What do you think?
Rate this book
Theory of Fun for Game Design
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 ways; 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.
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 ways; 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.
279 pages, Paperback
First published November 6, 2004
About the author
Raph Koster
9 books59 followersRaph Koster is a veteran game designer who has been professionally credited in almost every area of the game industry. He's been the lead designer and director of massive titles such as Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies; and he's contributed writing, art, soundtrack music, and programming to many more titles ranging from Facebook games to single-player titles for handheld consoles.
Koster is widely recognized as one of the world's top thinkers about game design, and is an in-demand speaker at conferences all over the world. In 2012, he was named an Online Game Legend at the Game Developers Conference Online. Visit his blog at www.raphkoster.com.
Koster is widely recognized as one of the world's top thinkers about game design, and is an in-demand speaker at conferences all over the world. In 2012, he was named an Online Game Legend at the Game Developers Conference Online. Visit his blog at www.raphkoster.com.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 271 reviews
August 31, 2011
Don't bother with this one. It's just $6 in the Kindle store, or else I wouldn't have even bought it, but I regret it now in any case. Luckily it's quite short, but even so I just skimmed a chapter or two.
To me, this is a collection of sometimes barely coherent stream-of-thought ramblings of a video-game executive, apparently about what makes games fun, though you'd barely know to read it. They don't really seem to have much purpose to it, except to draw attention to how educated and cultured the author is (he frequently makes comparisons to classical music and other "classical" forms of art, as if to say, hey look at me, I'm a man of the world). Also, the chapter titles often don't match the contents, like the one on ethics.
If there's a central theme to it, it's that fun means learning and then "grokking" (as in deeply internalizing) something new, though I'm not sure that revelation was worth the six bucks.
It looks like the author called up a couple of his contacts (all well known industry figures) and asked them to write a glowing cover blurb (or a foreword) to his book. Him being an important industry executive, they naturally obliged, though the generic tone of their recommendations should have been a giveaway. There's a lesson to be learned here about celebrity endorsements, kids.
To me, this is a collection of sometimes barely coherent stream-of-thought ramblings of a video-game executive, apparently about what makes games fun, though you'd barely know to read it. They don't really seem to have much purpose to it, except to draw attention to how educated and cultured the author is (he frequently makes comparisons to classical music and other "classical" forms of art, as if to say, hey look at me, I'm a man of the world). Also, the chapter titles often don't match the contents, like the one on ethics.
If there's a central theme to it, it's that fun means learning and then "grokking" (as in deeply internalizing) something new, though I'm not sure that revelation was worth the six bucks.
It looks like the author called up a couple of his contacts (all well known industry figures) and asked them to write a glowing cover blurb (or a foreword) to his book. Him being an important industry executive, they naturally obliged, though the generic tone of their recommendations should have been a giveaway. There's a lesson to be learned here about celebrity endorsements, kids.
April 4, 2019
Raph Koster, a rather celebrated game designer (and former creative head of Sony’s game department), tries to explain just exactly what video games are, and in the process of doing this takes on what he feels are common misconceptions about video games.
Like McCloud, Koster feels like his medium of choice (of course, he obfuscates this point - but more on that later) is misunderstood, and that it deserves a cultural status akin to that of literature and art. To defend his position, he goes on in great detail about how video games function, and what they truly are about at their most basic level - learning patterns.
Koster claims that the fact that games are basically pattern learning machines (or pattern grokking as he might call it) is generally ignored by society, and that this is the main reason that games are misunderstood.
He goes on to rather bombastically propose that graphics (look and feel) of games are somewhat irrelevant to the actual game itself, and that this game aspect is basically just wrapping paper. It’s the underlying mechanics that matter according to Koster, but the wrapping gets all the attention. He seems like a true purist in this sense, and his annoyance towards the trend of improving graphics rather than game mechanisms is very evident throughout the book.
To prove his point, Koster further claims that there only are a few different types of games (cartoon on page 71), and that newer games just build on existing creations and just add a few new elements (the cartoon on page 79 illustrates this point).
This generally is the crux of Koster’s point, and he apparently really wants to reader to get this, so he continuously points it out throughout the book - which gets old really fast (cartoon on page 87, 127 and 167 to name a few). He desperately wants games to evolve beyond the focus on surface, and instead start to focus on the fundamental subjects the games revolve around.
But in order for games to evolve, they must first be understood, and Koster does a really good job in explaining how he believes games work. He claims that games provoke a very distinct chemical reaction in the brain when they are designed correctly, and introduces the concept of flow.
Flow is basically what happens when you are constantly tested at the reach of our abilities, thus being totally engaged for a longer period of time - games that are tailored perfectly to your skill set can accomplish this, but it’s rather rare (I’ve had it happen to be a couple of times).
The most important thing Koster touches on however, is in my opinion how games can become educational tools. He claims that games are, in essence, about learning.
