Psychology of Games Reading Assignment PDF

Moves in Mind:
The Psychology of Board Games

Fernand Gobet, Alex de Voogt, Jean Retschitzki
Publisher: Psychology Press

ISBN: 1841693367
Board games have long fascinated as mirrors of intelligence, skill,

cunning, and wisdom. While board games have been the topic of
many scientific studies, and have been studied for more than a
century by psychologists, there was until now no single volume
summarizing psychological research into board games. This book,
which is the first systematic study of psychology and board games,
covers topics such as perception, memory, problem solving and
decision making, development, intelligence, emotions, motivation,
education, and neuroscience. It also briefly summarizes current
research in artificial intelligence aiming at developing computers
playing board games, and critically discusses how current theories of
expertise fare with board games. Finally, it shows that the
information provided by board game research, both data and theories,
have a wider relevance for the understanding of human psychology in
general.
Contents:
Part 1: Introduction. Moves in Mind. Board Games and Cognitive

Psychology. The Role of Board Games in Science. The Role of
Board Games in Psychology. Structure of the Book. Part 2: Formal
Analyses of Board Games. Fundamental Concepts. Board Games in
Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence. Information and
Complexity Analysis. Game Theory and the Concept of Error.
Conclusion. Part 3: Theories of Board-game Psychology. A Brief
History of Board-game Psychology. Theories of Chess Skill.
Influences from Other Theories of Cognition. Theories of
Development and Environment. Conclusion. Part 4: Perception and
Categorization. Low-level Perception. High-level Perception and
Categorization. Conclusion. Part 5: Memory, Knowledge, and
Representations. Memory for Board Positions. Recall of Sequences
of Moves and of Games. Estimation of the Number of Chunks in
LTM. Mode of Representation. Representations Used in Blindfold
Playing. Knowledge and Memory Schemata. Discussion. Conclusion.
Part 6: Problem Solving and Decision Making. Empirical Data on
Search Behaviour. Empirical Data on the Role of Perception in
Problem Solving. Empirical Data on the Role of Knowledge in
Problem Solving. Analogy Formation in Novice Players. Theoretical
Accounts. Discussion. Conclusion. Part 7: Learning, Development
and Ageing. Early Stages of Learning. Development of Play and
Game Behaviour. Developmental Studies of Specific Board Games.
Ageing. Conclusion. Part 8: Education and Training. Introduction.
Board Game Instruction and the Transfer of Skill. Teaching the Rules
and Basic Instruction. Training and Coaching at an Advanced Level.
Conclusion. Part 9: Individual Differences and the
Neuropsychology of Talent. Intelligence and Visuo-spatial Abilities.
Personality. Emotions and Motivation. Board Games and
Neuroscience. Overall Conclusion. Part 10: Methodology and
Research Designs. Definitions of Expertise. Game Specificity.
Illiterate Games. Ecological Validity. Cross-cultural Aspects. The
Creation and Use of Archives and Databases. Observations and
Natural Experiments. Interviews and Questionnaires. Introspection
and Retrospection. Protocol Analysis. Standard Experimental
Manipulations. Neuroscientific Approaches. Typical Research
Designs. Mathematical and Computational Modelling. Weaknesses
and Strengths of Methodologies Used in Board-game Research. Part
11: Conclusion. Board Game Complexity. Landscape of Board
Games. Impact of Board-game Research. Future. References.
Appendix 1: Rules of Board Games. Appendix 2: Measures of
Expertise in Board Games. Appendix 3: Example of Protocol
Analysis.
Authors' Biography:
Fernand Gobet is Professor of Psychology at Brunel University,

West London. He is an International Master of the International
Chess Federation and has played for several years with the Swiss
national team.
Alex de Voogt is at the University of Leiden and Managing Editor of

