Is it just the competition with someone else? The feeling of testing your skill/intellegence? Or are there certain things necessary for a good game?
I can see how if it is too complicated it lessens the enjoyability. However I like deep games.
Right now I am finishing up my game design and heading towards production, and wondering what the best ways to weed out things that don't make the game fun. Is playtesting the game the main way to go about it?
I am sure you'll get quite a few different answers to this question.
For me i like a game that challenges me, allows me to take actions that directly effect the other players :twisted: and one that is balanced in such a way that you can still make a comeback if you fall behind :D . I like a little tension in the game to keep you focussed. For some reason i also like games themed with ancient settings.
What makes a game fun at the core?
This is indeed a fundamental questions involving the psychology of human beings.
If you are looking for a simple answer you are not going to find one.
One very helpful guide in designing a game that is fun is Kramer's article, "What makes a game good." http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/WhatMakesaGame.shtml
I think rewards schedules is another important piece on making a game fun. There are important articles on this at:
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010427/hopson_pfv.htm
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20020204/hopson_pfv.htm
My own personal opinion dwells on what makes a game in the first place? A game can not exist without some kind of conflict. I think this is the essence of all games. The conflict in the game must be experienced by the players as tension. However, this does not make a game. Players themselves must be able to interact in the artifical world created by the rules to overcome the conflict presented by the game. An important component of any game that contributes greatly to the tension is that the outcome of any one game is not assured. Also a game must at some point end with criteria to establish a player or players that have achieved such mastery in overcoming conflicts to win the game.
To me the game has several different areas where tension is created:
1) Tension created through the player's interaction with the artifical environment created by the rules.
2) Tension created by the player on himself.
3) Tension created by the interaction between other players.
I don't have time to write a philosophical treatise but I believe what makes a game fun at its core is constantly providing and increasing tension through conflict and allowing the player to be able to overcome the conflicts.
A well designed and fun game creates mechanics that exemplifies the creation, accretion and frequency of conflict while allowing players the ability to overcome such conflicts.
Does any one have anymore thoughts?
--DarkDream
I also recommend Jonanthan Degann's article's on http://www.thegamesjournal.com regarding "story line", "agonizing decision" and "the bomb".
In short (my explanation):
Story line - the players experience a sense of progress during the game. In the beginning of the game the players have different priorities than during the endgame and the choices players make will reflect that. Example: Puerto Rico - in the early game you want to setup a good source of income, then you will want to convert that income into buildings that will help you gain a substantial amount of VP's during the endgame.
The bomb - a big event which players will work towards over the course of the game and which gives big rewards or penalties to players and often plays a big role in determining the winner. Example: Euphrat & Tigris - external conflicts give big VP swings to the winner and can drastically alter the face of the board.
Agonizing decision - the game puts a player in the position where he has to make a decision which (possibly) has a drastic influence on how the game will progress. The number of options has to be limited as to not overwhelm a player with choices and iduce AP, but the actual outcome of the decision has an unclear, but long range effect on the game. Example: Lost Cities - starting an expedition with one or more betting cards early in the game when it is unclear whether they will pay off, or not.
I want to add what I call the "Three Dimensions of Complexity". The first dimension of complexity is that of rules complexity. You want to keep this complexity as low as possible. Learning and remembering rules is not fun and making a mistake during a game because you forgot a rule is not much fun either. Keeping the amount of rules complexity low makes it easier for players to focus on the actual strategic choices they have to make during the game.
The second dimension of complexity is that of the number of choices a player has at each decision point. A game where you have loads and loads of options (or permutations of options) at each decision point can easily grind to a halt because of analysis paralysis. Also, it is often not much fun when a player makes a mistake because he overlooked an option. This is somewhat subjective, because there are also players who enjoy this "puzzle" solving aspect. However, as a general rule of thumb, try to reduce the number of options at each decision point as much as you can without making the decision "obvious" (remember "agonizing decision"). This will make the game go quicker and more accessible.
