Learning to be fun

Last week I finished reading A Theory of Fun, by Raph Koster, Chief Creative Officer for Sony Online Entertainment.  This book convincingly answers the question, What makes a game fun?  And more than that, it dives into topics such as the ethics of games and how games can take their rightful place alongside other respected forms of entertainment.  It's all good stuff, and it's easy to agree with everything Koster writes.  It all rings true.

Although the book is deep with detail, the main question boils down to three words:  Fun equals learning.  As Koster puts it, "Fun...arises from mastery.  It arises out out of comprehension.  It is the act of solving puzzles that makes a game fun.  In other words, with games, learning is the drug."  And likewise, he writes, "Boredom is the opposite.  When a game stops teaching us, we feel bored...Games grow boring when they fail to unfold new niceties in the puzzles they present."

I think Koster is 100% right.  Developers must strive to make games whose difficulty zig-zags within that narrow band of "fun," between boredom (too easy, already learned) and frustration (too hard to learn).  Koster says that "the definition of a good games is therefore 'one that teaches everything it has to offer before the player stops playing'."

Another interesting comment in the book gives a hint as to why we love certain genres, like the FPS, RTS, RPG, & MMOG:  "Given that we're basically hierarchical and strongly tribal primates, it's not surprising that most of the basic lessons we were taught by our early childhood play are about power and status."

Koster also talks about a concept related to fun, called "delight," which deals with aesthetic appreication.  We experience delight when we recognize patterns, yet we're also surprised by them.  Delight has nothing to do with challenges.  And Koster says delight will "wear thin quickly," and therefore games cannot live by delight alone.  It's easy to name games that have sure looked pretty (delight), but have not given us an fresh challenge to overcome (fun).

Koster has written one of the best books for our industry.  I hope everyone adds it to their bookshelf.

Comments

[Wilf]

Recently I had a toss up between this book and "Chris Crawford on Game Design".
I chose Crawford.
Reading it is like chewing a really tough piece of steak.
The guy's far too concerned with getting the definitions straight. I find it all a bit pretentious.

I think I may fork out for "theory of fun".
I need something a little less scientific and essay-like.

"It's easy to name games that have sure looked pretty (delight), but have not given us an fresh challenge to overcome (fun)."

Sadly, I found this to be true of DOOM3. A game I'd waited many years for.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

A Theory of Fun is a good book title but, from what I can glean from Scott's topic, the fundamentals of Raph Kosters book go beyond this, and touch with equal measure on gameplay, story, aesthetics, and AI. In fact, anything with intellual and emotional underpinnings, from commenting on forums, to developer and publisher relations, Feng Shui, and fighting wars, are all games dependant on desire and resolving desire. Goals, and achieving goals. Strategy.

Now, I haven't read Kosters book, but what he's talking about seems to fit with everything I've learned from Buddhism, Daoism, Psychology, Sociolgy, politics, street planning, Chess, gardening, and the whole slew of life experience we all share. I don't just think he's right, I think we can see how what he writes about is reflected in the world around us, and many of the theological and scientific theories that have attempted to explain the world.

Whether it's the experience of our life in the world, or our experiences of a game, I'll agree with Scott's comment that highlights how Koster argues that games must zig-zag wth the narrow band he calls fun. As I said in an earlier topic, games, like street planning, must be designed to keep players within the zone, where fulfilled desire or the anticipation of fullfilled desire must be experienced. Going further, this extends the scope beyond the end of the game, which actually means the game may end on a bad note, like some of the better films or books.

Now, the connection between games, character, and strategy might not be obvious, because it's coming from off-field, but I'd cite the theory that everything has a spirit, or character, and is a theory that can be found in animastic religeons, such as Shinto, or in mainstream science. As I've previously written, and is a sentiment Scott shares, is games must provide intellectual and emotional satisfaction for them to be enjoyable. Indeed, raising Scotts earlier topic about star quality, this is found in books, films, and actors that resonate on a deep level with the audience, as well as being something we seek in others or try to develop within ourselves.

Well, Scott, there's me getting irritable, and you've been keeping this topic under your hat all along! Your rotter. I nearly jumped out of my skin when I first heard of Kosters book being published, as it reflected many of my own thoughts, and I'll have to grab a copy sometime. I'd agree the book sounds like something all game developers should read, but think people in other areas of endevour should read as well, and take more interest in other books which teach the same lessons in different ways, as I'm sure they'll add more and different perspectives to those which Kosters written about, helping give a rounder and fuller picture.

Again, I think, strategy led design joins all the dots.

Thank's Scott. That was a good one.

[Spot]

Being a huge Koster fan for some time, I jumped on this book as soon as it hit shelves. I agree with you, it is one of the best books in the industry. I have never seen a piece of educational literature achieve it’s goal in such a simple and strait forward manner.

I loaned the book to my CEO. Because my company’s (deviantART.com) model is very close to an MMO by servicing millions of users in a community environment, Raph’s work has been of invaluable to us in our positioning strategies.

I recommend this book to anyone in or out of the industry.

I am currently reading David Freeman’s Creating Emotion in Games. It has been an inspirational experience indeed. David wrote the forward for Raph’s book.

[Spot]

>I don't just think he's right, I think we can see how what he writes about is reflected in the world around us, and many of the theological and scientific theories that have attempted to explain the world.

Anytime you discuss topics covering human emotion it can (and will) be applied to all aspects of consciousness and existence. Raph covers the basic principles of what gives each person the drug like elation which all designers want to trigger. He also talks about the balances which need to be honored so as to not lose the player.

For example, yes, achieving something is an innate human drive, but if that mastery of such a pattern is so far off that the person feels such accomplishment does not merit the required work, many will abandon the path.

Raph is looking more toward understanding what people want and more so, what is the best manner in which to deliver and present it so that you provide the highest form of climax without tiring out your player before they get there.

You may feel the same way, but I suggest you pick up the book and check it out.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

or example, yes, achieving something is an innate human drive, but if that mastery of such a pattern is so far off that the person feels such accomplishment does not merit the required work, many will abandon the path.

Yes, this is a fundamental of strategy. Confidence and resilience are the opposite of fear and doubt. Many people who suffer from some form of disorder, such as depression, are caught within a self-reinforcing framework that, perversely, rewards negative behaviour and punishes positive behaviour. We may all suffer from this, differing only in degree.

If you take a look at British military training for the Paratroop regiments, a lot of the exercises, such as parachute jumping, have little direct military value as they're at the margins of warfare, but the exercises are a filter for character weakness, and a lesson that reinforces the qualities of confidence and resilience.

Putting off satsifaction to achieve a result, or even endure discomfort, is a highly developed trait in humans. Childhood studies have shown a strong correleation between waiting for a reward versus grabbing the immediate reward, and later success in adult life. Success can be taught, but it requires the person to push their limits.

Raph is looking more toward understanding what people want and more so, what is the best manner in which to deliver and present it so that you provide the highest form of climax without tiring out your player before they get there.

I believe, it's an absolute fundamental to how the universe ticks, whether you're talking about physics, evolution, or human related activity. Success can only be built on positive and constructive action, not negative and destructive action, and only within the limits of system components, like an engine.

Most people aren't geared up for pushing hard. Basic military training raises that bar, Paratroop training raises it higher, and Special Forces training raises that higher still. Some people can keep up, others can't. The same is true for the casual versus hardcore gamer.

In this, I think, there are clearly lessons Raph is teaching that can be found in any successful human enterprise, whether you're talking of war, business, or a personal life. And this is why I'd argue the developer must develop an awareness and practice of these principles to their core.

You may feel the same way, but I suggest you pick up the book and check it out.

