The biggest problem in my eyes is not getting from a design to a game but getting a design that produces a fun game, so many countless have failed here. So I was wondering is there any science, common accepted physological theory about what makes games fun and what not?

I doubt if there is an accepted theory, but (if you haven''t already) you might want to have a look at the articles on gamasutra. I think they''ve got quite a few on stuff like this.

John B

Please stop trying to look for the science of what makes games fun. Just play a lot of games, read a lot of reviews, and come up with your own 'game IQ'. Then you'll know what makes games fun.

I remember reading an article on gamasutra which was basically devoted to breaking the concept of 'fun' into 14 different categories. I mean, talk about over-analysis. I mean, even poetry has form and structure, but these things are not science!

Of course psychology has some part to play, but no amount of article reading will replace a finely-tuned game radar.

[edited by - Tacit on April 16, 2002 3:30:19 PM]

I think trying to define what is "fun" is to perilous

("please, let me go back and face the peril!!"..."nooo, it''s too perilous.." Sorry, I had a Monty Python attack there...)

Everybody''s concept of fun is different. Lots of people would find flight sims horribly laborious and tedious and too much "work". Others would find games like the "The Sims" just a practice in futility, a mere sandbox.

Everyone is unique and has their own ideas of what makes something fun or interesting. I happen to love to figure out what makes things work, so I tend to like games with steep learning curves...but I think I''m a part of a small minority. As Tacit said, just make a game that you think either A) you really want or B) what you think other people want. Personally, I''m all for A) and really don''t care much for B). But then again, I''m an open-source proponent So while I''d one day like to make money off of my hobby, it''s not a paramount concern to me.

I''ll finish this with a little personal caveat on creating...or should i say "pandering" for others. Look at the evolution of Star Wars. It went from a modern day fairy tale with the Star Wars, into a brooding mythical tale in Empire Strikes Back, to a cutesy kid flick in Return of the Jedi. In Phantom Menace, continuity was thrown to the winds, JarJar Binks was introduced for the Romper Room crowd, and Lucas killed off the only character that stayed true to Jedi ideals (QuiGonn). I''ve heard from Lucas''s own mouth that the Phantom Menace is how he always had originally conceived Star Wars to be...a modern fairy tale for children of today. Well, I have to tell you Mr. Lucas, I was 5yrs old when I saw Star Wars, and I was enraptured. I didn''t need a cute Jar Jar Binks profaning Bantha poo-doo every 6th sentence. I honestly think Lucas has sold out his artistic vision to pander to what he perceives as what the audience wants. And its a damn shame. I think J. Michael Straczynski did the same with Crusader while trying to ride on the coattails of Babylon5....and the Star Trek universe hasn''t been the same without the guiding hand of Gene Roddenbury. In other words, don''t try to guess what people want. Just follow your guts and make what you think you would find yourself. Maybe it will sell, maybe it won''t. But trying to figure out a formula or cater to everyone else is a watered down attempt if you ask me. Just my own two personal cents....

As there is no science as to why people like or dislike anything yet, there wouldn''t be a category of it that applys to gaming. I think what you have to do if you want to really figure out what is fun is to experiment a bit, and study other games and media to see what they came up with. For example, the late great original Pong was fun because it was a new thing, and built off the old concept of tabletop tennis, ping pong. Though, do remember its been 30 years since then, and another Tennis game probably wouldn''t do the trick unless it had something completely unique. Theres also good advice for any game made that falls into a genre. The fundamental gameplay style isn''t new, so you have to create some new element, and beyond just ten new guns and the ability to backflip, you have the creative duty to make up some totally new and weird twist to the same old thing.

-> Will Bubel
-> Machine wash cold, tumble dry.

While I don''t believe there is any sort of hard science, I think creating something fun isn''t as hapahazard as some of the people here seem to think.

I would suggest you look at the Gamasutra post-mortem for Baldur''s Gate. They had a lot of rules of thumb about what is fun and what isn''t, from very genereral rules to very specific rules like "dialog from a minor NPC should take only 1 chat window without scrolling."

It''s also instructive to take a look at a game like Moo3. There were a lot of design decisions that didn''t look too fun, and now it turns out they weren''t fun and the game has been delayed. A lot of these decisions were on the surface supposed to make the game *more* fun by adding interesting stuff to do while getting rid of micromanagement. But it ended up being overly complicated and without the micromanagement there isn''t a lot left to do in a MOO style game.

