Thread by @MorelloNMST

Let's talk today about the word and concept "fun" in terms of development.

I have a pretty sharp opinion on this: It's a word and concept you shouldn't use as a designer.

Of course we want players to *find* a game fun, but as devs, it's too vague and subjective to use

To go further, I don't think it's merely useless, it's *dangerous* as a term in design.

Seems silly, maybe; especially when design does have a measure of subjectivity inherent to the craft. But fun, and arguments around it, at best bury real issues.

More often, it's a weapon

Beware the phrase "well, that's not fun" in terms of a design discussion. This weaponization has caused the biggest fallouts I've seen.

A way of taking one individual's taste and preferences and applying it as a rubric is misguided at best, or toxic at worst.

Even if we have the same personal preference, which is rare, we still can't use it to help literally anyone else build features together, provide feedback, or see how the game gets better.

It gets into some naval-gazing territory quickly "Like, what IS fun, man?!"

This is a lot of why (most) good design is goal-oriented. "Fun" isn't helpful, but we can at least get more specific, layer-by-layer.

So maybe "fun" is "engaging combat". OK, still not good, but closer. Let's keep the drill running.

Engaging combat exists in a lot of games; but even looking at DotA2 and LoL, two games in the same genre, they'd have different definitions of engaging combat.

Reverse engineering that can be a good exercise for you too :)

Remember, no judgments like "good" or "bad". Analyze.

Let's say we want engaging combat to be feel precise, consequential, and strategic.

OK, we're warming up. We have things we want to have the player *feel* and *experience*. But there's further to go down, still.

You need to take the time to define those terms. When you wanted the player to feel those, what does that mean? How far are we going? How does it apply to the overall goals?

This is where we start actually defining what the fun of our work is.

This is where we get specific. Maybe "consequential" means we want death to matter a lot. Maybe it means we want resources to be very scarce. That probably depends on if we're:

VALORANT (the former)

Resident Evil 2 (the latter)

Just two examples ofc

Now these feelings will generate lists of goals. You might have had some of these in your head before you started, but often you'll shed some and pick up some new ones. If not, be suspicious.

It also lets you iterate and get feedback so, so much better.

Let's look at a real feedback loop in VALORANT.

"I died in one hit, that is NOT fun."

True. For that tester, they didn't have a good time. We can't debate how they feel, nor should we.

What we should do is take their feelings, understand them, and translate that towards goals.

We want to know more about that (often the frustration has lessons for us) but we also can look at:

Is this making combat feel consequential?

Did it feel they "earned" it through play?

Did you have an idea of what you could do better next round?

These are a sample of what we chose for VALORANT, a game a lot of folks find fun, but is littered with "unfun moments."

And that's the biggest danger; most good games have a lot of individual parts that aren't "fun." And ones that don't tend to be pretty Blaise.

If you're not careful, senior folks unattached to the audience or product will CLUB you with this. It's why as the designer, you *need* to define fun first - for your own goal setting and work, but also as protection.

If they agreed with the goals, you have backing.

These unfun moments do not make a bad game. I think Dark Souls, cliché as the reference may be, is a really great game that is a mountain of unfun moments.

But the fun is in overcoming the frustration. They could set their sights, and go boldly.

With this in mind, work to remove fun from your professional lexicon. And when you do use it, always elaborate: "Yeah I didn't find that level fun, BECAUSE..." - that's still good stuff.

Good design isn't based on taste and whim. It's both defined and malleable. But always clear