Yes, we seem to share a common understanding, and anything that helps fill this out or paves the way for future considerations is very welcome. Both Scotts reminder and your own enthusiasm are a good encouragement for me to give myself a kick before I forget, again.

I must admit, I've got way too much to say about this topic that I'm choking on myself, but many of the topics Scott's talked about in the past, including the positioning that Spot refers to, all have common strategic roots, and maximum performance is best achieved, as with martial arts or sport, when the designer, game, player, or development company is in the 'zone', which Raph refers to in his book.

This zone is the area where the player, audience, book reader, or film watcher is absorbed, their intellect and emotions are being stimulated in way that doesn't set up too many problems to trip over, such as bugs, snaggy level design, and poor lighting. In return, the best creative and technical producers create work that follows this envelope, and for the very best their understanding is unconcious.

This is why, in the final analysis, Raphs book is (without reading it) a good and accessible lesson in game design, but not a magic bullet solution. The game developer can learn and apply the lessons, but understanding and ability will come with long and hard practice, keeping within your limits, but always pushing forward. In this, game development stops being a job and starts becoming another stream in the way of life.

For a few years now, I've seen games and game development in a spiritual light, been laughed at on more than a few occasions, and nearly said it on Scott's blog, but always pulled back from saying it because the explanation seemed more bother than not saying it. But, I really think this is where games can shine and become deeply meaningful to people. Raphs book nudges that along a bit, and that's a good thing.

Among the tools I use to propel my understanding are Feng Shui, martial arts, and Zen Buddishm. Feng Shui provided a good exercise in considering objects, their relationships to other objects, space, and colour, and how good order and harmony, or flow, and created a better relationship between myself and my environment. Martial arts, like Chess, have many forms that map to world experiences, and builds the character and understanding necessary to achieve goals well. Zen Buddism is, in many ways, a useful tool for reflection on the world, yourself, and achieving a character that better fits within the zone of good performance.

One of the key principles of strategy is for the strategist to develop an art. It is not sufficient to merely build the intellect, you need to develop emotional understanding as well. And that's where a lot of nutters who practice martial arts go wrong, and why it attracts a few unfortunate loony tunes. They only see the hard edge, they don't appreciate the beauty. Leadership is no different. You have to develop good relationships with people as well as the ability to crack a good deal.

I'm a bit sensitive about boring on like this, but I hope you can find something useful in it that will help you understand the principle Raph talks about and how they might be applied. I've gained a lot from material like this, and hope other people can gain as well because, in the final analysis, we're all in this boat together, whether game developer, critic, or gamer, and if we help each other along we all benefit.

[Aaron]

I like this concept of "delight" in games. I think this extends beyond just graphics too (naturally), to things like self-reference (Max from Sam and Max in Lucasarts games), and external references (comic books in the game I'm working on). These are nice extras that might capture people's attention, but a game should never rely on them.

[Robert Howarth]

Learning is super. With that said, games are more like triggers -- perform an act, get rewarded for it. Games should make you feel good not just for learning something new, but rewards are a big part of it also. Is learning something the reward? Depends on the genre...

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

With that said, games are more like triggers -- perform an act, get rewarded for it. Games should make you feel good not just for learning something new, but rewards are a big part of it also. Is learning something the reward? Depends on the genre...

Don't you think it's a basic resolving desire thing, like a conversation in a blog? It's great to learn new things, and from time to time you get a treat. Well, maybe I'm dreaming there... Actually, I think, it's a good thing to acknowledge someone or give them a random pat on the head, without being insincere. It makes them feel part of the gang and boosts morale. It keeps them in the zone which, I believe, is another form of immersiveness.

Another interesting comment in the book gives a hint as to why we love certain genres, like the FPS, RTS, RPG, & MMOG: "Given that we're basically hierarchical and strongly tribal primates, it's not surprising that most of the basic lessons we were taught by our early childhood play are about power and status."

There was a really interesting programme on Channel 4, earlier in the year, which took a long and hard look at status anxiety, and I agree with many of the conclusions, that the depressive tendencies in modern society are down to advertising, work, and other pressures that strip away status.

One of the more interesting BBC 1 series has been about problem children and youths, where they've taken a simple and strong strategic approach to punishing and rewarding bad and good strategies to bring about behavorial change. As Scott says about Kosters book, it rings true. And it gets results.

The lesson here, I think, is that the environment and the player are, pretty much, known quantities. While an individual gamer can't be controlled, their reactions can be predicted, and that puts a real pressure on the game developer to improve the one thing they can improve. Game design.

I've been watching BBC's Newsnight, which you can stream from their website, about people in Nepal who collect Yasha Gumba, which the Chinese Olymic team credits with helping win nine out of ten gold medals. Bejing University has conducted studies which show a 64% success rate with male impotence, on top of its other energy inducing properties.

It was interesting seeing a parent show her young child one she'd found. Of course, the Maoist rebels have moved in to take their cut of the trade, which has made things difficult for people and government. The harvesters get $1 per Yasha Gumba, which is the equaivalent of a days wage, and it's traded at up to $30 per Yasha Gumba when it hits the markets in the Far-East.

I know this has got zip-all to do with Kosters book and game design in a specific way, but looking at the news item through the lens of strategy makes for an interesting observation of people, desire, rewards, rules, and how the whole thing works together. Speaking for myself, guns and drugs can take a hike when there's alternative material.

When a game stops teaching us, we feel bored...Games grow boring when they fail to unfold new niceties in the puzzles they present.

One of the big questions I've seen floating around is why older gamers tune out. I've heard a lot of reasons, many of them pretty good, but simplistic gameplay, stories, and characterisation tune me out really fast, and games that are Quake plus trimming fit this mould.

A game, like Max Payne, was a fair attempt at what it did, but had too many failings for me. Overall, for me, the game was a negative, which is why I've never been able to play it again, in spite of having given it two attempts.

We experience delight when we recognize patterns, yet we're also surprised by them. Delight has nothing to do with challenges. And Koster says delight will "wear thin quickly," and therefore games cannot live by delight alone.

This is where games, like Fade to Black (to name something other than the usual suspects), have more to offer than Unreal 2. Relative for its time, the gameplay is roughly equal, for the sake of argument, but the graphics wildly differ in complexity, and not just for little gain, as Wilf said, but they create a brain processing hassle, which wears me down. Effectively, the greater complexity raises expectations but gets in the way because it isn't meaningful. It's not just a zero, as Koster says, it can be a negative.

[Wilf]

Fun equals learning. As Koster puts it, "Fun...arises from mastery. It arises out out of comprehension. It is the act of solving puzzles that makes a game fun. In other words, with games, learning is the drug."

There really can't be a formula for the perfect game template, but here's some thinking out loud loosely based on what I've read above.

fun = learning
learning is a challenge.

Therefore:

fun = the challenge of learning + the reward of knowledge

I personally define Challenge as an effective blend of Conflict and Puzzle.

ie. challenge = conflict + puzzle

BUT, a worthy modifier for the above formula would be Pace, which is best described as the number of decisions you ask somebody to make in a given time/scenario.

So, modifying the formula slightly we get:

Fun = (Challenge * Pace) + Reward

Imagine a movie where a guy jumps on a motorbike and races off down an empty road at speed.
Your first thought is, wow, what pace!
But in effect there is no pace whatsoever. It's just a guy driving quickly.
If, however you introduce obstacles in the road and on-coming traffic you instantly force the bike rider in to making decisions at speed. This increases the pace enourmously and we as viewers feel it.
The same can be said in games surely where we are going to literally plant the player on the bike.