According to him, patterns occur constantly in our daily lives (exerting power, controlling territories etc.), and games are the ideal tool for learning how to function within the parameters of these patterns. Because games are at their most basic forms just patterns waiting to be absorbed, Koster claims that by fully engaging with a game we will absorb (learn) the pattern represented by the game - a notion I fully agree with.
Koster goes on in great detail about how the brain reacts to game stimuli, and how grokking patterns is the result of the brain chunking the information presented to us - basically automating it. This is, according to Koster, why it’s so hard to make a well balanced game - consider the fact that we’re constantly trying to master the patterns being presented to us, and when we do, the challenge suddenly becomes trivial. If the game doesn’t present its patterns in new, intriguing ways we’re destined to get bored with the game, which is a rather sad notion that leads Koster to conclude that no games are eternal (not yet, anyway).
Now that we have established a basic foundation of what games fundamentally represent, lets move on to another interesting aspect of games that Koster brings up: their ethical implications. This is an aspect of games where Koster and I gravely disagree, and I feel that his claim that the fiction surrounding a game is largely irrelevant to the effect games have on us is just plainly wrong. I can’t help but get the feeling that several years of working as a game designer has led Koster to adopt a completely mechanical approach to games, which I feel becomes evident in his reasoning.
For instance, he describes a rather ethically reprehensible game called Deathrace to illustrate his point - that this game doesn’t teach the players to run over pedestrians any more than Pac-Man teaches them to ‘eat dots and be scared of ghosts’. Here I feel that Koster doesn’t appreciate the power of context, and I think that this might be due to the fact that when he was enjoying games the most (probably in the early 90s/late 80s), games were just what he described: simple pattern learning machines.
Naturally, I do see his point that when you reduce games to their most basic form, this becomes evident once more, but in my opinion that’s like comparing Drive (fantastic character-driven movie created in 2011) to Horse in Motion (arguably the first movie ever made, in 1878, showing a horse, moving). Just like movies have evolved from just being sequential images showing motion, games have evolved from being faces eating dots to complex, three-dimensional (pun intended) characters joined together in intriguing, multi-layered (often epic) stories. I feel that game mechanics work in addition (rather than orthogonal) to these concepts, to bring forward an even more profound user experience.
Of course, this brings up the interesting question about the ethical implications of games. If the fiction surrounding games have such an impact as I believe, wouldn’t that mean that games like Grand Theft Auto are morally reprehensible?
Again, I believe the power of context comes into play. Just like comedies about teenagers getting killed (such as the magnificent Tucker and Dale vs Evil) are not morally reprehensible, neither are games like Grand Theft Auto.
Both of these two pieces of entertainment (for the lack of a better term) feature content that when displayed in a different context would be seen as devoid of morality, but for some reason we don’t feel that way when Tucker accidentally kills a teenager in a wood cutting machine or when we run over a line of joggers to get 1000 bonus points. I believe that this is due to a agreement (of sorts) we unconsciously enter into when we engage with culture - for instance: Should I take a trip down to a museum featuring pieces of contemporary art, I might think to myself: “This is just a chair upside down, in any other context I would just flip it over and that would be that. However, since this is placed in a museum this is considered art, and I will interact with it as such.”
Now, there are of course many other topics Koster brings up (such as where games should go to be (rightfully) considered as art, how people ruin games by trying to grok them, how different games appeal to different people and so on), but I feel I’ve discussed the most important arguments he brings to the table. I agree with much of what he says (specifically how games affect the brain and how games can be educational tools), but it’s evident that he and I do not share a common view of what games are, and what they can achieve - and I haven’t even begun talking about how much I disagree with his obnoxious matrix categorization of art, jeez.
Like McCloud, Koster feels like his medium of choice (of course, he obfuscates this point - but more on that later) is misunderstood, and that it deserves a cultural status akin to that of literature and art. To defend his position, he goes on in great detail about how video games function, and what they truly are about at their most basic level - learning patterns.
Koster claims that the fact that games are basically pattern learning machines (or pattern grokking as he might call it) is generally ignored by society, and that this is the main reason that games are misunderstood.
He goes on to rather bombastically propose that graphics (look and feel) of games are somewhat irrelevant to the actual game itself, and that this game aspect is basically just wrapping paper. It’s the underlying mechanics that matter according to Koster, but the wrapping gets all the attention. He seems like a true purist in this sense, and his annoyance towards the trend of improving graphics rather than game mechanisms is very evident throughout the book.
To prove his point, Koster further claims that there only are a few different types of games (cartoon on page 71), and that newer games just build on existing creations and just add a few new elements (the cartoon on page 79 illustrates this point).
This generally is the crux of Koster’s point, and he apparently really wants to reader to get this, so he continuously points it out throughout the book - which gets old really fast (cartoon on page 87, 127 and 167 to name a few). He desperately wants games to evolve beyond the focus on surface, and instead start to focus on the fundamental subjects the games revolve around.
