What do you think?
Rate this book
Game Design Theory: A New Philosophy for Understanding Games
Despite the proliferation of video games in the twenty-first century, the theory of game design is largely underdeveloped, leaving designers on their own to understand what games really are. Helping you produce better games, Game Design Theory: A New Philosophy for Understanding Games presents a bold new path for analyzing and designing games.
188 pages, ebook
First published January 1, 2012
5 people are currently reading
161 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
June 3, 2019
The early parts of the book is the philosophy of “what is a game?”. He categorises different “Interactive Systems” with each definition is a subset of the next: Interactive systems, Puzzles (adds a problem), Contests (adds competition), Games (adds decisions). eg Contest is a subset of Puzzle, but is not a game.
He argues that games like Minecraft aren't games because it has a goal of survival, but survival has no end condition. Personally, I don't really care too much about the definitions, but I do agree with his point that some software sold as games would better be suited as a animation/film/comic. If the focus is on story, then why not use a medium that is suited to that purpose?
He also makes good points about the content in games. These days, publishers will boast about the size of games; map sizes, amount of units etc. However, a strategy with 100 units is most likely unbalanced compared to a game with 10. He does praise Advance Wars for this, and although that game had it's limitations, it was massively effective; so is a great example of good games design.
As a rule, he does mention that anything that is added to the game should complement the core mechanic, so sometimes it's best to go for a minimal approach.
Some of his points I understood, but yet kinda disagreed with. For example, he complains about games that allow you to save at any point, but I think this feature is a choice if you want to use it or not. It's also good to have a mix of casual and hardcore games, so I wouldn't just exclusively play games that allowed you to save freely, nor games with limited saves. He also complains about the cape power-up in Super Mario Bros 3 which allowed you to fly and cut large sections of the level. I understand it defeats the point in a platforming game and you miss out on admiring the level design. Again, you don't have to use it, and when you do, you can have fun in doing so. It's like the joy of finding the hidden warp pipe room, and skipping out entire worlds. You do it, feel cheeky, then end up replaying the game to see what you missed.
I think games design is quite complex and what sounds good in theory isn't necessarily what makes a good game. Burgun makes many great points throughout the book, but he also makes points that I think are easy to counter-argue. Many points are just opinion, and I don't think you can claim there's a right or wrong. Many parts were an interesting read, but then there was quite a lot of boring sections too.
He argues that games like Minecraft aren't games because it has a goal of survival, but survival has no end condition. Personally, I don't really care too much about the definitions, but I do agree with his point that some software sold as games would better be suited as a animation/film/comic. If the focus is on story, then why not use a medium that is suited to that purpose?
He also makes good points about the content in games. These days, publishers will boast about the size of games; map sizes, amount of units etc. However, a strategy with 100 units is most likely unbalanced compared to a game with 10. He does praise Advance Wars for this, and although that game had it's limitations, it was massively effective; so is a great example of good games design.
As a rule, he does mention that anything that is added to the game should complement the core mechanic, so sometimes it's best to go for a minimal approach.
Some of his points I understood, but yet kinda disagreed with. For example, he complains about games that allow you to save at any point, but I think this feature is a choice if you want to use it or not. It's also good to have a mix of casual and hardcore games, so I wouldn't just exclusively play games that allowed you to save freely, nor games with limited saves. He also complains about the cape power-up in Super Mario Bros 3 which allowed you to fly and cut large sections of the level. I understand it defeats the point in a platforming game and you miss out on admiring the level design. Again, you don't have to use it, and when you do, you can have fun in doing so. It's like the joy of finding the hidden warp pipe room, and skipping out entire worlds. You do it, feel cheeky, then end up replaying the game to see what you missed.
I think games design is quite complex and what sounds good in theory isn't necessarily what makes a good game. Burgun makes many great points throughout the book, but he also makes points that I think are easy to counter-argue. Many points are just opinion, and I don't think you can claim there's a right or wrong. Many parts were an interesting read, but then there was quite a lot of boring sections too.
April 30, 2015
I try to be nice about game design books because I love them--especially the ones that try to do something new. One nice thing I can say about this book is that it has a very attractive cover. Another nice thing that I can say is that the author has a clear goal and sets out to achieve that goal. Beyond that, it is difficult to remain positive.
