A Theory of Fun for Game Design is not your typical how-to book. It features a novel way of teaching interactive designers how to create and improve their designs to incorporate the highest degree of fun. As the book shows, designing for fun is all about making interactive products like games highly entertaining, engaging, and addictive. The book’s unique approach of providing a highly visual storyboard approach combined with a narrative on the art and practice of designing for fun is sure to be a hit with game and interactive designers, At first glance A Theory of Fun for Game Design is a book that will truly inspire and challenge game designers to think in new was; however, its universal message will influence designers from all walks of life. This book captures the real essence of what drives us to seek out products and experiences that are truly fun and entertaining. The author masterfully presents his engaging theory by showing readers how many designs are lacking because they are predictable and not engaging enough. He then explains how great designers use different types of elements in new ways to make designs more fun and compelling. Anyone who is interested in design will enjoy how the book works on two levels--as a quick inspiration guide to game design, or as an informative discussion that details the insightful thinking from a great mind in the game industry.

A Fun Perspective on Fun

Koster has written an incredible book that cannot help but cover game design. The question of "fun" has baffled the game design community for years: it’s an unquantifiable concept a designer succeeds at capturing more reliably with luck (and experience) than anything else. This book provides one of the first steps away from that.

For those who harangue the book because of the title, it’s worth reading the Foreword, written by Will Wright.

To explain fun, Koster does not bother pretending to live in an ivory tower. He opens the doors to his life and allows you to connect with him as you ponder his ideas. Fun is difficult to disconnect from games, especially since that’s his field, so he explains games, too. The result is a narrative, not a white paper: he brings you into his shoes and takes you on a journey, giving you contextual background before (How Brains Work) his central thesis and after (Ethics of Game Design).

The book is not a be-all, end-all "Definitive Guide to Fun". It’s a provocation and a challenge, to game designers, to game theorists, and even to gamers. It’s meant to make you think, not hold your hand. My favorite moment with the book was when I didn’t have it: I loaned it to a roommate, who came back a week later completely stunned, complaining that it had made sense and had gotten him thinking. He plays rugby and Madden, mostly.

You won’t find 12 steps to make your game fun, nor will you have any idea how to make a game after you read it, if you didn’t before. But when you play a game, and you have fun, now you have somewhere to start in understanding why. And if another game bores you to tears, you may be able to figure out how to improve it.

The book is not about games. It’s about gamers: about people. Because people have fun, and they sometimes even do it while gaming. And this book is about why.

A fascinating primer on how we enjoy ourselves

I should start out by mentioning that I’m reviewing this book from more of a general knowledge standpoint than a purely video game related one.

A lot of other reviews have mentioned that there aren’t many practical tips in this book, which is true, but that’s why it’s a theory of fun and not a handbook of rules. Theories pull basic meanings & principles out of a vast, murky subject that can later evolve into practical uses, in this case for video games or any other artistic medium.

The author breaks down our sense of enjoyment into more manageable & understandable categories, like social and aesthetic satisfactions. But the bulk of the book covers the enjoyment that comes from learning patterns and overcoming challenges, which he defines as "fun."

Although fun as Koster defines it is most evident in video games, the enjoyment that comes from learning and figuring things out could just as easily apply to a mystery novel as a puzzle game. Having a firm understanding of "fun" as well as the other types of enjoyment could benefit any artistic pursuit.

Another fascinating concept in "Theory of Fun" is the idea that all artforms become more and more complex until only a dedicated few can master it, at which point the artform either dies off or is reinvented to better suit the masses. This concept could explain the recent rise of the Wii, with its simple, accessible approach to games over more complex systems.

All in all, "A Theory of Fun for Game Design" isn’t just ideas on how to build a better video game mousetrap, but a basic intro on enjoyment so we can hopefully learn to create work that’s enjoyable for others.

Self-absorbed designer angst

There is actually a theory of fun buried in the book, but the time spent developing the theory is minimal. The rest of the book seems to be all about trying to justify choosing game design as a career. Geez! It’s fun and you get paid. ’nuff said on that topic.