But in order for games to evolve, they must first be understood, and Koster does a really good job in explaining how he believes games work. He claims that games provoke a very distinct chemical reaction in the brain when they are designed correctly, and introduces the concept of flow.
Flow is basically what happens when you are constantly tested at the reach of our abilities, thus being totally engaged for a longer period of time - games that are tailored perfectly to your skill set can accomplish this, but it’s rather rare (I’ve had it happen to be a couple of times).
The most important thing Koster touches on however, is in my opinion how games can become educational tools. He claims that games are, in essence, about learning.
According to him, patterns occur constantly in our daily lives (exerting power, controlling territories etc.), and games are the ideal tool for learning how to function within the parameters of these patterns. Because games are at their most basic forms just patterns waiting to be absorbed, Koster claims that by fully engaging with a game we will absorb (learn) the pattern represented by the game - a notion I fully agree with.
Koster goes on in great detail about how the brain reacts to game stimuli, and how grokking patterns is the result of the brain chunking the information presented to us - basically automating it. This is, according to Koster, why it’s so hard to make a well balanced game - consider the fact that we’re constantly trying to master the patterns being presented to us, and when we do, the challenge suddenly becomes trivial. If the game doesn’t present its patterns in new, intriguing ways we’re destined to get bored with the game, which is a rather sad notion that leads Koster to conclude that no games are eternal (not yet, anyway).
Now that we have established a basic foundation of what games fundamentally represent, lets move on to another interesting aspect of games that Koster brings up: their ethical implications. This is an aspect of games where Koster and I gravely disagree, and I feel that his claim that the fiction surrounding a game is largely irrelevant to the effect games have on us is just plainly wrong. I can’t help but get the feeling that several years of working as a game designer has led Koster to adopt a completely mechanical approach to games, which I feel becomes evident in his reasoning.
For instance, he describes a rather ethically reprehensible game called Deathrace to illustrate his point - that this game doesn’t teach the players to run over pedestrians any more than Pac-Man teaches them to ‘eat dots and be scared of ghosts’. Here I feel that Koster doesn’t appreciate the power of context, and I think that this might be due to the fact that when he was enjoying games the most (probably in the early 90s/late 80s), games were just what he described: simple pattern learning machines.
Naturally, I do see his point that when you reduce games to their most basic form, this becomes evident once more, but in my opinion that’s like comparing Drive (fantastic character-driven movie created in 2011) to Horse in Motion (arguably the first movie ever made, in 1878, showing a horse, moving). Just like movies have evolved from just being sequential images showing motion, games have evolved from being faces eating dots to complex, three-dimensional (pun intended) characters joined together in intriguing, multi-layered (often epic) stories. I feel that game mechanics work in addition (rather than orthogonal) to these concepts, to bring forward an even more profound user experience.
Of course, this brings up the interesting question about the ethical implications of games. If the fiction surrounding games have such an impact as I believe, wouldn’t that mean that games like Grand Theft Auto are morally reprehensible?
Again, I believe the power of context comes into play. Just like comedies about teenagers getting killed (such as the magnificent Tucker and Dale vs Evil) are not morally reprehensible, neither are games like Grand Theft Auto.
Both of these two pieces of entertainment (for the lack of a better term) feature content that when displayed in a different context would be seen as devoid of morality, but for some reason we don’t feel that way when Tucker accidentally kills a teenager in a wood cutting machine or when we run over a line of joggers to get 1000 bonus points. I believe that this is due to a agreement (of sorts) we unconsciously enter into when we engage with culture - for instance: Should I take a trip down to a museum featuring pieces of contemporary art, I might think to myself: “This is just a chair upside down, in any other context I would just flip it over and that would be that. However, since this is placed in a museum this is considered art, and I will interact with it as such.”
Now, there are of course many other topics Koster brings up (such as where games should go to be (rightfully) considered as art, how people ruin games by trying to grok them, how different games appeal to different people and so on), but I feel I’ve discussed the most important arguments he brings to the table. I agree with much of what he says (specifically how games affect the brain and how games can be educational tools), but it’s evident that he and I do not share a common view of what games are, and what they can achieve - and I haven’t even begun talking about how much I disagree with his obnoxious matrix categorization of art, jeez.
June 7, 2017
Excellent start for someone who has no idea even where to start when it comes to game design. The style in witch this book is written is quite casual and it doesn't go too much into details (as I said, good for absolute beginners).
November 26, 2017
This book has some intriguing concepts but it fails to explore fun effectively both from an academic and game design perspective.
Its ideas may have been relevant when it was once published but right now it seem terribly outdated. All the discussions on themes, narrative and maturity of videogames as art completely ignore the last 15 years.
The book also tries to be academic without any proper citation or hypothesis. Finally, it uses old-fashioned ideas on cognitive behavior and evolutionary dynamics (i.e. biologic gender biases).
