Ethics in Games: Designing a Truly Fun Game

By Guybrush Threepwood

First off, we should start by figuring out what exactly fun means. Everyone most likely has their own ideas of what is fun, but often people will agree on major things that are truly fun. First, let's take a look at a dictionary definition of "fun".

"amusing: providing enjoyment; pleasantly entertaining; "an amusing speaker"; "a diverting story"; "a fun thing to do"

This is just the core of what fun really is. There are all kinds of different combinations that equal an ultimate output of fun. Think through what makes a game an enjoyable experience for you. Take note of everything that seems to add to the overall fun-ness. Whatever the result is, you have started to figure out what your game ultimately needs to be fun and catchy. Once you finally have the "fun core" for your game, you have to stay consistent! To me, a game must have consistency. It can't change faces half-way through. It has to keep up with the expectations of the player; that the game is going to be both fun and fulfilling all the way through. This is easier said than done. Most developers agree that "it's not hard to decide what to put in a game, it's hard to decide what not to put in a game." Again, you have to stay consistent, and balanced. Think about how that cut scene will affect the players view of the game, or how that level distracts from the overall game. Eliminate unnecessary elements, and try to add something that is equally as exciting as the beginning of the game to continue spurring on the players enthusiasm and enjoyment with the game.

Discerning Forms of Fun
Again, there's that word. Discernment.
How do I discern right from wrong?
Discernment is somewhat of a natural process. We already know what's right and what's wrong. It's not too hard, just think about what's right for a while.
Sometimes the line between right and wrong is very fine, an example being;

Is it ethical to shoot someone in a game?
Some people will say, "Of course, it's just a game". While others will say, "Games are too violent and are teaching our teens how to kill."

Both of these are somewhat wrong, and somewhat right. It is permissible to include this stuff in a game. It just depends on how you do it. If you're character is fighting for a good cause, such as defending the defenseless, or rescuing someone (revenge doesn't count), then that is for a right, ethical reason. However, if your character just kills "for fun" or "for judgment" then that is the wrong reason. Players won't get nearly as attached to a violent, evil character as they would with a noble, giving character. This is just built-in human nature.

Now I'll take a look at it from the other perspective; Yes, violent games are teaching players to kill, but this is a hypocritical statement. The "teens who are being taught how to kill" are also being taught that a man is only accountable to himself. With that being taught, it uproots the entire need to be ethical. If we're accountable to ourselves, then why can't we do whatever we want? This right here is the major cause of ethical downfall, and has opened up the gateway for games such as Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt 2.
Yes, there is a fine line between right and wrong, and this line is being crossed to the latter way too often.
True fun is the feeling of happiness being brought on by games like Animal Crossing and Warioware which give us a chance just to goof off every once in a while, or even, in some cases, First Person Shooters that focus on protecting those in need and fighting for freedom, and numerous other games that lift your spirits rather than lower them with unethical and obscenely violent game titles.

These are all important things that should not be overlooked by game developers. In this age of best-selling bloodbath titles, developers need to remember that games do not have to be dark to be fun, but rather to entertain the player through exciting acts of valor and even just by good-ol' wholesome goofing off.
I hope everyone can get something from this and start thinking of what makes a game a truly fun

If you wish to discuss anything, please comment. I try to check daily.
This whole subject of making a fun game is just soo vast and I've only scratched the surface of it, I will most likely discuss this subject again as soon as I've thought through it some more.

Till then,
Peace,
Trev

Ethics in Games: A Few Basics of My Design Philosophy

By Guybrush Threepwood

Revenge, Love, Redemption, Betrayal, Peace, Despair; These are only a few themes that are included in most games. These are not bad-- if they're used right. But, what discerns "bad" from "good"? It all rounds down to the common word, ethics. Some people may argue that ethics are none-existent and we are free to do whatever we want to do if it feels good. Does this justify murder? You would most likely say, "no".
Good job, you just discerned right from wrong. This is just a small look at the big picture. My belief is, yes there is RIGHT, and yes, there is WRONG.

In this muddled modern culture we have to keep a clear head to what is right and what is wrong. If you do something for a good reason and a good cause, it always will feel better than doing the wrong thing.

This is true, too, in games. If there's one game which deals heavily on making right or wrong decisions, it would be Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. In almost every piece of dialog, the game delivers the option to do good or evil; doing good will not only give you points towards the "light side" but will give you a feeling of nobility, whereas doing evil will give you points towards the "dark side" and there will probably be a time where that decision will make you feel like dirt.

The point of a game is to tug at a players emotions, it's not about clobbering a bunch of guys, it's to authentically create emotion. Most games nowadays stray far and wide from this concept, right onto the bandwagon of poor reviewed games.

Throughout the years, there is evidence to the importance of "emotion tugging". More often then not, a game gets a good score and a great player reception by playing with their emotions. If the character is angry, the player needs to be angry, if the character is sad, the player needs to be sad. Here are a few games that have seemed to hit the target with this philosophy;

Final Fantasy VI (Not to mention pretty much every other Final Fantasy, but this one is unique in my opinion.)
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (One of the most beloved of the franchise, it really introduced emotionally storytelling to the series.)
Star Fox 64 (Probably my favorite game of all time)
Fire Emblem

And many others.

One very unique game that has a way of playing with your emotions is Animal Crossing.
You may not think of it as a very emotional game, but the way it begins to become "your second life" is one of the most brilliant aspects I've seen in a game.

Let's move on to something I like to call "Emotional Consistency". You cannot have a game that has strong emotions at one point, then they stop abruptly and everything is okay again. You cannot have a character mourning a character who he didn't even have a relationship with. This may seem like a no-brainer, but this mistake is repeated over and over again.
If a character dies, this character shouldn't disappear from the entire game, but be remembered by the other characters, and each character needs to have their own ways to deal with this grief. The easiest way to think of "Emotional Consistency" is to think over the character's personality and think of how he or she would realistically deal with the problem at hand.
Also, think logically. Don't just think about the character, think of how you would respond to this event.

The next thing I want to discuss is character realism. No, this doesn't mean how real the character looks, but how believable they are in their world, and even, in our world. If the character is a person, it needs to act like a person, and needs to have the personality of a person. If it's an animal, it needs to act like an animal and have a personality like an animal. If there's a person walking down a street, and you run into them, would they just keep walking? No, they'd probably yell at you. If you started breaking things in a city, the people would all run or avoid you, and the police would come and pick you up.

Graphics can be traded for realism. Or even better, why not focus on them both. It may take a while, but the result would be worthwhile. My view, though is that realism should come before graphics. I've seen games that have the best graphics, but fall short on actually being believable.

That's all I have for now, but think over these things today. Think, too, of how you can make a game believable, truly fun, emotionally balanced and ethical all at once.

I'll talk more about what makes a game "Truly Fun" in my next article.
Please, leave some comments if you wish to discuss this article further.

Till then, peace,
Trev