Anthropoid
Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nemo121
His comments on psychology are all focussed on giving reward and denying punishment. There's a bit of positive reinforcement and punishment but nothing about negative reinforcement and overall I think he really fails to address the psychology of addiction which is eminently related to creating "addictive games".
Psychology in gaming is pretty simple... If you want an addictive gaming experience then you need to ensure it has a variable ratio reward system... That is the most addictive reward schedule possible, far more addicting than fixed interval or fixed ratio or even variable interval... It basically describes the "you could win any time you play" type of game such as horse racing, poker, lotteries etc and explains why they are so addictive.
Create the opportunity for gamers to get variable ratio reward systems (or, you could win any time, even though most of the time you lose ) at the various levels and areas of the game ( research, development, exploration, combat etc ) and you'll get mild levels of addiction to the game...
His first 15 minutes really equates with the heroin user who always chases the ultimate high they got "the first time". They sometimes spend the rest of their foreshortened lives chasing that high --- and usually failing although succeeding often enough ( see variable ratio reward system ) to keep them hooked and chasing it.
His discussion of odds is based on reward and pleasing players, not rooted in the slightly more complex but addictive psychology of addiction which is what i think he'd really need to understand to create far more compelling experiences.
Interesting points Nemo, I had not heard (or don't remember) those terms. Any cites for those :) (I'm a psychological anthropologist who studies reward-seeking, so I _really_ should know).
I suspect you are correct. But here is an idea (actually two): (1) Civ is not actually a "game" in the same way that horse racing is a "game.' (2) Neither is Civ a game in the same way that Chess (or perhaps War in the Pacific, etc.) is a game.
Neither is any game necessarily going to be as addictive (for all personalities) as is a drug or a more visceral experiene (e.g., sex).
I have this hypothesis that "language is addictive." Ever listen to a 3 or 4 year old bang their head up against their language? They fumble. They make mistakes, they keep trying, they "use" at any and all times, no matter how inappropriate. Only thing is: it "gets them somewhere" in short it causes growth, neurologically, psychically, socially.
Playing Chess (or violin, or War in the Pacific) arguably also causes growth (although obviously there is a tradeoff if the time spent on these things impinges on other areas of life). Taking heroin _might_ cause a bit from the first use or perhaps sporadically with repeated uses (e.g., you have experiences you'd never be able to have, or you make new friends . . . yeah, I know pretty lame), but it is not consistently going to cause growth after one or two uses, and certainly with repeated uses it causes more atrophy (in multiple systems) than growth. Neither is trying to win on the Ponies going to cause growth in the same way as learning a language, practicing math, or figuring out the underlying algorithms in a strategy game.
Civ I think falls somewhere between the opiates and the Chess board, and "better" examples of strategy games (like WiTP, Victoria Rev, EU3 HTT, Crown of Glory, Forge of Freedom, etc., etc.) fall more toward the Chess but perhaps also inclding dimensions that Chess does not tap into (e.g., history and social theory).
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
Sid Meier Discusses Game Design and Psychology - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread