Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 23, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 23, 2014
PR Newswire
View All
View All     Submit Event

If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:

Fun and uncertainty
by Alexandre Mandryka on 01/29/14 09:34:00 pm   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.


This article was originally posted on my personal blog and was recently cited by Dan Taylor in his post Ten Principles of Good Level Design - Part I, so I felt like sharing it here.


“Have you found the fun yet?” is a question we often hear asked to designers. It shows how shallow is our understanding of the craft of games, but also how easily we accept such a vague mandate. Trying to help the fine folks at Relic to develop a better acquaintance with that elusive concept led me to some interesting finding that I want to share with you with the hope that it will make the designer job more focused and that it will help those that manage them provide guidance and evaluate the results.

The first step on that road was when I stumbled upon “Fun systematically”, a paper from Alan Dix that recounts his efforts with Masitah Ghazali to explore the boundaries between engagement and fun. They focused on experiences that were neither fun nor engaging – in the boring zone – and used the technique of mutation to figure out what ingredient to add to turn a boring experience into a fun one, without it becoming engaging. Their example is the pretty boring activity of waiting for a kettle to boil. Dix found out that adding the surprise effect of a bird that pops up and sings when the kettle boils brings fun to the activity. It actually seemed pretty obvious, uncertainty was the key ingredient.


Alan Dix' mutation process to create fun

Surprise would bring playful excitement to an experience. Later on, a report came out of Starcraft 2’s Dustin Browder saying that they had decided to keep the infamous “six-pool” tactic – putting all your resources into the cheapest attack units to quickly overrun your opponent before he can develop – because the uncertainty it brought created a fun experience. That encouraged me to explore the idea of uncertainty as a source of fun and this is how that journey went for me.

Fun lives in uncertainty

Let’s first analyze the fun that comes from the great game of Tic-tac-toe. In turn, the game asks players a question: Where do you want to play your mark? The lack of certainty on which move is the best is what creates intense trepidation and fun, at least for young children. Of course there are so few meaningful possibilities that after a few rounds, it is possible to basically decode the whole game and understand the dominant strategy and the optimal counter. Interestingly, the moment you realize the whole game is known and there are no ways to trick or be tricked, the game ceases to be fun and you move on to another activity. One could advocate that you might want to keep playing to enjoy winning over an opponent that hasn’t fully understood game, but I would actually say that this is pleasure that you would be after, and not fun (see Pleasure without learning leads to addiction for more on the distinction). As we will see later on, enjoyment can come from a stable state and one can find pleasurable an easy-going activity, but as it implies learning and development, fun requires an active attitude of seeking and confronting challenge.

The need for uncertainty is obvious in the case of abstract games with discrete states, but I believe that its appeal also translates into analog activities. Think of the evolution of fun as you learn how to ride a bicycle. The first few strides on a bike are mainly about getting used to the overall experience, everything is new and unknown, the discovery maximum: Speed, inertia, the wind on your face, the different movements and muscles involved … As soon as you master your ride enough not to be in danger, the experience is fun. Then you start controlling your ride better, and as you do, the excitement starts dropping. This is usually the moment your stab wheels are removed. That new level of complexity renews the experience and you are now enjoying the challenge of balancing your ride. But as you start to master these new conditions and exit the challenging zone, your bicycle stops being a challenge to use, and it starts becoming a boring mean of transportation. As you master its instability, it ceases to represent uncertainty and thus ceases to be fun. As further proof, common behaviors to make it fun again from that stage of mastery can be increasing speed out of your comfort zone, standing on the frame of your bike to make balance harder to control, or breaking abruptly to drift.


The low level analysis of this phenomenon is an interruption of adherence as a result of a turn. I consider the fun of it to come from the sudden change of behavior of my bike as it starts to skid with a slight incertitude on when the bike will resume adherence and change back to its normal physics. At the atomistic level, there is a sudden change in behavior, with uncertainty on when it will revert back to normal.

