@book{just4fun, title = {Just for Fun}, author = {Linus Torvalds and David Diamond}, month = {Dezember}, note = {ISBN-10: 3423362995 ISBN-13: 978-3423362993}, publisher = {Dtv}, year = 2002, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/23c604c1f51521806686b90d8efbb05e8/michaelnthan}, keywords = {fun} } @incollection{Hassenzahl2003tta, title = {The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product}, address = {Dordrecht}, author = {Marc Hassenzahl}, booktitle = {Funology. From Usability to Enjoyment}, editor = {M. Blythe and C. Overbeeke and A. F. Monk and P. C. Wright}, pages = {31-42}, publisher = {Kluwer}, year = 2003, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/204e638b1c56b3c5af44745122f951d71/tobidiplom}, keywords = {enjoyment fun usability} } @misc{citeulike:497540, title = {Copied citations create renowned papers?}, author = {M. V. Simkin and V. P. Roychowdhury}, month = {May}, year = 2003, url = {http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0305150}, id = {497540}, priority = {2}, eprint = {cond-mat/0305150}, description = {citeulike}, abstract = {Recently we discovered (cond-mat/0212043) that the majority of scientific citations are copied from the lists of references used in other papers. Here we show that a model, in which a scientist picks three random papers, cites them,and also copies a quarter of their references accounts quantitatively for empirically observed citation distribution. Simple mathematical probability, not genius, can explain why some papers are cited a lot more than the other.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/233018d8dc25d037f3aa0644d74cf01cb/a_olympia}, keywords = {bliography buzz cib citation citation-analysis citations doctors evolution fun humour impact-factor index influence key key-thought-leader keyopinionleader kol leader medical network networking networks no-tag opinion opinionleader otl persuasion physicians physicsandsociety professionals psychology publishing research science scientific social social-network social-networking social-networks socialnetworkanalysis socialnetworks statistics status thoughtleader} } @book{just4fun, title = {Just for Fun}, author = {Linus Torvalds and David Diamond}, month = {Dezember}, note = {ISBN-10: 3423362995 ISBN-13: 978-3423362993}, publisher = {Dtv}, year = 2002, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/23c604c1f51521806686b90d8efbb05e8/cschenk}, keywords = {accidental book fun just linus-torvalds linux rating:4 read:2004 revolutionary story} } @article{barendregt2003eeu, title = {Empirical evaluation of usability and fun in computer games for children}, author = {Wolmet Barendregt and Mathilde M. Bekker and Mathilde Speerstra}, journal = {Proceedings of the IFIP 8th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction INTERACT-03}, pages = {705-708}, volume = 3, year = 2003, url = {http://www.idemployee.id.tue.nl/g.w.m.rauterberg/conferences/INTERACT2003/INTERACT2003-p705.pdf}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/236b211057da958faeb62defb9cbfa7bc/yish}, keywords = {evaluation formative fun games hci learning methods observation usability} } @article{FluxGames, title = {Fluxus Games}, address = {North Adams, Massachusetts}, author = {Tara McDowell}, booktitle = {Game Show}, editor = {Laura Steward Heon}, pages = {68-77}, publisher = {Mass MoCA}, year = 2001, abstract = {Game Show richly documents the phenomenon of games in (or as) art.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/216df866196ac5a54f992814cf4ae27a3/p4games}, keywords = {art critique fluxus fun games serious} } @book{TheoryOfFun, title = {A Theory of Fun for Game Design}, address = {Scottsdale, Arizona}, author = {Raph Koster}, booktitle = {Theory of Fun}, pages = 244, publisher = {Paraglyph Press}, year = 2005, abstract = {If you are interested in game structure and design you'll really enjoy how A Theory of Fun works on two levels - as a quick inspiration guide for game designers, and as a thought-provoking discussion on how we learn, why we play games, and how learning and playing are connected.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/279b4a6a49f804f92f8a7a8eba7db5429/p4games}, keywords = {design fun fundamentals game theory} } @article{citeulike:411199, title = {Does Easy Do It? Children, Games, and Learning}, author = {Seymour Papert}, journal = {Game Developer magazine}, year = 1988, url = {http://papert.org/articles/Doeseasydoit.html}, id = {411199}, priority = {2}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2e2a82f055a20aea9be1e926e4404660b/yish}, keywords = {learning games mathgamespatterns fun constructionism hard} } @book{citeulike:197257, title = {Rules of Play : Game Design Fundamentals}, author = {Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman}, howpublished = {Hardcover}, month = {October}, publisher = {The MIT Press}, year = 2003, url = {http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262240459/citeulike-21}, id = {197257}, priority = {2}, isbn = {0262240459}, abstract = {As pop culture, games are as important as film or television--but game design has yet to develop a theoretical framework or critical vocabulary. In Rules of Play Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman present a much-needed primer for this emerging field. They offer a unified model for looking at all kinds of games, from board games and sports to computer and video games. As active participants in game culture, the authors have written Rules of Play as a catalyst for innovation, filled with new concepts, strategies, and methodologies for creating and understanding games.. Building an aesthetics of interactive systems, Salen and Zimmerman define core concepts like "play," "design," and "interactivity." They look at games through a series of eighteen "game design schemas," or conceptual frameworks, including games as systems of emergence and information, as contexts for social play, as a storytelling medium, and as sites of cultural resistance. Written for game scholars, game developers, and interactive designers, Rules of Play is a textbook, reference book, and theoretical guide. It is the first comprehensive attempt to establish a solid theoretical framework for the emerging discipline of game design.}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/28ceb09ffc0b39a723443f91a876838d1/yish}, keywords = {game mathgamespatterns play fun design} } @article{citeulike:423526, title = {Natural Funativity}, author = {Noah Falstein}, journal = {Gamasutra.com}, month = {November}, year = 2004, url = {http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20041110/falstein_pfv.htm}, id = {423526}, priority = {2}, abstract = {What makes a game fun? It's a question that seems central to the process of making good games. But it's an elusive and subjective question. The dictionary defines 'fun' as a source of amusement or enjoyment, but that's not very helpful. And yet somehow, for years we have been creating games without really understanding why we human beings find some activities to be fun and others boring, pointless or worse. It's not too surprising, since humans have also been creating art for at least 30,000 years and we're still arguing about how to define it. To paraphrase the old saying, we may not be able to describe fun, but we know it when we have it. But game designers are an inquisitive lot, and in recent years there has finally been some significant progress in getting close to the answer of just what fun is all about. When LucasArts Entertainment Company was still known as Lucasfilm Games, our boss was Steve Arnold, who had been drawn into the games industry at Atari after years as a child psychologist. This made him uniquely qualified not only to understand the audience for our games, but also to manage and motivate a bunch of young game developers. One of the first things he would ask us when we presented a new game concept was: "What is the Funativity Quotient?" It was a question that encouraged us to think about just what aspects of the idea would make it fun, and I was always intrigued by the implication that fun could be categorized, defined, perhaps even measured. But how do we get at the underlying roots of fun?}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/22d7e278c376ec974a0507a7208e4d389/yish}, keywords = {games mathgamespatterns theory fun design psychology} }