Gaming, rewards and addiction

[kaputt]

Lately, with more scarce time, I'm not having as much fun playing some kind of games as I did before. Much of it is due to the fact that some games are build through mechanisms that involves addiction, and I feel frustrated when I don't get the reward that made me "addicted" because I don't have enough time to.

For example, I was playing Hotline Miami 2 , it's amazing, but after a hour and a half playing it, it still didn't feel like it was enough. I couldn't afford to play any longer, but it was like my brain didn't received what it was expecting. It wasn't like watching a movie or TV series, in which, at the end, even if there's a cliffhanger or something, you don't feel like you wasted your time.

My point is that some games takes so much trial and error to give actual satisfaction that you should have an almost obsessive way to play it to really enjoy it. I don't think, however, that this is only tied to trial and error. Sometimes I take a lot of time to solve a Zelda puzzle, for example, but I don't feel frustrated.

Anyway, I just wish games were designed with less focus on being something addictive, and somehow respected more of my time. Actually a lot of games does not require that huge amount of time progress, but it's usually playing it safe, with reduced difficulty. I wish there were more challenging games that gave enough satisfaction for reasonable gaming sessions, like Mario games for example. Does anyone else feels the same?

[Griddlelol]

I think that says a lot about the types of game you play, and how you're perceiving time invested.

 

I understand where you're coming from though, as a long time (and now cold-turkey) MMO player, I would log on, do my dailies, weekly, monthly quest/dungeon/whatever and I'd tell myself that it was fun. It wasn't, but it felt like I was doing something I enjoyed because I got a reward.

Now I rarely play those types of game, and if I do, it's in small doses. I get my enjoyment out of actually playing, you know, like you're supposed to. Games aren't meant to be a job you do to grind meaningless tasks that aren't fun, they're meant to engage you either by fun or by thought.

 

It's very easy to find games that let you save in 30 min - 1 hour intervals and those take up most of my time, along with games that you can't complete such as Hearthstone or (right now) Helldivers, that only take up 10-20 mins for a play session. 

 

To be honest I think you need to change your outlook on what your time spent means to you. If you want to have fun and relax, play a game. If you want to achieve something, don't turn on your PC or console. That's not what games are for.

[Merus]

I feel like it's a really hard thing to judge, honestly. There's a concept in psychology called 'flow', where if you manage to get in the sweet spot of ability and challenge of a task, you feel deep satisfaction. It's taught in game design courses, designers have known about it for a while.

 

The problem is that ability doesn't change linearly, and increasing the challenge of a task isn't always linear either. For instance, Mario games would be much less interesting if instead of unique levels, they were repeated with minor tweaks to make them harder and harder. Keeping people in a state of flow is hard (assuming that's what you're trying to achieve with the game - there's good reasons for deliberately sabotaging that flow state, and I wouldn't be surprised if Hotline Miami 2 was trying for that) because you need to have a good idea of how the average player's competency will develop without the benefit of a statistically average player.

[kaputt]

I think that says a lot about the types of game you play, and how you're perceiving time invested.

I understand where you're coming from though, as a long time (and now cold-turkey) MMO player, I would log on, do my dailies, weekly, monthly quest/dungeon/whatever and I'd tell myself that it was fun. It wasn't, but it felt like I was doing something I enjoyed because I got a reward.

Now I rarely play those types of game, and if I do, it's in small doses. I get my enjoyment out of actually playing, you know, like you're supposed to. Games aren't meant to be a job you do to grind meaningless tasks that aren't fun, they're meant to engage you either by fun or by thought.

It's very easy to find games that let you save in 30 min - 1 hour intervals and those take up most of my time, along with games that you can't complete such as Hearthstone or (right now) Helldivers, that only take up 10-20 mins for a play session.

To be honest I think you need to change your outlook on what your time spent means to you. If you want to have fun and relax, play a game. If you want to achieve something, don't turn on your PC or console. That's not what games are for.

I feel like it's a really hard thing to judge, honestly. There's a concept in psychology called 'flow', where if you manage to get in the sweet spot of ability and challenge of a task, you feel deep satisfaction. It's taught in game design courses, designers have known about it for a while.

The problem is that ability doesn't change linearly, and increasing the challenge of a task isn't always linear either. For instance, Mario games would be much less interesting if instead of unique levels, they were repeated with minor tweaks to make them harder and harder. Keeping people in a state of flow is hard (assuming that's what you're trying to achieve with the game - there's good reasons for deliberately sabotaging that flow state, and I wouldn't be surprised if Hotline Miami 2 was trying for that) because you need to have a good idea of how the average player's competency will develop without the benefit of a statistically average player.

