"Fun" is a Four-Letter Word

[Col. Kernel]

18 hours ago, Luminara said:

I don't know what fun is.  I don't know what I'm supposed to feel when I'm having fun.  I can't even say that I've ever had fun, because there is no emotional dictionary I can reference to be sure.  I can read about what other people feel when they're having fun, but I don't know what that really means for me because I have difficulty understanding things of this nature.  I know what happiness is.  It took me most of my life to identify that emotion, but I do understand it now.  I know what fear is, that's something I was born with.  But fun... that still eludes me.

 

I know that things frustrate or anger me, and I know those aren't fun.  I still do them, but I'm sure I'm not having fun.  19 mph movement speed isn't fun.  Missing isn't fun.  Being defeated isn't fun.  Having to sit back and wait for a critter's god mode power to wear off so I can get the ever-loving fuck on with things... that's not fun.

 

I know that some things make me laugh.  Sending a low level critter flying with a strong KB power does that.  I don't know if it's fun, though, because I don't know whether there's a line at which point amusement becomes fun, or where that line would be.  If you're amused for 12 seconds, it's fun?  Or is there an amusement meter, like the strength of the laughter, that defines it as fun?

 

And I know that some things make me happy.  My characters makes me happy.  Having a build come together exactly as I envisioned it makes me happy.  Finding just the right costume pieces to complete a look makes me happy.  But happiness doesn't necessarily mean having fun.  I don't think many people would define reading a textbook about nuclear physics as fun, but it does make me happy.

 

I can't define fun for myself, so I don't try to define it for others.  I keep playing because making and leveling characters is easier than writing, but still allows me to express my creativity sufficiently.  I don't know if I'm having fun, but I am amused from time to time, I am happy to be playing this game again and I'm not so irritated by the annoying things that I feel a need to move on.

 

I guess that doesn't really contribute much to what you're asking about.  I'm not very good with people... not even myself.  Still trying, though.

 

I'm a pretty introspective person, one who tends to over analyze things a LOT.

 

So let me just say that you're waaaay overthinking this.

 

Are you enjoying your current activity?  In other words would you like to do this activity again?  If your answer is "Yes" then you're having fun.

[Luminara]

14 minutes ago, Col. Kernel said:

you're waaaay overthinking this.

 

Welcome to mental illness.

[Rathulfr]

20 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

Welcome to mental illness.

 

[Earnest Victory]

55 minutes ago, Col. Kernel said:

 

I'm a pretty introspective person, one who tends to over analyze things a LOT.

 

So let me just say that you're waaaay overthinking this.

 

Are you enjoying your current activity?  In other words would you like to do this activity again?  If your answer is "Yes" then you're having fun.

And if the answer is "I literally can't tell yet"? 

Some enjoyment is conditional on the outcome of an activity. It can retroactively turn to dust if, for example, your time is wasted. Or it could crystallise if it leads to a particularly incredible moment. 

Even had the leadup to both those moments were exactly the same, in one you might have fun and n the other you wouldn't. Trying to dumb it down just means your view is too ill considered to actually apply. 

I'll stick with the 'over'thinkers, thanks.

[PeregrineFalcon]

It's easy for me to tell when I'm having fun. If I'm relaxed, and I want to keep on doing what I'm doing, then I'm having fun. It's just that simple. I guess that's one of the advantages of being the few people on the internet who doesn't suffer from some form of mental illness.

 

In the case of City of Heroes, I don't actually play that often anymore. Sometimes I'll log in and just play a single alignment or scanner mission. Weeks will go by between log-ins. But even when I'm not playing it feels comforting to know that I can. Like I can always visit an old friend.

[Black Talon]

GVT, thank you very much for having the temerity and guts to broach a subject like this, and encourage the crew to actually avoid the digital food fights because, well, it's all fun and games until someone actually misses out on having Jello for dessert.

