Theory of Fun for Game Design

“gamification” which attempts to use the trappings of games (reward structures, points, etc.) to make people engage more with product offerings. Does it miss the point of games? It is often layered on top of systems that lack the rich interpretability of a good game. A reward structure alone does not a game make.

Classifying, collating, and exercising power over the contents of a space is one of the fundamental lessons of all kinds of gameplay.

Remember, we live most of our lives in the unconscious. Action games let us stay there, whereas games that demand careful consideration of logistics might require logical, conscious thought. So we play variations on old, often irrelevant challenges because, frankly, it’s easier.

The definition of a good game is therefore “one that teaches everything it has to offer before the player stops playing.”

Given that we’re basically hierarchical and strongly tribal primates,* it’s not surprising that so many of the basic lessons taught by our early childhood play are about power and status. Think about how important these lessons still are within society, regardless of your particular culture. Games almost always teach us tools for being the top monk

why learning is so damn boring to so many people. It’s almost certainly because the method of transmission is wrong. We praise good teachers by saying that they “make learning fun.” Games are very good teachers...of something. The question is, what do they teach?

Fun is just another word for learning.* Games teach you how aspects of reality work, how to understand yourself, how to understand the actions of others, and how to imagine.

As we age, we think that things are more serious and that we must leave frivolous things behind.

It’s worth asking ourselves what skills are more commonly needed today. Games should be evolving towards teaching us those skills.