Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9043153" data-attributes="member: 7023840">"I consider one game better than another because of playability and enjoyability."That's from Jake Jaquet.In order to understand what's actually being discussed, you have to understand the genesis of the conversation. This isn't the first time that this poster has (repeatedly!) insisted that fun doesn't matter. On the other hand, I've repeatedly stated that understanding what makes something fun is always worth investigating. So, what is this discussion really about?This goes back to something I often quote- the settled law of Judge John Hodgman:People like what they like. You can’t force someone to like something. You can expose them to a piece of work, but if they don’t like it, that’s the way it is. You can’t talk them out of it.Now, for some reason (I will let you guess the reason why!) this quote, and the related enworld maxim, ""I double-dog dare you to describe how totally awesome your favorite (game/playstyle) is, WITHOUT comparing it to any others" is incredibly difficult for some people to understand.Socrates once said that the unexamined life is not worth living; despite that admonition, there exist countless people that will continue to lead those lives. For various reasons, there are people that will insist that, because of reasons, the fact that a person can truthfully discuss their experience about something is somehow invalid. On a forum like this, discussing gaming, that reason might be ... oh, fun! "Why do you play (this game that I personally don't like)"?"Because it's fun!""Well, it can't be fun, because of X, Y, and Z. Obviously, there's something wrong with you."It's completely missing the forest for the trees. If people actually cared about what goes into the design of the game, they'd be going in with a good-faith effort to try and understand why the person enjoys the game- not trying to argue with a person that their preferences can't be "fun." In the end, fun (playability and enjoyability, or however you want to call it) is the design goal for most designers- at least, the ones that are designing games for people to play, and not just thought experiments. There are great and valid discussions about how to get there- more rules or less rules. What types of dice mechanics might be more enjoyable. The type of market you want to appeal to (not everyone finds the same things fun, and games designed for mass markets generally have to be designed differently). But the reason that this is a so-called conversation is not because I don't discuss those intermediate steps- far from it. I simply refuse to accede to agree that repetitive arguments wherein people are told that their enjoyment of a game is somehow "lesser" for lack of examination is correct.</blockquote>

Verification