 

What you've brought up - and many appreciations for the in-gaming-studio clarifications - confirms what I suspect many people here have already concluded by implication.  Gaming studio executives don't have any awareness of "fun", they don't really care about "fun", they couldn't give a rat's unsanitized posterior about "fun" - what they care about is one thing and one thing only: What will make the game-playing population spend more money.  "Fun" becomes an industry code word for "Ways to encourage people to pull out their credit cards and get more stuff in our game, because that's the positivist method we have for determining whether they're continuing to play."  In economics, "utility" is defined by "what causes people to spend money".  This is as close as economics, as an academic subject, comes to defining "happiness".  Happiness, as so many people who have already posted here have stated, is something that utterly defies definition as a categorical term; the more you try to pin it down, the more elusive it becomes.  "Fun" is a synonym in this regard, and the only method an existential company has of defining what "fun" is will be measured in terms of how much cash we pulled in this quarter.

 

Your indication, GVT, about how the corporations are trying to "expand", to put it loosely, their terminology for "fun" is a pretty good indication as to how the executive mind functions in situations where the need for a redefinition of the paradigm comes around.  They're pulling the officers on the Titanic maneuver; rearrange a few deck chairs so everyone (at least those in first class) have a better view of the ship going vertical.  The MMPOG model had its hey-day from roughly 2003-14; after that it's become much like its pen-and-paper RPG cousin - a niche item that can still be profitable if management pays attention to what people are substantiating arguments for.  This might lead to "fun"; it might also lead to an ongoing negotiation between management, developers and players that gets everyone on to a much more democratic, egalitarian, even keel where the lines of function may remain intact, but opinions become a much more equal-value commodity.

 

Hoping this sort of discussion continues, GVT and all those others who have posted, because, well, this kind of thing is really educational and...uh,, what's the term...yeah, fun!  Shows that MMPOGs ain't just fer having a few beer and hitting the, "Wise up, n00b" button.

 

 

[Snarky]

Evil,  this was a suggestion box right?

[Crystal Dragon]

Well.

Given the way I tend to play games, whether it's an MMO, or a couch-coop with my loved ones, how I find games fun varies widely from what I've read so far in this thread.

I look for several aspects in the game that would drive the players of it to continue playing.

• Rewarding, whether it's loot, unique costumes or parts to character design-equipment-unlocking spells/skills/content zones. 
• Not a HUGE learning curve, because I play with one older player and a younger player that has a varying scale of patience in participation.
• Enjoyable community, if there's roleplay, it's likely I'll find enjoyment and fun in my own way.
• Creativity is vital for me to enjoy myself and lacking the means to create, makes for a very poor time for myself as a gamer.
• Accessibility to social areas for all players, no matter faction, or levels. This one is pretty important to me as well.

Overall, every player has a different means and method to find "fun" in a game, and many of those features are considered fun to myself as well, but the added bonus of creativity of the community allows me to take a peek at the person behind the screen of the character, gives me an insight of what kind of things they are passionate about, what interests them, and what drives them as a player in games as well. Bases for instances in this game, are amazing, I love how people can break the limits and go nuts with their creations and make some really mind boggling spaces to share with the community. (Hey Pagoda, AMAZING build, love that space, I WISH I had a fingernails span of that kind of creative thinking in designs.)

 

I was part of the Live community for a while at least from 2008 onwards to sunset, I saw things change in the way the game was played, the costuming features that got locked behind pay-store markets and parts for bases that were locked behind the Veteran rewards system, which isn't implemented here. It hurt seeing the game slowly slide into that greedy money grab sort of plan from the developers side, and I get why but it didn't feel right to me and I parted ways with this game for a few months before Sunset, only to return to say good-bye to Live for good when Sunset finally happened. 

 

I know a lot of players that enjoy PVP aspects, look for competitive sort of aspects in this game, and I cheer them on, cause I know it's hard to get into that and enjoy it for themselves, but I'm not about that side of the gaming sphere. I've always been, and always will be, very much a creative soul when it comes to gaming and fun going hand in hand for me. Now, I do know there are others that will say that creative gaming, of the type I go for, can be boring, and yes, having patience for another players post to come through in the chat window can be boring, but if you are really engaged and enjoying the story being written between yourself and another player or other players in a group, what's stopping you? I suppose to say in conclusion on my views with this, is that yes the topic itself can be inflammatory, but I think the general tone we need to read and understand this from, is building a common understanding that everyone has a different point of view and idea/concept of what Fun in a game is, and sometimes, it may contradict your own, but that doesn't mean it's not a welcome asset to grasp and welcome.

