The Airborne Chronology Hypothesis

Posted by Rampant Coyote on July 3, 2013

I’m working on a new hypothesis for “fun” as it applies to gaming.

It goes something like this: Sort of like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the determination of how much fun you are having playing a game is impossible to determine while you are playing it. Or, more correctly, that elevated “fun” levels prevent accurate measurement in the observer.

Instead, it is something that can only be determined after the fact – generally speaking, measured by the amount of apparent time dilation after the activity is concluded.

In other words, if you are playing a game and think, “Huh, I guess this game is okay,” as you are playing it, it is indicative of a low level of “fun.”

But if you are playing and then happen to glance at your watch (interrupting the activity) and say, “Holy CRAP how did it get to be 2 in the morning?!?!?” this is indicative of elevated levels of fun during the activity, which suppress attention to other perceptions, such as the perception of time or the perception of actual emotional reactions. So you can’t know if a game is truly excellent or not until you take a break from playing it.

This is also applicable for game development – you cannot know you are in the “zone” and on a productive roll until you are no longer there. Ironically, this probably explains why project estimates for game development are frequently so horribly inaccurate. Due to the dilated time perception, certain development activities seemed to have taken very little time.

I’m sure there are exceptions to this rule, just as I’m sure there are people who will take this post seriously.

Just remember: Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Filed Under: Geek Life - Comments: 13 Comments to Read

LateWhiteRabbit said,

I think this is very true. The fact that Steam counts the time I play games has led to some very surprising revelations about which games I have the most fun playing. Such as, “Wait … I’ve played more Plants vs. Zombies than ALL THREE Mass Effect games combined?!” I would have sworn to you that I like Mass Effect more … but apparently Plants vs. Zombies is a lot more fun to play for me.

It makes me want to make a “Fun Graph” like your equation. Because apparently, games I find “Okay” I played for an average of 4-5 hours. Games I “Liked” I played for an average of 12 hours. Games I thought were “Really Good” I played for an average of 22-24 hours. Games I “Loved” I played for an average of 44-50 hours. There is an oddly consistent doubling of time for each step up the ladder. Then, of course, there are the “Oh, my God, it is a Bethesda open world game” games, where they blow the graph to pieces by showing I’ve played them for hundreds of hours.
Rampant Coyote said,

Yeah, I’m one of the few people who went searching (unsuccessfully) for a way to reset the timer on Steam. Of course, leaving a game paused and minimized overnight or while you are out shopping can really muck up the objectivity of the timing calculations a bit… 🙂
McTeddy said,

I actually don’t agree with this one. I find that some game’s aren’t more fun… but more addicting and easier to lose track of time.

Skyrim is my personal proof. I hated the game and didn’t enjoy playing it. But every time I turned it off, five hours passed. I had the same experience with the mass effect games, I didn’t enjoy them… but alot of time passed.

But once I put them down for a few days and the addiction wore off… I’ve never ever considered playing them again. I didn’t enjoy playing them… I just needed to get my fix.

I judge “fun” and “Time Spent Playing” as two separate points. There are plenty of cheap tricks developers use to encourage players to spend more time on a game.

Spending alot of time on the game doesn’t mean the devs made a fun game… it could means they just knew how to manipulate addictive tendencies.
Rampant Coyote said,

But did the five hours pass without you noticing them until they were over? Or were you painfully aware of every minute of the five hour session?
Darius said,

I mostly agree with this. It’s amazing how a good game can make the time fly. But I’ve also got to agree with McTeddy that it isn’t always an indication of real enjoyment. Take Minecraft or Civilization, both of those games are like a drug. I start for a quick half hour session, and before I know it three hours have passed. I enjoy it while I’m playing, but when I get done playing them, I feel like I’ve wasted the time, and my inclination is to avoid them the way an alchoholic avoids a beer. But I don’t feel like that after a three or four hour session of Fallout: New Vegas.

I wonder if part of it is that I know New Vegas will end at some point, so I will put around eighty hours into it, then it’s over. But with Civilization or Minecraft, I could play until the sun dies.
Xenovore said,

5 hours playing a game you hate? Are you sure you really hate it??? ‘Cause games that I actually hate; those are the ones I play for 5 minutes (or less), then immediately uninstall/delete them from my system, forever.

