Do you prefer "fun" or "satisfying" games?

I've come to a realization. I play two kinds of games: "fun" and "satisfying."

"Fun" games (personally) are games like Team Fortress 2. Scribblenauts. Games that are... fun (who knew) to play. But they're not very satisfying really. I've never walked away from a TF 2 game feeling more accomplished.

"Satisfying" games, I've found, are like Ciilization. Street Fighter. Star Craft. They're not always immediately enjoyable. Sometimes, in fact, they're incredibly frustrating. But I've always walked away on a good day feeling like I've actually accomplished somethng.

So, yeah. Do you find more enjoyment in "fun" or "satisfying" games? And of course, they're not mutually exclusive.

Depends on my mood. If I just want to unwind, I'll go run over some pedestrians and kill them in other horrible ways in GTA IV. If I have free time and want to challenge myself, I'll play an actual mission in GTA IV (inevitably ensuring that I get too pissed off for words within the next hour). Or I might play some Sonic Adventure or something.

Satisfying games, as they can be perfectly capable of being fun too. I play a lot of Minecraft and whenever I build cool stuff I feel proud of myself for advancing beyond my old cobblestone lumps to something which actually looks aesthetic.

edited 11th Jan '13 8:59:21 PM by Swampertrox

Er, isn't fun a measure of satisfaction? Fun is hypersubjective.

Some people find shooters fun, while other despise them. "Satisfaction"? Huh? Define what you mean by that.

^ I think what he means is do you want immediate enjoyment or enjoyment as a result of your hard work...

Depends on the mood for me really...

I think there is a definite sense of balance for many people- a nice combination of fun and satisfying.

For example, Paradox Games are extremely satisfying, but can be frustrating as all get out. I love them for that, but I would never only play for that sort of thing- that's why AC, Dishonored, and TF 2 are also among that which I like to play.

I guess the two are just beyond the realm of preference- they are two different, yet equal, styles of gameplay and entertainment.

IGNORE

edited 11th Jan '13 9:36:59 PM by Schitzo

I like a combination of the two. Something that's fun enough to keep you going, but substantial enough that when you beat it, you can sit back and think "wow, that was really something."

Put me in the "depends on my mood" camp. Heck, this morning I was playing a beat-em-up, whereas right now I'm just polishing off a playthrough in Anno Domini... so, maybe both?

In fact, sometimes I play both at once - it occasionally takes a while for "satisfying" games that don't require a lot of micromanaging to pay off, so while I'm waiting I like to switch my focus between both

I guess I prefer "Satisfying" games simply because I find that fun. Overcoming obstacles and such.

I like to feel myself improve and see the results of my efforts.

See, I don't often have the time to play video games, so usually I just want something that's a non-committal diversion to wind down with. I like slower-paced, more satisfaction-over-time based games, sure, but not when I just don't have the energy to slog through something that won't let me get to the fun parts right away.

I think I prefer satisfying games. I like to finish stories, level up in-game skills and abilities and get achievements.

I've been playing less and less of games that require a significant amount of time to complete, such as Galactic Civilizations, the Total War series, RP Gs with long sections and dungeons, etc. Instead, games like Far Cry 3 (it's like an RPG, but the missions are short and quick as well as the combat) and World of Tanks (battles never take more than 15 minutes) have been my gaming mainstay as of recently. So I guess I'd fall under the "Fun" category then.

Games that are fun AND satisfying.

Satisfying I guess? I don't think I've ever experienced "fun" that was distinct from satisfaction in a game. A game that isn't satisfying just isn't fun.

Satisfying.

I prefer feeling really good after overcoming a challenge. That's why I prefer normal/hard difficulties over easy difficulty, and why I don't like it when rewards can only be earned from beating the easy difficulty.

I dunno, if one can look at my itenary of games, Mass Effect 3, Forza Horizon, Borderlands 2, Pokémon Emerald + Competitive Pokémon all of them have an initial kick and then I can look back and go, wow, look at my Shepard/(insert Mass Effect MP character here)/Car Garage/Maya/team after I'm done.

How about both?

If the path to a goal is no fun, I see no point in playing a game.

Best example is Minecraft (since it's the one game I play to which it applies the most). As much as building something there can be tedious (and honestly, it is this a lot), I still find it enjoyable. If it weren't I wouldn't do that, no matter how awesome the final result may be.

Fun, an engaging story, immersion, or all of the above.

The satisfaction that comes from completing challenges, for me, vanishes upon realizing that it's just a virtual environment, with no ties to anything outside bragging rights (or Achievements/Trophies). With exceptions for when something is genuinely useful to Real Life; like QA, beta testing, or 3D modelling programs that let you build stuff from games.

Then again, maybe there's a lesson in there about impermanence.

edited 15th Jan '13 2:49:08 AM by justanid