i'm deeply suspicious of any game design advice that claims that science has solved the problem of fun, or reduces the concept of fun down to a simple straightforward theory or---worse---a simple formula
@aeva I think designing a game following all such advice to the letter, especially when it is from two or more sources that directly contradict each other, has the potential to be very funny

@aeva “We found the formula for fun!”

Looks inside

It’s gambling addiction

@aeva fun is when you enjoy the games I enjoy

@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.

A Theory of Fun for Game Design

A Theory of Fun for Game Design official book website

@jonikorpi @aeva I’ve read this a few times over the years and every time I do there are more games that prove it wrong. It’s a good guide for a certain subset of games at least

@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.

@sinbad @jonikorpi that said, I'm not familiar with Raph Koster's theory of fun
@sinbad @jonikorpi somewhere around 2008-2010 I read an essay by a successful game developer who worked on a culturally significant game (I honestly don't remember who or which), and that led to me (and many others) to internalizing a philosophy of game design rooted in pavlovian psychology that was in direct conflict with my instincts which resulted in me failing to come up with any ideas I actually liked until I figured out what was going on and banished the memetic parasite.
@aeva You just shined a weirdly precise spotlight onto a personal design issue I've been running into and now I need to step back and rethink some things.
@justdaveisfine fwiw it took me years to figure out that the author was just straight up wrong, and it took time after that for me to figure out what rejecting it meant for me and how to decide what is right for me.
@aeva @jonikorpi turns out fun and enjoyment are hugely subjective and contextual and while there are certain guidelines that can apply to certain cases for certain people, it’s all fuzzy all the time. Heck I’m the same person and I have often changed what I enjoy based on age / mood / circumstances. There are no rules and that’s a wonderful thing
@sinbad @jonikorpi at some point I realized that my enjoyment of games very reliably tracks with how good the music and sound design are, and I'll happily overlook a lot if the music speaks to me. That's part of why I swerved very hard from graphics to music. I think that's very much a me-thing, though.

@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.

@aeva fun = microtransactions
@aeva
I think there's also a big difference between analysing fun and using a theory to create fun.