Wow, those are really amazing replies, seriously haha. I didn't know or realize any of the stuff you guys said. That's great.

I never heard of this concept of flow before. I really should read a book about game design, I think it would help me to express how I feel about some games.

And I guess you're totally right about that, Griddlelol, I shouldn't bee playing that many games if I want to feel productive, you just told it in a real reasonable and convincing way.

[itsamoose]

Wow, those are really amazing replies, seriously haha. I didn't know or realize any of the stuff you guys said. That's great.

I never heard of this concept of flow before. I really should read a book about game design, I think it would help me to express how I feel about some games.

 

If you do decide to read up on flow, stay as far the hell away from game design focused books as you can.  From my experience most game developers have a middling understanding of not only what flow is but also how it functions.  This is true of most psychological concepts, where just knowing the name of the phenomenon and a description of it usually leads to a misunderstanding of it's function.  Rather than be mysterious about what I mean, allow me to explain.

Let me start by saying that flow is not a product of a physical interaction, but rather internal rewards as they are experienced by the one performing the task.  In fact flow can be achieved without subject input at all, for example binge watching a television show.  I hear a number of game developers talk about how their mechanics can help a person achieve a state of flow, but in reality this is the result of the game's reward system.  Also, when I say rewards here, what I mean is any kind of feedback that motivates someone to continue the task at hand, and could even be something as simple as hit feedback in an Action Adventure game.  This might seem weird, so here is a quick example:

When you hit an enemy in a hack 'n' slash game, there is often a minute, almost indistinguishable stutter in the game's timing system when the blow lands on each enemy.  This seems like a stupid little thing that developers do just so they can show off some flashy effects, but what this actually achieves is much more.  It provides the player a clear, repeatable result of their input (i.e. a goal), they get feedback of their actions immediately, and based on the conditions of the board can begin to determine when and where this action will be effective again.  This has nothing to do with the actual mechanic (i.e. swinging a sword), but is rather informed by the reward structure that results from the use of that mechanic, and the context in which that mechanic is used.  A poor understanding of this is what makes people say that combining game X with game Y would be amazing, mainly in that the reward systems experienced by each game may be at odds with one another.

Too often I hear developers talk about a mechanic as being flow inducing, which would be like saying the stroke of a brush is the reason a painter continues to paint.  Flow, like many concepts in psychology, actually means something slightly different than it's name would suggest.  Flow can really only be designed in so far as you provide the player the ability to determine their goals, increase challenge as they see fit, and the reward structure adapts accordingly.

[tegan]

It's become increasingly weird to me that games used to advertise how addictive they were (and then stopped right around the time that they became legitimately addictive enough to ruin peoples' lives, ala WoW or mobile games).

 

[Gaizokubanou]

...

When you hit an enemy in a hack 'n' slash game, there is often a minute, almost indistinguishable stutter in the game's timing system when the blow lands on each enemy.  This seems like a stupid little thing that developers do just so they can show off some flashy effects, but what this actually achieves is much more.  It provides the player a clear, repeatable result of their input (i.e. a goal), they get feedback of their actions immediately, and based on the conditions of the board can begin to determine when and where this action will be effective again.  This has nothing to do with the actual mechanic (i.e. swinging a sword), but is rather informed by the reward structure that results from the use of that mechanic, and the context in which that mechanic is used.  A poor understanding of this is what makes people say that combining game X with game Y would be amazing, mainly in that the reward systems experienced by each game may be at odds with one another.

....

 

Very interesting post there itsamoose, but I have a question.  Why isn't that reward system part of game mechanic?  I would think that proper reward system is central to overall mechanics of the game, but would you say that I'm using the word 'mechanics' too broadly at that point?

 

@kaputt, I had those similar feelings right before I quit WoW and Diablo 3.  Now if you are like me back then, try different stuff, it's quite liberating to cut clean off from those games.

 

@tegan, Yeah, addiction in context of modern F2P market's current image (at least one that I think public at large shares, but maybe I'm mistaken in that regard) is probably too uncomfortably close to gambling scene to be advertised.

[itsamoose]

Very interesting post there itsamoose, but I have a question.  Why isn't that reward system part of game mechanic?  I would think that proper reward system is central to overall mechanics of the game, but would you say that I'm using the word 'mechanics' too broadly at that point?

