|
[Gameloft technical designer Christian Philippe Guay looks inside to answer fundamental questions about what is fun, and offers up his own unified philosophy.]
Fun is a familiar word and, to this day, it is still hard to define. We do have that strange ability to understand how to make something fun, but so little understanding of its actual origins. For years I've been asking to myself many questions:
- Where does it come from?
- How can it be produced?
- Is fun exclusively subjective?
- Is it possible to create something fun for everyone?
- Is fun all about learning something new?
- Why do I still enjoy older games more than the most recent ones?
- Are we losing our understanding of fun?
- Is engagement the same thing as fun?
- What is the future of video games?
- Could a unified theory of fun exist?
I never found a proper answer to these questions in any articles on the internet, nor any book. However, I did find out a lot about fun, because most articles or books pointed out a lot of the factors that result in fun experiences.
They never, however, clearly explained what fun was or how to produce it. After months of intensive research on the subject, I had a hard time believing how many fun products we've made as an industry without even understanding what fun is or where it comes from. It's amazing, really, what we've accomplished so far.
Desperate and without answers, I started to think. I spent years looking for those answers and, more importantly, underestimated the value of my own experience in solving the problem. Fifteen minutes later, I found my own answers to all of those questions.
That's when I realized how much we know about fun, and how little we know about ourselves. By the end of this article, I'm sure most of you are going to be amazed by how much you knew about fun, and discover that the real trouble was in connecting the dots.
Where Does Fun Come From?
Everything that exists follows what we call a structure: recipes, books, films, video games, chemical formulae, etc. We all know that fun can be experienced during or after an experience. In other words, by better understanding the structure of an experience, we will gain a better understanding of fun. We'll find that structure in the creative process is necessary to create an experience.
Whether it's based on a specific audience target or simple personal inspiration, we first create the vision for a game. Some designers might prefer to call it a blueprint. That blueprint is, exclusively, an idea located in the mind or on paper. It is not yet perceptible or interactive, and yet this step is the heart of the experience.
To make that blueprint interactive, we need to make it perceptible to our human senses. If the idea was to create an interesting enemy, we would have to make the 3D model first. I usually use the word context to cover all that. Fighting on a battlefield is different from fighting in a moving elevator, right? Also, some games feature a story. The perceptible story is found on this specific layer.
Once we've made the idea perceptible, then we can give it a mechanism. We add to our character the bones he needs to move in the intended way. Just keep in mind that everything perceptible will always empower the mechanism and make it better; that's why old school 8-bit games aren't necessarily better even when they offer cooler, more innovative gameplay than contemporary titles.
The ultimate goal of a designer is to give to players tools to influence the world, AI, and other players; it's all about the mind game and the challenge. When it comes to the story, while the context covers the perceptible story, this layer covers the one that we create as we play.
Now that our experience has a mechanism and is interactive, what we want to do is to add that subtle layer of emotions. That's actually one of the steps we often forget, but it is absolutely crucial to the creation of a great and memorable experience. Do you want to throw rockets that will profoundly stress the player? Did you create a room so empty that the player will know for sure that he needs to prepare for the next big fight? Do you desire the player to feel that this area is a peaceful or dangerous place?
Once the player performs the interaction, from cause and effect there is a direct result. Did he counter an attack? Did he eliminate his opponent? Did he hear a sound? What treasure did he find by opening the chest? It's important to notice that there is a challenge and a reward, but the reward is not the last thing to think about. There are a few other steps to an experience.
Once the player gets the result, then he can be conscious of the time it took to complete the experience. The notion of time moderates the intensity of an experience, and it creates rhythm or repetition.
Finally, it's only once the player is aware of the time that he can achieve a full realization of the whole experience. That's the moment when he registers the data in memory and can compare its quality with other past experiences. By going through this final process, the player also forges his judgement. By creating an experience, we also forge our audience; a natural evolution cycle of which we are all part of.
|
There are many, many levels to crafting a play experience. Discussing "fun" or "engagement" is the discussion of the end result of that experience.
