Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41034230›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Leveling up fun: learning progress, expectations, and success influence enjoyment in video games.

Franziska Brändle, Charley M Wu, Eric Schulz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Franziska BrändleUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK. franziska.braendle@psy.ox.ac.uk.
Charley M WuHuman and Machine Cognition Lab, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Eric SchulzMax Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany. eric.schulz@helmholtz-munich.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

What factors influence how much fun people have when engaging in inherently enjoyable tasks? Several theories predict that people will have the most fun in environments of intermediate difficulty because these environments usually offer the most progress in learning about the world. Past studies have frequently focused on simple experimental paradigms in which learning was still instrumental for later tasks. Here, we put these theories to a test in three large and realistic video game data sets: a puzzle game (with 7,994 levels and 376,341 votes), a racing game (138,662 levels and 614,770 votes), and a platformer game (115,032 levels and 795,313 votes). As predicted, people preferred levels of intermediate difficulty in all games. Yet, additional factors influencing people's enjoyment also emerged: players preferred levels that matched closely with their prior expectations of difficulty and were also motivated by success. We further confirmed these factors in two precisely controlled experiments. Taken together, these results advance our understanding of the dynamics of fun in realistic environments and emphasize the importance of using both realistic, game-like environments and highly controlled experiments to refine theories of human learning and decision-making.

Indexed as

PleasureVideo GamesAdultBoredomDecision MakingExploratory BehaviorFemaleHumansLearningMaleMotivationRewardYoung AdultCuriosityEngagementEnjoymentFunLearning progress

Identifiers

PMID41034230
PMCPMC12488971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.