A Theory of Fun

As a goal for game design, "fun" is a pretty inane target.

What I mean is not that, "games shouldn't be fun because they are art and art doesn't need to be fun" or "challenge > fun" or other concepts that assume that fun is a clearly defined, objective concept like green or wet.

What I mean is that fun is a superlative quality. It's a qualitative, subjective and aesthetic descriptor of an experience. Like "beautiful" or "delicious", it's a goal. And, like those, but unlike, say, "verdant", "melodically complex", "savory", or "strategically complex", when you say it about something you aren't saying anything about what the thing is like. Terms like "fun" and "beauty" tell you about an entirely subjective feeling that occurs in the player or diner's head in response to all of the actual objective decisions that you made over the course of developing the game, piece of art, dish, whatever.

What is important, as a game designer, is to develop a theory of fun. Or, in another way of saying it, your point of view as a designer. It's not enough to simply say something like, "Jumping puzzles aren't fun" (even if you think they aren't), because that doesn't actually mean anything (other than you don't like them). You need to be able to communicate what (in your point of view) fun is, what it isn't, and how to make something that elicits fun.

Here's how I approach it. I'm sure there are other great ways to look at it but these are mine:

1. As a liberal arts college student, I did a lot of reading on aesthetics. I think it was really helpful to focus on other media, not games. Watching Man With a Movie Camera and The Last Laugh and trying to understand why one is the way it is and the other is so different helped solidify the thought that there are many paths to whatever "good" is considered in the medium (beautiful, delicious, fun, etc.)

It helps demonstrate that it's important to have a strong point of view and acknowledge that other people's point of view is acceptable, too.

2. I looked at the games I liked and tried to break them down. What was common to them? What specifically did I like and dislike about them? I tried to deconstruct the things I liked and determine what were the common elements that worked across game genres. 

You could ask yourself: do you like strategic decision making? Do you like skill tests? What kind of decisions are fun? What kind of skill tests are enjoyable? Is frustration ever fun? Does a game need failure to give context and weight to success?

3. Test your elements out. Make something that breaks your rules. Maybe your rules are stupid - after all, we acknowledged in step 1 that you don't necessarily know any more or better than anyone else does. Understand the complex reactions when you add, remove, or modify those elements.

4. Develop a language for talking about game design and fun. Hone in on what things like strategy, tactics, pacing, immersion, etc. mean. If you can't clearly explain it you probably don't understand it yourself.

5. Talk with other people about it, reminding yourself to keep an open mind and acknowledging that your point of view is just that - a point of view.