Slashdot Mirror
Seduction Secrets In Video Game Design
Hugh Pickens writes "Drawing on cognitive science, an increasing number of game theorists and designers say that our growing love of video games has important things to tell us about our intrinsic desires and motivations. Central to it all is a simple theory – that games are fun because they teach us interesting things and they do it in a way that our brains prefer – through systems and puzzles. 'With games, learning is the drug,' writes Raph Koster, the designer of seminal multiplayer fantasy games such as Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies. 'In game theory, this is often spoken of as the "magic circle": you enter into a realm where the rules of the real world don't apply – and typically being judged on success and failure is part of the real world. People need to feel free to try things and to learn without being judged or penalised.' Another important element is autonomy as games tap into our need to have control. This is very obvious in 'god games' such as The Sims, where we shape the lives of virtual humans, but it's becoming a vital element of action adventures and shooters, too. Finally another important game design facet is 'disproportionate feedback,' in which players are hugely rewarded for achieving very simple tasks. In highly successful shooters such as Call of Duty and Bulletstorm, when an enemy is shot, they don't just collapse to the floor, they explode into chunks. 'You're good, you're a success – you're powerful,' writes Stuart. 'Disproportionate feedback is an endorphin come-on.'"
I'm not sure I should listen to advice on game design from the designer of Star Wars Galaxies?
Games are attractive because they train you with positive reinforcement quickly delivered.
More complex theories are superfluous.
I think it's hyperbole rather than bad research. Deaths in video games are more dramatic and often more bloody that they would be in real-life.
I can't help but feel a bit of shock at how well this describes very core aspects of game design. I mod games as a hobby, and finding ways to keep players happy makes up a large part of my day. This article is not only completely true (in the areas that matter) but it sums up complicated task in a simple and direct way.
Just how many ways can you find to make the player feel good about simple achievements without drowning the overall experience, or how do you scale your rewards to entice more play time? This is sweetest part of game design, and these types of questions never get old to me.
I think it's hyperbole rather than bad research. Deaths in video games are more dramatic and often more bloody that they would be in real-life.
I would argue, in general, more dramatic but less bloody than real life.
He missed another important feature required for a game to be massively successful. It has to allow creativity and be fairly open ended. EX: Minecraft. People don't play minecraft to survive zombies. People play because the game lets them create. I think that is also why people enjoy RPGs, you are slowly creating a character. Another example would be Diablo II. The main draw of that game was that with the various items, skills, etc... you could come up with your own character build and create. The inability to "re-spec" made a large portion of that. When you completed a character, it was something you painstakingly created to your specifications and an example of your creativity much like building hot rod etc... As per the Flyn effect people are getting smarter and smarter but our jobs / lives are becoming more and more mundane. The creativity we used to have to use for our own survival loves to find an outlet.
A big part of games is learning, but also that of mastery and accomplishment. People like to get things done, and they also like to feel that they're constantly getting better. Today's games have picked up on this and virtually all of them have "achievements". People like these because they can put numbers to what they've done and compare themselves to others easily. If I have a thousand achievement points, I obviously much better than the guy over there with just fifty.
For all the time and effort that high budget games put into fancy graphics, they often miss the simple things that make a game fun (learning, achievement, mastery). Take Game! for example, it's deceptively simple at first, allowing you to learn things at your own pace, but for the OCD crowd there's so many things to find, combine, and cook that to do all of it is quite the task. However, more importantly, there's direct feedback in Game! about how many items you have out of the total, how many combinations you've found out of the total, etc. This gives people a concrete goal that they can strive for. Ideally, you strike a balance between casual and OCD so that casual players can play through the entire game without too much trouble (even if they might only get 10% of the 'achievements"), while the more OCD players can gradually work their way through every single "achievement".
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
Maybe. I admittedly haven't seen that many real-life gunshot victims; Hollywood ain't known for realism in this regard either, so it's not a good comparison either. In general it's probably true that games go lighter on the blood because a) it's computational expensive to keep track of every pool of blood (hence the fading blood pools - and disappearing corpses - that we're all used to) and b) the misconception that gaming is for kids and blood will harm their delicate little psyche - so while violence is fine, we must shield them from the bloody consequences.
That's seduction right there!
Real girl with fake silicon breasts or fake girls rendered with real silicon... at least the fake ones don't slap you when you drool at them.
about seduction from playing Fable II!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Not regularly in Call of Duty, no, but they sure do in Fallout (provided you shoot them enough or have the bloody mess perk) and Borderlands (provided you're using a ridiculously high level gun on low level enemies.) And, yes, it is satisfying. Virtually seeing a head explode in slow-motion after you shoot it with the gauss rifle, with the body ragdolling around a second later is disturbingly satisfying. Taking a level 60 shotgun against a hoard of level 1 "badasses," and seeing torsos disappear, with bits of gore raining down, that does happen in games, and it is oddly rewarding. You do indeed feel powerful on some minor level, even as you realize you couldn't do that in real life even if you DID have a high power weapon and lacked moral qualms about slaughtering people.
In other words, the principle is right even if the exact example is not.
Furthermore (spoilers for modern warfare) there is that one sniping mission where you shoot the target's arm off. Again, satisfying.
