Featured Blog | This community-written post highlights the best of what the game industry has to offer. Read more like it on the Game Developer Blogs or learn how to Submit Your Own Blog Post
I've only seen "fun factors" given as an unordered list. This post suggests what may be a useful way of organizing them.
I was very interested to read about the Fun Factor Project, particularly as it hadn't been obvious to me how many were there were. This is a work in progress I believe, but the last post offered 40 ways in which gamers can have fun. I suspect it was part of the point of this list that it was unordered and unclassified but, given the person I am (which I suspect will come out further in future posts), I couldn't leave it like that.
I came up with three main categories, each with a similar number of subcategories. What's more, the categories fit a model that I think provides some extra insight.
Note that for details of the fun factors, you should follow the above link. I've added the odd extra (mostly taken from the comments on that post), but they are hopefully obvious enough.
The Categories
Exploring the Game World
What will I see?
What can my avatar do?
Subcategories and fun factors
Discovering the new
The joy of exploration
Sense of danger and surprise
Unique perspective experienced via non-human avatar
Exhilaration
Exploring and building relationships in a virtual or simulated world
Creating characters
Drinking in the atmosphere
Familiarity (from previous games or other media)
Hunting, collecting, and unlocking
Admiring and experiencing beauty
Experiencing the story
Interactively experiencing a good story
In-game humor
Doing things you mustn't or cannot get to do really
Virtually interacting with familiar real-world places
Command
Destruction
Wielding extra power
Power fantasy
Heroically navigating a virtual architectural playground
Playing the Game
What can I do?
What will I get out of it?
Subcategories and fun factors
Real skills
In the zone play
Assuming responsibility
Hyperkinetic play
Simple mechanics, complete mastery
Casual play based on familiar real-world analogs
Learning nuances
Real thinking
Puzzle solving
Making the player feel clever
Immense challenges
Battle of wits
Real achievement
Intricate cooperation
Leading the least to become the greatest
Advance preparation enabling player success
Shared experience
Building and customizing
Competition
Beating the clock
Striving for the perfect run.
Social opportunities outside the game
Enjoying the Meta-Game
What's been done to give me this game?
What was the creator like?
Subcategories and fun factors
Good implementation
Tactile control of avatar
Fluid, responsive movement of character or vehicle
Technological wonder
Understanding the creator's work
Playing with physics
Exploiting the glitches
Jokes
In-jokes
Breaking the fourth wall
The Model
The three categories above are based on a model of three elements:
The player (P)
The game world (W), which includes what the players avatars or units can do in that world
The "interface" (I), which is basically everything else, including the GUI (menus, HUD, etc), the control schemes, level design, etc.
I see each of the above categories as being about the interface between two of these elements.
"Exploring the game world" is about what the interface allows you to do in the game world (IW).
"Playing the game" is about what the player can do in the game world (PW), which will obviously have to be through the interface but is not about the interface, and is sometimes despite it.
"Enjoying the meta-game" ignores the game world largely, and is about the way the player interacts with the interface (PI).
Why is this useful?
I think it's always useful to have a new lens with which to look at game design. In this case, I think the categories are particularly useful in checking whether the fun factors for your game a distributed where you'd expect. Are you pitching the game right for the fun factors it actually delivers?
For instance, to take the example de jour, Minecraft currently scores well in all three categories, through allowing the player to explore its worlds (and experience its surprises), to build, and to enjoy the meta-game (e.g. by reading about Notch and exploiting the glitches). Will it be able to maintain all of these strengths as it heads for Beta and possibly the mainstream? Will some of the current audience lose interest if the physics glitches are polished out?
I realise that some of my categorizations may be controversial, and my nomenclature may not suit many of you, but I hope this sparks some interest, and look forward to your comments.
Read more about:
Featured BlogsYou May Also Like
.png?width=300&auto=webp&quality=80&disable=upscale)
