Quantifying Fun in Games—or What Make Games Fun

thegamer.com:

The viral word game Wordle, which is wedged within the purview of The New York Times now and forever (until the inevitable construction of a paywall), has already been delved into, discussed and dissected by internet writers and players several times over. Why is it so successful? How did it gain widespread popularity? What’s the best starting word for the game—and why? Fortunately, YouTuber Grant Sanderson has informed us what that best word is—backed by maths and information theory—and that word is- nah, I’m not going to tell you. Because why would you want to have an easier and much more optimised game, when part of the fun is to figure out and fumble through your guesses?

(Besides, the best first word is “farts”. Although that may eventually be considered a “bad” word by The New York Times. Unfun!)

Yes, fun. Part of the appeal of games is their sheer fun-ness, the ability to elicit positive or potent emotions in their players, and the mechanical and thematic features that course through their underlying structure. Fun is sacrosanct to games; it’s the one of the first few things that players ask about when a new title is unleashed into the wilderness. We ask ourselves several questions: Just how mechanically deep is the game? How many hours of fun can the game afford me? How much fun—and value—can my high-end PC rig or console squeeze out of this title? How can I ensure that I get the most amount of such fun in the upcoming hours, days and months?

Related: There Aren’t Too Many Indie Games, Actually

Approaching games under the framework of ‘fun’ has been the de facto lens we looked at the medium for several years now. The problem, however, is that quantifying the fun in games isn’t easy. Unlike the Michelin Guide for