Game Fun
This week, I read more about the concept of "fun" in games, what makes "fun" and theories on how this is achieved. This week's readings went much more in depth into this idea than the previous weeks and gave me a really interesting perspective on the topic.
The first article I read was on the different "kinds" of fun and how they are considered in video game development to create a "fun" game.
It references back to the MDA (Mechanics Dynamics Aesthetics) framework that I looked at a few weeks ago and reminds us of the 8 kinds of fun proposed (Sensation, Narrative, Fantasy, Challenge, Fellowship, Discovery, Expression, and Submission).
Perhaps there are more kinds of fun? Maybe they're categorised incorrectly?
The article looks at comparing how our brains functions largely as if it were in prehistoric "caveman" times and how this ties in to the 8 kinds of fun mentioned, for example, Narrative, the story aspect of games, is fun because in the past we would tell stories to pass on important information in our groups, increasing everybody's chances of survival.
Each of the 8 have a caveman counterpart that the article talks about.
There are also types of "fun" mentioned, that are not necessarily fun but important to feel good in games, for example, Schadenfreude: "the gloating feeling you get when a rival fails at something. “Tragedy is when I stub my toe; comedy is when you fall off a cliff and die.”"
The categorisation of players is also explored, suggesting a method to create "fun" games: think about these different kinds of players and what they find most "fun".
So, we're left to think, what comes first, the player or the types of fun?
The article also mentions how a book categorised players by Myers-Briggs types, which I decided to read a little about (the 16 types: https://www.16personalities.com/personality-types), and think about how they would create different players. For example, would the INFP type like games where you help people more than say, an ENTJ?
The first article I read was on the different "kinds" of fun and how they are considered in video game development to create a "fun" game.
It references back to the MDA (Mechanics Dynamics Aesthetics) framework that I looked at a few weeks ago and reminds us of the 8 kinds of fun proposed (Sensation, Narrative, Fantasy, Challenge, Fellowship, Discovery, Expression, and Submission).
Perhaps there are more kinds of fun? Maybe they're categorised incorrectly?
The article looks at comparing how our brains functions largely as if it were in prehistoric "caveman" times and how this ties in to the 8 kinds of fun mentioned, for example, Narrative, the story aspect of games, is fun because in the past we would tell stories to pass on important information in our groups, increasing everybody's chances of survival.
Each of the 8 have a caveman counterpart that the article talks about.
There are also types of "fun" mentioned, that are not necessarily fun but important to feel good in games, for example, Schadenfreude: "the gloating feeling you get when a rival fails at something. “Tragedy is when I stub my toe; comedy is when you fall off a cliff and die.”"
The categorisation of players is also explored, suggesting a method to create "fun" games: think about these different kinds of players and what they find most "fun".
So, we're left to think, what comes first, the player or the types of fun?
The article also mentions how a book categorised players by Myers-Briggs types, which I decided to read a little about (the 16 types: https://www.16personalities.com/personality-types), and think about how they would create different players. For example, would the INFP type like games where you help people more than say, an ENTJ?
Comments
Post a Comment