Games are not supposed to be fun

It's true, all art is interactive. I propose the Quantum Principle of Art: that just by viewing a work of art we change it.

But on a more serious note, heh, it's clear that there are games that reach out more deeply or more 'artfully' than others by way of utilizing the interactive aspect of gaming to elicit reactions that aren't necessarily oriented around fun. Flow for example can be considered quintessentially fun through the its simply gratifying mechanisms, but I believe the overiding effect of it is derived from the ethereal, 'close to nature, but not quite' aura that it conveys through its design, which in the ends turns out to be incredibly beautiful.

I believe the more that gaming explores these varying degrees of interactivity and human involvement (but preferably not in the form of a crap ton of mini-games) the closer they'll get to become a truer art form.

I don't think viewing art is a passive experience. Each viewer brings different preconceptions, prejudices, values, and tastes with them. I would argue that the artist creates the work, but the viewer gives it meaning. The author might have some particular intent for the piece, and if that intent is communicated it means that the viewer and artist are, for lack of a better phrase, on the same wavelength. But the experience of a viewer who finds different meaning in a work is no less valid.

All art -- music, painting, sculpture, literature, video games -- is a partnership, a collaboration between artist and recipient. By interpreting art, we own it. The only way to view passively is not to interpret at all -- to record, store, and think of no more.

Fun's a tricky word. Satisfying is a better one.

I found watching Harakiri heartbreaking but at the same time I found it satisfying and bold. Clockwork Orange is a story about a man whose ethics are deplorable, but who is nonetheless oddly compelling. Sure, games don't NEED to be "fun", they don't need to be anything really, but you have to have a reason for playing them. Any problems that apply to games and enjoyment have analogs in other mediums.

What really strikes me is not the point that is trying to be made, but instead the reason behind it. Gamers like myself see games as being capable of so much more. We WANT the medium to explode. We WANT it to be taken seriously. But in order for that to happen, some of us feel as though we must divorce ourselves from our 8-bit history; wash off the palimpsest and start anew. It happened in Sci-fi and comics, and it's happening now in games. But a complete rebirth is not neccicary, there is wisdom in older games.

Want to try something that stretches the boundries of "Fun"? Play The Cosmology of Kyoto on Dosbox and wander through Buddhist hell. Play Bad Mojo, a game that would make Kafka proud. Play Fatal Frame, for god's sake, in the dark at four in the morning and see if that's fun for you.

Our history is a boon, not a burden.

And whatever you do, stop giving that old mute codger any credence. The man is a hypocrite anyway and has no right to criticize a medium he once seemed fond of.

Nothing has to be anything.

If a game is fun/enjoyable, then I play it. If it isn't, then I don't play it and, thus, it's not worth the effort. That's it, for me. Fun, however, is subjective. You can't objectively label a game as being fun. I'm having a lot of fun playing Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction for the Xbox, right now. Not everyone finds/found that game to be fun. It's not a hugely popular, well-known game. But I find it much more fun than games that are three times as popular and considered "fun" by many.

Really, it all depends on the experience you're trying to draw from the game. As Papapishu said, a game like Fatal Frame is just damned scary, and being scared and disturbed isn't fun for me. For many, though, it is. So, while many wouldn't necessarily define horror games as being "fun," they actually are, for those who derive enjoyment from being freaked the fuck out.

So, uh, yes. It IS all about being "fun," but "fun" takes different forms for different people.

Games themselves, to be considered art, is a catch-22 situation. I mean, what is the previous example? I've seen paintings that are so dull I can't even stand to look at them for two seconds, yet the artist put them there with the express purpose to look below the surface. On the other hand I've seen statues that I can't look away from because their beauty exudes from any angle. Movies can be artsy and boring, or be mind blowingly violent and you can't look away. Just watch oldboy and try not finishing it, as horrible as the ending is.

Games on the other hand are in the mind of the beholder. How many times have I played the same game through, time and time again, because it touches a part of me that can't be sated with anything else? I believe that there are certain games that can be considered art, while there are certain games that are there just to be f'd around with. Hell, even teh haloes can be considered art if you back up and watch the whole story unfold along with the action involved.

The difference, I believe, is the time frame involved. Were paintings and statues considered art at the time of their inception? Probably. Were movies considered art when they first arrived on the scene? Probably not. However when viewed from a distance, anything can be seen from a different angle. The difference here is that games are not played by everyone, as paintings, statues, plays, and movies are now. The whole gaming community is viewed by those that don't as a separate entity than any of those listed above, and as such, most people view it as a silly little game that requires minimum thought and violent tendencies. But to those of us in the know, know the game itself is a medium to a deeper meaning. We become the character by means of situation, and find ourselves becoming more involved with the game than simple button mashing. Not to say that some games are more than button mashing, but some games delve deep into our psyche and become a part of us, living on until our dying day.

That's just my opinion.

Do we read Orwell because it is fun? No, we read it because it presents us a new way of viewing the world and has the ability to transform us. Games can/should have this ability as well, but you have to keep the audience's attention by telling a good story and giving the people reasons to keep playing.