Difficult to measure? Definitely. Philosophical in nature? Perhaps. Important to keep in mind when you are making a game? You bet your butt.
I shudder to think of the game designer who makes a game without thinking about how, why, or whether the player is enjoying it on the other side.
Also saying things like "good games are to engaging to analyze...", well play the same level couple of times or record for god sake and analyze it frame by frame.
I would love to read a more specific article on design, such as creating an engaging gameplay through exploration of frustration feeling to create a rewarding experience(Dark Souls & SMB do it well), which includes example of specific design decisions and choices designer made/thinks should be made to create this type experience.
Disclaimer: I do not frequently read articles posted on sewing websites, so I'm only assuming this article fits better on Gamasutra. It could be that sewing enthusiasts do talk about game design, I wouldn't know.
And agreed on on a Dark Souls design breakdown... maybe we're working on that! No promises though.
Let's try to shift the discussion back to what the article actually says. *Returns to sewing*
PS sewing circles are a gateway drug to the kick-ass hyperbolic geometry of the crochet world, so go sewing! http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1568814526
But it's also important to know _why_ to do things, which is what philosophies (like the one in this article) speak to. This is why great buildings have architects and not just carpenters, plumbers and electricians.
That said, this article -- especially page 2 -- reminds me of the value of looking at design as "gap management." Gap management is the art of knowing where you are, understanding where you're trying to go, and figuring out the best way to bridge that gap. In a way, it's the heart of design -- not the vision, and not the implementation, but the bridge between those.
Articles like this one are valuable for new designers because they concisely describe the bridging function: translating the vision for a play experience into specific constructive goals whose implementation will effectively achieve that vision. Sure, some of these ideas may be described in depth elsewhere. That doesn't mean it's not also useful to have them clearly outlined here.
Nice job!
That is not a linear curve. As a player's mastery of the game increases, the game can become devoid of challenge, and thus boring. A boring game creates few memorable moments.
Trying to define this catch all word must surely be an excercise in futility. The word is beyond useless... it's dangerous. Because the "fascinating" the "interesting" the "curious" the "unusual" the "remarkable" and "thought provoking" are often left out of the discussion of "fun" we complacently start to feel that the infinite spectrum of "fun" consists just of that narrow band of vapid pleasures.
At best "fun" is a lazy way to describe what we want to achieve when producing a game. At worst... well... see Zynga.
I view it always as the ratio between the pace of the player and the pace of the game. They have to be combined always and always go up, push one up and the other down and you're gameplay starts to disengage the player.
Most games are designed to never hold the player back, to let him explore the game at the pace it wants no barriers. Because of that, the player is never really actively engaged in the gameplay and most of the times only engaged in the story.
Then you have your other spectrum of games that have little history and great gameplay, skyrim, xcom, demons souls, that force you to play at the pace the game wants you to, if you step out of that pace youre in trouble.
It is good article to read if you haven't read a book about game design in your life.... Just kidding - peace. There are diminishing returns to this game and I would rather like editors not playing their game.
BTW, Christian, i'm a bit curious about the books you read: even though they didn't provide the answers you were looking for, did they still help in starting the process of formalizing your ideas? Could you provide some references?
I'm asking because I remember reading different books that actually discuss, in a way or another, a few of the points you list at the beginning of your article (for example, Koster's "A Theory of Fun for Game Design", Lazzaro's "Understand Emotions" in "Beyond Game Design" and Dillon's "On the Way to Fun", just to list the first ones that come to my mind) though your analysis is obviously original and unique.
So I was wondering if these were relevant to your study or if you "kickstarted" your research elsewhere using different books and materials. Thanks!