Excelent Book

This is one of my first books i bought here at Amazon.
Im From Argentina and im studying Game Develop & Design. It is really good to read this kind of book because it really helps me on my develop here where the industry is staring recently.

It is an EXCELENT Book. It really acomplish everything i was looking for. It did, also, provide me a new sight of some matters when referring to Game Design.

I do disagree in some explications on the book but it is only my personal opinion and it doesn’t make the book worst or anything.

It’s a "HAD to HAVE.." book in your bookshelf.

Congratulations on the Writter!!

Required Reading, but not a Bible

Koster’s presentation makes the book extremely accessible, but still quite in-depth. He covers all the necessary ground.

His theory does not venture far from previous work, but in sticking to accepted dogma, he offers a fairly comprehensive and clear compilation of ideas. This is what makes the book a good read for anyone looking for a foundation in theory related to games.

I found that many ideas in the first half of the book to be over-simplified. Though most issues are readdressed in the second half, his dual presentation created a sense of contradiction. Some early implications are later negated.

Koster also involves a bit much of his own tastes and artistic ethics. This is primarily in the latter portions of the book, but it was enough to turn me off. He goes into some description of how games "should" be, the responsibility of the designer, etc. That may be interesting to some, but I prefer to determine my own principles.

Theory of Fun would do well as required reading for anyone seeking an education in game design, and could be useful to anyone in art, but if you’ve already covered the field of theory, you may not be too impressed. Still, it’s an easy read and rewarding.

I also suggest this book to anyone looking at games from the outside, anyone not involved in production or consumption. It can give the layman a good look into a new world and maybe close some generation gaps. Theory of Fun may be what we need to mail to our representatives to keep them from judging games to hastily.

-Chris Rock
http://blog.sokay.net

no useful tips

Good games teach something so I wondered if knowing the "Theory of Fun" would help me teach. Could I convert some science data base into a game? Unfortunately I picked up no tips useful to me. The book describes fun, philosophizes about fun, has platitudes and personal opinions. Some reviews raised my expectations unrealistically.

Enjoyable and thought-provocing, but brief

I had played some of the games that Raph Koster had woked on, so this book caught my eye. It is kind of an unusual book. It certainly in no way resembles a "classroom text" sort of book on game making or game design. Instead it is more of a somewhat rambling discussion of "fun" with regards to computer and video games.

The author talks a lot about things like trying to nail down what this "fun" sensation actually is, and why we find certain things either fun and other things not so fun. He breaks down what sorts of attributes a game should have in order for it to at least have a chance of being found fun. He also touches on some related topics briefly like gender and age differences, and the sustainability of games. Then there is a small discussion about ethics and some random ideas about the future of gaming.

The book is definitely brief, weighing in at underr 250 pages. The pages have fairly large print and every other page is filled with a full-page illustration. But at this price, it is still a fairly good value. The illustrations are generally quite good and add a lot to the enjoyment of reading this book.

I really enjoyed this book. It got me thinking about my gaming projects in a bit of a different way, and I’ve now got a bunch of new ideas floating around inside my head that hopefully will find there way into some interesting, and yes, "fun", games. I definitely recommend this book for game developers that strive to do more than make rehashes of yesterdays games.

Very attractive cover, what a pity about the rest

It’s a somewhat random collection of thoughts about why it’s ok to be a game designer with half of the pages containing some kind of drawing or cartoon. It says very little of substance and doesn’t constitute a theory in the technical sense of the word. There’s very little to say for this, except that it wasn’t all that expensive and the cover looks good.

Solid read.

Disagree with him on some points, but it’s an interesting read. Note, this book is not really about how to make games you create fun, so much as it is a rambling discourse about the nature of fun itself.

Koster’s Pitch for Gaming Theory

Koster’s argument for serious critical approach to gaming is taut and well-thought. He acknowledges gaming to be "fun," while at the same time clearly states why games aren’t elevated to artistic status in culture, despite their status in the entertainment marketplace - more economically lucrative than cinema. Until gaming attains the ability to create play that reflects the human condition, like cinema, it will not be classified or regarded as artisitic expression. If I had one criticism of the book, it is a lack of commentary on the economics of the gaming industry, but alas, Koster is a game developer, not a publisher, so this omission is understandable and does not take away from the book’s value. I recommend this book for anyone desiring a short theoretical overview of gaming, and historical context. It’s laconic, well-written, and offers nice illustrations done by Koster himself.