[Blackbird71]

6 hours ago, Earnest Victory said:

Some enjoyment is conditional on the outcome of an activity. It can retroactively turn to dust if, for example, your time is wasted. Or it could crystallise if it leads to a particularly incredible moment. 

Even had the leadup to both those moments were exactly the same, in one you might have fun and n the other you wouldn't. Trying to dumb it down just means your view is too ill considered to actually apply. 
 

 

Seriously, if your idea of fun is so tenuous that any past enjoyment could be instantly nullified and become retroactively unfun because of some prospective future event, and if that dampens your ability to enjoy the game in the present, then you're in the wrong hobby.

 

Big "payoff" moments are great, but when you're gaming in a medium that could be (and has been) cancelled at any time, then if you can't enjoy the journey for the steps along the way then you will always be disappointed in the end, and you will never have fun, so best not to waste your time now.

 

I'm not trying to be mean or judgmental here; just offering some advice that is hopefully helpful.

[Earnest Victory]

35 minutes ago, Blackbird71 said:

Seriously, if your idea of fun is so tenuous that any past enjoyment could be instantly nullified and become retroactively unfun because of some prospective future event, and if that dampens your ability to enjoy the game in the present, then you're in the wrong hobby.

Who said prospective? An actual future event can spoil what may have been fun. Just like a singular 'payoff' moment can turn hours of tension into enjoyment. I am not talking on the scale of months here - consider instead a single session, log on to log off. 

It happens all the time in sports. A tense, nailbiting game where you finally win? Well, it turns out you enjoyed that. Meanwhile, a game where your team is ahead the whole way through is the most fun at the time, but comparatively dull when compared to the aforementioned nailbiter. But had that game ended in a loss, then it was simply hours of struggle for nothing. 

Once again, I will side with the overthinkers instead of the underthinkers. Keeping it simple only works if the subject is actually simple. Otherwise you are just dumbing it down. 

 

[Blackbird71]

10 minutes ago, Earnest Victory said:

It happens all the time in sports. A tense, nailbiting game where you finally win? Well, it turns out you enjoyed that. Meanwhile, a game where your team is ahead the whole way through is the most fun at the time, but comparatively dull when compared to the aforementioned nailbiter. But had that game ended in a loss, then it was simply hours of struggle for nothing. 

 

 

So by your standards, statistically only 50% of athletes can enjoy a team game.  

 

Sorry, but if you can't enjoy the game for what it is, regardless of the outcome, you shouldn't be playing, and that goes for sports as well as computer games.  Yes, a victory is definitely more exciting than a defeat, but if a loss means the game was pointless, then why bother?

[Ukase]

I remember when the game shut down. It was a huge relief. The burden of feeling compelled to play was over, and I could work on my real life instead of the pixeled lives I'd created. 
At the end, I remember converting all my inf to prestige and taking a screen-shot at the zero hour of my one man sg being the top SG on the server. That was kind of fun. 

Seeing the purple letters of "Very Rare Recipe" splash brightly and fade...that was always a nice dopamine hit. Now when it happens, because I have 3x as much as I did on live, it's a bit of a snooze. The content in the game is dated. I've done ALL of it more times than I care to acknowledge. 

Last August, I joined a super group, thinking the people might make things more "fun".  Some did. Some don't. Some really don't. 

So, my grandmother told me as a kid, "If you're bored, it's because you're boring." 

So, I make my own "Fun", which is really for interest/ego. How fast can I do SSA 1, who will die?  4 minutes? Can I do it in less? Can I make a billion by level 50? Too easy. Can I make it by level 25? Still too easy. Heck, just sit there and do it at level 1. I only need to kill one thing without 2xp to work the market. Just need a little seed money. 
But that's too simple now, although it can certainly get tedious. 
So now, I pretend I'm broke and see if I can get to 50 depending ONLY on drops without using the AH, other than to sell surplus goods. No buying of anything, from any vendor or AH. No upgrading enhancements. Just living off the land of the RNG. And if I'm defeated, I'm deleted. I haven't done this yet. (got to level 21)  One character was too much "fun" to delete. The actual word, though, escapes me. It's not fun. The last time I had fun involved two married lady friends I have, some beer and some hummus and baba ghanoush. My stomach still aches from the laughs. and my head may or may not still ache from the hangover. 