The third dimension is that of strategic complexity and has to do with how far the effects of a single decision will range. In a game with a high amount of strategic complexity, the effects of a decision made on turn 1 will cause ripples throughout the rest of the game. In a game with low strategic complexity the effects of your decision will not go beyond the scope of your own turn. Again, how much strategic complexity you want in a game is a subjective matter, but I think a game is more fun if the effects of a single decision will cause ripples for at least a number of turns.
Tactical games have a large second dimension and a small third dimension. Example: Citadels. Strategic games have a small second dimension and a large third dimension. Example: Amun-Re. An example of a game that is a good mix of tactical and strategic is Puerto Rico.
-René Wiersma
I want to add what I call the "Three Dimensions of Complexity".
I agree with zaiga in principle, but I will quibble about a few points...
The first dimension of complexity is that of rules complexity. You want to keep this complexity as low as possible. Learning and remembering rules is not fun and making a mistake during a game because you forgot a rule is not much fun either. Keeping the amount of rules complexity low makes it easier for players to focus on the actual strategic choices they have to make during the game.
I would say that this reflects a certain gaming sensibility, the "Eurogames" mindset. Since I happen to be of that mindset myself, I'm inclined to agree, but I think rules complexity relates more to player experience than anything else. For example, a wargame will have lots of rules, because the intended experience there is more "simulation"-heavy than in, say, Puerto Rico. And, there are many who relish this kind of an experience. And of course, on the other end, rules with too little complexity can be very dry or dull. (Tic Tac Toe, eg). Having disagreed with you, I agree with your broader point. For us, what makes a game interesting is the decisions, and I think you can get just as many interesting decisions (or maybe more) in a "German"-style wargame like Wallenstein as in a detailed simulation-heavy wargame. But, for someone who particularly enjoys the close modeling of reality, rules complexity is tolerable.
The second dimension of complexity is that of the number of choices a player has at each decision point. A game where you have loads and loads of options (or permutations of options) at each decision point can easily grind to a halt because of analysis paralysis. Also, it is often not much fun when a player makes a mistake because he overlooked an option. This is somewhat subjective, because there are also players who enjoy this "puzzle" solving aspect. However, as a general rule of thumb, try to reduce the number of options at each decision point as much as you can without making the decision "obvious" (remember "agonizing decision"). This will make the game go quicker and more accessible.
I agree, but again, the unspoken caveat (which I'm sure you agree with) is "but don't reduce the number of options any more than you have to." Certainly, the "obvious decision" is a concern, but so, I think, is the "dry and dull" gameplay effect from having an overly simplistic ruleset. That said, "dryness" can come from a lot of different sources, so tactical complexity isn't the only thing you have to worry about...
The third dimension is that of strategic complexity and has to do with how far the effects of a single decision will range.
I understand you're trying for a parallel construction here, but I would probably refer to this as "strategic scope" more than "complexity." In the context of strategy, complexity connotes to me the difficulty of forecasting my future actions. Yet, what I think you really want to get across is the amount to which my current actions will impact my (and others') future actions. I grant that it's really just a quibbling over word choice.
That said, I agree with most of your points, and many of those of DarkDream. I think asking, as Pt does, "what makes a game fun?" is pretty tough, but what I always try to come back to is player experience. Some people really love Pictionary, for example, and I think it would be somewhat snobbish for us to look down our noses at them and say, "Pictionary is hardly a game at all, it's more of an activity". We may feel that way, but what we are really saying, I think, is that we don't enjoy the kind of experience Pictionary provides. But some people really do, and I don't think they're wrong to do so. So in that sense, I would say a game is "fun" insofar as it adequately creates in the players the kind of play experience that it's intended to provide (or maybe more correctly, the kind of play experience that the particular players tend to enjoy). Within the context of German games, I agree that Kramer's article (cited by DarkDream) is an excellent primer on the kinds of elements that will be found in a game that will be considered "fun" by players of German games. And in that context, I think, as zaiga and DarkDream articulated, it all boils down to decisions. Decisions, decisions, decisions. A game is fun when you can exert creative control over the game system, and when conflict or tension give especial meaning to the decisions you'll be making.
