing through an extremely difficult game like Mega Man where you get into the 'zone' and blaze through levels without dying or getting hit.
Anyone that has spent even a few minutes with a Mega Man game will know that to get to the point where you can achieve this type of 'flow' it requires setting aside 'fun,' dealing with frustration and focusing on skill. It takes a lot of patience, trial and error and frazzled nerves - that shit is not fun.
On the other hand games like Farmville which are indeed mindless and addicting require no 'flow' state at all. Many people consider them fun - yet they require little concentration and minimal engagement.
Seems to me that the concept of "Flow" is pretty distinct from what you are calling "fun."
Anyone that has spent even a few minutes with a Mega Man game will know that to get to the point where you can achieve this type of 'flow' it requires setting aside 'fun,' dealing with frustration and focusing on skill. It takes a lot of patience, trial and error and frazzled nerves - that shit is not fun.
On the other hand games like Farmville which are indeed mindless and addicting require no 'flow' state at all. Many people consider them fun - yet they require little concentration and minimal engagement.
Seems to me that the concept of "Flow" is pretty distinct from what you are calling "fun."
I disagree with this blog. A video game without "fun"... I think "flow" or at least "challenges and appropriate rewards" would be better since it would cover things like survival/horror games, war sims, brain teasers, farmville, etc... would be pointless. As bad as wine without alcohol, novels that don't tell stories, or Shakespeare without puns and dick jokes.
No media owes its existence to the investors, the analysts, the OCD fans, or the insufferable wankers in academia. Even the world's most refined art forms would have died in infancy if they did not begin with an appeal to the needs of the common man. To forget that is to become one of those rock bands that refuse to play the anthem that made them popular, may their concerts forever be empty.
Intellectuals will crash the party in their own good time, once there are enough regular people having fun that one can start feeling big about bullying regular people with rules about the right and wrong way to enjoy their gaming.
No media owes its existence to the investors, the analysts, the OCD fans, or the insufferable wankers in academia. Even the world's most refined art forms would have died in infancy if they did not begin with an appeal to the needs of the common man. To forget that is to become one of those rock bands that refuse to play the anthem that made them popular, may their concerts forever be empty.
Intellectuals will crash the party in their own good time, once there are enough regular people having fun that one can start feeling big about bullying regular people with rules about the right and wrong way to enjoy their gaming.
@ Lazaro Cruz
You're being too narrow in your interpretation of the concept of flow. I believe what you're mentioning is a very heightened sense of flow, one which we see high-end practitioners of sports and games employ to diminish response time of physical reflexes. But flow is a much more wide and prevalent state in our daily experiences. Csikszentmihaliy mentions flow in practically every human activity: reading books, watching films, walking, talking, working, etc. Flow basically means that you're completely and joyously immersed in a task, to the point you forget everything else; not necessarily that you that you're short-circuited to your arms and legs.
Csikszentmihaliy called his book "Flow, the Psychology of Entertainment", and isn't fun the very basis of entertainment? Isn't being immersed in a task, while taking pleasure from it, "fun"?
@PvPPY
I don't want to crash nobody's party. Like Burch, I know there will always be fun games, and fun films, and fun TV shows. That's the norm. But that's not art or cultural expression. Those are past-times people engage on to relax, enjoy and have a good time. That's fine, and it will never end. I too engage in fun activities. The error, is believing that "fun" is the alpha and omega. That it is beginning and end. And more so, that "fun" has anything to do with a media's cultural or artistic value. It doesn't, Mona Lisa isn't fun, and Beethoven's 9th isn't fun, and Citizen Kane isn't fun. And good videogames might be fun, but that will never be what distinguishes them from bad videogames.
Why can't we have different paradigms of what a videogame can be, instead of what it should be? Why can't videogames be beautiful? Mellow? Mesmerizing? Sad? Frustrating? Difficult to understand? Ambiguous? Why can't videogames not be fun?
You're being too narrow in your interpretation of the concept of flow. I believe what you're mentioning is a very heightened sense of flow, one which we see high-end practitioners of sports and games employ to diminish response time of physical reflexes. But flow is a much more wide and prevalent state in our daily experiences. Csikszentmihaliy mentions flow in practically every human activity: reading books, watching films, walking, talking, working, etc. Flow basically means that you're completely and joyously immersed in a task, to the point you forget everything else; not necessarily that you that you're short-circuited to your arms and legs.
Csikszentmihaliy called his book "Flow, the Psychology of Entertainment", and isn't fun the very basis of entertainment? Isn't being immersed in a task, while taking pleasure from it, "fun"?
@PvPPY
I don't want to crash nobody's party. Like Burch, I know there will always be fun games, and fun films, and fun TV shows. That's the norm. But that's not art or cultural expression. Those are past-times people engage on to relax, enjoy and have a good time. That's fine, and it will never end. I too engage in fun activities. The error, is believing that "fun" is the alpha and omega. That it is beginning and end. And more so, that "fun" has anything to do with a media's cultural or artistic value. It doesn't, Mona Lisa isn't fun, and Beethoven's 9th isn't fun, and Citizen Kane isn't fun. And good videogames might be fun, but that will never be what distinguishes them from bad videogames.
