What is the Source of “Fun” in Game Mechanics?

News & General Discussion
1

(Better named: 'What is the Source of “Engagement” in Game Mechanics?)
Greetings Unity Community!

I’ve spent the last few years strengthening my C# and Unity chops with the goal of making PC / Console games. Recently, I reached a level of proficiency where I am ready to begin actually making games. Only now that I strive to actually create something that I recognize greatest challenge before me:

I don’t recognize the source of “fun” in game mechanics.
(For clarification, I’m using “fun” as a shorthand for “enjoyable and/or compelling”)

I appreciate a wide variety of games. Baldur’s Gate II, Alan Wake, Limbo, Cart Life, Don’t Starve, Bioshock, and Super Mario RPG are some of my favorites. I play them, I study them, and I can discuss their merits for hours, but I cannot identify what makes their game mechanic enjoyable.

  • Why is identifying loot fun in Baldur’s Gate II?
  • Why is firing the flare gun fun in Alan Wake?
  • Why is shocking Splicers fun in Bioshock?
  • Why is shaving Beefalo fun in Don’t Starve?
  • Why is timing your attacks fun in Super Mario RPG?

I’m a junkie for documentaries and seminar videos, and I’ve spent countless days watching and taking notes. I’ve read a number of game design books. What I haven’t done is actually spoken with the community.

So, I ask you all: “What makes a game mechanic fun?”

This question is deeply important to me. I have numerous game concepts, many described in great detail – but the moment I attempt to apply a game mechanic, they lose their luster. Likewise, when I look closely at games I love, those mechanics don’t seem fun either.

I truly and sincerely hope this thread will inspire a discussion that may help myself and other developers better understand the essence of fun in game mechanics.

If it doesn’t? I hope this topic will let other developers with similar challenges know that they are not alone.

Thank you all in advance!

  • S.

NOTE: In a later post, I clarify that the term I actually should have used was “Engagement”, not simply “fun”.

5 Likes
2

This is a great question and it shows that you’re ready to don your Game Designer hat.

First, you should be aware that there are a number of decent books on the topic… some on my shelf are Game Design Theory & Practice, and The Art of Game Design. Both are decent books but can be a bit of a slog at times (not nearly as much fun as their subject matter!). Our own @Gigiwoo has an excellent podcast on game design, too. And you’ll find frequent articles on game design at places like Gamasutra. All this is material you should ingest, digest, and absorb as much as you can.

But I’ll give you my own Grand Theory of Fun, with the caveat that some designers disagree. And it’s simple: Fun is when the player has a feeling that they’ve accomplished something.

This sense of accomplishment can come from many sources, but they often group into a couple of major categories: the user has overcome a difficult obstacle, or they have obtained something they didn’t have before. In the latter category, that could be a new skill (which often goes hand-in-hand with the first category), or it could be a purely in-game bit of swag. It can also be progress towards a goal, either explicit or self-selected.

However, in-game swag and progress are both measured in percentage terms against either what you’ve done before, or (in the case of goal progress) how far you have yet to go. This is why many games (especially idle clicker games, which rely almost entirely on this particular source of fun) have an exponential inflation of the reward over time. When I have 100 cookies, getting 10 more feels like an accomplishment. But if I have 20 million cookies, getting 10 more feels like a waste of time (which is the opposite of achievement, thus not fun). I need to be earning cookies by the tens of thousands to get the same sense of accomplishment.

I haven’t actually played any of those games you cite, but I can make some very vague guesses… let me know how well they ring true:

  • Identifying loot is an accomplishment (thus fun) because you gain knowledge you didn’t have before — especially if the loot turns out to be very useful, in which case you also have useful swag you didn’t have before.
  • Flare gun in Alan Wake… uh, never heard of that one. I’m going to pass.
  • Shocking Splicers… well if this is like most combat, it feels like an accomplishment mainly because of the “overcoming difficult obstacle” thing. It can be far more intense if the enemies you’re overcoming have seriously cheesed you off in the past, in which case you also acquire revenge, which (sadly, perhaps) also brings a strong sense of accomplishment.
  • Shaving Beefalo… really? I need to game more. Again haven’t a clue, but I bet if you look for the sense of accomplishment, you’ll find it. (Or else it’s just funny, but see below.)
  • Timing Super Mario RPG attacks: sounds like Overcoming Difficult Obstacle to me. I imagine this is not easy; at first you can’t do it; when you can do it, you have acquired a skill you didn’t have before, which is a great accomplishment (as long as it’s something you care about).

