Slashdot Log In
A Theory of Fun for Game Design
from the with-superfluous-penguins! dept.
| 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. |
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."
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.
Yeah, but it's Raph 'SWG' Koster (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah, but it's Raph 'SWG' Koster (Score:5, Interesting)
- HAM system - an experimental alternative to the typical HP/Mana systems of most RPGs. Both the penalties of specials (using specials injured you) and the arbitrary nature of damage (rifle damage injured "Mind" not health) just made it overly complicated and unintuitive.
- Player run economy - interesting system, which I think worked well in some respects (gave the "feel" of a real economy). Unfortunately the breakdown occurred because risk/reward system was not in place for adventuring types. If the best stuff was made by players what was the use of taking risks adventuring.
- Housing/building system was nice, though not completely new, it was I think one of the best implementations, though the downside was extreme lag in certain locations
- Skill Structure - bland, and not particularly valuable. Getting higher skills in some respects would give you access to technology that you wouldn't use because there were better lower level alternatives
- Mentorship - interesting, but not particularly valuable, and later became more of an annoyance.
- Entertainers - once again interesting, but not engaging in terms of gameplay.
I think I could have lived with the bugs, in the end I did not like the game due to intentional failures of design decisions. Overall it is something that could be learned from for future game designs. (ie. Discovering that many people wanted to be entertainers, so now how can you make an entertainer class engaging)
Re:Mirroring the real world (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.
Re:Yeah, but it's Raph 'SWG' Koster (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Thank you for that lovely review..... (Score:5, Funny)
An introduction! (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice, but not necessary. (Score:2, Interesting)
(http://www.ruaware.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday March 25 2004, @08:51PM)
I specialize in Alternate Reality Gaming and the games are much more cerebral than most, so when Dave Szulborski wrote "This Is Not A Game" (seen at http://www.immersivegaming.com/ [immersivegaming.com]) not many had anything to complain about. Our players tend to like an intellectual challenge.
Yet, I can imagine that many 13-15 year old DOOM players may have their head spin when discussing game theory.
game design books (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday August 04 2004, @03:27PM)
SWG? (Score:5, Funny)
--Bwaaaahaha*cough, splutter*, oh, God. No more. *wheeze* Make it stop. You're killin' me. Can't read another line.
Raph Koster, the man most directly associated with shitting out Star Wars Galaxies from between his Goatse-like buttcheeks, is lecturing us on what makes a fun game.
And for our next articles, an interview with the guy who invented the Edsel on his new book about his theory of automotive design, to be followed up by the guy who invented the :Cue:Cat about his theory of digital convergence, Jack Valenti's Theory of Digital Rights, George W. Bush's theory of fiscal conservatism, and a book on portfolio management theory co-authored by FDR and Charles Ponzi.
Sheesh.
Who is this guy? (Score:2, Informative)
It takes patience... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ralph Koster? No thanks. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ralph Koster? No thanks. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://nonservium.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 07 2007, @04:15AM)
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.
It's simple, really... (Score:1)
For instance, a Star Wars MMORPG may score average on the horizontal but poorly on the vertical due to lack of combat. A Family Guy game on the other hand, may score very high on the horizontal as well as high on the vertical due to a collector's edition version that comes with some of the same stuff the show's writers are on while writing, thereby revealing the game to be truly fun.
Raph Koster (Score:2)
(http://www.alexkrupp.com/)
Re:Raph Koster (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.alexkrupp.com/)
As a gamer (Score:1)
Bueller?
Cheating == No Context (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Idiot Testing (Score:5, Interesting)
You have to include idiots and assholes in your test sequence. You need to have That Guy - the rules lawyer, the "I didn't mean to do that" fellow, the "I don't understand this" twit. And you need to build your system to shut them out when it's done. For MMORPGs, you need the sort who will get a medium-powered character and hunt down the newbies. You need a complete lunatic for driving games ("why can't I drive across the river here?"). You need a tactical asshole, who will camp on a resurrection point in a shootemup.
(The idea of "idiot testing" was laid out quite nicely by Steve Jackson about 25 years ago, in "Game Design: Theory and Practice"). It was about board games, but the concept holds even more for online games.
What makes a game fun (Score:5, Interesting)
#1) Storyline. This is the most basic element; a computer game can be looked at as a form of interactive movie. However, storyline is not essential since games have elements that movies cannot provide. An example of a game the excels at storyline without the other elements is Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. It basically immerses the player in the Star Wars universe without requiring too much in the way of critical thought or reflexes.
