Why games don't have to be fun

Default_picture
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
EDITOR'S NOTEfrom Jason Lomberg

I didn't have "fun" watching Schindler's List; it was brutal, uncomprising, and raw. It was also one of the most profound films I've ever seen. Why can't video games follow suit? Heavy Rain elicits a strong emotional response from the player throughout a complex, multiplayered narrative. But I'd hesitate to call it "fun" in the same way that Mario Kart or Wii Sports provides escapist entertainment. In order for gaming to move forward as an entertainment medium, it needs to transcend its origin as a simple diversion.

What exactly should a game make you feel? Every time I jump on the unsuspecting head of a Goomba, a sense of joy sneaks into my gullet. In a Mario game, the goal is fun in its purest form, which is expertly achieved with each and every platform jumped. On the other hand, I was on the absolute edge of my worn, plush bedroom chair during certain scenes in Heavy Rain. The entire game left a deep, emotional impact on me, but I didn’t have a lick of fun.

Ethan Mars

Hold the phone -- isn’t a video game supposed to be fun? I don’t sit down with the family around a Monopoly board and have deep, inspiring conversations about economics. I honestly don’t waste my time with old Mr. Moneybags at all, but if I did, I think the purpose would be to have as much fun as possible. Shouldn’t it be the same case with video games? Not once did I do anything in Quantic Dream’s thriller that even remotely resembled the entertainment value that something like Halo or God of War provides. Which makes it nothing more than a slightly interactive movie, right?

It wasn’t until a recent interview conducted by Game Spot with Braid’s Jonathan Blow that I actually stopped and thought about the concept of fun.

 

“I don’t like to use the word ‘fun’ too much to describe what I try to do,” said Blow. “Braid is not designed to be fun. It’s designed to be interesting and to provide the player with difficult, mental challenges.”

I played through the entirety of Braid and, to my own surprise, collected every single puzzle piece. Maybe it was the game’s uniqueness or my deep-seeded collection urge that harkens back to Banjo and his damn bird, but I just felt compelled to see everything the puzzler had to offer. That was about two years ago and, after listening to the developer himself, I realized I didn’t have any fun in that game. I was challenged and amazed by the quality of the writing, but in a traditional sense it didn’t appeal to that same part of me that giggles at a great headshot.

Braid, Heavy Rain, Flower...I would absolutely label each of these projects games, but their goals are madly different than what we’ve seen in the past. Think about it in terms of movie genres. The emotional expectation when popping in a comedy isn’t the same as a drama or horror flick...yet they’re both in the same broad category of movie. Books have genres that guide expectations, and music also falls into this comparison. You’re going to feel two very different sensations when you listen to Bees Gees and then 50 Cent.

Our beloved medium is growing, and the games are having a greater impact on us. No longer is a fun game a well-developed piece of software and a game that doesn’t tickle the fun nerve a failure. Expectations must now be set differently based on the genre, developer, and goal of the product. Not every interactive experience is going to satisfy that carnal instinct to collect loot or achieve a killing spree, and that’s more than OK -- it’s a revelation. What video games, once considered a juvenile and crass medium, can make a person feel and see is beyond that of any entertainment medium.

Recently, I downloaded and jumped into Alice: Madness Returns for the first time. I had heard of its fantastical artstyle, but I wasn’t prepared for the chilling and dark tone that it continued to layer on with each passing conversation. Every bystander leaked an original aroma, while Alice herself was so diametrically opposed to the childhood image I’ve cultivated that I became uncomfortably excited to take the first step back into a twisted Wonderland. It was unexpectedly engrossing and, not 20 minutes in, I was hooked.

Then it became a game. Not a bad game -- from what I played, the platforming did its job, and the combat seemed responsive. Yet, that unquestionable charm that violently tugged at my sleeve began to loosen its grip, and I was left with something very familiar. Why, though? Why not continue on the unique, murky road while finding more subtle ways to involve the player in Alice’s madness? Why try to inject what people perceive as “fun” into an adventure meant to terrify and excite the player?

This mishmash of ideas is a byproduct of what games are perceived to be -- a highly interactive toy that pumps fun into the brain. That’s wonderful for our tubby friend Mario and, if Sonic can manage to find some fun hiding in his deep and dusty bin of ideas, three cheers for the tired blue blur. For a title like Alice, though, a departure from traditional mechanics may have saved her from herself.

I fell in love with Heavy Rain because it knew exactly what it wanted to do and never faltered in its execution. They didn’t add a wonky third-person shooting segment or hand-to-hand combat. David Cage and Quantic Dream created a tense and distinctive narrative that benefitted from key moments of interactivity, yet it strayed away from conventional attempts at entertainment. Like Braid, it would be difficult to say I had fun chasing down the Origami Killer, but the adventure still stands as one of my favorite games this generation.

Puzzle games challenge the way you think. Dance games test how well you can move. 3D platformers? Well, it’s all the fun of collecting as many virtual items as possible while stomping on anything giving you a mean mug. As this young medium ages, it expands in every direction. What constitutes a video game is becoming more and more difficult to discern, but that outward growth will be constricted if we, as the community, hold it to this standard of “fun.”

With the dawn and explosion of the downloadable space, developers now have the wonderful opportunity to experiment with this interactive world in new and less risky ways. Taking a chance doesn’t have to mean spending years and years working on an original title like Heavy Rain. Thanks to people like David Cage, hopeful creators have seen what originality in video games can lead to.

Not every innovative title will come together to create something special. It’s a scary and competitive world out there and, more often than not, an online first-person shooter is a safer bet than a radical, interactive narrative a developer has been planning since high school. I’d rather experience the unique and heartfelt memories imbued by a passionate developer’s labor of love than a sweet triple kill in a churned-out war simulator. If you take the chance, there will always be people out there willing to buy a ticket for your creative ride.