Note that this theory also explains humor, to some extent, though I’ll admit it’s a bit of a stretch. Most humor is our reaction when we suddenly realize we had been misinterpreting something. The laughter helps lock in the realization so we don’t make the same mistake again, which is why the same joke isn’t so funny a second time. It’s an accomplishment in the sense that you now have a realization you didn’t have before… but I think humor is a very special case and plays by its own rules, so we probably shouldn’t shoe-horn it in here.

Anyway, that’s my theory of game design. Make the player feel like every hour (or 5 minutes, for casual games) that they put into the game has gained them something — the more tangible and sincere you can make this feeling, the more fun it will be.

5 Likes
3

A great topic for discussion.

Remember there is a very much personal aspect to these things. I think it is fun to train (exercise) very intensely. I get a huge amount of enjoyment suffering through it. A lot of people would say that is not fun at all.

Likewise, there are games I think are very fun that you and others would probably say they are not very fun at all.

So I’d say the very first thing needed… the base requirement that makes something fun is a connection between that activity and the player. The player must connect with it and only then can they find it to be fun. If they never connect they will not be able to find the fun in it.

3 Likes
4

@JoeStrout :

Thank you greatly for your quick, yet thoughtful response!

I apologize for the delay in mine. I wanted to take some time to read the Difficulty vs. Accomplishment thread to which you linked, as well as watch the video of your TEDx presentation (which I enjoyed greatly).

Thank you also for the recommendations! I’m currently in the process of reading:

I’ve noted your recommendations and will certainly consider them as part of my next batch!

I’m largely inclined to agree. I’m unusually goal-driven, and as such, my motivations align well with your accomplishment statement.

My most memorable gaming moments, however, are overwhelmingly moments of “discovery”. In the context of Minecraft, I remember the first time I stumbled upon an underground ravine (is there a more technical term?). I also remember the first time I stumbled on an Enderman. I personally found these moments fun. Would you agree, and would this still fit into your definition of “accomplishment”, or would you define “discovery” as something entirely different?

Dopamine’s diminishing return is a fine example of human adaptation. XD

All true enough, especially considering that you haven’t played the games in question!

Perhaps humor would be a form of “discovery” as well?

Another thought:

Thanks to the aforementioned book “Game Mechanics - Advanced Game Design”, I’ve been thinking a lot about game economies. In this context, the term “economy” references any resource that can be influenced by or influences the player. Money, health, time, friends, or even strategic positioning could all be representative of this. Resources can be created by sources, destroyed by drains, traded, or converted. I wonder whether or not a Player’s sense of accomplishment could be expressed as a resource? Failure would drain accomplishment. Time / effort could be converted into accomplishment, but with a diminishing rate of exchange.

Could there be a benefit to viewing player engagement as a resource?

Relative to the intent of my original post:

The focus of my post was meant to be more specific than, unfortunately, I feel I conveyed.

Let me see if I can hone in on my point with an example:

Imagine a game focused on bartering. Your goal, as a Player, is to successfully negotiate trades and to, over the course of numerous exchanges, increase your net worth. As a game designer, you wish to use an approach to bartering that fun, but you also wish to maintain a level of congruence between the Player’s activity, and what is concurring in the game.

Some possible approaches to bartering:

  • Physics-based tug-of-war game where the position of the product relative to the center point determines the value you obtain for the item relative to its cost
  • Match-three game where winning determines whether or not you make the sale, and the number of points the value
  • Dungeons-and-Dragons randomized skill check approach where a dice-roll is modified by your barter skill versus your opponent’s
  • Tretris-like game where you must arrange Tertrominos to achieve a Tetris as quickly as possible while the value of your transaction gradually diminishes
  • Story-based trading where the success and value of the trade depends on your ability to read the personality of the other character

All of the above could be considered valid approaches to the bartering system. Some I don’t like because they are far removed from what they represent in-game. Others have a heavy reliance on luck, diminishing the value of Player skill. That aside, how would one determine that it would be fun?