This reflects the philosophy that in many ways is holding gaming back as a true mainstream form of primary entertainment. People who play games are not gamers or "fans"... they are consumers who have a need and desire to play. Everyone may not be a "gamer," but everyone in some way, shape or form has a need and desire to play. Because play is as important to physical and mental health as good nutrition or exercise. So the objective and challenge (no pun intended) for designers and developers targeting a large and diverse audience is to deliver products containing tasks and activities that conform and align with the average person in the target audience's definition of "play." If this is the objective, it increases the likelihood that a large percentage of the target audience will view the tasks and activities as "fun."
The problem is most designers and developers are unwilling or unable to acknowledge their personal interpretation of, and preferences for play and fun are esoteric and inaccessible to 99 percent of the existing and possible gaming audience. Which is why most designers think a game like Dark Souls is one of the best games released in recent years, but 1 percent or less of the existing and possible audiences don't view or consider a game like Dark Souls as play or fun.
In other words, I'm not sure if there's so many people that enjoy crime films / novels / games. But mainstream entertainment companies market them in a way that a lot of people are encouraged to believe that they would enjoy watching / reading them.
There's a huge difference between mainstream art and what Linkin Park describes as honest art. Mainstream artists, or mainstream entertainment producers, do works trying to cover the widest possible market (or market segment). Honest artists do works the way they want, hoping that anyone will enjoy them.
Some artists shoot both birds with one shot, and are very lucky. The rest must make a choice.
the problem is this encouragement often, if not almost always kills the best part of the gameplay. Which is discovery, and asking the question before the answer is given or narrowly offered.
The problem I see here is as a gamer, I don't just want to be divided up by strength, I want to be divided up period. The only way to do this is to make 3 separate games. When you combine them the real problem isn't difficulty at all it's the direct fun that's lost. And this happens for a multitude of reasons. I'm definitely no a proponent either of the "Hi /Low mixed gameplay" theory either. where you have 2 kinds of problematic gameplay .. on the one hand is the issue of players playing the game for you instead of you playing it .. and the other popular style where players are in the same setting except with handicaps (WoT for example). Both leave much to be desired.
Lets say for instance you and I went to see a movie .. Star Wars for example.
If you have seen it say 200 times, and it was my first time. How would the experience best be enjoyed?
There are several variations of what could happen.
forinstance
You could explain the plot before it happens, ruining the experience.
You could giggle at scenes I didn't understand .. or grab my arm and say .. Whoa dude watch this part it's awesome .. LOL.
You could sit there silently and try not to ruin it, but act uncomfortably emotionless during significant parts.
You could give a brief summary like "it's a scifi flick, it has laser blasters and there's the force."
you can do a lot of things.
But when the experience is already had, you are different for it. It doesn't mean 2 people that did and did not see Star Wars couldn't rediscover the magic, it;s just a very delicate thing to do. Now add in viewers only interested in checking the experience off in their check box, or worse those only ambivolent to the experience.
The problem isn't skill level really, it's attitude, it's understanding, and interest.
When players come to a game, unless their your best friends they usually have an entrely seperate agenda, mix that with separate goals and you have a mess. coaching doesn't fix this. People naturally come with different motivations.
When I was a child, and I went to satr Wars, I had no clue about the force or light sabers, nor did I care if princess Leia was hot, or what the characters meant, I didn't have a concern for who Darth Vader was behind the mask. I didn't have a motivation, I simply "experienced" it and it was fun, and in part this was due to everyone else I knew also believed it was fun.
But Star Wars is complex, it has many facets and deep philisophical thining ect.
But would Star Wars be the same if every time something completely new happened they gave me a 5 minute exposition so I would "get it". Would it be the same if it were spoonfed like the prequels? No, heck no.
But sadly that is how triple A games are created. Even Portal ~ and that is sad.
It's a stupidification of society, when they no longer ask "why" because some corporation spoonfeeds every idea like we are all 6 year olds. And this is so as to hit the broadest market.
Children.