Actually, drifting is a perfect illustration of uncertainty applied to platformers like Super Mario Bros., as an expression of inertia. This game is all about controlling your Italian plumber through an obstacle course. There is a main problem though, as the physics of Mario make it hard to control. You don’t reach top speed immediately, you can’t stop on the spot neither, even worse is your airborne control as you try to steer in mid-air. In these conditions, evaluating the speed and timing to perform your jumps across deadly pit is uncertain, which is also why they are fun. The core activity in a game must be challenging if you want it to be fun.

The common adage is that you want controls to be tight, but I would actually advocate that in these precise circumstances, you want them to be loose, enough that they produce consistent but hard to predict results of.

Flow is a stationary state, while fun is dynamic

The idea of balancing challenge and skill is quite reminiscent of Csikszentmihalyi’s theory of Flow, except that this concept is particularly suited to describe a state of total immersion in a given task, leading to optimal and effortless results in the accomplishment of a task. Of course if the subject is actually doing work, then you want him to be in a stable state of balance between the difficulty of his task and his skill level. That way, his concentration is maximal, his perception of time diminishes and he’s likely to go through his assignment quickly and efficiently. On the contrary, for a game experience to be fun, it requires highs and lows in the perception of challenge, as that’s the best way to acknowledge one’s progression in skill and thus alternate between the process of increasing them, and the actual enjoyment of the acquired capacities.


Flow (left) is adapted to task completion and thus requires stability, while Fun (right) is in the realm of entertainment and is experienced when on the fringe of comfort.

Csikszentmihalyi defines the “flow channel” by the zone where the skills are adapted to the challenge. If we agree that fun is experienced when exploring uncertainty and learning from it, then we need to consider the upper fringe of the flow channel, where anxiety appears, to be the zone where fun can be experienced. As players get at ease under increased challenge, their skills increase and they go back in their comfort zone. They may actually ride the flow channel, enjoying their new acquired mastery. But as this feeling gradually dissipates, they might exit the flow channel by the bottom and enter the boring zone where they don’t feel challenged enough. This is where an adventurous player may then consider upping the ante and go after more complex challenges, or if he feels like it’s not worth the effort or if new accomplishments don’t seem available, the player might decide to quit playing all together. A more competitive player will probably rarely indulge back to the boring zone and seek one challenge after another, but the main idea is that while flow is about remaining in the balance zone, the seeking fun is a more dynamic back and forth that aims at the fringe of the flow channel.

The exploration of uncertainty is at the core of all entertainment

Everyone doesn’t immediately relate to the research of challenge as describing how they seek fun. This is mainly due to the fact that we tend to associate challenge with left-brain activities like math, logic or puzzle-solving while there are many different ways to challenge ourselves and enjoy progression. As Nicole Lazzaro and Richard Bartle explain, there are different reasons why we play games, different ways to enjoy them, which leads to different player types. Let me tag in my personal buddy on that field: French sociologist and philosopher Roger Caillois. In his book “Man, play and games”, he broke down games in four core principles based on what people would seek in them. With chess as its epitome, Agon is about confrontation where you try to overcome a challenge based on your skills. Alea is the characteristic of games that rely on luck, like roulette. Illix comes from activities that would be sought after because they blur the perceptions and create vertigo, like roller-coasters. Finally, Mimicry is the roleplay or imitation of other characters or behaviors. Games can include elements of one or multiple of these categories, but it’s important to realize that they all require uncertainty to function as part of a game.


Roger Caillois’ four core game principles

Uncertainty about the outcome of a game are obviously required for Agon and Alea-based games. The enjoyment of Illix is intrinsically related to uncertainty through randomness. Even Mimicry requires the uncertainty of challenge to be interesting. Roleplaying yourself or your twin brother won’t be entertaining, and as you increase your acting proficiency, you might want to try roles that are more and more alien to you, similarly to successful actors that go for more risky parts later in their career.

