Theory of Fun for Game Design

"This is a fun-spirited book. It alternates pages of text with whimsical cartoon. The text on one page continues the idea of the text two pages previous, and the cartoon on one page often continues an idea from the previous cartoon, while also tying in to the text.<br/><br/>This book stands as a call to action to game designers to step beyond the traditional formal abstract systems used in games. Such systems teach skills we would have needed as cavemen (such as aiming, territory, and timing), but Koster proposes that games can be created to train people in more advanced social issues instead. He examines the media of existing art forms and uses this analysis to argue that games are just another medium that can serve as an art to illuminate more about human nature, a medium that is sometimes disdained because theories of game criticism are still in their infancy.<br/><br/>Toward the end, the book gets a bit too abstract and philosophical in nature, rambling in a vague bugle-blaring tone to turn the previous information into a prolonged call for action.<br/><br/><spoiler><br/>*Koster provides academics’ and game designers’ definitions of a game (p. 12, 14)<br/>*"Noise is any pattern we don't understand" (p. 24).<br/>*The brain operates on three levels: conscious thought, memory storage and access, and reflexive or autopiloted action (p. 28-30).<br/>*Games are abstractions, but most our perception of reality is abstractions, so therefore games are real (p. 34).<br/>*Games are tools for learning because they provide experiences rather than just principles (p. 36).<br/>*In presenting information, games have to balance between deprivation (nothing new, only repetitive patterns) and overload (nothing recognizable, only noise) (p. 42,44).<br/>“That’s what games are, in the end. Teachers. Fun is just another word for learning.” (p. 46)<br/>*When fighting games get negative attention, it’s important to remember that games about conflict are also often games about teamwork and social hierarchy (p. 58).<br/>*Games teach us things related to survival as cavemen, such as aiming, timing, hunting, territory, and projecting power (p. 64-7), but many of these are not relevant to our current real-world needs (p. 66, 68). For games to become art, their mechanics must teach us about what it means to be human (p. 178-81), which means that they need to break away from representations of things cavemen needed to survive (p. 183).<br/>*The key to a game’s success is it’s abstract structure, yet this structure is often ignored in favor of the narrative casing (p. 84). Writing a story and then grafting game obstacles onto it is a backward approach (p. 86).<br/>*Kvell is “the emotion you feel when bragging about someone you mentor” (p. 92).<br/>*Because games rely upon formal abstract systems, they are more likely to appeal to people with systematizing brains (rather than empathizing brains, although social games can still appeal to an empathizing element). The statistical tendency to find the most systematizing brains in young men may account in part for that demographic’s predominance as customers of in the game industry, similarly to how older women dominate the book industry (p. 102-4). Games can also help to train people to get better at things that they’re naturally weak at (p. 102, 108).<br/>*A “ludeme” is a basic unit of gameplay (p. 118). Successful games usually incorporate the six ludemes of preparation, a sense of space, a solid core mechanic, a range of challenges, a range of abilities required, and skill required to use them (p. 120). To support learning, games should have a feedback system, encourage players to play at their own difficulty level, and weigh failure with a cost (p. 122).<br/>*Game designers work to increase the possibility space, while players work to reduce it (p. 128, 130).<br/>*Games (or rather the structure underlying games) is a medium that can be an art form (p. 140-59).<br/>*Often a “new” game is created by adding a new dressing to an existing structure rather than developing a new one (p. 166).<br/>*Although it’s not clear that games have a significant impact upon thought, they may, so it’s safer to act when designing them as though your actions may have repercussions (p. 208).<br/></spoiler>"