Duke Ellington’s point was simple: Across all genres and eras, music needs to swing. It’s a creative constant. I make a similar point about fun, arguing that it too is a creative constant and a game is not a game if it lacks the joy of winning while mastering fair game dynamics.
But some kinds of fun are more appealing than others. Some are innately fascinating and inspire the play brain to play, where others just don’t. I call it the law of fascination.
CNN recently asked why games are never finished by most players. In an age when production values are so high, it’s a very valid question. The industry response is often that older players with work and family commitments simply can’t play as much as they used to, so this makes the case for shorter, more intense, games.
I disagree. In my experience, players find the time to play just as readers find the time to read. Online games also indicate that games can occupy many hundreds of hours for motivated players in the right circumstances.
The uncomfortable question to ask is whether the problem is the games rather than the players. Simply put, are players not completing games because they’re boring?
When Usain Bolt competes in the 100m sprint, the test is about speed, and he has only one way to win: run faster than everybody else. He has little scope for strategy, no way to outwit opponents and he can only improve at the game through exercise (and good genetics). The 100m sprint is a one-dimensional game.
Some video games are like that. They are often fun, but only in passing. They burn out and have no room for extension because the play brain reaches maximum mastery very quickly. They need to consider their lack of dimensionality if they intend to build a lasting franchise.
What Games Are is about game design, game development, games as art, craft, culture and industry and how you can make better games. Follow through any of these links:
