Hypothesis: How to Make Games Fun
Users will abandon a game that isn't fun.
It will then be harshly criticized, leading to poor sales... and in the worst case, the company will have to shut down.
Conversely, if you make a fun game, users will keep playing, finish the game, give it good reviews, sales will grow... and you can keep the business going (hooray!).
No one wants to be unhappy on purpose.
I aim to make fun games so that both the users and I can be in a win-win, happy situation.
What needs to be done is simple: "make the game fun"—that's all.
Why do users abandon games?
When users put down the controller and quit a game.
I think there are various factors, but the ones that seem to have a major impact are...
Too easy
Boring
Tedious
Too difficult
Incomprehensible
The story isn't interesting
Lacks stimulation
Repetitive
Feels like an unfair balance (e.g., low drop rates)
I suppose those are the main ones.
To summarize...
Boring
Too difficult
Incomprehensible
Unfair
I suppose that's about it.
I see, so we just need to resolve or improve these points.
Improving [Too Difficult]
The solution to this problem is written on page 125 of the book 'Game Design Brain' by game designer Shoji Masuda, so please buy it and read it.
For those of you thinking, 'That's cheating!'
This book is useful for a lifetime, so you won't regret buying it.
Improving [I Don't Understand]
You can find areas for improvement by playing your own game as if you were a user.
At that time, try to imagine the user profile as much as possible, such as:
Someone who doesn't play games very often
Someone for whom this was the first game they ever bought
Someone who is not good at this genre
Let's try to imagine them.
For example, someone used to the Mario series knows that 'if you fall into a pit, you lose a life', but would the aforementioned users know that? You have to find a way to
convey that 'pits are dangerous'. *Explaining everything in advance is a buzzkill, so you need to be selective.
As a convention of the Mario series, there is a specification that 'you take damage when you touch an enemy', but to raise awareness, the art is designed so that 'the Goomba's face looks scary'. While this is in the realm of art, since Shigeru Miyamoto designed the Goomba, the Goomba's face was made scary out of 'game design necessity'. If a 'mysterious chestnut-like creature with a scary face' approaches you, you'd be on guard, right?
For example, in an RPG, you must clearly convey that 'during battle, if your HP reaches zero, you die'. This is because for the user, the biggest failure in an RPG is a 'game over,' and a game over occurs due to 'defeat in battle'.
[If your HP reaches zero, you are defeated and it is game over] Would the aforementioned user base understand and accept this explanation alone? They might not even know what 'HP' is in the first place.
Let's imagine the user's play and improve [I Don't Understand].
Improving [Unfair]
Let's try to make it feel 'fair' somehow.
Even if it isn't actually unfair, if the user feels it is 'unfair,' then it is 'unfair'.
The situation depends on what kind of system it is and why they felt it was unfair, but as for how to deal with it...
Clearly state information such as probabilities and success rates in advance
Display advisory messages about dangers
Have companions provide hints for points that might be overlooked
Display confirmation messages before making decisions
Set the occurrence rate to zero for a few turns after a critical hit occurs
and so on.
Regarding the last one, I understand the urge to say, 'Critical hits occur by chance, so theoretically they can happen consecutively!' However, from the user's perspective, it is 'unavoidable damage' and a 'penalty,' so wouldn't it be better to provide some kind of follow-up?
※ This line of thinking varies depending on the 'game genre,' or in other words, the 'target user base.' If you are aiming for hardcore gameplay, then let's have critical hits occur fairly on our side as well. After all, players should be able to manage their strategy even with consecutive occurrences included.
Improving [Boredom]
Now, for this improvement that I saved for last.
It means either changing users who felt 'bored' for some reason into users who feel 'not bored' or 'having fun,' or simply designing the game so that they don't feel 'bored' in the first place.
How do we improve it... before that, let's investigate 'why they felt bored'.
If we remove the previously mentioned [Too difficult], [Don't understand], and [Unfair] from the factors of 'boredom,' the remaining factors that come to mind are [Too easy], [No change], and [No stimulation].
If we rephrase 'bored' as 'tedious,' it becomes:
It's tedious because it's too easy
It's tedious because there is no change
It's tedious because there is no stimulation
and so on.
To summarize this further,
It's too easy, so there's no stimulation, therefore it's tedious
There is no change, so there's no stimulation, therefore it's tedious
becomes the result.
In other words, [Stimulation] is the factor that controls boredom.
If users feel bored, or are likely to feel bored, let's add [Stimulation]. [Stimulation] can be provided by ensuring things are [Not too easy] and that there is [Change].
If you feel your game is "boring," try questioning whether it is "too easy" or "lacks variety."
Summary
Let's make games interesting so that users don't quit.
There are several possible reasons for user churn, but the most common ones are
[Too difficult], [Don't understand], [Unfair], and [Boring].The reason for [Boring] is [Lack of stimulation], and
the way to judge the presence or absence of stimulation is to check if it is [Too easy] and [Has variety].