Is the "psychology of gaming" runing gaming?

[ever]

When game designers put their emphasis on making games that will "scientifically" imbalance our hormones or whatever so our endorphin count increases blahblahblah do they actually make better games or do they kinda miss the point?

Surely I'm not the only person who thinks that psychology should just stick to being a scam to redistribute wealth away from lazy rich people and that games are better made when game designers simply focus on a game that lets me see cool things, do cool things, hear cool things and be challenged to solve the problem in front of me.

 

[DraQ]

Would "psychology of reading" ruin writing?

Can you tell a fresh, authentic, original story when you have precise "scientific" directions to follow and precise requirements to satisfy?

Would you rather experience a good, imaginative story told by good storyteller, or "optimized" one generated by more or less scientific theories predicting the response of an average brain?

How many and which of the classic novels would have come exist if the writing relied on the theories on how to maximize certain responses by an average human brain?

 

[ever]

btw this thread was inspired by a link in the CIV V thread

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gdc ... 580-4.html

And there was another one a few days ago that pertained to mmos.

I meant to post it in the General Gaming board but failed so if someone would move it it would be appreciated.

 

[SerratedBiz]

http://gdc.gamespot.com/story/6253641/five-ways-games-can-make-you-cry

That said, Rouse said the only time he personally cried was because of a game one might not expect. He then showed pictures of himself and his young daughter playing Nintendogs on a DS. Due to his daughter's tender age, Rouse had spent hours showing her how to care for their Nintendog. Confident she could handle caring for the virtual pet on her own, he left for a weeklong business trip--only to be told via phone by his wife that the dog had disappeared.

Distraught, he came home and discovered the dog was indeed gone. Despondent, he said he actually went through the five phases of grief--until, one day, the dog reappeared with a gift in its mouth. Rouse explained that Nintendo had put a mechanic into the game that made a dog vanish if it wasn't cared for properly but that made the dog eventually return to give the player a second chance. He said that was a perfect--and powerful--example of a game maker using the loss technique.

 

[Gragt]

What the ...

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I think that the best use of psychology would be in school teaching/learning. Schooling is seriously lagging behind the advertising and entertainment.

Games that use psychological tricks, usually do it to create an addiction, which is detrimental for customers.

 

[laclongquan]

Sound like an excuse for "if you dont enjoy my game it's because you dont have the psychology for gaming".

And if you are an idiot, the fact that you enjoyed good games wont erase the fact that you are an idiot.

 

[Aothan]

well, basically, I would say the problem is evident in how this approach contributes to game design. Where the greatest sustained interest from the majority is treated as the ideal formula, with the same tending to be at variance with that of gaming enthusiasts.

although I have only played one mmo (Aion) the community demonstrates a staggering sense of entitlement for having the most streamlined, simplified, easy/god-mode style of play. I've seen a number of communities with their idiosyncrasies but none such as this. And from what I understand these observations can be more generally applied to the mmo gamer market.

if these observations are correct then any of the enduring problems with single-player games will be so much more entrenched when it comes to (mainstream) multiplayer.

better understanding human psychology as it relates to gaming obviously has certain merits for understanding and recognising how to improve games. Equally however the same analysis methods can lead to an increasingly stagnated system where the majority will push their levers in the most transparent format, and be perfectly content.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

I don't think there's much of a "psychology of gaming". Rather I think it is:
"lol pete, I herd ppl liek blood so I put sum blood in our game"
"lol todd awesum will they liek it?"
"lol guise this is game of the year i give it 11/10 gamespot score games are really becoming mature amirite?"

 

[Big Nose George]

I don't think there's much of a "psychology of gaming". Rather I think it is:
"lol pete, I herd ppl liek blood so I put sum blood in our game"
"lol todd awesum will they liek it?"
"lol guise this is game of the year i give it 11/10 gamespot score games are really becoming mature amirite?"

Its still psychology aye.

 

[JarlFrank]

Psychology of gaming/reading/movie watching is marketing speak than can roughly be translated into "Methods of making more money".

 

[Burning Bridges]

^Exactly.

And why is this in Strategy Gaming.

 

[Destroid]

I'm sure the psychology of gaming is great if you are a very average gamer.

I don't think many people who post here need apply.

 

[Xi]

Psychology is always a factor. It boils down to how it is used. If it's used to advertise catchy gimmicks, to increase sales, then it's bullshit. However, if it's utilized to understand the varying ways in which a game can be designed to be highly enjoyable, none of you would be able to tell the difference. It would just be rewarding to you. Nuff said.

Like any science, it's how you use it that counts. Do you create an atom bomb or do you cure cancer?

Games that use psychological tricks, usually do it to create an addiction, which is detrimental for customers.

You act as if people don't have a choice. There's nothing that will just automatically become addicting. So you have a paradoxical problem. If something is too enjoyable is it not also at risk of becoming a single reinforcer, which promotes addiction? If you like something too much, it runs the risk of drowning out other factors(reinforcers) in your life.