There is a reason the most well-received game design books are timid and broad with their definitions. When you try to put your flag down and say "Games must be done this way", it is almost trivial to come up with counterexamples because games are such a rich cultural smorgasbord from which to draw. The only response of those counterexamples is to use a No True Scotsman defense.
Anyone who has had to think about game design as a career has once been in a place like Burgun. At some point, "Things I Like" and "Things That Are Good" become a Venn diagram instead of an identity. Eventually, one tends to grow out of dogma and realize that games are bigger and much harder to pin down. These designers replace their design laws and rules for heuristics and best practices. Usually this happens before one writes their first book.
He cites Koster's book loosely at one point, so he must have read it, but perhaps he skipped the part about "Genocide Tetris." Games cannot always be reduced down to just their rules in the abstract. Reducing Final Fantasy VII down to a linear menu of locations as he suggests is not the same experience as exploring the world map. It just isn't. These provide entirely different aesthetics. You can justifiably say that you don't like it or that it is boring, but it is difficult to justify one is the other plus meaningless fluff.
One particularly chuckle-worthy moment was when he considers that sports games look like television broadcasts because people are secretly ashamed of playing games, so the more that it doesn't look like a game, the less shame that the players should feel in playing it. Kudos for the creative psychoanalysis there, but the author could have bothered to ask anyone who worked on one of these games in the period where they were adapting more and more of the television-style presentation packages what the motivation was. For instance, me. Because it is so off-base and ignores so much evidence to the contrary, that I just have to assume that no one read this book and gave feedback before publication. After writing that last sentence, I went back to check. There is no section that thanks anyone for providing feedback. Maybe no one did.
Oh! I thought of something else nice to say. The book is 188 pages and one chapter is essentially a Wikipedia article on the history of games, so everything can be easily finished in one sitting, even after sitting down to chew on the bits that are unsubstantiated.
There is a reason the most well-received game design books are timid and broad with their definitions. When you try to put your flag down and say "Games must be done this way", it is almost trivial to come up with counterexamples because games are such a rich cultural smorgasbord from which to draw. The only response of those counterexamples is to use a No True Scotsman defense.
Anyone who has had to think about game design as a career has once been in a place like Burgun. At some point, "Things I Like" and "Things That Are Good" become a Venn diagram instead of an identity. Eventually, one tends to grow out of dogma and realize that games are bigger and much harder to pin down. These designers replace their design laws and rules for heuristics and best practices. Usually this happens before one writes their first book.
He cites Koster's book loosely at one point, so he must have read it, but perhaps he skipped the part about "Genocide Tetris." Games cannot always be reduced down to just their rules in the abstract. Reducing Final Fantasy VII down to a linear menu of locations as he suggests is not the same experience as exploring the world map. It just isn't. These provide entirely different aesthetics. You can justifiably say that you don't like it or that it is boring, but it is difficult to justify one is the other plus meaningless fluff.
One particularly chuckle-worthy moment was when he considers that sports games look like television broadcasts because people are secretly ashamed of playing games, so the more that it doesn't look like a game, the less shame that the players should feel in playing it. Kudos for the creative psychoanalysis there, but the author could have bothered to ask anyone who worked on one of these games in the period where they were adapting more and more of the television-style presentation packages what the motivation was. For instance, me. Because it is so off-base and ignores so much evidence to the contrary, that I just have to assume that no one read this book and gave feedback before publication. After writing that last sentence, I went back to check. There is no section that thanks anyone for providing feedback. Maybe no one did.
Oh! I thought of something else nice to say. The book is 188 pages and one chapter is essentially a Wikipedia article on the history of games, so everything can be easily finished in one sitting, even after sitting down to chew on the bits that are unsubstantiated.