I believe that there are developers still confusing pace with visual dexterity.
DOOM3 was a pedestrian paced game. Sure it looked lovely but once you've seen one rusted pipe you've seen them all.
The game for me made ineffective use of pacing and relied far too heavily on the visual (albeit plasticene) appeal.

In every day life imagine revising for an exam.
The fun is the reward of success but before that you need to work out a style of revising that suits you and set aside time in which to do it - usually in a busy house (Conflict). Then you need to actually decode and take on the new information (Puzzle). Finally, as the exam looms the timeframe decreases. (Pace)

- - -

Reward is sadly all too often over-looked.
I believe that there is reward to be found everywhere.
It can be as simple as the way the player moves through the front end menus with a satisfying "clunk" or "zap" for each click or button press. (e.g. DOOM, Dungeon Siege)

It can be the anticipation and expectation of wielding and executing a weapon. (e.g. huge ratchet >> shower of nuts and bolts - Ratchet and Clank)
Even if the challenge is minimal (press button to swing weapon), the reward should be there and I believe works best when it meets with player expectations.

It can also be the ultra-satisfying ending (movie sequence, whatever) to a monstrous set of challenges throughout a game's life. (e.g. Mario)
I still think this is an important feature in games even with the popularity of player driven stories and multiplayer.
There really should be some "player time". Some time set aside after all the action to allow the player to sit back and take stock of what he has achieved.

I remember working on All Star Baseball at Acclaim.
We put all our efforts in to the visuals, the shadows, the stadia, the player stats.. and by the time it came to rewarding the player for a colossal season, we had nothing left. No reward.
Such an empty feeling and to me that is a design crime.
But then, they went bust.

I believe there are wider elements to "Challenge" that incorporate the paradigm - Action, Reaction and Consequence.

Take Arkanoid for example.
You deflect the ball (Action), it strikes the block (Reaction) and returns a powerup (Consequence).
In another situation it may return nothing or simply bounce of the block.
This situation I believe forms the basis of "Pattern".

[Spot]

I believe, it's an absolute fundamental to how the universe ticks, whether you're talking about physics, evolution, or human related activity.

I completely agree. Raph takes an extremely extensive subject and compresses it in a very small area. It should only be a pebble along the road to much more education of self.

I also completely agree with your statements concerning the connections to all aspects of life. It is quite exciting to come across everyday elements, then breaking them down to see how they have applicable constants with game design and community interests.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Ouch, that's a big pill, Wilf.

I've got a real problem with the word fun, and there's a few good essays kicking around which make a good case for fun being completely the wrong word to use. Satisfaction is better, but there are other candidates.

Your definition of challenge isn't a bad one, but I see everything in terms of strategy and counter-strategy. Some people discuss tactics, but I prefer an older definition where, like turtles, it's strategy all the way down. In this, everything is a conflict, where you seek to formulate new strategies to defeat the enemy, which could be a roving monster or jumping puzzle. In seeking to defeat a strategy, you're seeking to impose order and harmony on the world around you. The result of this is satisfaction. If it weren't, we would Darwin Award ourselves pretty fast. So far, I think, we agree.

Pace is an interesting consideration, as challenge density is important, because you don't want to over or under-stimulate the layer. However, there's a problem. Films, such as Barry Lyndon, are low density, but films such as Dog Soldiers are high density. Each presses different intellectual and emotional buttons, both have wildly different densities, yet both are satisfying. Then I had another think. Both films follow a different strategy, or challenge, for the viewer, as with different games. This is why I'd not consider pace as a factor in a formula, because it's already accounted for. So, again, the fun in pace, or satisfaction, comes from resolving a desire, the players need to overcome a particular type of strategy.

Also, I think, you're neglecting the difference between intellectual and emotional strategies, and how they influence each other in your mind. This is where, on relection, I think, Koster is technically wrong. The emotions, like your intellect, take up half your brain, and take part in a huge amount of the decision making process, and rooted far deeper into the middle and lower brain than the cortex. Indeed, it has to be this way, as rapid and well-connected emotional processing is required to deal with highly complex problems. Patterns, or strategies, are found in every challenge we face. Delight, as Koster calls the resolving of this type of strategy, is related to challenges because it is a challenge. The only difference I can think of is one of degree.

And here, I think, we hit the area where Koster and myself agree and disagree. We agree, I'm sure, on the underlying principles, but we build different definitions on that, leading to two slightly different constructs. How much more true or useful one or the other is, I'm not sure without reading Kosters book, but I'd certainly agree that his book, from Scotts topic, sounds very, very, helpful.

Reward is sadly all too often over-looked. I believe that there is reward to be found everywhere.

Well, I see in-game rewards are merely another strategy to keep satisfaction in the zone, and that the rewards you're talking of are different forms of this, but you're right. Just watching an interview with the CEO of British Telecom, he was coming out with a number of very interesting views, many of which I've come to myself, and he has the view that every customer complaint is a serious matter. Like myself, he takes the view that every falling leaf from a tree is important. It is. There is not one single aspect or item of a games design that is not too unimportant to attend to.
Practice perfection in the little things, and the big things will take care of themselves. Maybe that was a reward, eh?

This situation I believe forms the basis of "Pattern".

Strategy. ;)

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Perfection and typos. Ah, I have a long way to go...

I completely agree. Raph takes an extremely extensive subject and compresses it in a very small area. It should only be a pebble along the road to much more education of self. I also completely agree with your statements concerning the connections to all aspects of life. It is quite exciting to come across everyday elements, then breaking them down to see how they have applicable constants with game design and community interests.

well, Wilf, I can only thank the wise men and masters who came before me. I'm a mere parrot for brains far sharper and more perceptive than my own. While strategies may be complex, the way of strategy is simple. It takes a moment to learn, and a lifetime to master, and can be found in all things. I never really clicked on the importance of it until a chance event, a well known game, and long-forgotten childhood dreams crashed into each other. I haven't seen the world the same since.

If I can bring it up again, your comment that we're surrounded by reward is true. There is so much, and it's easy to become jaded, and take ourselves and each other for granted. Games development and playing games is no different. So sad. And yes, a game did change my life, and in a really, really, deep way. It is this way when things have a good spirit, a star quality that resonates with something deep inside. And that's why I think the character of a games developer matters. As with any other craft, they do what they are.

Ah, yeesh. I talk too much. Any more and I'll be banging on about sacred duty and reverence.

That reminds me. Don't you think game reviewers and gamers should read Kosters book, if only to better develop their faculties so they can better appreciate, experience, and comment on games? Speaking for myself, I prefer discussion to get as close to describing the reality of a game rather than be too influenced by the biases of and interjections of the commentators own self. Of course, parallels can be found in other endevours, and practicing this at all times would help refine and develop a gamers or reviewers critical and commentating faculties in games and elsewhere. We all, I think, owe this to ourselves.

Hmmm. Difficult thing, simple.

[Wilf]

I notice Chris Crawford in his "on game design" book prefers to exclude the word "fun" from the process of design.
It's an interesting angle to take.
Especially as the dictionary would have it defined as A source of enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure.
But that said I can see the distinction between fun and satisfaction. The latter being the end-product of successfully pursuing goals.

In this, everything is a conflict, where you seek to formulate new strategies to defeat the enemy, which could be a roving monster or jumping puzzle.

Could we not argue that Strategy is the application of your solution to the Challenge?

In seeking to defeat a strategy, you're seeking to impose order and harmony on the world around you. The result of this is satisfaction.

I see Satisfaction as more a meeting of expectations.
I believe that this is driven by smaller bite-sized chunks of the whole experience.
The paradigm of Action / Reward provides just as satisfactory a response as Challenge / Reward.

