For this blog post, I will start by looking at some of Josh Bycer’s more recent blog posts and how they might be connected. In these posts, Bycer addresses a number of concepts, such as the “anti-achievement” and filler in games.
Using the Left for Dead series to argue his case, Bycer discusses the idea of an “anti-achievement”. Based as an opposite to the standard achievement for in most games these days, Bycer proposes the “anti-achievement”, which could be “used to tell someone they are playing the game wrong”. He references experiences he has had playing L4D, when new players do the wrong thing and still managed to kill the survivors. Calling it “one of the worst learning experiences I have seen in games”, he notes that despite doing the wrong thing, the novice player is rewarded for the their actions (killing the survivors), and as such will continue to do the same thing, aiming to replicate their previous result.
It’s at this point that Bycer discusses the concept of an “anti-achievement” system more fully. Amending the name to ‘denouncements’, he raising the possibility of using such a system as a learning tool. Having the game give you a denouncement would be a pretty good indication that something you’re doing is wrong. Another positive point he raises would to be to use denouncements as a form of ‘anti-griefing’, in which denouncements would be viewable on a person’s profile. If someone has a large number of denouncements, it would be a good indication that you would want to steer clear of them.
He does, however, raise two negative points about an denouncement system.
1. How effective is the learning system?
2. How long should the denouncements stay active on a person’s profile?
With point one, Bycer is concerned that the player will only learn that the action is wrong, but not get the correct mechanic. On point two, Bycer raises the possibility that a new player might pick up the game, have a hard time learning the mechanics of the game, and choose to abandon the game before they get too many marks on their profile.
In another of his posts, Bycer discusses the use of filler in games and how it can be avoided. As he defines it, “filler in game design can be anything that adds tedium to the game”. One of the examples he offers to start is when, in RPGs, the player is forced to stop and heal after every battle and must go through a complicated inventory screen to get there. However, what might combat filler in a game in one genre doesn’t necessarily work for another. If the game is an RPG with a focus on turn-based combat and exploration, then anything that keeps the player from this can cause tedium for the player. To combat this, he suggests the idea of an ‘hotkey’ of some sort for quick healing, or even having the system auto-heal the party after every battle. However, he cautions that “there is a line to watch out for when reducing tedium. Too much automation in the pursuit of reduced tedium can lead to another problem entirely: the game can play itself. Bycer argues this point with examples from Dungeon Siege, in which the player could preset the actions of their allies and their character, and Prince of Persia, in which it was literally impossible for the player could not fail any jumps or platforming maneuvers because the partner AI would always save them. He agrees that some tedium in a game can be a good thing, but it isn’t always the best idea. As he states, “more gameplay mechanics doesn’t always make the game better, as hiding gameplay under tedium is never a good thing.”
In regards to the first post, I honestly love the idea of a ‘denouncement system’. While there are definitely kinks to work out of the system before it can be used in any major way, I think that it shows promise, because sometimes you just don’t know if you are doing thing the wrong way. It also would be a great warning system for online gamers so that they can avoid griefers.
With the second post, I immediately thought of Final Fantasy 12 when Bycer discussed automation within a game and how it can be a bad thing. The gambit system in the game allows for more effective management of you allies during battle; however, in the right circumstances and with the proper management of the gambits, the game can be left running and allow the player to continually level up their characters. While this might be considered cheating by some gamers, it creates a loophole that allows for gamers to avoid some of the grind that is a huge part of Final Fantasy games. Refer to the ‘auto-leveling’ section here for an example: http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Negalmuur
Onto the Critical Gaming Project blog.
In a post by Alenda Chang, she discusses the scientific puzzle game Foldit, which has recently rose to fame and is something of a media darling. Foldit is a recent attempt to “to join human cognition to overworked computer programs in a computational approach to basic biology and disease treatment. This is significant because Foldit is a great example of intellectually crowdsourcing gamer communities, “moving beyond the harnessing of game software’s hefty processing power to actually tapping the spatial reasoning and problem-solving drive of gamers themselves.” However, Chang raises a concern that this might turn the Noble Prize into just another achievement in the current craze for achievement systems in games. But as she says, “Perhaps friendly rivalry prevent the game from becoming merely unpaid labor, because as with many other “serious” games, Foldit also dramatizes the increasingly fine line between work and play.” She also notes that Foldit, with its complex, 3-D puzzles, is quick to produce “flow”: focused engagement with a challenge during which external considerations fall away.
In another post by Terry, he discusses the relationship between gamification and players. As he states at the beginning of his post, “Gamers are basically rats. At least, that seems to be the central design principle informing gamification.” He defines gamification as “the infusion of game design techniques, game mechanics, and/or game style into anything”; however, he states that an implicit goal is to transform the attitudes and behavior of users into “happy, engaged gamers.” He then introduces the term ‘rattomorphism’, which is based on Skinner’s work with rats, in which the stimulus comes after the desired response as a reward and ultimately functions as an incentive. He notes that, while operant conditioning is extremely effective, in the long run it will ultimately backfire. The reason for this is that people will eventually grow to hate and resent the activities and their creativity and productivity will decrease. As one researcher cited stated, “people offered rewards tend to ‘choose easier tasks, are less efficient in using information available to solve novel problems, and tend to be answer oriented and more illogical in their problem-solving strategies. They work harder and produce more activity, but the activity is over lower quality, contains more errors, and is more stereotyped and less creative than the work of comparable non-rewarded subjects working on the same problems.’ This is not much of an issue if the goal is simply to get gamers to do something, but if quality of action, emotional engagement, and development over time matter at all, then he states that these issues must be kept in mind.
In regards to the first post here, I like the idea of uniting the focus and determination of the large gaming community in order to solve problems. Human ingenuity is something that has yet to be matched by computers, and focusing a large amount of that can solve some of the greatest problems, so long as the focus of the group can be maintained. Foldit achieves that by turning a sometimes boring biological concept into a competitive game.
In response to the second post, I agree with the opinion that I drew from it, that gamification can pose a threat to gaming and fun. Being trained to do certain things in exchange for rewards can make games monotonous. Designers might find a favorite strategy for designing their games, that gamers love at first. However, over time, gamers will grow bored with this design style and demand something else.
No comments:
Post a Comment