'JP', in comments to Greg Costikyan's March 4, 2004 blog entry wrote:
Which isn't to say you can't quantify some of the general archetypes, as Mahk LeBlanc and others have done. That's different, though, from talking about a particular type or types of fun as The Way to Design Fun Games. Anyone who thinks they've figured that out is either desperate or deluded or both.

Some people approach games as narrative frames, a way to access a story with characters in a universe. Some people approach games as sets of rules, a challenge requiring skill to overcome. Some people approach games as windows into a virtual world of intoxicating verisimilitude that rivals reality itself. Which is why we have Metal Gear Solid, StarCraft and Shenmue all sharing the same universe.

Can't we just acknowledge that these are all valid aims to keep in mind when designing games (or "interactive systems", if that becomes too tight a rubric for the eventual products), set design goals and judge our success based on that?

Consider that the new version of Paranioa (Costick et al designers) is said to be influenced by InSpectres, MLWM, etc. I think it's no secret that these guys have figured our stuff out. And no surprise, they're smart guys.

Mike

Gordon C. Landis wrote: I couldn't help but notice how close (but not quite) those three "what's fun" definitions come to G, N and S. Plus how the issues around seeing these all as "valid aims" and being clear that there's not just one way to get fun persists into other realms of discussion . . .

Marten Gade wrote: This theory is probably the most classic of them all. Heck, it’s hardly a theory anymore, as the concepts of gamist, dramatist and immersionist have gone into our daily larp vocabulary.
In the foreword to this anthology, we write, “there is nothing as practical as a good theory.” And if any theory can prove this to players and organisers, it is the three-way model, which most players can actually relate to. Oh, I could go on about the beauty of this theory.

Certainly, the idea of there being a tripartite split for "why people find games fun" seems to be becoming the dominant meme for game-design theory... haven't got more concrete examples to hand, but it's certainly repeatedly cropped up.

I'm stil not sure if it's due to some fundamental aspect of psychology, or just the creative crossroads that pretty much all forms of games are in at the moment. I mean, I still find lots of follks trying to apply straighforward hollywood plotting techniques to video game design, and slapping down those who say it's restrictive by replying "it's the only way to get a good story!" No, it's illusionism (see the Deus Ex games for a very well done example, and the Getaway for a very badly done one).

But again, all this has to come with caveats that the detail of Ron's model is, specifically, about role playing games as a collaborative creative endeavour, so it's detail will differ when considering computer games design, frex, as that's about the design of an interactive entertainment. It may scratch similar ithes, but in a completely different way.

But the meme of there being a tripartite split in reasons for playing is dominating atm.

John Kim wrote: I'm curious whether it will have any acceptance in computer game ideas. Tabletop role-playing does have cross-influence, with Costikyan being a good example.