Behavioural Game Design

Some of you may or may not know that I am a Game Design student, well you all know now.

Recently we were asked to read a bunch of articles on behavioural science in game design, considering things like the methods, morals and design principles used on us in almost every game we play, well, if you're still reading then I assume you want to see so here it is. All the articles I'm talking about are referenced at the bottom of the page, take a look, its sometimes fascinating and others terrifying.

5 Creepy Ways Video Games Are Trying to Get You Addicted

The article from cracked.com is not really an article in a standard way, it does not put forth an argument or idea, discuss it and then conclude something from the experience, it is more of a taster, it discusses the skinner box at length, while on the subject it does not actually contain 5 ways games get you addicted it actually breaks one way up into its 5 components, and then ends without actually concluding anything other than that, as we all know, some games do use the skinner box technique to draw players in, with particular attention paid to World of Warcraft which is understandable since MMOs do tend to utilise these techniques more than regular “play and leave” games as MMOs rely on steady, constant play from customers and need to keep them playing.

The author discusses at length the components of the Skinner box and links to many other articles rather than arguing points himself he allows others to make various points while he sticks to the science of the Skinner box.
I don’t feel there is a particular point in this article to agree or disagree with, as I said it tends to deal mostly with the facts of the skinner box and offers little in the way of argument or personal insight, generally it points the reader to numerous other articles based on the subject rather than discussing the subject on its own.

Reading the article as a designer the insight into the Skinner box technique is very useful to me, I generally find SB based games to be quite cheap which is possibly why I was not gripped by WoW or other MMOs. I know how to get me to become “addicted” to a game and certainly Skinner box techniques do work to an extent but I don’t feel the article bothers to address the other types of rewards preferring to stick to “MMOs give you loot and levels”.

Behavioural Game Design

This article on Gamasutra was written by John Hopson who was a games researcher at Microsoft Game Studios and worked on franchises such as Halo and Age of Empires. Dr Hopson holds a doctorate in Behavioural and Brain Sciences.

In the article Dr Hopson discusses, in depth, the science behind psychological game design, explaining the mechanics of Skinner boxing and the reason it works as well as the other off shoots of the Skinner box method. He also concludes with methods used to make players take specific actions, how to make them quit, or keep playing or play harder.

I find it hard to draw a personal conclusion from this article, for a start, just with regards to the writing, I found it a difficult to read, the style of writing coupled with an assumption of knowledge on the writers part made it feel like a chore to read but I suppose we’re not being asked to critique the article so I’ll move on. Personally it worries me that large studios employ people like Dr Hopson, a man not remotely interested in making a game enjoyable, fun or even play well, a man whose primary concern is, in my opinion, conning people into playing long after any merit can be found in doing so, however I also understand why studios think in this way. It’s easy. That may seem like an odd conclusion but I do think that, as with many things, it’s easier to use the tricks and gimmicks rather than create a genuinely enjoyable, immersive game that stands up on the strength of its mechanics, characters and story and easier leads to cheaper and cheaper leads to higher profit margins.

As a game designer the conclusion I have drawn above depresses me, the medium we work in is already onset from all sides with disapproval without the industry employing all the dirty tricks in the book to wring every last pound, dollar and yen out of its customers. I stated before that I am not closed to the idea of the Skinner box, I’m certainly not immune to its charms, but I don’t fall into games where arbitrary levels and loot are the only rewards designed to get people playing, I am a big RPG fan, games like Fallout 3, Oblivion and Dragon Age have consumed a great deal of my time but when I play them with my designer head on I see that the reason for that is not the next level, the next powerful weapon or the next perk but rather the desire to explore and enjoy a story, a character and, in many cases now the technology can handle it, a beautifully realised world. Anyone who has played TES: Oblivion has experienced that “WOW!” moment when they step from the sewers into the big, wide world with its sweeping green landscape and endless sky, seeing that tower off in the distance and wanting desperately to make it there. That, to me, is what game studios should be trying to do, not con us into paying more but make things worth paying for.

The Virtual Skinner Box

Written by Nick Yee for his own website nickyee.com the Virtual Skinner Box is an article about a MMO called EverQuest which was released in 1999 by Sony Online Entertainment. The article shows how EQ uses some of the most obvious Skinner Box concepts to keep players clicking, particularly ripping directly from skinners research that random numbers of attempts to gain reward is the most effective method when it comes to skill points in EQ you have to practise a random number of times before skill is rewarded. However it is then explained that EQ also uses the techniques of Maslow however it takes the Hierarchy of needs and turns it upside down, allowing quick access to illusions of the most satisfying aspects, achievement and aesthetics which are usually only obtainable after the essentials in the Maslow theory of hunger, thirst and security. Clicking a mouse, however, does not require a full stomach and therein lays the shortcut.

Reading this article was almost unnecessary for my personal summation as the opening line

“Play it and find out...on second thought don't play it. If you're involved in college you really wanna graduate. EQ will addict you so much you'll forget about work. I don't know why it is. I really HATE RPG's but EQ is just extremely fun. It's got a weird aura about it, all I can say.”

says all that needs to be said, almost.

