The first thing we need to do in understanding whether a game has to be fun or not is figure out precisely what "fun" is, at least with respect to games. Fun, I'd like to posit, is something that elicits joy, satisfaction, happiness and accomplishment in the player. This should be fairly plain to anyone who's played a game. However, fun isn't a constant state - it's something that we take away from a stream of events which we piece together as interrelated. In Super Mario Bros., every second of the game isn't fun to play, but instead it is punctuated by small sections and segments of gameplay which we enjoy, cumulating in all of the above emotions. Furthermore, the proportions of these different emotions vary from game to game and individual to individual, and even within a game itself. I might derive a great deal of satisfaction from stomping on a goomba's head, but for a friend, it might be utterly tame or boring; indeed, the more I do it, I might find too that the fun wears off, as it were, and it becomes simply a task to complete for the sake of a greater goal. That greater goal, of course, is the promise of more fun down the road: "if I can complete just one more level, I'll get to fight the final boss!" is an easy example.
Fun, however, is also mired in context and expectation. Continuing from the example of fighting the boss, we might find that the actual boss fight itself is a let-down, not necessarily for any mechanical deficiencies in the boss fight itself, but rather, because of the fact that it's positioned poorly in the game as a whole. For instance, maybe the level before the boss featured a lengthy build-up, and the boss itself did not fit in with the expected tone of the game; alternately, maybe the boss came after a pedestrian segment of gameplay, and was itself extremely difficult to defeat because the player had been lulled into a false sense of security. These individual instances of gameplay work fine on their own, but when put next to others, it completely changes the feel of the game and the player's reaction to it. Of course, this doesn't have to be just gameplay: story is also important to our enjoyment of a game. Maybe a boss battle is mechanically sound, but the boss' theme or aesthetic is so out of sync with the game up until that point that we are left bewildered and confused; of course, some games revel in this sort of thing (No More Heroes), so again, this depends entirely on the game.
The bleak, haunting tone of Silent Hill is almost wholly
divorced from fun, despite what this playground might suggest.
And, building off of this, tone is itself extremely important in deciding precisely what is fun for a given game. The ultimate example would be a horror game like Silent Hill. While admittedly my experience playing the series is extremely limited, I know enough to wager that the standards for "fun" in Silent Hill are colossally different than those of Halo. While Silent Hill is built upon the slow discovery of clues, building towards a payoff at the end of the game as all pieces of the story's mystery come together, Halo is instead geared towards short 60-second segments of fun delivered regularly through combat, exploration and story - in fact, in examining the better parts from all the Halo titles, it's clear that Bungie have pacing in games nearly down to a science, both when it comes to those individual instances of fun and the fun that comes from completing objectives, levels and the game as a whole. It's worth noting that neither game is better or worse than the other because of the way that the fun is delivered, regardless of our personal preferences towards what's fun and what isn't.
Despite all of these distinctions, though, it's quite clear that some games provide "more" fun than others. Halo and Borderlands are both largely first-person shooter games, for example, but much of Borderlands revolves around traversing a largely empty environment with little in the way of companionship. Despite its role-playing framework and the sense of accomplishment one achieves from levelling up his or her character, it's clear that Halo provides much more fun, at least if we boil that fun down to the individual instances or happenings where it's delivered. Does this mean that Halo is a more enjoyable game overall? That is a colossally hard question to answer, and one which speaks directly to the subjectivity we all carry with us in approaching the world. Game reviewers might say that Borderlands has a more distinct visual style, or that Halo's sweeping orchestral themes are more moving, but in the end it comes down to personal preference; I'd say "no, it doesn't", but for someone less concerned with aesthetics and more with "raw" gameplay, the answer might be the opposite.
The gameplay of Borderlands is more focused on exploration
than most official media outlets would have you believe.
Examining horror games, we run into a more extreme problem, which is that some games have significantly less fun than others. Silent Hill, as I mentioned, is an extremely intense, scary, brooding, slow-paced experience, certainly much more so than its genre buddies like Resident Evil. As I said, I don't want to speak too much about a game I have limited exposure to, but from all I gather, Silent Hill is not nearly as much fun on a minute-by-minute basis as Resident Evil, nor does it have the same sort of approach to narrative, level design, characters, gameplay, and so forth. Frankly, most of the player's time spent playing Silent Hill is not going to be fun or even particularly enjoyable, if that player is anything like me; in fact, they'll probably be scared, or even terrified. So why do they keep playing it? There are a number of theories relating to why people enjoy horror, ranging from catharsis, to life-affirmation, to morbid indulgence, to boundary-crossing, to discussion of social problems and events, but I think that even a cursory glance should reveal that none of these touch upon fun at all; they all deal with that "something more" we get out of the work, not how much we enjoy the experience in any immediate way. Clearly, fun has very little to do with why people play horror games like Silent Hill or Penumbra - if anything, they suffer through them because the draw of the greater story revelation is too compelling to ignore.
The eventual problem I reach in this discussion, though, is whether or not horror games and other niche genres constitute a partial exception to the rule. Someone might suggest that simulator games don't provide fun, but I'd wager that's not true at all. While simulators don't provide the instant gratification that many games do (and thus have a fairly niche market all to themselves), they do provide the ability to go places and do things that people would never be able to in their own lives, and through completion of objectives, either explicitly listed in the game or imagined, players are able to have fun via satisfaction and accomplishment. While the burden of having fun shouldn't be on the player, at the same time, a good simulator will usually be arranged in such a way as to facilitate the player having fun - it might just take a little longer and a bit more effort on the part of the player to get there. Even Bohemia Interactive's military simulator series ArmA is based upon a more content-rich but barebones product designed for actual military use, which suggests that they know how far you can push something in the direction of "sim" before it starts losing its appeal.
Military simulator VBS2 was repackaged into ArmA II
in order to satiate the needs of gamers.
In fact, the only games I can think of that are totally devoid of fun are medical training programs and similar; this is largely by design, of course. Playing one of those isn't done for the purpose of recreation, enlightenment, etc. - it's as educational as operating on a plastic dummy or reading a textbook. Any fun that might come from the procedure isn't directly built in, but rather must be brought in by those involved. However, to call some of these pieces of software "games" could arguably be a misnomer to begin with - perhaps more accurately, we make games out of what's already there.
In light of this discussion, the conclusion I'm going to have to draw is that fun, as I've defined it, is necessary for games - at least, in some proportion or other, which is highly sensitive to the particular game, including the goals of the game and the audience it intends to appeal to. While certain serious games and extremely realistic simulators might be able to provide an incredible degree of accuracy, it's not that alone which renders them fun to play, and they simply don't have any use outside of training. Working down the precise proportions of what makes things fun is no small task, to be sure, but that ball is in the court of game designers, and that's not quite what I intend to do with Critical Miss as a project, as much as I'd like to explore those ideas.
However, I'm not quite done yet with this this current discussion. In my next article, I'd like to continue with the current train of thought regarding games and art, and move on to contemplating how fun relates to artistic intention and merit in the context of videogames.
[Image credit 1]
[Image credit 2]
[Image credit 3]