At their most fundamental level, it all resolves into to pushing a button / joystick / mouse. Is mashing the “A” button actually fun? Is clicking through a series of text links? Is arranging blocks into lines? In truth, I don’t see the fun in any of these options, but I know that they all are in the correct context–and this could be the correct context. How does one see the fun in a particular approach?

If we value any particular approach purely on the basis of its accomplishment feedback, why wouldn’t the Match-three option be the clear winning?

Please, don’t interpret any of my questions as sarcastic. These truly are the questions for which I seek answers.

Again, thank you so much!

  • S.

Edit: Forgot to respond regarding @Gigiwoo 's podcast. I actually stumbled on his podcast immediately after posting this topic. I will most certainly check it out. Thank you for the lead!

1 Like
5

It also depends on what time/effort market you are going for. Many people find clickers tedious but if you have 1min & need a game to distract you without taxing your brain then they are fun (I know, I play one multiple times a day & everyone looks at me in disgust/disbelief that I keep going back to it). The fun in it for e though is also trying to find a way to get the next tier which is a massive, & I mean massive, jump from the previous one (I can get to it in one day of casual playing but can’t get past it after even a week of more frequent play. I know there’s a way but I haven’t worked it out yet).

For longer games people find the fun in the total immersion, others like finding loot, yet others like tweaking numbers to customise their character. Could you make a game that satisfies all of them? Probably not as people would be looking for the depth (that they find fun) that wouldn’t be there, or if it was then that depth in that area would likely push people away that found fun in deeper aspects other than that.

My personal test is once I prototype the mechanic I find the rest tedious (art, effects, sound, menus etc) & it’s hard to get motivated to work on the rest of the project. If I turn the PC on & find myself playing the game rather than working on it when I’m trying to do something to it then I think it must be fun. If I find I turn the PC on, get into the game, & then get distracted by anything other than working on the game or playing it then it probably isn’t fun.

But, as was said above, fun is personal so your best test is to prototype it then start getting it in front of people that don’t even know about what you are doing & watch them play. If they get into it, are laughing, looking like they are enjoying yourself then we’ll done. If they look bored, or like they are just playing for the minimum time they can without offending you then it probably isn’t fun.

2 Likes
6

Thank you! :slight_smile:

Certainly. The nature of experience is largely subjective.

What is seek is a general understanding of how Tetris can be fun. I know it is. I can observe others enjoying it. I can enjoy it. Yet, when I look at it closely, it seems incredibly tedious. Yet for me, and many others, it’s not, and I don’t understand why.

This is the “why” I seek.

Thank you for taking to respond, and make your valid point!

  • S.
7

I find this humorous, because that’s not the question to ask. Mechanics alone aren’t the source of “fun.” Instead it’s in systems (or dynamics as the MDA framework puts it) that create drama and tension and anything else that goes into engagement. That’s not to say that a mechanic can’t feel satisfying or pack a punchline, but this has more to do with the feedback of the mechanic than the actual game logic of the mechanic.

3 Likes
8

@tedthebug :

Thank you for your response!

Firstly, I just wanted to note that I posted my rather lengthy response to @JoeStrout only moments before you posted, so I’m not certain whether or not you had a chance to read it (or whether or not it would have affected your response in any way).

I have a few different projects that are nearly development-worthy, so my potential audience varies slightly. Almost universally, I would define my audience as “not casual” and either edgy or counter-cultural. Most also place an emphasis on setting/atmosphere. Everything else varies by concept.

I am hoping to develop an understanding of fun that transcends my own projects. I want to be able to look at a click game and say, “I can see why that would be fun” instead of having to play it to experience it (which I have and did).

“Supermodel Pearl-Diving Simulator”!!! 8D

In all seriousness, point taken. Frequently, the wider the audience, the more shallow the product.

That’s absolutely a valid approach. Much like a sprint to the minimum viable product.