In Ratchet and Clank you can destroy the boxes. Everything in that game world behaves exactly as you would expect.
Swinging the Ratchet is instantaneous upon pressing the button.
Destroying the box returns an explosion and complementary "boom".
The nuts and bolts rain down around you to be collected.

Just sit back and watch somebody else play this game.
It is a joy to watch as well as play because it is 100% satisfying since everything that you WANT to happen, happens.

Classic Shoot 'em ups offer a great view in to this.
The waves of adversaries that fly in with predictable formation are cannon fodder.
The skill in these games is avoiding their bombs and bullets NOT shooting them down.
It's almost switch off to shoot the enemy. You just do it.

Again, sit back and watch the game being played and you'll see a harmony.
I believe this is due to everything that you expect and want to happen actually happens.

This is why I'd not consider pace as a factor in a formula, because it's already accounted for.

Sorry, I'm not following this one. Could you elaborate a bit? It's late in the day ;)

The emotions, like your intellect, take up half your brain, and take part in a huge amount of the decision making process, and rooted far deeper into the middle and lower brain than the cortex. Indeed, it has to be this way, as rapid and well-connected emotional processing is required to deal with highly complex problems. Patterns, or strategies, are found in every challenge we face. Delight, as Koster calls the resolving of this type of strategy, is related to challenges because it is a challenge. The only difference I can think of is one of degree.

Wow. You're approaching this from a slightly more abstract viewpoint than I'd dare to take.
I think my initial argument was that there is tremendous satisfaction or "fun" in NOT making these kind of low level decisions. Almost as if you could transparently interact with the game in a way that is driven purely by expectation.

To me the simplest elements of a game can be a challenge. But each challenge MUST be rewarded.
In many cases you simply prompt an Action but even THAT must be rewarded.
For example, you press the trigger button in DOOM (Action) and the Reward is a satisfying BOOM.
The dead Imp lying before you is a token for this achievement. The true reward is the gunshot in my mind.

It's like searching for that "redeeming chord" when playing a guitar. It absolutely MUST happen.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you know when you're having fun because you've switched off.
Conversely, you know when you're experiencing satisfaction because you're overcoming obstacles.

In order to reach these points you have to work hard as a designer to educate the player about your "world" and how things behave in that world. You have to make clear the consequences for your actions so that you can actively match expectations. This approach also helps to make control transparent.

One of the finest games I ever saw for the reasons I mention was Klonoa2.
You could just play it and before long things just happen in the way you've come to expect them to happen.
A fair combination of these things created your challenges.
Aimed at kids for sure but that could easily have been changed by forcing the player to consciously stay on the platforms.

[Michael Hobbs]

At first blush, I too was "delight"ed when I saw the connection between Fun and Learning. The connection seems to be remarkable. After a little reflection, however, I've come to the conclusion that they are not *quite* equivalent. Fun and Learning seem to resonate at very close frequencies, but not exactly the same frequency. I see that Wilf equated Fun to some combination of Challenge and Reward (with a little bit of Pacing), but that too misses the mark.

An amusement park ride is the counter-example that discredits these equations. I don't think anyone could argue that rides aren't an enormous amount of fun (for the average Joe). But where's the Learning? Where's the Challenge, Conflict, or Reward? I believe that a more appropriate word to equate with Fun would be Novelty. A roller coaster is fun because the turns and dips create novel sensations that the average person doesn't experience very often. For an employee who has ridden the coaster a hundred times, the experience is no longer fun because it is no longer novel.

Alas, the equation that Fun = Novelty isn't all that delightful, since it is an equation that just about everyone already understands.

[Wilf]

I see that Wilf equated Fun to some combination of Challenge and Reward (with a little bit of Pacing), but that too misses the mark.

Agreed, but thanks to the organic nature of this discussion I've re-evaluated that ;)
For what it's worth I agree. Fun is a different issue. By the book it appears to be "A source of enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure".

[redchurch]

Entertainment and education are the same thing. But don't tell anyone. ;)

[Raph]

Wow, thanks for the kind words, Scott!

A few notes on the discussion:

David Freeman didn't write the foreword to my book, Will Wright did (for the US edition--Masaya Matsuura of Parappa the Rapper is doing the Japanese foreword). I did blurb David's book, however.

Discussing novelty versus patterns versus puzzles versus learning is tricky without delving into the cognitive science that I spend the first couple of chapters on in the book (trust me, it's not very dry despite being science!). A lot of people get hung up on the concept of "puzzle" thinking that I mean a literal puzzle such as a crossword, what you find in an adventure game, or even Tetris. From a cognitive point of view, humans tend to be pattern-matching machines. EVERYTHING around us is a "puzzle" in that sense--we're attempting to match patterns to it and arrive at "chunks" or abstracted understandings of the sensory input we receive.

Novelty matters because if something isn't novel, we already have a chunk for it. We will, in fact, STOP SEEING the object, in a very literal sense--our eyes will literally feed our brain the assumption rather than the actual sensory input.

Yes, rollercoasters can count, because they are providing a sensory experience that we must learn to interpret. Riding the same rollercoaster will eventually grow boring too, because we will have absorbed and chunked together the experience. This is why I tend to separate out visceral reactions, such as your stomach dropping out on the coaster, from "fun." You can get a visceral reaction in circumstances where there is no fun, and vice versa. They are often paired, because managing our own body's reactions is a tough cognitive puzzle indeed (which is why doing sports can often be fun).

Pacing is tough, because everyone has their own chunk libraries, their own life experiences. It's basically a given that there is no one correct pacing.

Delight is my term for aesthetic appreciation. It seems to be more related to that moment when you successfully apply an existing chunk you have learned, rather than to learning. It's still immensely valuable and important to design for (for one, it provides a sensation of mastery) but it really does get tiresome pretty quick.

Lastly, a few folks have mentioned that it seems the book applies beyond games. It is in fact being used in educational fields, e-learning and professional training in particular, and has also attracted attention in areas such as graphic design. Since it is rooted in cognitive theory, a lot of it really is generically applicable. It may actually be more useful for showing to non-gamers to help them understand why you dig games, than it is to gamers. I leave it up to you, but please buy lots of copies. ;)

[Walter]

Ah, I'm glad you made that clarification on rollercoasters and interpretation, Raph. That's something I felt you were obviously leaning towards in the book, but never clearly stated or applied to a strong example, so it was very difficult for me to grasp with any precision what your theory of fun actually was. You're already well aware that I've mentioned having problems with the book, of course--that silences one of them. :)

Any chance the book will get a second edition in the future?

[Raph]

It just came out in China, and there's Japanese, Korean, and Italian versions pending sometime.

A second printing is probably happening later this year, but it won't contain any major updates. To be honest, I thought I had been clear enough on the visceral versus cognitive fun thing. :)

[Walter]

You were definitely clear enough on cognitive fun vs. visceral reactions. I'm just thinking about how you account for people saying things like "the rollercoaster was fun" or "I had a fun time at dinner". You mention these usages render the word meaningless, and lay out visceral reactions, aesthetic appreciation, etc. as pleasurable alternatives to cognitive fun, presumably as what people more specifically mean in these usages and excluding cognitive fun.

I wasn't really buying the idea that people were improperly labeling these activities as fun. You did mention briefly things like aesthetic *challenges* which could generate fun, and thus potentially save folk usage as perfectly meaningful, but the lack of an explicit connection back to folk usage (iirc) and the strong claim that they rendered the word meaningless made me think, "No, that can't be his intention!"

