This is a very fun book 😀 with alternating text and illustration pages, both executed in a witty entertaining style. Probably quite on purpose given the title of the book.
Raph Koster is a game designer (he worked on Ultima Online and other MMOs). So he knows what he’s talking about. The premise of the whole book is an attempt to convince his grandfather that being a game designer is a worthy profession.
The book makes two important statements, in my opinion. First that fun is all about learning. And second that for games to become a mature and respected medium, they need to produce art.
Mr. Koster speaks of learning is pattern recognition: we enjoy finding patterns in the things that we perceive. When we have discovered the pattern, we get bored and desire new challenges. A game that can offer a continuous stream of such challenges, is fun. It is fun because it teaches us things. As a (in my opinion profound) side note, he suggest a definition of beauty as something that is just a little bit off of being completely recognizable. I do think, however, that he underestimates the severity of an aesthetic experience, defining it as something fleeting, something we always ultimately get bored with.
But while he defines the core of games as being their structure of rules and challenges, he does realize that this core alone is not sufficient for an entertaining experience. This is where he sees the role of narrative, comparing games to dance where the choreography is nothing without dancers and a stage, or music that requires musicians who interpret and play the piece.
When it comes to art and expressiveness, he doesn’t really see a problem with the fact that most games are only about violence, claiming that most art, at its core, is about violence and sex. So all games need to do to become art, is to be a bit more subtle about these topics. He does seem to believe that this subtlety can be achieved by creating smart game structures, in other words by manipulating what he sees as the core of games. He makes an interesting comparison between art and a trellis with plants: humans and their experience are the plants that grow on the trellis, while the trellis itself is the artwork.
No need to say that I don’t agree with this. First of all, I don’t like reducing everything to its base components. Sure, all art is about sex and violence. As much is life is about cells and electricity. But at that level, nothing is meaningful! Depth of experience situates itself in much higher regions. I believe that the core of just about everything is nothing. What matters, what truly matters, is the layer around that core, the skin. This is where meaning happens, where humans can become more than organic machines. Truth is completely irrelevant.
And, as you may know, I have my doubts about the potential of game structures as well. I would love to see these expressive games. But if in the thousands of years that games have existed, no one has succeeded in producing a single art piece, why would they suddenly be able to do so now? There is definitely artistic potential in the the new digital technologies but I believe that we need to create much wider and diverse interactive experiences to get there, and drop the requirement of a game structure.