Fun vs. great?

[13_CBS]

Ok, so I've heard the argument that many games (primarily the Halo series--do NOT TALK ABOUT THEM HERE) are fun but not great, while other games are just great.

What's the difference, though? What makes a great game great? What makes a fun game not great?

[kpenguin]

I really don't know. I suppose a fun game is just fun while a great game is really fun.

There shouldn't be any other criteria for a game other than how much fun you have playing it. Now, what kind of fun you get from it and whether the different kinds of fun are comparable is debatable, but really how fun a game is should be the only way to judge a game.

[Icewalker]

I believe the implication in "fun but not great" is that while it is fun, it isn't as good as other games, as measured by fun.

In the ranking of fun, the term "fun" is used to mean above average, while "great" is several steps above it.

At least, thats what I think it all is.

[Semidi]

I reserve the word "great" for games that are as close as games can come to art or games that are just mindblowing. For instance, Fallout 1&2 are great but I never found them particularly "fun."

Alternatively, I think Diablo II was great fun, but it's not great.

Make sense?

[Dairun Cates]

I reserve the word "great" for games that are as close as games can come to art or games that are just mindblowing. For instance, Fallout 1&2 are great but I never found them particularly "fun."

Alternatively, I think Diablo II was great fun, but it's not great.

Make sense?

Even Fallout is meant to be fun. I think that more extends to works like Shadow of the Colossus. However, while I was not particularly giddy over the idea of slaughtering innocent and gentle creatures, I did find the game incredibly compelling and a 100% worthwhile experience that I would replay over and over.

[tannish2]

I reserve the word "great" for games that are as close as games can come to art
i reserve the word "art" for as close as color stuff on a flat surface can come to art

anyway, a great game is one thats not just fun, but isnt lacking in any aspect, or is only lacking in one (morrowind is a good example, only 1 weak point) or a game thats just completely mind-****ingly amazing and something completely new and cool (or something old and mediocre done in a way thats fun, super smash brothers was a good example)

[Dhavaer]

I'd put Deus Ex as a great game, and, say, computer pinball ball as one that's just fun.

I'm not sure where Tetris falls in.

[tannish2]

I'd put Deus Ex as a great game, and, say, computer pinball ball as one that's just fun.

I'm not sure where Tetris falls in.

evil. its everywhere, you cant ****ing escape. its 153% EVIL

[Saint George]

Well, my only logic for this is a single game.

Soul Reaver 2.

Great, but not fun.

The only reason I really played through that game was for the plot. The plot made it fun for me. Seeing what would happen, the little cutscenes, the suspense, etc. I thought the game was very fun when I played through it.

Looking back... the gameplay was horrible. It was second rate tomb raider puzzle solving gameplay without a single boss. I doubt I would have tolerated it from any other game.

But the plot was so purdy. Mmmm what good voice acting can do for a series.

[Om]

To my mind a "great" game is the epitome of its genre. So Planescape:Torment is a "great" RPG and Half-Life is a "great" FPS. Diablo II and Far Cry cannot measure up to these but are still fun to play.


(morrowind is a good example, only 1 weak point)Yeah... the RPG elements.

[kpenguin]

To me, a "great" game must be exceptional in nearly all aspects, but be absolutely outstanding in one: fun. That is all.

[tannish2]

To me, a "great" game must be exceptional in nearly all aspects, but be absolutely outstanding in one: fun. That is all.

what he said. but in big friendly red letters.

[Winterwind]

I think to me 'great' implies mostly that there is depth to game. As in, when you play, you learn more and more about the game, and every time it completely changes the way you play. A "fun but not great" game would, on the other hand, be fun but wouldn't have any great strategies or revelations involved, no matter how long you play.