To me, fun is when you look back and chuckle at how quickly your time went by. It's not something I think about while I'm having it. I've never done that with this game. The game is just to give me a little dopamine fix. 

[Earnest Victory]

Just now, Blackbird71 said:

So by your standards, statistically only 50% of athletes can enjoy a team game.  

Who said can? If you'll look back to the part of my first post that you quoted, I said "Some enjoyment is conditional"

Can you stop ignoring words I say and adding in others and pretending I said them? 

 

3 minutes ago, Blackbird71 said:

Sorry, but if you can't enjoy the game for what it is, regardless of the outcome

Good thing I also never said anything like that. 

 

4 minutes ago, Blackbird71 said:

but if a loss means the game was pointless, then why bother?

Indeed. If only there were something more that could happen during the course of a game... 

But, talking about that that would be overthinking it. Fun is only when you are enjoying something in the moment, fleeting as a bubble on a breeze. Gotta make sure nobody takes it as anything different, especially in a thread in which that is the entire premise. 
 

[DrBasics]

To me, fun in video games strictly depends on the mood I am in. Or if I am on a "kick" of something. I play a ton of games from super relaxing to "DayZ". While I play all genres, I feel like the thing that makes a game fun to me can be boiled down to "continuity of play time". I define this as multiple things all rolled into one, so here goes:

 

1. Continuity of Play Time: The game and/or characters do not reset and progress is saved for when you log in next time. Makes me feel like my time (time is precious to me now as an adult) spent was not wasted. Certain games feign this, like Call of Duty with their exp and levels, but in the end, any real gamer worth their salt knows there is no true continuity in those games.
2. Continuity of Play Time: When I exit the game, I am left thinking about aspects of the game. Whether it be thinking of a new character concept. About PVP. About raid bosses. About loot. If a game leaks out of the designated "time to play video games" and I start thinking of it throughout the day, I consider that game to be fun.
3. Continuity of Play Time: All strengths and "loot" collected in the game have been saved and will not plan to be reset. When I gather loot that is difficult to attain (whether that being because it is rare, hard to get, etc), I expect to not lose that. Games like DayZ save progress but wipe their servers every 3 months or so, so that it is a fresh start for everyone to avoid one clan getting too Monopoly Man on the server.

 

There are other factors besides Continuity of Play Time that contribute to my personal fun factor, however, they are small peanuts and things that are not worth standing up for. Does a lowbie defender who uses Nova, kills nothing and sends everything flying to a scattered mess boil my beans? HELL YEAH! But I have never once said anything because I realize "the issue" is small peanuts. Same goes for RP, I love RP in all MMOs I play, but this game has serious roller coaster "up's and down's" with the RP. However, another small peanuts issue.

[Twisted Toon]

8 hours ago, Black Talon said:

GVT, thank you very much for having the temerity and guts to broach a subject like this, and encourage the crew to actually avoid the digital food fights because, well, it's all fun and games until someone actually misses out on having Jello for dessert.

I didn't get any Bread Pudding. I'm miffed! 😠

[GastlyGibus]

Writing this at midnight in the back of my truck, so apologies if I ramble or make lots of typos.

"Fun" for me, in the context of video-games, boils down to two words: contribution, and reward.

 

Contribution is what I'm bringing to the table. What am I doing to make the situation different? That's one of the appeals of video-games for me, is knowing that 100 different people can play the same game and have wildly-different outcomes. It's not like a ride at an amusement park, where everyone experiences the same exact thing (though don't get me wrong, I love a good roller-coaster), rather everyone has a different experience and has their own contribution.

