Games for Fun

[rpgdemon]

I'm not entirely sure this is the right place for this thread, but this is an idea that's always interested me, and this IS the games subforum. What exactly makes you go, "Man, this game is FUN"? For me, honestly, I don't really care how a game's story is, as long as it's got fun gameplay to it, but I'm wondering if I'm the anomaly here, or if other people share these sentiments?

[Flarecobra]

If it's just enjoyable to play, and/or challanges me in some way. To me, that's fun. Story is usually second, visuals a pretty distant third.

[mauve]

Engaging storyline is DEFINITELY pretty high up there, but isn't the sole definition of "funness" for me. I can overlook a weaker storyline if the gameplay keeps me interested. Ideally. the game would have both, like Ghost Trick and Half-Life 2.

And then there are some games whwre I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA why they are so enjoyable. There's no real reason, for example, why Dynasty Warriors 5 Extreme Legends is fun. Horrible voice acting, horrible AI, nothing but "square square square TRIANGLE square square TRIANGLE TRIANGLE TRIANGLE" as far as gameplay goes... yet somehow it is fun.

[Loyal]

Character.

I don't mean like engaging, deep people making up the story (though they can qualify), I mean the quirky, unique bits that make elements of a game memorable. NPCs and PCs who are entertaining. Little background events during cutscenes so that it feels like there's more to the world than just me and the guy I'm speaking with. Weapons and abilities that are interesting, even if they aren't necessarily practical. Insignificant, one-off people or bits of scenery that serve no purpose but to add that extra little bit of life.

[bluestarultor]

I oddly just posted this up in the past couple days: http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/User:Bluestarultor/Review_Archive#What_I_Look_For_In_Games

I'm glad I didn't replace it with Dragon Age II yet.

EDIT: Updated it with the archive link.

[Doc ock rokc]

Engaging storyline is nice if the Game play is just as engaging. The story is icing on the cake for most games. IF you have a good story but bad game play Ill not play it. Games are for GAME PLAY. (IM LOOKING AT YOU ME1!) games also need a TUTORIAL!(AGAIN FUCK YOU ME1) or like GTA4 multiple tutorials spread as far as we need them. also if I want to break off and do something weird and stupid It should let me or punish me in such a way I laugh after it. halo has tons of ways it keeps players on track while also hiding things in areas past punishment. While Saints row 2 encourages it with mini-games dedicated to you fucking around.

[Bells]

Even if the story is corny as all hell, if it's told in a nice way and has good gameplay i'll like it. I Love a good story with good, big, characters that i can relate to, that i can like and dislike

And i LOVE game that gives me options to customize, change stuff make my own way to play it. A lot of times if a game has a so-so story, as soon as i dominate the gameplay or acquire all features of the game i either rush to the end or stop playing

[Doc ock rokc]

Even if the story is corny as all hell, if it's told in a nice way and has good gameplay i'll like it. I Love a good story with good, big, characters that i can relate to, that i can like and dislike

And i LOVE game that gives me options to customize, change stuff make my own way to play it. A lot of times if a game has a so-so story, as soon as i dominate the gameplay or acquire all features of the game i either rush to the end or stop playing

so i take it you played Crysis 2 and preordered Deus ex
I like games like that as well but im never inclined to replay though them in a different style

[Specterbane]

It's hard to pin down expect for one crucial fact. Gameplay is crucial to a good game for me, if it doesn't feel fun to play it isn't going to work for me. But if a game is trying hard to tell a story and just can't do it clearly that also ruins the game.

Really, after gameplay, if a game sets out what it means to do it's good for me. If, however, it presents aspects of it poorly it begins to loose points with me. For example I can't stand Braid. I love the game play, the puzzles are fun, and the art is really pretty; but they tried to tell a serious story in such vague, unexplained terms that it pretty well beat it down for me. It then had the nerve to put in the unbearably hard to get secret stars as a way to try and better explain the story with no gameplay hint that they were ever there, and that killed the game for me. Contrast that with Devil Kings, which is essentially a Dynasty warriors rip off. There is no deep story, compelling character, or particularly innovative gameplay. You wreck shit in feudal Japan. That's it. But since that's all it's trying to be, at least in the american version, there just a visceral kind of fun in that. That and the voice of Optimus Prime has a major role, and that's always a plus.

[russianreversal]

Proper planning, plain and simple. If I don't have to put up with some pace breaker because the dev team quite obviously thought of it, that makes a game incredibly fun for me. It shows it was made with me (or at least my demographic) in mind. Games that require you to grind or do repetitive tasks can sink whatever fun I was having.