Its ideas may have been relevant when it was once published but right now it seem terribly outdated. All the discussions on themes, narrative and maturity of videogames as art completely ignore the last 15 years.
The book also tries to be academic without any proper citation or hypothesis. Finally, it uses old-fashioned ideas on cognitive behavior and evolutionary dynamics (i.e. biologic gender biases).
December 26, 2008
If I ever teach a class on video games this will be the first book I add to the syllabus. A must-read for gamers, casual gamers and designers of interactive digital environments. More importantly, I think this book is a must-read for parents and teachers. Koster does a great job of explaining what it is about games that eat up so many hours of our kids' and students' lives.
December 21, 2020
It was disappointing and frustrating experience. I think this book could be good, but author turned to much it in personal journal, full of stereotypical views. As women I think it hits twice strong. The Book shares wrong idea of women in games and discourage women in industry.
August 3, 2018
Outdated, banal, and surprisingly sexist.
August 22, 2016
I found this book very inspiring and deep, especially the parts where the author tries to connect games and arts and fun. Some parts of the book are abstract and a little bit hard to grasp as the book includes many metaphors. Nevertheless, many paragraphs still give me goosebumps as they are so true and profound. The author has many strong arguments and also very has high ideals when it comes to game designing. A game is designed not only for entertainment, but also for educating and helping players overcome their weaknesses. He has inspired hopes in readers that one day, games will be no longer considered meaningless and trivial, but will join literature, music, dance and theatre as a form of "the arts".
My favourite quotes include:
1. Contrasting games and stories: "Games are good at objectification. Stories are good at empathy. Games are external – they are about people’s actions. Stories (good ones, anyway) are internal – they are about people’s emotions and thoughts."
2. How players prefer to wander in their comfort zone: "Look at the games that offer the absolute greatest freedom possible within the scope of a game setting. In role-playing games there are few rules. The emphasis is on collaborative storytelling. You can construct your character any way you want, use any background, and take on any challenge you like. And yet, people choose the same characters to play, over and over.* I’ve got a friend who has played the big burly silent type in literally dozens of games over the decade I have known him. Never once has he been a vivacious small girl"- Players tend to choose the games they're already good at, will they one day go out of their zones to play the game concentrating on enhancing the skills they lack? If they do, they'll improve many skills and become a more rounded person.
3. People like to master and learn things in a safe and non-pressure environment, which is game: “That’s what games are, in the end. Teachers. Fun is just another word for learning.”
4. Brain needs stuffs (stories, information) to process all the time- notice how your mind never stops thinking and wandering from one place to another; however, it does not prefer challenging and complicated stuffs; it prefers familiar patterns: “Based on my reading, the human brain is mostly a voracious consumer of patterns, a soft pudgy gray Pac-Man of concepts. Games are just exceptionally tasty patterns to eat up.”
5. And finally: "We often discuss the desire for games to be art- for them to be puzzles with more than one right answer, puzzles that lend themselves to interpretation." To become arts, a game must be thought-provoking, revelatory, forcing us to reexamine assumptions, forgiving and encouraging misinterpretation. What's left behind after you finish playing a game? Will the puzzle already stops bugging you once the boss's dead and the princess's in your arms?
My favourite quotes include:
1. Contrasting games and stories: "Games are good at objectification. Stories are good at empathy. Games are external – they are about people’s actions. Stories (good ones, anyway) are internal – they are about people’s emotions and thoughts."
2. How players prefer to wander in their comfort zone: "Look at the games that offer the absolute greatest freedom possible within the scope of a game setting. In role-playing games there are few rules. The emphasis is on collaborative storytelling. You can construct your character any way you want, use any background, and take on any challenge you like. And yet, people choose the same characters to play, over and over.* I’ve got a friend who has played the big burly silent type in literally dozens of games over the decade I have known him. Never once has he been a vivacious small girl"- Players tend to choose the games they're already good at, will they one day go out of their zones to play the game concentrating on enhancing the skills they lack? If they do, they'll improve many skills and become a more rounded person.
3. People like to master and learn things in a safe and non-pressure environment, which is game: “That’s what games are, in the end. Teachers. Fun is just another word for learning.”
4. Brain needs stuffs (stories, information) to process all the time- notice how your mind never stops thinking and wandering from one place to another; however, it does not prefer challenging and complicated stuffs; it prefers familiar patterns: “Based on my reading, the human brain is mostly a voracious consumer of patterns, a soft pudgy gray Pac-Man of concepts. Games are just exceptionally tasty patterns to eat up.”
5. And finally: "We often discuss the desire for games to be art- for them to be puzzles with more than one right answer, puzzles that lend themselves to interpretation." To become arts, a game must be thought-provoking, revelatory, forcing us to reexamine assumptions, forgiving and encouraging misinterpretation. What's left behind after you finish playing a game? Will the puzzle already stops bugging you once the boss's dead and the princess's in your arms?