 

I notice that a lot in the video-games I tend to play most. Take the Hitman series, for example, one of my all-time favorites. Sure, every player gets the same exact mission. "Go to this place and assassinate these targets," but Hitman is fun for me in that my contribution to the game makes a huge difference. Kill these targets, but in what way? Do I take it in a sneaky, subtle approach and try to use a carefully-placed poison in their food? Do I play the manipulator and orchestrate events to get my results? Do I do it down and dirty and sabotage some piece of heavy equipment? Hell, maybe I'm feeling lazy and I just John Wick my way through the mission, guns blazing. My contribution shapes the game experience, and that's something I enjoy thoroughly. I can't stand games where the experience is like an amusement-park ride, where you're stuck on the rails of one particular experience and that's that. Take for example the Call of Duty franchise. Not counting the multi-player aspect, the single-player campaign for every recent game in the series play out exactly the same for everyone. Start a mission, have some dialogue, go to a carefully-designed shooting gallery and shoot some dudes, then move on to the next pre-determined set piece and do it over and over again until the mission is done. Any time spent not doing the shooty parts is spent going through carefully choreographed events that, again, are the same for everyone. "Oh no, a big rock is falling on you! Mash X to push it away!" Boring.

 

In City of Heroes, the contribution comes from both the diversity of the archetype system and the versatility of making different builds. In an online setting, I love feeling like I'm contributing something to the team. I don't have to be the center of attention or the cornerstone of a team, but rather I just like to have the feeling of "if I wasn't around, the team would be slightly worse off, so I'm contributing!" If my Defender casts a resurrect on a fallen ally, I'm contributing, even if only in a minor sense. It's why I tend to complain a lot about the current implentation of the Incarnate system and how it lets some players become literal gods who can steamroll everything. I hardly join teams post-level 40 because I don't like just following along and watching as the one suped-up Blaster or Brute just nukes every mob into oblivion. I want to feel like I'm bringing something to the table, no matter how small. 

 

The second aspect is reward, and that's something a lot of video-games seem to get either terribly wrong or perfectly correct, with no in-betweens. Rewards need to be balance in a way that your effort feels suitable to the reward given. In essence, doing a small thing gets you a small reward, doing a big thing gets you a big reward. It's another reason I loved City of Heroes over other MMO's because CoH lacked that intense grind that every other MMO seems to include by obligation. I don't have to farm the same task force 30 times to get a shot at that one rare piece of loot that I really want; instead, I can do a few task forces, all different from each other, get merits, and spend those on the things I want. I have fun when I feel like I did a thing, and I got something cool and enjoyable out of it, but also where I feel the time and effort spent obtaining said thing was worth it. If I grind for 100 hours and all you give me is a reskinned weapon? Sorry, that's not gonna cut it. It reminds me of Dark Souls 2 and the two absolutely pathetic items, "Illusory Ring of the Exalted" and "Illusory Ring of the Conquerer," obtained by beating the game without resting at a single bonfire and beating the game without dying once, respectively. Anybody who has played Dark Souls should know how monumentally difficult this challenge is (especially in DS2 as that game loves to fuck with you and just kill you for no reason), so you think, those rings must be pretty cool, huh? Nope. First ring makes your right-handed weapon invisible, and the second ring makes your left-handed weapon invisible. I guess that's cool if you're into PvP, but even then, the advantage obtained is minimal at best.

 

Those two concepts are what determine fun for me in a video-game. Is the game taking my contribution into account, and am I being rewarded adequately for my effort? City of Heroes accomplishes both of these in a satisfactory manner, and most of the other games I play do as well. That's my definition of fun, at least as far as video-games are concerned.

Edited July 23, 2021 by GastlyGibus

[Blackbird71]

7 hours ago, Earnest Victory said:

Who said can? If you'll look back to the part of my first post that you quoted, I said "Some enjoyment is conditional"

Can you stop ignoring words I say and adding in others and pretending I said them? 

 

 

Not my intention; just trying to interpret your original post:

 

15 hours ago, Earnest Victory said:

And if the answer is "I literally can't tell yet"? 

Some enjoyment is conditional on the outcome of an activity. It can retroactively turn to dust if, for example, your time is wasted. Or it could crystallise if it leads to a particularly incredible moment. 

Even had the leadup to both those moments were exactly the same, in one you might have fun and n the other you wouldn't. Trying to dumb it down just means your view is too ill considered to actually apply. 

I'll stick with the 'over'thinkers, thanks.

