Topic: Does a Game Have to Have Fun Gameplay?

So by fun you actually mean "engaging thrilling gameplay"?

In that case I guess no. I like turn based rpgs.

In my language we use the same word for fun and diversion, so I'm used to link "fun" with entertainment and recreation.

...mmm...in that case, still yes. If it's gameplay isn't fun I'm not playing. I'll watch the cutscenes online if it has a good story and listen to the music if it has great music. I'm not playing it.

the same goes to my language!

If a game isn't fun, why bother playing it? That being said, "fun" is subjective, so people might find different things fun.

I tried editting the title, how does that sound now?

If a game has admirable story-telling, then no, I don't think so.

It has to have decent gameplay. It doesn't have to be amazing gameplay wise, but I'm not going to enjoy the game is the gameplay is awful..

So it's basically another "Gameplay vs. Story" thread?

If, strictly speaking, Fun = Gameplay...then no, a game doesn't have to be "fun". As a few others pointed out, games like 999 and Virtue's Last Reward don't have a ton of gameplay, but they are still entertaining experiences.

I was going with a more broad idea in mind. It's more, should a game be allowed to focus on anything besides gameplay? Can a game be rightly enjoyed for different kinds of experiences than the thrills that the gameplay usually brings? Or do you think a game can be appreciated for its other aspects, perhaps in spite of the gameplay, whether it's the music, story, atmosphere, or really anything else?

I guess I've just seen so many people say that "Gameplay is the only thing that matters", and I'm both genuinely curious about the reasoning behind this (I seriously forgot why I used to think that way...), as well curious to see if other people coud provide a differing opinion.

I really was reluctant to refocus the argument like this, since I liked that people were including their definition of fun with their arguments, but I felt that was starting to become too much of the focus, and I was afraid people would lose sight of the topic at hand.

A game needs to have some sort of engaging element to it; if not gameplay, then the artwork, music, atmosphere, or the story has to make you want to continue playing.
Visual novels are great examples of games that (if made well) will make you want to continue playing; all while putting gameplay on the back burner and focusing on those other elements that I mentioned.
That said, some people don't like VNs because of the lack of gameplay, so the answers you'll get to the "does a game need fun gameplay" question will likely vary depending on who you ask, so I don't think there is a concrete 'yes' or 'no' answer to this question.

I think so - if that story is instead of gameplay. There are game developers who think they can give a meaningful experience but what they do - they have a story to tell, so it's all quick time events and just clicking buttons to make the story go forward. They say - sure, you're not having fun, but look at this amazing story that you just went through. That's the problem. I used to play Adventure Games (point n click...) all the time. I love Monkey Island, but I wouldn't have loved Monkey Island if it was just cutscenes without the interactivity of the puzzles, looking for items, using items, choosing conversations etc. I loved the gameplay. The story is the cherry on top, not the substance.

A movie about a very sad subject can be very interesting and engaging to watch. It's not fun. I wouldn't want to play a game like that. The game has to entertain me, the movie doesn't. And the reason is that no matter what people think, no writer will choose to write a story for a game instead of a book or film, it just won't happen... what you'll get from the game's story is either plain humor (Monkey Island) which is fun, or a carbon copy of better stories on other media. Games are just not the place I would go look for a story - it will never make sense. It only serves as some ego boost for the game developer who doesn't know how to make good gameplay and will stick his version of a masterpiece story which is just pathetic. It doesn't mean that games can't be touching but there has to be true gameplay there - World of Goo for example achieves it.

This is also true for music and other things - gameplay trumps everything. And a good gameplay is a fun gameplay.

It has to be this way per definition. Otherwise, there is no definition for a game. Think about it - if you can enjoy the music but not the gameplay, then what makes it a game? Clicking a few buttons? That makes it an interactive music, not gameplay. If games can give you experiences so broad and different - from the graphics, the music, the story - then it's just "throw stuff together and call it a game" - just because it combines different things, it's not a game. It's a game if you play it, so you have to judge this core characteristic, not the layers. It's the only way that a definition of a videogame makes sense.

Even if music, sound effects, setting and all this are all factors that don't define a game. And have less emphasis than the actual gameplay doesn't mean it's less important.
I have become aware that all these things are really important to me. I like ocarina of time and majora's mask more than tp and ss not because of gameplay because that is improved, but because of the setting in which it takes place, how it all progresses. Even the music I like more even though it's all orchestrated in ss.

So yeah, gameplay for me is king, but I can't say other elements are less important for having a good gaming experience.

