No Fun Allowed meme, originally from the Sonic the Hedgehog comic book series.  In "Homo Ludens" by Johan Huizinga, he states "...the fun of playing, resists all analysis, all logical interpretation. As a concept, it cannot be reduced to any other mental category. No other modern language known to me has the exact equivalent of the English "fun"." This poses quite a problem for me, as defining what fun is might be as important to my theory as determining whether it is necessary for video games. In light of this, I have decided to stick to a simple and broad definition. The dictionary definition of "fun" is something that provides mirth or amusement. I decided to use this because it applies to a classic ideal of arcade games.

 Upbeat music, straightforward mechanics, and simple character designs are what made many kids spend their quarters by the handful back in the arcade era. The best modern example of these “fun” types of games is the Kirby series. The character designs are simple and cute, the world is colorful, and the controls and mechanics are fairly simple. These aspects add up to a very fun experience, which provide much mirth and amusement.

A photoshopped image of the player character in Dark Souls standing next to the NPC Solair, Kirby is standing to their right, admiring the sun. If only he could be so grossly incandescent.

 On the other side of the spectrum, however, is the Dark Souls series. The tone of these games is dark, the world itself is dark, the characters are all depressed, insane, trying to murder you, or some combination of the three. It would be hard to describe any aspect of Dark Souls as “providing mirth” and yet, there have been three games (more if counting spin offs) in this series, and all have sold and reviewed very well. If Dark Souls is not fun in the traditional sense, then what is the appeal of these games, and games like them?

 One major aspect of the old arcade era was the ridiculous difficulty of some of the games. These games were intended to be as difficult as possible while still being entertaining enough to keep kids coming back. As Andrew Ervin details in chapter 5 of “Bit by Bit” arcade cabinets drew billions of dollars quarter by quarter from kid's pockets. The reason for the difficulty of modern games like Dark Souls is a bit more of a mystery. The advertising campaign for Dark Souls focused heavily on the fact that the game was trying to beat you, rather than the other way around.

 As someone who has played all the games in the series, I would describe the appeal as similar to completing a difficult jigsaw puzzle. Every enemy in Dark Souls has a specific moveset, along with specific weaknesses and strengths.

 Dark Souls is difficult, in that your character will probably die a lot, but when you change your mindset to think of your death as a learning experience the game becomes much more straightforward. I’ll use one of the first challenges in the game as an example. The Bell Gargoyles boss fight takes place at the end of the first area of the game. The first time players fight the boss they will likely be killed fairly quickly. The boss has a fire breath attack with a wide area of effect, which will catch many players off guard. However, a metal shield will be able to block most of the damage from the blast. Once a player has discovered this, the boss fight is much easier, right up until the second gargoyle shows up. Things like this are all part of the learning process of the game, and it benefits by not making death so much of a punishment.

A photoshopped image of Donkey Kong taking the place of the infamous Taurus Demon from Dark Souls.

 Going back to arcade games, another way Dark Souls is similar is that the time from point of death to being back in the game is very short. This makes death less of a punishment for the player and encourages them to get back to the game and give it another shot. Especially since the player has already lost all their Souls (the in-game currency) in the same way someone playing Donkey Kong has lost their quarter by getting hit by a barrel.

 There is a distinction between a hard game such as Dark Souls, which is fair and has consistent mechanics, and a hard game such as Trap Adventure 2. Trap Adventure 2 is a ridiculously hard game that is made to frustrate. It was designed as an intentional callback to classic quarter eating arcade games, but even less fair. This game is not what I would call fun. While it has all the hallmarks of arcade fun, upbeat music, simple controls, and a cute character, it is the type of game that punishes the player for the perverse satisfaction of watching them struggle.

 And indeed, that does seem to be where this game has found its niche. Watching someone else play games like this on YouTube has become a large market, with some games being specifically designed to be shown on YouTube and Twitch. Which brings up an interesting point. Trap Quest, and games like it, are not fun to play, but they are fun to watch someone else play. Games like these do not need to be fun to be successful, and in fact seem to benefit from being un-fun.

 In chapter 9 of "Reality is Broken" Jane McGonigal tells us about an augmented reality game called The Comfort of Strangers. This game has no visuals at all, so no cute characters, and as far as I can tell it does not have music. This game does not fit into our definition of fun, and while I thought it sounded very interesting, it seems like it has not made much of an impact. This video posted to Vimeo by one of the creators is all I could find of it being played.

 The video certainly makes the game look interesting, and I would have loved to have tested it out, but it is unfortunately no longer available for download. Perhaps this game was ahead of its time, as other augmented reality games such as Pokémon GO, have been wildly popular. On the other hand, Pokémon GO does conform to the definition of fun that I laid out earlier, having upbeat music, cute characters, and simple mechanics.

 An interesting theory I found while researching this topic is “Self-Determination Theory”. This theory is a broad framework created in order to study human motivation and personality. Part of the theory states that “Conditions supporting the individual’s experience of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are argued to foster the most volitional and high quality forms of motivation and engagement for activities, including enhanced performance, persistence, and creativity.” Here is a great video that explains the concept in simple terms:

 This theory is extremely relevant to the reasons people play games. The first feature, autonomy, describes the need for a person have agency in their life.

 In video games, this could refer to a game like The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild or Red Dead Redemption, where the open world nature of the game allows a player to see a mountain in the distance, decide they want to go there, and be able to make that happen.

 The next feature, competence, is the ability to do something successfully and have control over the outcome. Continuing with the Dark Souls example, the game’s controls are very responsive and have precise timing, which puts the outcome of any in-game action directly on the player.

 Relatedness, in the context of this theory, refers to interacting and being connected to others. In the broader context of gaming, multiplayer games such as Battlefield and Overwatch provide this interconnectivity, while story driven games such as the Persona series or Metal Gear Solid use relatable and interesting non-player characters to achieve this.

 What all of this illustrates is that video games have come a long way since they were first created. There have always been challenging games, but now that the technology has progressed so far, games can be challenging in different ways.

 Some games are challenging socially, games such as Thomas Was Alone that can teach important life lessons. There are games that are challenging intellectually, strategy games such as the Starcraftseries that require meticulous planning and deep knowledge of game mechanics to be successful against other players. And games can also be challenging politically, games like Bioshock which is an indictment of Objectivism and the Randian ideal.

 Video games may have needed to fit into a certain model of “fun” in the past, but it seems that that is no longer the case. Bioshock, Dark Souls, Starcraft, these games and games like them do not fit the mold and yet they are all beloved series. Video games do not need to be "fun" to be successful. Instead, it seems that games either need to challenge our skills, our intelligence, our ideas, or all three.