But the example you gave above about the interpretative challenge of roller coaster rides makes it a lot clearer to me that folk usage IS meaningful, even if we tend not to know exactly what it is about an activity that compels us to describe it as fun. Ian Bogost mentioned getting hung up on more or less the same issue in the Grand Text Auto discussion here. Since we both arrived at this confusion independently, I think it'd be good to clarify this point in a revision. I would appreciate it, at least. :)

[Raph]

I guess there's two ways to look at it:

- folk usage is useful for general communication, but falters when used as a technical term. I've been criticized for co-opting the word "fun" itself as a technical term. But I guess I don't see any other choice, in the end. I could use awkward phrases like "cognitive fun" all over the place, but to my mind it would be missing the point, since I regard it as being the basis for the other three. The folk usage basically means "anything that causes an endorphin rush," and that's just not useful to game designers.

- In just about every example people raise, I usually find that people are overlooking significant cognitive challenges. Dinner parties are fun because the "game" of social standing is difficult, complex, and ever-shifting--AND they tie into all the various hardwired social emotional responses. It's a cognitive challenge AS WELL AS a social stimulus response. Similarly the footrace example that came up on GTA also was presented as a purely visceral sort of fun, and it's just not that simple; not only are there complex cognitive challenges which I detailed in my reply there, but there's also social elements as well.

To my mind, you cannot escape the fundamental "puzzle" nature of life. Which is why I elevate that particular sort of endorphin rush to primacy, and give it the honor of being called "fun," and try instead to come up with alternate phrases for the other stuff.

I agree that we tend not to know exactly what is it about an activity that makes us call it fun. My goal (leveraging Nicle Lazzaro's work, really) there was to break out some of the characteristics, and identify the one that to me seemed central.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Could we not argue that Strategy is the application of your solution to the Challenge?

Marketing, 'A Theory of Fun', strategy, and your own contribution are all slicing the cake, but in different ways, which is a consensual position I'm sure we can all take.

Sorry, I'm not following this one. Could you elaborate a bit? It's late in the day ;)

Yes, pace is a difficult issue, and I wasn't on top form myself! Raph discusses pace in his own post, and he's right. Pace is discrete and varies from audience to audience. It's a difficult thing to pin down, because it feeds into a negative feedback based system. So, yes. Time is a factor, but requires modifiers. The trouble here, I think, is we weren't explaining ourselves as well as we might.

I remain convinced of the truth in the way of strategy, it's utility as a tool, and its use beyond games development, but see I've got some way to go to explain it in a way that's accessible and useful to an audience. Raphs book, in its own way, confirms this and sets a challenge, which I would like to be able to deliver on one day, but am worrying about it less, now, than I was a few days ago. Interesting discussion!

There's been some really good and thoughtful contributions in here, and it's really great to see how much consideration people have given to it. I'm sure that pretty much everything said has been useful in some way, and a good encouragement to discuss, explore, or implement smarter game designs in the future, as well as being an avenue to improvement in indirectly related areas.

Here's a question. Couldn't a game be considered a search for truth through logical and non-logical means? In many ways, this question is a restatement of principles discussed here and elsewhere, but does raise games onto the same platform as more seriously considered works, such as books, films, and plays. Here's another one, courtesy of British Telecoms CEO, "Reality is perception with a time lag."

In strategy, truth and timing are everything, and we know the truth always comes out in the end.

I can wait. :)

[Walter]

Raph:

Yes, I agree with most of what you just said. I should clarify what I meant about folk usage, though:

I think that folk usage is regularly misunderstood by 'folk' as "anything that causes an endorphin rush" when they try to reflect on their experience of fun. But I think that by and large folk usage is actually in line with your notion of 'cognitive fun'. E.g., when people say "that roller coaster ride was fun!" or "I had a fun time at dinner," they are almost always motivated to say so by the experience of cognitive fun, even if they can't reflectively distinguish between that and a general endorphin rush.

It's telling that in any of the examples brought up to challenge your definition of fun, always motivated by a sense that "this is fun, but doesn't seem to fit his definition", you're still able to find a source of cognitive fun. That says to me that folk usage is still largely correct, while our folk understanding of that usage is not.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

It's telling that in any of the examples brought up to challenge your definition of fun, always motivated by a sense that "this is fun, but doesn't seem to fit his definition", you're still able to find a source of cognitive fun. That says to me that folk usage is still largely correct, while our folk understanding of that usage is not.

My understanding of the underlying function versus everything else, is that both are true. Fun is, merely, a perspective that sits on top of something far more simple and far less interesting or glamorous. All art and intellectual endevour boils down to a positive hit on the five primary senses. So, for myself, I see no fundamental difference between a microbe, a dog, or ourselves. The only difference is degree of refinement, range and flexibility, or strategic character.

Interestingly, looking at world and British affairs, it's been interesting to note the rise of the strategist, or discussion of various issues in strategic terms, as well as seeing various religeons, politicians, and secular special interest groups come to together, under duress, to find common ground. The primary reason is, I believe, they've clicked that their understandings of problems are unified with strategy, as comments after the recent bomb attacks in London have shown.

Now, looking at various games, such as Deus Ex, which had become a deathwalk, or Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness, which was rushed, you can see how the game design was poor and how this poverty of execution can map one to one with the developers character. All the theory and resource in the world isn't enough, if the character of the developer isn't up to the task, if it becomes uncentred, if it falls out of 'the zone'. Indeed, Richard Dawkins recently said, the world is so weird we have to find a middle-way to understand [or act] within it.

[Tadhg]

I've not read Raph's book, just the material in the posts here, so forgive me if I'm missing something, but at a basic level, I think that his theory is a bit off.

Are fun and mastery intertwined? Yes, there are clear links. We play a lot of games to get better scores, more kills, faster race times, beat the opponents and so on. There is a definite relationship between getting better at a game and enjoying it more. A game of intermediate-level Chess is so much more satisfactory than a beginner game, even if you lose, because of the increased level of concentration, attention and skill.

But I don't think that it is the only kind of fun around. I think it's just one kind of fun.

I'll give you an example: I play Rez frequently. I play through the levels, shooting at the flying enemies, listening to the music and so on. I have done this before, many times. I have completed the game a few times. Yet I still find it fun to do. I'm not learning anything new in doing so, yet it is fun. It feels like the play equivalent of listening to a favourite album.

What the game achieves is a sort of 'ambient' fun where the whole point is to simply experience the world of the game and not get too fussed about it.

And what about the fun of creativity (such as in Animal Crossing and The Sims)?

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

What the game achieves is a sort of 'ambient' fun where the whole point is to simply experience the world of the game and not get too fussed about it.

Yes, that's a good example that can be apply from a texture, to a map, to an entire game. Again, the important thing to consider is intellectual and emotional processing in balance, the feedback between the two, and conscious versus unconscious processing. So, yes, I think, you provide a good example that fleshes out why I believe his theory is useful but not quite right in a deep way. It's a stepping stone to understanding, but not a magic-bullet solution to everything.

Here's another useful fact. The emotional processing side of the brain is older than the cortex, the bit that allows us to do high level thinking. Strip out that part of the brain, and you're in pretty deep trouble, which is why people with poorly developed emotions, regardless of their intelligence, tend to be poor performers, whether it's in handling a single task on their own or in the context of a group. Logic and emotion are equally necessary components.

Now, I think, Scott and Raph are, clearly, expert and capable achievers. They're people with a good grasp of the mechanics and a good understanding of people but, I will suggest, their success can blind them to failure elsewhere, which explains, in my mind, Scotts difficulty communicating his theories, and Raphs theoretical difficulties. To some degree, this is an interesting comment on consciousness.

Professor Susan Greenfield, President of the Royal Society, has the view that consciousness changes from moment to moment, as different clusters of our brain struggle for supremacy. People with behavioural difficulties tend to have dominant losing strategies in place, which need to be replaced, and people who are great successes can 'lose it', when a deep seated problem becomes more dominant.

