@aeva it's true though, we've solved the problem of fun.
Fun is no longer a problem. Not worth the hassle. We just go for brand synergies these days
@aeva If you’re interested, I think Raph Koster has the best theory so far. (Spoiler: it’s about learning.) https://www.theoryoffun.com/
I’ve found it to hold true so far. However in practice it seems to need to combine with other systems like “game feel” and “presence” before an engaging/fun experience appears, so it’s hard to pin down and measure.
@sinbad @jonikorpi I think these kinds of generic theoretical frameworks tend to do more harm than good, because they have the effect of making people only explore within a fairly narrow design space and not listen to their own instincts, which in turn has a homogenizing effect on games.
I do think it's useful for developers and studios to document their own house philosophy and research for their games, but that has a different function.
@aeva @sinbad @jonikorpi I've found that theoretical discussion of fun and game design (Like Theory of Fun) is useful *now that I've worked on games*, but wasn't so useful when I was getting started. Like, it's a useful exercise to view things through a different lens for my own personal growth, but I don't think that lens tells me how to make something fun.
Maybe this is romanticized but I feel like there's no replacement for following your muse.
@protowlf @aeva @sinbad Yeah theories only became useful for me later on too. They don't explain everything about why a game feels good, since music and graphics and socialness and everything play such a big role.
But once I have to isolate specifically why something in gameplay — or whatever we wanna call the thing that exists in games but not in other mediums — feels bad, they help.
Or: if the problem exists in both the paper prototype and the real game, then it's theory time for me.