 

And your follow up comment:

 

7 hours ago, Earnest Victory said:

Who said prospective? An actual future event can spoil what may have been fun. Just like a singular 'payoff' moment can turn hours of tension into enjoyment. I am not talking on the scale of months here - consider instead a single session, log on to log off. 

It happens all the time in sports. A tense, nailbiting game where you finally win? Well, it turns out you enjoyed that. Meanwhile, a game where your team is ahead the whole way through is the most fun at the time, but comparatively dull when compared to the aforementioned nailbiter. But had that game ended in a loss, then it was simply hours of struggle for nothing. 

Once again, I will side with the overthinkers instead of the underthinkers. Keeping it simple only works if the subject is actually simple. Otherwise you are just dumbing it down. 

 

 

(boldface in all quotes added for emphasis)

 

If you can't tell if you're having fun because you have to wait and see what the outcome is to decide if what you are doing currently is fun, then It seems to be pretty clear that your enjoyment is dependent on the outcome, and that you're entire effort at fun could be wasted if the outcome doesn't go your way, regardless of the path to get there.  That's what I was getting at.  If that's not what you were saying, then maybe you should reconsider your previous statements.

 

[Sunsette]

Types of fun I usually optimize for in MMOs:

 

1. Ludonarrative harmony. How well do my actions and aesthetics line up with my character at a gameplay level. 
2. Just world fantasy. I enjoy imagining a setting where the world is markedly less unjust than our own and I can contribute to that.
3. Rewards for smart build planning.
4. Dynamic gameplay that encourages full utilization of the game and your abilities.
5. Pleasing aesthetics
6. Content engagement levels. I enjoy having both relatively brainless content you can cheese while half thinking about work and highly involved challenging content for shorter bursts. If the other five points have been met, going brain off can be a fun time kill. 

Edited July 23, 2021 by Sunsette

[Alchemystic]

Like @GraspingVileTerror said, fun is subjective. It's... an opinion, of sorts.

 

That's why it irks me when people use "fun" as a rationale for change, because its inherently biased, and more often or not loses any sense of objectivity. People have different perspectives... Bruticus Maximus thinks the game is too easy, and it would be more fun if the difficulty increased, whereas The Defendinator is struggling to solo, and thinks it would be more fun if the game was easier for him.

 

I think we see a lot of discrepancy in the suggestions forum, general discussion and even the patch notes when it comes down to changes, there's not going to be a unanimous agreement on what's "fun", and I wouldn't want there to be.

 

Having options is the key to keeping people happy. Being able to choose your content and playstyle helps cover a lot of bases, and the vast amount of customisation available for characters, bases and AE helps tailor the experience. I think focusing on that would mean more people would have fun.

 

 

Edited July 23, 2021 by Tyrannical
PS. If anyone is actually called 'Bruticus Maximus' or 'The Defendinator' then I do apologise

[GraspingVileTerror]

Thank you for pointing out my error, @ZemX.  The "fun" in your second quote there should have been in quotation marks to emphasize that I was addressing the reports that World of Warcraft was specifically designed and developed without the leads pushing the narrative to their employees that what they were making would be "fun."

It was not my intent to suggest that no players have fun with any aspect of that game, as there absolutely are.  Emergent (Game)Play and Found Fun are hugely important aspects of gaming, and factors to account for while developing, even if they're notoriously difficult to predict without having a team of full-time psychologists on your dev team.

My intent was to stress that, from discussions I've had at IDGA mixers with people who identified themselves as members of Blizz's team at the time, that the professional push they were given was "follow the design document, we've had psyche professionals tailor this to our fiscal plans."  

I was trying to say "the game was made without the devs there being told 'fun is the objective' as a change from standard industry protocol."  Players will find their own fun in ANYTHING.  That's the nature of fun and the nature of play.  And again just reinforces that true, actual fun is subjective and personal.

 

Folks may recall that while there was a bit of an MMO "gold rush" following Blizz's success there, it wasn't until close to the end of the decade that other publishers learnt the real source of the success was the psychological manipulation that the game was designed for.  Since then, Acti-Blizz has laser-focused on that* and other publishers have pushed their studios to discover new and terrifying ways to manipulate people.  When I left, it was not uncommon for a publisher to have a few people on payroll who were certified psychiatrists, rather than just one-off contract consultants.  

