What makes Game Fun?

Pritchard · Guru

SPOILER!

Games are fun because of universal attachment to the character.

ENDSPOILER!

Newer games are less fun than they used to, because the game's world has dropped it's connection to the main character.

An example of this is Zelda. In Zelda, everything your character shows is really well connected to the environment. Simple game play elements can be re-used over and over again in Zelda for a variety of different effects and purposes. For example, a very awesome world connection to the character is storing things in bottles. Catch a bug? Put it in a bottle! Have a potion? Put it in a bottle! What about fish? IN A #%$@ BOTTLE ALREADY!

As you can see, it's just a bottle. You put stuff in it. However, the way this bottle was used was genius. Although the bottle might just have an attribute stating what's in it and how much, and that being it, the creative ways that you can use this bottle is really fun. Who here will disagree with me on this? If you do, I'll give you a few points which make the bottle very interesting.

It forces the player to balance which items to keep in them and which not to. They take up inventory space, causing the player to have to find even more interesting ways to get things done. The item which the bottle is holding is visible, which allows the player to feel more connected to the game. The bottle it interactive. NPCs and other objects around can benefit or pay the price, depending on what's in the bottle.

Another example is barrier relation to the character. Barriers, such as wells, mountains, floors, etc., are generally made just to limit the player to a certain area of the game. The world isn't connected all that well, and development is limited. Put a barrier there. Barriers are everywhere in games, but the way that they are used can really change how fun a game is later on.

Let's give the barrier a property. Tell it whether or not it can be destroyed. If it can, by what? Fire, Ice, Lightning, Bombs, Special Sword? Even more importantly, what is behind the barrier, and when does the character get the objects which can break it? If you do something as simple as making a single, hardly ever changing set of rooms underneath a set of barriers, and the character can destroy them later on in the game, this gives the player something to look forward to. It gives them a reason to explore your world.

Even if 90% of the time, they won't find anything unique behind the barriers, or maybe just a simple item that is little more than uncommon to them, it will make your world seem 10x bigger. I guarantee it. It also boosts replay value. If you have an item that's collectible, and will eventually grant something if you have enough, players will want to go back and see what happens if they collect *all* of them.

Remember, nearly any game element can easily be turned into your "connected" or universal element to the character. It's generally a player stat, item, or pattern which the character has to play out. You don't even have to have a lot of them for the character to have a ton of fun. In fact, I believe Zelda has taken high advantage of simply having objects destructible. Something is behind the destroyed object. It could be nothing, it could be a monster, it could be an item, a room. Anything. Even though most of the time it's something simple, it's still very fun.

Let's take Halo as an example of a game that could have been more fun. Not that it wasn't fun, but here's what could have been improved. You find an awesome weapon in a room early on in the game, right? What can you do now? Kill more stuff! Wait, you were already doing that! Uh oh...Something as simple as I dunno, an item that was only hurt by plasma shots in a level where the plasma shot is hidden would have done just fine. An explosive wall? A vehicle which is over a secret passage, which only moves from big explosions? There's any number of objects that could be set to be reactive to another which the player has. Take advantage of this. Halo didn't. Most game's aren't any more.

I think developers focus too much on implementing an entirely new feature into their game rather than making quick, fun edits to older ones. This makes games harder to make fun. It makes the job harder on the developer, and generally the extra feature, if ever added, is just another element which should be connected to the character and it's environment.

Connectivity Ideas:

Life - Implement negative damage. Instead of hurting an object, you have to give it life beyond a certain level. It then reacts and opens something, explodes, or some other secret.

Universal Stat or Item - Have one object in your game be the universal object you fall back on to implement secrets. Zelda has things like Bombs, Bottles, and new attacks. Your game might have explosive walls, too. Maybe, instead of an actual item, certain stats are connected to the objects instead! You can only move a heavy object if you have X amount of strength, or only blow up an object if your level is at least Y high. ^.^;;

Character Itself - Make small changes to the character's looks over time. As the character grows and acquires new stats, perhaps they can show it? This has been done before, and usually it works. Some games I felt got it wrong, but most seem to pull this one off right. Look to Megaman for an example of this one. I can't think of a game off the top of my head that does this for you, in a good way, automatically.

Don't Separate Features by Landscape - Too often, an area of a game will only have weak or lower level objects in them. Why? This lowers replay level. Sort out objects which can be accessed early on without breaking gameplay rules and stability (ex: making a character too strong), or which can be re-entered later on to take advantage of newer elements introduced. Even better is a feature a character will probably only try out after they already know about it. Give played extra "thank you for playing this again!" playability boosts their second or third time round, m'kay?

I hope I learnt you something,
Pritchard

notthecheatr · Master

Entirely true. I think I would be fairly bored with RPGs in general if the characters weren't interesting. Of course, in MMORPGs I *become* the character, so it's an entirely different story there...

Pritchard · Guru

1000101 · Hero

You know, if anything about Zelda was worth mentioning, it certainly wasn't the bottle. Yeah, neat, cool, but not that special.

SSC · Sr. Member

Good ideas and comments, but this barely scratches the surface of what can make games good. The depth and interaction possibilities are nearly endless and only limited by the developers imagination.

I do think that games are getting less fun as time goes on, there are exceptions of course, but in general it seems like they arent putting in the extra effort to make these games as good as they should be. If they thought about some of the simple concepts you brought up here I honestly think modern games would be better.

cha0s · Site Admin

I thought it was a well thought out article. Good read.

Deleter · Master

Uh, I think you've missed a lot of what can make a fun, and put too much emphasis on stuff that can be fun but doesn't have to be, as well as gotten a couple things blatantly wrong.