This is why, on a simple level, I dig deeper than Scotts earlier comment on Raphs book that the majority of the lessons we learn in early childhood are related to power and status. I don't believe they are, instead, I think, the real lessons are purely problem solving, and power and relationships are direct parallels of that. Indeed, small children have little understanding of themselves as discrete entities.

Like Tony Buzan, who believes genius can be taught, I've believed for a long time that stupidity (or anti-genius) can be taught, and see no difference in our underlying appreciation of the problem. What works one way has its opposite. And here's where, I think, there's a strong parallel with games. Bugs, plot glitches, and poor map design, etcetera, are all examples of stupid, which provokes a negative reaction and turns the player off. Better games, less so.

Deep, deep, in our consciousness, way below the cortex and middle brain, and biting deep into the primal brain, is a hardwired need to succeed, or live. If it weren't, we wouldn't be here. That's why bad smells, strong and contrasting colours, lack of order and balance, and bitter taste are such a turn off. They tend to indicate something bad, life threatening, a losing strategy, and it's opposite is equally true. But, of course, there are exceptions to the rule.

Another aspect of games, which might be worth re-examining, is pace, which Wilf raised earlier. As we all know, experiences are cumulative and, unlike Raphs claim, I don't believe 'delight' is as unimportant or as transitory as he argues, given the huge amount of experience we all share that says otherwise, as well as Tadhg's earlier comment, and studies that show an 80:20 split between how we treat a message relative to historical experience. Perception is reality with a time lag, and all that.

So, yes, again, Raphs book is a useful and important contribution, but may be considered only a gateway and stepping stone to further understanding for those who want to go further. A cheaper and more accessible alternative might be to grab a good bottle of Cabernet-Sauvignon and savour the experience. Now that, to me, is what a good game should be like. Easy, stimulating, but not too much. A welcome break from the world, a pleasant distraction you can share with others. And that, I guess is it. A good game feels right but we hope the next one's better.

[Robert Persaud]

I applaude the many theories of fun discussed here.

Has anyone considered that games are very similar to artwork in that they are only good in the eyes of the beholder? What one designers describes as fun in some part of the world, may in essence be ultimately boring in the other? Scientific application to the definition of fun may only get us as far as applying the scientific application for the meaning of life?

I believe that every bit of art has a market niche out there - and the success of a game is really dependent on mapping the market to the art. For example, I don't see Hilary Clinton enjoying GTA as much as we do - does that mean the designer missed an incredible fundamental? No...

As a budding game designer, I would like to see designers implementing their OWN vision, and worry about the business guys finding the market for it. I assume that designers are also the likable guys on a team, and that team buys into the designer more than their vision. But of course, we live in the real world, how many people really get to do what they want to? I suspect that many good designs are scratched due to market research, exec management, and overall financial constraints - real world problems.

In conclusion, who really has the time to figure out fun - thats really like figuring out the meaning of life. Buddha be praised. Just do it.

[Tadhg]

Amen Robert.

[gf]

"What one designers describes as fun in some part of the world, may in essence be ultimately boring in the other?"

You don't even have to go to some other part of the world really, looking at the person next to you is enough. There are people that love blizzard games all around me, you couldn't even pay me to play those. You can even pick one game you really like, look around in the community and see that different people praise the game for different reasons. One might love it for the great story, another for certain gameplay reasons.

For example I really love the Thief games, the simulative gameplay mechanics, the atmosphere etc. Now those things are the same in Thief and Thief2, yet there are people who think one is a lot better than the other. What makes the game "fun" differs between them, if it only were the mechanics and looks/atmosphere they should have liked both somewhat equally (like I do).

While scientifically analyzing fun might help you understand what happens in a person that thinks something is fun, as an analytical procees (which can be an interesting thing of course), but I wonder if it would really help, to any significant degree, in the creation of (subjective) fun.

[Robert Persaud]

Ok, I just wanted to throw out something else about the misconception of fun. I believe most professional game designers HAVE to add an academic/technical twist to "fun" in order for management/publisher/investors to buy into the idea. From a business perspective, you simply can not (walk up to the gates of Mordor, hehe) go up to your publisher or management team and say, "I have a great idea, and I like it alot! So many people will like my idea alot too, so lets make this game!"

I guess most people would look at these designers and think they're delusional. This is the quandary that designers probably face! They are forced to build off successful working models of "fun", creating clones ini the process, and therefore stagnate creativity within the industry.

I believe bad games are just examples of poor business models, and not necessarily theories of fun. A stressful environment or creative zone isn't fun by all standards....

[Scott Miller]

-- "I believe bad games are just examples of poor business models, and not necessarily theories of fun."

Robert, this is an good point. For all the talk of the basis of fun, it's still hard to apply to real world game development. The way we design fun into games by doing thee things:

o Giving the player something original to do or experience in our games.
o Making sure the game isn't too easy or too hard (auto-dynamic difficulty).
o Extremely polish/execution, making sure that simple things like poor control design or an annoying save system doesn't shoot the game in the foot.

Oops. I just gave away the secret to our success. ;-)

[Raph]

Sorry for not replying sooner, just got back from MS Meltdown in Seattle.

Walter: sounds like we're on the same page, roughly. :)

Tadhg: my thesis is not "fun = mastery." It's "fun = learning," and most specifically a certain kind of cognitive process that occurs as we build new patterns and chunks from sensory input.

The act of creation fits into this model (and is used an an example in the book) because it is a particularly tough cognitive puzzle, one with no right answer. :)

The other sort of fun you describe, playing Rez or listening to a favorite album, and not discovering anything new in the process, is to my mind different. It sounds like "flow," which I specifically discuss in the book as not being fun, though they are often found together (you can be in flow without having fun, and you can have fun without being in flow). Based my readings, it looks like flow is characterized by different chemical releases in the brain than fun is; the sensation of flow comes from the release of dopamine, whereas "fun" seems to be endogenous morphines instead.

Charles: nowhere do I say that delight ins unimportant; I said that it doesn't last very long with a given aesthetic object. Often delight is a gateway into more extended fun.

Robert: one major point the book makes is that it's actually impossible for a game to be fun to all parties, because there's no way for the game to know what past experiences (and therefore what library of "chunks") a given player has.

Lastly, as far as whether the book is directly applicable to making games more fun--I think there's principles in there that help. But it's far from a real answer.

[chmmr]

Most of what Raph says in his book is pretty harmless, but so many people, Scott included, have ignored the most significant word in its title: A Theory of Fun. Game design is an art because people come into it, and enjoy its fruits, with an infinite variety of motivations and perspectives. Tadhg's Rez example is good in that it cuts perpendicularly across many of Raph's assumptions.

Reductionist / proscriptive interpretations, especially for the sake of bottling lightning or reliably cranking out another "smash hit", are highly questionable and not very likely to be successful besides.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Lastly, as far as whether the book is directly applicable to making games more fun--I think there's principles in there that help. But it's far from a real answer.

Well, Raph, since taking a deeper interest in the principles of strategy, I've found it's a continuous process of learning. All you can do, I think, is help point people in the right general direction and give them an encouraging push.

There are older sciences and arts than games, dating back thousands of years, and the principles, teaching, and results are no different. As we have built on past success, others will build on ours. If your way is true, it will survive and prosper.

Reductionist / proscriptive interpretations, especially for the sake of bottling lightning or reliably cranking out another "smash hit", are highly questionable and not very likely to be successful besides.

I think you're absolutely right to question the results of following better ways, as better ways don't gaurantee a particular result, if for no other reason that depends on the ability of the developer and the readiness of the market.

