6 ms·
> Bottom line: fun is basically about making progress on prediction. I'm having some trouble parsing this sentence. Does he mean that "player has fun if their
by ostwilkens 10mo ago
> Bottom line: fun is basically about making progress on prediction.
I'm having some trouble parsing this sentence. Does he mean that "player has fun if their predictions lead to progress"?
- meheleventyone 10mo agoProgress on predictions means both getting better at prediction (learning) and applying that.
- jebarker 10mo agoAlso a decent definition of intelligence
- meheleventyone 10mo agoI think for both contexts its far too simplistic to be more than a generalization and certainly for fun its a very local definition to serve Raph's ideas about what constitutes a game rather than encompassing enough to define it fully. For intelligence for example you could have a PID controller where there is automatic tuning which would fit the definition of learning and application. But I don't think we'd call it intelligent outside of marketing copy.
- jebarker 10mo agoA PID doesn’t get better at learning and applying predictions. I’d argue that to do that essentially indefinitely requires intelligence.
- meheleventyone 10mo agoHence mentioning a PID controller that has autotuning. Drop it in a new environment and it'll adjust. Drop it in another and it'll reconfigure itself.
- jebarker 10mo agoThat is not getting better at learning. That’s repeatedly re-learning in the same way.
- meheleventyone 10mo agoAhh, sorry we’re talking past one another then because I hadn’t twigged you were talking about getting better at learning because that’s not what I meant with my initial post! Although I can see why you took that from it. I do like that meta observation though that not only do people get better at prediction through learning they can also get better at the rate at which they improve their predictions.
- jebarker 10mo agoIt’s careless of me to say it’s a definition of intelligence, but I do think that property of being able to improve how you learn and how quickly you learn (especially in response to adversaries doing the same thing) is a clear indicator of intelligence and there’s a good argument that that’s why we developed intelligence. These aren’t my ideas either, I’m just parroting what I recently read in the book “What is Intelligence” by Blaise Aguera y Arcas.
- Raph_Koster 10mo agoNo, it's not a very local definition at all, it's actually a generalized definition for all forms of game and entertainment -- and art, even! You seem to be assuming I have a reductive definition of game, when the definition given in the article is basically "anything people choose to play." See https://www.raphkoster.com/2013/04/16/playing-with-game/ https://www.raphkoster.com/2013/04/16/playing-with-game/ which is linked in there. I strongly disagree with lumping "intelligence" into the question though, so I am with you on that.
- stefs 10mo agoI can get better by getting more experienced without getting more intelligent.
- sph 10mo agoTrue, but one definition of intelligence is the ability to deal with a novel situation. You can't get more experienced if you're "too stupid" to learn and adapt to the challenge.
- jebarker 10mo agoWhy do you think that accumulating experience and applying it to be better isn’t a mark of intelligence?
- sph 10mo agoIn simple, reductive terms: Fun, among other things = remaining in the tight channel of flow, where your skills get challenged without ever reaching a point of frustration. Too little challenge = boredom. Skills improve as they get challenged, i.e. when our prediction and pattern matching system receive enough feedback to improve upon our previous actions to get a more optimal outcome. So, fun is (among other things) getting better at doing something, and as we get better, what was once a challenge turns easier, so a fun game needs to have a well-tuned difficulty progression to keep in pace with your improving skills.