next »

[Cargo]

I've heard many developers say things like: "I'm going to continue working on the idea, but I'm not sure if it's fun yet."

So what I'm curious about is how do you decide if what you're making is fun or not?

[SirNiko]

Get to the fun as quickly as possible. Develop the juiciest bits of your game first. If your game is an platformer about really crazy awesome bosses, make the boss first. Skip the title screen, the tutorial level, and all that crap. Just get straight to the good bit. If it's as good as you hoped it to be, then you can design the rest of the game in confidence.

If your game isn't fun at first, it's not proof your idea might not work, but it is a hint.

-SirNiko

[J. R. Hill]

Fun doesn't matter, you just gotta say it's fun.

at's how u get dat green yo

[terloon]

Play it in your head. With the games I've worked on, I played them hours and hours on end inside my head. During the shower, while driving, etc. Something doesn't feel like fun, tweak it. Your brain is the best game simulator.

[LiquidAsh]

I find that there are just too many emergent qualities in games to simulate them in my head... unless the idea isn't very different from something I've already played. 

Some ideas require more design-work than others.  One approach to developing a great game is to design the pants off of a game idea, until it is as fun as you can make it.  Another approach is to roughly prototype several ideas until you come across on that's pretty fun, and then polish it up.  There are many approaches between these extremes that probably vary from project to project (as well as from individual to individual).

[TeeGee]

Prototypes.

[Richard Kain]

It is determined a little bit by the final objective of your game. Are you making an art game, and trying to convey an emotion, idea, or ideology? Are you trying to develop a type of gameplay, and are focused on replayability? Is your game going to be story-based, where the narrative takes priority? Or are you specifically trying to produce a game that can be sold to a broad demographic?

A lot of reviewers and critics insist that games must be fun. I think this is a fallacy. Not all books are fun, and not all movies are fun. And experience has shown that there are many games that couldn't be quantified as being "fun." (games with punishing difficulty, games with extremely dark linear narratives, games with archaic save systems) However, many of these titles do succeed at being engaging, and several are held up as paragons of quality design. Engaging the player and holding their interest is what most people are describing when they use the term "fun." If your game can hook the player, then you have succeeded in that regard. The best way to test this is to have as many other people play it as possible. (and gather their feedback) Also, remember that user feedback is to be used as guidelines, not absolutes. Attempting to give focus groups everything they ask for is a negative trend within the game industry.

If you're all about earning the green, then a good idea would be to decide on what publishing method you want to go with, and then run your game's ideas/prototypes past whoever would be distributing your game. Their input will be instrumental in your development process.

[tomka]

prototyping. a good rule i follow is the one day prototype - if i cant make a basic prototype of the essential game mechanic fun within 1 days work, ill probably move on.

[s0]

If I don't believe an idea could produce a good game, I don't even start working on it. Simple as that. I never do things like prototyping or design docs or stuff.

The attitude shouldn't be "I don't know if it's gonna be good", but "I believe it can be good, and I'm gonna make it good".

Please note this is all very subjective and personal and I don't want to coax anyone into using a certain workflow.

[Cargo]

I agree completely with prototyping. But I find that what happens is I get the prototype done, and I play it, maybe it's fun the first time, but becomes less fun when I play it a few more times to tweak the gameplay or add elements. Then what do you do at that point? How do some of you try to expand on an idea without it becoming tedious?

And when I say fun, it could really mean anything that compels you to keep playing.

[alspal]

Keep adding more complexity (good complexity) and challenges.

[Parthon]

Unfortunately for the programmer the fun can wear off an idea pretty fast, especially if you keep working on it, which you will.

After the prototype is done and you start working on the real deal, then it's good to get other people on board. That way they can play it and tell you if it's still fun/balanced. You'll get bored of it, but if you want to finish it you'll have to push through, and good comments help.

Remember that game development is 95% plain hard work. Playing games is fun, making games is not so much so.

[Absurdist]

Try pitching the idea to someone without sounding stupid - if you can, it's probably a good idea.

[Hajo]

So what I'm curious about is how do you decide if what you're making is fun or not?

If I feel uncertain, I try to spawn a discussion about it on a forum, and then look at the feedback. Depending on the feedback I try to form a new opinion then.

If I can't get feedback, rules of thumb are these:

- are there intersting things for the players to do?
- what will keep the player motivated to play my game?
- does my game have features that are improvements compared to similar games which are known to be fun?

If I realize there is just nothing fun to do, nothing that will attract players and it has no special features I know I was making something boring ...

[Melly]

Besides the prototyping bit that's been mentioned, which is very important, another way to gauge if the idea you just had is worth spending time on is to not work on it actively for maybe a month or so. Ideas that are too impulsive will eventually lose steam and you'll mostly forget about them as you have new ideas. If you're still passionate about an idea after one month or so, that's a good hint that it's worth taking it on as you're more likely to see it to the end.

[Imagineergames]

Do a Factibility analysis. Get yourself some paper and write it out as a sentence, as a paragraph, and as a good description. Return to it after a day, read it, and start to make a list of the assets you'll need for it. Then do a list of goals to attain. If it still sounds like something worth doing, maybe it is!

[del]

I agree completely with prototyping. But I find that what happens is I get the prototype done, and I play it, maybe it's fun the first time, but becomes less fun when I play it a few more times to tweak the gameplay or add elements. Then what do you do at that point? How do some of you try to expand on an idea without it becoming tedious?

And when I say fun, it could really mean anything that compels you to keep playing.

If you enjoyed it alot at first then maybe you have something. Tweaking will only get you so far. But if find you don't like it after a really short time, then maybe it's time to move on.

And don't forget to have some one else give it a try and see what they think, testing and feedback are always important. It's very easy to get tunnel vision working just by yourself.

[aeiowu]

But I find that what happens is I get the prototype done, and I play it, maybe it's fun the first time, but becomes less fun when I play it a few more times to tweak the gameplay or add elements. Then what do you do at that point?

Keep working on it for that day, tweaking the prototype. THEN, next day, bring someone in and watch them play it.

[Fauxfox]

I work on the ID theory, I'f i like it im sure others would as well, I make for myself prime rely.