I can find any number of strategies in this weeks media output that map directly to game design theory. In its crudest sense a politican and an audience might be a metaphor for commercial and critical success or failure.

In conclusion, who really has the time to figure out fun - thats really like figuring out the meaning of life. Buddha be praised. Just do it.

Both Raph and chmmr, when taken together, highlight the need for a developer to be, that is, to learn common design and character principles, which have a common strategic base, and just do it, as you say.

More consensus can be found in that whatever route you take, you've got to stay real by being in tune with your abilities and audience. Be guided, be alert, use sound judgement. Nobody can do this for you.

Oops. I just gave away the secret to our success. ;-)

Well, I think, the real secret of your success is you, as is the secret of your failure. We all learn, inadvertantly, ways of failure. Sometimes this can be critical, but success can also be learned.

As an example, I'll point to recent changes within Africa and donor countries foreign policies. Better ways of governance, better harnessing of peoples talents, and debt relief linked to success.

Ultimately, I think, it's a question of leadership character. Developing and caring for people within business realities, whether employee or customer, is the basis of any successful enterprise.

Indeed, the recent negotiation strategy of Prime Minister Blair, over the European Union Budget, is an example of taking a positive spin on goals and partners, with the objective of creating a deal where everyone is a winner, within global realities.

In this you can find leadership, 'star quality', positioning, design, implementation, relationships between partners, and selling the 'product' to the 'market'. All of these things are related to game development, and contain many lessons for game developers.

Now, I guess, we come back to Raphs book. No, it's not a magic-bullet solution, but the principles are a stepping stone worth considering, and open doors to a developer that's ready to step forward. Maybe one day, stupid student become clever master, eh?

Anyway, thanks for a great topic, Scott, and Raph for stopping by, and all the great contributions made by everyone here, as well as your patience for putting up with me droning on. I really enjoyed reflecting on many of the issues raised, and it was great not to be beaten with a stick at every step.

[wormstrangler]

FEAR. Now that's a fun game.

[Jessica]

I agree that Raph's book is one of the most important written for our industry, not to mention interesting to read. You cannot possibly read it and not feel at least twice like your brain has been hit by lightning, even someone as hide-bound and arrogant as I am.

In fact, I make it mandatory reading for my designers in the MMO space and it has had an interesting effect on design discussions. People start talking less about "I bet we can improve on Feature X from Game Y" and more about "When does the learning and fun end and how do we break that loop?" It is gratifying to watch.

I think if the book's influence and legacy is nothing more than that in the MMO space as a whole, it deserves to be canonized. Or if we only do that to people...

[Raph]

But... but... Jess, it comes down on the side of art! You SURE? :)

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

I agree that Raph's book is one of the most important written for our industry, not to mention interesting to read. You cannot possibly read it and not feel at least twice like your brain has been hit by lightning, even someone as hide-bound and arrogant as I am.

Well, I felt that way when the penny dropped on the principles of strategy in martial arts. It flipped my world inside out. These principles are, effectively, what Raph is discussing, and I'm not surprised it has such a powerful effect on others.

It might seem to be going a little off base to mention it, but Dr. Susan Blackmore (www.susanblackmore.co.uk/) has a number of articles relating to Zen Buddhism and pschology that may be an interesting contribution, even if you've got to read between the lines.

Lastly. I've been reflecting, again, that Raph may be overlooking the importance of delight in his book. While it may lack the immediate and concrete value of well formed puzzles, its less quantifiable and delicate nature plays a bigger part than not.

Patterns and colours are a language in their own right, and something we form a relationship with. It's as much a part of flow as anything else. The difficulty here, I believe, is more of a cultural difference than any lack of intellectual or emotional capacity.

Why do most game related sites have a black background? To make the colours more vibrant? But, this reduces the pallette of usable colours, and limits the range of emotional expression or subtext. Positioning? Quality? Follow the crowd? Pattern and colour surround us and affect us, yet, we don't see it.

[Scott Miller]

Charles, the concept of "delight" is often an intensely important factor determining a game's success. It's often the first impression, and it's often the primary buzz generator (Doom 3, for example). Thus, graphics gets perhaps too much attention during development. But if a game ain't pretty, few gamers are interested -- unless the gameplay design is so radically fun/unique/polished that it generates sufficient buzz to compensate for the lack of delight-generated buzz.

One of the design goals we shoot for with our games (Max, Duke, Prey) is to have at least one amazingly "delightful" moment per level, the kind that people will want to talk about as being unexpectedly cool. Also, the first 10 minutes of a game, especially, needs to ratchet up the delight meter to 11. Pull 'em in like the opening of Raiders of the Lost Ark with a mind-blowing opening, and you can almost coast the rest of the way (not that you should!). The ending, too, should be intensely delightful -- you always want to end with a rising impression (rather than a sinking one).

[Jare]

It kind of sucks to put a lot of effort in your game finale when you know many people will not get to see it, but it's worth the trouble. If your game is in the short side of the spectrum (a very populated side these days), it is even more important. Ahhh the topic of game length.... what's better, a 12-hour a game that 60% of players finish, or a 20-hour game which 60% of players only play to, say, 18 hours? :)

[Raph]

I don't mean to minimize the importance of delight. But I will assert that the mechanisms of creating delight are FAR better understood, given that they draw on centuries worth of traditions in visual arts, music, and so on. Hence I give them short shrift in this book. Maybe in the next one (yes, my publisher is asking about a next one) I'll dig into it more.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Thanks for that consideration, Raph.

Expanding your treatment of delight is more likely to produce a balanced game designer than one who's had one of their branches pruned. Indeed, this is as much true for their character as it is for their work. I've made howling mistakes on both sides, and have learned the cost of this. It's better that something like this be introduced in a fundamental work than later down the line, as a reader may not be well versed in it as you may suppose.

Culturally, the West tends not to be as aware and intelligent of these things as the Far-East. Indeed, a recent article (Gamasutra?) I stumbled across in the past few days made exactly the points I've been raising in here. I'm not suggesting for one instant that people start dropping one thing and rush to another, but grabbing the chance to open a door in someones mind will give them options they might not otherwise have had.

On balance, I think, I'm glad you wrote your book, and that Scott opened it up for discussion in here. As much as I've been trying to challenge other people, I've been equally challenged myself, and found it surprising and, yes, delightful that there's been so much positive common ground in discussion, even if we're all coming at it from our own unique perspectives. And that's got to be a really encouraging thing for the future of games.

"To lead uninstructed people to war is to throw them away." - Confucius.

Well, Jare, I like your observation of the fundamentals of life. You can't please everyone all the time. Not even Scotts sword +10 of positioning can square that circle. The most important thing, really, is to accept the inevitable reality and just do the best you can and enjoy doing it. If it's a mistake, learn from it, and keep moving forward.

"First say to yourself what you would be; and then do what you have to do." - Epictetus.

Scott. I remember you mentioning having some sort of puzzle page on your site, and stumbled across something that you may be interested in. Web">http://www.websudoku.com/)">Web Sudoku has zillions of Sudoku puzzles for you to fritter away the time, and there's a solid entry on Wikipedia">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudoku)">Wikipedia if you don't already know about Sudoku.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

This struck me as a book that offers an interesting insight into how government, busines, and game developers share the same strategic difficulties with delivering a good product for the end user.

"In his provocative recent book Why Most Things Fail, the economist Paul Ormerod calls on planners and executives to face what he calls the last taboo in modern commercial and public policy - the predominance of failure. Companies and governments, argues Mr Ormerod, pretend that they are more successful than they are. Both public and private sectors promote planning, strategies, targets and monitoring, even though they may not work. In fact, says Mr Ormerod, these approaches are wishful thinking."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,1565828,00.html

[Charles E HArdwidge]

Geoff Broadwell has written a brief article showing how the strategies behind a theory of fun may be applied to project management, with some interesting results. His balance looks like he's tilting in the opposite direction to the emphasis in Raphs book. Again, I would caution the need for balance.