Very few ideas in too many words.

Raph Koster is clearly a man in love with his own ideas. His writing is full of self-indulgent babbling about very simplistic ideas. He seems to think that he’s the only one who’s ever thought about games and the way people play them.

There is no real theory in this book. He never makes any clear thesis statement, or presents much evidence to shore up any substantial conclusions. This book is simply a random assortment of long-winded but simplistic opinions, accompanied by childish cartoons.

This book is a shining example of the current trend in internet circles towards communal self-aggrandizement. Seemingly every new media community is full of its own importance, and believes it has the key to leading humanity into a golden age of wonderfulness.

I would however remind Mr. Koster’s audience that so far, he has given the world: Ultima Online, an interesting but dull take on the Arthurian mythos, Everquest, another dull hack ’n slash prize quest game, and Star Wars Galaxies, a game with the barest of gameplay at launch that rapidly spiraled into the gaming toilet.

So far, his "theory of fun" hasn’t produced much fun in reality.

Excellent. Food for thought.

It is a must read for anyone interested in game design or games in general.

Self-Indulgent Rambling, Plus Annoying Cartoons

Here is an actual sentence from page 104 of "A Theory Of Fun:"

"It is...clear that different people bring different experiences to the table that leave them with differing levels of ability in solving given types of problems."

This particular sentence is representative of the author’s "theory": it’s both a) obfuscatorily verbose, and b) so entirely self-evident (i.e, every individual approaches a given situation differently) that you might feel a bit ripped-off that you actually paid money to have someone tell you that. (In case it isn’t clear enough, though, the author includes a little cartoon on every facing page to illustrate.) The parts of the book that actually purport to deal with game design are all along this line: retardedly simple "ideas" presented at drawn-out length in patronizing, management-consultant language.

However, it gets worse: large swaths of "A Theory Of Fun" are devoted to the author’s windy pronouncements on "art" and "ethics." I can’t even begin to describe these parts except to offer another excerpt (from page 174):

"There is a crucial difference between games portraying the human condition and the human condition merely existing within games. The latter is interesting in an academic sense, but it is unsurprising. The human condition manifests anywhere."

Huh? Try as I might, I have no idea at all what those three sentences are supposed to mean, either in the context of game design or any other context.

To conclude, if you’re interested in reading this, hunt down a copy at the library or borrow it before you drop any cash on it.

You wont regret reading it!

At first I didnt get the book but after a few chapter it became obvious. I thought this was a book on game design but that wasnt really the case. It is about fun and more specifically, why fun is fun and how to make things fun. However it also talks a bit on why game design is important and what should be improved to get better games. It also talks about the responsibility game designers have.

I found the book really great and since it is the first of its kind i have read it will be the one wich i meassures all others with and personally i think it will be a good thing.

Almost everything in the book was pretty much common sense, just common sense that one hasnt thought about before. (pretty sure thats a quoute but not sure from where)

I really recomend it to anyone intrested in games, any type of them and it should be required reading for all game designers. Because in the end, if a game aint fun, no one will play it.

A Philosophy for Game Design

I purchased the book mainly as a learning tool for designing boardgames.

The author’s journey starts by trying to convince his get-a-real-job grandfather (and perhaps himself) that a career in game design is of significance. In doing so the author winds down a *philosophical* road describing how game design can mature into an artform just as other mediums have. His arguments are well thought, intriguing, and convincing. Raph will enlighten novice game designers and deeply plant some ideas that will surely influence the growing field of game design.

Among his most influential ideas, the author suggests that games should seek to allow people to explore game mechanics that reflect tiny aspects life as to allow real-world lessons to be learned. He suggests that game designs should *not* have preconceived destinations aimed at supporting the designer’s personal truths, but that the game should allow its participants to openly experiment and discover their own truths. Very powerful stuff!

