People have strange issues with uncertainty. We seem to hate uncertainty that can cause us to lose and someone else to win, but at the same time we seem to love uncertainty that could make us lose if there isn’t the possibility that someone else will win, or at the very least the appearance that someone else will win.
As game designers we focus on using psychology to attract our players further and involve them deeper in the experience of the game. The problem is the type of psychological principles we use aren’t particularly absolute or objectively true.
For example, it is incredibly difficult to say that constant stimulation and rewards are actually “better” for game development. Unlocking achievements and tailored step-ladders of success are a particular method of managing player experience. But there are plenty of other ways to manage expectations.
There are, in fact, other methods. Sometimes subtler rewards, nonexistant rewards, or even punishments will engage different players. It’s the type of player you are looking to engage and the type of game you are trying to create.
That’s why whenever someone blames “video games” for creating the short attention span, action happy, reinforcement-needing “youth” it’s simply a fallacy. Some games do this, and other games require immense amounts of patience and perseverance. They certainly do not give the immediate response and reward. Some actually require subtle and patient interactions and responses.
What is the purpose of a game mechanic?
I think game designers can often get so caught up in the interest of a mechanic or a “method of play” that we often forget exactly why we’re designing the game, or never really even figure that out in the first place. Game designers tend to look at games in terms of experiences, how to get people to feel things and do things that are interesting.
The problem with this is that experiences are rather limited. Everyone has experiences all the time and to simply create more experiences isn’t doing much good to anyone. Rather we need to look at what creates meaning and how we can develop systems that do create that meaning.
I could give any number of the different (equally campy) excuses for why you should care about games. Because teens are playing them! Because they are “the form of expression for the 21st century”! (That’s a popular one) Because of the exodus to the digital reality! Because if you don’t an angry bird will attack you!
Uh… no
Actually, I’m going to argue something totally different. You already care about games.*
Reading an article from a renowned psychology journal about the effects of pathological gameplay and what types of things to watch out for. Yet another example of games being given the bad rap.
It’s absurd really, how can you blame a medium for doing something? It’s like blaming cities for global warming, I mean I guess they contribute but perhaps the people have something to do with it to?
One of the interesting challenges that Pokemon poses to traditional notions of game design is the relationship between linear and systemic design.
Pokemon is a rather linear game, you play through it for the story and for the chance to grow your Pokemon by engaging with the plot and ultimately culminating in the goal of becoming the league champion. This is all very linear and straightforward, and it seems like it would be a very engaging play through once, but drop off rather quickly after that.
However, Pokemon is a game that is just as playable after it is “finished” as it is when it is brand new. There are a couple of reasons for this. For one thing, the design of the world as a whole is systemic and it’s very easy to go back around exploring different territories that you might have missed the first time through.
Secondly, because the main goal of Pokemon is developing your Pokemon, the game often presents a large amount of playability after its completion on the basis that even after you finish, there are many, many more Pokemon to catch and even your best Pokemon will probably not be trained up to level 100.
What happens as a result is a rather pleasant experience of coming back to the game from time to time to further explore the Pokeverse. Furthermore, because the interactivity between real people still exists, a large amount of playability can still be enjoyed without engaging in the world, just by battling Pokemon against one another.
What this combines to do is to complicate the issue of linear and systemic design. It would seem that linear design is the one with limited design space while systemic design is the one that can constantly be re-engaged. What this suggests to me is that there is something interesting about design that is rather consistent (i.e. linear) that humans will keep coming back to if it is interesting and engaging enough; it does not have to be new and original every single time.
Most free-to-play games are like the American dream.
- They both take advantage of quirks in human psychology to give the appearance of value.
- Both require extremely boring, straightforward tasks that don’t require much skill.
- They cloak the boring-ness of these tasks in shiny colors and pictures.
- In both you can level up faster if you have money.
- Money>Skill in both.
- Both are really exciting at the beginning until you realize you’ve just wasted hours of your life.
- Both are soaked in advertisements.
- All positive upside of both is provided by the player, not by the system.
- Both have to constantly update to look “Brand New.”
Been playing Pokemon for the last couple weeks. The fifth version might be the best made Pokemon yet released.
For those who don’t know Pokemon the video game is about a young boy or girl who travels around a far off land to capture and train little creatures called Pokemon to battle for money and glory.
The story is elegantly woven into the game mechanics much more strongly than in previous versions. A lot of the dead moments and pauses in the game have been removed so players spend less time waiting around if they already know what to do.
The game is scripted nicely and remains open while still guiding the player along a path that pushes them through the game. For the most part there is no negative space between game logic and story logic. There are always the awkward moments when you lose the game and that portion of the storyline restarts. This is especially bad because the rest of the storyline is so well integrated.
One of the most interesting things about the Pokemon franchise is the relationship between the most common element (fighting) and the overall type of play that occurs. What is interesting about it is that fighting is only a way to develop the Pokemon that you want, fighting is not a particular end in its own. This is probably my only major frustration with what is an otherwise very deep game.
What is especially interesting is the way that Pokemon is both a linear rpg, a systemic game, and one that relies on social interaction as well as focus and concentration.
Since this post is already getting a bit long I’m going to break it into a number of different topics/posts. The game focus, social interaction, linear v. systemic, and language.
Over the course of the last few days I have been talking about Gee’s book on how games and game design can inform the education system.
The writing was clear, easy to read and consistent. It sometimes got a bit dry, but overall was a rather quick read.
He starts the game by destroying the notion that education is about the content that a student learns. Rather, he frames education’s purpose about teaching kids how to converse within certain domains. He then draws a connection between learning and identity, arguing that identity is a fundamental part of the learning process.
He goes on to argue that learning cannot be separated from its context. In fact, he says that when learning is disconnected from its context, real learning doesn’t happen.
His two main points are the most important points of the book. Firstly, he describes the way that games can become methods of de-constructing one-sided cultural views. Because games are so good at forcing a system of values upon another player, they allow players to experience other beliefs and cultures to a level that books and movies cannot reach.
However, the final argument is probably the most radical and the most powerful of the book. Firstly, he states that all knowledge is part of a social framework. That in fact what is considered “legitimate” can only be framed within the context of other people within a certain group. Because of this, he effectively argues that any system of education that judges “mental growth” is judging a cognitive quality that simply doesn’t exist. Rather, schools should judge a student’s ability to work within a variety of different social contexts (these contexts including ones of science, language, history, math, etc.) that includes not only knowledge retention but also a student’s ability to effectively use their social connections within these contexts.
The result? This means that all education is essentially just identity creation and development. It’s a rather big paradigm shift, as most education systems either don’t think in these terms, or actively reject these terms. However, coming to grips with this statement could be one of the most powerfully positive steps forward that the U.S. Education System could make.
The book is awesome! The one caveat I have is that it effectively argues that role-playing games are video games or even games in general. The problem with this notion is that while many of the same themes are consistent throughout all games, different games have different places within the education system. That being said, this does not change my belief in the fundamental validity of his argument.
5/5 Read this Book!
