Bringing Play into Play
If fun is an important design principle, then what makes something fun?
As Paul discussed in a previous post, fun is a powerful way to connect with an audience. But if fun is so important, then we must ask: what makes something fun?
It’s easy to see why games like SSBB are fun. What’s not to like about getting together with a bunch of friends and beating the daylights out of each other in a frenzied orgy of color and sound? Now, contrast that with some gameplay from Grand Theft Auto IV…
"The mobster stuff is fun, but I'm just not looking for a committed relationship right now."
I spoke with one of my friends the other day who said he enjoyed the game, but didn’t like what he had to go through to maintain relationships with his in-game associates. Apparently, throughout the game, the protagonist has to keep his friends happy, or they may not come to his aid or give him new missions. Making them happy involves answering when they call you, going out drinking with them, etc. all while you’re trying to move ahead with the game. To be honest, it sounds pretty annoying. “Is that supposed to be fun?”, I asked.
Playing The Sims is like baby sitting. For stupid, highly flammable babies.
It reminds me of the Sims, who have to continually be told to eat, go the bathroom, and not let the house burn down, or they die. Unlike GTA4, it’s not optional, it’s essentially the whole game. Well, that and buying things. I never found it to be much fun. It's too close to real life to me. It sounds like a job. It sounds like work.
But wait a minute. The Sims is the best selling game series of all time and GTA4 just made a half billion dollars in one week; obviously these kinds of things are fun for some people. It seems that fun games aren’t just cartoony and fast-paced; they can be realistic and downright needy, too. But how can a game that sounds like work be any fun?
To answer this, it might be helpful to examine the distinction between work and play. If grinding Molten Core is fun, then it’s play; if not, it’s just work. I may be grossly over-simplifying here, but I think this is instructive. So rather than ponder what makes something fun, let’s consider the basic ingredients of play. As I see it there are two major components of a play experience:
- Lack of (unreasonable) consequences—One should be able to try and fail as much as they like, without harsh penalties. If there is no way to fail, you win all the time, and that’s no fun (like that episode of Twilight Zone). However, if failure carries too great a price, then trying is no fun. If the consequences are designed just right, it keeps things flowing; it’s motivating.
- Freedom—Play happens with the player’s choosing. This is an inherent property of games: one is never forced to play. In some of the best games, the player doesn’t even have to play in the conventional sense. The open world of Grand Theft Auto is one of the best examples of this. If so inclined, one can just drive around causing mayhem and never advance the story. Sometimes the best games are the ones you make for yourself.
I don’t consider this a guaranteed recipe for interactive fun, but I do think that, at a minimum, these are the requirements a designer must consider. Obviously, there’s more to making something fun than this, but it’s a place to start.
In general, whether designing a video game or a web application, one should endeavor to remove unneeded frustration and increase possibility for the user. Play is working with an unlimited ceiling and a comfy net to catch you. Otherwise, it’s just work-- and that’s not much fun.