Let's take StarCraft, for example (which I consider the epitome of a great game).
When one starts to play, one just builds any units without really knowing what they are for.
Later, one starts to comprehend their use - this unit counters that, this one is best used at this, and so on. But one often plays by building a huge mass of defensive buildings, turtles oneself in and techs up to the highest technologies.
Later yet, one learns that this is unwise against a human opponent who understands the game: instead of attacking, they will just take the entire map, expand everywhere, and win due to an enormous economical advantage. So one starts to play aggressively instead, not using much defensive buildings and putting the opponent under pressure all the time.
Then it's time for the finer aspects: one learns about build-orders, in which way one can most effectively build up an army fast.
One learns about micro, how by shooting-moving-shooting-moving a few dragoons can defeat a theoretically infinite number of zealots, how by switching the attacked unit for another one can beat superior forces with the same units, and so on.
One learns why it is important to get a +1 weapon upgrade early on in a Protoss vs. Zerg match (zealots need only two strikes to kill a zergling then, instead of three).
One learns about the various strategies: dropping mass-destruction units right into the enemy workers, rushes, fast expanding, harrassment.
Ultimately, one can estimate by the enemy units one sees what the opponent must be up to, and in how many seconds which of his units will pop.
And all of the strategies get more and more refined.

That's depth. And to me, it's this depth that distinguishes a great game from a merely fun one.

Note: A great game must, obviously, be at least as much fun as the non-great one, too, in order to qualify. But the depth helps to beat the non-great ones in that aspect, too.

[Pronounceable]

To me, a "great" game must be exceptional in nearly all aspects, but be absolutely outstanding in one: fun. That is all.

I'll be thirding this.


To my mind a "great" game is the epitome of its genre. So Planescape:Torment is a "great" RPG and Half-Life is a "great" FPS. Diablo II and Far Cry cannot measure up to these but are still fun to play.


And seconding this.


And Tetris, along with Minesweeper and assorted Pinballs are evil.

[Querzis]

A great game doesnt have to be fun. Lets take Prince of persia for example. Great graphic, great story, great gameplay, except that it was too short I can barely see anything about this game that isnt great...I still found it boring. And now lets take a game like Wario World. It had bad graphic, unoriginal gameplay and storyline, it was really repetitive and even shorter then Prince of persia. But I though it was really fun and both are pretty much Beat them all games so you cant say I liked one but not the other because they are different style of games.

There is nothing really original, mindblowing or great about halo, its just a first person shooter like many other...but I had WAY more fun with Halo then with Gears of Wars, Half-life or just about any other first person shooter out there except maybe Resident evil 4 though I gotta admit resident evil 4 was fun and great. You cant explain fun, Halo is really the most fun first person shooter out there for me (and apparently for many other people) just because it is. I dont need any reason to love that game.

And I absolutely never care about how great a game is. I know lots of people are all about graphic and such but I dont care how crappy or bad looking a game is if I have fun playing it.

Edit: By the way, here is the definition of great from the dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/great

I found Prince of Persia First-rate, Wonderfull, Notable, remarkable and outstanding in many ways but still not fun. The greatest game on Earth doesnt have to be fun at all if we take the real definition of great...

[Winterwind]

Great graphic, great story, great gameplay, except that it was too short I can barely see anything about this game that isnt great...I still found it boring. Would seem the gameplay can't have been that great, if you found it boring. (I admit I never quite liked Prince of Persia that much myself, either, even though it was pretty much state of the art when I played it for the first time)

I agree with the previous notions that a great game must be fun and excelling in all aspects.
No... that's not quite right. I would actually limit it to gameplay/fun and depth. My favorite example, StarCraft, has quite dated graphics and interface by now; that doesn't affect its greatness even in the slightest.

[Timberwolf]

I'm about to die here, but it is for a cause I believe in so I will live in in memory and martyrdom for dying for my beliefs

You see, I hated Starcraft, just like I hated Fallout, Baldurs Gate, Metal Gear Solid, the list goes on.

Yet, I loved Mechcommander 2, Command and Conquer, Neverwinter Nights, all of which share large amounts of features, ideas, genres with the above. Other games I have loved and have found amazing fun and that I rate as great include N Gen Racing on the PS 1, that never heard of Gran Turismo rip off with jet fighters and weapons where you could put a ramjet on your SU 27 and blow the guy in 1st place away.

Simply put, fun is all that matters to me for rating a game as great. Sure, it being so badly coded it's unplayable will annoy me sufficiently to stop me having fun but ultimately, right here, I have Spellforce, Empire Earth 2, Fable, Rise of Legends and a few more that I'm just not having enough fun to finish.