Clearly, in games, it’s the uncertainty that makes the experience fun. A game gives you a problem that has to bear uncertainty in how to solve it whatever the nature of the skills involved. I also believe that the concept of uncertainty being at the core of fun also applies to other forms of entertainment. A good joke for example sets a pattern for your brain to follow, and then tricks you where you weren’t expecting it. As the punch line breaks context, your brain looses traction and spins helplessly before finally “getting it”. Same thing with a story, if everything is clear from the get go, and the plot never twists, you’re in for a pretty blend experience. Instead, most stories actually create expectation of troubled resolution by establishing clearly tense situations that have change and transformation written all over. I don’t know much about writing, but I think that as long as it stays coherent, the more unexpected the resolution, the more entertaining the story.

So as a conclusion...

Someone recently called fun “boring”, but I think even worse of it. Fun is dangerous. It is dangerous to use as a mandate as it is so undefined that it is bound to lead to hit and miss that generally ends up in endless reworks involving whole teams in devastating time crunches. It needs instead to be analyzed and described as clearly as possible before moving too far into production.

So, understanding the fact that different people might have different motivations to play games I would propose the following statement.

Fun is the desired exploration of uncertainty.

We need to offer a type of exploration that will suit our audience, and define what uncertainty will be offered. I admit that it is not much, but I hope it at least helps focussing the discussion and will be the springboard for the next piece where we will analyse how to trace these paths through uncertainty, the creation of gameplay.


  1. Alan Dix and Masitah Ghazali, Fun systematically, link

  2. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience

  3. Nicole Lazzaro, Chasing wonder and the future of engagement, link

  4. Richard Bartle, Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs, link

  5. Roger Caillois, Man, play and games

  6. Neils Clark, Fun is boring, link

Related Jobs

DeNA Studios Canada
DeNA Studios Canada — Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Analytical Game Designer
University of Texas at Dallas
University of Texas at Dallas — Richardson, Texas, United States

Assistant/Associate Prof of Game Studies
Avalanche Studios
Avalanche Studios — New York, New York, United States

UI Artist/Designer
Bohemia Interactive Simulations
Bohemia Interactive Simulations — ORLANDO, Florida, United States

Game Designer


Bart Stewart
profile image
While I agree that Caillois, Bartle and Lazzaro have some similar insights about why we play (see
_styles_a_.php), I'm not sure every style of play has an equal desire for uncertainty. In particular, I see the Guardian/Achiever/agon/hard fun style as preferring the stability of the known over the surprise of the unknown.

Consider grinding. A lot of gamers seem to be not just OK with it; they actively prefer it to other forms of play (or they would long since have migrated to less grindy games). The pleasure in grinding for these players -- regardless of how it's perceived by others -- is that it *doesn't* call for doing new things, or learning new systems. These folks play like they live: pleasure comes from achieving increased security through possessions. For these gamers, perfoming easily-understood simple actions in a controlled set of rules to accumulate publicly-valued tokens isn't painful; it's deeply satisfying because it's a game that can be won through persistence.

Uncertainty -- changes to the rules of play that alter expectations or mechanics -- isn't fun for these gamers. It's irritating because it requires active thinking or feeling, which is the stuff they play games to get away from. Changing the rules devalues what they've already learned.

I do think there's a place for uncertainty in games. I prefer that kind of game myself; I like not knowing exactly what's going to happen when I flip a switch. It's good for there to be games made that cater to that sort of interest. I'd also agree that most kinds of gamers like some variety in their options.

But I'd be careful before concluding that all gamers enjoy uncertain play. I think there's some evidence that that's not the case.

Lewis Pulsipher
profile image
Uncertainty is very important to games, but not to puzzles. In many cases, puzzle-solvers don't want uncertainty, they want exactly the opposite. They want a dominant strategy, in effect. And that's why, when they've found the solution to the puzzle, they stop playing.

Many traditional single-player video games were much more like puzzles than games. And many still are.

Ashkan Saeedi Mazdeh
profile image
Actually you can define it as: They love to go for solving it because they are uncertain about the strategy and don't know it. Uncertainty is a good lense to be added to a designer's deck.
It's not that new, surprize and unexpected stuff somehow define it well which are used a lot in talks about design.

Ashkan Saeedi Mazdeh
profile image
Nice article.
When we try to make a game fun we always try to create challenge, surprizes (either using rewards or game play elements/mechanics) and unexplored/unexperienced situations and input schemes. These all have one thing in common which is uncertainty.