June 27, 2023
The author is cultured and something of a self professed polymath.
I didn't really read anything about video games that I didn't know before. I definitely saw a lot of very strongly opinionated statements about how games are formal systems whose purpose is to teach something.
It reads as an incoherent, slightly jaded piece by someone who has a lot of thoughts about game design. I didn't "grok" it.
Disco Elysium, norco and genesis noir are just a few examples of the indie revolution which is rethinking game design from a fundamental level. This book was written much before these games released, but the point still remains that even in 2004 it was clear that cheaper compute would fundamentally change games by leaning hard into photorealism at one end as exemplified by crysis and hard toward emergent, indie craziness (see Dwarf Fortress!!!!) on the other .
Instead of being excited about the way technology was/is letting people continuously reinvent their engagement with the medium, the author is extremely focused on showcasing his "cultured views" about how gaming at its core is a set of formal systems. Which is a tautological statement that offers little value and even less insight.
Hard pass.
I didn't really read anything about video games that I didn't know before. I definitely saw a lot of very strongly opinionated statements about how games are formal systems whose purpose is to teach something.
It reads as an incoherent, slightly jaded piece by someone who has a lot of thoughts about game design. I didn't "grok" it.
Disco Elysium, norco and genesis noir are just a few examples of the indie revolution which is rethinking game design from a fundamental level. This book was written much before these games released, but the point still remains that even in 2004 it was clear that cheaper compute would fundamentally change games by leaning hard into photorealism at one end as exemplified by crysis and hard toward emergent, indie craziness (see Dwarf Fortress!!!!) on the other .
Instead of being excited about the way technology was/is letting people continuously reinvent their engagement with the medium, the author is extremely focused on showcasing his "cultured views" about how gaming at its core is a set of formal systems. Which is a tautological statement that offers little value and even less insight.
Hard pass.
July 3, 2010
It's an incredibly insightful book, and genuinely useful for people trying to create games. Having said that, its basic premise is that all satisfying play is learning and I just don't buy that. The logic seems very flawed to me in this area. It seems to me quite plausible that play or certain kinds of games can be seen as highjacking the satisfaction that you would ideally be getting from an actual accomplishment in real-life, diverting your mastery and craft and intellectual stretching from things that would advance you or create some value into diversion. I'm not saying that is a bad thing—not everything in life is about productivity—but it isn't something Raph is prepared to engage with at all. Essentially, amid all the great insight, there is a nervousness and a defensiveness about the value of games. I think that's unnecessary and a shame, and it's the reason I wouldn't give it five stars.
November 25, 2018
This is 3.5 stars rounded down.
This book had some interesting ideas and it covered the history of game development really well. It also discussed the underlying features of many games and considered what a game needed to include to be fun and successful.
Having said that, at times it seemed a bit long winded. One of the most annoying things about the books is that end notes were denoted by an asterisk (instead of a number) and these were liberally peppered throughout the material. I ended up using two book marks when reading through the various chapters and felt that many of the end notes could easily have been incorporated into the main part of the text.
I liked the cartoons and the 'random penguins' helped lighten the mood. Ironically despite the title, reading this book wasn't all that much fun. Which is a pity.
This book had some interesting ideas and it covered the history of game development really well. It also discussed the underlying features of many games and considered what a game needed to include to be fun and successful.
Having said that, at times it seemed a bit long winded. One of the most annoying things about the books is that end notes were denoted by an asterisk (instead of a number) and these were liberally peppered throughout the material. I ended up using two book marks when reading through the various chapters and felt that many of the end notes could easily have been incorporated into the main part of the text.
I liked the cartoons and the 'random penguins' helped lighten the mood. Ironically despite the title, reading this book wasn't all that much fun. Which is a pity.
February 9, 2007
This book is about what psychological elements of video games capture peoples attention. In particular which of these elements create a fun game.
Its very short and written in the format of a children's book with every other page being a full page cartoon of the concept discussed in the previous page. It is not a children's book since they discuss things like "grokking" and pattern recognition.
The author is one of the creative leads for Sony interactive entertainment, so you learn a bit about how designers create games and how they cater towards players by trying to put elements that have been psychologically tested to be "fun".
Good short collection of info for anyone interested in game design or social psychology.
Its very short and written in the format of a children's book with every other page being a full page cartoon of the concept discussed in the previous page. It is not a children's book since they discuss things like "grokking" and pattern recognition.
The author is one of the creative leads for Sony interactive entertainment, so you learn a bit about how designers create games and how they cater towards players by trying to put elements that have been psychologically tested to be "fun".
Good short collection of info for anyone interested in game design or social psychology.
February 6, 2017
Indispensable para entender por qué jugamos y la poderosa herramienta de comunicación y entretenimiento que son los videojuegos. No es un libro de game design que trate los aspectos formales del desarrollo de un juego, sino que se centra en cómo funcionamos al ser atravesados por el lenguaje de éstos. Llegó a mis manos con la etiqueta de ser "el understanding comics de los videojuegos", y este rotulo no le queda chico. Es un libro que invita a reflexionar y abre más interrogantes al terminarlo. Un must.
