|
The word "fun" gets used often to describe games and many feel that a game lives and dies by whether or not it is fun.
However, the word fun has a very specific meaning that can't possibly include art games. If it doesn't include art games, then we ought to use another word besides fun when describing the goal of a game.
First, lets go over some quick definitions.
Fun –noun
"A source of enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure."
If we take the root of enjoyment, we get enjoy.
Enjoy -verb
"To experience with joy; take pleasure in."
If we're going to be strict with definitions, it will be a tough sell to say an art game, like Passage is fun, that is, it provides us with a joyful experience that we take pleasure in. Instead, I found it to be cathartic (the purging of the emotions or relieving of emotional tensions, esp. through certain kinds of art, as tragedy or music.) and profoundly introspective experience.
In the past I’ve had difficulty justifying art games because it has been drilled into my head by reviewers, educators and colleagues that the only purpose of a game is to be fun. If that is true, more artful games that deal with rather painful adult themes cannot exist in this industry.
Yet, I believe games that deal with more adult themes, even painful ones can and should exist. But first we have to agree that fun is not the root purpose of games, but instead a distinct flavor of a type of quality that all games share; which is the quality of being compelling, engaging or engrossing (all used interchangeably).
Compelling –adjective
"Having a powerful and irresistible effect; requiring acute admiration, attention, or respect: a man of compelling integrity; a compelling drama"
Or... a compelling game.
Engaging/Engrossing –adjective
"Fully occupying the mind or attention; absorbing: I'm reading the most engrossing book."
Or... I'm playing the most engrossing game.
Take note of the words, "Fully occupying the mind or attention." What else does that remind you of? Flow, perhaps? Nearly all games have their foundation derived from the concept of flow. We achieve a state of flow when we set our own internal goals, receive feedback on how we are doing and achieve personal growth through the pursuit of those goals. Upon completion, we move on to more difficult goals and thus repeat the cycle, maintaining flow.
If we agree that all games have this concept of flow, and when implemented skillfully can induce the state of being engrossed within the experience or compelled to experience it, then we can also agree that both fun and serious adult themed games can coexist. Fun is one type of experience that can engross a player, while catharsis is another type of experience that can engross a player.
The next time you think to say that all games must be fun or hear someone else make that claim, try stating instead that games must be compelling or engaging. By saying that, you include all games that can be fun or cathartic. Eventually, this will broaden our acceptance of which types of games can be created. We'll get to a point where a designer can make a game about less pleasant aspects of the human condition without others dismissing it as a game because it's not "fun". The key question will not be, “Is it fun?” but “Is it engaging?”
Also posted on my blog Reiding...
|
@Marc: Entertaining is a very specific type of occupying the mind. Such as:
Entertaining –adjective
Affording entertainment; amusing; diverting.
The important distinction is "amusing; diverting".
Amusing –adjective
Pleasantly entertaining or diverting.
To me, if someone were to describe a game similar to Passage but one I haven't played yet as "entertaining", I would think they mean it is a fun and pleasurable gaming experience. When I go play the game, assuming it evokes similar emotions and of similar intensity to Passage, it would be anything but a pleasurable experience. But that doesn't mean the experience is of less value, it only means it's a different experience, one that can't be described as entertaining.
My point is that if the industry as a whole believes all games must be entertaining or fun, it restricts our imagination of what kinds of games we can make, in that case, only those that produces pleasurable feelings within a person.
I realize people do use the words fun and entertaining to describe even the most depressing works of art in all mediums, but I think that can lead to misunderstanding in discussing what can be a game or not. I prefer engrossing, engaging or compelling.
You are free to use the word entertaining, but I will be confused when you describe a game about 9/11 game as entertaining.
Where I really take issue is with "compelling". I enjoy some games that are not compelling. Their designers would probably look at you cross-eyed if you chose to describe them as such. There are a lot of reasons why I play Team Fortress 2, although I must confess "fun" is chief among them, along with a perhaps pathological love of giant stereotypical Russians with miniguns. But it doesn't elicit the feeling of compelling.