So I’m thinking that the theory still holds; maybe X isn’t as fun as Y, but if you still play X and lose track of time. . .
Xenovore said,

@Darius: Enjoyment while playing == fun.
McTeddy said,

I give every game ample time to prove my opinions wrong. My opinion is worthless if I didn’t get passed the tutorials and give the game an full blown chance to prove itself.

And Jay, I’m sure you know those overtime days? End up working for for 12+ hours to hit an upcoming deadline. You get busy with each new task that pops up and then suddenly… you are going home and it’s midnight.
Was it that you were having fun? Or was it that your mind was too busy with the minute to minute crap that time blurred?
Was I having fun in Skyrim… or did my mind blur as I did each of the bajillion “quests”? Considering that I felt drained at the end of a session… I don’t think it was fun.

Besides, is everyone telling me you’ve never watched a mediocre show because nothing else was on? You finishing it doesn’t mean the show was fun… it just means nothing better was on.
Sometimes you just sit and turn your brain off.
automata said,

Time spent doesn’t necessarily correlate to enjoyment.

* Games in different genres/subgenres can’t really be compared this way, because there’s different natural levels of replayability in each. Some games only have a natural life of one play-through, while others are designed to be played multiple times.

* You have to consider “sunk costs” as well: if you start a game that part-way through becomes terrible, there’s always the inclination to keep going to the end.

* There’s also the social aspect to consider: a lot of people will get pulled into playing games they may not necessarily like to replicate something they’ve seen or heard about, or to fit in and have things to talk about.

* I’ve witnessed plenty of let’s players who play terrible games to their completion; that would certainly skew the numbers for those people.

* Or like I did with Oblivion (which I didn’t like at all): force myself to play through the game as a self-administered lesson on not getting caught up in the release hype, even for games in genres I like. (It certainly worked).
alanm said,

So while I realise you’re speaking tongue in cheek, but I echo the people who said that fun doesn’t always correlate to time spent.

As a counter example: how many people you see sitting in a casino playing the slots hour after hour are having fun? Not a lot, and there a plenty of computer games designed to tickle those exact same brain areas.

Perhaps my personal measures of fun in games is how likely I am to replay it, how much I miss playing it when it’s over, and how much of a sensation of fun sticks in my memory afterwards.
McTeddy said,

That’s how I judge games. When I look back on my experience and smile I know I was having fun.

If I still feel that I game is worth playing a month after stopping, I know it is no longer the addiction mechanics talking.

I’ve wasted far too much time in games
– “To get to the next level…”,
– “To see what happens next in the story…”,
– “To get that 1 in 1000 random drop”
– “To fill my item list”
– “To get my ‘Daily Gold'”.

These things weren’t fun… but I often felt like I NEEDED to do it. Developer’s have had a lot of time to perfect addiction mechanics. They are DAMN good at what they do. (This also goes for TV, Movies, books etc.)

Btw, Not saying any of the above is bad. Just that it exists an should be considered in any argument regarding time spent playing.
Brian 'Psychochild' Green said,

Feels like a lot of commenters are missing the point. If you sit down to play a game for 15 minutes and suddenly 3 hours pass, that’s probably an indication that the game held your attention. Yeah, there are some games (notably those on Facebook or other social networks) where you might be merely putting in some time, but I don’t think Jay’s talking about that. I think the comparisons to work are misguided, too, because you’re work you do for a paycheck is different than a game you sit down to divert yourself with.

I think the main thing that makes what Jay describes happen is low expectations. You sit down with a game where maybe the graphics aren’t all that great. Or, it’s an older game that you’re not sure will live up to the hype. Maybe it’s a game where your friends keep badgering you to play it and you’re just not sure. Then, BAM, a few hours pass and you found yourself really enjoying it.

Sometimes I think I’m too cynical about games because I play a lot and make them for a living. But, looks like I have nothing on some of the commenters here. 😉
Xenovore said,

Guess I’m in the minority here: If I’m not enjoying an activity, be it TV, games, etc. I go do something else. I sure don’t “force myself to play through the game as a self-administered lesson on not getting caught up in the release hype”, whatever the hell that means.

@Brian: Agreed.