*(Remember the D3 auction house and the "don't you guys have phones" faux pas?  That was a pretty big peek behind the curtain.)

[DrZeus]

I've been enjoying this thread so far.  Thanks for making it.

 

I might have a slightly different perspective... so far people have shared personal perspectives, but also game theory, game design, economics and philosophy... sometimes even debating if fun is definable.  It's been great to read.

 

But let me give you a different perspective... scientific.  My doctoral education is in psychology and communication sciences, the latter part focused on emotions (of which fun is one) and video game effects.  This is all... very measurable.  Sure, fun is subjective, but that's where the science comes in.  Humans have variability and you can define what is fun... statistically.  As far as are you splitting hairs by differentiating between fun and enjoyment?  I doubt it.  Emotions vary widely - it is well known for instance that things like humiliation and embarrassment are two separate emotions,  and when people rate them... yes they're in the same category and have a high correlation, but not TOO high (we always check to see if the correlation is too high - if enjoyment and fun are correlated 60% then they're related... but if they're correlated 95% they're just measuring the exact same thing and are not distinct concepts - we call this a collinearity problem).  We have all these different words for emotion because they have different connotations for people and represent distinct ideas.

By the way... an emotion is "any feeling that gives you insight into your internal motivations".  You don't actually know your own motivations or why you're doing things... you only have emotions to give you kind of a gauge on that... so while fun is an emotion (gives you insight into dopamine and serotonin levels in your brain - among other things)... so is hunger (gives you insight into sugar levels and specific chemical needs your body has).  

 

Often measured are things like immersion... expression, escapism, competition, accomplishment and feelings of success.  Various personality traits will determine what is fun for YOU.

 

Sometimes, the best way to think about how you're having fun... is to figure out what you don't like.  Having fun is the opposite of that.  So in my case... I don't like it when I'm in a group and it levels up super fast and I don't feel I'm pulling my weight.  I'd hate being a farm sitter.  Why?  That shows that I have a need for accomplishment and less of a need for success.  The levels are a sign of success, but not accomplishment.

 

I also don't care for one change that has been that there is now an unchanged established meta as far as how to build and slot your powers for maximum effect.  On live they tried to get rid of this by adding Enhancement Diversification... but now that's gone.  Now you have people building designs in Mid's and maxing out after farming for influence so they can even feel they're competing.  I don't care for that because it removes the ability of expression... it removes the ability to really make something unique that might matter.  So clearly... that must be very fun for me.  Obviously to other people they don't care as much about that.

 

I can tell you that I also much really like Immersion... because I like CoH more than CoV.  CoV - has always had a bit more people trying to game the system.  Farming, talking about builds, trying to min/max themselves... all that stuff removes immersion.  I also like roleplaying, which also is an indicator that immersion is fun for me.  (and honestly, it's just more FUN to be a hero - I can be a villian in real life any day of the week.  There's nothing unique about that)

 

By the way, we are horrible at figuring out what actually motivates us, which is why we use psychological measurement tools.  For instance, I did one experiment where I asked people if they played PvP or PvE.  Of the people who played PvP... they all claimed they enjoyed it because PvE was too easy and predictable and they liked a challenge.  However, there are two types of competitiveness... goal competitiveness and interpersonal competitiveness.  They describing being GOAL competitive... they want to be the best person they can be.  This is like a jogger racing against his own best time.  However, personality variables showed that those who liked PvP were actually way LESS goal competitive than PvE players.  They didn't know it, but they had a significantly low need for this.  What they DID have however, was high interpersonal competitiveness.  This is the desire to be better than other people.  This of course, would explain why PvP players are known to not... play fair.  They will generally care less than others if the fight is fair.  They just want to feel superior.  If the other player is AFK... or a child... or a new player they're about to drive away from the game... these are all just different flavors of victory.  but the PvP player doesn't know that's what motivates them.  (and they generally don't like being told because in our human hubris we like to pretend we know ourselves pretty well)

Edited July 23, 2021 by DrZeus

[GraspingVileTerror]

@Katharos posted this originally, but felt pressured to remove it.  I spoke with them in private, and they've given permission for me post it again.

