|
I think you've nailed a core point of this discussion SirDonlad. I agree, fun is the wrong word.
Maybe we should really be talking about the factors that separate play from work?
Or perhaps what separates activity that we choose to do of our own violition with no consciously considered benefit from that we do for a conscious result.
What I mean by this is some of the things we do, we do because we're preprogrammed to do so.
Having a romantic relationship for example has nature reward us in multiple ways but even without this we're compelled to try to have romantic relationships. Its nature adding layers to push us to procreate. I assume (a hunch) that with the increasing sophistication and complexity of our concious willpower that evolution has layered more incentives to keep us on track.
So here I'd suggest, rather than "fun" we'd looking at natures reward. In our modern society we're programmed to think of reward as financial or transactional but in our natural state reward is biological, free and often compounded.
By contrast work is an activity we do to live. There is a lot of work we can do that is enjoyable but we do not do much of it without the incentive of money and life security. However this isn't strictly correct because we're rewarded in the same way as above for many work activities.
I can attest that professional game development is genuinely enjoyable, the shear variety of tasks and thinking strategies gives a great deal back. However I can say with a great deal of authority that I only do the work for money. When I'm between jobs engaging in professional development, this is what I'd do full time if I could. Making games as a result of this development is really just testing theories and the like. When the work has outlived my personal need for reinforcement it becomes just work. This is supposed to be the best job in the world but I'd rather spend quality time with my loved ones or learn stuff and this is echoed across an industry packed with "dream jobs".
A more stark example might be hunting.
I envisage posh English people walking moors with shotguns and small dogs murdering Pheasant and Grouse for entertainment. This is a game of hunting which is a natural state of work but I'd counter that this activity has a core feature of fun in that it has zero consequence for the hunter.
A more "realistic" hunting regime would be to hunt mammoth with spear and rocks which I'd suggest was a lot less fun and often tragic.
So after this ramble I'm agreeing with SirDonlad suggesion that "fun" could be replaced with a better word.
Not sure what this word is but I think the definition would be something like this:
"Engaging the layered physical biological rewards of doing what our evolution wants us to do"
As an aside. One thing we (people) do a lot of is horde calories, attempt to take in more than we need and expend as little as we can. Many activities we engage in take the form of consumption and/or relaxing or doing something with less effort. The reason I bring this up is Lance845 talks of engagement.
Any word that better defines fun should include active engagement. In the context of our hobby the calories required are higher than a videogame but not as high as rock climbing. I think we should consider that to aquire the level of "fun" we can work with as physical game designers it requires that there is a minimal level of engagement to activate fun. The overcoming of saving calories.
Perhaps the subject of quick-start or easy-in's where we meet the compulsion to save calories half way is a strategy that needs addressing with more nuance?
|
