Why games can be “not fun”

[DeekyFun]

"Dear Esther is good without being fun, Dear Esther is a game, therefore there exists a game that is good without being fun, therefore games can be good without being fun". It is critical to this argument that Dear Esther is a game, therefore if I disagree with that designation then the entire argument collapses.

But this in itself seems a bit limiting. For instance - If I say X is a good example of a game, and you don't believe X is a game, by your criteria, then for you my entire statement collapses. It would mean that in every case where Dear Ester is being brought up here as a game, you'd simply think, well it's not a game, so this conversation can't continue beyond that thought. It sounds like a stumbling block for any conversation about a game where it's status as a game is not being discussed foremost. Sure, you thinking is completely logical from a philosophical perspective, but I'm still not convinced that a) this chain of thought is actually being followed when it actually comes to discussing games, and b) whether it would be a good thing to do so anyway.

In any case, you've clearly put a lot of thought into it, and I'm not knocking it. As a man who once had to play a game called 'paint-pot racing' in a period of absolute boredom, I'm pretty sure the criteria of what makes a game or doesn't is always going to be a somewhat vague process.

[Kadayi]

Not at all. The very point is to come to an agreement on the elements on what make up something. The key ingredients as such. If we're to discuss the subject in terms of commonality then those commonalities have to exist. The confusion with 30 flights and Dear Easter Vs TWD is that all three inhabit game space. They're all operating in game engines and atypically as such it's easy to therefore feel that qualifies them all as video/computer games (it's got 4 wheels and an engine..therefore it's a car, Vs a lawnmower) . However there is a considerable degree of differential in terms of the extent of interaction in each, and the degree of that user experience can vary accordingly.

Simply because we can catagorize something as 'not a computer game' doesn't necessarily mean it can't be regarded or evaluted in some fashion still. It's not a case of throwing things on the scrap heap of invalidation as such (this isn't 'that's not an RPG' elitism) more establishing a framework criteria by which to assess things (I guess a lot of it comes down to mindset at the end of the day). Hell, I was waxing lyrical to you yesterday on Steam about Kentucky route zero. I'm not even sure whether I'd class that a game as there's no fail state to it and no real puzzle aspect either. However I'm in awe of the graphical style, the scenic transitions and just the overall storytelling. There's some genuine poetry to it all that just begs to find its way into future games. Its a case of parsing out the positive aspects of an experience and envisaging how they can inform future design is all.

[Berzee]

I know the discussion of "game vs. not game" is a favorite one, but take care that it does not overwhelm the slightly-less-exhausted topic of "fun vs. not fun" which was raised in the OP. =P

[DeekyFun]

True, sorry!

[Nalano]

I know the discussion of "game vs. not game" is a favorite one, but take care that it does not overwhelm the slightly-less-exhausted topic of "fun vs. not fun" which was raised in the OP. =P

In this era of video <nominally interactive entertainment>, we have an increasingly wide variety of means for these examples of <nominally interactive entertainment> to provide entertainment. The problem with the OP's declaration about what it means to have fun over the <nominally interactive entertainment> industry is that the OP has a particularly poor definition of "fun," in that it is an especially personal, subjective viewpoint.

He makes no effort to have a real sociological focus on the efficacy of his observations, instead substituting personal anecdote for universality. As it stands, however, our collective understanding as to the human motivations behind "fun" are so ill-defined and so variegated as to cause any reasonable observer to err on the side of inclusion. As such, there can be no declarative confirmation as to the "un-fun"-ness of our <nominally interactive entertainment>.

[Berzee]

Hmm...since I'm all definitioned out too, rather than work to craft a universally-accepted definition of THE FUN, let me pose a variant of the question, one which can be answered in a more subjective and personal way (just for The Fun of seeing everyone's responses).

hey every1body: Have you ever interacted with a technomarvelous electrodiversion in a way that you ultimately appreciated (and maybe even returned to, seeking to repeat the experience) but in a way that you would not personally describe as "the fun"? Are these occurrences accidental, or do you seek them out?

[Nalano]

Hmm...since I'm all definitioned out too, rather than work to craft a universally-accepted definition of THE FUN, let me pose a variant of the question, one which can be answered in a more subjective and personal way (just for The Fun of seeing everyone's responses).

hey every1body: Have you ever interacted with a technomarvelous electrodiversion in a way that you ultimately appreciated (and maybe even returned to, seeking to repeat the experience) but in a way that you would not personally describe as "the fun"? Are these occurrences accidental, or do you seek them out?

Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days, Max Payne 3 and Spec Ops: The Line are, to me, three honest attempts at deconstructing the nature of gun violence and interventionism in the form of the protagonist, with varying degrees of success.

I would rank them from lesser to greater honesty in this order: MP3 < Spec Ops < K&L2. Max Payne was preachy. Spec Ops was imposing. Kane & Lynch actually hurt to play. Each had a statement to make that was in direct contravention to their own existence. The last one may have actually succeeded in making it, and was, in my opinion, panned in reviews for doing so, because it broke the barrier of expectations for a game. It was ugly, because its subject matter was ugly.