(Special thanks to the user who sent this to me while I was at work; otherwise I would have missed this fantastic post entirely!)

 

 

Thank you, Katharos.

[Shred Monkey]

I find nearly all of life's choices can be boiled down into choosing between "long term happiness" vs "short term happiness."   One can substitute for happiness with words like "gain" or "fun" but it still comes down to taking the long view or short view. 

 

In the gaming industry decisions to "nerf" or "rebalance" are often made for the long term improvement of the game at the sacrifice of short term pleasure enjoyed by the players who were benefiting from the imbalance.

 

The 2009-2012 version of CoH was unquestionably a better game then it was in the first few years.  But an enormous number of loud speaking people complained about Enhancement Diversification when it happened.  That had to be a difficult decision, but it was the right one.  You shouldn't ignore the short term completely and forever, but long term gains (or loses) have far greater consequence then short term ones.  Therefore, the long term view should be prioritized over the short term.

 

Some game developers, business managers, and politicians believe you can stack up short-term gains forever and be ahead of the long term focused competitors.  But this is the same logic that has lead us to economic crashes, retail stores filled with inferior products, click-bait news organizations, and a global climate crisis.  It's not good.  And in some cases, it's very very dangerous.

 

I can see an argument that this is a game, and a game should be about short term fun, right?  But MMO's can turn into long term games.  People play them for years... decades even.  If you want to create a game that people truly "love" that means prioritizing long term development goals over short term "events" to keep people logging back in.  IMHO, the microtransaction model has destroyed the gaming industry.  It might have made some people rich, but it left many serious gamers unsatisfied.  I think if Homecoming has proved anything, it is that a game that's being developed with zero short-term profit incentive is a far superior product to those that are cash grabs.

[Luminara]

12 minutes ago, GraspingVileTerror said:

Emergent (Game)Play and Found Fun are hugely important aspects of gaming, and factors to account for while developing, even if they're notoriously difficult to predict without having a team of full-time psychologists on your dev team.

 

Well, Co* is a prime example of emergent play, in my opinion.  From the day it was released, players have been going off on different paths, doing things Cryptic never expected, intended or imagined.  Costume contests.  Badge hunting.  Market manipulation/finance building through the market.  PDP/Pocket D RP socialization.  Archetype bending.  Proc monster/buzzsaw builds.  Self-imposed restrictions such as playing without travel powers, deleting a character if X happens, beating the Hamidon under certain conditions (as few players as possible, for instance).  Some approaches were deemed incompatible with the long-term health of the game, like dumpster diving, but overall, throughout the years, both Cryptic and Paragon (and now HC) went the extra mile to broaden and strengthen the emergent model.  When they saw a new avenue of play coming into focus, they typically embraced it.  They listened, watched and supported what we were doing, and tried to give us as many ways to play Co* as there are people playing it.  I may never comprehend the emotional context which constitutes fun, but I can recognize when something's amazing, and this game, the way the developers have always channeled it to support emergent game play, is definitely amazing.

 

I'll also note that what we have today wouldn't exist if Blizzard's approach had become the norm earlier than it did.  It's clear, in retrospect, that that is why the game was ultimately shut down by the publisher, it simply didn't fit with the new paradigm and it couldn't be shoehorned into it, no matter what they tried (the last few Issues before the blip indicate that they did try).  I wouldn't have come to that realization if it weren't for your comments, so thank you for giving me another opportunity to learn and grow.

 

[tidge]

2 hours ago, GraspingVileTerror said:

@Katharos posted this originally, but felt pressured to remove it.  I spoke with them in private, and they've given permission for me post it again.

(Special thanks to the user who sent this to me while I was at work; otherwise I would have missed this fantastic post entirely!)

 

 

I hope it wasn't my snark that contributed to the pressure. I admit that I sometimes feel the temptation to begin a reply with some sort of epistemological argument, but my experience has been that this never goes well if epistemology is invoked but the content of the reply is an argument that could have been made without such an opening appeal. My snark was entirely directed at the opening "words need to be defined per their specific meaning" followed by what was certainly a gross misuse of a word that represents a specific number.