More Japanese discussion of A THEORY OF FUN

Game talk, Writing
7 Comments

And as usual, I can’t read it. Here’s one. And here’s another. This one seems to be pretty positive, but it looks like this other review came out a while ago, and dislikes chapters 9-12 and thinks that “The level which it requires as prerequisite is too high in the beginner” (!) because of the references to graph theory, liberal arts, and so on.

Allow me to solemnly recommend that if you write a book, that you not get obsessive over reviews, like me. 😛

But it reminds me that I did another interview with the folks at O’Reilly Japan a while back, so here it is:

1) Why do you select the very abstract topics of theory of fun for game design? Do you have special intentions to write this book?

Every time I work on a game, I always hear comments about parts that are fun and parts that aren’t. It always felt like fun was just something that we worked towards, but couldn’t really pin down very well. We weren’t able to create it on demand.

So I figured, I should try to first define it closely, so that I could better hunt for it, design for it, create it. I thought that understanding fun would help us make better games. I feel that way about all theory. It just provides a framework so we can think more clearly.

2) What are the most difficult points while writing the book?

Actually, it came very easily. The hardest part was doing all the cartoons! The experience of writing the book was great fun itself, and I think a big reason why is that I had actually been reading and working on the problem for a whole year before sitting down to write, so a lot of it was clear in my head already.

3) Do you have any ideas of the difference between the US and Japan regarding the game developers and the gamers?

I don’t have nearly as much of an idea as I wish I had! I have never been to Japan. The impression I get from reading press here is that games in Japan tend to have a bit more experimentation, and perhaps a different aesthetic emphasis — the American market focuses so much on realism, whereas the Japanese market seems more open to other art styles. I gather that the ways in which the production teams are run is different — your well-known game developers in Japan seem to be in a role somewhat different from the typical designer or producer on an American team.

4) What do you expect (from) the Japanese game developers?

Well, I can really only expect continued good games! There is a great tradition of innovation from Japanese developers, and I see that continuing today.

5) Could you please give any short messages to the Japanese readers?

I always give the same message: be content, but never satisfied. By this I mean, you must learn to be happy with what you have done, and the way your life is, but you must also always be striving to do better.

7 Comments

  1. Pingback: categories | The Cesspit.

  2. Since I have some free time, I will take a shot at providing a short summary. I hope I got it right 😀

    The first reviewer basically likes the book, and feels that the concepts (theories?) it in is complimentary to rather than contrasts with those of Masahiro Sakurai.

    The second reviewer is agreeing with the relationship between gaming and learning.

    The third reviewer is very positive, and stated that the book is worth buying if only for the first 20-30 pages.

    The fourth reviewer went into the details.
    Likes: He likes the book because he feels that is has helped him clarify what is “Fun” and “Boring”, and enabled him to use them as better communication tools. That alone is worth having the book for him. (If I am not wrong, the Japanese language traditionally does not have a perfect equivalent for “Fun”. The word used in the book title most often translate as “Interesting”.)

    Dislikes:
    The book lacks focus nearing the end. It is not that he dislikes chapters 9-12. He feels that those chapters should be in another book instead.

    Although the book seems to be written as an “entry level book”, it contains many difficult concepts and that he would not recommend it as an instruction text for beginners.

    Lastly, he felt that the later half of the book was translated poorly and redered it difficult to understand. It read like it was machine translated.

    Bipolar point:
    Although the book would be difficult to understand from the viewpoint of someone who had solely learned game design in Japanese, it might also be able to help bridge the difference between Western and Japanese designs.

  3. Oh, thanks Oogami! Much appreciated.

    I am not familiar with the name Masahiro Sakai. Do you know who this is, and what his theories are?

  5. Pingback: In, from outside. : Abstract Fun? Is there any other kind?

  6. Hi. I’m Akito Inoue(http://www.critiqueofgames.net).
    Mr.Sakurai report is here.(Sorry Japanese only…).
    http://watch.impress.co.jp/game%2Fdocs/20040330/saku.htm
    He is explaining the fun of the game by “risk and return”.

    —

    And more, your book was discussed by The University of Tokyo game research project, last month.(I participated.)
    If I can speak English fluently, I want to pass on the content of the discussion.
    But, sorry my English is unskilled….

  7. Thank you! Your English is much better than my Japanese, so don’t feel bad. 🙂

    Thank you for the link. I will try puzzling through it with Google Translate.

    I am pleased to hear that the book is being read at the University of Tokyo. That’s something I never expected when I was writing it!

Comments are closed.