garzonr's review against another edition
5.0
I've been an avid gamer my whole life. I've always wondered if there was a general set of principles behind why I got bored of some games and not others. This book provided just such a set of principles.
The gist of the book is that the brain likes to find patterns in the world. Therefore, good game design necessarily involves providing just the right level of difficulty in finding patterns that lead to success conditions. After reading, I realized something like this explains why I've enjoyed some games and completely bounced off of others. I even realized I may have bounced off some games because I expected a specific pattern, didn't adjust when i couldn't find it, and gave up. Sometimes it seems, unwillingness to adapt can be misinterpreted as "bad design." This book gave me a better way to evaluate games as well as a better way to evaluate my own reactions to certain designs.
All in all, very insightful, clearly written, and well cited.
The gist of the book is that the brain likes to find patterns in the world. Therefore, good game design necessarily involves providing just the right level of difficulty in finding patterns that lead to success conditions. After reading, I realized something like this explains why I've enjoyed some games and completely bounced off of others. I even realized I may have bounced off some games because I expected a specific pattern, didn't adjust when i couldn't find it, and gave up. Sometimes it seems, unwillingness to adapt can be misinterpreted as "bad design." This book gave me a better way to evaluate games as well as a better way to evaluate my own reactions to certain designs.
All in all, very insightful, clearly written, and well cited.
professor_rabbit's review against another edition
2.0
I like the beginning concept: games are fun because they provide a space to learn with no real-world consequences.
Beyond that, there are some problems with the text due to its age and others due to some contradictory stances the author presents. Koster openly admits in the afterword that this whole thing was written basically in a weekend, so it isn't surprising its coherency suffered.
Throughout the book it felt like Koster couldn't make up his mind whether entertainment was art, or if art needs to explore the human condition, or if entertainment shallowly explores the human condition (making it art-lite) so there is and isn't a distinction, or if games need to find a way to explore the human condition using only systems that allow more than one solution, or if complexity in games is bad because it excludes too many people, but games also need to grow up from being too simplistic. I'm perfectly comfortable with nuance, but it needs to be communicated as "the answer is complicated" instead of presenting a different answer every chapter as if each is the only answer.
Koster also presents "fun" pretty narrowly, choosing to separate other types of enjoyment into other categories. I think this is an attempt to narrow down what's unique about games as a medium, but I think it ignores just how complicated media in general is.
A pretty heavy gimmick of the book is that every other page is an illustration. I felt like these were just used for padding. If you actually read a page and look at the drawing opposite it, it's usually a non sequitur. Instead, the illustrations often follow their own flow. They may have served the book better if they book-ended chapters or provided an intermission.
The GDC talk this book was based on is probably better, but I'm not sure if I want to watch it after reading this. Honestly, there are awesome YouTube channels that offer a more up-to-date and usually more nuanced look at games. If anything, it was at least interesting to examine my own thoughts about games and art, and to consider how much things have changed in 16 years.
Beyond that, there are some problems with the text due to its age and others due to some contradictory stances the author presents. Koster openly admits in the afterword that this whole thing was written basically in a weekend, so it isn't surprising its coherency suffered.
Throughout the book it felt like Koster couldn't make up his mind whether entertainment was art, or if art needs to explore the human condition, or if entertainment shallowly explores the human condition (making it art-lite) so there is and isn't a distinction, or if games need to find a way to explore the human condition using only systems that allow more than one solution, or if complexity in games is bad because it excludes too many people, but games also need to grow up from being too simplistic. I'm perfectly comfortable with nuance, but it needs to be communicated as "the answer is complicated" instead of presenting a different answer every chapter as if each is the only answer.
Koster also presents "fun" pretty narrowly, choosing to separate other types of enjoyment into other categories. I think this is an attempt to narrow down what's unique about games as a medium, but I think it ignores just how complicated media in general is.
A pretty heavy gimmick of the book is that every other page is an illustration. I felt like these were just used for padding. If you actually read a page and look at the drawing opposite it, it's usually a non sequitur. Instead, the illustrations often follow their own flow. They may have served the book better if they book-ended chapters or provided an intermission.
