• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Fun vs Engaging, is there a difference to you and if yes, what do you prefer?

Gaiff

Gold Member
A couple of years ago, there was an episode of Extra Credits that raised an interesting question about games not needing to be fun but engaging. For instance, horror games like Outlast or PT aren't necessarily fun but still manage to keep the player interested with the world, atmosphere, writing, and story.

I noticed that while I may find a game engaging, it can only be for so long before I get bored and ditch it if the gameplay isn't up to snuff. A Plague Tale: Requiem is a gorgeous game with fantastic graphics, an interesting premise, and great music but I found myself bored to tears after a few hours because the gameplay loop just isn't good. That's when I realized that I don't care one bit about "engaging" games if the fun part is absent. Whenever a game bombards me with dialogue, exposition, and tries to connect with me on an emotional level, all I think is "can I get back to killing things now?". That's also one of the reasons why I just didn't care for GOWR. The game is definitely fun but there are just too many sections where it comes to a screeching halt to allow character interactions and story development that just don't interest me anymore.

Now I understand that I might be in the minority and that these two facets aren't mutually exclusive. Games can be both fun and engaging but I don't give a damn about a game no matter how good the story and themes are if it isn't fun (Hellblade, looking at you).

What's your take Gaf?
 
Last edited:

TintoConCasera

I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
If I'm engaged it means that I'm having fun, so I'd pick both, I guess.

What it's not the same is "having fun" and a game being funny. When I get those two at once then it's when I love the game. Hi-Fi Rush, High on Life or the Yakuza games come to mind.
 

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
I can do either if it's engaging enough.

I tried Animal Crossing for the first time recently and put it down forever after an hour, but I could go level a WoW vanilla character right now dog. Swings and roundabouts.
 

Whitecrow

Banned
Fun is an emotion.
There are more positive emotions.

I personally love fantasy, histories and characters. I cant play, lets say, mascot platformers anymore.
 

rofif

Banned
If it's fun but not engaging... then how will you play? with eyes closed?

Game must be engaging.
Being fun is optional
 

Comandr

Member
A couple of years ago, there was an episode of Extra Credits that raised an interesting question about games not needing to be fun but engaging. For instance, horror games like Outlast or PT aren't necessarily fun but still manage to keep the player interested with the world, atmosphere, writing, and story.

I noticed that while I may find a game engaging, it can only be for so long before I get bored and ditch it if the gameplay isn't up to snuff. A Plague Tale: Requiem is a gorgeous game with fantastic graphics, an interesting premise, and great music but I found myself bored to tears after a few hours because the gameplay loop just isn't good. That's when I realized that I don't care one bit about "engaging" games if the fun part is absent. Whenever a game bombards me with dialogue, exposition, and tries to connect with me on an emotional level, all I think is "can I get back to killing things now?". That's also one of the reasons why I just didn't care for GOWR. The game is definitely fun but there are just too many sections where it comes to a screeching halt to allow character interactions and story development that just don't interest me anymore.

Now I understand that I might be in the minority and that these two facets aren't mutually exclusive. Games can be both fun and engaging but I don't give a damn about a game no matter how good the story and themes are if it isn't fun (Hellblade, looking at you).

What's your take Gaf?
This is such a fascinating topic. Also great Extra Credits reference; excellent channel. What stuck out to me was that you seem to gravitate away from cinematic or story heavy games in lieu of more moment to moment combat elements. I find myself going in the exact opposite direction. I enjoyed more haha machine gun go brrr games in my youth, I couldn't stand story heavy games. Now I find those experiences to be vapid and time wasters. I loved GOWR for instance, loved engaging with the characters on a deeper level, and even enjoyed taking the time to stop and take in the sights, find all the bullshit collectables, etc. Some of the completely optional side quests were really interesting and I felt added a decent amount to the overall narrative. I went through something similar with Hogwarts Legacy following all of the secondary characters' quests to their conclusion. Completely optional, but I feel like the whole would have been radically lessoned if I hadn't taken the time to experience these characters in the entirety of their stories.

I suppose this comes from having less time to play games, and so I want those moments to feel more meaningful. Games like Halo, Smash Bros, or Doom whose core concept is the gameplay itself, I put hundreds of hours into when I was younger, and now just the thought of playing a game like that for any significant volume of time just does not appeal to me anymore. I'd say the only franchise that still has me by the human horn because of its gameplay is Monster Hunter.
 
Last edited:

GymWolf

Member
Both are good in my book.

I can play a game with a shitty gameplay if story, characters etc. are high level and i can play fun games with shitty stories etc.

yakuza series and souls games comes to mind, i'm engaged with the first, i have fun with the second. (although latest yakuza games were also fun to play because of the dragon engine)

But it's more complicated than that.
 
Last edited:

lachesis

Member
I tend to go with engage. If I'm engaged enough, say - it's the plot or storyline, I tend to go along with the boring part of the gameplay just to see where it leads.
Then again, the engagement often equals having fun. But if the fun here is limited to enjoying the simple joy of having tactile feeback on screen only... then definitely I'll take engagement.

Preferably, the game will provide both in equal measure.
 

Gaiff

Gold Member
If it's fun but not engaging... then how will you play? with eyes closed?

Game must be engaging.
Being fun is optional
I suppose fun is engaging but engaging isn't necessarily fun.
This is such a fascinating topic. Also great Extra Credits reference; excellent channel. What stuck out to me was that you seem to gravitate away from cinematic or story heavy games in lieu of more moment to moment combat elements. I find myself going in the exact opposite direction. I enjoyed more haha machine gun go brrr games in my youth, I couldn't stand story heavy games. Now I find those experiences to be vapid and time wasters. I loved GOWR for instance, loved engaging with the characters on a deeper level, and even enjoyed taking the time to stop and take in the sights, find all the bullshit collectables, etc. Some of the completely optional side quests were really interesting and I felt added a decent amount to the overall narrative. I went through something similar with Hogwarts Legacy following all of the secondary characters' quests to their conclusion. Completely optional, but I feel like the whole would have been radically lessoned if I hadn't taken the time to experience these characters in the entirety of their stories.