the journal Board Game Studies.
Jean Retschitzki is Professor of Psychology at the University of
Fribourg. He was elected as President of the Swiss Society of
Psychology in 1998
URL: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20050426/hejdenberg_01.shtml
Introduction
We are all familiar with the feeling we have when we are completely caught up in a great game.
The state where we are completely focused on playing, and all other things become irrelevant.
This article is about that feeling – why we get it when we play games, and how we can design
games that give us more of it.
In the first part of the article we will look at how we function as humans; what our drives are
and why we enjoy certain activities. At first this may seem a bit unrelated to games, but soon
we will see that the actual game is only what we see on the surface – what we experience is
something else completely. In order to fully understand why we enjoy certain games, we need
to look at what lies below the surface and try to see them the way our mind sees them.
The second part of the article focuses on how games can be designed to cater to the player's
needs, interests and abilities. We look at the importance of understanding your target audience,
and how games can be built to adapt to the person who is playing. People both have differences
and similarities to each other, and the game's design needs to reflect that.
Overall, the purpose of this article is to provide a better understanding of why we enjoy certain
games so much and how to design games that focus on those aspects. My view is that if we can
see games the way our mind sees them, we can perhaps get some new ideas on how to design
our games to be more fun for the player.
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="Javascript1.1"
SRC="http://as.cmpnet.com/js.ng/Params.richmedia=yes&site=game&affiliate=gamasutra&pagepos
=top&gam_pos=articlesky&ord=52862042020826536?"></SCRIPT> <SCRIPT
LANGUAGE="Javascript1.1"
=button&gam_pos=articlesky&ord=52862042020826536?"></SCRIPT>
CMP Game Group Presents:
The Psychology Behind Games
By Anders Hejdenberg
Gamasutra
April 26, 2005
URL: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20050426/hejdenberg_01.shtml
Introduction
We are all familiar with the feeling we have when we are completely caught up in a great game.
The state where we are completely focused on playing, and all other things become irrelevant.
This article is about that feeling – why we get it when we play games, and how we can design
games that give us more of it.
In the first part of the article we will look at how we function as humans; what our drives are
and why we enjoy certain activities. At first this may seem a bit unrelated to games, but soon
we will see that the actual game is only what we see on the surface – what we experience is
something else completely. In order to fully understand why we enjoy certain games, we need
to look at what lies below the surface and try to see them the way our mind sees them.
The second part of the article focuses on how games can be designed to cater to the player's
needs, interests and abilities. We look at the importance of understanding your target audience,
and how games can be built to adapt to the person who is playing. People both have differences
and similarities to each other, and the game's design needs to reflect that.
Overall, the purpose of this article is to provide a better understanding of why we enjoy certain
games so much and how to design games that focus on those aspects. My view is that if we can
see games the way our mind sees them, we can perhaps get some new ideas on how to design
our games to be more fun for the player.
Part One - Why brains love games
Needs and motivations

Maslow's pyramid of needs.
As humans, we have developed many needs over time that are closely related to our survival,
existence and evolution. In a way, everything we do in our daily lives is in either a direct or an
indirect way related to these needs. Abraham Mallow was the first to summarize the research
related to human behavior by creating a list of human needs and sorting them in hierarchic
order. Maslow's hierarchy of needs was based in two groups: deficiency needs and growth
needs. Within the deficiency needs, each lower need must be met before moving on to the
higher needs. If at a later time a lower need is detected, the individual will act to fulfil that need
before resuming focus on higher needs. When the deficiency needs are fulfilled, the individual's
attention will turn towards the growth needs.
Deficient needs:
1. Physiological needs: To breathe, drink, eat, sleep, bodily comforts, etc.
2. Safety and security needs: To feel safe, out of harms way, protected, to live in a safe
neighborhood, to know ahead what the plans are.
3. Belongingness and love needs: To affiliate with others, be accepted, be part of a group, to
love and be loved, to have a family, to be social.
4a. Lower esteem needs: To be respected, to get attention, to have status, power, reputation,
dignity, to express oneself through words, clothes, or self-creations.
4b. Higher esteem needs: To have self-respect, to be competent, to achieve independence and
freedom.
Growth needs:
5. Cognitive needs: To know, to understand, to explore, to seek adventure, to experience new

things, to travel, to feel excitement.
6. Self-actualization needs: To realize one's potential, to be all that you can be.
7. Transcendence: To help others to self-fulfilment and realize their potential.