 

I suppose that's a matter of preference really.  Personally I see the actions the player can do as mechanics, and all supporting elements as rewards.  That would include things like sound fx, particles, time stoppage, screen effects, etc.  I think when most devs talk about rewards what they mean are the things you get at the end of a level or quest, though a psychologist would likely consider all non essential elements as rewards.  For example you can make a slot machine with just 3 spinning wheels, but most of these machines have lights, sounds, and all kinds of other stuff that has no effect on the simulation but are instead geared at motivating you to keep playing.

[Gaizokubanou]

I suppose that's a matter of preference really.  Personally I see the actions the player can do as mechanics, and all supporting elements as rewards.  That would include things like sound fx, particles, time stoppage, screen effects, etc.  I think when most devs talk about rewards what they mean are the things you get at the end of a level or quest, though a psychologist would likely consider all non essential elements as rewards.  For example you can make a slot machine with just 3 spinning wheels, but most of these machines have lights, sounds, and all kinds of other stuff that has no effect on the simulation but are instead geared at motivating you to keep playing.

 

Ah I see, thanks for sharing your insight, you are probably right that too many amateur designers think of high level rewards only and forget about micro scale stuff.  I too tend to jumble those together at a micro scale (cause of my broader preference for use of 'mechanic'), although I would like to think that I'm somewhat aware and not a total dummy

 

Guess I'll see when my game hits first working prototype of entire system functioning as a coherent loop.

[itsamoose]

Ah I see, thanks for sharing your insight, you are probably right that too many amateur designers think of high level rewards only and forget about micro scale stuff.  I too tend to jumble those together at a micro scale (cause of my broader preference for use of 'mechanic'), although I would like to think that I'm somewhat aware and not a total dummy

 

Guess I'll see when my game hits first working prototype of entire system functioning as a coherent loop.

 

You actually bring up a good point here.  When people think of feedback loops, or a loop of any kind for that matter, we typically think of them in terms of the start and the end of the loop.  However I believe when examining feedback loops you can get much more information by examining the middle.  The feedback loop in a game doesn't necessarily need to be a coherent whole--a lesson hard learned if my experience is any indication.  Instead, each element of the loop should seek only to propel the player to the next stage of the loop rather than be a contiguous element within the whole.  Also I would say that the loop's quality or allure will come not from it's completion, but it's continuation.  In fact it may be better to allow this loop to abruptly stop in order for the player to learn to work within it's confines.

 

Another example from my personal experience.  In the game I'm currently working on we have a concept of item interaction.  These interactions are distinct, in that 4 specific abilities will combine with a number of items to achieve an effect, such as one item which appears to do nothing but block enemies at first but can be used to deal massive damage to enemies and even kill bosses in seconds flat when combined with one of the abilities.  Now there is no distinct feedback loop in mind here, but time and again when people play the game we find they will spend anywhere from 15-45 minutes just messing around with item combinations to see what happens.  In this scenario, the feedback loop isn't prescribed--it is what the player makes it.

 

Thinking about, and especially implementing, this kind of thing is easily the most frustrating design experience I've ever had but in the end I'm really happy with the result.  Mainly the reason for this is that we allow the player to set minute goals for themselves that they can then adapt as they see fit.  I think trying to institute flow in your game isn't so much about careful design as it is giving the player the ability to, in some capacity, design the experience for themselves.  Also, thanks for listening to my ranting about things I haven't studied since college .

[Griddlelol]

 

That's a really bad ad. It doesn't tell you anything or make you interested in the slightest. 

 

Reading the basics of flow is pretty interesting. It's clear that flow is exactly why games like Bayonetta and DMC are so incredibly loved by a small audience. If you can achieve flow in those games, they're masterpieces, but it's tough to achieve the skill needed to get there.

 

I've realised that I've conflated flow with immersion before, and I'm now not entirely sure what the difference is. 

[Gaizokubanou]

...

 

Also, thanks for listening to my ranting about things I haven't studied since college .

 

Cheers, it's all interesting and informative stuff so hey win win

 

I've realised that I've conflated flow with immersion before, and I'm now not entirely sure what the difference is. 

 

Man the word 'immersion' is such a tricky word to tackle so don't worry if you feel unsure of what you meant by it, because I think very few people are actually sure what they mean when they utter that word.