#2) Hand-eye coordination. At it's most basic level, a game requires the player to learn how to interact with the environment via some input device, whether it's a mouse, keyboard, joystick, or what have you. An example of a game that does this without the other elements is the original Space Invaders. Not much thought is needed to perform in that game, but learning how to press the fire button and move quickly is important.
#3) Tactics. Forcing the player to make a decision that has both benefits and weaknesses. Forcing players to make real-time decisions in a fantasy world leads to a sense of immersion. It's hard to think of a game that is purely tactical-based, but for an example of what I'm talking about, let's look at Contra. The game takes the basic shooter hand-eye coordination premise that a game like Space Invaders has, and adds the requirement that the user be smart enough to figure out what weapon to use for a given scenario. There are of course better examples, but this particular example gives you the basics of how tactics can be used to enhance a game.
#4) Strategy. Forcing the user to come up with an overall plan for how to do things. An example of a game that excels in this area is Civilization. Provoking critical thought from the user in order to solve a detailed problem (albeit a fictional one) involves the user on a higher level that can be appreciated. I find that the games with the most longevity tend to feature a lot of strategy.
The most successful of games will combine all 4 of these elements. My favorite game is Starcraft, and it is clear to see how all of these elements are used. The storyline is okay, the hand-eye coordination required is immense, the tactics involved are complex, and the strategy level is great. Other games can be broken down similarly. For example, Counter-Strike has no storyline, but there's hand-eye coordination required for aiming the weapon, tactics for deciding what equipment to use, and strategy for deciding how to approach the level with your team.
Think about it, and I bet you'll be hard-pressed to find another way to evaluate gameplay. I only wish there was a game review magazine that took these factors into account!
In 10 words or less... (Score:3, Interesting)
Many people play violent video games so that they can have fun and do things outside their normal realm of controlled behavior. This is fun for us because it is new and diferent than what we are used to doing as we go about our daily lives as citizens. For example, many respectable, middle aged men play GTA3 and love it, yet those same nice guys would never run over innocent bystanders like that in real life. Granted, the men in question probably wouldn't ever get the chance to drive something like the Rhyno tank anyway, but still...
Besides, people are always easily entertained by novel and exciting games/inventions/concepts/OS's/pieces of hardware that are easily mistaken for a stick of gum (USB memory sticks and the iPod shuffle). Obvious excpetions include the Dreamcast, N-Gage, NeoGeo, and Virtual Boy.
Games and Violence (Score:1)
With parent groups growing ever more shrill at the release of morally ambiguous titles, Raph Koster's book is a refreshing read.
Good. The more that respected people emphasise this, the better. There has been a frenzy going on in the last few years in the American media (and other countries, to an extent) about violence incited by games, films, and gangsta rap. If we make an effort to find out what really happens when we play games, we have a much better argument to show them they are wrong.
So how's this different... (Score:1)
Nothing about game design, too many stories without morals, and far far too many gimmicks rather than providing actual information/instruction.
Theory of Fun is a Theory of Learning (Score:1)
(http://mfeldstein.com/)
Also interesting is Koster's comparison of what games can teach versus what stories can teach. He believes that games teach abstract pattern recognition. You beat the game by grokking the pattern. The fact that the obstacles you have to eliminate happen to be human beings...well, games aren't so good at getting you to empathize. Stories do that much better (he claims).
For a contrasting view, you might want to check out "Is Instructional Video Game an Oxymoron?" [nytimes.com] in this week's New York Times (registration required).
contradiction (Score:4, Funny)
you can't use these words together
From the author... (Score:1)
(http://www.raphkoster.com/)
I wanted to point out that the book has a website, with a blog with extended commentary and the PDF presentation that originally led to the book. It can be found at http://www.theoryoffun.com.
As regards some of the critiques about myself or my work posted... I've said before that I wrote this book as an effort to get back to basics.
FWIW, though, a lot of people have incorrect impressions about what I did on what titles, and when I was on them and when not.
Are games limited to this? (Score:2)
(http://www.people.virginia.edu/~bjc8r/)
I have the same first impression of this book that i would of a book called "A Theory of Prettiness for Painting." Which is not to say that i think fun isn't important or desirable in games (i love Tetris, for instance), but i think the medium has potential for greater things, too. It doesn't help that i see this man's work as being very incremental. The same problems that he was working on in UO and SWG have been dealt with for years in MUDs.