My personal experience with this is that since many of my concepts are either very atmospheric in nature of involve a number of intertwined mechanics, there is still a considerable time investment in such prototypes. In my example given in response to JoeStrout, would that not mean numerous prototypes for many different mechanics? If that’s the case, it doesn’t seem scale-able.

Perhaps such an approach is exactly what is necessary: refining an inherent recognition of fun via production of numerous prototypes with varying degrees of fun and not fun. If that is the ultimate solution, so be it, but I’d love to explore a more fundamental understanding of what makes a mechanic fun first!

At the end of the day, though, it’ll always be the audience who determines how fun a game is. So, of course, in the end, you really are right. :slight_smile:

Thank you so much again!

  • S.
9

Yes, I recently played the game Journey. There’s a sequence where there’s some abstract monsters trying to get you, but it’s all pretty tame visually (and “mechanically” there’s very little going on). The super tense music makes up for it though; it “feels” tense. Part of the enjoyment of a game can be the emotional impact of some audio, a nice looking sunset, or the visceral sensation of firing a weapon and seeing/hearing the consequences. That’s going to differ a lot by person.

Games that take advantage of the “anticipating non-predictable rewards” thing can trigger dopamine release, so something that helps with that, like random loot drops I suppose you could say is a game mechanic. That’s just part of the puzzle though.

I’d say it’s difficult to try to pull out individual pieces of a game to determine which part is the “fun engine”, when it’s generally all elements together that build the experience.

5 Likes
10

@RockoDyne :

Thank you for the link. I suspect that document is the original source for a number of more recent material that I watched / read.

If I understand you correctly, mechanics are of little value except in their ability to encourage or discourage other elements?

Would it therefor be a fair assessment, then, to say that the value of a mechanic can be judged by the degree to which it reinforces the core aesthetic of your game? If that were the case, it would also benefit to remove any mechanic of no particular value to this aesthetic.

Perhaps my error has been in considering game mechanics in vacuo.

I’ve come across similar statements numerous times before, but I failed to grasp their meaning outside of the context within which they were presented. I actually had to read your post a few times. Its content is simple, but my mind was apparently resistant to actual comprehension of its essence.

RockoDyne, thank you greatly. Your post was truly invaluable.

  • S.
11

@Steve-Tack :

Firstly, your username interests me! I was previously informed by Unity staff that usernames cannot contain spaces. Your would seem to indicate otherwise.

On the topic at hand: Thank you for the response!

Indeed, as I just commented in my response to RockoDyne, I think my error was partially in considering mechanics separate from all other elements, as opposed to in support of a single “vivid effect” to quote Edgar Allan Poe’s “Philosophy of Composition.”

Agreed. The more I think of it now, the more I realize that mechanics are inconsequential, except in the context of whether and to what degree they help or hinder the game’s primary aesthetic(s).

To be frank, I am beginning to feel sheepish that the solution was so obvious, and something that I failed to grasp from so many prior sources. Am I the only person who failed to realize this? Heh heh.

Still, I’m interested in knowing if anyone has a differing opinion. Whether or not anyone has another qualitative measurement for the fun or value of a mechanic separate from a game’s aesthetic.

Thank you!

  • S.
1 Like
12

I see plenty of user names with spaces in them. Maybe they changed the rules and I got grandfathered in.

Anyway, here’s a book on the topic at hand that I enjoyed:
http://www.amazon.com/Designing-Games-Guide-Engineering-Experiences/dp/1449337937/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453160122&sr=8-1&keywords=designing+games+engineering+experiences

It’s not super long and the author has an easy-to-read conversational style. The author was on the Bioshock Infinite dev team. I’m not sure there’s a ton of 100% unique insights or anything, but it does get into all of the kinds of things you’re asking about.

1 Like
13

Quite possibly!

Excellent! Thank you for the link. It’s on my list. :slight_smile:

Relative to Bioshock Infinite:

Kevin Levine’s discussions on storytelling in games are amongst my favorites. I was saddened to hear that he was seeking to eliminate storytelling entirely in his future games.

I’m also blessed to be friends with a few people in the credits of Bioshock Infinite, but all of them joined the team rather late, so had a relatively limited impact on the final release.