Rewarding good behavior
In order to make sure that we listen to our needs, evolution has developed our brain with
designated reward areas that serve to reinforce healthy behavior, such as drinking when we are
thirsty. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with pleasant feelings, is released by these
reward areas to encourage the body to repeat these behaviors. This is the reason why fulfilling
needs is often associated with feelings of pleasure. It could be said that our body helps us to
distinguish positive behavior by rewarding it with an induction of pleasurable brain chemicals.
When we look at lower needs, things seem to be quite simple: we are hungry, we eat, and we
get rewarded. But when it comes to rewarding higher needs – like gaining the respect of others
for example – things tend to get a lot more complex. The higher needs are not based around
our physical needs, but rather around the psychological needs. So how can there be a specific
behavior or activity to reward, if everyone has a different view of what the needs are?
The interesting fact of the matter is that it is completely up to our own view of what respect is
to decide whether we have accomplished what we should and deserve a reward. Quite simply,
from an objective standpoint it does not really matter what we do, how we do it, or why – as
long as we feel that we are doing the right thing, for the right reasons, and getting good
results, we will get our fix of dopamine. For example, there is no difference between winning
the lottery and thinking you have won the lottery – they are both just as fun up until you start
trying to spend the money.
Measuring results
It can be said that on a personal level – as we perceive it – the ultimate goal for all our
activities is to get pleasure and/or avoid pain. If we have an activity where we can conclude
that the possible gain in pleasure outweighs the possibility of failure and pain, we will most
likely want to do it. The amount of pleasure or pain that is then derived from the activity relies
on how much we've learned (was it interesting to me?), our subjective view of the activity itself
(was this okay for me to do?) and the measurement of its success (did I do well?).
The problems we face in our modern society is that our options are so plentiful, the boundaries
between right and wrong are not always clear, and we can seldom get a good measurement of
the results of our actions. This means that it can many times be difficult for us to decide what
we should be doing, and perhaps even more difficult to get the pleasure from knowing that we
have done something well. We tend to measure ourselves against other people, and there is
always someone out there that appears to be smarter, happier, more talented or just plain
better looking. So what can we do to ensure that our activities give us pleasure?
Games
Games are specifically designed to deal with this issue – and not just videogames, but all types
of games. Games can be played against other people, against yourself, against a computer, or
perhaps even against the forces of nature – but what they all have in common is that they have
set goals with set rules that you have to follow in order to play. This makes it much easier for
us to decide what to do and makes measuring the outcome much simpler. We also have the
learning aspect in games since in most games we will have to keep improving our skills in order
to beat the competition (or our previous record).
Game experiences
Roger Caillois is the theorist behind the book Man, Play, and Games. In his book, Caillois
proposed a useful system of classifying the different types of experiences that are present in
games. A game can include just one or all of these different types of experiences.
1. Competition
Activities where players use their skill to overcome the challenge that their opponents offer. The
pleasure lies in developing your skills to outmaneuver the opposition. Football and chess are
examples of such activities.
2. Chance
Activities where elements of chance can have an impact on the outcome of the game. The
pleasure lies in finding ways to minimize the impact of the element of chance, and the
excitement of trying to guess the outcome. Games that are based on chance can also give
players the illusion of being able to control or foresee the future. Slot machines and lotteries
are examples of such activities.
3. Vertigo
Activities that alters the state of mind by disrupting the normal perception of the world,
resulting in a pleasurable state of dizziness. Roller coaster rides and skydiving are examples of
such activities.
4. Make-Believe
Activities where we create alternate realities in which we are not bound by the constraints of
the real world. The pleasure lies in assuming various characteristics and abilities that we do not
possess in our normal life. In this state of make-believe we can feel as if we actually possessed
the powers of what we have chosen to assimilate. Role-playing, theatre and reading books are
examples of such activities.
Pleasurable activities
So if playing games is an activity that can give us pleasure – why do certain games give us
more pleasure than others? Mihály Csíkszentmihályi is considered by many to be the leading
researcher in the field of positive psychology. Csíkszentmihályi has developed the notion of
“flow” – a state that he describes as “being completely involved in an activity for its own sake.
The ego falls away. Time flies. Every action, movement, and thought follows inevitably from the
previous one, like playing jazz. Your whole being is involved, and you're using your skills to the
utmost.”
People who have played games can most likely relate to this feeling. And most people will agree
that this feeling is very pleasurable. But what is it that makes us reach this state of mind? Mr.
Csíkszentmihályi has come up with a list of eight things that are associated with “flow” or
“being in the zone” as it is often described.
1. It's an activity that we feel that we can perform – a challenge that requires skill
Any activity provides us with a number of options – or challenges – that require a certain skill
to do. If we don't have the required skill for the activity, the challenge will easily become
frustrating or feel meaningless. Pleasure comes in the area between boredom and anxiety at
the distinct moment where our options are in line with our abilities.
Playing a game of chess against an evenly matched opponent is a good example of this – if
they were much better than we were, it could feel meaningless since we cannot really affect the
outcome. If we were much better than they were, it could be boring since there is no challenge
in it for us.
2. We need to be able to concentrate on what we are doing
When a person's skill is needed to perform a task their focus will be completely absorbed with
what they're doing. We regress into a state where our actions become spontaneous and we
stop being aware of ourselves as parted from what we are doing. In order to be able to enter
and then remain in this state it is important that there are no distractions – neither from
outside of the activity or from the activity itself.
A common distraction in many games is difficult controls. If the controls are not simple or
intuitive enough for us to be able to do what we want to do, we will constantly be distracted
from what we are doing. Our focus will turn toward the controls instead of the game.
3. We need to have clear goals for our activity
Without a clear goal you have little means of judging whether or not we are making any
progress. The pleasure does not necessarily lie in reaching the goal itself – it is only the end of
the ruler by which we measure our progress. It is also important that goals are set at a level
where we need to invest our skills to reach the goal – otherwise the goal will become
meaningless.
For example, if our goal were just to reach the finish line in a racing game we would not need
to pay much attention to be successful. If the goal would instead be to reach the finish line
within a short time-frame, the task would perhaps require our complete attention.
4. We need to get constant feedback on our progress
In order to be able to judge if our activities are fruitful, we need to get some form of feedback
on our efforts. We may fail in certain attempts to reach our goals, but if we get enough
feedback along the way, we can still feel that we are on the right track and that our invested
efforts are paying off. Feedback is not only about being told that we are doing well. It is just as
important that the activity is laid out in a way where we can constantly judge our own progress.
In many fighting games, there is an indication of the opponent's health above their character.
This is a good way to provide us with feedback on how well we are doing, and to help us
develop our technique so that our attacks deal the most amount of damage.
5. We act with a deep involvement that frees us from our everyday worries
In order to be deeply involved it is important that the activity has not been forced upon us
against our will. When we act out of free will with deep involvement, we forget about all the
unpleasantries in life. The activity demands such a full concentration that there is no room for
us to reflect upon anything else.
Even though playing games is usually not forced upon us, some elements in games can become
boring or repetitive after a while. When they do, we can easily become less involved in the
game since we feel that we are being forced to do these things in order to progress.
6. We need to exercise control over our environment
In a structured activity we can often get a feeling of control. We are free from the anxiety of
losing control that is so common in our daily lives – we are not afraid of failing. The important
thing is that the activity is designed so that it allows us to develop such a great skill that the
risk of failure is eliminated. It's not about having control, but about exercising control. It is only
when the outcome is uncertain and we feel that we can affect the outcome that we experience
that we are in control.
If the game contains elements that the player cannot control but that affect the outcome of the
game, the player will not be able to exercise control. Games that allow the player to exercise
full control will almost always end with the most skilled player winning.
7. We become less self-absorbed
When we concentrate fully on an activity there is no room for self-reflection. All our attention is
used to perform the activity. Afterwards, we can look at ourselves and notice that we have
grown from the experience – our mind has been enriched with new skills and new
accomplishments.
8. Our perception of
time is altered
Our perception of time is

