On Game Design - Game Design Theory - page 25

Beware the Excesses of the Digital Medium
Human beings have a bit of a bad pattern with technology: when we first
unlock a new technology, we never ask whether we should use it. In-
stead, we tend to use it indiscriminately at first It's only afterward, when
the technology has become established, that we become more selective
in its use. We need to reach that place with respect to digital games.
Computers can handle incredible complexity, and most developers have
little concept of restraint when it comes to using the tools at their dis-
posal. This is why I think designers who want to reach a higher level of
computer-game design should use board games as their inspiration—
they are always limited by their physical requirements, and they tend
to have much more sensible designs for this reason. I'll talk more about
them in Chapter 5 .
Let's Add Some Fun!
What is fun? Is fun just simple joy, enjoyment, or pleasure? Or does it
mean that you're engaged? Personally, I feel that games should be en-
joyed, but they don't have to be enjoyed to be great games. he bottom
line about fun is that there is little agreement about what it means, so
for now I'll be using it in a very broad sense that includes enjoyment,
engagement, and fulfillment
When I present my philosophy about games the response I some-
times get is, “all that matters to me is that the game is fun.� As I stated in
my introduction, everything in this topic is written for the sole purpose
of creating machines—games—that are as much fun as they can be (us-
ing my broad definition of fun). If it weren't for that goal, no designer
would do any of the thinking, researching, testing, and everything else
we do for the sake of making better games. In short: fun is the name of
the game .
The issue, of course, is that we cannot simply inject fun directly into
a game. Fun is actually a byproduct of a great game design, which is why I
think defining our terms is more useful than talking in general about fun.
Questions about whether something is an interesting decision or wheth-
er element A is balanced against element B provide us with more objec-
tive answers. (You should be clear on this: someone who says, “I don't
know, I thought it was fun� is not really saying anything. In fact, this kind
of statement is often an attempt (conscious or not) to shut down the con-
versation when the speaker isn't contributing anything objective to the
conversation. When we talk about games, we must use characteristics
that are objective and quantifiable to illustrate our points.)
For instance, let's say I want to explain why I think Puerto Rico is a
good game. For those who aren't familiar with the game: players take