What makes a game fun for you? I think that ultimately, that's the question that you most need to answer. I think it's of legitimate interest from an academic standpoint to try to quantify, or at least qualify, what makes a game fun, but the rubber meets the road at the kinds of play experiences you find enjoyable. Your best designs will always be the games that create those kinds of experiences; everything else will feel forced.
Just my opinion...
-J
I think asking, as Pt does, "what makes a game fun?" is pretty tough, but what I always try to come back to is player experience. Some people really love Pictionary, for example, and I think it would be somewhat snobbish for us to look down our noses at them and say, "Pictionary is hardly a game at all, it's more of an activity".
Yeah, I believe that to spend a lot of time coming up with definitions for decision matrixes and bombs and storylines might define how one defines their own personal belief of the games THEY like, but it doesn't describe a fun game for everyone. It answers "what makes a game fun FOR ME" but not a more general answer.
The problem is that FUN is such a personal term; there's no way you can multiple people to agree on what is fun for them given a large random subset.
So how's this for a rather nebulous definition:
"A set of rules that a group of players agree on with which they find mutually enjoyable (or at least tolerable)."
Yeah, I believe that to spend a lot of time coming up with definitions for decision matrixes and bombs and storylines might define how one defines their own personal belief of the games THEY like, but it doesn't describe a fun game for everyone. It answers "what makes a game fun FOR ME" but not a more general answer.
So you think all theoritical analysis regarding game design is useless then, because fun is such a subjective experience?
Perhaps using storylines and bombs and incorporating interesting decisions in your designs doesn't make them fun right away, but at least you avoid making them unfun, for some people, in some cases.
I agree that there is not some kind of magic formula that will make a game fun, but it is still very useful to analyse why some designs work better than others and to try and put the conclusions of such analysis into some kind of structured format.
-René Wiersma
So you think all theoritical analysis regarding game design is useless then, because fun is such a subjective experience?
I'm not sure that's what doho123 is saying at all. "Fun" under that definition is a bit like "Religious faith". It's certainly a subjective experience, but one of the biggest mistakes someone can make is to say "well, it works for me, so it must work for you." That doesn't mean there aren't endless theoretical analyses that can be made, but I think it does mean that there are no hard-and-fast rules (like story-lines, bombs, decisions etc.) since there will always be excellent counter-examples.
For me, fun in games is about the experience. Did you have a good time playing it? Do you want to play it again? Do you want to play it again straight-away? Did the other players make it an enjoyable time? and so on. Some of this is about the mechanics of the game, but some of it is about the wider social context. (Which is why Jeff's point about Pictionary is well made: I can almost always guarantee that a round of Apples To Apples will be fun, even if there isn't strictly a "game" there.)
What a nice open ended question :-) As I see it, there are at least a couple of ways you can take this ...
1-Why do people play games at all? Or more obtusely: What do games provide to society?
2-What comprises a good game
Most of the responses here seem to be focused on #2. In this case I would have to agree with the notion that the experience of a particular game is very subjective. This surely varies from person to person, and I know it varies even in a person (ie when your not "in the mood" for a particular game). I find myself regularly categorizing games by people I know as in "This is a Jeannie game" or "this is a Mike game" though this tends to be restricted to the folks with the most obvious/extreme preferences/aversions to certain types of games.
To add to the discussion on #1 I'd like to submit a fun quote:
God has intended men to enjoy themselves with many games. (Games) bring them comfort and dispel their boredom.
My two cents .. now back to work.
peace,
Tom
Here are my favorite quotes on the subject
"Creative work is play. It is free speculation using materials of one's chosen form" - Stephen Nachmanovitch.
"Man only plays when in the full meaning of the word he is a man, and he is only completely a man when he plays" - Friedrich Von Schiller.
"People don't quit playing because they grow old. They grow old because they quit playing." - Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.
So you think all theoritical analysis regarding game design is useless then, because fun is such a subjective experience?
You can do analysis on a game design, sure. There's a set of rules that are developed, and or components, which have a rigidity to them. That allows you to analyze them. A well written rule for one player will mean the exact same thing to any other player. You can easily analyze how Candyland works, and what systems are employed there. There are spinner probabilties, odds of winning based on how many players are there, your ability to spin the spinner, etc.