My harshest criticism is that the book seemed "puffed up" like a term paper where a procrastinator (in attempt to fill the required number of pages) quadrupled the line spacing, fatten the margins, and increased the fonts. The author provided hand-drawn pictures on every odd-numbered page. Some pictures were useful, but many seem forced and in trying to properly pair the text with the related pictures, lots of content pages are predominantly white space.

My preference would have been to reduce the size of the book by favoring the content much more heavily than the pictures and by doing away with the excessive white space; the book could easily have been half its size.

Despite the criticism the book offered good insight and was a fair value having purchased it on modest discount.

Not much "theory" in A Theory of Fun.

I find Koster’s book to be a bit disappointing. Despite the title, A Theory of Fun, the book tends to be more about Ralph’s personal opinions on music, his own perspectives, his family, and his own life, than about fun. Perhaps of 4 or 5 pages were of particular use to me, in my quest to define "fun" for game development.

Koster asserts his personal opinions about the definition and role of art, media, and gender as fact, when there is actually great controversy about these questions. To make things worse, all the right-sided pages of Koster’s books contain his own baffling, amateurishly drawn illustrations which are supposed to illustrate his points in an amusing way. These illustrations are absolutely horrible and look like they were drawn by unskilled children..

Because one half of the book consists of these cartoons, I feel it is important to express another unpleasantry of Ralph’s cartoons. Most of the drawings smack of a 1960’s attitude about females-- angry wives threating their gaming husbands, all wearing dresses, often complaining about the gaming habits of the men in their lives. At moments it reminded me of The Lockhorns.

The illustrations are often baffling and confusing, to the point that they made reading the book quite difficult-- so much that I wished I could somehow hide them or tear them out.

One half the book, consists of these terrible illustrations. Minus the drawings, this book would make a decent $8 pocket book, good for a quick read but absolutely unworth of the title "theory of fun."

In sum, the book contained too much of Ralph Koster’s own personal opinions, his cruddy cartoons, too much information about his own life and family, and not nearly enough information about implementing fun in videogame design.

There is simply not enough "theory" in "theory of fun." Frankly, I do not understand why it is getting such rave reviews.

An excellent book with a misleading title

While there is plenty of valuable content to be found in this book, the title is a bit misleading as it relates to the nature of the content.

Early on, the adjective "fun" is defined to basically mean "educational". This definition makes sense in the context in which it’s presented, but it vastly changes the meaning of the title of the book. The reader who takes the title to mean "theory regarding the design of games to be generally more entertaining" will most likely be disappointed to find that the author’s apparent intended meaning was, "theory regarding the basic cultural value of games and their potential for greater social/educational achievement".

The primary focus of the book is on examining and understanding the social and cultural role that games play, and the intrinsic value that they hold in that role. There is also commentary on the nature of art (in the sense of "high art" or "fine art"), and how games could be refined to further ascend to the levels of sophistication found in other media.

All of the material is very insightful, uniquely assembled, and both fun and informative to read. Unfortunately, in all the theory it covers, it doesn’t touch on the topic of actually designing games that are fun to play in the traditional sense of the word "fun".

Ostensibly, the concept behind this is that understanding the underlying social and educational aspects of games will lead to the creation of games that are fun in the more traditional sense of the word (based on the notion that the two definitions are just different descriptions of the same idea). Regardless of its worth, the approach is significantly different from what one might expect from reading the title and the back of the book.

Great insights... a little too defensive at times though

This book provides a very compelling framework for thinking about games and the psychology of engaging people in games. I found it very insightful as someone coming in from a related but different field. His insights resonate as being intuitive and on target.

There’s a little bit of defensiveness of the industry which seemed off track though. The basic thesis is that any learning is good learning and playing games is about learning. That’s fine, but I’m not sure it’s a great argument -- it begs a reasonable countargument of "yes, but what about learning something more productive." All in all, the book would stand on its own merits as a great synthesis of the field without this defensiveness and is well worth the read and 5 stars.

Fun in the Sun - Raph Koster sheds new light on games!