I remember in Quake when you'd shoot someone up close with the shotgun their body would explode and their head would ricochet off the walls.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
How can we take what we've learned from video games, and apply it to education? Our education system is failing a distressingly high portion of students; could we make Math and Literature "stick" better by gamifying the subjects in a meaningful way? I know that (most) of us are over gold-stars at this point, but can we take the lesson of "overemphasize success" from Peggle, and give kids a "you're freaking awesome!" anthem whenever they master a new skill? Would we be better served by a Super Mario Bros approach to Math, where we give children a "Math Sandbox" to play in, until they feel confident that they could master the test? Or giving them "lives" in a class, so they can have some sort of risk-free feedback system for discovering how much effort is needed to successfully master skills?
I know a lot of hate goes into how much we "coddle" children nowadays, trying to make each of them feel like a special little snowflake, but this isn't licence for the education system to stagnate. If video games are beating our education system at teaching children skills inside the "magic circle," there's no reason why we shouldn't abuse the same "brain hacks" that motivate people to play Farmville to teach high-schoolers algebra.
Calling bullshit "french perfume" doesn't make it stink any less.
This new "research" sounds like another conclusion that has preceded the data.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I think it's hyperbole rather than bad research. Deaths in video games are more dramatic and often more bloody that they would be in real-life.
And apparently video game reporting is more dramatic and often more bloody than in real life...
I've seen a gunshot victim up close. In his case the bullet wound tightened itself up (there was no exit wound as the bullet was stopped by his femur) but that just meant that the bleeding was internal. After a minute he looked like he had a cantaloupe inside his thigh. If that blood had spilled out instead of staying inside his leg, well, it would've been quite a mess.
And we're talking about a single 9mm pistol round from a distance of several meters. Given the kind of ammunition you often pepper people with from much closer, video game enemies seem to have no more than a pint of blood in their entire body. Then again, neither have movie gunshot victims so i guess people expect little blood. (Or, as TV Tropes puts it, "reality is unrealistic".)
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
I can't remember its name, but a friend of mine played a console game for Nintendo 64(?) that was an RPG similar to Final Fantasy, but when you killed an opponent, a giant gushing fountain of blood would spew straight up out of the character/creature for at least three seconds, then they would die. Now, I'm talking about an amount of blood easily twenty times what was in their body. The battles were isometric, so the blood fountains were ridiculous looking.
The point was that my Pentium Pro 200 with a 4 MB Matrox Millenium was able to 'handle the gore'.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
> SW:G and UO are barely "games"
And WoW isn't ?
How do you "win" at WoW ? How do you "lose" at WoW ?
If you don't have a winning and losing state, you don't have a game, you have a toy -- that's what all MMORPGS are -- pseudo-games -- really, toys.
Pluck a little string, make a big noise!
Chugging heavy metal riffs is like blowing up objects in a video game.
Oh, and there can literally be "disproportionate feedback", too.
Because you still get positive feedback, even if you suck. You can go 1:10 in a FPS game against a godlike player, but that one kill just feels so good because they had it coming to them. Also, there is no cumulative penalty for mistakes in many games: everyone respawns the same. Games that allow for a higher skill disparity or cumulative penalties tend to be less popular with casual gamers, because they lack that positive feedback.
Are you from GameFAQS?
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
At 320x200 a 486DX2-66 with ANY VGA card could 'handle the gore'. I still can't believe I was competitive like that, but I was. Quakeworld FTW, baby.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Furthermore (spoilers for modern warfare) there is that one sniping mission where you shoot the target's arm off. Again, satisfying.
That much is real, anyway. Potentially. A .50 cal will do absurd damage and it's supposed to be relatively trivial to smack a pie plate-sized target at two miles with match rounds. Which is not to say that I could do it. Or at one mile or so, you can do it with a high explosive round.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Great. Another article about talking heads yacking their heads off about video games, blah blah blah. I cringe when I see flowery text like "Like most titles in this genre, it's designed to put us into a series of dramatic set-pieces." No. It's designed to have you shooting all kinds of people with all sorts of weapons. That is what an FPS is.
I'd be far more impressed if they actual did a study of the human brain and what parts of it are in use while playing video games - pleasure/reward centers etc. Otherwise, all we have in this set of articles is a bunch of people just postulating their "theories" in another long-winded manner that doesn't help anyone.
Here's a novel concept. We play video games that are fun. Yes, fun. Remember that? The original reason we played video games before self-proclaimed video game academics and journalists decided to inflate their own reputations and overthink video games as a whole?
Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
Jane McGonigal has written some great stuff about how and why gaming can be not only engaging but good for your level of engagement with life, friends, family.
See http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Broken-Games-Better-Change/dp/1594202850 for the book, and particularly her "Practical Advice for Gamers" included in this page.
http://vimeo.com/16227360 is a great video of a talk she did that's entertaining as well as instructive, gives a flavour of the book I think.
I don't completely buy that gaming is completely positive, as excessive hours gaming can really be a problem, but she makes some good points.
I don't know. Have you ever killed someone in real life?
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
I shot a man in Reno 911: Excessive Force, just to watch him die.
No comment.
When I was just a young boy, my Momma told me :" Son, always be a good boy, don't ever play with guns".
Now I'm stuck in Folsom Prison and time keeps dragging on.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
If by "trivial" you mean "the worlds best snipers, on a day with perfect conditions, can do it with some luck", then yes.
'With games, learning is the drug,' writes Raph Koster
Insert slightly uncomfortable "America's War on Drugs" joke here...