However, this cannot determine if it is fun or not. It is up to the player to decide if they enjoy spinning spinners and move a token. I guess you could make assumption based on a given player if they would like the game based on similar mechanisms as other players. But then that's compare and contrast, and if the player likes a (supposed) bad game, that resemble the current game, then the player might like this new 'bad' game, too.
1-Why do people play games at all? Or more obtusely: What do games provide to society?
Well, I think early history woudl indicate that very early 'games' would be used to develop important survival skills such as hunting, in much the same way animals play when young. I'm thinking in terms of things like the game of tag. These would be mostly eye-hand coordination games. These kind of develop into sports, which are games at heart.
I think that the next level of games would really fall into gambling. In a barter society, I assuming that there would always be someone willing to get something witout having to really work for it. Games like Mancala, Mah Johnng, etc. And the gambling trend continues full force today!
I think only recently (last 1000 years or so) has the concept of games as a leisure/social activity become a reality. Most people just didn't have the time to play for fun, and once the sun went down, for all practical purposes, your day was over.
However, this cannot determine if it is fun or not. It is up to the player to decide if they enjoy spinning spinners and move a token. I guess you could make assumption based on a given player if they would like the game based on similar mechanisms as other players. But then that's compare and contrast, and if the player likes a (supposed) bad game, that resemble the current game, then the player might like this new 'bad' game, too.
I agree that some people will like or dislike certain aspects of a game and that will differ for each individual. However, that doesn't mean that you cannot formulate certain theories which are true in general. For example, you could say that having lots of downtime in a game is a bad thing. This doesn't specify exactly how much downtime would be too much or even what downtime is exactly and it might not even be true in all cases (I've heard of people who enjoyed downtime in a game, because it allowed them to do other things in between their turns!), but it is probably true in general and therefore it is probably a good idea and minimize downtime in your designs.
Another example. We could say that a fun game needs a story arc. This is probably not true, because there are many games that lack any kind of story arc, but are still enjoyed by many people (Pictionary or Trivial Pursuit, for example). Those games have other qualities that make them fun. It also means the statement wasn't completely true. Instead we have to refine our statement to something like: "Strategy games that take longer than one hour to play are better off if they have some kind of story arc". This is probably still not true for all people and still includes some subjective terms, but at least it gives a designer something to work with.
What I'm basically trying to say is that theoretical analysis is very useful to determine why certain games are fun (for most people) and why others don't work that well (for certain people). For every rule you come up with there will be an exception and therefore it is important to keep in mind what kind of audience you design for and what kind of game you are designing. A party game will have different requirements than a kid's game and those will be different from war simulation games. I just think it is a bit too easy to say that, because every individual has a different concept of fun, it is not possible to form some kind of general theory about what does and does not work in board gaming. Not that you were saying this so explicitly, but I still felt I had to respond... :wink:
- René Wiersma
FUN
The problem is that FUN is such a personal term; there's no way you can multiple people to agree on what is fun for them given a large random subset.
There is an excellent book by Mihaly Csikszentmihaly Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience that describes elements that make experiences enjoyable...He doesn't use the term "fun"; instead, he calls it "optimal experience":
Another excellent book Rules of play organizes this elements by prerequisites:
And, once this prerequisites are met, effects:
The book continues:
These effects should be part of a game that is fun. If you are not sure if your game is being fun, revise the list of effects. If some or all of the four are missing, you may need to adjust your design.
But, what kinds of adjustments are necessary?
Three words: design meaningful play. The discernable choices and outcomes…goals, challenges and uncertainty of the game provide the larger context within which choices are integrated and become meaningful.
Games are one of the best kinds of activities to produce fun. The rules, the goals, feedback, uncertain outcome, and other qualities of games make them fertile terrain. This “optimal experience” is what draws players to a game and keeps them there.
This book, Rules of play, analyzes the games as "Play of pleasure" and presents the views of many other authors…among them; game designer Hal Barwood organizes all the varied emotions that a game can produce under the heading of "fun":
Because I typically deal with party games (and in some cases children's games), my constructs for "Fun" might not completely apply to what is typically discussed here in the BGDF. So take this for what it's worth.