I don't see why you mention a universal stat or item, most games have a default weapon/item that can be utilized in several ways. Thats more of a staple than a way to ensure enjoyability.

Your idea about life, while not used often if at all, could prove fun, however it doesn't seem to have much potential beyond that.

Now the things you've seemed to miss. If anything, game worlds have gotten even more interactive and dynamic, not less. Example: physics simulation. Sure in Zelda certain walls had key ways of breaking, now we have levers and all sorts of physics contraptions to figure out (half life 2 for example).

And I agree about that bottle, so what, its a bottle. It doesn't have very ingenious gameplay if you ask me, I don't see what you see in it.

Have you ever heard of Fable? The changing of the characters looks is another thing that is getting more exposure, not less.

Overall not a bad read, but it seems to explore stuff already being explored, and erroneously ignoring modern day examples of what you speak of. I had been of the idea that games today are not as fun and going downhill, but I'm beginning to think that this viewpoint is wrong. The stuff that people complain about, graphics and physics, for stealing the fun out of games, I think are in fact starting to pay back for their investment. New games provide quirks and entertaining features that without the progress on graphics and physics wouldn't have been possible. A good example of physics is both half life 2 and prey. The gravity gun and the ability in prey to mess around with gravity have brought some great strides to gameplay. In c&c3, the graphics engine is utilized very well in an overall effort to provide an interesting and intriguing setting and atmosphere that really draws you into the game. The same is true of oblivion, where I honestly sat still for minutes on end staring at the sunset, amazed that this was just a game. This really pulled me into the game and kept me playing long after the games shortcomings would have had me playing something else.

I think that while these technologies were new (and I guess still are) the developers have been struggling to keep up with them, so they just had them in their games but they weren't utilized very well for fun. We are beginning to see a shift in this, as developers get more experienced with the technology and are starting to harness and utilize it for fun's sake.

While these ideas have some potential for fun, they are quite far from the core issues and needs for a game to be fun.

Pritchard · Guru

Deleter, I graciously thank you for your input. I felt that I was too tired and that what I wrote was already too long and unorganized. I wanted to focus on certain aspects of "fun" that is missing. I'm not going to explain every little detail of what could make a game fun.

Hell, wacking yourself in the nuts can be considered fun...Wait, so can putting your hand on your ass. And. . . [continue loop of infinite possibilities here]

Deleter · Master

SSC · Sr. Member

Some key items to make a game more enjoyable:

1. Make the user think, all games should have strategic or intellectual challenges (however broad) - this is one of the most important elements to making a game fun IMO

2. All games that portray a story should have character depth to some degree (the more in depth the story the more should be revealed throughout the game about the characters, unless of course the story is made to hide facts about that character)

3. Using tried and true methods of gameplay (with a personal twist) is a good idea. There are very few ideas that have not been explored to some degree, and while innovation and new ideas CAN be good, they often fail and leave users disappointed. So in part I disagree with the whole 'physics movement' that’s making games better. Yes, Half Life 2 was one of the better games I have played, however it was based on the original Half Life which was also a success. The gravity gun and other physics related parts are fun but the gameplay itself was based on a tried and true method.

4. More often than not, if you use the idea that 'more is better' the users will have a better experience. For example: if you have an RPG that has either a strict storyline, minimal side quests, and/or limited character development, then that will hurt the fun factor considerably. You could have the best story in the world, the best side quests ever designed, but no character development and it would more than likely only be a mediocre game.

In any case this is all merely my opinion, and I have many more on the subject ^^

Deleter · Master

SSC · Sr. Member

Deleter · Master

Lachie Dazdarian · Master

Pritchard, that was a good read. You should submit this text to QB Express, perhaps altered if you feel so.

I agree with most of your points, but like someone already said it, you didn't cover it all.

Anyway, I'm one of those who think that there are no rules in game design. I'm not saying that you shouldn’t follow any rules and that some guidelines can't take you to an excellent product, but you can create something beautiful following your own ideas and concepts or breaking the very rules someone religiously followed just as well. I believe in the X-factor, and the X-factor is indefinable. It can be anything. For one game it’s this, for the other something else. Gameplay, atmosphere, art, original features. You name it.

Nifflas and his games (http://nifflas.ni2.se) are a wonderful example how concepts used zillion of times before can be so fresh and immersive when wrapped in original style, a cool flavor of dreamlike graphics and music.

Then there's Bernie and his AGS adventure games. I highly recommend Cedric and the Revolution (http://www.origamihero.com/games.php#3). Yet another Monkey Island style adventure game without a hint of originality (in gameplay and graphics style), and it's still brilliant. Why? Great writing and graphics.

So yes, there are no rules, but some rules can't hurt. :P

Pritchard · Guru

Definitely.

Sometimes when I imagine a game I'd like to make (which I never do, as you all know), I see something that *looks* really cool. All together, it would be! Unfortunately, I don't think any developer ever really can make their game to the finer details, how they imagined it. Maybe it's not as fun as they thought in the end, too.

Step-by-Step development's good for this kind of thing. It's never really too hard to add a simple, fun to repeat feature to an already existing one. Maybe it's making your jump wobbly, or your gun shots look crazy. I dunno :P The more you move forward in development, the more features you basically just skipped over.

Sadly, these aren't quizzes. Not always so easy to just go back and add the features you want. (ex: we have something called mainframes) My point is that when designing a game, the entirety of the game itself should remain conceptual until it's complete. You want direction, of course, but why not a road with forks? :P