The Game Overanalyser
A Theory of Fun for Game Design was a book written by Raph Koster that has now become foundational in the study of games. In this video, we examine his core theory of how fun is about learning, about providing a system for players to engage with indefinitely, training them on a variety of cognitive and dexterous domains. The video also compares Koster”s theory to other popular frameworks as well, including game feel, systemic design and Nicole Lazzaro”s keys of fun, to see if there can be a universal definition of fun.
Support the channel
Patreon https://www.patreon.com/gameoveranalyser
Sources
– A Theory of Fun for Game Design , Raph Koster
– Game Feel , Steve Swink
– Advanced Game Design : A systems approach Micheal Sellers
– Nicole Lazzaro 4 keys of fun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEmNRRRqgNc
-Mechanics Dynamics Aesthetics
https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf
Source
In the academic world there isn't yet any fully formed theories of fun? Really? Huh.. it's a little bit disappointing even
Great video thank you
Very dense, that's a good thing
You should check out boardgamegeek.com an Explorer hobbyists tabletop experiences Kickstarter nowadays are blowing up with it
Wow, your videos provide so much value ! Thanks 🔥
Very good. I really enjoyed this one. I think it's all tied to conciousness; as we unravel/reveal more about how we exist, we'll inevitably gain a greater understanding of the mediums we create and their experiences.
This chanell is underrated
Your channel is pure gold.
I think your video had a really good point but it was a little bit vague for me as I needed things to be explained more.
How in the world did you manage to put so much interesting and useful information in such a short amount of time. Good work!
Great stuff..
Concise and deep, exactly what I was looking for..
Great video and analysis. Keep up the great content, mate.
Great video! Thanks for the mention of my book – great company to be in. I think we can talk about fun without being reductive, and with acknowledging the more nuanced aspects of aesthetics and meaning that sometime enter into this seemingly ethereal quality. At the end of chapter 4 in my book, I posit that all games must be engaging, but not all have to be fun. "Fun" is when a game is engaging (in various ways as described in that chapter) and enables an emotionally positive set of interactions. An experience can be fun but not interactive (a movie, book, joke, etc.), or it can be engaging but not fun ("The Grizzled" or even "Train" for example). All games are interactive in various ways, and most are fun too.
I also ran across this concept of The Tyranny of Fun on the WebDM channel, and made a video on it as well. I tend to distinguish 'fun' as a subjective perception of pleasure, and substitue the word Core Engagement to describe value-creating prospects in general.
Great analysis, and structuring. Good work, keep it up
I've put a lot of work into precisely articulating many of the ideas you laid out at the end in my theory of Depth. Try checking out my blog.
https://critpoints.net/2015/03/21/thoughts-on-depth-and-a-basic-introduction/
https://critpoints.net/about/
💮 Lol nic editing
This is something i desperatly needed Thank you very much, This is going to help my thesis. 😁
Something i never really wanted but desperately needed. Thank you for this video!