Yes.

Even the games which people say had some 'not so fun' sections were still mostly enjoyable to play and had decent core gameplay to them.

And in this case, I'd say fun is a general thing. Some people enjoy action games, some other RPGs, some first person shooters and some fighting games. For a game to be fun, it has to be something someone interested in the genre would want to keep playing. So while some games might appear not to be enjoyable to play in the 'traditional' sense, they're still likely enjoyable to those interested in the style of gameplay.

As for anyone saying reading or watching TV isn't fun... depends on what you class as such. Either way, a good work has to be either somewhat enjoyable to play/watch/read/listen to or interesting enough to continue, right?

It's still yes... after all if you enjoyed the game.. then you have to enjoy the Game play as well as the Story.. and whatever else.. if you did not enjoy the entire package.. then you can't say you enjoyed the game. It's like saying you think a board game is enjoyable.. but not fun... then why did you enjoy the game if it wasn't fun?? Because my entire family was there playing the game.. well.. then the game itself was not enjoyable.. but your time with the family was enjoyable.. ..

Or to put this in more of a gamers perspective... I bought FF7... and was amazed.. by how awesome the story was... how cool the scenery was etc... but the Game Play for me was boring... I just could not get into it... yet I finished it (Much ado at the time I did not have Internet.. and even if I would have I would not know of You Tube etc. for years later.. I played it for the next reward.. for the next part of the story.. to see how it played out... once I got there... the game got ignored...) Yes I guess you could say it was a enjoyable experience because of the story... but really I was disappointed... because to me.. that is not the reason I should be playing a game.. I should be playing it to have fun.. I should be playing it.. because it is fun... as thus I can honestly say.. no I did not enjoy the game... I enjoyed the story... but not the game as a whole package... (Because Game Play is part of that package to) as thus I went on to never suggest FF7 to anyone unless they absolutely adored JRPG's and they played everything else..

Because frankly if you buy and enjoy a game for a story.. you will most likely play it only once.. if it has poor game play.. because you can just You Tube the story anymore... you could also read a book in that genre.. or watch a movie.. the story will be as good.. and sometimes better and it's far cheaper then 60 buck option.. for a game..

If you enjoy the atmosphere.. see above viable options and say ditto...

If you enjoy the animated cut scenes.. well there are plenty of options there.. plus You Tube for all these things.. so in the end.. Game Play being fun is the only reason left over to buy a game in this day and age really.. (Unless your a collector)

Games were met to be fun not just another experience... at some point in time this fact was lost to companies.. because now you get most of the things.. for the experience minus the most important part of the "experience" fun... after all this is the reason why it's called a game.. ic because it's supposed to be fun..

A game that is amazing in terms of gameplay but lackluster in other aspects of the experience feels empty to me and could result in a game not being memorable. A weaker story is going to hurt my experience much more than weaker gameplay. Story, to me, is what makes a game last longer and allows the experience to stand out, where as fun gameplay is a usual trait. There are so many fun gameplay experiences that I've had in gaming that fun gameplay doesn't hold as much weight for me, and ultimately a weaker gameplay experience can be the better experience in my opinion if it nails other aspects of the experience. This is why I enjoy Metroid Prime 2 and Metroid Prime 3 more than I enjoy Metroid Prime, in spite of Metroid Prime having the best gameplay experience of the Prime Trilogy IMO, as they were much stronger titles when it came to their atmosphere than I felt Prime was. Same can be said regarding New Super Mario Brothers as my favorite of that sub-series, in spite of its gameplay not being the best of that series I do feel its storytelling is the best especially with the Bowser progression in the plot (Bowser's demise -> Dry Bowser -> Bowser's rebirth). In both series, I am far more impressed when the developers make the aspects beyond the gameplay amazing than the actual gameplay itself.

It's weirdly satisfying and even enthralling, but fun is probably not an accurate description.

You can totally have fun watching a movie. Er, obviously not in the sense we're using, I'm just saying.

Does a book need good writing?

Does a piece of music need a melody?

Do solutions need a solvent?

Do games need good gameplay?

WELL DUH

Well its a matter of opinion really . The harder a game is the more fun I have when I play a game but im well aware thats not everyones elses cup of tea.

A lack luster game...
and
"Cult classic" movies.

I would say both can compel us to enjoy them if they resonate emotionally, triggering the imagination.
Perhaps a boring game through an interesting setting, might be elevated to something more tolerable than real life. So that even though the gameplay or pacing is convoluted, our personal connection evokes a pleasant feeling just the same.