mainly based on perceived
changes around us, but
when the activity demands
our full concentration
there is no room to
register anything but the
activity itself. This can
make days feel like hours
and hours like minutes.
Summary
Games are activities that

we have specifically
designed to maximize the
amount of pleasure we get
from them. Games are our
StarCraft
way of having fun,
regardless of our current life situation. In games, we do not have to abide to the restrictions of
the ordinary world. We can create our own rules where our specific talents can be recognized
and rewarded – talents that would perhaps otherwise go unnoticed.
However, games are not just an activity – they are also many other things. This goes especially
for videogames. For example, the game StarCraft is not just about managing resources and
planning strategic moves with your game pieces. It is also about being a military leader in a
distant future, it is about stopping a flood of aliens that are trying to take over your world, it is
about treachery and deceit, and it is about doing the right thing and becoming a hero.
In the second part of this article, we will look at videogames specifically and see how we can
design games that are adjusted after the player's needs and desires.
Part Two – Designing for humans
Introduction
The core components of videogames are the learning and interaction, to recognize underlying
patterns, to understand how they fit together, to exercise control over them and to improve our
skills in doing so. But videogames also nest other types of media like text, sound, music,
storytelling, art and film for example. It's basically a mix of as many different types of media as
we care to incorporate. These media act in a supporting role to the somewhat abstract core,
providing it with a context and meaning that we can relate to, understand and enjoy.
As a whole package, videogames give us the ability to forget our worries for a moment and
transcend beyond our physical self to an imaginary, illusory world in which our unrealizable
desires can be realized. A world where we can experience new things, visit new places and be
someone else for a while. We exercise control over our environment and we are rewarded for
our efforts – and all of this without putting ourselves through any actual danger. We leave this
make-believe world with a strengthened sense of self-worth, with the feeling of having pushed
our skills to the next level. With this in mind it's easy to understand the captivating nature of
videogames and its growing appeal to the wider market.
The role of the game designer
The game designer's role is ultimately to create a product that caters for the needs, desires and
abilities of their target audience. This means to support, teach, nurture and reward the player.
To create an atmosphere where the player can feel comfortable and in control because they
trust you to not challenge them with anything that they have not yet been given the
opportunity to prepare for. Your role is to care for the players needs – give them exciting new
things to see, things to learn, skills to master and challenges to overcome. Don't bore them
with the stereotypes they've seen before – refresh them with new concepts, new ideas and new
experiences.
Designing for humans
So if videogames offer vast opportunities to entertain players, how can we maximize the
pleasure that players get out of our games? How can we make our games more fun? I think
that Marc Laidlaw from Valve Software put it quite well: “It's only half what you put into it; the
other half is what people get out of it”. In this last section of the article I will suggest some
steps that can be taken to help us create games that our audience will get the most out of.
1. Market analysis and user profiles