By using these definitions and advocating that they replace others, it really just seems like an attempt to control the normative debate about what a game should be via other means. What is so difficult about taking each game on its own ground? Some games might want to be "compelling", and so you can can attach that rubric to them. Some games just want to be fun. They are not interested in being anything but. And so they ought to be evaluated on those lines.
Both can be operative words, and both can be used adequately to describe different games. I don't see any need to displace "fun" with "compelling" except to push a certain interpretation held by a distinct, but minority, of people in the gaming community. If you want to make a compelling game, I'll happily be the first one saying this game ought to be evaluated on its own terms. But I don't think those terms ought to replace a standard in gaming that works just fine for many others types of games and gamers. Coexist, sure. Replace, no thank you.
Right, these terms of fun and compelling/engaging should absolutely co-exist. There are two issues here when I only wanted to talk about one (my fault). The one issue I wanted to address was that I feel when someone proclaims, "All games must be fun!" it excludes the possibility for other types of games that can't be described as fun. It is only this declaration that I would like to replace with "All games must be engaging!" That will include both fun games and compelling games of less pleasurable experiences.
Regarding TF2, I consider it to be compelling because it can hold a person's interest, usually because it's a fun game.
As for statements such as this;
"Regarding TF2, I consider it to be compelling because it can hold a person's interest, usually because it's a fun game."
Rather the game is "fun" because it is "compelling". While playing the game, the player is compelled to respond with a mental/physical reaction that the individual finds stimulating (thus engrossing) and pleasant (thus enjoyable). As they find it enjoyable it is considered "fun".
I'd also like to propose that you delve into the very deep and complex reasoning behind what forms "play", and thus what constitutes a "game". Not to mention the many varied forms of pleasure and the ways it can be derived, as it is the key constituent of fun.
Ultimately to answer the hidden question proposed by the post, No, not all games must be fun, any form of play with structured rules and context is a game, but this said, pleasure and learning are the two primary motivators for play and if a game doesn't cater too these in some way then it is not a game, for it is not play. That said, learning in and of itself is often(though not always) a pleasant experience, and lets note that pleasure is the key component for something to be fun. So thus a game must almost always be fun (games undertaken for unpleasant educational reasons might be the exception to this rule, though I cannot think of a single such video game). As for must a game be engaging, no, if it's to be successful then yes. If it's not then players will remain unmotivated to engage in play ( and many of the current educational games fall into this category, of un-engaging though potentially fun games ).
Anywho that's my 2 cents, or perhaps a full dollar in this case :P
This is one of the places where we should probably look to other mediums for how to handle this. I recently read Graveyard Book, by Neil Gaiman, and The Road by Cormac McCarthy. both of these books are incredible and I would give them the highest marks on any rating scale. Graveyard Book is definitely more fun, while The Road is definitely more compelling. I would never, ever describe McCarthy's horrifying tale of loss and hopelessness as "fun." I would, however describe both of them as worth reading. This is also how movies are often described.
Wouldn't it be better to just describe games as "Worth Playing?" If you really need to compare content as disparate as what is available in games, the descriptor should be general, or your comparison becomes unfair. Passage is worth playing, as is TF2, regardless of how much fun they are or how compelling they are.
The concept is good one, but then only problem will then become how to define what constitutes "worth playing". People of the different camps of belief we have already, will simply cite their definition of worth playing as the right one and we end up back where we started.
Perhaps we need a strong set of genre's that are constantly expanding and evolving like those that are present in other forms of literature. Then we could conclude that a game is worth playing if it meets the expectations held for it's genre (or perhaps because it breaks them). But there are flaws present in such a system. For instance if relied on too heavily then people remove the ability to recognise an emergent genre. But with such a system (which we already informally have I suppose) we could thus compare games to that which they were intended to be rather than comparing them arbitrarily to games of a different nature.
I don't think this is an industry-changing issue, but a more specific use of words can benefit all of us, and makes for a very compelling discussion.
Plus if you think about it, saying all games need to be fun is a lot like saying all movies need to have a happy ending. It really limits what kind of subject matter you can tackle in your work.
I do support the idea that Frustration can be very engaging, not to be frustrating because the gameplay is too hard or bad, but frustrating because the story leads you to be angry at a character (Killzone 2 would be a nice example). It brings different emotions to the mix and emotions are really important when it comes to generate fun.