Entertainment comes in many forms; the relatively mindless fun which you see in 90% of games is merely the tip of the iceberg. The uniqueness of the video game medium has gigantic potential for creating meaningful art.

I don't play the Silent Hill games for fun and in actuality, I play them to make me feel like shit.

Very insightful, i'd never considered that before. I'll agree with that, the fact that I wouldn't play particular games that aren't fun for me, doesn't mean it can't be appreciated by other people!

Very insightful, i'd never considered that before. I'll agree with that, the fact that I wouldn't play particular games that aren't fun for me, doesn't mean it can't be appreciated by other people!

Now, if only... if only we could get sentiment like this to also apply to the Console Wars in general or to the ongoing Casual vs Hardcore debate or the rest... it would be a thing of beauty. *tears up just thinking about it*

Games may not have to be fun, but if they're not I won't bother with them. The reason I play games is to be entertained. If other people feel the urge to to suffer through an unenjoyable game, more power to them. I have better things to do with my time.

Unlike the poster before me, I think the article is crap.

First off, it assumes that gamers as a whole judge a games greatness by its sales. Basically, that's calling gamers stupid, and if you want to make a point to any group, you shouldn't insult them.

Second, games are just like any medium; if a game/book/movie isn't entertaining in some respect to SOMEONE, then it's meaningless. Entertainment, not necessarily fun (both of which are pretty vague terms) is the key here.

In any medium, if the audience (or at least SOME audience) isn't entertained, then the creator has failed.

Yes, the artist, or game designer in this case, should have final say as to where the game will take you, but if there's no incentive to go along for the ride, then you have nothing.

Yet another example of how video games act in the EXACT same manor as other mediums.

And the argument that the audience influences the outcome is moot because in the end, the only REAL outcomes are the one put in BY THE DESIGNERS!

The path you chose does not effect the end of the story (unless the maker WANTS it to, that is). Much like the vision in you head of how characters, events, and locations are percieved in books does not effect the ending of the book, a gamers choice to stand over a dead body in an FPS and duck-hump them for an hour does not change the fact that storyline is almost always set.

Like in any other art form, you're just along for the ride.

Sorry, if games weren't fun I probably wouldn't be playing as much. It would be like books. At that point, I'd search for something that is to videogames what videogames is to printed books today.

Honestly the way the Article is written reveals a lack of understanding of the gaming industry.

The fault in her argument is that video games as a quality are dictated by their sales and/or popularity. If we were to apply the same logic to movies a lot of movies that would be included in that catagory would be anything but art (in the sense that the author was discussing).

I wrote a lot of stuff, as always, but it was too long, so I'm going to make a full blog post about it:

As for games, 'art' and 'fun'.. And 'Fun VS Entertainment', maybe I'll be able to fit it here:

I realized when I saw Black Hawk Down, and tried to define its qualities afterwards, that I could not call it 'fun', or even exactly 'entertaining' in my somewhat limited definition of the word, back then.

I came to appreciate film critics' use of words like 'gripping' or 'compelling', as a movie about war or atrocities like genocide aren't exactly uplifting or highspirited.. but they do make you think. Hense the often used term 'thought-provoking'. So, I realized I could be 'entertained' without something being 'fun' or exciting in the 'f***-yeah!' action movie sort of way.

The question is if games can do the same thing, and be compelling enough to keep us playing (or should I say 'participating', as 'play' suggests something 'fun') even if they're simply thought-provoking. I suppose it would come down to what people go to games to receive. Do we, as a culture want anything more than the equivalent of fantasy, sci-fi, and action movies as games?

What about those people that get so mad at their games they occasionally throw the controller across the room?

Then they pick it up and keep playing.

Really, I think most of us are in agreement here and it's just the semantics that are tripping us up.

Do we not all agree that video games should be "fun" or "satisfying" or "entertaining" or "capable of holding our interest" or whatever phrase or word you want to use? Is this not also the case with other media such as books, and movies, and the rest? It's roughly the same thing. To me, "fun" does not mean only the happy-fluffy-cotton-candy "wee this is fun!" stuff. To me, "fun" also encompasses "creeped the fuck out by Silent Hill" and "sad when Aerith died in FF7" and stuff like that as well. "Not fun", to me, means mind-numbingly boring and/or flat out unplayable.

Do we not also agree that the medium of video games could be potentially used to produce some incredibly awesome, meaningful, and, yes, artistic material, the likes of which we have barely begun to scratch the surface of today?

Also, I'll ask again, as I did in the article to which I linked in my first comment of this thread: Why do so many people seem to think that "art" and "fun" are somehow mutually exclusive? Can't a game be both at the same time? If that actually can't, for whatever retarded reason, then I am going to pick "fun" over "art" every single time. As with the books I read, the movies I watch, the music I listen to, the paintings I gaze at, and so on and so forth, if a video game does not meet my personal definition of "fun" in some way, then I'm not going to play it, plain and simple, no matter how "artistic" it may be considered by others. Unless I have to do it for school or whatever, I'm not going to force myself to slog through something, be it a video game, book, movie, or what have you, simply out of some misguided sense of "I am bettering myself, because this is supposedly 'art', despite the fact that I think it sucks ass myself and otherwise could not care less about it" or whatever bullshit.