At some point in our life, we tend to somehow end up in the situation where we have to buy a
present for someone we don't know very well. It's quite difficult! We usually end up getting
them something like flowers, chocolate or wine – things that we know most people at least
don't dislike. And if they do, they can always give it to someone else if they should end up in
the same situation themselves. As a game designer, you are in a similar position if you attempt
to design a game for an audience that you don't know very much about. This is why we do
market analysis and create user profiles.
Creating user profiles is about interviewing people within your target audience to collect
information like age, gender, what they're good at, what their favorite games are, how much
they play, which movies they like, which music they listen to etc. This gives us various
information about our audience that we can use to create our user profiles. Once collected,
each different piece of information is put down as a dot on a user grid. Once all the people
we've interviewed have been mapped out on the grid, we can look at the grid to see where the
dots align. At this point we'll hopefully be able to distinguish some groups of people with similar
background, interests, skills and taste. We use the information about these people to create a
fictional typical user – a user profile – that becomes the representative for their group. If you
have a wide target audience you will most likely create many different user profiles in order to
cover the many facets of your potential buyers. The user profile can be given a name like Bob,
Susan or John to help us treat them as real people during the design process. For example:
“Bob” can be our 27-year-old, middle class male that buys four games every year, plays
approximately four hours per week, likes sport games, likes to play compete against his friends
etc. During the design process we can bounce our different ideas off “Bob” and the other
profiles to make sure that the game we create is something they will all enjoy. At a later point,
when the game is up and running we can bring in people that match our user profiles to see
how well our design works with them in practice.
When we are interviewing our target audience it is very important that we do not forget that
people's interests, skills and taste reflect their needs, desires and past experiences. If we can
understand why they like the things they do, we can perhaps figure out more effective ways of
pleasing them. We may also realize that people who seem very different on the surface may
have more in common than we think. Therefore, it is crucial that we ask the types of questions
that can give us replies from which we can extract this information.
I should mention that it might not always be wise to ask the audience directly what type of
game they would want you to make. Most people don't know what they want until they see it.
However, if the person you are interviewing has good knowledge of games and game design,
they may be able to provide some very valuable input. There are many people out there with
great ideas for games – Counterstrike, Desert Combat, Natural Selection and Day of Defeat are
all examples of great game mods that were created by players. If we do not listen to these
people, chances are that we will miss out on some great ideas.
2. Game width
What I mean with “game width” is basically how many different needs and desires the game
touches upon. If we cater for a wide array of needs and desires we will potentially be able to
reach a wider audience. The Sim- and GTA series are successful examples of this where a great
variety of needs and desires are represented in an open structure, and it's left to the player to
decide which ones they want to pursue.
However, catering for many
needs and desires does not
necessarily mean fulfilling
needs and desires – we are
much more specific than that.
We have to look at the specific
interests of our target audience
and what they can relate to. If
the game's setting or style is
not something they find
appealing – or if it is something
they do not understand – then
they can easily be put off by it,
regardless of whatever other Prince of Persia - The Sands of Time
qualities it has. Prince of Persia
– The Sands of Time, is an example of a game that was very good in many ways, but sold less
than expected because it turned out that many people had trouble relating to the main
character. In the sequel, one of the large changes made was to change the appearance of the
main character into something that people would find more appealing.
Creating a wide game is good in many ways but the more things we want to include in our
game, the more difficult and expensive it will become to make it. And if we don't have the
means to manage this, then it can have a negative effect on the quality of the game which in
turn may result in less “flow” for the player. What it all comes down to in the end is how much
money we want to (or can) invest, how much risk we are willing to take, and how much return
we seek from our investment. Wider games can potentially make more money, but they are
also riskier and more expensive to create. So in many ways it can often be more prudent to do
two, more narrow games instead of one wide game.
3. Imitation
Imitation is our inherent way of learning new things and we learn our earliest lessons by
imitation. As children we spend a lot of our time imitating action from our social surroundings
and incorporating them into our play. Symbolic play with imitation allows us to put into practice
what we have learned about people, objects, animals, right and wrong etc. This type of play
becomes one of our key methods of understanding the world around us since our language and
ability for abstract thinking is not yet fully developed. When we play, we often find special
interest in iconic personalities like superheroes, princesses, film- or book characters, athletes or
pop stars. This is because they are in a way the role models of our society. By imitating them
we learn about the values of our culture and form an understanding of what we should strive
for as adults. The icons that we choose to imitate are often the ones that we feel similar to, and
that we can relate to – this may be one of the reasons that Harry Potter is so popular among
children for example.
As we grow up, we still have role models that we imitate but perhaps in somewhat different
ways. In most cases when we imitate, the entertainment aspect has more significance to us
than the learning aspect. But why would we imitate if it wasn't to learn? The interesting side-
aspect of imitating a character is that we shift our mind into a state where the skills and traits
associated with this character can actually feel like skills and traits of our own. And like with
any activity – if we give it enough focus we become less self-absorbed, and the more real it can
feel to us. So if we want, we can imagine ourselves being a rock star and get our brain to
reward us for our imagined success in the music industry. We can basically fulfil needs in our
imagination that we may struggle with in our real lives.
Another interesting aspect of imitation is that when we become less aware of ourselves, we also
become less aware of our needs. This can just be a nice relief from our everyday worries, but it
can also reach the point where we let the needs of the character we are imitating take presence
over our own needs. A friend of mine told me a story about how he was playing The Sims one
night, and that he was worried because he had forgot to put his character to bed. The reason
he was worried was that if his character would oversleep the next day then the character may
lose his job. When he had finally managed to put his character to bed in the game, my friend
realized that it was 3:30 in the morning and that he himself had to go work in just a few hours.
Videogames often feature imitation, either in the form where you get to play as a certain
character or when you play as “yourself” but with a new set of skills and options that you may
not have in real life. When designing games it is important to remember that in most cases
when we choose which game to play, we don't just choose what we want to do, we also choose
who we want to be – and who we are is something we can be quite picky about. As designers
we need to listen to our target audience and learn which characters they find most interesting.
And if there isn't a consensus, perhaps the game will need to feature multiple characters that
you can choose from – or perhaps even let the player design their own character.
4. Emotional impact
A videogame is built from an abstract core game with actions, patterns, rules and objectives
that are visualized and explained through various media. Over the years as technology has
moved forward and enabled us to do more things, these media have come more and more into
focus – as it stands now, they are an essential part of what we regard to be a videogame.
Game design today has become very much about finding interesting new ways for game and
media to work together and complete each other. What's interesting about these different
media is that even though they affect us in different ways, they have a lot in common in the
way in which they affect us. Each media can deliver an emotional impact on their own, but our
emotional response to the climax of a musical piece can be very similar to how we feel when we
are about to beat our previous track record in a racing game. So if we can trigger them
together for the same effect at the same time, we can reach higher peaks of enjoyment. This is
in no way a novel idea, but the difficulty can lie in successfully judging the emotional state of
the player at a given time.
The game Burnout is a good example of this where game and media work closely together to
maximize the impact of the experience. In Burnout, the more skilfully you play, the more nitro
fuel you are awarded, and the more nitro fuel you have, the faster you can go. Your speed (i.e.
skill) is then linked to the sound- and visual effects so that you get more spectacular effects the
faster you drive. There's basically a connection between the emotional impact of driving skilfully
and the emotional impact of the sound- and visual effects.
