The Zero-Sum Funomaly pt.6
Tuesday, November 8, 2011 at 11:02PM Before I conclude this series, I wanted to highlight a part of our gaming discourse that exposes a failing in how we think of fun. As we've learned, fun is a simple outcome that results from many disparate overlapping facets of personhood. As long as a gamer continues to play a game, he/she is having fun. But like I said in part 1 of this series, how much fun is a different question altogether. Gamers talk all the time about what's fun and what's not fun. They also talk about how much more fun one game is compared to another. They also comment on how quickly a game gets fun or how much more fun they could be having in the same amount of time with another game. From this point it's natural for these gamers to construct a value system that combines fun, time, and price. And it's here where the entire concept of fun is impossible to convert.
It's hard not to be a critic. All you need is an opinion. You don't even have to say it out loud or blog about it. To have distinguishing tastes, you only need to be aware of what you like and dislike. I've somewhat jokingly stated that opinions are the most abundant substance in the universe. We make them all the time without even being conscious of it. See? You just formed an opinion on my humorous claim. You just did it again in regards to whether or not you found it to actually be humorous. I could go on and on. The point is opinions and feelings are only so useful. They're great at directing our moment to moment decisions. But they do not help us find common ground, speak objectively, and communicating in general. My claim is no matter what kinds of games you like or how you value them, you'll never resolve a value scale of fun that looks for quality and quantity. Now that we thoroughly understand fun, we should be able to sort out the issue of fun and value.
To start, consider how we could value a game if fun was binary; if there were no degrees to fun. As long as you're playing a game you're having a maximum level of fun. As soon as you refuse to play you're no longer having fun. While you're having fun you may have a wide range of experiences. And though you may value some types of experiences more than others, you cannot have more fun playing the game you love compared to another game you like or a game that you hope will get better.
If we look at fun like this, then the fun value of a game is equivalent to how long it keeps us interested or playing. Practically speaking, even with this value scale there's still a big issue of figuring out how to measure gameplay time. Do we pick the average play length? Do we factor in unlimited multiplayer time? Do we consider how long it takes to complete a game 100%? Or is it really not a matter of content at all? Even if we solely factor time played, it's difficult to factor the time that we may add to a game in the future? As long as you own a game, you can play it as much as you want off and on for years.
The point of this thought experiment is to understand that a game's fun value can be thought of as its play time, which is potentially endless. Just look at how much time Steve Wiebe has committed to Donkey Kong. That's value. It may seem odd to conflate fun and time, but if you value all kinds of fun experiences equally, even by your own preferences, it makes sense. If you're skeptical about the premise that fun has no degrees then consider the following thought experiment.
What if fun has a range that runs from 0 to your favorite gaming experience of all time? What if we measure a game's fun value by how many times it delivers the interactive experiences we like most? With this view, play time is not an factor. We're counting fun experiences. As long as a game has our favorite features, set pieces, mechanics, story, etc. we'll value it higher than games with fewer of our favorite elements and over games with less fun elements. There are two reasons why this view isn't feasible.
First, it assumes that we have a ranked list of our own preferences. While forming an opinion is almost effortless, ranking our opinions is much more difficult. Would you rather have a piece of your favorite candy, or an equivalent amount of your second and third favorite candy. In other words, do you take quality over quantity? Did you answer that question easily enough? If so, would you rather have two pieces of your favorite candy or would you rather have one piece of your #2 candy and four pieces of your #10? Not so easy huh?
You can mix and match the numbers all you want or change the subject if you like. The results should be about the same. Eventually the value scale that you use to make decisions will fail because the scenarios are so complex. Considering how humans are typically pretty bad at actively thinking about numbers (especially anything beyond 7+2 values) you'll never develop a clear list of priorities that can govern relatively complex scenarios no matter how long you think about it. The same reasoning is behind the popular idiom that states you cannot compare apples and oranges. This idiom is really about value scales and criteria. Apples and oranges don't baffle human comprehension. The comparison is difficult because unless you have a very simple value scale the more you think about the different ways you can value these fruits, the more incomprehensibly complex the web of comparisons becomes. And as you seek to refine your criteria, you'll ultimately devalue one fruit for simply not being like the other. Apples are great at being apples. Oranges are great as oranges. So, perhaps the various types of fun experiences one appreciates are good in their own ways as well, making the idea of ranking them somewhat... fruitless. Put another way, if your value scale changes on a whim, then what good is it?
The second reason why using "degrees of fun" as a metric isn't feasible is that many have a bias for complex games. Just like with stories, there's a greater range of possible content with complex games as opposed to simple or minimalist games. In other words, when you have more games rules, elements, levels, or other content, you generally have more room to work with to present ideas and concepts that would not be possible with much fewer resources. In the same way that people generally don't suggest simple stories when asked for examples of their favorite stories, gamers tend to be biased against short, high quality gaming experiences.