May 20, 2015
I dove into this book with high hopes, and left disappointed. My main problem with it was that the author decided to take a somewhat confrontational tone, focusing on being critical or categorizing existing games. I was hoping for a thoughtful, well-reasoned framework within which to think about games. The closest I felt this book got to that hope was a set of definitions of puzzles, contests, and games in the first chapter; but even there the author's tone was something like "this is what I declare a game is; all these other things you thought were games are not really games." I might find some value in exploring those concepts, but without the prescriptive and condescending overtures. Imagine how you'd feel studying music theory and having to listen to a professor explain why they personally think 90% of what you listen to isn't even really music. It's like that.
April 26, 2023
This book was not about game design, it was a 188 page treatise that went through a bunch of games and talked about how bad they are. The tone was so negative I actually felt tense reading it.
The only design points made in the book were:
- story gets in the way of the game
- mechanics should be as simple as possible
- balance is important
Were it not for the title, I would have told you that this book was about why the author doesn’t like video games. I wouldn’t in a million years guess it was supposed to be about design.
Beyond the lack of any substantive design theory, the writing is very bad, it isn’t well researched, the author has clearly never taken a single design class, and the author seems to have forgotten the MOST important thing about games. They need to be fun.
They also state over and over that storylines are bad, because it reduces the number of meaningful decisions the player can make. Making video games are an art form. Some great games have no real story, and a deep story would really ruin them (e.g. Ikaruga). Other games are about being on an emotional roller-coaster, and the story sets a wonderful tone and atmosphere (Wing Commander 3&4 are good examples of this). This book seems to suggest that if you do anything that they (the author) doesn’t like, that it’s an inherently bad game.
They poo-poo some of the greatest games of all time, like Ocarina of Time, because it doesn’t fit into the tiny box that the author has constructed around what a game needs to be. A real design theory book would have reimagined the game, pointing out ways that the gameplay could have been strengthened. Instead they just give a nasty review of it, providing no insight whatever, and suggesting that anyone who loves that game is wrong.
If you don’t like country music, then don’t listen to it. It doesn’t mean country music is bad, it just isn’t to your taste. That’s fine, but you wouldn’t write a music theory book and suggest if you make music that uses too many twangy instruments that it isn’t really music, or that it is inherently bad music.
I want to end this on a positive note, so I will say that one suggestion that I wouldn’t have thought of that the author made was to study and research the design theory behind board games, because board games are a more mature medium with many similarities.
The only design points made in the book were:
- story gets in the way of the game
- mechanics should be as simple as possible
- balance is important
Were it not for the title, I would have told you that this book was about why the author doesn’t like video games. I wouldn’t in a million years guess it was supposed to be about design.
Beyond the lack of any substantive design theory, the writing is very bad, it isn’t well researched, the author has clearly never taken a single design class, and the author seems to have forgotten the MOST important thing about games. They need to be fun.
They also state over and over that storylines are bad, because it reduces the number of meaningful decisions the player can make. Making video games are an art form. Some great games have no real story, and a deep story would really ruin them (e.g. Ikaruga). Other games are about being on an emotional roller-coaster, and the story sets a wonderful tone and atmosphere (Wing Commander 3&4 are good examples of this). This book seems to suggest that if you do anything that they (the author) doesn’t like, that it’s an inherently bad game.
They poo-poo some of the greatest games of all time, like Ocarina of Time, because it doesn’t fit into the tiny box that the author has constructed around what a game needs to be. A real design theory book would have reimagined the game, pointing out ways that the gameplay could have been strengthened. Instead they just give a nasty review of it, providing no insight whatever, and suggesting that anyone who loves that game is wrong.
If you don’t like country music, then don’t listen to it. It doesn’t mean country music is bad, it just isn’t to your taste. That’s fine, but you wouldn’t write a music theory book and suggest if you make music that uses too many twangy instruments that it isn’t really music, or that it is inherently bad music.
I want to end this on a positive note, so I will say that one suggestion that I wouldn’t have thought of that the author made was to study and research the design theory behind board games, because board games are a more mature medium with many similarities.
March 24, 2024
It’s refreshing that the author has an opinion about what makes games good and bad. I get his point and agree in some aspects but disagree in others.
I haven’t read much literature in the genre but I imagine most authors don’t dare to have a strong opinion and framework (I might be wrong).
He basically focuses on the concept of a game in the most abstract sense, a set of rules where competing entities aim for a goal making ambiguous decisions. In that frame, Chess and Faster Than Light are good games.