Every project has a set of goals that guide it through the meandering path of development. For some projects, these goals are unspoken, seen only in the primary style of the code, or in the size and shape of its APIs. When Autrijus Tang started the Pugs project to create a Perl 6 compiler, he had an explicit goal: optimize for fun. Fondly referred to as -Ofun -- a typical compiler writer's joke, referring to the standard -O flag used to tell a compiler what its primary optimization goal should be -- optimizing for fun is probably the most important decision Autrijus made.

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/7996

I'd write more about this but it's not fun anymore. No reward.

[Wouter van Oortmerssen]

My random 3 month late ramblings on the topic:

- gamedesign is design, so there is no optimum... you can't design a car that is fast/cheap/pretty/fuel-efficient/roomy all at once,
similarly any particular game design does well in certain factors and is bad in others. Depending on what factors appeal to you the
game design is good or bad. There are no objectively "good" gamedesigns

- the most important aspect of learning is timing. If learning goes to slow, I am bored and pay no attention. If it goes to fast,
material flies past unabsorbed. If it is spot on in the middle, I learn a lot. Games also have to be spot on in terms of "learning
experience" for it to be a good game to me, which is difficult, and again differs per person.

- people differ tremendously on fun. Even between two very similar persons (culture wise, and what games they like) there may be
games X and Y which one loves and the other hates reciprocally. If people are more different this is even more likely for the
majority of games.

so good gamedesign is really VERY strongly personal, and a universally acclaimed game is really one that just happens to hit a spot
that lies within a lot of people's ranges, or better yet, it has some variables by which it can stretch to please people with different
parameters. The best games can be played in different ways by different people.

---------------

learning is related to novelty, so is novelty required for fun?

certainly people don't necessarily like novelty. Infact, the majority of people have FEAR for novelty and seek to
avoid it as much as possible in their daily lives, preferring the well known. Yet novelty is fun?

Really, novelty is fun the further away it is from you, and scary if it comes close to you. People get very upset if you
introduce novelty that affects their personal lives, but if is something they can SAFELY interact with it can be fun.
Which is exactly what games provide, a safe environment for novelty.

---------------

learning is only a small step in the process, and if you look at people's game playing habits somehow there is a lot more
repetition going on than the theory would predict. Take me playing doom2 for the millionth time... I am not learning anything
new, nor am I mastering the game more (infact, I used to be better at it), yet it is still enjoyment for me. Or the people
obsessively playing Diablo. Or worse, MMORPG players that spend 50 hrs repeating a single boring action to gain one level.

Learning is such a beautiful, positive thing, so learning == fun is a theory that is very desirable to believe in. But I think
it is easier to explain from a negative perspective, even if undesirable.

How about greed == fun. There's a lot about playing games that you can reformulate in terms of greed, or rather, your endless
hunger for collecting/clearing things in game worlds.

People don't learn because the pursuit of knowledge is such a beautiful thing, they learn because it makes them more effective
at being greedy. In the end, our ultimate goal is collect the most power, possessions/money, respect, attention, friends/partners
we can get our hands on, and games are no different. Most people experience learning, and having to deal with new/unknown things
to be stressfull rather than pleasurable, and we only endure them for the promise of greater reward afterwards.

So we have:

desire - the greed here is innate, and it can be tickled simply by bringing us in contact with something we don't have yet.
The amount of greed will depend on how much the new thing will improve our situation, which in turn depends on
how much we are challenged currenty, which leads us to...
pain/conflict - this is here to heighten the pleasure, when applied in careful dosages. This is were learning / stress comes in.
in modern games the amount of times this stage is skipped is suprising, the premise that this stage is
always present for a game to be fun is only partially true in the more casual game space.
pleasure - our greed is satisfied. The pleasure moment should go along with meaty sound effects and great graphical effects
(positive feedback) which will enhance satisfaction and lets our mind associate it with pleasure, and thus want more of it.
reinforcement - we just went through some steps to satify our greed, we might as well repeat it a few times to get the pleasure
effect again and again for little new work. The amount of repetitions we can allow ourselves here before boredom
sets in is probably higher than most game designers think - it relates to how satisfying the action was in
first place. Killing an enemy in an FPS can clearly be so satisfying that we can repeat it thousands of times.
As with lab rats or MMORPG players, this even works for repeating amounts of conflict without pleasure, for
even cheaper game content.

The rate of learning is often an opposite asymptotic curve from the rate of repetition. In many games, I am not really learning
anything new anymore after 10% of the game, the rest is mild variations in environments/opponents/items/situations that don't
warrant the term "learning". I think the reason that in games it appears to be the case that you have to keep teaching the
player new stuff or otherwise he will get bored is not because learning is an essential part of fun, but because the actions
learned before that point weren't satisfying enough.

basic gameplay actions that are really satisfying + endless permutations == fun that doesn't get boring without the need for "learning".

In real life, people that are stagnantly poor/powerless are often unhappy. People that are in the process of steadily becoming more rich/
powerful are generally very excited about that. People that are rich/powerful but have reached a plateau can again get very unhappy,
as the realisation that you can buy/do anything but none of it really matters in your situation anymore kills the fun. Similarly in
games, we need to keep feeding the greed by making sure the carrot is always out there, it is not too hard to get (give up) or too
easy (reach the plateau), and that the carrot is meaningful, i.e. it matters in your situation. The way to make the reward matter
the most in a virtual world is to make it have the biggest effect on the current game balance. So in a sense, making a game difficult
is there to maximize greed, not because we like doing difficult things necessarily.

Don't get me wrong, to some extend I am playing advocate of the devil here, and I personally love games that require me to constantly
learn new strategies. But I am trying to take an average joe perspective here, and I know that properly implemented greed in games
can really capture even me, and make me play for dozens of hours before I discover the game is really rather shallow, but somehow compellingly
fun nevertheless (anyone for a game of Diablo?).

[JP]

Humm... You can tell that fun is learning but it doesn't change anything to the problem. After reading this book the question we ask is not anymore "How to make a fun game?",it is "How to make a learning game?". Wow, very good, we progress a lot, but we still don't have the answer...

[ZenBen]

I havent read the book yet, but it sounds like it's just making a lot of points which already exist in the literature, both on games, psychology and the overlap. See Optimal experience : psychological studies of flow in consciousness, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi; and Homo Ludens, Johan Huizinga. Its well known that play serves learning and learning is fun, but its hard to provide a metric for that.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Humm... You can tell that fun is learning but it doesn't change anything to the problem. After reading this book the question we ask is not anymore "How to make a fun game?",it is "How to make a learning game?". Wow, very good, we progress a lot, but we still don't have the answer..

You read but you don't understand. You understand but you don't do. Within you is the capacity to be a master game developer, but you are blind to this. The struggle isn't to acquire something you don't possess, it is to remove the obstructions from seeing what you do possess. Does a river worry about where it flows? No, it doesn't, and it is a perfect river, just like the perfect pebbles it runs over, and the perfect trees that line its banks. This truth is written in everything. When you understand this 'divine wind', and trust your life to it, there is no force in heaven and earth that can impede you. This is the way of strategy.

[Bob]

Didn't quite hit the nail on the head with Star Wars Galaxies though did they?

:D

[Punisher2K]

[quote]Didn't quite hit the nail on the head with Star Wars Galaxies though did they?[/quote]

QFE

"Never trust a skinny cook."