A theory of fun for game design
I recently read “A theory of fun for game design” by Raph Koster (ISBN: 1-932111-97-2). It is an adaptation of a keynote address at a Game Conference into a book. In it, Raph Koster makes interesting points about topics that matter – to the game design professional, the game design amateur and to others.
Fun
As the title suggests, the book is about fun – and also other things detailed below. Fun, according to the author, is about learning new patterns. These can be the spatial patterns of tic-tac-toe or chess, the timing patterns of jumping-rope rhymes or simon, or any other type of patterns. In any case, working towards mastering the patterns is the essence of fun.
This definition of fun also extends beyond games. One can, for example, learn (i.e., have fun mastering) the patterns of rhythm and melody of different styles of music.
This definition of fun is appealing for several reasons. One of them is that it explains why games are fun, and also why they can stop being fun. For example, compare the few, quickly learned patterns of tic-tac-toe to the barely countable patterns of chess; the former stops being fun after you have mastered the patterns, the latter you never fully master.
Another appealing aspect of the definition is that it excludes skinner boxes which should die in a fire thank you.
Finally, it gives an important role to games, as providers of fun, and by extension to game designers: that of educating. If games are the medium of fun, and if fun is about learning, then game designers are educators. In this case, the definition is appealing to the audience of the original keynote address – more on this below.
Games (and other media) and art
Koster’s book extends beyond its title and tackles additional
questions. One such additional question is:
Are games just for fun?
Yes, games are for fun, but fun is more than mere entertainment. Games are for fun, and thus they are for learning and thus they involve some form of transmission from the author (the game designer) to the player.
This line of reasoning brings about a comparison to other media. Stories are another ways to teach – hence such names as “cautionary tale”. Stories can take multiple forms: written, spoken, sung, filmed, danced, etc.
And thus another important question finds an answer:
Can games be art?
Yes. And the reason put forward by Koster boils down to authorial intent: the game designer can decide to teach patterns that force the player to question their assumptions about the world, patterns that inspire or scare them, patterns that change their views.
Just like films, most of which are for entertainment, just like paintings, most of which are for decoration, just like all those other media, games, most of which are for fun, can also be art.
Weaknesses
Before listing the main weaknesses of this book, I should make it clear that it addresses important questions and is worth a read. There are useful lessons to be learned in there.
In addition, it should be noted that the main weaknesses of the book are directly derived from it being an adaptation of a keynote presentation at a game conference. To some extent, they are due to a mismatch between the content and the presentation.
With those caveats out of the way…
Pep talk
Half of the book reads as a pep talk to game designers. Yes what you do matters. Yes the media you work with is worthy. Yes you are an artist – or at least you could be.
Fortunately, this pep talk is not all there is. It is included as a set up to the other half of the book: What should game designers do? How can they make games that qualify as art? What responsibilities they have to accept?
Personal journey
Some of the book is about the journey of self-discovery that the author went through. His personal struggle with accepting his own profession.
It gives the book a sort of making of feel. And it’s not related to fun or the theory thereof.
Tackling more questions
Not only does the book addresses the notion of fun and the relation between games and other media, it also asks and answers even more questions.
Are games art yet? Why and why not?
Why do we need to learn patterns?
What patterns do games teach? What patterns should games teach?
Are there boy and girl games?
This loosen the focus of the book.
Hand-waviness
Some of the argumentation is vague and hand-wavy. It jumps from personal anecdotes to actual research-grade citations. There is even a sophism in there – along the lines of “if X were true, we would observe Y, and we do observe Y.”
All in all
Whilst the book falls short on some fronts, it’s mainly because of the original format. If seen as a keynote address that aims to start conversations on specific topics in the game designer community, then yes, it does make sense to raise multiple questions, to capture an audience with personal anecdotes, etc.
More importantly, despite these shortcomings, the book is interesting and well worth a read.