5. The pleasure of learning
The human mind can handle and interpret seven different sensory impressions at the same
time. During one second we can handle as many as 125 different sensory impressions. Different
activities require us to process different amounts of impressions – for example, we need to
process 40 impressions per second in order to understand what someone is saying. If too many
people are talking at the same time, we will get an overflow of input which may result in us not
being able to understand any of them. However, the brain has an extraordinary ability to
simplify large quantities of information into models that it can process much easier. For
example, the first time we drive a car most of us have trouble focusing on anything else than
just driving the car. But after a while when our brain has been able to process the information
and simplify it into models, we can pay more attention to other things, like the traffic or road
signs.
We go through the same process with everything we learn. When we get a sensory impression,
we try to make sense of it by seeing if we have a model to support it. If we don't have a model
we try to acquire some more information about it so that we can figure it out. Once we have
gathered enough information, our brain can complete the model.
This desire to understand, to seek new knowledge and build or revise models is the reason that
we enjoy hearing stories, reading newspapers and watching movies. But it is interesting to see
how we have been able to make these media more entertaining by adapting them to the way
we learn. One thing we often play on is the desire to acquire more knowledge once we've seen
something we do not fully understand. For example, a typical episode of CSI will start with the
investigators finding someone murdered. Immediately our brain tries to figure it out - How did
this happen? Who was she? Who did it? Why did they do it? In the remainder of the episode we
follow the investigators as they secure evidence, interrogate people and find clues. We get to
see some possible suspects and we start guessing who it might be. Towards the end of the
episode, the final pieces of the puzzle are unravelled and we can finally complete our model for
the murder that we saw in the beginning. If the episode would instead have started with a
confession from the murderer, it would not be as interesting.
When we design games we often seem to forget this. Instead of letting the player decide what
they need to learn, and how long they need to practice, we push them through obligatory
tutorial courses where they get to spend as much time with the things they already know as
with the things that they have never tried before. We let them play two similar levels in a row
where the second one just has more enemies - it's not a greater challenge, it just takes longer
to complete. We have a background story that they can figure out almost immediately. We
have control schemes so awkward that the player may never master them. We use
stereotypical characters that the player has seen a million times before, making it impossible
for the player to find any interest in them. We have to keep in mind that games too are
learning experiences and the enjoyment of a game is closely tied to how the learning aspect is
featured and catered for. Just do not forget that the player still needs something they can
relate to – unimaginative games with stereotypical characters will always sell more copies than
an original game with a setting, character or gameplay that the player has trouble relating to.
6. Pacing and difficulty
As players we want to experience new things, we want to constantly improve our skills, and we
want challenges to overcome. But we don't want new challenges until we have had the chance
to improve our skills enough to overcome the last challenge, and we don't want to experience
new things if we have not yet processed our last experience. Some people want a game to be
so difficult that they have to fail a couple of times before succeeding, while others want to make
it the first time. Some people have an easy time learning new control schemes, while it takes
longer for others. So how can we make a game where the challenge, difficulty and pace works
for everyone? I think that there are different solutions for different problems here.
Self-regulated pace
Why not let the player set the pace themselves? Call of Duty is a good example of this, where
the player decides how fast they want to progress through the levels. If they move forward at a
high pace they will be engaged by multiple enemy soldiers at the same time, but if they
progress slowly they can pick them off one at a time. This means that the player has the ability
to adjust the difficulty and pace after their own taste. Racing games are quite obvious examples
of this, where you essentially just drive as fast as you can. If you feel that you are starting to
lose control, you just slow down.
Difficulty setting
Many games have a difficulty setting which is a good step towards adjusting the game to the
player, but it can often fall short since difficulty is something very subjective. If I choose easy,
how easy will it be for me? How hard is hard? One game played on easy level may be just as
difficult as another played on normal, and one player may find easy to be quite hard, while
another finds it to be too easy. Many players have trouble deciding which one to choose, and
instead of choosing the appropriate level for their skill, they choose easy just to be on the safe
side. This means that they may very well ruin the game for themselves, since the game will
never pose any real challenge to them.
Some games let you change difficulty level between missions, which is another step in the right
direction. But how many people do actually change the settings unless the game is too hard? If
everything is going fine (although it may perhaps be a bit too easy) why mess with the
settings? It can often be more important for us to avoid failure than to pursue the possibility of
making the game more enjoyable.
Dynamic adjustments
The only way for a game to be truly easy or hard regardless of who is playing is for it to have
ways of constantly measuring the skill of the player and adapt the opposition dynamically. This
is something that is probably featured in more games than we would think, since the whole
purpose of it is to not be seen. A good example of this is the first time I played Quake 3. I had
never played it before and decided to set up a quick death match game with just one AI-bot
against me. I chose the intermediate level of difficulty, and the rules where that the first one
with twenty frags would win. The game started and the AI-bot started killing me over and over
again. I tried to find better weapons and figure out new tactics, but it didn't do much to help
me. After a few minutes, the score was 17-0 to the AI-bot, but at that point I was beginning to
see some improvements in my skills. A few seconds later I became completely ecstatic as I got
my first frag. It was payback time! After that the frags just kept rolling in - I was killing him
over and over again, and I felt like the hero of a movie that rose against the evil dictator in the
last act. Soon the score had turned to 19-19 and it was very exciting. I finally got the last kill
and won the game, which was an incredible climax. It was astonishing how I was able to
improve my skills so fast, and turn the tide so that I managed to beat him in the end. What an
accomplishment on my behalf!
But as you may have guessed by now, all was not what it seemed. I decided to test the AI
system to see if there was any built in functionality to modify their behavior after the player. I
let the AI-bot kill me 17 times in a row without fighting back, and that's when I realized that
the more times I was killed, the less accurate their firing became. After 19 kills, my once
worthy opponent was merely a half-wit that mostly seemed to enjoy standing still and staring
into walls. It had not been my skills that had improved in my first game, but instead the AI-
bot's skills that had deteriorated. I had just been too caught up in the moment to realize it.
However, this experience made me realize what an extremely powerful tool this was. The game
would never have been as fun for me without it, and I'm sure that many games would be more
fun with it included. I still believe that there is a need for a difficulty setting in games, even if
the difficulty is adjusted dynamically after the player. The reason for this is that some people
enjoy themselves most if they have to try a couple of times before succeeding. Others enjoy
themselves more if they make it in their first attempt. Both people enjoy challenges, but they
should be allowed to choose just how challenging it should be.
Final words
A game is not great for just one reason – it is great for hundreds of reasons. If many of these
reasons are unknown to us, the only way for us to make a great game is by trial and error.
With better insight into how our mind works when we play games, and a better understanding
of what we seek in our game experience, we can gain more control over the design and the end
quality of the game. We have to realize that making a great game is not about which features
and components to add – it is about what those features and components do for the player. We
have to learn not to underestimate how important certain aspects of the design are to the
player – for example, difficult controls alone can transform any great game into a meaningless
activity. We have to remember that we do not make games for ourselves – we make them for
the player.
If you would like to know more about the subject of this article, I would like to recommend the
books listed below:
Abraham Maslow
Motivation and Personality
Jean Piaget
The Psychology of Intelligence
Bernard J. Baars
In the Theater of Consciousness: The Workspace of the Mind
Mihály Csíkszentmihályi
Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience
Roger Caillois
Man, Play and Games
Raph Koster
Theory of Fun for Game Design
Robert McKee
Story: Substance, Structure, Style and the Principals of Screenwriting
David Freeman
Creating Emotion in Games: The Craft and Art of Emotioneering™
Astrid Palm Beskow, Jan Beskow, Teresa Miró