 
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (16)
Default_picture
April 10, 2012

I think it is sort of a...dismissive kind of attitude to believe that games need to be 'fun'. Yes, some games need to be fun. That is their purpose. Is it fun to play Mario Kart? Yes.

Is it fun to play Heavy Rain? Not really. It is many things, but not really 'fun'--however it is a hell of an experience.

Games are on the same level as novels or films. They are not 'fun'. The word "game" is a misnomer, really. Videogames are interactive entertainment, and have been so for some time. They provide different experiences. Some experiences are competitive, or sad, or frightening, or fun. Silent Hill should not be judged based on how 'fun' it is, just as For Whom the Bell Tolls is not judged on that same criteria.

Default_picture
April 11, 2012

True, some videogames are more like interactive movies or electronic mental exercises.

Mikeshadesbitmob0611
April 11, 2012

But those mental challenges Blow talks about... people only play those because they find them fun.

Default_picture
April 11, 2012

I don't know about that, Michael. I played through Braid because it was challenging and inspiring, but I wouldn't have called my time with it "fun". I do think different people play games for different reasons, though.

Default_picture
April 11, 2012

Good one. The best example I can think of is the Metal Gear series. I like the games a lot, but I find the gameplay to be fairly clunky, slow, often repetitive, and anti-climactic. I'd say without the crazy amount of style, the story, and high production values I wouldn't want to play them as much. Amnesia is another one; it's a bit of a chore playing that game even though I love the atmosphere and style. 

Default_picture
April 11, 2012

I don't think any game should have clunky controls. But if a game succeeds at expressing a feeling of loss, isolation, hope, fear, doubt, or any number of other strong emotions, it needn't be "fun" in the traditional sense of the word.

Default_picture
April 11, 2012

Not to break things down into semantics but there is a difference between something being "fun" and something being "stimulating."  People do not play games in order to have a bad time.  I loved Heavy Rain but if I wasn't being stimulated, entertained, I wouldn't play it.  Similarly I don't read Game of Thrones for an excellent, feel good experience, but I don't put the book down angry at myself for having subjected myself to it.

There were times in Heavy Rain where I turned my PS3 off and had to stop and think because it evoked a powerful emtional response.  Even scenes that moved me to tears or put a lump of fear in my stomach were appreciated.  It did something I was wanting it to do.  No it wasn't fun, but it was stimulating.

I would say games as an industry should stay as "fun" products for the most part.  To get away from fun would be to get away from many people's comfort zones and the industry shouldn't evolve so fast it alienates the audience.  It takes games like Journey and Heavy Rain to push us in the right direction.  Just remember should always be a place for the Mario's and Call of Duty's in the world.

Jon_ore
April 11, 2012

"Stimulating" is just the word I was thinking of to describe the kinds of games Josiah's writing about. There's a difference between "yay" fun and "ah hah!" fun.

Really, whether you call it fun, stimulating, thought-provoking, or anything else, games that provide a worthwhile experience should be applauded.

Default_picture
April 11, 2012

I have fun with every game I play, or I don't play it.

I have this "fun" thing even when playing difficult opponents in fighting games, or enjoying the links between mechanics and story in a game made for that purpose.

I had fun experiencing Terra's growth and Leo's death, fun making a Charge/Intercept macro for my WoW Warrior, fun levelling my spells in Secret of Mana.

I even have fun watching thoughtful, interpretive movies, while thinking about them, while my emotions get in a knot over them.

Default_picture
April 11, 2012

I play games to be entertained. I think the term "entertained" can conver a more broad range of emotions and motives. I can be entertained by winnie the pooh because of its innocence and charm or I can be entertained by pulp fiction because of its high tension and casual vulgarity.

Anyone can find entertainment in a genre of storytelling. Games don't need to "fun", they need to capture our interest, same as a movie or book. "Fun" is just this vague synonym we attach to the feeling of satisfaction we get from being entertained in some way.

Default_picture
April 13, 2012

 

I absolutely agree, Andre. I often play games for entertainment, and sometimes I play games just to have fun. But I think it's just important to note that you don't have to always be seeking that raw sense of "fun" from a game. Sometimes I want to just experience something new and different, or have an emotional ride that no other medium can accomplish.

Default_picture
April 11, 2012

I play games to be entertained. I think the term "entertained" can conver a more broad range of emotions and motives. I can be entertained by winnie the pooh because of its innocence and charm or I can be entertained by pulp fiction because of its high tension and casual vulgarity.

Anyone can find entertainment in a genre of storytelling. Games don't need to "fun", they need to capture our interest, same as a movie or book. "Fun" is just this vague synonym we attach to the feeling of satisfaction we get from being entertained in some way.

Dcswirlonly_bigger
April 13, 2012

The only thing that games need to be is "compelling". All a game needs to do to be successful is make you want to keep playing it.

I'm surrprised no one here mentioned horror games. To me those were some of the only big console games in the past to try to illicit any negative emotion in the player, whether that be panic or depression. The Silent Hill games in particular were sort of a breakthrough for what a game could make the player feel through the use of atmosphere.

The problem with gaming as a medium right now is that it's mostly escapism. Escapism has its place, but the industry needs to diversify out from that.

Mikeshadesbitmob0611
April 13, 2012

I like the feeling of being scared and tense in a fictional environment. I find it fun.

Default_picture
April 13, 2012
I often find the real world even scarier. In Fallout 3, at least I can be the boss of my own destiny. Haha.
Default_picture
April 15, 2012

Hey Josiah!

I avoided reading this the first time in fear that it would spoil Heavy Rain for me. Gread read!

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.