Games with a heavy story or theme component but weak on ambiguous decisions or lack of competition (even if it is against yourself or the AI) are always bad games.
I agree to some degree, but theme and fantasy definitely add to the genre, the media and the experience.
He describes his framework and goes on through many genres of games giving his opinion (through his framework) on how to improve them, or ideas to try. Most feedback is very interesting and viewing games through his lens definitely would give great improvements in most cases.
It’s also a bit dated now, more than 10 years old. Sadly the game industry and landscape hasn’t changed significantly so most sections are relevant still.
He predicts a renaissance in the future where game designers will discover better guidelines to design games. And once these rules are more defined and understood, we’ll have much better games.
If anything we’ve gone the opposite way, or there has been limited progress.
Overall I did enjoy reading it, and his lens is useful. But I’d say as a complete view of game design it feels very green and needs to be developed more.
I haven’t read much literature in the genre but I imagine most authors don’t dare to have a strong opinion and framework (I might be wrong).
He basically focuses on the concept of a game in the most abstract sense, a set of rules where competing entities aim for a goal making ambiguous decisions. In that frame, Chess and Faster Than Light are good games.
Games with a heavy story or theme component but weak on ambiguous decisions or lack of competition (even if it is against yourself or the AI) are always bad games.
I agree to some degree, but theme and fantasy definitely add to the genre, the media and the experience.
He describes his framework and goes on through many genres of games giving his opinion (through his framework) on how to improve them, or ideas to try. Most feedback is very interesting and viewing games through his lens definitely would give great improvements in most cases.
It’s also a bit dated now, more than 10 years old. Sadly the game industry and landscape hasn’t changed significantly so most sections are relevant still.
He predicts a renaissance in the future where game designers will discover better guidelines to design games. And once these rules are more defined and understood, we’ll have much better games.
If anything we’ve gone the opposite way, or there has been limited progress.
Overall I did enjoy reading it, and his lens is useful. But I’d say as a complete view of game design it feels very green and needs to be developed more.
May 13, 2019
This book pushes a lot of buttons and takes some radical approaches to defining, and redefining, how games are designed. It's an approach I like overall and helps encourage evolution of the craft and tries to reduce the threat of stagnation and familiarity. I think the credibility of the material suffers a bit due to the flagrant use of terms like "stupid" and "garbage" when applied to existing examples of game designs, but is still worth a read to get an alternate perspective.
January 2, 2016
Burgun writes like the Nietzsche of game design. There are a lot of dramatic statements surrounding a nugget of truth.
July 15, 2017
I purchased this book after reading a short excerpt I found very insightful about the value of randomness in games. There is some very useful information in this book about why good games, at their core, are entertaining meaningful decisions. What the author does after this is define every possible type of game through his own personal lens, and this lens has a strong bias. I think that "themes" in games must have killed this poor guys parents or something because he goes to extensive and absurd lengths to dance around why themes in games are bad, without admitting the obvious reasons why a good theme or story have positive aspects. This book did make me think about the subject a lot, which is good, but reading a bad book to think about why it's wrong should not be encouraged unless you're doing so intentionally. Strong blanket statements such as "All CCG's are fundamentally flawed and therefore all are bad and should never be played by anyone who's not an idiot" turned me off to finishing the final chapter. Designing a game from the core mechanics, and adding a theme after, is good practice and this book dedicates chapters to this concept- however, telling an amazing story, while giving a player the exciting "feel" of espionage like that in Metal Gear seems entirely foreign to the author, which is surprising considering he seems to consider it a good game. Simulations are also another aspect of gaming that might have touched him in a bad way while in his youth, as he almost refuses to even talk about them in any meaningful way. Simulation games have their place in gaming, even if they do not meet up to his very specific definition of what a "game" is. I picked up this book with hopes of understanding more about pen and paper RPG design, but the book is entirely focused on the creation of indy games, even if it pretends not to be. Worth a read if you take it all with a grain of salt, but I'm sure that in 10 years the author may very well look back at this book and hate it. At least if he grows out of his box someday. Games have grown out of chess and checkers. Themes and the core mechanics are a balance in games that must compliment each other. Sometimes, just sometimes, you really should start with a theme or idea, and then design the mechanics to support that theme. This is a lesson that might take him a while to understand. I recommend this book only if you have read this review to caution you from taking it as a scholarly source, and only read the portions of the book that interest you. Cover to cover will leave you feeling cheated.
