Friday, May 13th 2005 I did a lot of soul searching this week to come up with a good theme to start my weekly column: “The Horse’s Mouth”. I needed something that would resonate with gamers and designers, be of interest enough to amuse and attract future readers, and shamelessly promote Painted Horse Games’ first release, Evolution.

“… is this game fun to play?”

At their most fundamental level, games are meant to entertain their players. Though many games are designed with a secondary intent to educate, stimulate exercise or otherwise bring on awareness, without the nebulous property of being ‘fun’ all of these other benefits may as well as be absent. As designers, it is our goal to inject as much fun and entertainment into our projects as possible. I wish it where this easy in practice. You could smack yourself in the head and shout, “Of course! Nobody likes to make lots of meaningless dice rolls! Instead, lets have them do something fun!” Ah, the dream of what could be. I would never have had to lose hours of my life playing rotten games (Romance of the Three Kingdoms IV and Atmosfear, I’m looking at you).

If one could generate a contextual definition of what fun is, than this tactic may work. However, I have yet to hear of anyone who has put forth a universal set of conditions dictating what makes something fun (besides the rule of thumb that states when in doubt add pirates, zombies or monkeys). The key word here is universal. In the US, for example, football is a more favored pass time than soccer, which otherwise enjoys worldwide support. Many would argue most Americans are ignorant of the game, but youth leagues have been predominant throughout the states for many years (soccer moms and all that). Both games must be fun to command such a devoted following, but, in general, Americans find watching football more fun that watching soccer, and vice versa everywhere else (except India where cricket is king). On a more personal level, there are many games I enjoy where I can easily find people to play with (Bridge, Madden, L5R) and games I think are just as fun where I have to start calling in favors to get players (Amber RPG, Mythos, ICE’s Lord of the Rings CCG). While there is something to be said for personal preference, people must share some communal idea of what a good time is. The billions of dollars generated by the Pokemon CCG and Halo suggest that there are games which can be attractive to a mass audience and can be considered universally fun.

So, if these universally fun games exist, what do they possess that makes them fun? Theme? Mechanics? Innovation? Execution? Art? Advertising? Personal experience tells me the answer is that there is no one thing that makes these games fun, but many aspects, one or more of which a player identifies strongly with and declares fun. The more aspects the player enjoys the more fun the game. However helpful this definition is in a general sense, in fails in the particulars and I find it to often be lacking. The most obvious exception that pops into my head is the modern blockbuster movie. Carefully researched and screened, these multi-million dollar risks necessitate appealing to as many consumers as possible. Whether by reducing offensiveness or lacking focus, these efforts tend to produce rather bland viewing experiences (Sometimes even beyond the aid of pirates, zombies and monkeys).

This is where creativity and innovation come into the mix. I cannot stress how important creativity and innovation are in those games which are the most fun. I believe these two attributes explain the rise in popularity of Japanese media and German style board games; they are exotic. Creativity and innovation in a game can also compensate for many deficiencies, or render them moot (I’ve never heard anyone complain about the aesthetics of Cheapass Games!).  The trick with creativity and innovation is that players may not take to a game too far out of their comfort zone. This may be the reason why hobby games (and art films) do not have as much mass appeal until the market  has grown accustomed to it (Consider the modest following of Robotech in the 80’s and the popularity of Anime today).

The result? I believe fun is most likely to be found in games which exhibit a new twist on a familiar saw. Perhaps that is why we are seeing such a boom in games based on popular licenses, presenting a well known theme while providing creative mechanics (hopefully! We must be wary of properties like the ET video game, Austin Powers CCG and too many others to mention) or an old system with a thematic face lift in the proliferation of Monopoly clones. While I personally favor this definition, it is not perfect, and following it does not guarantee success (only testing can verify whether something is truly fun).

Now we come to the role the designer plays with their ability to recognize when something is, or is not, fun. Designers spend countless hours running through their designs, tweaking and occasionally completely revamping their games. One can easily lose perspective of whether a game is still fun when you have played it with a critical eye and it no longer resembles the original idea (Which reminds me of the time I took a course on Greek and Roman comedy – To understand 2500 year old jokes, you must have an analytical understanding of humor. I didn’t laugh for eight months; I was too busy evaluating every bit of comedy I ran across. Worst period of my life.).

This is what had happened with me while I was designing Evolution. After extensive testing I had significantly changed the game from my original vision and was beginning to feel disconnected from the game after working so long on perfecting the mechanics. Gameplay began to feel wooden and I was not having very much fun. I nearly gave up on the project, handing it to a group of playtesters to see if their comments would help me bring back that magic.

A few days after dropping off the game, the playtesting group had decided to crack it open and take a look at what was inside before they were going to go out clubbing. They played a couple of rounds and started generating some comments. Soon they decided to invite me over to observe and take their notes. Walking up to their house I could hear them laughing and carrying on. They really took to the theme and mechanics, marveling at the creatures they had created and their interactions with the other player’s creatures. When all was said and done, this group of playtesters had canceled their plans to go out and played Evolution for 7 hours straight! They had a great time every moment they were playing. I was mystified. How could I lose sight of a game that could so completely enrapture these players? Simply, I had gotten too close to my game and needed to step back.

I thoroughly believe that designers never intend to develop a poor game, but fall victim to pitfalls in the process. One of the most important steps of the process is playtesting, and in my opinion the lack is the most likely suspect in a game that is not fun to play. Designers take an idea which appeals to them and works it into a game, eventually getting lost in the endless minutiae that arise in making it playable. Before long, the game has changed from their initial vision and if it is not properly playtested with outside, neutral (even better, highly critical!) people, you have an un-fun game on your hands. However, playtesting in itself is useless unless the design team takes the proper steps to correct the flaws in the game, which takes plenty of time, creativity and humility. I suspect this is why games based on popular movie licenses are almost always disappointing. The designers rush a project to meet a movie debut and take advantage of the film’s marketing efforts and must sacrifice playtesting and/or subsequent corrections.

-Steven Diaz
President & Chief Game Designer, Painted Horse Games