A Theory of Fun is a title long awaited. Raph Koster takes an incredibly complicated and seemingly arcane subject and demystifies the magic with lucid insight and laser sharp deconstruction...and it’s all done in a wonderfully playful way! I found myself both laughing and saying "aha!" simultaneously at both the insight and humor.

Koster’s creative talents are clearly demonstrated in the book’s unique format - a design mirroring a Left Brain / Right Brain construct, where the left side of each page is packed full of information on games, how we learn, and cognitive functions, while the right side contains fun drawings with a light and moving theme that enhances the left, while striking out on its own, almost like a counter point melody to the book’s grand symphony. It really is almost two books in one! Yet even the light and funny elements carry wonderfully heavy insight into what games teach us and why.

A Theory of Fun is highly recommended for anyone working in entertainment today - from game designers, to producers, to the film industry, to people working in any creative endeavor, and people who think they don’t have a creative bone in their bodies. (They’ll soon discover they have a whole skeleton of fun in their proverbial closet after reading this book!)

Koster’s book clearly demonstrates that `Fun Is As Fun Does’ while exposing the method to the madness in gaming. A Theory of Fun is a must read for anyone who wants to understand why games are so pervasive today, as it sheds new light into why fun matters in this world, and how `play’ makes us truly human.

Examines the foundation of designing a ’fun game’

Plenty of books have been written about playing games or enjoying them - but what really makes a game fun? Leading interactive designer Ralph Koster provides a visual survey and discussion which examines the foundation of designing a ’fun game’ in Theory Of Fun For Game Design, examining the different levels which work for game designers initially, how these ideas translate into games which teach and evolve, and how learning and playing are interconnected. Chapters aim at the rudiments of why some games are fun and others simply boring.

A Good Book For Both Gamers and Non-Gamers

Raph Koster’s _A Theory of Fun for Game Design_ is certainly a book worthy of a place on any game designer’s shelf. For those who attended the original lecture that spawned the book, there isn’t a whole lot that is new, but it’s great to have it in book form. For those who did not, the book can be quite revealing, particularly for those who have struggled to adequately define just what games and game design is all about.

Perhaps more importantly, though, is that Raph has written a light, frequently humorous, and sometimes touching book that should make a great gift to those of us who have parents or spouses who DON’T understand why we’re wasting all of our time with games. Rather than try to explain it to them, you can simply hand them this book, and they can come to appreciate the scope and depth of the subject without being overwhelmed.

And at times the book is quite poignant on a human level. You can see Raph’s genuine pride and love for his children nearly pour off the page when he talks about them, and his mention of his grandfather passing away while he was at GDC is particularly touching to me since my own father died while I was at GDC in 2000.

The book can essentially be read in two ways. The first, simply by reading all the illustrations in sequence, is great fun all by itself. Nearly every drawing does its job in illustrating the point it tries to make, and quite a few have charming little extra details that a gamer will readily appreciate.

The second, and perhaps more proper way, is to read the text and the illustrations together. (I suppose one could also read the text by itself, but where’s the fun in that?) To summarize very crudely, the book makes the following assertions:

1. The human mind enjoys processing information from the world around it into patterns, procedures, schema, etc. that it can later apply with less thought in identical or similar situations.

2. Games primarily feature a core pattern(s) and mechanic(s) which players learn via playing the game. This is fun for the mind.

3. If the pattern is too hard to discern, or the mechanic of learning the pattern too difficult, players get frustrated and stop playing. On the other hand, if players understand the pattern and master the mechanic too easily, they’ll quickly become bored and stop playing. There are other issues as well (relevancy, matching expectations, presentation, etc.) that come into play.

4. Most games have traditionally taught very basic life skills. As children become adults, they’ve learned these skills, these patterns, and no longer play games since they are now out in the real world playing "for real".

5. Many of these skills, while useful when we were a primative people, are becoming less relevant, and even dangerous, in a modern society, where change is increasingly more and more rapid.

6. Game designers need to broaden their game designs, not only to encompass a larger range of patterns/skills/mechanics/lessons, but also ones which are relevant and helpful to modern society.