November 7, 2013
Great insight in what "fun" actually is. It's a theoretical book (as the title suggests)that feels more like a pamphlet for game designers than a book that actually helps you to ensure that the games you design are fun. Nevertheless, a great read that I enjoyed.
August 22, 2023
Despite the title, this book is not about how to make a game fun.
I wanted to read this for ages and rarely I’ve been so disappointed by a book.
It’s a loose collection of the author’s rambling about games, art, psychology.
I wanted to read this for ages and rarely I’ve been so disappointed by a book.
It’s a loose collection of the author’s rambling about games, art, psychology.
September 7, 2021
While many reviews call it simplistic, it's clear that Koster has spent a lot of time thinking about the topic—there are many references to be followed and explored, and I've lifted a couple of thoughts from the book that speak to me personally.
Yes, you probably can't use it as a step-by-step guide to make your game fun, but that is outside the book's goals.
My only peeve is that footnotes take up a whole quarter of the book (and they're all at the end) and you have to constantly flip back and forth while reading.
Yes, you probably can't use it as a step-by-step guide to make your game fun, but that is outside the book's goals.
My only peeve is that footnotes take up a whole quarter of the book (and they're all at the end) and you have to constantly flip back and forth while reading.
May 10, 2021
An original, and provocative yet persuasive analysis of what "fun" is, and how all "fun" involves "learning", and "learning" involves "pattern identification". I have thought this for years, especially upon seeing how obsessed about improving gamers can often be, to the point of spending money on an arcade game they can't really afford – it's because they're after the rush that *mastery*, i.e. learning, brings them. What we need to do now is figure out how to motivate learners in a similar way in schools, with apps, and by other means. Recommended.
August 17, 2023
Really good book about game design which doesn't go too far into the theory - making it a lot more palatable and easier to apply - whereas still pushing the idea of games as another media for art and human expression, not only analyzing how it can become better and better as art, but also covering the repercussions of this media and the way it can be used to express ideas.
TLDR: easy to read, explores some of the theory without exhaustion, motivates a better gaming world - 10/10!
TLDR: easy to read, explores some of the theory without exhaustion, motivates a better gaming world - 10/10!
February 19, 2019
Do not bother if you are looking for a book, where you can actually find tips on how to make fun games. The book is more of a visual guide to other writers that can be considered for finding the answers to those questions.
January 23, 2023
4.5 rounding up. Only quibble is the title. Perhaps Craft and Art of Games would be more appropriate. Or maybe, Rethinking Games. The theory of fun is one of the salient points of the book, but feels limiting as a title. Great book. Seeing games in a new light.
July 23, 2018
introduction into games and into computer games. Why games exist, how they are developed in terms of design - the underlying theory. The book is not tactics but about the underlying theory of games: why some games have high retention and others are not. Why some games are boring and others are not.
March 16, 2023
It's a bit dry and a bit dated but it touches on some topics that are food for thought.
February 1, 2024
'Eğlence' ve 'oyun' arasında kurduğu temel bağ güzel olsa da kitap boyunca bu bağlantıyı irdeleyip derinleştirmiyor. Onun yerine kitap boyunca minik, çoğu yüzeysel, ana konsepti pek de derinleştirmeyen ve farklı alanlardan fikirler atıyor. Bunların bir kısmı okuması keyifli, bir kısmı yavan, bir kısmı ise belli bir noktaya kadar düşündürücü oluyor. Ama daha uzun veya zor bir dili olan bir kitap olsa pek okumaya değmez.
June 28, 2023
це книжка не так безпосередньо про відеоігри, як про ту концепцію відеоігор, яку автор в них закладає.
це книга про те, чому нам цікаво гратися в одні ігри; які принципи в іграх працюють; що таке взагалі «розвага»; наскільки ігри є мистецтвом; і де лежить межа моралі в іграх.
попри звинувачення в тому, що вона банальна і застаріла – це частина історії життя автора.
мені було цікаво читати, хоч мій інтерес щодо відеоігор – майже нульовий.
це книга про те, чому нам цікаво гратися в одні ігри; які принципи в іграх працюють; що таке взагалі «розвага»; наскільки ігри є мистецтвом; і де лежить межа моралі в іграх.
попри звинувачення в тому, що вона банальна і застаріла – це частина історії життя автора.
мені було цікаво читати, хоч мій інтерес щодо відеоігор – майже нульовий.
March 29, 2019
Surprisingly Dissapointing
I'm not a hard reader to please. If you have access to my reading history you will see easy 4-5 star reviews for most anything pickier readers consider barely palatable, but this book really pushed some of my buttons, and very few of them actually because of the contents itself
While the main message is something I disagree with - need for art to censor itself as for feeling of social responsibility - I have no beef with the way the argument is presented and with the researched and educated contents of the things the author writes about
I take issue with the reading experience itself, because in this case it was easily worst in class for me, and I feel that this is something I need to warn potential readers about.
