posted February 9th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
My experience is often more like
Fun = Rewards * Investment.
I can’t count the times I have found a game super entertaining, tried to show it to someone and they just didn’t get it. The difference from my POV was that they hadn’t invested anything. Me, I wanted to play the game so I went and spent my hard earned cash (investment) and the sat down and gave it my full attention (investment).
They on the other hand hadn’t invested anything and therefore didn’t give it any real attention and after a couple of minutes of pretending to look they declared it uninteresting and hence un-fun.
There are also plenty of other games where the fun came from defeating something incredibly hard. A Personal example: Defeating Bowser in Super Mario World when I didn’t know I could throw the shells up. I had a huge feeling of accomplishment (fun) which later when I found out it was so easy if I just through the shells up removed the fun for me.
Clearing any Metroid or Mega Man game are also examples of having to invest heavily to earn the reward.
I guess it goes back to the old saying you only appreciate things you earn.
posted February 9th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Here’s another one.
Reward > Risk = Fun
If the reward for doing something is greater than the risk you get fun.
Skydiving (landing and living > plummeting to your doom = fun)
posted February 10th, 2008 at 1:49 am
You raise some good questions. I think one point that’s fairly obvious is that each of us don’t perceive fun in the exact same way. What’s fun for you may not be fun for me, etc.
Even if you were to focus on a single person to get their perspective on fun, you’re unlikely to pinpoint it accurately. Sure, the person may be able to describe certain attributes of games that were fun to him/her in the past, but simply duplicating those attributes in another game is no guarantee that the fun will be duplicated too.
And that, I suppose, is the problem. Identifying fun when it happens is easy, explaining the why’s is more challenging.
posted February 10th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Does investment include … risk?
The majority of rewards in games are usually presenting the player with equal to or harder forms of further investment.
I am starting to hate that sort of “Fun” the older I get.
ie. Beating a level in Contra and being able to progress.
posted February 12th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
The problem is the investment is easily defined and measured, but reward really isn’t. So isnt it tough to actually gain anything practical from that equation?
posted February 17th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I had a thought about reading the other day:
Good Read = Prose * Story
So maybe games run something more like:
fun = Gameplay * anticipation * reward
posted March 13th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
You guys are all wrong. Here it is once and for all.
fun = sqrt(((investment + rewards) x BFC) / (fear x frustration)^3)
Where:
investment = cost of game + time spent playing + (time away from girlfriend / bitchiness of girlfriend)
fear = (nazis + vampires) x darkness
frustration = (number of controller buttons)^2 x badness of camera
BFC = “Bushnell fun constant” which is 34.546666666… in standard metric fun units
Note also that this does not take relativity into account.
The math gets a bit trickier when trying to have fun near the speed of light or in extreme gravitational fields.
posted March 25th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Wait, arod, if the frustration level or the fear level = 0 (which would easily happen with say a Mario game with no nazis, vampires, or darkness in it) then you’d be dividing the entire fun equation by zero and then the gaming universe would implode!!!
posted August 4th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Hmmm… I can’t say I agree with your formula for fun. In my experience the more investment you make and the more “sacrifices” you make in order to gain an experience, the more enjoyment you experience when you finally get to the goal. Emotions, and fun specifically, should be measured on non-linear scales. A simple interruption can destroy an entire session of immersive gameplay, e.g., and that definitely would not be justified by your formula. Definitely a topic that begs for more attention 
posted August 6th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Babak, I think that’s true for harder-core gamers: the more they put in, the more they get out. This is because we “gamers” tend to be satisfied with just the fact that we climbed the mountain and we know we climbed it. But for the rest of the people out there, they like to have more concrete rewards. A snapshot of themselves atop the mountain, posting a flag at the summit for all to see, or a celebratory bottle of scotch. More “frugal” gamers aren’t going to want to invest twelve hours into a game experience and not get anything for it.
I agree that we need some new tools to measure and discuss fun. I’m going back into the lab to work on that funometer I’ve been toying with for so long.
Thanks for the comments, everyone. 