Community

Feb 22, 2013 -- 10:24PM, Rustmonster wrote:

I have no idea why you decided to try to drag video games into this. I also have no idea where you got the idea that video game developers don't try to make their games engaging and entertaining, other than the usual "Video games suck!" drivel we get on here all the time.

I brought it up because I've seen this same issue in discussions about video game design. More importantly because I was reminded of a great Extra Credits episode called "Beyond Fun". It's actually almost the exact same thing I'm talking about and I probably should have included it in the OP.

Feb 22, 2013 -- 10:24PM, Rustmonster wrote:

Your definition of "fun", as far as I can actually figure out, is more "light-hearted" than "entertainment", which apparently "is not always the best experience". You'll find that many video games are not "light-hearted" which again seems to be the only difference I can find between you definition of "fun" and "entertainment".

My definition of fun is mutable and context sensitive. That's the issue. It's also in the most encompasing sense I and many others are willing to use it in is not broad enough to cover the entire spectrum of experience we should be desiring D&D to provde. As for light hearted, that's more of a connotation attached to the word and not necesarily part of my definition, but certain interpretations of the word do include such connotations. The issue is not the dictionary definition of fun, but the egregious amount of mutability in it's use and interpretation.

Feb 22, 2013 -- 10:24PM, Rustmonster wrote:

You didn't seem to actually explain how "fun" and the other key element you mentioned, "engagement", are mutually exclusive, other than the implication that light-hearted things can't be engaging.

That's because they are in no way mutually exclusive, implied to be, or meant to be.

Feb 22, 2013 -- 10:24PM, Rustmonster wrote:

Your entire point seems to hinge on you making up a definition for fun, and then pretending that every time somebody uses the word "fun" they meant your specific definition of fun even if they were not aware of how you personally define fun. How do you know, for example, that when a video game developer use the word "fun" they didn't MEAN "entertaining and engaging" as you define them? I understand (maybe?) that you're trying to propose some sort of universally-recognized terminology so we can, it is hoped, communicate more clearly to eachother. But I'm just confused as to why you're apparently pretending that people who are unaware of your proposed definitions mean a very very specific thing when they say "fun" even though the English word "fun" is more often than not used to describe the exact same things you say they should focus on instead.

The point was never that "fun" was defined one way, my way, and only that way, and in fact the point is quite the opposite, that it's a very mutable and inconsistent word which can be severly misinterpreted from it's intended use do to that fact. You are very much getting the wrong idea here.

Feb 22, 2013 -- 10:24PM, Rustmonster wrote:

And I'm just confused why you're accusing the entire medium of video games of all being based on your very narrow definition of "fun" simply because they often use the common English word "fun" when the medium is at this point so diverse that generalizing the entire thing is as silly as saying "Books focus too much on fun and not enough on other aspects".

Because "fun" is a very common conversation in the industry, one you often see in game journalism, industry panels, etc. Focussing the conversation around the word fun often misses the point because of the way people look at that word. Terminology is important in design.