Yes, complex games can be great in ways that simple games cannot. However, too many complexities in a game can clutter the communication of its game ideas. This clutter can really work against fun by reducing the clarity of feedback, which affects both goal-setting and the intrinsic motivator of curiosity. Also, the more complex a game, the harder it is to pull off at a high quality. So, if quality fun experiences are what we're measuring in this thought experiment, then shorter, well-executed, concentrated experiences should be valued most. This seems to be the opposite conclusion compared to the results of the first thought experiment. If this is true, then such contrary values are the reason why any value scale with fun cannot be resolved.
While I understand why we value complex games so much, I don't understand why we value the complex games that fall short over better executed, smaller games. Perhaps this bias stems from the apples-and-oranges quandary explained above. If you're the kind of person who ranks great commercials right up there with your favorite TV shows and movies, then consider yourself an exception; another kind of funomoly. As for me, if you look at my GOTY lists for the past few years it's clear that I value quality over quantity (of play time and gameplay content). I value polished, well executed ideas over ambitious, complex messes. This is how games like RO9 and Puji have make the list while many AAA budget games have not.
When you really think about it there's nothing logical, measurable, or clear about fun. We take it as it comes as we are guided by feelings, which include our snap judgements and long established opinions/biases. As I've explained above, just trying to clear up the issue of fun value scales reveals a poorly defined, endless web of comparisons. And though I didn't discuss it here, when you add price to the discussion, what little logic and clarity left is erased. I intend on exploring the subject of fun, value, and pricing outside of this series.
In the 7th and final part, we'll recap and conclude.
Reader Comments (6)
I've never really tried to quantify a game's fun absolutely, though of course I can notice when I like a game better than another. But this gives me a theoretical justification for not doing so. :)
I find that I also tend to value a short, focused experience over quantity, especially as my free time dwindles. Especially (though not directly related to games) with Flash animations (usually short anyway), where my favorites will be so small and unassuming that their authors will take them down permanently out of embarrassment (Greg-Anims and his animation Move-It, for example!).
I suspect it may be a reflection of S (sensate) versus N (intuitive) personalities, to use the Meyers-Briggs terminology. A short but vivid and intriguing animation like Move-It can get my mind going on an enjoyable hypothetical journey, taking off from the rough and nearly unfinished starting point of the actual artwork (intuitive). But for someone who is more focused on the concrete and actual (sensate) there may be little appeal in an experience that stimulates the imagination but does not follow up on it.
@ Axcho
I'm so glad you brought up Meyers-Briggs terminology. I've been thinking about things like this as well. Very insightful comment.
I knew the name greg-anims was so familiar. Didn't he make "Use Boxmen?"
You never fail to impress.
I’m not entirely sure which games you’re referring to as complex, but as far as the “AAA” titles are concerned I think these games are quite shallow. There isn’t true variety in the gameplay because the mechanics aren’t orthogonal, when the mechanics are orthogonal they rarely build on each other to a meaningful degree, and the narratives are just a string of “cool events” in “awesome settings.” The video game industry turned in to Hollywood incredibly quickly. You give them undue praise when you say they’re complex. What I think players value is a game world with enough depth for them to fully explore what they have been learning and eventually form a powerful sense of mastery and understanding of the game world. A larger game world with a diversity of settings and characters also helps imbue the sentiment that what the player is learning matters is a real sense. But what we get are games “full of stuff”.
It is more difficult for a short game to achieve these goals. Short games also have the problem that if game isn’t played for much time, it’s not going to be strongly encoded into memory. I also value games that are short, polished, well executed ideas over hulking masses of mediocrity and uninspiring execution, but they’re still not good enough. What I think gamers are really looking for are games that take interesting narrative ideas/themes that resonate with gameplay mechanics that have high levels of emergent interactions in a toy universe that has been designed to deeply explore the extrapolations of those core features across a variety of settings.
@Jared
AAA games is still a pretty big category. And I can't help but think that you have shooters in mind when you talk about AAA games. So to be clear, AAA games include games like Super Mario Galaxy, Zelda Skyward Sword, Halo Reach, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, etc. Going off of this list of specifics I can say....
not all of them are shallow
there is a lot of variety in their gameplay especially when you include multiplayer and the other non-single-player campaign modes.
The mechanics do build on each other in many of these games.
The narratives of these games can range from poor to top notch.
Also, I use the word complex to mean many rules to the gameplay.
"What I think players value is a game world with enough depth for them to fully explore what they have been learning and eventually form a powerful sense of mastery and understanding of the game world."
Some players value this. Some don't. Just look my my GOTY lists for the last 3 years. I also love puzzles games which tend not to have game worlds.
Still, you can form a powerful sense of master and understanding of a game system/engine with any game especially the comparatively simple ones.
"A larger game world with a diversity of settings and characters also helps imbue the sentiment that what the player is learning matters is a real sense. "
Though I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "real sense" I'm going to say... not necessary. Large game worlds and diversity doesn't necessarily give any meaningful context to anything else in a game. It can work against the coherency and focus actually.