July 8, 2019
Oh man, this is a really special one. In "Game Design Theory: A New Philosophy for Understanding Games", its author does an amazing job questioning himself and the audience what make of a game, well, a game.
It's impossible to give this book a perfect score as the author is way too dogmatic about his point of view and negates the progress of video games towards new grounds, such as interactive storytelling and immersion experience. Anything out of the ludological quality of a video game is unappreciated by him, and the fact he even criticizes other authors in the matter doesn't help either. Yet, I hope you don't let this make you overlook what he has to say.
Keith Burgun explores the most pure side of video game design and how it's been done since this industry's first steps, and it's worth noticing how much game design is been stuck for a really, really long while. Driven mostly by a lot of conventions we've stubbornly been protecting on what we expect of a game, we've been holding game designers to make progress on their field as well, to the point of hurting this discipline to its very core. This "philosophy" for understanding games, although harsh, might help us reinvent video game genres and build up new and better game mechanics from there, letting creativity and true design enrich future video games, not only from their art direction, narrative and simulation qualities; but from their most fundamental nature: gameplay.
You might agree or not with some of his thoughts about what a video game is or should be nowadays, but this is still a must read for game designers as you will have something essential to learn and think about after reading if you're into the matter for serious.
It's impossible to give this book a perfect score as the author is way too dogmatic about his point of view and negates the progress of video games towards new grounds, such as interactive storytelling and immersion experience. Anything out of the ludological quality of a video game is unappreciated by him, and the fact he even criticizes other authors in the matter doesn't help either. Yet, I hope you don't let this make you overlook what he has to say.
Keith Burgun explores the most pure side of video game design and how it's been done since this industry's first steps, and it's worth noticing how much game design is been stuck for a really, really long while. Driven mostly by a lot of conventions we've stubbornly been protecting on what we expect of a game, we've been holding game designers to make progress on their field as well, to the point of hurting this discipline to its very core. This "philosophy" for understanding games, although harsh, might help us reinvent video game genres and build up new and better game mechanics from there, letting creativity and true design enrich future video games, not only from their art direction, narrative and simulation qualities; but from their most fundamental nature: gameplay.
You might agree or not with some of his thoughts about what a video game is or should be nowadays, but this is still a must read for game designers as you will have something essential to learn and think about after reading if you're into the matter for serious.
June 18, 2019
When an author dismisses (and misspells) BioShock as an inconsequential and forgettable game even before you finish the introduction, you know you’re in for a ride.
The premise of trying to define game design better was interesting, but not if it’s based on:
- Spewing venom at other writers like Brenda Romero and Jesse Schell and calling their (respected and fascinating) work - I quote - wishy-washy (?).
- Establishing yourself as the only enlightened voice on game design when most of the book can already be found in other books (even wishy-washy ones!)
- Coming up with dubious statements like “game writing is usually bad”, “games are not a good medium to tell stories”, or “Japanese RPGs are all about grinding”. Surely we’ve moved past that now? I guess these could be linked to the age of the book (2013), but - revisions?
The book is mostly “I think”, “I say”, “Unlike everyone else, I cracked the code on x and y”... And some looking down at designers, such as the frankly funny paragraph on how Mass Effect or MGS designers would have made a better game if they had read this book. Really? There are also incredibly short-sighted statements about specific game genres such as: point & click adventures are bad and should only be consumed through watching them on YouTube (??), interactive fiction sucks, and FPS shouldn’t have solo modes.
Anyway, I’ll go back to my wishy-washy books by established and respected designers, and to my forgettable BioShock games, and will look elsewhere for game design insights.
The premise of trying to define game design better was interesting, but not if it’s based on:
- Spewing venom at other writers like Brenda Romero and Jesse Schell and calling their (respected and fascinating) work - I quote - wishy-washy (?).