The important thing you can get out of something like that is what I cal your "fundamental value proposition." What about your game is the core fun part, and how do your individual systems help that? In the example of MOO games things like affecting the career paths of your AI leaders sounds interesting but in the end has nothing to do with the core values. As a result it is sort of tangential and was poorly implemented and rather inconsequential, so they are getting rid of it and chopping out a lot of things with leaders. In fact, the initial design is being pared back and nearly all the "neat" features that were initially added are now being removed.

I would recommend that you listen to these fine people. Don''t worry about sparking conflict, go with the realistic story ideas. Also, how could all these changes happen in 13 years. I know a lot can happen in that time but not that much. Throw in some real-world stuff, and research your ideas it you want to make it not too "out there" and "unfimiliar" to the player.
I have found that the most important part of making a game (even working on the story) is learning to remove things that are going to cause you problems. Storylines can be changed if written in a modular manner, and you must learn to get rid of things (even those dear to your heart) if they don''t fit in to your idea.
I also think that the game should focus on small scale skirmishes (in know you want a large scale war and story, but the truth is that many of the world''s wars are fought in small skirmishes. Assassination attempts, nuclear silo capture, all of these things determine what happens politicaly and affect the war. Also, this has a major game affect. If you have no pop limits and focus on huge battles, it leaves little room for tactics and strategy, only allowing the "moronic grunt rush". Look at Battle Realms for ideas.
I think that the Starcraft gameplay style is a little passe'', it gets boring after a while, but the way all the races play in a totoally unique manner is fantastic, I would say that you should make some major adjustments to your Superpowers so that they all have a unique play style.

Hmm, I have to disagree... there may well be some sort of scientific basis for ''fun''. Just because we don''t know it, doesn''t mean it''s fruitless looking for it. And I don''t think it''s anywhere as difficult as people think.

There are probably some links to psychology here. ''Fun'' is presumably something that makes the player feel good. This might be because the game offers a new and interesting experience. It might be because the game makes the player feel as if they are good at something. It might be because the game provides a context to meet and interact with other human beings.

There are probably more ideas, but these 3 will do for now. Taking them in turn:

New and interesting experience : this corresponds to what is called the ''Explorer'' trait in MUD and MMORPG jargon and provides entertainment for people who enjoy learning and discovery. To make a game ''fun'' in this way, the game should provide a large number of potential discoveries such that the player can go on learning. This might be achieved through brute force (eg. a massive world in an RPG), emergent and almost limitless strategies as in Chess, numerous different levels in an FPS, and so on.

Making the player feel they are good at something : this corresponds to the ''Achiever'' and maybe the ''Killer'' trait as they are known in online RPG discussion. The idea here is that players like to succeed as success makes a player feel good. To do this, they may measure themselves somehow either objectively or subjectively, against the system or against others. This might be in the form of some sort of score, amount of territory owned, how far you could get in the game, what level your magician is on, how many other players you can kill, and so on. The essence of this approach is providing feedback to the player so that they can see their success.

Meeting and interacting with others : this is the ''Socialiser'' trait and is perhaps the easiest to achieve. Making a game multiplayer goes a long way to meeting this goal, and giving the players some sort of in-game communication tools helps here. One subset of the Socialiser is the Roleplayer and they may enjoy interacting with others through some sort of assumed persona, and any tools you provide to facilitate this will provide interest to them and potential replayability as one player may assume different characters.

I am sure you could think of a few more general ideas of what makes a game fun, without necessarily saying "everyone finds this fun". The above are simply semi-psychological profiles of activities that are known to be fun to many people, and thus implementing them means you''re following a tried and tested path.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions ]

quote: Original post by Kylotan
Hmm, I have to disagree... there may well be some sort of scientific basis for ''fun''. Just because we don''t know it, doesn''t mean it''s fruitless looking for it. And I don''t think it''s anywhere as difficult as people think.

Heh...trust a coder to try and codify fun. I would have expected no less from you, Kylotan.

R.

Thanks all for your input.

What I think is very important for a game is: be free, be relaxed but not too relaxed.

With be free do I mean that the game shouldn't contain a defined coded story line, a defined way to play it, only allowing 1 goal to be real victory. I like both UO and civ1-3 because those 2 games are really free, don't have predefined story lines, they allow you to experiment, and to define your own goals. The downside of this is that it is often a balancing nightmare.

With relaxed do I mean that there isn't a constant pressure but that there is on the other hand room to experiment, that you can just play to have fun and don't have to play on a hyper efficient but boring way.

With not too relaxed do I mean, that there should be still some kind of pressure, competition. SimCity succeeds in the 2 above points but fails in this one I think, that's why many find it boring over time. For that competition is it important to come over human like, this is more important then being efficient in my view.




[edited by - kolpo on April 17, 2002 1:36:32 PM]