I ususally think about two sets of parameters - the "What" and the "How":
the "What" are the player components of the game - Skill, Knowledge,
Luck, and Strategy.
Skill - what are players able/expected to do
Knowledge - what do players know
Luck - how much of the game is chance
Strategy - how much of the game is based on intelligent choices
It's the various combinations of these elements that contribute to fun. There are obviously no secret forumlas for these elements for creating fun, for as others have pointed out, what's fun for me might not be fun for you. And depending on who you're targeting with your game, you may find yourself concentrating on some aspects more than others. For me personally at the moment, in my attempts to create outrageously fun party games, I've tried to include at least a little bit of each element as to create appeal for a wide variety of people (Strategy I find is the most difficult element to include in a party game)
the "How" deals with the process of play and includes Involvement, Interaction, and Interdependence.
Involvement - to what degree are people engaged in the game, either mentally or physically
Interaction - to what degree are people playing with others vs. on their own
Interdependence - to what degree are one player's/team's choices dependent on what others do
It just so happens that for the party game I most recently completed, Coopetition, I tried to maximize each of these elements. I wanted people to be active and involved, working with one another as much as possible, and not able to sit back and rely on their own skills and knowledge.
Chip
Yeah, that's not a question that's ging to be easily awnsered. There's far TOO many aspects of games that make them enjoyable, and for different people. Some good books to read are Cris Crawford's "On Game Design" and "The Art of Interactive Design". I think the 2nd one's free on his website, and they're not too hard to find as far as I know.
I;ve read "on game desaign" most of the way through npw, and it's very good and insightfull. In the book, Crawford centers on video game design, but he has a LOT of great basic tips about the basic mechanics of good game design in general that fits very well in to board game deisgn
Hope that helps!
Arbytes_too quoted some good material from the "Rules of Play". I have that book and have read bits and pieces of it. I think you summarized well what I said in an earlier post,
Three words: design meaningful play. The discernable choices and outcomes…goals, challenges and uncertainty of the game provide the larger context within which choices are integrated and become meaningful.
While I think you pointed to a good book about flow, I view flow more along the lines of this "optimal experience" occuring during sporting events, rock climbing or various other activities involving deep concentration.
I find it hard to believe that people playing (especially the lighter games such experiences) experience such flow as described. However, I do think there is an important grain of truth in the idea of optimal experience. Players who are really enjoying a game are really absorbed in it; they are not looking at their watch and are keenly aware what is happening in the game.
What I think would be a subject of good discussion is the type of behavior in players that indicates they are enjoying it.
--DarkDream
I would argue that some games -- Puerto Rico is a good example -- can definitely engage and challenge a person into a state of flow.
Flow is also achieved in other purely-mental activities, including computer programming and painting.
-- Mattthew
I am thinking of a game like back gammon/chess.
Played for years, enjoyed by many (but perhaps not fun?)
easy to learn
hard to master.
absorbing
You can be better than someone else.
-and still lose .. more fun for the other player
You can tell that you are getting better.
Now Im thinking of a game like snap (the card game)
Impossible to play without hoots of laughter?
easy to learn
hard to master
absorbing
You can be better than someone else
.. and still lose
you feel you are getting better. (especially after a drink or too ;-)
rog
My personal philosophy of what makes a game fun (in order of importance)
(if any one cares...)
1. SOCIAL INTERACTION
2. PLAYER INTERACTION
3. PLAYER OPTIONS
4. RECORD KEEPING / GAME PACE
5. PRESENTATION
I can't think of a fun board game that doesn't fit this criteria. Do you all agree?
Tom
Here are some of the goals at Games Arixius.
1. Games should have a goal threshold (i.e. the game must END with a win or a loss).
2. Games should be balanced (asymmetrical games need to be play-tested many, many times to achieve game balance.)
3. Games should allow Players to "design" their side (this encourages Player "buy-in" and raises their personal "stake" in the game).
4. Many of our games are "self-generating" so that the goal and Player design is different each time the game played.
5. Decision making should trump good dice rolls. If Players pay attention, they should be able to out manuever a Player that is relying on a favorable dice roll.