But children and new players alike, don't need it. they need social help in game and out of game, social communication in and out of game using their necessary to breathe faculties. It's unnessary to bring a game to it's knees low enough a chimpanzee could play it, or the game could play itself (looking at you swtor).
It's unnessary to spoonfeed content with constant humor and gratification (looking at portal).
And honetly it promote dehabilitating to society just as much as going out and smoking a fat blunt.
I agree in theory with you, but I just haven't seen it work well at all.
In FPS the biggest skill difference is team play and map knowledge. Team play isn't individually attainable, and map knowledge is trial and error.
But someone playing FPs may not even be interested in strict team play. Or interested in leqrning where the general best vantage points are. Just picking up a gun and shooting even with many, many hours of practice will still have them dead consistently without those interests in mind..
PVP in particular is also competition based, players that don't instantly latch onto the mainstream don't fair well without many years of practice. So in order to accommodate a new player you not only have to provide a foothold skill wise, you have to provide hints to maps / builds and social structure.
If you give map handicaps, everyone uses them and it's no longer a game about exploration. If you give build design away you no longer have worthwhile character creation. And forced social structure is thus far a failure pretty much on every gaming platform I've seen as well.
The best solution is to divide players by their interests, and a difficulty scheme keeps everyone on the same page. If you can think of one that works though I'd love to know about it, now granted .. I don't play consoles.. so I can't talk about those.
Even with regular MMOGs you run the constant issue of players having the same game interests in mind. And we see that even in Swtor where the issues are even more paired down and the focus even more controlled with 4 man groups and any group make up you bring ill probably work there is always the problem of the material being too easy, or too dull.
What you also see is players don't hang out in the same social networks in general chat, only the new players do. This is really not a skill problem, it's a goal problem. It's also an issue of trying to tag too broad of a market with simplistic fixes.
Not saying it can't work, just saying I haven't seen it work ..
I kind of agree with some of the previous comments that you seem to be describing feedback loops (and micro feedback loops) and the notion of flow rather than getting to the crux of fun. I suppose by way of perspective, experiencing flow is considered fun and experiencing multiple positive feedback loops in succession (which can lead to flow) is also thought of as fun. This is where I would get off by saying that the idea of fun is more so an observed phenomenon than an actual cognitive product that is produced from an ideal engagement with a game system or otherwise.
I would go further to suggest that what we perceive to be fun is a congruent form of cognitive stimulation that we are receiving from various sensory inputs which we must consider positive or beneficial to our own growth as an organism.
In short, "having fun" is to experience mental stimulation and realize that we like the stimulus.
That being written, I think you may have somehow missed the mark with your article by approaching from the angle that games are about creating emotional experiences. Having the player to feel is a good thing in games, but at it's core, games (I believe) are about the logic or choices involved.
If I am going to send rockets at my player, it is because I wish to present a situation for him by which he has several options to respond with. How will the player deal with such a situation? Sidestep? What if the rockets are too fast to avoid? Duck? Wait, these are homing rockets! Rocket Jump? The fun derived should come from the fun of making a logical decision, but a decision nonetheless.
This is where your mention about how "old school 8-bit games aren't necessarily better even when they offer cooler, more innovative gameplay than contemporary titles." quite stood out to me since my understanding is that the arbitrary point of making a fun game, is after all to make the game fun. Not so much to try and tell a story, or be displayed as a piece of art, but to simply create a platform for interesting choices.
And it's the old school 8-bit games that are filled with those.
Part of the problem though I think, and one of the reason why 8-bit works better is because it doesn't ross the believbility vally, in shape, siz, depth ect .. but it also feels correct. When graphics are intensified have have more realism they don't necessarily resonate well.
I think there is a balance at play here between subconscious acceptance and "higher resolution"
This also is the exact same problem in function, timing and structure.
The uncanny valley really does describe more than visual resonance. Been tolig with this idea for a while .. but Extra Credits put out an description also this week.