How this term is used In this channel's material, ludology appears as shorthand for the study of what makes games fun — and specifically as an example of a field that lacks the documented best practices Nabeel Hyatt looks for when hunting for AI markets with rich structure at altitude[^aadbfc77-2045-528b-a149-9cf468b23383]. Why the example matters Nabeel contrasts two domains: - Coding — decades of books, PRDs, and documented best practices mean models have strong material to draw on. - Ludology — as he puts it, “what makes a game fun” (ludology) has no language that explains Super Mario Bros. on a spreadsheet. In other words, there is no formalized, shareable theory that captures game fun the way coding knowledge is captured. That gap is why he doesn't treat game design as a ready-made market for AI products that surface best practices — and it motivates his broader point that most AI products zoom straight to a single answer instead of letting users pick among a field's documented approaches[^aadbfc77-2045-528b-a149-9cf468b23383]. - Ludology here means the study of what makes a game fun. - It's cited as a field without a language of best practices — you can't explain Super Mario Bros. on a spreadsheet. - This lack of captured structure contrasts with coding, and illustrates why markets need “best practices captured at altitude” for AI products to work well.