'Fun' is a difficult abstract concept without a hard definition - you can no more define a process that makes a game fun than a process for painting a great work of art, so as such there's no guarantee. The best technique is simply to iterate on your mechanics through playing, disassembling what worked and what didn't, rebuild your mechanics and iterate once more.
Nevertheless, there are a few standout books in the field. 'A Theory of Fun for Game Design' is a reasonable read off the top of my head, although it is short and brief. 'Chris Crawford on Game Design' is also reasonable, as it has a lot of first-hand information about specific projects, but it also lacks any depth or formal processes. Whilst there are some good articles, I don't think any single article ever really goes into enough depth.
I really need to get around to finishing up some of my work on Game Design, but formalising so many abstract concepts is a real pain.
You can't guarantee fun but like "rules" in art, you can get a decent understanding of what works simply by emulating what has already been done and proven.
You need to figure out what are supposed to be the fun parts of your game, sometimes just having tight controls and good mechanics feel good and fun to control. Sometimes the fun is over coming obstacles, or progressing through the story. Sometimes games have parts of the game that are designed to not be fun and are frustrating, which is just as valid and can work well.
I was taught that the fundamentals of a fun game were: Balance, skill, chance, and reward.
This - and moreover a very easy way to get to - don't need long installations, don't need fancy registration. Same goes for the ui and menu.
Also the standard sentence "easy to learn - hard to master" would i put into the definition of an funny game.
I wouldn't describe 'Last of Us' as a "fun" game, for the same reasons I wouldn't call 'Saving Private Ryan' a "fun" movie.
I feel this is a very valid point. This allows you to ask the question, 'what makes a game fun?', in a more precise way(or more abstract way, depending on which direction you are trying to go). I would start with: What makes you enjoy the game?
There are countless games I've enjoyed that I wouldn't box into only the 'fun' category. They are balanced with many other aspects that also make them 'challenging', 'memorable', 'touching', 'beautiful', etc. etc. - all things that make me really enjoy the game.
I would approach the question from this angle. Keep in mind, this is the perspective of an artist, not a game designer. So they're may be some magical hero's journey to making a game 'fun' that I simply don't know about.
Replies
Nevertheless, there are a few standout books in the field. 'A Theory of Fun for Game Design' is a reasonable read off the top of my head, although it is short and brief. 'Chris Crawford on Game Design' is also reasonable, as it has a lot of first-hand information about specific projects, but it also lacks any depth or formal processes. Whilst there are some good articles, I don't think any single article ever really goes into enough depth.
I really need to get around to finishing up some of my work on Game Design, but formalising so many abstract concepts is a real pain.
http://wiki.polycount.com/CategoryGameDesign
This - and moreover a very easy way to get to - don't need long installations, don't need fancy registration. Same goes for the ui and menu.
Also the standard sentence "easy to learn - hard to master" would i put into the definition of an funny game.
This is a core aspect of fun for certain games, such as the games Sid Meier makes.
However, a series of interesting choices is not necessarily 'fun'
I wouldn't describe 'Last of Us' as a "fun" game, for the same reasons I wouldn't call 'Saving Private Ryan' a "fun" movie.
Yeah you play last of us for the story (and environments, Naughty Dog has awesome vistas in their games).
I feel this is a very valid point. This allows you to ask the question, 'what makes a game fun?', in a more precise way(or more abstract way, depending on which direction you are trying to go). I would start with: What makes you enjoy the game?
There are countless games I've enjoyed that I wouldn't box into only the 'fun' category. They are balanced with many other aspects that also make them 'challenging', 'memorable', 'touching', 'beautiful', etc. etc. - all things that make me really enjoy the game.
I would approach the question from this angle. Keep in mind, this is the perspective of an artist, not a game designer. So they're may be some magical hero's journey to making a game 'fun' that I simply don't know about.