The Witcher 2, Dragon Age: Origins and Neverwinter Nights 2 all attempt to deconstruct the nature of heroism in fantasy games. They match you with people who are flawed or failed heroes in their own right - Ammon Jerro, Iorveth and Teryn Loghain in particular - and give you decisions that will ultimately harm a great deal of people no matter what.

The former goes further and shows a world that exists independently of the protagonist and will prevail without him. The complaints came in for the former: You don't feel heroic enough. You haven't changed the world. So? Subverting expectation is itself a rewarding experience.

[Mohorovicic]

More soulsearching in a trashbag, great.

Remember: Origins was an inside job.

[alms]

They're all operating in game engines and atypically as such it's easy to therefore feel that qualifies them all as video/computer games (it's got 4 wheels and an engine..therefore it's a car, Vs a lawnmower)

Must be the weakest simile I've read in a while.

[Kadayi]

Must be the weakest simile I've read in a while.

Anything of worth to actually add to the discussion or just OT bitching? It was lunchtime and I didn't have long to type. Happy?

[Nalano]

Anything of worth to actually add to the discussion or just OT bitching? It was lunchtime and I didn't have long to type. Happy?

OT bitching about OT bitching. The irony is palpable.

I rate my enjoyment of games by the experience I feel when playing them. WoW rates highly not because it's a particularly compelling game (the gameplay makes even Diablo look involved and variegated) but because the absolutely legendary levels of drama that game fomented became the game. Enough times reading applications to raiding guilds that go "I just want to be able to contribute and see all of the game; I'm such a personable, fun team player" which, when the bullshit is cut through, reduces to "I want phat loot and noobs to look up to me; also I want a captive audience on Ventrilo for my sexist remarks" and then the game becomes "how do I embarrass this asshole in the most public and creative way possible, while also enriching myself?"

Fun is where you look for it.

[Kadayi]

OT bitching about OT bitching. The irony is palpable.

Well some of us have busy lives Nalano, so we can't be glued to the forum 24/7 (unlike your good self). Fact of the matter is I sense the man disagrees with the proposal in some manner, but somehow lacks the courage/grace to put forth a counterpoint and I'm hoping that he might be cajoled into it. Any proposition needs to be tested.

Hmm...since I'm all definitioned out too, rather than work to craft a universally-accepted definition of THE FUN, let me pose a variant of the question, one which can be answered in a more subjective and personal way (just for The Fun of seeing everyone's responses).

hey every1body: Have you ever interacted with a technomarvelous electrodiversion in a way that you ultimately appreciated (and maybe even returned to, seeking to repeat the experience) but in a way that you would not personally describe as "the fun"? Are these occurrences accidental, or do you seek them out?

I'm not sure I'd quite qualify Dark Souls as 'fun' but there was something compelling enough about it last year that I sank 200+ hours into it. Similarly I'm not sure that I'd say doing the gold licenses on a Japanese version of GT back in the PS1 days was particularly 'fun' either, but somehow I felt the challenge had to be overcome. I think 'fun' elicits ideas of ongoing easily achieved rewards, where as 'challenge' is more a case of rewards earned through endeavour.I think it's entirely possible to get into games that are all about challenge (fighting games/Mil sims for instance) and not so much 'fun' in terms of payoffs.

[Nalano]

Well some of us have busy lives Nalano, so we can't be glued to the forum 24/7 (unlike your good self). Fact of the matter is I sense the man disagrees with the proposal in some manner, but somehow lacks the courage/grace to put forth a counterpoint and I'm hoping that he might be cajoled into it. Any proposition needs to be tested.

Hey, calling out your hypocrisy isn't just a full-time job: It's a labor of love.

[Kadayi]

Hey, calling out your hypocrisy isn't just a full-time job: It's a labor of love.

I'm responding directly to the mans comment on my post. You might see that as an opportunity to rail on me (because you seemingly can't get over your forum baggage), I just see that as a breach of the forum rules.

[soldant]

hey every1body: Have you ever interacted with a technomarvelous electrodiversion in a way that you ultimately appreciated (and maybe even returned to, seeking to repeat the experience) but in a way that you would not personally describe as "the fun"? Are these occurrences accidental, or do you seek them out?

Um... are we talking about a Taser or something? Because if so, then no, and no.

[QuantaCat]

You have to admit, kads, for Nalano, thats a pretty weak nonexcellence. I think he was ruder to me not too long ago :D

[Velko]

The Death of a Thread in Four Steps:
1. Discussion
2. Discussion about the terms used in step 1.
3. Discussion about the discussion in step 2.
4. Me pointing out this.

[QuantaCat]

Welcome to the wild west of threaddery.

[soldant]

The Death of a Thread in Four Steps:
1. Discussion
2. Discussion about the terms used in step 1.
3. Discussion about the discussion in step 2.
4. Me pointing out this.

And this is what I mean by "No discussion without consensus."

[ado]

I don't see why you guys even argue over semantic bullcrap like genre definitions or, in this case, the definition of fun (which is extremely subjective, you all must admit). It always derails the thread and turns it in to a pointlessly semantic rhetoric, a self gratifying circlejerk or an all out flame war...

However it is very much "fun" to read an imploding thread like this... So carry on I guess :P