Actually even when you make a RPG game with standard features there is uncertainty in choosing what to do in epic battles so even the game has no surprizes in many aspects still the original action is uncertain.

Sam Stephens
profile image
I don't know if players necessarily want uncertainty, at least not all of the time. Sometimes performing what you know can be very satisfying and fun on its own. Many games level off after teaching a new component of their gameplay to allow players to learn and exert their mastery. On the flip side, it is probably impossible to know absolutely everything about games due to their emergent nature.

Tony Dormanesh
profile image
Nice article.

To address some of the comments about grinding and puzzles being certain.

I think puzzles are all about uncertainty, the first time you approach any puzzle it is always blank... "What could possibly be under there?" Players may have a certain strategy, but they want to uncover the uncertainty. When they finished, they've uncovered the mysterious puzzle.

And I even think "grinding" has uncertainty. We've all died grinding. If it was the same exact thing every time it would be boring, even to people who love to grind. Well, most people grind to get the rewards. But you're always trying to find the best strategy to grind faster, this creates uncertainty.

David Serrano
profile image
I strongly suspect as defined by the average person, curiosity has more to do with play than uncertainty. Because uncertainty and conflict are both directly associated with fear and stress. Curiosity is what allows us to overcome the fear and to tolerate the stress. And when we are free to indulge our curiosity, we are intrinsically motivated to do things.

Robert Crouch
profile image
I agree. I think that the reason that a bird singing when the kettle boils isn't just because of uncertainty, it's because it's novel. We learn what it is doing, maybe we try and predict when the water will boil. Once it is familiar, and once there's nothing left to learn, it is no longer fun.

Simply putting something uncertain is not really fun. Something that teaches us something new however, can be. It's the learning, the discovery, that I think makes something fun.

If the bird sound happens once, you want to see if it happens every time. If it does it gets boring quickly. If it doesn't, you try to discern a pattern. If it's completely random you start to wonder if it is really just random or if there's really some pattern that you just haven't figured out yet.

David Serrano
profile image
@Robert Crouch

The fatal flaw in the study was uncertainty wasn't part of the equation. The participants knew what a kettle was and how it worked so they knew what would happen when the water started to boil: the steam would exit through the spout. So there was no uncertainty involved, the participants expected the steam to exit through the spout and it did. They were merely surprised and slightly amused by what happened as the steam exited. I don't think it was accurate to label the response as "fun".

Anders Larsson
profile image
Many of the commenters have found what I found to be the weakness in the article (which otherwise was great), which is the fun of exploration and discovery. Sure you could try to explain it as uncertainty, but to me that means unnecessarily extending the meaning of uncertainty.

My belief is that to really understand Fun (or maybe more generally Pleasure), we have to go to the evolutionary reasons for it. Fundamentally it is simple, the body rewards us with feeling good, for doing things it believes to be furthering your chances of survival and procreation. Winning in gambling feels great because it tricks the brain into believing that you have learnt something to overcome a challenges. Grinding in World of Warcraft feels good because you are earning resources and gold, which translates into security and riches, which helps survival and procreation.

The same logic goes for things like scary movies and rides (you survived, YEAH!), winning in multiplayer games (domination gives high status).

Discovery and pleasant surprise, does not necessarily have to do with uncertainty at all, but rather the pleasure of learning something new, seeing something new etc. The brain's pleasure center rewards us for these because, you know it, 10 000 years ago it would have improved your chances of survival and procreation enormously

Alexandre Mandryka
profile image
Thanks for all the comments!

I guess it's probably a matter of wording, cause I actually agree with all your arguments =)

What I mean with exploring uncertainty covers learning, as there would be no learning if you are certain about something.

A puzzle would be no fun if the player knew the solution beforehand, same as tic-tac-toe that loses most value when someone has solved it (ie no uncertainty left).

I also agree that some players just enjoy doing what works, but for me, they are just looking after pleasure, which is a different thing than fun.

Heh, I'll still be looking for the right wording. I'm still uncertain about it ;)