A Theory of Fun for Game Design

Despite a growing interest in the field, books on game design can be jargon-filled textbooks too intimidating for the average game player. Raph Koster's A Theory of Fun for Game Design takes an entertaining look at a subject that has, in some ways, been taken too seriously by other authors. The book is thoughtful as well, providing a groundwork for a discussion of games as learning tools, art, and societal shapers. Read on for my thoughts, and some commentary from the author, on this distillation of a designer's viewpoint.

A Theory of Fun for Game Design
author	Raph Koster
pages	244
publisher	Paraglyph Press
rating	9
reviewer	Zonk
ISBN	1932111972
summary	Game design as examined by a skilled craftsman, with a unique look at the larger context of games.

Raph Koster speaks often on the subjects of game design and interactive narratives. A Theory of Fun for Game Design is an approachable version of the larger body of writing and speaking Koster has produced in his years of design work. Its unusual accessibility is clear as soon as you open the book: while the left-hand page page contains text and observations, the right hand page makes (sometimes snide) commentary on design via comics drawn by the author.

Mr. Koster kindly agreed to answer questions when I was preparing this review. When asked about the audience of the book, he said "The book was intended in large part as something I could give to my parents, or to other relatives, or to non-industry friends, as a way to explain what it is that my profession is all about." As such, the comics and plain-spoken writing bring design concepts into focus for readers who may not want to spend the rest of their lives on these topics.

The chapters of Theory of Fun are not organized formally, but the book seems to fall into three sections. The first section sets the stage by discussing what exactly a game is. "Games are puzzles to solve, just like everything else we encounter in life." Koster's thesis is, essentially, that games are learning puzzles. In his experience, simple games are created by children to teach themselves useful skills. More formal games have similar goals, but modern games exist almost entirely to provide the elusive substance of fun to the player. This assertion resulted in a brisk discussion on the site Terra Nova. Exactly what people want when they pick up a joystick is very much in debate even by industry professionals.

The central portion of Koster's theory ruminates on the roles games play, why games are designed the way they are, and what matters in a game. The meat of the book is here, in discussions about why gamers cast aside the ethical quandaries brought up by games like Grand Theft Auto (they're playing the game mechanics, not the fiction surrounding the mechanics) and in the observation that the destiny of all games is to become boring. An amusingly astute statement about cheaters caps off a discussion of the tendencies players have to finding the optimal solution to a game: "When a player cheats in a game, they are choosing a battlefield that is broader in context than the game itself.&quot

At the end of the midsection, the eternal discussion of games as art makes an appearance. Instead of equivocating, Mr. Koster makes his opinion very clear. "Art, to me, is just taking craft seriously. It's about communication (as I have said many times, in the book and elsewhere). Taking what we do seriously, *even if for frivolous ends,* just leads to better work. Considering what you are doing to be art tends to emphasize high standards, experimentation, expression, thoughtfulness, and discipline -- even if your goal is to make a gag-a-day newspaper strip or macrame hangings for your window."

To close his discussion on games and to provide a larger context against which to examine them, Mr. Koster steps outside the bounds of game design and makes some fairly dramatic statements about what games should be. While other media portrays the human condition almost as a matter of course, he argues, games rarely connect with the most basic aspects of our lives. To his mind, in order to truly achieve respect alongside the novel or the musical composition, games should "illuminate aspects of ourselves that we did not fully understand."

In his epilogue, Koster goes even further, arguing that -- as authors of art -- game designers should take responsibility for their creations. "I have little patience for those who hide behind the statement that 'it's just entertainment.' To deny our influence while simultaneously crowing about our financial success is at best naïve, and at worst irresponsible."

The book itself is well laid out, with the thoughtfully edited and often humorous text set amid plenty of whitespace on the right and the usually well-drawn comics on the left. The comics set the tone for the whole book, which in format resembles more of a collection of Far Side strips than it does a technical guide. The back of the book contains an extensive commentary section where offhand references and asides are explained in depth.

If you're planning on entering the field of game design, A Theory of Fun won't help you to storyboard a plot, model a texture, or develop a code base: if you're looking for the technical aspects of game design or deep academic consideration of the field, other titles will hold more for you. The intended audience of this book is quite wide, and Koster does an excellent job of making everyone feel included in the conversation that occurs between the pages. While game players and professionals new to the field alike can get a lot from what he discusses, the reader who may benefit the most from Theory of Fun is the seasoned game industry worker.

