[MUD-Dev] The changing nature of fun

[Ted L. Chen]

Amanda Walker writes:
> On 12/19/02 2:11 PM, Ted L. Chen <tedlchen at yahoo.com> wrote:

>> I quite agree with you.  I don't even think it is possible to fix
>> any system when you take in account people's behavior over time.
>> The graph has a nasty tendency to move left.

> Depends on the system.  For a simple system, yes.

> However, the best games, and the social systems with the broadest
> appeal, are not simple.  They are multivalent--they have appeal at
> multiple levels of skill and understanding.

> Take chess.  Chess has rules so simple a kid can learn them in a
> week.  But chess is fun across a huge range of skill levels.
> Politics can be approached at a simple level: "us" vs "them",
> "conservative" vs "liberal", etc.  But as your skill and
> understanding expand, nuances and complexity unfold before you.

I don't think it only applies to simple systems.  The natural
tendency to move left is always there.

With chess, skill increase is just a forcing function to the right
as it periodically opens up your choices as you learn to look-ahead
more moves.  At beginner levels, the number of choices you get as
you learn while playing a game is much higher than ones that get
closed off (i.e. silly moves) so it's generally more fun to start
learning.  That fun learning effect starts tapering off at higher
skill levels though, as you start reproducing catalogued moves and
counter-moves.  Theoretically speaking, at some point, there
probably is an inflection point where skill increase actually starts
cutting off more choices than it gives.  But way before that, it's
already lost its usefulness in combating the natural leftward
tendency.

This whole argument maps up and down the system complexity axis as
well and can probably be better grasped with a scaled-down example
like Tic-Tac-Toe (which actually has a humanly achievable clear
inflection point on the forcing function).

> Note, however, that this unfolding wasn't explicitly "designed
> in".  Trying to design in different levels of appeal usually ends
> up being clumsy--the "level treadmill," for example, is only a
> rough simulation of it.

While better than nothing, I too believe it's clumsy.  It's too
discrete a periodic retasking function.  Some people move left so
fast that by the time the retasking happens, they've already
migrated into the 'frustrating/boring' zone.  What makes it worse is
that the retasking function is tied directly to the person's
willingness to perform.  The less willing they are, the longer it
takes, which makes them even less willing.  A positive feedback
effect.

Chess skill level increase is a much more fluid thing so it doesn't
suffer from this specific thing.

> I would argue that "staying power" is directly related to how well
> the same content appeals to players at different skill levels.
> The common approach of "newbie area / low level area / high level
> area / etc." linearizes and separates gameplay that might be more
> engaging if it overlapped.

In regards to keeping it fun, I don't believe that overlapping
content really helps.  It might help retain people who are otherwise
bored until the game becomes fun for them, but fun is a function of
what you're currently doing, not where you are going.  Anything I
can't touch in a game world is just ambiance and scenery to me.

TLC


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev