Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
Tags

Having read both THE JOYFUL GAME and the No Fun Manifesto, neither proved persuasive.

On the one hand, fun has positives. You get to destress, relax with friends, enjoy life. THE JOYFUL GAME explains this better than I ever could; I won't go on about something you already know.

On the other hand, there's other benefits to games besides fun. And I don't just mean that cold, clinical education side of gaming. I think of Pathologic. If you aren't familiar, it's a janky Russian horror game that might be the most depressing thing in existence. It is the exact opposite of fun, but in doing so, primes the player to explore deep, emotionally-charged themes. When people play it, they can't help but argue. This guy argued killing one to save many. These guys called each other fascists. The lack of fun made people think about important questions they never considered; I wouldn't want to take that from games.

And don't forget; fun can be manipulative. I'm thinking of exploitative free-to-play schemes, drip feeding dopamine in just the right ways while exploiting their playerbase. And then there's series like Far Cry; fun games, but they come with unfortunate implications. If we only judged games for fun, we'd open the door to exploitation and propaganda.
My question: why can't we have both? Why can't we have fun games with greater meanings? I mentioned Far Cry's narrative, but the core gameplay loop (scouting and clearing bases) doesn't make the game fun. It's superfluous; you don't need dumb to have fun. And then there's games like Minecraft, which use fun as a vessel to be educational, to explain complex engineering concepts in a way people enjoy. I can see both side's point, but I don't see a reason to fight over this.

While I'm typing; I strongly disagree with Let Us Embrace Our Long Titles. Looking back a lot of my childhood games, leaving them in a box for a decade has let me revisit them for whole new experiences. If anyone here has played Pokemon XD: Gales Of Darkness, try replaying it today. Turns out, your most powerful ally is a benevolent cable news executive who, among other things, puts you in contact with a whistleblower. I guess Pokemon supports journalism. I don't know if it was uncontroversial at the time, or if 12-year-old me didn't think about it, or if I didn't have needed context my first time around, but the game was definitely different the second time around. If I had traded it in. And it's not the only one: literally every game I've owned has become a new experience over time. Each of them has shown me how much I've changed as a person, in ways I wasn't even aware of. Ten years down the line, I'd love to revisit the games on my hard drive.

The very idea of deleting our games scares me. If anything, we need to be saving our games. We live in a world where online-only games can be lost forever as soon as the servers shut down, where games can be wiped off the PS4 storefront because Konami said so. We have a history to protect; wiping our hard drives will only shoot us in the foot.

(3 edits)

I totally understand what you're saying, and I kinda agree with you: games don't have to be fun, or to put fun at the center of their design. My take is that it's OK for some games to be focused around simple fun, and fun can have the "greater meanings" you're talking about: Minecraft is a good example of that, and I'm thinking of Tearaway, a game about paper made by the studio behind Little Big Planet, which explores the link between the player and the digital world in clever and unique ways, and it definitely has interesting things to say about creativity and how everybody can create. Fun can let players explore deep themes, it's just a particular lens to do so, and it isn't the best one for some subjects of course. In a way, the greatest meaning I can think of (for this specific kind of games I called joyful games) is if a game makes you want to share it with others, play with others and get to know others: putting people together is the best thing that these games can do, in my opinion.

On the other hand, I'm completely okay with games that aren't fun. I didn't know about Pathologic, but I have a few examples in mind of games that explore frustration, fear or disagreement between the player and the game in interesting ways (Papers Please comes is the first name I can think of). As for exploitative fun games, I hadn't thought about that: of course there are things to avoid, but as long as there's big loads of money to gain, some studios will take the manipulative path. Fortunately, for each of these games, there's a respectful game out there somewhere.

Another thing that comes to my mind: you talked about Pathologic as a game that let people argue, defend their opinions and, in some way, engage with each other; and I talked about how joyful games can aim to get people together. Isn't that the same goal? Would it be possible to say that, beyond fun or no fun, games have the power of connecting people, and they just take different paths to that?

I don't know, but it's such an interesting subject.