Game design too analytical?

[Brian]

Article about too much analysis not actually resulting in fun games:

http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/12/what-games-are-the-fun-boson-does-not-exist/

Well ... duh.

Thoughts?

[Grahf]

I could be way off base with this argument, but ever since I first came across them I can't help but think that the monstrosities that Zynga produced are what comes about when you over analyze games. It becomes something not about fun, but rather a number of systems, complex or otherwise, that are designed to keep people playing without really getting anywhere fulfilling or substantial.

The article also brings up the point that fun is an ephemeral thing. My fun is not your fun, which is not that person's fun. Even if you want to improve with the best of intentions in mind, there's only so much you can do for a game within its own boundaries and genre.

[Brian]

The same goes for modern movie production values.

They are not aiming to make the best movie possible.

They are aiming to make the most profitable movie possible.

[Empyrean]

A heavily mathematical approach to game design results in games that are easily (even accidentally) imitated by anyone else who uses the same approach. While it is tempting to take the same approach that has led to another successful game in the past, that's pretty much guaranteed to put your game into direct competition with countless others just like it, with nothing to make it stand out from the crowd.

[Dracos]

*starts looking at article*

Zynga is not at all hunting the 'math of fun' or anything similar.  They're trying to wrap addictive gambling logic in a pretty coat of paint.

*reads article and then another article*

Smart guy speaking down to folks.  *Shrugs*  Don't care about the social space though.