Why can't we have different paradigms of what a videogame can be, instead of what it should be? Why can't videogames be beautiful? Mellow? Mesmerizing? Sad? Frustrating? Difficult to understand? Ambiguous? Why can't videogames not be fun?
@rui - Maybe what's turning me off is the notion that that all of these other things games "could be" is somehow exclusive to being "fun". You sometimes admit that the two could go hand-in-hand but mostly position them as opposing directions.
"not fun", making a moment in a game something a player can't enjoy, is the negative space of videogaming. It can be put to amazing artistic use (Suda51, Beat Takeshi, Kojima, and many others) but you can't make a game consist of it entirely. Nobody would play it. If the platforming and climbing in Shadow of the Colossus wasn't enjoyable in a simple and visceral way, maybe I wouldn't have wanted to keep playing when the tone of killing the mosters became sad rather than triumphant. The conclusion of Snake's fight against The Boss in MGS3 wouldn't have been so stunning without contrast to the game up to that point.
I'd suggest that Citizen Kane (with its innovative direction and camerawork) gave its audiences a dose of the same mind-blowing spectacle as Star Wars and Avatar did two and three generations later. It's hard for modern audiences to misinterpret why that movie is held in such high regard when virtually every film since has copied and expanded on the cinematic techniques Kane introduced.
"not fun", making a moment in a game something a player can't enjoy, is the negative space of videogaming. It can be put to amazing artistic use (Suda51, Beat Takeshi, Kojima, and many others) but you can't make a game consist of it entirely. Nobody would play it. If the platforming and climbing in Shadow of the Colossus wasn't enjoyable in a simple and visceral way, maybe I wouldn't have wanted to keep playing when the tone of killing the mosters became sad rather than triumphant. The conclusion of Snake's fight against The Boss in MGS3 wouldn't have been so stunning without contrast to the game up to that point.
I'd suggest that Citizen Kane (with its innovative direction and camerawork) gave its audiences a dose of the same mind-blowing spectacle as Star Wars and Avatar did two and three generations later. It's hard for modern audiences to misinterpret why that movie is held in such high regard when virtually every film since has copied and expanded on the cinematic techniques Kane introduced.
Nice blog,
We all have different ideas of what fun is. I think you could have saved some time and left it at that. Your intentions are good and there is nothing wrong with seeking new experiences.
I'm not sure how explaining Flow helps your case, as it can co exit with both hot and cold media.
As a side note my tutors would always kick my ass for starting a paragraph with 'obviously' because it comes of as insulting, obviously.
We all have different ideas of what fun is. I think you could have saved some time and left it at that. Your intentions are good and there is nothing wrong with seeking new experiences.
I'm not sure how explaining Flow helps your case, as it can co exit with both hot and cold media.
As a side note my tutors would always kick my ass for starting a paragraph with 'obviously' because it comes of as insulting, obviously.
This started off as an interesting read. Flow is a fascinating theory, of which I am a huge fan. I spent quite a bit of time examining the concept of flow for my Master's thesis. While I think you are mistaken in the way you interchange flow and "fun", I was interested to see where you were going. Until.....
"In other words, fun or flow, is a hedonic, mindless past-time, one which we engage for its capacity to release pleasure hormones in our brain for long periods of time. Fun is the very definition of entertainment. Now we have to wonder if fun is really the defining quality which distinguishes good entertainment, good art and good videogames from the bad. If you believe that the best quality a videogame should possess is the ability to waste your time, with you mindlessly feeling pleasure as if hotwired to an endorphin disposal tube, then feel free to continue to uphold the logic of fun."
You completely misinterpreted some of the characteristics identified as part of flow. Losing self-consciousness and track of time does not equate a mindless waste of time. Self-consciousness refers to the resources (which exist in limited capacity) directed toward monitoring one's self-concept in order to create a balanced state. Self-consciousness and keeping track of time are themselves a waste of resources that prevent optimal performance on complex tasks. Flow, or the reduction of the burden imposed by resource wasting activities is an overwhelmingly productive and desirable state. Flow is focused, fun, rewarding, and highly-productive.
I think I may try to put together a full post on this topic. Just have to find the time.
"In other words, fun or flow, is a hedonic, mindless past-time, one which we engage for its capacity to release pleasure hormones in our brain for long periods of time. Fun is the very definition of entertainment. Now we have to wonder if fun is really the defining quality which distinguishes good entertainment, good art and good videogames from the bad. If you believe that the best quality a videogame should possess is the ability to waste your time, with you mindlessly feeling pleasure as if hotwired to an endorphin disposal tube, then feel free to continue to uphold the logic of fun."
You completely misinterpreted some of the characteristics identified as part of flow. Losing self-consciousness and track of time does not equate a mindless waste of time. Self-consciousness refers to the resources (which exist in limited capacity) directed toward monitoring one's self-concept in order to create a balanced state. Self-consciousness and keeping track of time are themselves a waste of resources that prevent optimal performance on complex tasks. Flow, or the reduction of the burden imposed by resource wasting activities is an overwhelmingly productive and desirable state. Flow is focused, fun, rewarding, and highly-productive.