The GDC talk this book was based on is probably better, but I'm not sure if I want to watch it after reading this. Honestly, there are awesome YouTube channels that offer a more up-to-date and usually more nuanced look at games. If anything, it was at least interesting to examine my own thoughts about games and art, and to consider how much things have changed in 16 years.
firat's review against another edition
2.0
Feels more like the author is trying to rationalize that games aren't violent to the mass audience while pretending that this is a book that can teach you game design concepts. His definition of "fun" tries to sound educational, and it's about learning patterns and stuff.
When you read the book you won't be getting what would be useful "in theory", when making games. Rather you will be getting the subjective opinions of a middle aged game executive trying to sound educational, cultured, caring and not "violent". He is too focused to send the message: "Hey! We are not violent guys." It is probably because that the book was written when there was a huge notion that games were violent.
Rather than insisting that "fun" is learning patterns. He could have just said learning patterns can be "fun". But chooses to insist that fun is exclusively learning patterns/mastering problems. And chooses to frame other types of fun with other words instead. Rather than imposing his new language, I would have preferred him to use common language. And just call his "fun", "fun of learning", "fun of mastery" or "fun of self-improvement".
He also tries to list his ideas on what makes a good game, and how it should be. But they are too vague, and not properly backed. And sadly because of this his ideas do not leave a lasting impression.
The reason I'm giving 2 stars is that I had some thought provoking moments, that led me into thinking new game ideas, just like when I have conversations with fellow game developers. So yeah, thanks for that :thumbsup:
Finally, Mr. Koster I would have loved to have a chat with you as fellow game developers, and loved to disagree with you here and there. But when I read a highly popular book for game design, I would've preferred a more structured, more well backed, less opinionated book. And that's what many readers like me are probably going to want. So sadly I can't recommend this book.
When you read the book you won't be getting what would be useful "in theory", when making games. Rather you will be getting the subjective opinions of a middle aged game executive trying to sound educational, cultured, caring and not "violent". He is too focused to send the message: "Hey! We are not violent guys." It is probably because that the book was written when there was a huge notion that games were violent.
Rather than insisting that "fun" is learning patterns. He could have just said learning patterns can be "fun". But chooses to insist that fun is exclusively learning patterns/mastering problems. And chooses to frame other types of fun with other words instead. Rather than imposing his new language, I would have preferred him to use common language. And just call his "fun", "fun of learning", "fun of mastery" or "fun of self-improvement".
He also tries to list his ideas on what makes a good game, and how it should be. But they are too vague, and not properly backed. And sadly because of this his ideas do not leave a lasting impression.
The reason I'm giving 2 stars is that I had some thought provoking moments, that led me into thinking new game ideas, just like when I have conversations with fellow game developers. So yeah, thanks for that :thumbsup:
Finally, Mr. Koster I would have loved to have a chat with you as fellow game developers, and loved to disagree with you here and there. But when I read a highly popular book for game design, I would've preferred a more structured, more well backed, less opinionated book. And that's what many readers like me are probably going to want. So sadly I can't recommend this book.
bombolio's review against another edition
3.0
The "designer as trade school teacher" first half is good. Many parallels with Piotr Wozniak's SuperMemo guru wiki. The "designer as mission school teacher" second half is unconvincing.
kwalks's review
4.0
I appreciate the author's humanistic approach to game design even more than any of the information provided in the text. The intent of games as a way toward building skills specifically but in general becoming better humans too is inspiring. There is good, documented information and fun here too.
luiiizes's review against another edition
1.0
The best and only quote I take from this book: "Some eggs need to be broken to make this omelet "
Disappointing book for the title "Theory of fun". Feels like scrambled thoughts on a napkin while eating breakfast. A video game designers "chit chat" about everything and nothing.
Disappointing book for the title "Theory of fun". Feels like scrambled thoughts on a napkin while eating breakfast. A video game designers "chit chat" about everything and nothing.
More...