Now you have to define at what point is a game good enough? If it's too good, it runs the risk of becoming addictive, and something that's too highly enjoyable competes for time, thus drowning out other activities in one's life. Hence, the best game ever would also be highly addictive. Not because of "psychology" but because that's simply how it works. Psychology understands, it does not create.

Psychology merely defines the ambiguous "good."

 

[I.C. Wiener]

This thread makes game developers sound a lot more intelligent than they really are. The people who write these articles don't know a damn thing about psychology past 'people like shooting stuff' and 'people like finding treasure'. They can't even make a game fun, let alone manipulative of the human psyche. These are the same type of people who would be making pretentious philosophical 30 second long flash games on kongregate except they are getting paid.

 

[ever]

I would have thought the obvious answer would have been psychology is retarded, having teams of psychologists make game design decisions leads to retarded games full of decline "player's need rewards" or super addictive games that you just end up hating with your life like diablo2.

But I guess some people here would prefer if there was more of an emphasis on the psych of gaming rather than just making cool levels with cool monsters and making good game experiences.

In conclusion

 

[Xi]

I would have thought the obvious answer would have been psychology is retarded, having teams of psychologists make game design decisions leads to retarded games full of decline "player's need rewards" or super addictive games that you just end up hating with your life like diablo2.

But I guess some people here would prefer if there was more of an emphasis on the psych of gaming rather than just making cool levels with cool monsters and making good game experiences.

In conclusion

In conclusion, you simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Psychology is always a factor because if you like a game, there is a psychological explanation for why it's a "good game experience." That's a fact.

 

[Nickless]

My problem with sociology and psychology is that it is not an exact science, it relies upon correlation when diagnosing patients; the issue is that although it links certain problems together, it does so by analysing people en mass and grouping and linking the percentages of the masses' attributes together. In a society people can develop in the same sort of way, and so have similar experiences that give them certain personality/character attributes, but although those experiences are similar they are unique to the person, so from my viewpoint it seems pointless to categorise a person when looking at them as an individual, although granted, for a business, it is extremely useful to segment the marketplace when looking at large groups.

As related to the OP, I do not necessarily have a problem with game designers bringing in psychologists with a focus on the physiological aspects of their field, but I agree with DraQ in that they should focus more upon the application and design of good games with good writing. Regardless of the theory of why people enjoy a 'good game', it is still possible to identify the qualities that make a good game through market research (Not that it isn't hard to identify from personal experience), and so it is replicable without understanding the exact psychological reason for the enjoyment beyond researching customer expectations and wants.

Edit: I suppose it could give some unique insight into game design that revolutionises the marketplace, I have doubts however, as to whether I will enjoy it, as I'm mostly an outlier in regards to what I want from a game compared to the majority.

 

[Grunker]

exact science

Also: Your 'a dumb. You're describing one school of scientific thought within sociology and psychology (namely positivism and psycho-analysis). Not the whole scientific area as such.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Psychology is always a factor. It boils down to how it is used. If it's used to advertise catchy gimmicks, to increase sales, then it's bullshit. However, if it's utilized to understand the varying ways in which a game can be designed to be highly enjoyable, none of you would be able to tell the difference. It would just be rewarding to you. Nuff said.

I want to play games that are good because of stuff like good mechanics, good AI, good plot, good writing, etc. not games that use cheap psychological tricks for maximum addiction.
If I would treat enjoyability as the reason for playing games, I would probably be stuck playing flash games all the time.

 

[Xi]

My problem with sociology and psychology is that it is not an exact science, it relies upon correlation when diagnosing patients; the issue is that although it links certain problems together, it does so by analysing people en mass and grouping and linking the percentages of the masses' attributes together. In a society people can develop in the same sort of way, and so have similar experiences that give them certain personality/character attributes, but although those experiences are similar they are unique to the person, so from my viewpoint it seems pointless to categorise a person when looking at them as an individual, although granted, for a business, it is extremely useful to segment the marketplace when looking at large groups.

Psychology usually starts off using correlation. Better find out if there's any significance before you spend money on understanding cause/effect. Still, if Cause/Effect aren't "exact" enough for you, than I suppose nothing will suffice to please one such as yourself.

There is varying degrees of Precision in Psychology. In essence, this is why "Behavior" has become the biggest focus of psychology. You can directly measure a behavior, but not a "thought." One could call it the Behavioral Science, more so than the Psychological Science. It's just that "psychology" stuck, and that's life.

Of course, there's still elements of psychology that go beyond behavior, but generally, all aspects of psychology attempt to understand the effect on behavior.(For the most part)

I want to play games that are good because of stuff like good mechanics, good AI, good plot, good writing, etc. not games that use cheap psychological tricks for maximum addiction.
If I would treat enjoyability as the reason for playing games, I would probably be stuck playing flash games all the time.

Everything that you call "good" is extremely ambiguous. While taste does not need to be justified, it can most assuredly be objectively understood through careful analysis via current psychology. The problem is that it's a very challenging thing to do.

Personally, if developers understand the concepts of Reinforcement, they will be able to design gameplay to a much more satisfying degree. All interaction is reinforcement/punishment to some extent. Knowing how to properly apply such things, and how these affect the player promotes better design. It's the soul blueprint for how we operate, after all.