This question really troubles me sometimes. We all know that video games are just a distraction and a time-waster, like most entertainment, and can even sometimes cause actual harm when we get too involved. Sure it's nobody's fault but yours if you get so wrapped up in your game that you lose track of time and miss a little sleep, or chose to stay on your game when you have work to do because you'll miss the raid if you don't. But in the end, is it just better for us if we enjoy games less? And is there a point where a game can just be so involving that it's unhealthy to play? As far as entertainment forms go, I think video games are unique in the fact that they are limited only by the developers creativity and effort. So from the standpoint of a player and a human being, not a business, can a game be too fun?

I think it is up to personal responsibility and accountability.

I expect all my entertainment sources to be the highest quality. I don't say to myself "I will avoid the blockbuster movie and instead go see a b-movie in the dollar theater." If I want entertainment, I want the BEST entertainment for my money.

People shouldn't blame games, just like those who spend all day surfing the web shouldn't blame the ISPs. There have always been people who blame entertainment (television, cable TV, books, music, etc.) for their problems. It isn't the television company's fault that there are couch potatoes. It isn't the book publisher's fault there are people hooked on trashy romances.

It is entirely a personal responsibility issue. Irresponsible people will grasp for anything, including entertainment, as a scapegoat for their irresponsible actions.

So from the standpoint of a player and a human being, not a business, can a game be too fun?

No.

People shouldn't blame games, just like those who spend all day surfing the web shouldn't blame the ISPs.

Right... blame failblog.

can a game be too fun?

Perhaps, but would we care if it was?

I expect all my entertainment sources to be the highest quality. I don't say to myself "I will avoid the blockbuster movie and instead go see a b-movie in the dollar theater." If I want entertainment, I want the BEST entertainment for my money.

That's understandable, but I'm talking almost limitless fun here. So are you saying that if you could play a video game that was the most fun thing you've ever done, then you would play it? Do you ever think that society is slowly becoming desensitized to fun, just like we are desensitized to horror movies and such. What if there is a point in the future where video games evolve to the point where they just can't entertain us anymore (just hypothetically speaking, and by "us" I mean people who play games a lot)? Would a preventative measure be to just keep the industry as stagnant as possible for as long as possible?

Or am I just crazy talk


Also for any reason at all, does anyone think it's ever better for you if a game is just less fun? (just food for thought)

People shouldn't blame games[/quote]

Some game developers use metrics to maximize addictiveness and other factors.

They analyze every action taken, from mouse movements to clicks to actions performed and use that to generate the most satisfying response. After sufficient addiction has been achieved, these reward stimuli are gated through micropayments.

Not everyone is susceptible and not everyone gets hooked in same way, but there's sufficient number of addicts to generate very lucrative businesses.

So yes, a certain class of games is engineered for "fun" aka addictiveness as first metric.

Do you ever think that society is slowly becoming desensitized to fun[/quote]

It has been theorized that "fun" means learning. Once we learn enough, it is no longer fun. Learning is a series of successes and failures.

Current crop of games cannot overcome that, at least not yet. No matter how finely tuned, everyone learns the mechanics at some point to lose interest. Given limited resources, developers instead focus on maximizing the positive reinforcement of each action.

It is entirely a personal responsibility issue.[/quote]

Not entirely.

Imagine that food shops were allowed to give freebies of anything. So there might be a chocolate candy, coffee, snickers, line of cocaine, canape, ... along with your steak.

There is a set of items which are known to cause addiction and they fall under regulated substances.

A certain class of games exploits identical mechanism and identical way. And it's absurdly effective. Freebies can be gotten all over the internet, from ads, to someone's feed, to general links. All it takes is a few clicks.

The problem with addiction is that it takes precedence over sound judgement. These mechanisms are very easy to exploit.

Addiction to internet/TV/etc... has same root cause, but these mediums are unstructured and unfocused, whereas certain types of games are specifically engineered for that purpose.

Abuse of addictive substances is most often symptome of deeper problems, even though effects of addiction eventually take over.


I cannot find it now, but there was an article about a former drug dealer became a very successful game developer through these techniques. Same principle, same industry, just no law and no regulation. It really works.

But no, the world isn't ending, not everyone is like that, we won't all end up playing Farmville and people won't suddenly emerge as deranged shooters. But it also doesn't mean there is none of that. If anything, one should worry about these techniques being increasingly standard practice of retailers and credit card companies.

1. Fun can be described as the "playful absorption of new information and knowledge". This is a subset of the learning process (which can be both playful and, well, not). So in a way, "fun" is a form of learning.

2. We currently live in a society where information overload is absurdly easy to achieve. Unfortunately while we cannot completely remember and efficiently retrieve every bit of information we come in contact with, we do retain it to some extent, which means that the potential "new information and knowledge" decreases at an alarming rate. This erodes the capacity of members of our society to "have fun".

3. As Antheus states, learning should be a series of successes and failures, unfortunately in our society we are either directly told "the right way" with no potential for failure, and we are heavily penalized in cases when we do fail. This prevents us from properly learning, which impacts "fun" negatively.

So, yes, our society is being desensitized to fun, and not "slowly" but rather quickly. In fact society has ensured that our fun may only be obtained through specific, well controlled channels, namely games, television, etc... so that when an individual needs to "have fun" (a fundamental human need), he is forced to use these channels, which in turn provides stable profit for these forms of media. Not everybody falls for it, obviously, but a huge fraction does. This is enough to generate enough profit for companies to keep doing it. It doesn't matter whether your game is "fun" or not. It just needs to be "more fun" than the competition, so that people will buy it. The idea is that they have to buy at least one game to "have fun". Now the matter of what makes a game "fun" is better explained by Antheus above me, so I will just redirect to his post.

Addictiveness is different than fun. People who are addicted to anything are usually not having much fun in the process.The two work quite differently in the brain - your brain naturally gets tired of any source of fun due to using up/getting oversaturated with the current supply of fun-related brain chemicals, but does not get tired of addictive stimuli.

Addictiveness is different than fun. People who are addicted to anything are usually not having much fun in the process.The two work quite differently in the brain - your brain naturally gets tired of any source of fun due to using up/getting oversaturated with the current supply of fun-related brain chemicals, but does not get tired of addictive stimuli.

I'm no psychologist but can the brain be hooked on fun-related chemicals, and just get tired of specific sources of fun like individual games - not due to oversaturation but due to the fact that it gradually gets less chemical from the source. Essentially I mean to get less fun out of a game, but still be addicted to video game fun


or am I just crazy talk