Greatness to me is the capability to make me want to play it to the end and that requires fun. Eye Candy does not really matter to me, my PC is not capable of running moderately new games with that turned on, cool and innovative features don't really last long either, having plenty of stuff to do and a "massive, real life world to explore and shape as you choose" ?, always good but ultimately ? I hate Grand Theft Auto, sorry.

Greatness = fun and how you get your fun defines your choices for greatness.

[Amotis]

Great = Original, innovative, genre challanging.

Fun = Smile when you play it.

[Timberwolf]

But how, when, after an hour of misery and boredom, I eventually quit Starcraft (and everyone I've heard venture an opinion on it says it's great) can I possibly classify it as great when I found it so eyeball gougingly boring I couldn't bear to play it any longer ?

[Winterwind]

I'm about to die here, but it is for a cause I believe in so I will live in in memory and martyrdom for dying for my beliefsI think that's the scene where I cite Voltaire... "I loathe what you are saying, but I will defend your right to say it with my life" (not word by word)
I see nothing wrong with your statements (well, the question how you possibly could find StarCraft boring is baffling me, but I do not expect any answer to this that I will understand, so apart from that). Because, you see, I agree that different people consider different things as "great".


Greatness = fun and how you get your fun defines your choices for greatness.I fully agree, at least with your definition of greatness. Greatness is in the eye of the beholder.


But how, when, after an hour of misery and boredom, I eventually quit Starcraft (and everyone I've heard venture an opinion on it says it's great) can I possibly classify it as great when I found it so eyeball gougingly boring I couldn't bear to play it any longer ?Why would you ever want to classify it as great? Nobody is demanding that you do.

[valadil]

The way I judge this is how I feel about a game after I've played it. A lot of games are fun, but I forget them and move on as soon as I'm done. A great game is one that you'll remember and go back to, even when it's obsolete. I don't think it's just about replay value though. Some games simply remain worth playing after the rest have expired. I'd say that any FPS gamer should at some point play Deus Ex and Half-Life, and they'll probably still find those games enjoyable.

[Timberwolf]

I think that's the scene where I cite Voltaire... "I loathe what you are saying, but I will defend your right to say it with my life" (not word by word)
I see nothing wrong with your statements (well, the question how you possibly could find StarCraft boring is baffling me, but I do not expect any answer to this that I will understand, so apart from that). Because, you see, I agree that different people consider different things as "great".

I fully agree, at least with your definition of greatness. Greatness is in the eye of the beholder.

Why would you ever want to classify it as great? Nobody is demanding that you do.

Oh good, so you're not going to rip me to shreds for daring to be the lone voice of dissent about Starcraft. You're the first person to not do that whenever I've said anything about it. (BTW, this isn't a subject that comes up that often for me but when it has, I have been truly amazed at the level of passion for what was, to me, a very ordinary game)

I hope to one day see what all the fuss is about. You see, the reasons for my disliking Starcraft are these. I looked at the game and the screen just did not fill me with any desire to do anything. I felt apathetic just looking at the game interface. I hated the Zerg, and not in a "Raaaagh, lets go and get them for the glory of the Imperium !!" way but rather in a "Please make it stop" way. It was the noises they made, they way they moved, it was even their name. It just hit me wrongly. The Protoss were better, but the sound and sight of them still just left me unwilling to gather up the energy to actually like them. Then there was the game itself. Everything moved so slowly, on a drab background. I'm not lambasting the graphics, for the time they were good. But they still didn't interest me in the slightest at the time (2001 I think it was). I had no great desire to do anything.

I hope that clears up why I was bored by Starcraft. My response to Amotis's comment was that I felt he is basing it on what I felt to be a musical perspective, which is fair enough really, but when you consider that games are meant to be fun, or they would just be simulations otherwise, I justfelt he was missing something out.

Anyway, this put me in mind of Total Annihilation. Now there was a great game. Fun, Great campaign, lots of units, perfect multiplayer balance. They don't make em like that anymore.

[Winterwind]

Oh good, so you're not going to rip me to shreds for daring to be the lone voice of dissent about Starcraft.:smallbiggrin:
No, rest assured, I most definitely am not.


