Gamasutra is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
November 14, 2019
arrowPress Releases

If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


Video (screencast): Good once, good three times, or always good – what game do you want to make?

by Lewis Pulsipher on 08/17/15 01:53:00 pm   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs

1 comments Share on Twitter    RSS

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.



Below is the text of the slides.  There's much more to the video than that, of course.


Good once, good three times, or always good – what game do you want to make?

Dr. Lewis Pulsipher


Robert Heinlein’s Saying

It’s been decades since I read “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”

But a friend tells me that author Robert Heinlein at one point says this about the nature of jokes: "Funny once, funny twice, or always funny"

Think about it, it’s true (and true of books, as well, if you substitute “worth reading” for “funny”)

And I think it’s become true of games, as well, if we substitute “worth playing” (and I’ll say three, not two)

(We’re ignoring all those jokes, books, games that aren’t worthwhile even once. . .)


How it applies to games

This tends to apply to modern games, both video and tabletop.  "Enjoyable once, enjoyable thrice, or enjoyable always."

3500+ tabletop games a year, and tens of thousands of video games (think of all the mobiles (500 per day on iOS) and F2P games)

In both cases, it’s immensely easier to self-publish than in the past

AAA video games have always tended to be “one and done” – “I beat the game” and then I don’t play any more

Because they’re really puzzles more than games

They so often have always-correct solutions (like puzzles)


“Cult of the New”

But tabletop games are leaning the same way, not “I beat the game” (though there is that) but the “Cult of the New”

So most games are played just a few times before everyone moves on to the next

This is exacerbated as there are more and more new games

I think we’ve come to the point that most games are designed to meet this standard of “play three times” (or less)


Need for Personal Validation

So why don’t more people “call out” those weak games?

Heavily-hyped games (e.g. on Kickstarter) build up a “credit”

Young people, especially, feel that they need others to validate their likes, so that they campaign in favor of what they like (and against what they don't, or against anyone who doesn't like what they like).  Hence the hype increases


Emotional Investment

Older generations tend to have more belief in their own preferences, and don't feel a need to campaign for them or against the contrary

A result: there is less actual analysis of games and more emotional “us and them”

Magnified by the Internet, of course

Those who let themselves be sold on a game before it’s released, are emotionally invested in the success of the game, so they’re less likely to criticize it once it’s on the market


That’s sad . . .

As long as there are enough buyers for “enjoyable once” or “enjoyable thrice”, it will continue

It’s easier to design games that way, too.  You can forget about gameplay depth, and about replayability

You can design the game to be “transparent”, that is, people can figure out how to play well after playing once

No, this is not how deep games used to be designed, it’s “party and family” game design


But that’s where the market is

How many people do you know that study individual games in order to play better?  Not many, I’ll bet

Heck, most people don’t even want to read the rules these days

Not surprising that the overall quality of games for “serious” players is decreasing

But that’s where the market is nowadays, short, simple, easy-to-digest games, bagatelles for the most part that we can play a few times and give up

Much easier to design such games, as well



More and more players treat games as time-killers

As long as the individual game isn't too long

What "too long" is varies, but I was recently at a game designer guild meeting where I described an hour-long game as a "filler", and was told fillers are now 15-20 minutes

Not surprising that so many games are shallow, lacking substance


What standard are you working toward as a designer?



@lewpuls on twitter

Online courses (with discounts) listed at

Related Jobs

Wevr — Los Angeles, California, United States

Audio Designer / Implementer
Sucker Punch Productions
Sucker Punch Productions — Bellevue, Washington, United States

Camera Designer
Sucker Punch Productions
Sucker Punch Productions — Bellevue, Washington, United States

Encounter Designer
Wevr — Venice, California, United States

Environment Artist

Loading Comments

loader image