That’s pretty much what it comes down to. Yes, there are a few basic concepts that should always be observed: art, balance, fun-factor, but how you achieve those changes every day and I must admit it is difficult to keep up. In the old days, it was fun to watch a little yellow circle eat pellets and run away from ghosts. That all ended with the Pac Man Christmas Special (apologies to those who enjoy it). Then FPS’s were fun, but then they were all “too short.” As hard as it is to make a game fun, it’s even harder to make a long game fun, because at some point you’re going to run out of new things to throw at the player and keep them interested in playing. I prefer short and sweet, but then again, if I’m going to pay $60 for a game, it better have some substance.

I recently finished the book “Persuasive Games” by Ian Bogost. It’s an excellent book, very dense, very informative, and if you haven’t read it, I suggest you do. During the course of the book, Mr. Bogost explores the underlying persuasive and/or political themes of many games, from “GTA: San Andreas” to “Darfur is Dying,” as well as his own “Howard Dean for Iowa Game.” Interestingly, though, nowhere in the book does Professor Bogost hint at any of the games he mentions being any fun. The fun-factor doesn’t factor into the equation. Now I’m reading Raph Koster’s “Theory of Fun” for my Game Crit class and am already halfway through it. Though not as dense as Professor Bogost’s, Mr. Koster’s book does shed some light on what makes games fun and how to keep them fresh as they go on. Yet, by not naming any games in the course of the book, Mr. Koster allows the reader to subconsciously attach his themes to the games the reader has played. Plus, there are pictures every other page, so while not nearly as intricately thought-out or written as “Persuasive Games,” “Theory of Fun” still sheds light on many mysteries of good game design.

Which brings me back to the topic on hand. Raph Koster’s book applies to all games, old and new, and thus covers more general ground that has been, can be, and will probably always be accepted. Meanwhile, Ian Bogost’s book covers specific themes and only current games, mainly of the Indie/Casual/Serious Game variety, and applies his own theories of game design to them. Yet, many themes mentioned in Koster’s book would create games Bogost would probably find too simple. Alternatively, themes mentioned in Bogost’s book would create games Koster would probably find too complicated. It’s hard to determine if there’s a middle ground, an alleyway between the fun and the enticing. Can a game purely meant to be fun persuade us to make a difference in the world? Or, are games that are just fun too watered down to mean anything more to us than another high score to set? In “Persuasive Games,” many of the games mentioned don’t sound like fun, and aren’t really meant to be fun in the first place, since the situations they cover can be, at times, very serious. But who’s to say a Serious Game can’t be fun too? Why shouldn’t the same concepts in Koster’s book be applied to the games from Bogost’s? Wouldn’t that make for a more fulfilling experience?

Moving away from the books but staying on the same topic, why is it that everything I once read in books, articles, and the like, is now obsolete? Has game design really changed that much in the last ten years? Am I running on an old version of the software, so to speak, and in dire need of upgrading my OS? I feel like I’m questioning everything I once learned from “Game Design: Secrets of the Sages” and the articles I used to read daily up on GameDev.Net. The concepts are the same, but their application is different, like if someone suddenly changed the Copy function from CTRL-C to CTRL-Y and didn’t tell me.

It definitely doesn’t help that I haven’t really made a game in the last eight years and have mostly just been studying graphic design and 3D Modeling to apply to eventual game creation. “Street Gang” was a success of naivety. I allowed my publisher to control me and basically steal my 20-25% completed project at the age of 13. Since then I just haven’t wanted to go through it all again. I was excited to see it up for sale online, but I was scared when I saw it at CompUSA on the bargain rack. Not in the bin, thank god, but even still, I knew no one over the age of 5 would play my game, or even enjoy it, or even bother to keep an eye out for any future games I might work on. I wanted to stomp it and break the CD held inside the weak, plastic jewel case. I was embarrassed. I hadn’t even created something remotely good. I could say it’s my publisher’s fault, and that wouldn’t be far from the truth, but in reality I have to face up to the fact that I made a crappy game.

Here’s the part that worries me. “NightRise” will technically be my second game, and even though I’ve now had three years of art school and am in my second year of intense education in game design, I don’t know if I’ve grown. The “Street Gang” issue has been holding me back for a long, long time. After it, I went into advertising design and focused on Photoshop and Illustrator while designing “NightRise” on the side… and never doing anything with it. Now that I’ve started, I can’t help but wonder, am I designing like me now, or designing like me eight years ago? How much of it “old theory” and how much of it is “modern theory?” Is it fun but meaningless, meaningful but boring, or does it run down that alley in between?