New Rule

From GDC ‘08 Game Studies Download 3.0 (Jane McGonigal, Mia Consalvo, Ian Bogost), points #9 and #10 (thanks to Raph Koster for posting a summary on his blog; visit there to read his description):

#10: The best content understands exactly how the player likes to play and then makes it slightly harder.

#9: Breaking the immersive spell can make gameplay more engaging.

These points are about immersion and content generation and how, contrary to everything we might have been led to believe, giving the player everything they want is a bad idea. Well, almost—perhaps the truth is not quite so black-and-white. I’ll explain:

The researchers found that certain attitudes towards player expectations and freedom of choice actually resulted in more engaging gameplay, notably: giving the player challenges based on custom procedural variations in limited environments rather than big open worlds, and occasionally reminding the player that they are playing a game rather than aiming for totally seamless immersion. In short, limited and tailored experiences are better than big explorative playgrounds. As Raph summarizes from the lecture:

Breaking the 4th wall can be good. Clumsy controls can heighten fear and frustration, driving emotional reactions. Games that comment on themselves provide memorable content and atmosphere. Disruptions can contribute to a unique game style.

Takeaway: making players remember it’s a game can actually heighten their experience.

Some weeks ago I came across this talk on the TED website. The speaker, Dan Gilbert, makes an argument that “synthetic happiness,” or pleasure we receive from convincing ourselves that we are happy, is every bit as real and compelling as so-called “natural happiness,” or happiness we stumble upon accidentally. As he says, even if we don’t give people what they want but rather force them to choose from a limited range of options and then force them to accept their decision… in a sense like telling them what they want (or should want)… their own brains will trick them into thinking they got just what they always wanted after all, and are in fact happy. It’s astounding; I highly recommend you watch the video.

The implications of this revelation for game design cannot be overstated. It means we can, and indeed should, tell our players, “No.” The limits and rules that are the very definition of games are, as Dan Gilbert would say, “the enemy of natural happiness and the friend of synthetic happiness . . . [players] will find a way to be happy with what has happened.” The great irony, though, is that people do not know this about themselves, and will always believe that free choice and lack of constraint is the way they want to go when, in reality, they are far less likely to find happiness (real or synthetic) on that road than on a heavily restricted road such as the ones we create in games.

Thus, we have a new challenge: find ways to induce players to accept and embrace lack of choice so that they will be happy.

I realize that’s a hell of an assertion to make, so I will clarify: I am all for meaningful choice in games, and no one needs to be reminded that games are systems and defined by their limits. To this I have nothing new to add. My argument is that, whether they realize it or not, players are at least as likely to find happiness from a heavily constrained system than they are from an increasingly open one.

That’s where points #9 and #10 come in: by giving the player a tailored, narrowcast playspace and by reminding them of the formal system in which they are engaged, we can give gentle hints to their subconscious that, in this instance, it is OK to let go of openness of choice. It’s a game, friend! Relax! One of our jobs as designers in to help players surrender to the system, and the strategies contained in these points are powerful agents to that end.

Tags: General, The Industry //