The key part from my perspective is “I really HATE RPG's but EQ is just extremely fun” but the article clearly states that EQ is NOT fun, it is manipulative and makes you think it is fun without offering anything actually fun. It offers illusions of the top tier of human conditioning by mixing the theories of two well known behavioural psychologists and then fronting them with the UI of a game.

Once again donning my designer hat I have to admit that EverQuest is brilliant in an awful way. I would hate to play this game, if anyone had this game described to them in the way it has been analysed here and then asked “would you like to play” they would say no, but does a lab rat know it’s a lab rat? EQ is a cynically designed game, but it has been done very well. I do not like EverQuest but I respect its power.

Analysis: The Psychology Behind Item Collecting And Achievement Hoarding

Another article on Gamasutra this time written by Kris Graft who, apart from spelling Chris wrong, takes a look at the theories behind systems like Mario 64s 120 stars and GTA 3s Hidden Packages.

First to take a hit is the sense of accomplishment for achieving these feats, much like the article about EverQuest it is pointed out that games can skip the tedious lower regions of the Maslow pyramid and take you right into the good stuff, the stuff that feels best, achieving things or making things look nice. Of course the achievement (or trophy) system is well ingrained in modern gaming with the Xbox 360 and PS3 and again the skinner box method gets a mention but more importantly Mr Graft then goes on to mention competition between players, which is what the achievement system is really all about, my gamerscore is higher than yours, my highscore, KD ratio, number of hours are better than yours, I’m better than you. Something most keen game players can relate to, how many non competitive game players do you know? Some stats are even quoted.

“Olson said in a survey on young teens and video games, she found that over half of boys (57 percent) and more than one in four girls (28 percent) strongly agreed that that “to compete and win” was a reason they played electronic games.”
Now, I’m not expert but I’m willing to assert a guess that a large percentage of those people who said they did not play to compete and win were lying or do not fit into the category of playing games enough to actually warrant inclusion in the survey, after all I once went clay pigeon shooting but my opinion would have absolutely no value in a survey about that and a survey “on young teens and video games” does not, to me, signal a well thought out survey, is the assumption that all young teens play video games?

I am deeply competitive, it brings out the best in me though I also like single player games, I do not particularly like “fetch 100000 of these” quests in games but, if the numbers are more reasonable and the reward is something I find gratifying, as I stated earlier I am a sucker for a story or character or world that is well developed, I never really bothered with the Hidden Packages in GTA but the feathers in Assassins Creed 2 I collected obsessively, and was rewarded by a short cut scene that continued to flesh out the story of the Auditore family which, to me, made the collection worth it.

As a designer (once again) I think the achievement system was a masterstroke, all 360 and PS3 games have them now, not only do they quantify your skill or dedication or love of a game (the only two totally finished games on my 360 are Fallout 3 and Oblivion) but, if they are given some attention and not added lazily, they can encourage players to find all of a game and truly enjoy all the work that has gone into it, a prime example of this is Halo: Reach, a game very much enjoyed by me and several of my friends, Bungie stated quite openly that there would not be many achievements for finishing this on this difficulty or getting this many kills but that the achievements were designed to encourage players to try EVERY style of play, every mode every nook and cranny of the game was to be explored to get all the achievements and that translates into a more gratifying game for everyone, customer, designer, artist and programmer alike. Imagine being one of the guys stuck on some mode that has had the least use in all of the Halo series, but now there is an achievement tied to it and suddenly you see people playing your mode, your level, your style and enjoying it too because, let’s face it, we gamers know what we like (or think we do) so it hadn’t been given a chance before.

All in all this assignment has shown me some things I already knew and some things I didn’t. The science behind some of the thinking in game design is fascinating without question and the change in perspective it has given me with regards to games I have played in the past is, in some cases, quite startling. However the main feeling I take from reading these articles is fairly well summed up in the closing paragraph of my views on the “behavioural game design” article. It saddens me that the industry so regularly and readily sinks to these depths rather than trying to give the player something truly good, perhaps its lazy design, perhaps it’s cheaper, perhaps it’s necessary to keep the industry going so that the really good stuff can be made but I struggle to square that with how I (at least for now) try to work on game designs, I cannot imagine handing my GDD in to my boss, producer or anyone else and seeing it (excuse me) bastardised and robbed of its merit by something as cheap as the skinner box.

Bibliography

Articles Analysed

David Wong, Mar 08, 2010. 5 Creepy Ways Video Games Are Trying to Get You Addicted. [online] Available at:
< http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html

John Hopson, April 27, 2001. Behavioral Game Design. [online] Available at:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3085/behavioral_game_design.php

Nick Yee. The Virtual Skinner Box. [online Available at: < http://www.nickyee.com/eqt/skinner.html

Kris Graft, May 29, 2009. Analysis: The Psychology Behind Item Collecting and Hoarding. [online] Available at: < http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=23724