Its strange to think the author has formal writer training and has worked in game design as this book has the single worst designed reading flow in all my concious active reading history of well over 20 years.
See, approximately 40% of this book happens in end-of-book footnotes. Reading a given page is an excercise of skimming 3 paragraphs, turning to pages of footnotes, coming back to read another 3 sentences, rinse repeat. This is annoying, this is detrimentally affecting both flow and material retention and this is just a plain inconvenient way to structure your book. I literall turned every page apprehensively, scanning it quickly for footnote asterisks before breathing a sigh of relief when i didnt find any. finally i would think, a page of reading. The whole content just seems purpousefully obtuse and difficult to navigate for the person paying to read it.
For a normal reading expirience you would need to have 2 copies of this thing open at once, looking between the two simultaneously. Im honestly lacking polite terms to express just how frustrating of an experience this was with a Kindle eBook, so if you consider reading the thing, be warned, and maybe dont skimp on the paperback.
I'm not a hard reader to please. If you have access to my reading history you will see easy 4-5 star reviews for most anything pickier readers consider barely palatable, but this book really pushed some of my buttons, and very few of them actually because of the contents itself
While the main message is something I disagree with - need for art to censor itself as for feeling of social responsibility - I have no beef with the way the argument is presented and with the researched and educated contents of the things the author writes about
I take issue with the reading experience itself, because in this case it was easily worst in class for me, and I feel that this is something I need to warn potential readers about.
Its strange to think the author has formal writer training and has worked in game design as this book has the single worst designed reading flow in all my concious active reading history of well over 20 years.
See, approximately 40% of this book happens in end-of-book footnotes. Reading a given page is an excercise of skimming 3 paragraphs, turning to pages of footnotes, coming back to read another 3 sentences, rinse repeat. This is annoying, this is detrimentally affecting both flow and material retention and this is just a plain inconvenient way to structure your book. I literall turned every page apprehensively, scanning it quickly for footnote asterisks before breathing a sigh of relief when i didnt find any. finally i would think, a page of reading. The whole content just seems purpousefully obtuse and difficult to navigate for the person paying to read it.
For a normal reading expirience you would need to have 2 copies of this thing open at once, looking between the two simultaneously. Im honestly lacking polite terms to express just how frustrating of an experience this was with a Kindle eBook, so if you consider reading the thing, be warned, and maybe dont skimp on the paperback.
December 8, 2020
This book is less a theory, but more a collection of thoughts from Raph Koster. It’s essentially nothing more than a prolonged 100 page blog post, full of strong opinions without many sources to back those up. Given that context, I guess assumptions are acceptable. I just wish the title of the book would reflect it.
The illustrations in this book were made by the author himself. The author speaks in very proficient and assertive tones about fine art, but the quality of the books illustrations stands in stark contrast to the text itself. I don’t know whether it’s a stylistic choice, but the lines in his drawings just lack any kind of expression. Much more could’ve been achieved given the same time investment. This of course draws a bad light onto the credibility of the content itself.
Maybe those were supposed to be funny. It’s just that I don’t find this particular type of humor... fun. It’s antiquated, reminding me of dad jokes, and at some points it’s even borderline sexist, despite the authors best efforts to distance himself from this sensible topic. Given that half of the book - every second page - is illustrations, this isn’t purely a minor thing.
The author loses himself all too often in his thoughts. There is no narrative thread binding this whole train of thought together. Rather, the author jumps back and forth between topics, making it very difficult to backtrace the intended line of argumentation. I would’ve expected more from someone with a writing background. Because of this, I’m not really sure what the key takeaways of this book are. There is many things I disagree with, but there certainly is also truths in there. At the same time, there was nothing in there I wouldn’t have already learned before. The book is vague in things relevant to a newcomer, but redundant in things relevant to someone with a bit of experience, so... meh...
Given that you can read this book in a couple of hours, there was no harm done. I personally wouldn’t recommend it, but given the low commitment necessary, you might as well give it a shot if you get it somewhere for cheap. Who knows, maybe it’s your cup of tea...
The illustrations in this book were made by the author himself. The author speaks in very proficient and assertive tones about fine art, but the quality of the books illustrations stands in stark contrast to the text itself. I don’t know whether it’s a stylistic choice, but the lines in his drawings just lack any kind of expression. Much more could’ve been achieved given the same time investment. This of course draws a bad light onto the credibility of the content itself.
Maybe those were supposed to be funny. It’s just that I don’t find this particular type of humor... fun. It’s antiquated, reminding me of dad jokes, and at some points it’s even borderline sexist, despite the authors best efforts to distance himself from this sensible topic. Given that half of the book - every second page - is illustrations, this isn’t purely a minor thing.
