Making *fun* Games

So I recently stopped working on a game I had spent 30+ hours on. It was polished, had cute graphics and had a lot of thought put into it. But it only took a few people to play it for me to decide it wasn't a fun game. It didn't seem to have any chance of becoming the type of game people would choose over the rest of the games on the App Store.


I learned a lot in the development but again, that's a lot of time spent on a game that went nowhere! So, how do you folks make fun games? Is there some trick you use to make sure a game is fun?


I want to create games I know will provide enjoyment for people.

Make games with a purpose to exist. Setting out to make a fun game is about as specific as setting out in the world to do 'good', it's a nice goal but unless you have an actual vision or point it's a crapshoot whether or not you actually succeed.

30 hours is nothing. Also don't listen to me I've never made a good game.

Make games with a purpose to exist. Setting out to make a fun game is about as specific as setting out in the world to do 'good'.

When I make games, I do it because I feel like I'm doing good in the sense that people will have fun playing the game and hopefully gain some knowledge/skill they can apply to their life.

Make games with a purpose to exist. Setting out to make a fun game is about as specific as setting out in the world to do 'good'.

When I make games, I do it because I feel like I'm doing good in the sense that people will have fun playing the game and hopefully gain some knowledge/skill they can apply to their life.

How you make fun games,
1: Make a demo to give to friends,family,ect.
2:Get their feedback and decide if its good feedback or bad feedback. Pretend your making a serious shooter game. Here are examples of good and bad feedback
Good Feedback: Add upgrades.
Bad Feedback: Add Humor.
3. Change your game and your good.

There's quite a bit of interesting psychology and theory behind what makes a game "fun", but that's something you can dig into on your own(the internet is a wonderful thing; try looking up "extra credits" on youtube for something easy to digest).

 What I will say is that I only attempt to make games that I would want to play or think I would enjoy playing. If I wouldn't want to play it, I wouldn't want to make it.

Playtesting from other people is also VERY important.
Check out this video for a bit of insight into that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on7endO4lPY

Making games that people will enjoy isn't a specific goal. Thinking about how to make a game fun is so vague it won't get you anywhere, think about concrete concepts that are interesting to you and are worth exploring. There are a trillion games that all wanted to be the same generic image of fun, throwing another one on the pile is a waste of time and pollutes the market.

The word fun exists as a casual short-hand, it's nice to use when talking about games with others but expecting a three letter word to give you insights when actually making a game is dumb. Also the typical game doesn't teach anyone real-world skills, games teach abstractions.

Extra Credits is for babies, it's aired on PBS Kids.

I guess it mostly depends on the type of game you are trying to make. In my opinion, the use of the word "fun" should probably be replaced by "entertaining" as that how I think games should be.

If you think your game is not entertaining try to figure out why. Don't trust your own judgement on this, instead look at your testers. Try to see where are they having problems and where they are enjoying the experience you provided for them. Once you figure that out do your best to remove the parts that were giving them problems and enhance as much as possible the experience they liked the most in your game by any means necessary (don't put happy music or colorful art on a horror based game). Get some more testers and the old ones and repeat the process as many times as possible. And try not to rely on friends or family for testing as they will usually try to play instead of testing (for bugs) and will also try to go easy on you if they don't enjoy the game.

Doing so could radically change the way you envisioned the game and the way it came out, but that's probably the only way to make a game that could keep the players from quitting after a few minutes of playing.

I'm yet to make an entertaining game, so I guess I'm not the best person to give advice either

Extra Credits is for babies, it's aired on PBS Kids.

1: Extra credits is a very accessible and informative starting point which also has references and recommendations to quite heavy learning material.
2: I can't tell if you're joking or being serious when you claim it's played on pbs kids

Other than that I mostly agree with you.

I guess it mostly depends on the type of game you are trying to make. In my opinion, the use of the word "fun" should probably be replaced by "entertaining" as that how I think games should be.

If we're getting into semantics, given the actual definitions, both "fun" and "entertaining" are valid description tools, but "entertaining" is the better word, as it specifically encompasses the idea of retaining attention and interest.

If we're getting into semantics, given the actual definitions, both "fun" and "entertaining" are valid description tools, but "entertaining" is the better word, as it specifically encompasses the idea of retaining attention and interest.

I specifically went for entertaining because of the attention retaining part.
Most people associate fun with amusement and that is usually not enough to engage the players.

Extra Credits is for babies, it's aired on PBS Kids.

And so is Stencyl, it's included with happy meals.  Therefore they fit well together.
Real men code in Assembly language!
(That was sarcasm btw)

To be honest, I don't think I have anything of value to tell the op.
The word fun, althought subjective, seems agreed upon enough to be an useful describer that have a different meaning than "interesting" or "engaging".  Sure, if you ONLY strive to make a game fun it may end up a generic timewaster, but for most (not all) games, making a game at least kinda fun is still one factor you have to care about.

The thing is, "causal fun" and "hardcorish fun" are two different things.  While several games that only/mainly strive to be the latter have had great critical reviews, it doesn't seem to happen to the former that much.  (I can't think of a praised IPhone game that's also in the most popular/talked about)

Also for making "fun games" fix glitches.
This is related to the feedback thing I said because when they are they are testing your game they also look for glitches.

And try not to rely on friends or family for testing as they will usually try to play instead of testing (for bugs) and will also try to go easy on you if they don't enjoy the game.

It is the opposite for me. My family are my harshest critics. Instead of telling me anything they like, the only tell me bad things.

Also, what you consider fun might not be the best way to judge, either. I find dieing or losing in a game to be more enjoyable than winning. I push myself to play levels or areas in games long before I am supposed to. Most people hate my play style. Since none of this is good advice, let me quote something I was told recently. Make games that are easy and familiar at first - those are games that you know people will like. Once you have established yourself, then go out on a limb.

It is the opposite for me. My family are my harshest critics. Instead of telling me anything they like, the only tell me bad things.

Also, what you consider fun might not be the best way to judge, either. I find dieing or losing in a game to be more enjoyable than winning. I push myself to play levels or areas in games long before I am supposed to. Most people hate my play style. Since none of this is good advice, let me quote something I was told recently. Make games that are easy and familiar at first - those are games that you know people will like. Once you have established yourself, then go out on a limb.

When playtesting a game you should not rely only on what the players tell you, but on what you observe. They might struggle with something but forget to mention it, or they might not consider it important, but if you don't observe their playstyle you can't change things to fit their needs and expectations.
As for making familiar games (some form of a clone) at first...that won't work with everyone. The developer will expect every game they make to have appeal to some players, but if he makes a clone of an easy game he probably won't get the deserved attention due to the players familiarity with the original. They might like it, but not all will praise that game and that could be depressing for the developer. That will work if the developer is just learning to make games thou

Fun is not a universal thing.
Some will find something fun somewont

Make games with a purpose to exist. Setting out to make a fun game is about as specific as setting out in the world to do 'good', it's a nice goal but unless you have an actual vision or point it's a crapshoot whether or not you actually succeed.

30 hours is nothing. Also don't listen to me I've never made a good game.

Blob when you said 30 hours is nothing, for indie games it's not nothing. Indie games could take years days like Stevetheipad's game or even hours.