6. Oh, one last thing for me...Games should be completed in an afternoon or evening.
well...
it's been documented that championship level chess and go players lose upwards of ten or more pounds within days during competition play....
i have personally seen years long relationships destroyed over the win or loss or even the methods used during various games... non competion games mind you...
the most extreme case i have personally encountered is a guy that litteraly threw his collectors edition risk board with all peices and box INTO THE FIRE after everyone left because he lost.... (granted he is a bit nuts anyway.. but still)
multiple thousands (millions?) lose their livelyhoods if not their lives due to gamblling every year....
god knows the numbers spent (wasted - personal opinion) on MTG cards in the intial boom...
i personally love playing any number of games and would never turn down a session that i didn't actually "enjoy" playing but was compelled to play it...
so... what is fun when applied to a game?
i really don't think this is something that is in any way truly answerable.
it's extremely personal. EXTREMELY personal.
sure there are probably broad categories... "is it fun to win?" yes... "is it fun to cooperate to win?" yes... "is it fun to make someone laugh regardless of who wins?" yes... "is it fun to lose if you don't feel that there is too much invested in it and everyone you are playing with is someone you like and they seem to be having fun with your loss?" well... for me.. yes...
anyway....
what's fun in a game?
everything, anything and nothing.
as i see it that's the only way to answer it.
I wanted to add my $.02 worth with something that I see in many of the games that I enjoy. Gemütlichschadenfreude. I can't remember where I first read about this concept, but it is essentially this: Gemütlich--The pleasant feeling that you get when building, growing, creating or developing something. Schadenfreude--The joy of keeping someone else from doing the same.
Most of the games that I want to play over and over have a fine balance between these two components. In that balance I find a lot of the 'fun' components mentioned elsewhere in this thread (conflict, decision making, etc.).
 | Power Creep, a Dungeon Pages adventure (0) by jasongreeno |
| Build your own [insert game genre here] (8) by questccg |
| Board Game Blueprint - New Episode Every Wednesday (21) by The Game Crafter |
| Premium Bullet & Premium Toxic Waste Board Game Pieces at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
 | PoA — Major shift back closer to FCE (2) by questccg |
| What “Should” Be in an RPG Design Book (11) by lewpuls |
| Blank Poker Card Sale - 3 Cents Each! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Blank Playing Cards - Bridge 57mm x 89mm UK (1) by questccg |
| Finally returned after all these years (1) by DyminoMonsters2004 |
| State of the let-off Union - November 2024 (0) by let-off studios |
| Shoppe: The Simulation of Guilds (1) by questccg |
| The fine line between a game and a simulation (22) by X3M |
| Only 24 hours left to bid on games for the Extra Life Charity Auction (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Songs of Conquest is now 60% off plus an additional discount for... (5) by questccg |
| Returned the reMarkable 2 and purchased the BOOX Go 10.3 (3) by questccg |
| Happy Halloween 2024 (0) by questccg |
| Epic Metal Monster Coins - Now on Kickstarter - Created by The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| DuelBotz: Sample New Card (12) by questccg |
| 2 levels for an unit (wargames) (6) by X3M |
| Dragon Spark Playthrough (0) by The Game Crafter |
| New Board Game Pieces - Premium Water Droplet & Premium Blood Droplet (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Designer with an 'almost' ready product (18) by questccg |
| Protospiel Madison - Only 17 Days Away! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| New Board Game Pieces - Premium Milk Bottle & Premium Beer Mug (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Testing chat GPT for mechanics searching (6) by larienna |
I like Zaiga's (or whoevers it is) idea of 3-dimensions of complexity.
I am trying to maximize the 3rd in my game without too much of the 1st or 2nd.
I really love playing games where you come up with a stratagy and are able to carry it out. However more choices (2nd dimension) doesn't always increase the number of possible stratagies.
So what I have been working on for the past month is trying to keep the fun elements while getting rid of things I thought I needed but only add more rules.
Another thing I thinking about is how much I should worry about minimizing chance. I wan't replayability, I think it is a necessity, but I don't want too many games where the main reason why you lost is because you were unlucky. Any thoughts on this?