Topic: Does a Game Have to Have Fun Gameplay?

Yes. Otherwise, it's a tremendous waste of time. There are infinite books and films with better stories. But gameplay exists for entertainment and that's where it should be. Can involve a story of course but it must be fun to interact with.

Interesting explanations and opinions on both sides. I'll be sure to respond to a few posts later today.

Absolutely yes, I'm not sitting through the worst control scheme ever or mind numbingly repetitive task to get a great story or powerful experience out of it. Give me a book or movie for that. Now, a game whose main goal is to deliver an experience rather than a game in the traditional sense can still be fun, to me at least. Even if it's really a one time only experience kind of game, I'll still be getting great enjoyment out of it if the experience was good.

If you liked and kept playing a game, then that means it was fun to you.... In it's own strange way,

It depends. I want to be stimulated and engaged on some level. I'll choose a great story, engaging stories/characters over great gameplay if need be. Ideally both, but one element is often better than the other. Relating to movies, I'd watch 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' for fun. I'd watch Schindler's list for, I would think, a different reason. I suppose choosing to do something not out of necessity has to be enjoyable or satisfying on some level, resulting in some form of fun.

Yeah. Why else would I bother with it?

Ideally, games should be fun. I don't think a game needs to be fun to be a good game, but a well-rounded game is, as a whole, a better game. I really enjoyed the game Tales of the Abyss, was the gameplay that good, not really unless you had all the necessary AD Skills, but the story, while not perfect, was plenty of fun. I've always thought that games should be judged based on how successfully they complete their objective. If a game tells a great story, but lacks in gameplay, it still deserves to be accredited for its merits, but it may be in the wrong type of media. If you want to tel a good story, make a movie, write a book, or create a TV show. If you want to create something fun, make a game. If you want to tell a good story interspersed between a fun game, make a masterpiece. The thing about games are that they provide something that no other type of media provides, interactivity. There are two conditions in which I think a story can justifiably exist in a game:

a) If the game is, indeed, a game, and wishes to offer a story to make completing the game more compelling.

b) If the game wishes to tell a story through a means of interaction. In other words, the story is tied directly to the gameplay.

If a game consists of hours upon hours of cutscenes, in which there is no interactivity, and little to no meaningful gameplay, then it is not well suited to it's form of media. I'm not saying cutscenes shouldn't exist, or a story in a game, there should simply be a balance.

No, it doesn't have to be fun. It does, however, have to be enjoyable. There are many things I enjoy that aren't necessarily fun, and a good horror game is a prime example. Scares and atmosphere aren't necessarily what I'd call fun, but I can still enjoy them.

Games don't necessarily have to be fun, as long as someone enjoys it. But then there's games like rayman legends, where fun is the main idea.

Depending on your definition of "fun" nope.

As i grow older, my primary reason for playing games is the story, as strange as that sounds when i also play mario and donkey kong games etc etc being there were among the first games i discovered aside.

like others say it might not be so obvious your having fun with it even if you dont think that way

It's like some people here don't consider reading a book or watching a horror movie to be fun.

Stories in games, music, graphics, moments, gameplay, even in scary or stressful games... It's fun. Enjoying something means you're having fun with it. If it's recreational it's fun. If it keeps your mind distracted, it's probably fun. It may not make you burst in glee and laughter and make you feel happy inside, but's still fun.

If you don't have fun with a game, then what are you doing playing it?

being brainwashed by virtual military training?

That's basically what Hollywood movies are for.

@Morphtorok true, very true..... I guess it might be to show off to other players too but showing off is also a form of fun so it doesn't count....

I should probably clarify: There's a reason I put fun in quotation marks. I only meant "fun" as a short way of saying "enjoyable strictly from a gameplay perspective". I'm pretty sure I noted that in my first post, but there you go again.

To me, having fun means you're enjoying what you're doing. Even if you're mostly taking in the story of a game, you're still having fun. Sure, my definition may not be the popular one, but in my eyes a game has to be fun. What's the point of playing a game if you aren't enjoying it in any way?

EDIT: Oh, just read your clarification. I think as long as one likes something about the game, then it's a good game. In one's opinion, at least.

Enjoyment and entertainment =/= fun, at least IMO. I don't have "fun" reading (at least, not unless under certain circumstances).
I don't have 'fun' watching many movies that I love. I don't need to have 'fun' to enjoy something, and it applies to Video Games as well.

I'll refernce Cookie Clicker again, not even as a joke, because it proves my point. I am entertained, but it is nowhere near fun.

@CanisWolfred then my answer remains the first one. it must be enjoyable in a way or other but no need to be exactly "fun"

I probably should've clarify sooner, but I was enjoying seeing people's different definitions of fun, but it was starting to get a bit off-topic. So yeah, I'm mostly meaning that a game should focus on the gameplay. Should I edit the title so no one else gets confused?