Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ostwilkens 217 days 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"?

2 comments

In 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.

Progress on predictions means both getting better at prediction (learning) and applying that.
Also a decent definition of intelligence
I 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.

No, 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/ which is linked in there.

I strongly disagree with lumping "intelligence" into the question though, so I am with you on that.

A PID doesn’t get better at learning and applying predictions. I’d argue that to do that essentially indefinitely requires intelligence.
Hence 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.
That is not getting better at learning. That’s repeatedly re-learning in the same way.
I can get better by getting more experienced without getting more intelligent.
Why do you think that accumulating experience and applying it to be better isn’t a mark of intelligence?
True, 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.