7. Game designers have an ETHICAL DUTY to do so.

(I’ve skipped over many other points of the book, which although unfair and regrettable, is necessary for the sake of length.)

Now, enough of the praise, on with a few (minor) criticisms.

I found the book paradoxically both too long and too short. The layout of the work is to fill (nearly) every right hand page with an illustration, with the text on the left hand page. This is great, because their are so many illustrations, but it means that the text on the left of many of the pages is often quite limited: 2 - 5 paragraphs, and usually short ones at that. However, I am not saying that there should have been more text; often it conveys just the right depth and meaning for the particular point it is trying to make on that page. But at times it does get a bit distracting; you get the feeling that these pages are only there because there are so many illustrations.

Yet at the same time, I felt the text sometimes got too repetitive, and should have gone deeper. But the problem is you couldn’t really dwell on one thing too deeply, because it was on to the next page and on to the next point (and the next illustration). Really, the format constrains the book to a particular level, and I think part of this also comes from the fact that the book was largely original a presentation, where it is quite common for points to be made simply, and repeatedly, without a lot of additional exposition. And I think if you accept the book in that context, you won’t be disappointed.

One point that I thought the book did not give enough attention to was the element of chance in games. Nearly every game features the element of random chance, yet the book explores this mechanic very little in relation to other core game mechanics. When it does -- all of 2 paragraphs on page 56 -- it’s almost dismissive of it as little more than a way to teach people about odds.

I would contend there’s a lot more to it than that. Introducing a random element into a game helps enhance the learning experience by prolonging the appeal of the game. Consider a game mechanic which, if mastered, allows a player to win 100% of the time. If the game is fairly deterministic, then once they’ve learned this mechanic, they’ll quickly become bored with the game. Now, consider what happens when you add the element of chance. The player, even if they’ve mastered the mechanic, can still lose. This forces them to re-evaluate their mechanic -- do they REALLY have the best one, or were they mistaken? What additional patterns can they learn to help eliminate the effect of chance? Does this teach us that in life, even the best laid plans can fail due to unknown and unpredictable factors? And so on.

I would also add that the addition of chance helps ameliorate the problem of players playing the same game at different skill levels -- the inferior player still has a chance to win, even if it is by luck, but by winning is encouraged to keep playing the game and, perhaps, learning what the superior player already knows.

The other point of the book that I take issue with is at the end, where there is a rather sudden appeal to a variation Pascal’s Wager. This forms the basis of an appeal to ethical game design. I find the whole insertion rather jarring, partly because I feel Pascal’s Wager is thoroughly debunked (particular when you consider the wager fails to mention any costs relating to belief), and partly because it doesn’t seem to make much of a difference. If game’s don’t matter, than it doesn’t matter if a game explores a particular behavior that is "bad". On the other hand, if game’s do matter, then surely it is important to have games that explore such mechanics as a way of learning about ourselves, just as more "ethical" games may explore other mechanics. As Sister Wendy admitted, Serrano’s _Christ in Urine_ was still valid art; it just wasn’t particularly good (in the non-moral sense) art.

I also think it is difficult to expect games to illuminate the human condition and teach lessons at the same level as other forms as art for precisely the reasons cited earlier in the book. Games are about a core mechanic/pattern that is learned, and the very nature of gaming compells one to look past the story and other contextual trappings to focus on the central gameplay. Consider the moral of _Moby Dick_, which is about the dangers of letting one’s obsession overtake them, or the destructiveness of the desire for revenge to others around you, or perhaps, according to some interpretations, the futility and hubris of denying God and trying to confront evil itself on one’s own. But a game _Moby Dick_, even if it contained such themes, would ultimately teach you instead about optimal strategies for hunting whales, or perhaps a formula for determing the true costs of obsession in lives lost. And neither of which may be models that realistically describe reality, which calls into question their ultimate utility beyond the scope of the game itself.

But despite these lengthy criticisms, I can certainly recommend this book. As I said before, I think it’s particularly useful as a gift to non-gamers who want to know more about what we do and why we do it.

Bruce