Kognitiv Psykoterapi och Medvetenhetsutveckling (Swedish)
Johan Cullberg
Dynamisk Psykiatri (Swedish)
Copyright © 2004 CMP Media Inc. All rights reserved.
Gama Network Presents:
My "Next" Games: Families, Psychology, and

Murder
By Ernest Adams
Gamasutra
August 8 , 2001
URL: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010808/adams_01.htm
"What's your ideal game? If you could work on any kind of game you wanted to, what would
your next game be?"
They're classic interview questions, of course, and in my role as a columnist I also hear them
fairly frequently from readers and the press. I don't have an ideal game; that's a little like
asking, "What is your ideal movie?" or "What is your ideal piece of music?" The interactive
medium is capable of an infinity of games, and no one of them can possibly be ideal. The most
elegant action game I've ever seen is Tetris, but that doesn't make it my ideal game or even
my ideal action game. The action game I've most enjoyed playing is Tempest, the old Atari
coin-op, but I wouldn't say that it was "ideal" either.
The second question, however, is more interesting. If I could work on any kind of game I
wanted to and time, money, and resources were no object, I would design a sweeping fantasy
epic of ancient India, filled with gods and demons, battles, intrigue, and high adventure. It
would be a combination of RPG and wargame, and you could play it from several different
perspectives: as the wise old general, the naïve young king, the evil vizier, the king's tyrannical
mother, his brave older sister, his bitter younger brother, and so on. It would have many
opportunities for great daring, noble sacrifice, evil plotting and grand strategy. There would be
courage and compassion, treachery and terror, heartwrenching moral dilemmas and moments
of high exhilaration. Its aim would be to touch your heart and to bring the magical world of
Indian folklore to life in your mind. It would also cost at least five million dollars to do properly,
and take two to four years to build. It's unlikely that any but an Indian company would take the
risk to fund it, and I would certainly have to do a lot of research. Educating myself about the
subject would be one of the chief joys of designing the game.
Dream game: An epic of ancient India, filled with gods and
demons, battles, intrigue, and high adventure.
However, that's just the game I would build if I had all the money in the world. Even then it
would be fairly traditional, and would break new ground chiefly in the area of its setting and
subject matter, not in its overall goals. The average gamer would understand what it was about
and how to play it pretty quickly.
If I were to design a truly new game, I would try to make it something never before seen at all.
You'll notice that in the game I described above, the player would be given the opportunity to
play one of several different members of a family or their close confidants. The family is a
central structure in all our lives, dominating our emotions and profoundly influencing the way
we live. It's a human universal: although the family has many, many different structures
around the world, every single human being on the planet was cared for (with greater or lesser
amounts of attention, skill and love) as a young child by someone. During that period we each
formed deeply-held expectations about familial roles and obligations, both for ourselves and
those around us.
I think there's a good reason that the gods of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, and many other
places were all related to one another. The gods could all have been independent, self-created
beings, each living alone and supervising his own areas of responsibility. But polytheistic gods
are humans by another name, and to appeal to the human soul they need human relationships.
And our ongoing fascination with the British royal family is due as much to the fact that they
are a family as to the fact that they are royal. Quiet, untroubled royal families like those of
Sweden or the Netherlands don't interest us much; it's those tempestuous British royals with
their pomp and ceremony, their petty infighting and their sex scandals that grab our attention.
Democracy undoubtedly makes for better, fairer governments than monarchy, but as
entertainment, democracy is as dull as ditchwater. In America we have two cable TV channels
devoted to the government, but I would bet cash money that if America had a channel devoted
to the British royal family it would get more viewers than both C-SPAN channels put together -
even though the British royal family has nothing to do with America.
This is also why the Mafia continues to be such a enduring subject of American fiction - witness
the success of The Sopranos. It's about families and their relationships. Criminal families are
great sources of dramatic tension because they have a lot of conflicts that don't occur in normal
families: the temptations of large amounts of ill-gotten money, the constant danger of being
caught, the pressure from the police to inform on other members of the family, homicidal
infighting over power and territory, and so on. Of course any criminal gang is going to face
those problems, but they don't have issues of family loyalty and obligation to complicate
matters further.
Criminal families are great sources of

