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

The Ingredients of Fun - Part 3: Attribution to Circumstance

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

This psychological concept of 'attribution' I concluded the previous post with, lies at the heart of fun in video games. If you attribute failure to yourself, then the failure will be bearable because you are more aware of the demands of the game, and the challenge will be satisfying. Seeing how this fits together? I'll try to explain this with a stream-of-consciousness example: 

You're playing a Grand Theft Auto 5 (you heathen, you) and you make a mortal mistake: while trying to escape a very angry private security company in your suped-up Banshee, you hit a guard rail and fly off a bridge. Oops, your character died. 

Picture from Google Images

You are rather angry with yourself, because you had a good 10 seconds where you were wrestling with yourself, trying to judge if jumping off the bridge would be a good way to escape. Reflecting on the events prior to your untimely end, you first realize that you were having doubts about the whole idea just before smashing through the rail and falling (albeit with style) to your death. You know a few things could have prevented this, like making the jump in a way that would have caused less damage, preventing your cherry-red ride from transforming into a death-yellow explosion. 

You just attributed the cause of failure to the circumstance, since you can see that you made an uncharacteristically careless decision that only could possibly have ended well with perfect execution. After thinking about various other options you had at the time, you file this experience under "things I won't do again", and in the next chase, live that much longer for it.
The end result is a satisfying experience overall, because after critically-thinking through the situation, you isolate the mistakes made, and by resolving to avoid them from then on, end up learning something that helps you succeed later on.

In my next post I will give an example of a less-than-ideal situation, in which you find the circumstances surrounding your failure to be unfair, and attribute the outcome to an entity, like a nonsensical rule in the game.  
And with that, thank you for reading, and by all-means, comment if anything didn't make sense to you!

-Kenny White
PSN: Fatalis_Veritas

The Ingredients of Fun - Part 2: Failure

These days, people seem to be all about avoiding failure. This makes sense, as no sane person enjoys putting sincere effort into making something happen, only to watch their plans come to ruin as the opposite occurs. Nevertheless, when we fail, (SPOILER: If you're a human, it's going to happen.) too strong an aversion to failure can keep us from gleaning valuable experience from analysis of our mistakes. You've probably heard something like this in the form of life advice, or whatever. But it is quite relevant to game design, as failure is a component of challenge. 

• The possibility of failing defines challenge. Is an activity at which you will succeed regardless of your efforts a challenge? Nope.  
• From our look at the study in the previous post, we know that players prefer to be challenged to the point that they succeed in a game with difficulty. 
• Therefore, they want to experience some failure in the games they play. 

Although failure is generally not a fun experience, it serves to as more than a contrast to triumph. The difficulty curves (gradual, often exponential, rate at which difficulty increases through a game) of the best video games often are designed to require the player to learn from failure in order to cope with the challenge. 

Picture from Google Images

For example: rather than reading in the instruction manual that Mario is capable of jumping X feet horizontally, the players of Mario platforming games feel out the limitations of his acrobatics by failing basic jumps many times. As the player progresses through the stages, Mario's jumping ability becomes second-nature, allowing for the completion of more complex obstacles that would be incredibly daunting without precision jumping skills.

Picture from Google Images

In this way, failure teaches you one mistake at a time, engaging your brain' s previously discussed systems for finding paths to reward. This is where the dopamine kicks in, and you are having fun identifying strategies that work, and those that need to be rethought or better executed. That is, as long as the game is providing the feedback necessary to glean possible methods of improvement, since trial-and-error is only interesting so long as you can avoid unnecessary trial by learning from the error. Otherwise, the game runs the risk of the player attributing their failure to game or its rules, rather than themselves. 

Next post, I will discuss how Attribution Theory explains this phenomenon of players blaming the game for mistakes, and how this frustrating situation can be avoided with good game design.  

Thanks for reading! Did I miss anything? It can be hard to choose what to cut when condensing so much information, so please let me know if anything doesn't make sense to you. 

