The Ingredients of Fun - Part 3 continued: Attribution to Entity

This post is part 2 of 3 on the subject of Attribution Theory, covering attribution to Entity. See parts 1 and 3 to learn about what happens when game events are attributed to Circumstance and Person, respectively.

In the last post, I gave an example of good game design at work: 

1. The (totally) hypothetical player made a very obviously bad decision, and executed it unskillfully.
2.  The game punished the player with 'life punishment', by killing the character for such an silly mistake.
3.  The player realized their mistake from the terminal punishment, and learned from it, facilitating smarter play with less failure from then on.

In this post, I will give an example of a lamentable situation that can arise from poor game design, or player low player aptitude or temperament: attribution to entity.
This term applies to games when someone attributes their failure to an entity. They may blame the challenge itself, claiming that it is too difficult, or some aspect of the game that doesn't work as it should. One example of the latter, would be unresponsive, unhelpful, or just plain broken AI  (sets of computer-controlled character behaviors, in video game context) in allies, which can lead to difficulty that was unintended by the developers, and therefore destructive to the balance of the game. More common, but potentially just as annoying, are issues with imprecise controls, or unclear feedback after failure. 

Time for another story:

Picture from Google Images

You've sat down to unwind to some Skyrim, and you're having a grand old time. As someone who gets a real kick out of exploring virtual worlds, you've been mountaineering about for quite some time, taking in the sights and sounds. Suddenly, everything goes awry as the inexplicable friction that has been keeping you stuck to 75 degree slopes for over 20 minutes is simply not to be found on the next rock you make your jump to. Too bad you haven't saved the whole time. 

Now you're angry again. But not at yourself for doing something dumb (well, you might be, for not saving), but at the game for having an unfair inconsistency that you could not have avoided, unless you had been spending enough time around town to have heard "The legend of that one mountain with that one rock that doesn't work right". You have just attributed your failure to the game, which is typically no fun, as it bypasses the entire process of learning from mistakes, improving, and thereby firing up the dopamine dispenser.

Picture from Google Images

So, although there are a few exceptions, like "hopeless bosses", whose resulting forced-death is typically a story point that you do not need to replay, or try to prevent,  it is best when games have you feel responsible for your mistakes (attribute failure to circumstance). That way, you can actually correct it, and engage the challenge as it was meant to be.

Next time, you'll hear about how games can elicit a reaction of attributing failure to the person, in this case, the player.

Thank you for reading! Comments are always welcome, so post away!

-Kenny White
PSN: Fatalis_Veritas