I suppose this comes from having less time to play games, and so I want those moments to feel more meaningful. Games like Halo, Smash Bros, or Doom whose core concept is the gameplay itself, I put hundreds of hours into when I was younger, and now just the thought of playing a game like that for any significant volume of time just does not appeal to me anymore. I'd say the only franchise that still has me by the human horn because of its gameplay is Monster Hunter.
Yep, like you say, we gravitate in opposite directions. When I was younger, I was fascinated by story-driven game with strong plots and character development. One of the games that struck me the most was Chrono Trigger which was kind of a big deal to me at the time with all these character interactions, decision-making, and focus on the plot. I just loved seeing all the different endings and choices, resolving subplots and all of that. I also really liked some story-heavy JRPGs and games like Planescape Torment whose sole claim to fame is the writing. Coming from a kid who mostly played Megaman, fighting games, and platformers, story-driven games were a revelation.

Fast forward two decades later and I'm just an old grandpa who just asks for a gun so he can shoot things in the face or beat up enemies with superpowers. Plot? Story? Don't care. Give me stuff to kill. That's how I am now. Don't have enough time to worry about video game characters. If I want good writing, I'll read a book or watch a movie.
 

Fbh

Member
Fun stuff is always engaging, but engaging doesn't necessarily mean fun.
So I'd go with engaging, as you basically get both

How can you be engaged while not having fun?

I might be wrong but I think generally "fun" has a sort of joyful or amusing connotation.
For example a movie like Schindler's List is certainly engaging but I wouldn't necessarily describe it as a "fun" movie.
 

SHA

Member
I grew up skipping cut scenes with no issues unless the gameplay experience is refreshing and brings something different each time I boot the game, I would consider that fun cause I never get bored from it, engaging is a different word, not necessarily the opposite, but newer games trend seem to start with the most engaging part from the beginning and keeps going through at the same level, this is new, if that's exactly what you meant from your op, I favor the latter one cause it's something new.
 
Last edited:

Fbh

Member
Wait, don't you mean you'd go with fun because you basically get both?

No.
What I meant is that to me fun stuff will always be engaging. But there's engaging stuff which I wouldn't necessarily call fun (like Schindler's List).
So by choosing engaging I'm getting all the fun stuff (since, IMO fun stuff is always engagign) but ALSO all the stuff that's engaging but not necesarily fun
 
The difference is there, not necessarily mutually exclusive but can be. My idea of fun is chaotic violence in battlefield, versus engaging in an immersive sim like soma. One is joyful, other is thought provoking.

your mom is fun =/= your mom is engaging
 

Crayon

Member
Fun is overrated.

I love death stranding and it's only intermitantly fun. Instead I found myself feeling introspective more often. I found that more rare and rich than fun. I got a similar effect from botw, but of course that has a lot more fun mixed in.
 

Business

Member
How can you be engaged while not having fun?
Isn’t that a big part of modern gaming while for example grinding and doing busywork seeking the dopamine hit of obtaining items or trophy rewards? I would say it happens all the time, the moment to moment fun has turned instead into a competition for your time and attention, the more the better, without necessarily being actually fun.
 

Azelover

Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
A bit of both. I'm oldschool so fun to me is first..
 

Kokoloko85

Member
Being engaged and having fun isnt hand and hand I dont think.

Ive played games where Ive felt, damn I just want to get these collectables for the 100% or finishing the game for the story while gameplay wasnt great. Plenty JRPG’s go on for too long
 

EverydayBeast

thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
Trailers get game curious and stories, puzzles etc. are important and keep gamers engaged.
 

IDKFA

I am Become Bilbo Baggins
This doesn't make sense to me. If I'm engaged then I'm having fun. If I'm having fun then I'm engaged.
 

Wildebeest

Member
Its just wordplay. Opinionated people with English majors whose hair stands on end when they hear the word fun. They are pissed off because you are doing something enjoyable in a game and not interested in their depressing modern take on King Lear.
 

ZoukGalaxy

Member
Both.

It will really depends of my mood: light hearted or seeking the meaning of life.

cat vacuum GIF
vs
Serious Kanye West GIF
 

NahaNago

Member
I have no idea on this one. I think I'd lean towards engaging but it sounds like if your into the gameplay then it is fun but does that count for slower paced strategy games that aren't exactly fun at times but keep you playing like civ V. Then again I've always been more into the characters, world, and story rather than the gameplay so I should swing for engaging.
 

Vick

Gold Member
I would never think to describe my experience playing TLOU "fun", but it absolutely kept me engaged.
I think you picked the perfect game for this kind of discussion. TLOU core gameplay is unquestionably fun:




Otherwise its Multiplayer wouldn't have lasted 10+ years.

But that's just a portion of the experience, rest of the game is instead engaging thanks to its smooth controls, atmosphere, story, characters, art direction, exploration, world building, environmental storytelling etc. etc.

I honestly need both, with The Witcher 3 being probably the only exception, as I recognize its controls/combat being absolutely awful/not fun while that aside it's by far the best videogame I've ever played.
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
I’d rank engaging over fun, because there’s been games that I thought were fun - that failed to keep me hooked.

Like Spiderman Remastered is fun, but Warhammer Inquisitor has been engaging for me.

I have loads of fun games, but precious few are engaging enough to keep me hooked. Elden Ring was another recent engaging game.
 
Top Bottom