With the endless rehashing of game and design concepts currently in circulation and parent groups growing ever more shrill at the release of morally ambiguous titles, Raph Koster's book is a refreshing read. The book is an unpretentious examination of what it is that makes a game a game. He steps beyond the dehumanizing aspects of game mechanics to look at games and their designers in a broader societal context. If for no other reason that that, Theory of Fun is worth a look to read the opinion of someone who gives a damn.

---

You can purchase A Theory of Fun for Game Design from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

An introduction!

[reformist]

All staff working on a game product should have training like this book gives; a designer's perspective should pervade the entire project, and the concept and goal of "fun" needs to be in every part of the product. Often, the goal of 1/2 the team is making the interface or some part of the game compatible with how the game engine does rendering to ensure we get an extra 5 fps here and there.

game design books

[duckpoopy]

aren't written for gamers. They are for gamne designers. Just because you like driving, that doesn't mean you can design a car, does it?

It takes patience...

[AsmCoder8088]

No one, regardless of their enthusiam for games, can just sit down and start writing games after reading a single book. While this one may enlighten readers about general game design, it certainly will not provide them with all the knowledge they'll need to create the kind of games that Average Joe will want. To be a successful game programmer, to have to feel passionate about what you are doing. If you can read some books on C/C++, and then work your way up to becoming familiar with the Windows API set and then eventually on to DirectDraw or OpenGL, then perhaps you will be able to write a mediocre game. But it takes patience, and certainly a great deal of interest in the field itself.

Re:What about game playing

[cirby]

The problem is that too many people who try to design games get really, really serious about "doing it right" while ignoring playability. Having an "accurate" game or a fast-playing one isn't nearly as important as the replay urge. Look at the recent re-release of classic games (fer chrissake, they're putting out Atari 2600 systems again!).

Playtesting is deeply important, and if your testers aren't finishing their sessions with a lot of "that's a lot of fun," you need to start again.

Every game-design disaster I've seen has been easy to predict well in advance.

Cheating == No Context

[adam31]

"When a player cheats in a game, they are choosing a battlefield that is broader in context than the game itself."

This is totally false. The context of the game is the restrictions that make the game challenging. How hard you have to work to acquire a certain weapon, how careful you have to be to conserve ammo... how many enemies you have to kill to get to level 20.

Those challenges are really the only things separating 'playing a video game' from 'pressing buttons on a controller'. That's probably why whenever I've cheated in a game in the past, it's gotten really boring really fast. The value of the goal becomes diminished along with the challenge.

I don't think is necessarily limited to gaming, either. I think it's built into human nature.

Re:Yeah, but it's Raph 'SWG' Koster

[grumpygrodyguy]

If Raph Koster is an expert on anything, as many Star Wars Galaxies players can attest to, it's making a game NOT fun.

Mmmm....yes!!

"Games are puzzles to solve, just like everything else we encounter in life.'"

Umm....no.

In fact most MMORPGs reflect the compulsive narcessistic attitude of most young americans today accumulating hand-over-fist anything they can get their mitts onto. At least this is why I play MMORPGs. The atmosphere, music, humor and scenery help to disuade me from needing to possess all the power in the realm, and thus provide a kind of light fantasy backdrop to my compulsive and irrepressible greed.

It's always nice to have light humor mixed in with obsessive grinding/hoarding. These two things, and the play between them make for a successful and playable MMORPG.

Re:Ralph Koster? No thanks.

[Omestes]

Yeah, I'll agree with your former points, that this man blows in practice as a designer. But as for the second point it may have some modicum (or more, I dare say) of validity.

For the most part the public doesn't actually know what is good for them. Most people want what their familiar with, and cannot think of that which is novel. If I create a novel interface, I should disreguard it because it's not what people want, without exposure? How many of the unwashed do you know of who have any knowledge of game or interface design, ergonomics? Not many. Good, then leave it up to the experts.

Ahem. Plato was right.

