The article below was created based on video called “What is Fun?” from Indie Games Clinic
What makes a game fun? It seems like a simple question, but for game developers, it’s a deceptively complex puzzle. If you’ve ever struggled to articulate why your game is engaging, or found playtesters describing their experience in conflicting ways, you know that “fun” is a messy, complicated concept.
A deep dive into game design theory reveals that moving beyond the vague notion of “fun” is the first step toward creating more intentional and resonant player experiences. Let’s break down the frameworks that can help you design not just a game, but a feeling.
One of the most influential theories comes from veteran designer Raph Koster. In his view, fun is a chemical reward for learning. When your brain successfully patterns a new skill, solves a puzzle, or defeats a tough boss, it gets a hit of dopamine. This theory, rooted in our evolutionary need to learn and adapt, explains why challenging games can be so satisfying.
However, this lens has its limits. If fun were only about learning, how do we explain the joy of a jump‐scare in a horror game, the laughter from a silly physics glitch, or the quiet awe of exploring a beautiful world? Clearly, there’s more to the story.
To move past a one‐size‐fits‐all definition, many theorists have created taxonomies to classify different types of fun. This is a game‐changer for developers, as it allows us to pinpoint the exact experiences we want to create.
Some of the most practical models include:
The Three Types of Fun: Popularized by Dr. Regan Mandryk, this simple breakdown is incredibly useful:
Type One Fun: Enjoyable in the moment. Think of a relaxing stroll or a satisfying power fantasy.
Type Two Fun: Enjoyable only in retrospect. This is the “hard but fair” boss fight that was miserable until you finally triumphed, making the victory story all the sweeter.
Type Three Fun: Not fun at all in the moment, but becomes a fun story later. Think of a grueling, frustrating gaming session that turns into a legendary tale of perseverance with your friends.
The Social Dimension: As Michael Rucker emphasizes, the social aspect of gaming can transform an experience. A challenging raid in an MMO might be Type Two Fun mechanically, but the camaraderie and shared struggle with friends make it Type One Fun socially.
Classic Forms of Play: Looking further back, theorist Roger Caillois identified four core forms of play:
Agon (Competition)
Alea (Chance/Luck)
Mimicry (Role‐Playing)
Ilinx (Vertigo/Sensation)
By understanding these categories, you can consciously design for the specific kind of engagement you want your players to have.
So, how do you apply this knowledge? The answer lies in establishing clear Design Pillars.
Design pillars are 2–3 foundational concepts that guide every decision in your game’s development. They are not technical specs (“it’s a third‐person shooter”) or genre labels (“it’s a roguelike”). Instead, they describe the intended player experience and emotion.
Examples of strong design pillars could be:
“A Sense of Lonely Wonder”
“Improvised Chaos”
“Elegant Punishment”
With these pillars in place, every feature, mechanic, and art asset can be evaluated against a simple question: “Does this enhance our core pillars?” If a proposed crafting system doesn’t contribute to “Lonely Wonder,” it might be cut, no matter how cool it is. This creates a cohesive, focused experience where all the elements work in harmony.
For a more granular toolkit, many designers turn to Marc LeBlanc’s “8 Kinds of Fun” (later expanded by others to 14). This framework includes a wide spectrum of enjoyable experiences, such as:
Sensation (Feeling)
Fantasy (Role‐Play)
Narrative (Story)
Challenge (Obstacle)
Fellowship (Social)
Discovery (Exploration)
Expression (Creativity)
Submission (Abnegation)
By reviewing this list, you can identify which forms are your game’s strengths and which are its weaknesses. Are you focusing on Challenge and Discovery but neglecting Expression? Perhaps adding a small cosmetic customization option could deepen player attachment without derailing your core vision.
Ultimately, great game design requires emotional literacy. It’s about understanding how a mechanic like a limited inventory creates tension, or how an open world evokes a sense of freedom. It also requires self‐awareness: what are your personal preferences for fun, and how might they be blinding you to what other players enjoy?
The goal is to create a meaningful interplay between interactivity and theme, crafting experiences that resonate with players on multiple levels.
The next time you sit down to design, don’t just ask, “Is this fun?” Ask a more powerful set of questions:
What type of fun am I creating?
Which of my design pillars does this feature support?
What form of fun am I leveraging, and is it the right one for my player?
By thinking more precisely about pleasure, you can move beyond guesswork and start designing the unforgettable experiences that players truly love.