[SuperBiasedMan]

I feel like I have treaded the line a few too many times and it's definitely been a problem for at least one period of my life where I was under occupied and should have been trying to find some way to change that instead of playing a bunch, which is what I did. I also noticed that it seemed like my two biggest timesinks were actually TF2 and Spelunky for several reasons. But the fact that I got pretty good at both was definitely a big motivator into using them to feel good about myself and feel accomplished when other things just weren't providing that.

 

I feel like games as an addiction and games as a timesink have a distinct difference. A timesink just takes more hours than it ought to, but an addiction is something you're leaning on because it's feeding you something you crave though you may not even notice it.

 

Right now I've been very timesinky with Crypt of the Necrodancer because it has the kind of design to be very satisfying with the audio, visuals and mecahnics as I'm holding it together in a run but I will very quickly lose a game and then want to just do another run through and accomplish what I'd been trying to do.

[Griddlelol]

Man the word 'immersion' is such a tricky word to tackle so don't worry if you feel unsure of what you meant by it, because I think very few people are actually sure what they mean when they utter that word.

 

I was thinking about it, and essentially they are different, but dependent on each other. Flow leads to immersion, although I'm not sure if the reverse is true. Reading all the text in a game like Danganronpa allows me to get immersed, but I'm not sure it's got anything to do with flow.

[Gaizokubanou]

I'm a dummy in psychology so I'm just Googling these stuff, but based on few sites (AKA WIKI) it sounds like FLOW is just deepest state of 'immersion' (in terminology that is commonly used by people when describing game's immersion).

 

@SuperBiasedMan,

 

For me the distinction falls into just how I feel about the activity afterward... like addictions make me feel shitty when I don't perform them (and performance just bring the level to neutral), but good 'time sink', as you describe, make me feel good during and afterward.  I want to play 'time sinks', but when I have something else, stop playing them doesn't frustrate me.  I can just pack up and leave feeling pretty happy.  But addiction?  Every moment not spent playing is worse.

 

For me, many addictive games definitely started as good 'time sinks', but when I kept returning to them cause of low hanging hooks (playing them is habit than conscious choice, I'm farming for random loots, etc.) I instead of actually being excited about them, they turned into addiction and hence sour the whole deal.

 

EU4, CiV, Isaac, Tekken 3, Starcraft, all great time sinks.  But Diablo 3 (more so than 2 for some reason) and WoW?  Just awful.

[SuperBiasedMan]

That's pretty interesting. I'm always really fickle and tend to just drop games that don't give me good feel (unless I motivate myself to stay if I value a long term reward like good story or theme or something) so I guess that no matter what the addictive and timesink games both still make me feel good.

[********]

I've always thought of 'flow' as having a component of mastery, like you know what you want to do and you do it consistently and successfully without a lot of conscious intervention.  And I guess 'immersion' as the passive side of that, where things are happening to you and they feel right and there is no conscious reflection on them.

[itsamoose]

In regards to the flow vs. immersion angle, I think the main difference really is in the terms.  Immersion is a concept, so it's certainly open to interpretation and can mean a host of different things depending on the context.  Flow on the other hand is a psychological phenomenon.  Meaning that flow is a concrete, distinct, idea with specific parameters and definitions surrounding it.  Often I hear psychological phenomena defined as though they were abstract concepts, mainly because psychologists use words that sound as such.  For example, Maslow's Hierarchy of needs refers to specific periods in a person's psychological development--it is not a checklist that need be filled out.  So usually by the time someone learns about Maslow's Hierarchy, they are already beyond the age where the conflicts in the theory of taken place.  Flow sounds like a general concept, but in reality it isn't any more open to interpretation than the result of 3x5.  This is why if you ever dig into say behavioral psychology you'll find a whole host of different theories that all seem like the same concept--the difference is usually in the methods and details.

[Merus]

Interesting to hear about Maslow's hierarchy of needs - I was under the impression it was entirely discredited.

[itsamoose]

Interesting to hear about Maslow's hierarchy of needs - I was under the impression it was entirely discredited.

 

That's entirely possible, I haven't kept up with the research in recent years.  Though whether it be psychoanalysis or Maslow's Hierarchy, these things really are all just theories about how the mind develops or functions so it wouldn't surprise me.  There have been a few notable theories debunked over the years--some of them because they were ill formed and others because they were based on what we now understand to be pretty barbaric methods such as dropping an infant into a tub of water, or frontal lobotomies.