I feel that today’s discussion, if nothing else, illustrates that how something is said can be more important than whether or not it has been said before.

Thank you again, greatly!

  • S.
14

It’s hard to judge what the effect on aesthetics are from a mechanical level. It’s the effects on dynamics that ultimately build aesthetics, so it’s necessary to understand why the dynamics are out of order. If you understand the dynamics at play, then you might not need to cut it as you might be able to fix it.

1 Like
15

I think a big part of what makes anything fun is what a person brings to it. Like, I don’t think a robot would find a computer game to be fun, no matter how many “fun” things you insert into the game.

Years ago I played a game where I gained the ability to make huge leaping movements that could carry me across terrains and atop buildings. After having played so many games for so many years where I was restricted to slowly moving along the ground and around each obstacle, it was just so refreshing - and fun! - to jump over it all. I think I actually spent about 2 hours doing nothing but jumping around. Some of it was enjoying freedom, and some of it was discovering new areas and viewpoints.

In the same game I was able to get a flying power, but it wasn’t the same. It turns out I simply like running and jumping. Not long ago I was helping to beta test a character controller, and there I was again running and jumping all over the place.

So … no real rewards going on so far as I can tell. No real accomplishments, unless you count jumping over a cube over and over and over again. No discovery. Just the fun of running around.

Likewise, I recently made a scene with a car that I can drive. I’ve noticed that when I test the scene, after I figure out what I needed to, I often will go ahead and hop in the car and drive around for a minute, pretending I need to check something, even though I’ve already done that dozens of times. There’s nothing to discover and it’s not a very big scene, but I still do it. :slight_smile:

3 Likes
16

This is the best book I’ve read on the subject:

2 Likes
17

I love this book. I have a physical set of the deck of cards as well as an iPad version that lets you do a random 4 card draw to make you think through random things in relation to your game design. I highly recommend all of them

4 Likes
18

Also, if you want the short and dirty answer for what’s fun I’ll give you my personal philosophy. There’s four reasons to play a game.

  1. Mastery - Getting better at something then raising the stakes again and again. This is where hard games and online versus games thrive the most.

  2. Discovery - Exploring, figuring systems out, acquiring new items, and advancing the story to find out what will happen. Open world games do this the best.

  3. Escapism - Living in the game world, getting caught up in the story and the lore, falling in love with characters, feeling like you’re in the world. Story driven games.

  4. Primal - Appealing to the most basic urges of the brain in an often exploitive manner. So blood and guts violence, gratuitous sex, pandering and conditioning the player, exploiting hoarding compulsion. Skinner box games and novelty games like Mortal Kombat do this the best.

Anyway, that’s my take.

EDIT:
Actually, two more occurred to me.

  1. Therapeutic - Games that help improve you by being calming, helping people overcome trauma/PTSD, or games that are educational. I think everyone knows games can be zen like. If someone has PTSD violent games have been proven invaluable for treatment since it allows the player to choose their engagement to the violence. And learning works best when players are engaged.

  2. Social - This one could fall under #4 if the player lacks it in other places in their life, but even for most people there is something to be said about the community of a game and how it brings people together.

Okay, that’s it.

6 Likes
19

I don’t think, you can generalise which mechanics are fun or not. I think gameplay mechanics are most enjoyable, when they get to a point where repetition doesn’t become boring.

All gameplay is to some extend repetitive. Repetition at some point becomes boring, there’s really nothing you can do about it. The only thing you can do is trying to push that point as far behind, as possible. There’s no general recipe for it, you have to try and ask yourself: would I still like my game after playing it for hours?

Positive examples I think would be MGSV, the Assassin’s Creed series and GTA - of course there are others to, but if you think about it, in those games you do the same things all the time, the only thing that sets them apart from the competition, is that repetitive actions don’t become boring - at least not quickly.

Another aspect is reward. Looting in a lot of games is boring as hell and many people don’t enjoy it at all, but attractive rewards (items, experience aso.) make up for it.

So you should have either mechanics that don’t become boring, or reward your players for investing time in your game.

1 Like
20

If you give people a clear set of rules to follow to achieve something then anything can be fun at least once.

2 Likes