The Ingredients of Fun - Part 1: Challenge and Success

A game, by one definition is “a contest with rules, the result being determined by skill, strength, or chance”(Collins). The game presents goals for a player to complete, and has rules to restrict the means by which you accomplish them.

• These rules create challenge, as the player must overcome the difficulty of the restrictions set in place by the rule set in order to complete the goals and win.
• While winning is satisfying, and failure can be frustrating, the bulk of the enjoyment from a game should not come from the rewards for winning:

1.  In research conducted by Gamelab, a creator of popular casual computer games, study participants reported enjoying a test game most when they are barely able to win. (Gamelab, 2006) Those that were challenged to the point of losing most, but not all of their lives had more fun than those who lost few/no lives, as well as those who could not win.
2. Participants were also asked how they know a game is too easy. Popular answers included: “No challenge, go through motions to complete it without any thought” “boring... doesn’t provide further challenges” 27% of answers fell into a category that could be summed  with "... did not have to rethink strategy.".

Thus, challenge, the essence of a game itself, is key to fun, and trumps the desire to win.

Image taken from www.jesperjuul.net

This seemingly-paradoxical truth of our enjoyment of games is explained by our inborn desire to test our skill in a controlled environment. It’s what makes you crave a challenge in activities you enjoy.  If you’ve ever owned dogs or cats, you have surely witnessed play-fighting antics between them. This behavior results from their hard-wired desire to compete, and their brains encourage this exploration of their skills in conflict resolution with a dopamine release in their brain.
 The dopamine system is engaged to encourage behavior that is beneficial to the organism (eating, mating, etc.) and subsequently provide impetus to find more ways of receiving similar rewards. Human brains experience dopamine release during game play (Gee, 2007), due to the apparent systems of reward for the overcoming of challenge, explaining the potentially addictive quality of games. In summary:

• Gamers want to complete the goals set by games, but also to be challenged by them.
• The challenge itself is a rewarding experience, and the reward (despite providing reason satisfaction and reason to continue playing) for completing the goal is relatively unimportant to the fun of playing a video game.
• The engagement of challenges in a game lead to dopamine release in the brain, which encourages a player to persevere until they find a way to overcome the challenge and receive the reward for doing so. This process is what makes a video game fun, and hard to stop playing.

Thanks to you for reading, and to my main source, Jesper Juul, for his wonderfully informative forays into this topic, which he has generously published on his site.
In my next post, I will discuss the critical role that failure and punishment hold in defining the challenge of a game. Until then, please post any questions or comments, and I will be happy to address them.  
-Kenny White
PSN: Fatalis_Veritas

Introduction

In this blog, I will discuss the decisions in video game design that are made to keep the game fun, challenging, and continually interesting. I will accomplish this from an analytical perspective of an avid gamer that knows about the fundamental factors make an experience register as fun in the human brain. 

We will first lay the foundation for future discourse with a presentation of some research that attempts to apply brain science to explain the fun of a good challenge; and the results of studies conducted for the express purpose of finding exactly what can be done in games to maximize enjoyment and minimize unnecessary annoyance. This will segue into this blog's main beat, which will bring forth examples of mechanics such as punishment/reward systems, difficulty curves, and other such balancing measures, and explore how they engage players to provide a challenging and significant experience.

I will generally use games with which I have a large amount of experience to draw examples from, so that I am completely comfortable in my expertise on the what the mechanisms of the game's design do for game-play. So you can expect to see me write more often about the Assassin's Creed series, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, the Battlefield series, the Elder Scrolls series, Bioshock, Demon's Souls, and especially Dark Souls (Which I consider to be the gold standard on both combat systems in action games, and character progression in RPGs.). However, I may occasionally use games that I am less intimately familiar with, that I might draw more upon the general consensus than my own findings, thus reducing (unavoidable, mind you) personal bias.

Thank you for reading the preface to this project! If you think of any works of video game design that you find to be notably good, bad, or unusual, leave your suggestion (as well as your take on the issue, if you wish) as a comment, and I will  at least reply, if not consider covering it in a post.

Sincerely,

-Kenny

PSN: Fatalis_Veritas