The author loses himself all too often in his thoughts. There is no narrative thread binding this whole train of thought together. Rather, the author jumps back and forth between topics, making it very difficult to backtrace the intended line of argumentation. I would’ve expected more from someone with a writing background. Because of this, I’m not really sure what the key takeaways of this book are. There is many things I disagree with, but there certainly is also truths in there. At the same time, there was nothing in there I wouldn’t have already learned before. The book is vague in things relevant to a newcomer, but redundant in things relevant to someone with a bit of experience, so... meh...
Given that you can read this book in a couple of hours, there was no harm done. I personally wouldn’t recommend it, but given the low commitment necessary, you might as well give it a shot if you get it somewhere for cheap. Who knows, maybe it’s your cup of tea...
January 1, 2022
Not worth it.
Poorly organized and often contradictory. I would often reach the end of a chapter feeling like Raph had just argued against whatever he set out to say in the first place.
For example, "You should calibrate your difficulty to match your players" later becomes "People should play games that challenge them to improve their mental skills, but they don't because they're lazy."
And that's not even touching on the sexist chapter. In "Different Types of Fun For Different People" he contemplates the question of why women don't play video games made for men (he acknowledges that women play different games than men, but continues to focus on what causes them to snub the mainstream AAA games).
After quickly ruling out the male dominated games industry and rampant sexism, he blames women's aversion to gaming on our "female brain wiring" --where females are less inclined to enjoy "abstract systems" because we're designed for empathetic thinking instead of systematic thinking.... Oh, but there's hope for us females, yet! He posits that video games can rewire our brains to become better spatial reasoners! Rejoice, fellow females!
(Please note: his interpretations of the studies he cites are not entirely correct, he makes a lot of assumptions that aren't backed by the studies, and new research has come out in the time since the publishing of this book that disproves some of the assumptions he's working off of).
Anyways, there were a couple useful nuggets of wisdom in there, but not enough that's unique to this book in particular. It was a slog to get through.
Poorly organized and often contradictory. I would often reach the end of a chapter feeling like Raph had just argued against whatever he set out to say in the first place.
For example, "You should calibrate your difficulty to match your players" later becomes "People should play games that challenge them to improve their mental skills, but they don't because they're lazy."
And that's not even touching on the sexist chapter. In "Different Types of Fun For Different People" he contemplates the question of why women don't play video games made for men (he acknowledges that women play different games than men, but continues to focus on what causes them to snub the mainstream AAA games).
After quickly ruling out the male dominated games industry and rampant sexism, he blames women's aversion to gaming on our "female brain wiring" --where females are less inclined to enjoy "abstract systems" because we're designed for empathetic thinking instead of systematic thinking.... Oh, but there's hope for us females, yet! He posits that video games can rewire our brains to become better spatial reasoners! Rejoice, fellow females!
(Please note: his interpretations of the studies he cites are not entirely correct, he makes a lot of assumptions that aren't backed by the studies, and new research has come out in the time since the publishing of this book that disproves some of the assumptions he's working off of).
Anyways, there were a couple useful nuggets of wisdom in there, but not enough that's unique to this book in particular. It was a slog to get through.
March 18, 2010
Journalist Tom Chatfield of Prospect has chosen to discuss Raph Koster's
A Theory of Fun
, on FiveBooks as one of the top five on his subject - Computer Games, saying that:
“Today we are seeing a new form of it, (Play) but in order to really understand it properly, we need to begin with this really deep evolutionary hold that games have on us. Koster looks at games as something that’s about learning above all, and they are in his phrase ‘chewy’ environments for our brains, where we are performing a task again and again to get better at beating the particular properties of a particular environment.”
The full interview is available here: http://five-books.com/interviews/tom-chatfield
“Today we are seeing a new form of it, (Play) but in order to really understand it properly, we need to begin with this really deep evolutionary hold that games have on us. Koster looks at games as something that’s about learning above all, and they are in his phrase ‘chewy’ environments for our brains, where we are performing a task again and again to get better at beating the particular properties of a particular environment.”
The full interview is available here: http://five-books.com/interviews/tom-chatfield
December 26, 2007
This was a very good book. While most of the other game design books I have read came across as textbooks, this one didn't. The way it was spaced out, it felt more like I was reading a novel than a textbook. The little cartoons on the right pages can piss of some people ("What the Hell is the point of them?"), but I enjoyed them, as they seem to illustrate the point of the text on the left pages a little more. While there are some things I would place into question, for the most part, the book does press a very strong theory of what makes something fun. Definitely a must read for future game designers (of any medium, not just video games).
May 31, 2015
A deeply researched treatise on video games. Raph Koster, who worked on Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies, talks about the background of play and games and moves on to what games are and what games are not. He ends on what he thinks games should and could becomes. It is an informative and powerful book which is also peppered throughout with little cartoons that he has drawn to better illustrate his points.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 271 reviews