On the other hand, i think that this seems like a fairly accurate description of what actually goes on, and what he's working on. When Raph Koster describes the book as something he could give to non-industry types to describe what he does, i think that he probably hit the nail on the head. I just wish that people would see this more as the way it is, not the way it should be.
I also see posting this on slashdot as similar to posting a review about "A Theory of Prettiness for Painting" on a message board for paint makers, but i know there are a lot of open minded, smart people on here, so hopefully we'll get some interesting discourse out of it.
b.c
My Review on Amazon (Score:2)
(http://www.mmogchart.com/)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews
Bruce
WWIIOL Model (Score:2)
(http://logh.net/)
* Play up to get rank (and maintain account so you keep access to all your toys),
* Work within a large uberteam (Axis or Allies), each of which may have it's own tribes or clans (squads in WWIIOLspeak),
* Beat the snot out of the other uberteam,
* Players provide content as the 'puzzles' constantly change due to new equipment or new towns being included into the map, and different attack approaches mean even the same old towns are attacked in new ways from differing directions,
* And if the game gets boring, you can switch to air, ground or sea equipment of another nation and work your way up there.
Taking fun seriously and other junk (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://dugger.notsoevil.net/)
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
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.
Another perspective... (Score:1)
(http://www.invisiblejames.com/)
http://grandtextauto.gatech.edu/2005/01/25/a-theo
Some ideas and whining (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.itchstudios.com/psg | Last Journal: Tuesday October 11 2005, @08:30PM)
Bending the rules is one of the things I enjoy the most in games, but nowdays everything is too controlled in favour of storylines.
It also seems to me that back in the day people/geeks made games because they wanted to and they had an idea, and nowdays it has to be 'safe' and they want to make money, so they make another WW2 shooter with some sneaker elements cuz that seem to be popular too.
Here's some games I'm still wating for:
Oh well, maybe I'm just old and nostalgic, but so are many others my age, so it should be a market, no?
A theory of fun is the last thing we need (Score:1)
Everyone bitches about how much pop music sucks, but it sure sells well. Why? Because someone came up with a formula for predicting chart-toppers, and now you have to be really good to even be considered if your song scores poorly on the formula scale.
Yes, a lot of video games suck, but at least there is no psuedo-objective "formula" for deciding a priori that a game will not sell well that publishers can use to reject games that may have otherwise been released even in small numbers. Self publishing is hard, even with the advantages of the internet. Imagine if the formula had predicted that "Yohoho Puzzle Pirates" would not sell. No publisher would have taken the risk on picking it up, even after the developers spent all that time popularizing it themselves.
It has happened before, it will happen again.
From the Crow... (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Tuesday December 17 2002, @03:30PM)
~Top Dollar~
Re:What about game playing (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Friday November 16, @12:15AM)
-1, Wrong.
Proof? Daikatana.
Just because someone writes and/or sells a game doesn't mean it's going to be fun. Books like this need to exist, and will hopefully help alleged "games" like Daikatana from getting as far as they do.
Re:What about game playing (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Guaranteed fun! (Score:1)
> Plug your game into this equation:
f=ck
Re:Art != Craft (Score:2)
(http://www.people.virginia.edu/~bjc8r/)
"...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)."
I mean, this is somewhat true. There's definitely a distinction between the two, but to think that they're entirely seperable, and that the narrative elements don't matter at all is purely ridiculous. If what he says is true, then the only important differences between GTA3, GTA:VC, and GTA:SA would be the feature changes. While those may be big differences, it's ridiculous to claim that the Godfather 2 setting of GTA:VC has no bearing on play experience, or that people aren't interacting with the subject matter on some level. I think playing GTA:VC doesn't make people horribly violent for the same reason that watching the Godfather 2 doesn't make people horribly violent -- because there's no reason it should. Representations of violence and simulations of violence are not themselves violence.
If you want to argue Media Effects, that's fine, but not the point i'm trying to make. The point i'm trying to make is that the fact that playing violent games does not mean the players are violent people does not necessarilly lead us to the conclusion that we ignore the "story" elements of violence in games.
Would GTA sell as well if the story was nonsense?
b.c
Re:Puzzles? (Score:2)
*Offer money to wife in return for sex.
The wife agrees
*Give money to wife
*Fuck wife
*Take money back from wife
Re:Art != Craft (Score:1)
But there's an Arts and Crafts Museum... [morsemuseum.org]
kulakovich, channeling Homer Simpson.
Re:If you have to invent a theory of fun (Score:1)
(http://www.raphkoster.com/)