Fun games don't have to be good games.

[namename11]

I don't think fun games have to be good, or that good games have to be fun. Does anyone else think so?

Some examples: Sea of Stars is not a "good" RPG, mostly because of the skibidi toilet level writing and annoying characters, but it is fun to play because of the qte/realtime mechanics.

The Stanley Parable is not a "fun" game, but it is a good game because it's different.

Skyrim isn't a "good" RPG due to the dumbification, but it is fun because that's how TES has always been. It isn't as fun as Morrowind or Daggerfall but it is decent still.

Animal Crossing NH is not a "good" Animal Crossing game but it's still fun mostly due to when it released.

 

[AncientBoi]

 

[Taleweaver]

Absolutely. In fact, i even dare say that those who don't see the difference don't deserve to call themselves gamers, as they don't distinguish games as art and simple skinner boxes.

One of the games I hate with a passion is, in fact so BECAUSE it's a fun game. I hate it because of it. It's called ad-venture capitalist, and it is almost the perfect illustration on the poison of pay - to-win. It essentially gives you a mundane but active task (clicking a button),and a reward that goes with it (your money counter increases a bit faster). That in itself generates dopamine... Is perceived as'fun'. Look up'skinner box' if you want to know the psychology behind it.

The opposite is about what the game teaches us. What it means to convey, and how it achieves it. That can, but Hopefully isn't exclusive to fun.
Good horror games, Ive been told, aren't by accident boring in parts. It sets you up with a habit, a routine, to identify you with the protagonist or even the world, before it pulls the rug and makes you suspicible for the horror.
Something like 'the static speaks my name' is even shorter, and puts you right in the Shoes of something horrible. You're downright sick if you call those 15 minutes 'fun'.
Or like when that wurm falls onto you in limbo. You're so close to the first piece of warmth anywhere, and it forces you away.

Games like walking dead or frostpunk are about living with the consequences of dilemma's. They alter your perspective of the world as is. It's not horror per se, but you know it's good if it stays with you.

 

[subcon959]

I don't like the idea of "good" being an objective thing. I guess the argument depends on your personal definition of good and bad.

 

[Ligeia]

It all depends on what you consider a "good" or a "bad" game. As far as I'm concerned gameplay is king so I'd have trouble considering a game good if it isn't fun to play. And what is being fun btw ? That also depends on people, and you can also get a few laughs by playing a kusoge game for a few minutes, so is it good or bad then ? It can get pretty deep.

 

[CMDreamer]

I still have the dilemma of considering a non fun to play game, a good game, kind of a contradiction, for me at least.

But I guess it all depends on our own personal perception of what is a good game and what's not.

 

[The Real Jdbye]

I don't think fun games have to be good, or that good games have to be fun. Does anyone else think so?

Some examples: Sea of Stars is not a "good" RPG, mostly because of the skibidi toilet level writing and annoying characters, but it is fun to play because of the qte/realtime mechanics.

The Stanley Parable is not a "fun" game, but it is a good game because it's different.

Skyrim isn't a "good" RPG due to the dumbification, but it is fun because that's how TES has always been. It isn't as fun as Morrowind or Daggerfall but it is decent still.

Animal Crossing NH is not a "good" Animal Crossing game but it's still fun mostly due to when it released.

Sea of Stars is definitely a good RPG and don't you dare say any different. It's the best RPG I've played in a very long time.

Bad games can be fun, sure. There are dfferent kinds of bad. A lot of bad games have nothing redeeming about them whatsoever, but it's not always the case. Sometimes, specific things prevent a game from being good but if you can get past those issues you can still have a good time. Other times, games are objectively bad but there's something funny about them that might still make them worth playing for a bit. AVGN is a good example of the latter, most of the games he plays have something interesting to analyze and talk about even if the games are objectively terrible. Tons of streamer bait games are good examples of the former. They're not very good games but they're entertaining.

 

[namename11]

I don't like the idea of "good" being an objective thing. I guess the argument depends on your personal definition of good and bad.

It all depends on what you consider a "good" or a "bad" game. As far as I'm concerned gameplay is king so I'd have trouble considering a game good if it isn't fun to play. And what is being fun btw ? That also depends on people, and you can also get a few laughs by playing a kusoge game for a few minutes, so is it good or bad then ? It can get pretty deep.

"Good" to me means something innovative or with a unique artistic vision even if it feels bad to play like Getting Over It. "Fun" = feels good to play but is slop, like fast food such as Assassin's Creed Shadows.