MDA Framework – The lenses of fun, Part 1
This blog post is part of a series of posts regarding different ways of breaking down the word ‘fun’. Click here part two and part three.
The word ‘fun’ is a particularly vague word. Yet, it is used everywhere within game development. We are constantly asking ourselves “Is my game fun enough?” or “Have I found ‘the fun’ in my game yet?” as if it were some magical thing hidden under a rock, waiting to be found to make your game perfect.
But here’s the thing, the word does not convey much value, except that a positive feeling was invoked in a human being whilst doing an activity. That is what most dictionary definitions will tell you too.
Having an activity marked as fun is a highly subjective statement. What is fun for you might not be fun for me, and vice versa. This will become increasingly apparent when you start to work in larger teams and you notice that the “my fun vs. your fun” conversation doesn’t cut it any longer.
A thing that has helped me, both when looking at other games and making them, is to have a series of perspectives and breakdowns of the word fun that one can use to see a feature, problem or a whole game in a new light.
I choose to see them as lenses. All of them can be used to view the world differently, but none of them are directly wrong.
I’m going to start with the ‘8 kinds of fun’ that’s outlined briefly in the excellent paper called MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research written by Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc and Robert Zubek.
8 kinds of fun
Sensation
“Game as sense-pleasure”
Fun in a way that pleases the senses of the mind. That is stunning visuals, impeccable audio and timing. Anything that is pleasing to watch, feel or hear.
Rhythm games do this well with timing events and synchronizing beats in the music to the graphics. Horror games also control the pacing of the player experience to invoke emotions in the player.
Although I haven’t played Tetris Effect released in 2018 – It seems like the core thing they added to this almost purely challenge based game was sense-pleasure fun.
Fantasy
“Game as make-believe”
Isn’t it cool to be able to delve deep into the mines of Moria? Or defeating Diablo with your witch doctor? Or just chilling out in Stardew Valley building on your very own farm?
Fantasy fun is just that. It enables you as a player to immerse yourself into something other than the real world.
Narrative
“Game as drama”
Watching a movie, reading a book or playing a story-based game all tick the boxes of the narrative fun. In a linear game, the story can give the player(s) a sense of purpose and for some it can be the main reason to continue. You want to see what happens next as it unfolds.
Of course, the narrative can also come entirely from the players mind. Some open world games and RPGs does this masterfully. Side quests, interactive dialogs and player autonomy all enables you to make up a story about who you as a player are and create a relation to the game world and everything in it in a unique fashion.
Challenge
“Game as obstacle course”
The fun in overcoming obstacles. Getting better at aiming, solving puzzles or improving your timing.
An important distinction I make is not to see this as difficulty. Difficulty can certainly be a part of it, but I think the fun really lies in the process of getting better whilst getting an optimal challenge.
Fellowship
“Game as social framework”
Playing with your friends can be so much fun, and you might think some games become even better when playing with other people.
I remember playing through Gears of War 1, 3 & 4 with friends. I’ve always seen these games as primarily something to experience with a friend, but for some reason I played through the second installment all by myself. Still, it is a good game, but all my best memories from that series is from playing co-op.
However, I do think you can get fellowship from games playing solo. Baldurs Gate strikes me as an exceptional example, where you gain personal connections to all your team members. The feeling that you matter and they matter to you in a context of friends, whether or not they are actual humans or not is what defines games as a social framework to me.
Discovery
“Game as uncharted territory”
Sure, a big part is exploring an uncharted map, but it is also discovering how the game works and the relation of the different mechanics.Sometimes I loosely re-define this as the fun of learning. I like to think of how the game elements are presented in order for me to get a grasp of what the game is without it feeling overwhelming.
Most Mario games I’ve played teaches the player how to discover their levels and features mind-blowingly well.
Expression
“Game as self-discovery”
Expressing a part of yourself in a creative way is how I would define this. Customizing the appearance of your character, carefully architecting a building in Minecraft or building the best farm in Stardew Valley – they are all ways of inserting a piece of yourself in the game.
Submission
“Game as submission”
Grinding. The act of doing the same thing over and over again to reach a long term goal. You submit yourself into a “flow” state to collect that gold you need for a specific kind of gear or you fight monsters until you reach a certain level.
There are many ways to grind, and some games have even made it their main type of fun – like Cookie Clicker or Clicker Heroes.
Usage
Here are some quick breakdowns I did the other day:
- The Witcher 3: Fantasy, Narrative, Discovery, Challenge, Sensation, Submission, Fellowship (with NPCs)
- Left 4 Dead 2: Challenge, Fellowship, Narrative, Fantasy, Discovery, Sensation
- Telltale’s The Walking Dead: Narrative, Fantasy, Fellowship (with NPCs)
And you can delve deeper within each area and see if you think they succeeded or not.
In the MDA paper, they have the following examples outlined:
- Charades: Fellowship, Expression, Challenge.
- Quake: Challenge, Sensation, Competition
- The Sims: Discovery, Fantasy, Expression, Narrative.
- Final Fantasy: Fantasy, Narrative, Expression, Discovery, Challenge, Submission
Where did Competition come from in their list? It does say that the MDA framework “includes but is not limited to” the eight mentioned in there. So maybe they added it there to show more types of fun.
Still, breaking down your games with an analytical mind can be eye opening and extraordinary useful.
You get to see which types the game developers decided to empower and which ones they didn’t. More importantly, you can prioritize which features are more important for your own creations as you decide what types of fun are crucial for your players.
How are you finding or analyzing the fun in games? Have you used this one before or do you use any other tools?
Thank you for reading! If you liked this type of post, please let me know! That way I can get a sense if I should do more of them. Also, If you have any comments, observations or perspectives about this – please talk to me on twitter!