That said, sometimes the most fun I've had in a game was when something happened that the developers didn't see coming. Case in point: playing RE5, in the room with all of the death lasers, specifically the one where one of the side passages has about 8 billion boxes. Didn't really feel like getting snake attacked, so I simply grenaded the lot of them. Eggs everywhere. My partner wanted one, so to save time I grabbed one and tried to hand it to him. Arm went straight through one of the lasers, and of course it killed me. We could NOT stop laughing, especially because they're only about an inch wide, and Shiva could totally have reached over or under but no, straight through.

Story is important, but it doesn't determine if a game is fun for me, only if I feel like playing through all of the single player or not. For example: knowing what I know now, I wouldn't bother with playing through all of Borderlands, at least not the main story (DLC is fantastic).

[MuMu]

Changes in the gameplay during the course of the main game. Dead Space is an example, it had the Zero-G sections, the Vacuum sections, the "holy shit you're being dragged around shoot that thing" moments and the turrets.

New abilities are also welcome, specially in plataformers(I really don't dig games where you already start with everything), although pretty much every game nowadays has that.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

I like my games in a way that doesn't feel like I'm watching a movie and push buttons between scenes.

Basically, what I'm saying is it should be a game first and last. It can tell a story if it wants. I love games with good stories. But a big no to all games that want to be enjoyed for their action movie plots and shitty gameplay.

jRPGs hold kinda a special status for me, though.

[rpgdemon]

One of the reasons I ask is because I'm thinking about making a little mini-series of pretty much proof of concepts/conceptual games, based just around the idea of getting fun gameplay, with pretty much zero story, to see how much fun they might be, since I've got extra spare time recently.

Wow, that was a crazy long run on sentence, and I have no intentions of changing it.

[Azisien]

I'm honestly not a fan of fun games. I find they detract heavily from my dark, grumpy existence.

[tacticslion]

Game play is a huge factor. That's what I play games for - the game play. If all I wanted was a story, I'd read a book, watch a movie, or cheat to get straight to the cut scenes. Inkball is a perfect example of this. There is no story, no logic, no reason for ink (which isn't even ink - how meta!) to act as any sort of wall or barrier to cause random bouncing balls to go in the direction you want in order for them to get into the properly-colored holes. Makes. No. Sense. And yet, the game is fun and addictive. I can easily and readily enjoy it when I get the opportunity.

That said, the game play doesn't have to be innovative or groundbreaking. That's nice, but it's not all about different experiences. I enjoy going back and playing the same games over and over again, and if a new game does something an old one did, only "better" (this is sometimes a matter of opinion), I often (though not always, see previous swap tag) like the new game more.

In addition to game play, though, I often enjoy games for their atmosphere (including visuals and music). I have found that this is secondary - I can play a game like minesweeper and enjoy immensely, for example, even though it doesn't have any music or real "atmosphere" to speak of. That said, it does make a difference. To go back to minesweeper as an example, the newer, smoother-looking version is much more enjoyable to play than the older, hard-corners and uglier version. Solitaire is similar. The newer, better-looking ones are that much more enjoyable to play. The atmospheric improvements are nowhere near necessary, but they add to the experience. It's just nicer to see the card move rather than a random outline, for instance. Some games need atmosphere in order to be good. Robot Unicorn Attack, for example, is good because of its subversive atmosphere, fun music and coloring, and ridiculous premise. Strip that away and you have... a non-winnable sidescroller that'd get old quickly instead of being addictive.

Finally, I love me some stories when they're present... providing they're well told. This includes characters, story flow, pacing, and even atmosphere, as given above. In general, I prefer well-written story games to other kinds. A story isn't necessary at all, but I find that, for me, it adds greatly to the whole experience. Well-written story ranges from things like some of the Final Fantasy series (tons of dialogue, low visuals), to things like ICO (almost no dialogue, tons of visuals) and various amounts in between. This would be a different discussion altogether compared to what you're looking for, however.

In conclusion, primarily, if it's fun I will play. If it's not... I won't. Atmosphere [visuals (not necessarily graphics) and music (sometimes)] can and does add to the experience and can sometimes make or break the game (depending). Story is a fantastic addition, but it's not necessary for a game. The most important thing in a game is given in its name: GAME. So, if that's fun, the rest will follow. If its not inherently the most fun, spicing it up can work wonders, so long as it's not completely irritating to play in the first place.

[russianreversal]

One of the reasons I ask is because I'm thinking about making a little mini-series of pretty much proof of concepts/conceptual games, based just around the idea of getting fun gameplay, with pretty much zero story, to see how much fun they might be, since I've got extra spare time recently. Well flash games beat you to the proof of concept basically since they were invented, but actually going further back I'm pretty sure some of us have some nostalgic arcade memories. And those games had NO story.

Fun games didn't start when people started writing stories for them.

Also, how are you planning on making these? Just wondering.