You're the first person to not do that whenever I've said anything about it. (BTW, this isn't a subject that comes up that often for me but when it has, I have been truly amazed at the level of passion for what was, to me, a very ordinary game)I think StarCraft players are so defensive about their game because, while many consider it one of the, or even the best game of all times (sidenote: I do so, too, at least regarding RTS, which is my favorite genre), it is so old now that the community is not nearly as huge as it used to be, and is slowly shrinking, and they don't want the game to die.


I hope to one day see what all the fuss is about.Well, my third last post contains the prime reasons why I like the game (please do not think I am trying to convince you now; just explaining what the fuss is about in my case only): it has an incredible strategic depth. Also, the units are highly responsive, the races are very much different yet nigh perfectly balanced, practically all of the units are useful (as opposed to other games where one builds only one unit type and that's it), and they have fun skills.


You see, the reasons for my disliking Starcraft are these. I looked at the game and the screen just did not fill me with any desire to do anything. I felt apathetic just looking at the game interface. I hated the Zerg, and not in a "Raaaagh, lets go and get them for the glory of the Imperium !!" way but rather in a "Please make it stop" way. It was the noises they made, they way they moved, it was even their name. It just hit me wrongly. The Protoss were better, but the sound and sight of them still just left me unwilling to gather up the energy to actually like them. Then there was the game itself. Everything moved so slowly, on a drab background. I'm not lambasting the graphics, for the time they were good. But they still didn't interest me in the slightest at the time (2001 I think it was). I had no great desire to do anything. Okay, that's a reason I actually do understand, even though to me it didn't feel that way at all, on the contrary. Wrong/unimmersive look is a perfectly valid reasoning to me. (As for the speed, there is a good reason why BattleNet games are always played on the Fastest speed setting, and not on Normal. :smallbiggrin: )


I hope that clears up why I was bored by Starcraft. My response to Amotis's comment was that I felt he is basing it on what I felt to be a musical perspective, which is fair enough really, but when you consider that games are meant to be fun, or they would just be simulations otherwise, I justfelt he was missing something out.Yes, it does. And I agree with your requirement for greatness, overall.
Basically, I would say: A fun game needs not to be great. But a great game needs to be fun.


Anyway, this put me in mind of Total Annihilation. Now there was a great game. Fun, Great campaign, lots of units, perfect multiplayer balance. They don't make em like that anymore.Alas, never played it.
But I'm fine with trying to master the two Blizzard RTS's anyway. :smallwink:

[Timberwolf]

Yes, it does. And I agree with your requirement for greatness, overall.
Basically, I would say: A fun game needs not to be great. But a great game needs to be fun.


Ah, there we go, I was wondering how to put that. Yes, I agree entirely.

Edit.

I know exactly where you're coming from with the shrinking userbase. I was in at the last real days of Mechwarrior 4 and not the sad ghost that's limping along now and trying to scrape up another 2 people for a 3v3 league match could be a nightmare once you were just past those glory days..

[tannish2]

:smallbiggrin:
No, rest assured, I most definitely am not.

I think StarCraft players are so defensive about their game because, while many consider it one of the, or even the best game of all times (sidenote: I do so, too, at least regarding RTS, which is my favorite genre), it is so old now that the community is not nearly as huge as it used to be, and is slowly shrinking, and they don't want the game to die.

Well, my third last post contains the prime reasons why I like the game (please do not think I am trying to convince you now; just explaining what the fuss is about in my case only): it has an incredible strategic depth. Also, the units are highly responsive, the races are very much different yet nigh perfectly balanced, practically all of the units are useful (as opposed to other games where one builds only one unit type and that's it), and they have fun skills.

Okay, that's a reason I actually do understand, even though to me it didn't feel that way at all, on the contrary. Wrong/unimmersive look is a perfectly valid reasoning to me. (As for the speed, there is a good reason why BattleNet games are always played on the Fastest speed setting, and not on Normal. :smallbiggrin: )

Yes, it does. And I agree with your requirement for greatness, overall.
Basically, I would say: A fun game needs not to be great. But a great game needs to be fun.

Alas, never played it.
But I'm fine with trying to master the two Blizzard RTS's anyway. :smallwink:

actually there are 4, not including 3 expansions.

