in 2011, Soren Johnson wrote, “Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game.” that idea has bothered me ever since i first heard it and i haven’t really known why. i hear it repeated in GDC talks, GMTK videos, game design podcasts, forums, and practically anywhere else where a game has any type of optimal strategy.

i’ve forever subscribed to the notion that game designers and developers aren’t the ordinants of fun. they don’t identify some objective sense of fun and build a set of rules in order to codify that fun experience. this type of mentality is most apparent in board games but can be seen anywhere. inevitably, someone will criticize a game by saying it’s not fun and — equally as inevitably — someone will reply “you weren’t playing it right.” it seems that there’s a belief that strict adherence to the designer’s vision will infallibly lead to fun and it’s the deviance which ruins the experience. i have separate, even stronger opinions about that but that’s for another time.

in my mind, game designers are more like sociologists – they try to observe what different demographics of people find fun and identify patterns. all of our information comes from observing players, not the other way around. it’s silly to think that we tell them how to have fun.

to be clear, i think the soren johnson quote has truth, particularly so when faced with issues like the skill inflation problem. in games like Overwatch, TF2, LoL, etc where as the community matures and the average skill level increases, it becomes much harder for beginners to play. the game has been so heavily optimized by the core players that outsiders can’t join (which, of course, is an eventual death sentence for the game).

but where i think the quote doesn’t make sense is when applied to single player games or games where one style of play won’t affect other players of the game. as far as i can tell, this application of the quote insinuates that players don’t know what’s most fun for themselves and, because of their overwhelming desire to win and do better, will eschew the fun modes of play for optimal ones. because of this phenomenon, we decreers of fun must protect players from themselves lest they ruin they ruin the pure vision for us, themselves, and everyone else!

who says being rewarded for playing optimally isn’t fun? obviously not everyone enjoys it, but that’s where the subjectivity of fun becomes relevant. but i’m pretty sure this is the entire appeal of puzzles – being rewarded for correctly solving it. using binding of isaac as an example, the creator lamented not adding item descriptions despite it being a deliberate design choice. he wanted to capture the sense of mystery that old games had and encourage experimentation. however in the age of the internet, it’s really hard to preserve any game mysteries so players just made wikis with all the item info. who is “at fault” for this – the players for playing incorrectly, or the creator for designing incorrectly? both? neither?

i also think it’s misguided to assume that players will play a game long-term without having fun. instead, i think that fun matures and evolves with the player. i really like melee and symphony of the night, but i most certainly don’t play them like i used to when i was young and i definitely don’t play them the way they were intended by their designers. i like to speedrun symphony of the night and i used to enjoy playing smash competitively. it’s because the games are fun that my style of play continues to change.

alright i’m realizing this should’ve been a post on my blog, it’s way too long i’m sorry. i’ll probably have more to say on this later but it’s just something that constantly bugs me.

also lmao “skill inflation”

inflates your skill making it big and round