"It is more difficult for a short game to achieve these goals. Short games also have the problem that if game isn’t played for much time, it’s not going to be strongly encoded into memory."
The entire way you're thinking is wrong. Just like with short films, dances, stories, and poems short games can pack a ton of content and meaning. Just because you can get through these things more quickly doesn't mean there's less to discover. By re-reading-watching-playing you get more out of the work. You don't need new levels or more content to improve at a game. I've played and refined the same Piano songs for years. With only a few pages of music I can still find more to understand and master. The problem is many gamers don't know how or where to find this these kinds of experiences.
"but they’re still not good enough."
Maybe not for you.
"What I think gamers are really looking for are games that take interesting narrative ideas/themes that resonate with gameplay mechanics that have high levels of emergent interactions in a toy universe that has been designed to deeply explore the extrapolations of those core features across a variety of settings."
You explain yourself well. And I agree that many gamers seek that kind of game/experience. But not all, and certainly not all the time. Furthermore, this doesn't mean that the same gamers can't find a high quality highly valued game of a different type.
Thanks for commenting.
I’m terribly ashamed that I had completely removed Nintendo’s games from my mental AAA category. After a childhood of almost exclusively Nintendo games, it seems that in my old age I’d forgotten my once dear friend. Most of Nintendo’s AAA titles would not fall into my shallow category. Regardless, it is too large a set for me to make such sweeping assessments, but I would still say most of them are shallow. Yet without describing the sufficient level of interaction and emergent agency I would like to see in gameplay, there isn’t a good way for me to communicate my intuitive assessment of their lack of depth. When I actually know what I mean I’ll get back to you.
Toy Universe might be a better description than game world. I was trying to describe the full scope of experiences that have been designed for the player to explore. For puzzle games this would mean a sufficient diversity in modes, difficulty, time length, or any other aspect that when modified would allow for a greater depth of play and eventually a greater level of mastery.
“Real Sense” is too vague to convey anything significant. I haven’t fully synthesized enough material to succinctly describe why I think this is true, but I’ll give it a shot. Recently I’ve been reading a lot of psychology and neurology in an attempt to figure out how to better design games to have a substantive and lasting effect in the human mind. A game with a many channels of sensory information, a strong coherent narrative, few to no incongruous visual cues, and high levels of interactivity creates a spatial presence effect in the player. Consistent, coherent, and interesting storylines involving the world’s characters will create positive emotions in the player’s brain and start to create an emotional connection between this world, the stories in it, and the player’s actions; which the brain takes as a signal to strongly encode memories of this game world. As far as the brain is concerned it’s practically a real place.
In your response to my observation on the efficacy of short games at producing the effects I just described, it seems that we essentially have the same perspective, but since I failed to give a proper explanation of what I meant, I can why you thought I felt differently. What I think of as a short game is one that does not allow for multiple replays to gain a deeper understanding of the toy universe and the rules that govern its elements. If the game is played with enough repetition it can produce the same cognitive results as a long game played through once. The best way to describe the difference between my definitions of short and long games is the amount of time it takes to explore the full scope of unique and compelling gameplay and narrative elements to a meaningful end. The definition is still a bit squishy and subjective, but eventually I’ll clean it up into something more concrete.
“But they’re still not good enough,” was hardly sufficient. It should have been “they’re not good enough to display the full extent of what video games are capable of as a medium.” This is definitely not what all gamers are looking for all the time; it’s not even what I’m looking for from games all the time. I love to kick back with a superficial adolescent power fantasy game and unleash hell in an absurd universe, it’s absolutely fantastic. It seems “gamers” has become too broad and vague a term to hold the meaning I used to ascribe it, the group of people I meant to refer to are the people who think that video games have an incredible potential as an expressive art form.
I hope this clarifies what I was attempting to say and thank you for the response; after several years of lurking it’s nice to have a bit of interaction. Whenever someone wants to learn more about game design I send them here. Your work is some of the best I’ve seen that explores game design in a thoughtful and meaningful way. I’m grateful you take the time and make the effort to produce it.
"I’m terribly ashamed that I had completely removed Nintendo’s games from my mental AAA category. After a childhood of almost exclusively Nintendo games, it seems that in my old age I’d forgotten my once dear friend."
It's a sad thing to forsake an old friend. lol
"Regardless, it is too large a set for me to make such sweeping assessments, but I would still say most of them are shallow. Yet without describing the sufficient level of interaction and emergent agency I would like to see in gameplay, there isn’t a good way for me to communicate my intuitive assessment of their lack of depth. When I actually know what I mean I’ll get back to you."
Bravo sir. I look forward to when you do get back to me. It's an admirable quality to recognize when you fall short and take measures to close the gap.
Anyway, you said a lot. You have a lot of interesting things going. I'm surprised I haven't heard from you before. We should talk more often. You clarified/explained yourself very well. I'm impressed.
Peace