[Winterwind]

I know exactly where you're coming from with the shrinking userbase. I was in at the last real days of Mechwarrior 4 and not the sad ghost that's limping along now and trying to scrape up another 2 people for a 3v3 league match could be a nightmare once you were just past those glory days..Yes, it's a sad thing indeed when that happens.


actually there are 4, not including 3 expansions.I know, I just assumed it was implied I was referring to the two most recent ones.

[13_CBS]

So judging from what a lot of you are saying, a great game is merely something that is innovative?

[Artanis]

Fun is obvious. If a game is fun, it's fun.

"Great", however, is used in three different ways, one of which is, in my opinion, total BS.


1) Great = Fun + Significant

This is how I define greatness. If a game is fun, it's fun. But a few games are not only fun, but also have a significant impact on their genre at an absolute minimum, preferably on gaming as a whole or even the world at large. StarCraft was fun, and it totally altered the culture of an entire nation. Wolfenstein 3D was fun, and was effectively the birth of an entire genre. World of Warcraft is fun, and turned MMOs from a niche market into a widely popular force to be reckoned with. That is the sort of thing that I define as "greatness".

In this way of thinking, a game that is great fun, but had little impact, would not be "great". Games like Arcanum or X-Com: Apocalypse. Fun games, but hardly "great".


2) Great = The Best

Many people define greatness like this. They define "great" as the best of a genre, even if it's not significant. There's nothing really wrong with this approach, it simply isn't the one I use.

In this way of thinking, a game can be fun but still not the best. Then it isn't "great".


3) Great = What I say is great

Many times, people - especially review sites - decide to make a list of the "greatest" games of all time. These lists are usually total BS since they're just lists of "what the article writer likes the best" of all time, but change "best" to "greatest" to give it some air of objectivity and cut down on the hate mail.

In this way of thinking, a game that everybody in the world except the reviewer adores is not "great". Any game that a reviewer has a vendetta against - like happens with Halo due to it being on a console, no matter how fun it is despite that fact - is not "great". You can see why I feel this manner of thinking is BS.

[Winterwind]

So judging from what a lot of you are saying, a great game is merely something that is innovative?Not by my definition. For me, it has to be fun, and it has to have depth (complex strategies, a lot of potential for becoming better, and so on). It also should be immersive, have a good atmosphere, be exciting. Good graphics and sound are helpful towards the last goal, but are by no means mandatory. Whether it was the first game to come up with stuff, or whether it simply put the stuff together in a better fashion than all the other games, is completely irrelevant.

[13_CBS]

Not by my definition. For me, it has to be fun, and it has to have depth (complex strategies, a lot of potential for becoming better, and so on). It also should be immersive, have a good atmosphere, be exciting. Good graphics and sound are helpful towards the last goal, but are by no means mandatory. Whether it was the first game to come up with stuff, or whether it simply put the stuff together in a better fashion than all the other games, is completely irrelevant.

One could argue that the Halo series had all that (fun, depth, etc.), yet there are many, many people who would not consider it a great game.

[Winterwind]

One could argue that the Halo series had all that (fun, depth, etc.), yet there are many, many people who would not consider it a great game.I can't say anything about that, I haven't ever played Halo. What I have heard about it, however, sounded as if it would indeed be a great game, at least in my understanding of that term.

[Dhavaer]

Anyway, this put me in mind of Total Annihilation. Now there was a great game. Fun, Great campaign, lots of units, perfect multiplayer balance. They don't make em like that anymore.

I agree about Total Annihilation. TA was awesome.

[Vespe Ratavo]

Fon: A geme dot iz really entertainink to play, bot either
A: Gets borink after a vile
B: Dozn't hef moch uf a plot
C: Iz keend uf mindless und borink
D: Henny odder number uf flavs.

For exemple, Dead Risink iz fon, because it gets borink after a vile, bot iz really fon vile it lashts.

Great: A geme dot iz not only fon, bot alzo effects hyu emotionally, und has a great shtory, or de gemeplay iz zo revolotionary it really changes video gemes (und not jusht de vuns vho claim to be revolotionary, like Odema).

For exemple, Bioshock iz great. Jusht great.

3/15 for dare