I think I may try to put together a full post on this topic. Just have to find the time.
"Beethoven's 9th isn't fun"
I'm sure there are plenty of people who think so. Have they a wrong understanding of the term "fun", is it that they use it flippantly that makes it an unjustified way of access to the piece? And what of metallers who like to listen to an interpretation of Bach? Have they no right to listen to it without the right sense of piousness?
And much of Bioshock's fun actually derives from its thematic complexity, its original atmosphere and its stylistic playfulness. These things can be fun. The gameplay didn't impress or interest many people.
Even if the majority agrees with the general concern, this is where I think many are divided almost by necessity.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who think so. Have they a wrong understanding of the term "fun", is it that they use it flippantly that makes it an unjustified way of access to the piece? And what of metallers who like to listen to an interpretation of Bach? Have they no right to listen to it without the right sense of piousness?
And much of Bioshock's fun actually derives from its thematic complexity, its original atmosphere and its stylistic playfulness. These things can be fun. The gameplay didn't impress or interest many people.
Even if the majority agrees with the general concern, this is where I think many are divided almost by necessity.
@ctrain
"You completely misinterpreted some of the characteristics identified as part of flow. Losing self-consciousness and track of time does not equate a mindless waste of time. Self-consciousness refers to the resources (which exist in limited capacity) directed toward monitoring one's self-concept in order to create a balanced state. Self-consciousness and keeping track of time are themselves a waste of resources that prevent optimal performance on complex tasks. Flow, or the reduction of the burden imposed by resource wasting activities is an overwhelmingly productive and desirable state. Flow is focused, fun, rewarding, and highly-productive. "
They're productive solely towards the execution of the activity, but that doesn't guarantee (and here is where I disagree from Csikszentmihaliy) that it is a productive activity in terms of your self growth. People achieve "flow" by playing COD multiplayer, by reading pink novels, watching TV or simply walking; do these activities teach people meaningful skills? Do they wide their cultural, psychological and social horizons? No. Yet, they induce flow, and allo people to remain entertained.
Which is precisely my point: it isn't the fun that is important, it's what comes out of it, what extends beyond the boundaries of the activity into our lives that is of value, whether or not it induced "fun" or "flow". Our capability of pleasurably engaging in activities is not the key factor, but activities capacity to change us, to better us, to challenge us in meaningful ways that counts. That is good media.
@Ty
Again, it's not the fun that matters. People may find Bioshock entertaining or boring because of the shooting, as they may find it entertaining or boring because of its setting, narrative and sub-text. Now, which of the two is more important? Which challenges players to better understand cultural, sociological and political issues? Killing splicers with cool shotguns and lighting bolts, or learning about the consequences of objectivism and laissez faire capitalism?
The answer is obvious. One truly challenges players to think in new ways and to learn, the other is content with stimulating their more primal aggression instincts. It doesn't matter that shooting is actually more fun (to most) than the story. The setting and its narrative is what will allow Bioshock to be studied, as if a piece of literature, theater or film, for years to come. The "Doom" shooting will be forgotten as part of our current game design zeitgeist. Wanna bet?
"You completely misinterpreted some of the characteristics identified as part of flow. Losing self-consciousness and track of time does not equate a mindless waste of time. Self-consciousness refers to the resources (which exist in limited capacity) directed toward monitoring one's self-concept in order to create a balanced state. Self-consciousness and keeping track of time are themselves a waste of resources that prevent optimal performance on complex tasks. Flow, or the reduction of the burden imposed by resource wasting activities is an overwhelmingly productive and desirable state. Flow is focused, fun, rewarding, and highly-productive. "
They're productive solely towards the execution of the activity, but that doesn't guarantee (and here is where I disagree from Csikszentmihaliy) that it is a productive activity in terms of your self growth. People achieve "flow" by playing COD multiplayer, by reading pink novels, watching TV or simply walking; do these activities teach people meaningful skills? Do they wide their cultural, psychological and social horizons? No. Yet, they induce flow, and allo people to remain entertained.
Which is precisely my point: it isn't the fun that is important, it's what comes out of it, what extends beyond the boundaries of the activity into our lives that is of value, whether or not it induced "fun" or "flow". Our capability of pleasurably engaging in activities is not the key factor, but activities capacity to change us, to better us, to challenge us in meaningful ways that counts. That is good media.
@Ty
Again, it's not the fun that matters. People may find Bioshock entertaining or boring because of the shooting, as they may find it entertaining or boring because of its setting, narrative and sub-text. Now, which of the two is more important? Which challenges players to better understand cultural, sociological and political issues? Killing splicers with cool shotguns and lighting bolts, or learning about the consequences of objectivism and laissez faire capitalism?
The answer is obvious. One truly challenges players to think in new ways and to learn, the other is content with stimulating their more primal aggression instincts. It doesn't matter that shooting is actually more fun (to most) than the story. The setting and its narrative is what will allow Bioshock to be studied, as if a piece of literature, theater or film, for years to come. The "Doom" shooting will be forgotten as part of our current game design zeitgeist. Wanna bet?

surf dtoid with 

Rising (10+)
People you follow

send message
follow
followers