Re:What makes a game fun

[ZorbaTHut]

I think it's also very clear that these elements are neither necessary nor sufficient. There are plenty of fantastic games that don't include all of these, or even most of these, and plenty of horrible games that do.

Yes, these are all important to think about. But so are many other aspects, such as immersion (which is quite different from storyline), difficulty, a sense of accomplishment, replayability, etc etc etc.

Re:As a gamer

[FriedTurkey]

I have come up with plenty of fun game ideas based on existing engines. What do I do with these ideas? Will they be impossible to sell?

Ideas are cheap. Execution is expensive.

I can assure you 1000 people already has the same ideas you do. 999 of them won't do a single thing with the idea but think their ideas is unique and would really make a cool game. Sorry to poop on your parade.

Re:What makes a game fun

[Radres]

A game has to do at least one of these things well. I find that games that don't do any of these, such as Everquest, are the worst. Last time I checked, Legos are not considered a game! Perhaps Legos are a puzzle or a work of art. I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that paragraph, but it makes no sense as you contradict yourself. I was limiting myself to the field of video games so Legos are irrelevant anyway. I'm guessing you think that Photoshop is one of the best games ever!

Taking fun seriously and other junk

[xenocide2]

Yet another article about taking fun seriously, and trying to devise a grand unified theory of fun. I should start a pool on when someone conducts a game desgin study using a game with a single button that says "You Win" when clicked on as a control.

Games are difficult to quantify, especially as they're being pulled in so many different directions. Some Professors of Fun want to laud the advent of interactive storytelling and such nonsense (glorified choose your own adventures at best). Just a few days ago we a different opinion on /. on how awesome sequals are, because they add bigger explosions and more outrageous design built upon the backs of predecessors and competitors. And there's plenty more out there telling us how awful commercial games from the standard venues lack innovation.

If you can't figure it out, games are built on competition. All games have a kernel of this, whether overtly present or a computer simulation of such. Street Fighter was one of those early games that brought gaming to the masses. This was a game so popular it found its way into Burger King's in my neighborhood, a feat probably not achieved since Pong itself (another fine multiplayer game). The best games quickly recognize this, and abuse this property in Pavlovian fashion. Goldeneye probably pioneered the incredibly popular method of motivating players to complete and excel at single player campaigns with multiplayer unlockables. Before you consider how many great games have come and gone without a (good) multiplayer aspect, consider how much better they would have been if there HAD been one. Mario 64 is considered one of the best games ever on many metrics, yet even Nintendo was quick to add a multiplayer scenario that's main criticism is not being true to the rest of the game.

Making games fun then boils down to making games fair. Balanced, if you will. It doesn't matter how well scripted the cutscenes are, or how deep the plot is. What matters is that the game is fair. This is difficult to discover without extensive testing. This is a great argument for open source games, which often are available to players long before the game reaches some sort of final version and undergo a significant number of tweaks and revisions to find a perfect balance.

Re:Mirroring the real world

[servognome]

The point of a game (for most people) is to escape the realities of life. To exist in a world where you make a difference, or at least feel like you are accomplishing something grand.
What's the risk/reward ratio for adventuring in real life?
That's why people play games, so they can take risks they otherwise never would, and gain the feeling of greatness they could never experience. Not too many people single handedly have saved the world in real life, but being "the one", the hero who saves the galaxy/kingdom/world is the premise of most games; that's what people want out of a game.
In real life as well, you use what works. Not every situation calls for bleeding edge technology.
People want to work towards something bigger and better. You don't wanna save up 100k to buy a Porsche and find out it runs like a Gremlin.
You try being a professional entertainer in real life. It's not as glamorous as Viacom makes it out to be on MTV
Besides Milli Vanilli and Ashlee Simpson, not many entertainers can go /AFK and macro their way to stardom.
In each of these cases, the plausibility of the scenario increases the immersion factor. If you want a game heavy on adventuring, go play a smaller-scale multiplayer RPG such as NWN.
This is why I would call SWG more of an online social experiment than a game. I think it's interesting what sorts of decisions they made to make it feel like living in a world; but ultimately they failed to be "fun."
How much fun would NFL2k be if you had to spend 30 hours before each game doing repititious drills. Most people don't want reality, they want an entertaining "reality-lite" all the fun stuff with everything else taken out.