A Dichotomy of Fun in Video Games

My latest attempt to develop an indie game has brought me to ponder what exactly makes video games fun to play. The two most important elements I've found are what you might call reflex and strategy. I apologize if the rest of this article sounds condescending: the goal is to provide a really simple argument for my hypothesis.

Reflex games are ones that test your reaction speed. A small number of games are fun for this reason only - mainly rhythm games like Guitar Hero, Geometry Dash and Osu!. In real life there are activities like parkour and dance which are fun largely by virtue of exercising one's reflexes.

Strategy games involve thinking to determine what move to make next. Plenty of strategy games preexist computers, like chess and poker. Classic roguelikes are pure strategy games, because the player has an infinite amount of time to think between moves, so there can't be a reflex element. But if you speedrun a roguelike (or play timed chess, etc.) that also involves the element of reflex.

Most video games contain a mix of reflex and strategy elements. Portal is a good example because it's played in real time (not turn-based) but you have to solve puzzles.

Is there a third element? Maybe 'immersion' or 'aesthetics'? I think a game would have to stand on its own with fun arising from only that element. It's possible there's a third element of fun that simply isn't apparent to me right now.

There are also many other potential ways you could dichotomize fun, just like there are many jokes with the form "there are two kinds of people: ..." but "reflex vs strategy" is a useful one.

The game I'm planning is turn-based, so this hypothesis has helped me decide to make it a strategy game first and foremost. But will my turn-based strategy game ever see the light of day? Stay tuned to find out...