The Science of Halo (and Fun)

Super interesting article by Clive Thompson on Bungie's testing of the design process used in Halo 3.

The ideal in gameplay, the goal every developer aims for, is an experience that keeps players in a "flow" state — constantly surfing the edges of their abilities without bogging down. Modern videogames are often compared to Hollywood movies, but the comparison, many Bungie designers will tell you, is inaccurate. A movie is static. "You sit there and absorb it all in a single two-hour shot, and it's perfectly linear," says Frank O'Connor, one of the writers tasked with scripting the story line in Halo 3.

Creating a game, in contrast, is like a combination of architecture — constructing environments that influence the behavior of people inside them — and designing a new sport. Gamemakers have to devise a system of rules and equipment that gives players a few basic goals and then allows them to find their own ways of achieving those goals. The flow comes from constantly discovering innovative ways to solve these open-ended problems.

Back to what Clint was talking about, that is where the art lies. This article reveals much more about how Bungie thinks of fun (30 second bursts of action, the "golden tripod", etc) than Raph Koster's intellectually insipid book, A Theory of Fun for Game Design, which is a vague and meandering rumination.

I'd like to find out more about research on what humans find "fun" and how we should go about quantifying and qualifying "fun".

Comments

[DannoHung]

Man, I'm glad I'm not the only person who doesn't love what Koster has to say about game design.

I was willing to give the dude's ideas a shot even after he royally boned SWG (great economy toy, terrible game, well, while I played anyway), but everything I've ever read by him reeks of "The Game is supposed to be fun for the designer, not the player."

[Ham]

I didn't think Koster's book was bad... vague and meandering yes, not bad.

I didn't see anything too enlightening in the Halo article either; except possibly for emphasizing play testing is important.

I think one of the most enlightening things I've ever read on game design is still Bartle's ancient paper 'Player's who suits muds'.

The large scale sophisticated testing process described in the article is just how a huge project tries to get back to the days of small projects, where one person could do iterations of play, tweak, design all by themselves, and create the game along the way.

i.e. Refactoring > Design.

This is sorta the impression you can get from the recent talk by the ICO developers. They had an initial vision and design, but created the game and the puzzles along the way.

Back to Bartle's paper; At the base, games are all about motivation.

Now whose vague and meandering... me.

Out.

[Chris]

"I'd like to find out more about research on what humans find 'fun' and how we should go about quantifying and qualifying 'fun'."

Can I (indulgently) suggest our book 21st Century Game Design? It's is about research into what people find fun (not just our own research) and the many different ways people have fun, along with how to apply these ideas to the game design process.

Best wishes!