- Establishing yourself as the only enlightened voice on game design when most of the book can already be found in other books (even wishy-washy ones!)
- Coming up with dubious statements like “game writing is usually bad”, “games are not a good medium to tell stories”, or “Japanese RPGs are all about grinding”. Surely we’ve moved past that now? I guess these could be linked to the age of the book (2013), but - revisions?
The book is mostly “I think”, “I say”, “Unlike everyone else, I cracked the code on x and y”... And some looking down at designers, such as the frankly funny paragraph on how Mass Effect or MGS designers would have made a better game if they had read this book. Really? There are also incredibly short-sighted statements about specific game genres such as: point & click adventures are bad and should only be consumed through watching them on YouTube (??), interactive fiction sucks, and FPS shouldn’t have solo modes.
Anyway, I’ll go back to my wishy-washy books by established and respected designers, and to my forgettable BioShock games, and will look elsewhere for game design insights.
July 10, 2019
Right out of the gate this is a very atypical game design book. One that unapologetically hurls challenges at the foundations upon which rest your sacred darlings. There is a lot to appreciate about a book that genuinely does not give a fuck about the status quo of the game industry and intents to inject a sense of purity into a fledgling medium whose varied components are too often collated by people with astigmatic intent.
His tone is consistent throughout the book which can definitely wear thin after a while, but the book is short and its point is never lost. Definitely recommended if you're serious about making actual games and not just being a part of an industry. If you're unsure about the distinction, the book definitely works to make them very clear.
It's worth noting that by game design standards, this book is ancient at 7 years old. Some (not all) of the pivotal game design concerns that had yet to be achieved at the time the book was released have exceeded the challenges laid out by the author which makes his later ploys of hope ring true. Still a useful bit of guidance for folks who need to cut through the noise of what exactly makes a game.
His tone is consistent throughout the book which can definitely wear thin after a while, but the book is short and its point is never lost. Definitely recommended if you're serious about making actual games and not just being a part of an industry. If you're unsure about the distinction, the book definitely works to make them very clear.
It's worth noting that by game design standards, this book is ancient at 7 years old. Some (not all) of the pivotal game design concerns that had yet to be achieved at the time the book was released have exceeded the challenges laid out by the author which makes his later ploys of hope ring true. Still a useful bit of guidance for folks who need to cut through the noise of what exactly makes a game.
July 25, 2022
To be a rock star or a game developer?
This book is useful for getting started in the game design field, however, due to some of the author's shallow, prejudiced views and the lack of common terminology, this book is not the ideal source to use in academic career.
In any event, since the study of game design theory is a continuous process, it is always intriguing to look at it from diverse perspectives. Hence, it is normal to have some disputes with the author's ideas.
The times have changed. And, if it was once a dream to become a rock star, games as a cultural phenomena are growing increasingly popular, providing people with an alternate goal of becoming game developers or designers.
This book is useful for getting started in the game design field, however, due to some of the author's shallow, prejudiced views and the lack of common terminology, this book is not the ideal source to use in academic career.
In any event, since the study of game design theory is a continuous process, it is always intriguing to look at it from diverse perspectives. Hence, it is normal to have some disputes with the author's ideas.
The times have changed. And, if it was once a dream to become a rock star, games as a cultural phenomena are growing increasingly popular, providing people with an alternate goal of becoming game developers or designers.
February 13, 2019
Couldn't get through it. The author is very opinionated and focused on what he believes is the right thing, completely ignoring and dismissing what anyone else may think. He isn't interested in exploring game design as a whole so much as he wants to talk about what he believes it should be.
October 12, 2021
This is a somewhat technical book about different types of games. Not very useful for my purpose.
March 26, 2023
I think people reviewing this with one star didn't really got past the negative tone of the book and the definitions in the first chapter. It is a great read for people passionate about games.
August 12, 2018
This is my favourite game design text despite its many shortcomings. In this book the author almost achieves a reasoned formal description of what a game is and how different categories of games compare to each other. Ultimately, the theoretic framework falls short, and many details are completely context dependent, but nevertheless the general perspective is more powerful than any other game design theory I have come across.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews