If It's Not Fun Why Bother?

  • First I've got to thank @Hanabi for posting and reminding me of Reggie Fils-Aime's timeless question. What games have you lot played where you forced yourself through a game that wasn't fun? And what was it about these games that kept you playing when it wasn't fun?

  • Banned

    I'm not quite sure what that means.
    Like I've played games that didn't necessarily have "fun" gameplay, but my enjoyment care from the various other aspects of the game like character interactions, story choices, etc.
    Everyone's idea of what they find fun is subjective.

  • I rarely come across it to be honest but the answer has always been the same: I simply want to complete what I payed for and at least consider it done.

  • Super Paper Mario. I knew it wasn't highly regarded, but I bought it because I at least knew the production values and writing would be good (they were). But the game's heavy focus on platforming wasn't my thing, and the flip and scan mechanics made finding secrets a pain. I continued to the end to get my money's worth.

  • @el-shmiablo I'm saying generally what games have you felt like you've had to drag yourself through not enjoying any of it. I find that I obligate myself to play certain games that weren't fun, just so I can experience what a bad game is like. The Quiet Man for instance might be a short game but it feels a hell of a lot longer than it is-and I enjoyed none of it, but wanted to complete it because it was short and full of technical incompetencies.

  • I quit Resident Evil 4 because I wasn't having any fun.

  • Banned

    I guess I completed the first Telltale Batman game despite being some of their worst work in my opinion, because I knew it was only a few hours long and an easy platinum.

  • I find it hard to stop playing a game no matter how bad it is. Can't recall any off the top of my head right now, but I just gotta hit that credit screen!

  • Assassin's Creed III. I don't know what I kept playing it, I pretty much dislike almost everything about that game. I guess it's the "I bought it therefore I should finish it" mentality that I used to have.

    I also had a similar experience when playing Virginia. Early on it's pretty okay, but near the end, it just dissolves into a bunch of nonsense that I don't care about. It's so short though, which is why I kept playing though it anyway.

    Nowadays I can bounce out of games like these pretty quick, so these two are the only ones I can think of right now.

  • @GoTaco said in Do Bad Endings Ruin Otherwise Great Games?:

    Prime example - Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor

    This game started to get very boring and bland at the 4 or 5 hour mark but for whatever reason, I kept playing this awful game to see the ending through. I reached the end battle where I defeated the "army" in under 60 seconds and without swinging my sword one time. My team just did all of the work for me. I then fought a QTE final boss which triggered a cutscene that had a cliff hanger and no resolution.

    It was insulting because:

    • The gameplay was atrocious where I didn't have to do anything at the very end.
    • The looooong story buildup to a extremely weak and boring fight made me question how such an "army" could possibly create any of the conflict described and shown throughout this game. They were harmless.
    • There were no resolutions. You fight some bad guys and it ends.

    Shadow of Mordor's ending ruined the whole game for me. If reaching the ending was a chore, then the ending has absolutely no return and insults your progress and intelligence.

    To elaborate because I am still upset with the time I spent on this game, the main enemy of the game is called the "Black Hand". You hear about them building an army the whole game but you never see them. The open world is quite small so it makes no sense that you'd never come across them. I only kept playing the repetitive monotonous game just to see the story through and the big epic ending it built up to was over in a flash. Such a disappointing finale after like 18ish hours.

    Shadow of Mordor and FarCry 2 are the only games I've absolutely disliked but played through and completed. Hence, why I think both are the worst AAA video games ever released with FarCry 2 being possibly my least favourite game of all time. And to answer the topic with clarity, I mostly saw these games through to the end because critics praised them. I was expecting some sort of rewarding gameplay to appear somewhere and it never did. In the case of Mordor, I knew the payoff wasn't going to happen through gameplay but I then wanted to finish the big "war" at the end.

  • I know I've played a few JRPGs I've hated for more than 20 hours just to convince myself of the fact, recently that includes DQ11, Xenoblade 2 and Star Ocean 4, I bought the first two at release so I guess I wanted to justify my purchase (it wasnt) and I was genuinely curious about the games, so that's another thing for me, I'm just very curious about games and like to experience them even if they are not my thing.

  • Super Mario Odyssey comes to mind immediately. It was exciting at first, and the story / new environments kept me hooked, but every Moon was so mindnumbingly easy, it just became a steady motion of picking one up every 30 seconds to 1 minute, and almost none of them felt earned. Then I pushed past credits, hoping the challenge was in the postgame, but it just turned into a collectathon of Moons with little payoff, and even worse, some of the Moon started to be exact repeats of things I'd already done earlier. Felt increasingly like busy work, and even though the very end of the last World was a nice moment and payoff for all the work, sadly that's what the game felt like, work.

  • FFXV, I've enjoyed like the first 10% of that game and then I just disliked it more and more but I beat it! I don't think games need to be fun, in fact I hate that notion, but FFXV was just horrible to me, I think my least favourite game this gen.

  • @phbz said in If It's Not Fun Why Bother?:

    I don't think games need to be fun, in fact I hate that notion

    Care to expand on this one?

  • @e_zed_eh_intern Games need as much to be fun as a movie like Schindler's List or a book as Christian F need to be fun too. It is an unfortunate naming of our hobby that condemns it to this reductive perspective. They need to be engaging, not fun necessarily.

  • This post is deleted!

  • I think as a personal stance for what types of video games you want to play, this is fine. As a general statement about video games, I disagree. I don't want this medium to be so limiting, I've played a number of games were fun was not the main emotion it was trying to covey to the player. Sim games and narrative games aren't always fun but can be satisfying and entertaining all the same. Just my two cents.

  • @phbz But if games aren't fun then what's motivating you forward? Games do need to be engaging but without fun gaming would just be a robotic hobby.

  • Sometimes it's a matter of being in a certain mood for some games.

  • @jdincinerator If you're engaged by a story that might be enough to keep you going. Escaping a life threatening situation might also be rewarding in itself without being fun. People with addiction problems might keep repeating a behaviour while being miserable.

    Same with all art/entertainment.