Games Don't Have to be Fun, Just Interesting

Want to make a game that's truly innovative and revolutionary? Why not make a game that is NOT fun? What if your gameplay made people cry or made people angry or made people think deeply about the war in Iraq? That would be truly something differernt, wouldn't it?

It is sad that a thought-provoking or emotional game is considered innovative. Sure, there have been thought-provoking or emotional titles in the past, but few have actually used interactivity to trigger these deeper thoughts.

The essential culprit that keeps games, and gameplay specifically, from being a deeper intellectual experience is the ingrained mantra of "Make games fun!" It is a successful formula, but it's overly simplistic and surpresses innovation. Imagine if the literature community imposed such a draconian mantra upon novels: "All novels must be fun!" Certainly, sales to a particular market of readers would become stronger, but at the expense of losing sales to a wider, more diverse market who enjoy thought provoking or serious ideas. Not only would sales drop, but books would also be taken less seriously.

Games are in this very situation -- we're focused on a simple type of fun, which works, but does not necessarily appeal to the larger audience. Next post, I'll talk about how games can be interesting without being "fun."