How to Ensure that Discussions are not only about Definitions

Published: August 7, 2007, 6:03 am

Tags: philosophy, literature, gaming

The ProblemRaph Koster, in Theory of Fun for Game Design defines games, art, and fun in rather specific ways. Raph's book is full of useful and interesting insights as to how the brain works using games, what games do for you, games in society, and so on.Yet, many people get hung up over his definitions. When he says that "fun" is the brain's way of absorbing patterns until you're done with the pattern, he's saying a whole lot about what happens in games and other activities, but, really, very little about what fun is. The definition he uses for fun in simply a placeholder for what he wants to talk about.This is a problem. Not only does everyone have their own ideas as to what the definitions of these terms are, but real-life always provides counter-examples. Raph has to spend time including the fun things he considers fun, and excluding the fun things he does not consider fun.There's nothing wrong with arguing about definitions, but it always seems to overshadow the rest of the

[ Full article ]

Blog link

Comments