dramatic tension because they have a
lot of conflicts that don't occur
in normal families
We seldom see families at all in computer games, much less the kind of difficult familial
interactions that I have just been describing. Family relationships have long been explored in
literature, but are very little explored in interactive entertainment. If I were going to try to truly
break new ground in this medium, this is where I'd start.
In the game that I would design, you would be playing the role of a forensic psychologist. The
gameplay would consist of a series of one-on-one interviews with the members of a large and
highly dysfunctional family, all of whom are colluding to cover up the murder of one of them by
another. Not a criminal family, just one in which someone has finally snapped and killed
someone else - goodness knows it happens often enough. For whatever reason, there would not
be enough physical evidence to solve the case. The object would be to untangle the facts of the
crime, in effect prying apart the family's story (or stories). In order to do this, you would have
to understand the relationships among the members, and those would not be simple. Even in
healthy families, most people's feelings are multilayered, and change with time and
circumstances. An event as catastrophic as a murder is bound to bring a lot of issues to the
surface - and cause a lot more to be suppressed in the face of police scrutiny. Only by
uncovering their real feelings about one another would you be able to arrive at the truth.
You'd play the game by asking questions and listening to the answers. You could interrupt an
interview at any time and switch to another member of the family, if one person's answer
raised a question for another one. There would be clues and red herrings, and of course a great
many lies. Some lies might conflict with others, which would let you know you were on the right
track, if you were paying enough attention to notice it. Certain members of the family would be
stronger or more level-headed than others, and some approaches would work better with some
than with others. You would have to observe everyone's reactions very carefully, and perhaps
take notes.
Ideally, the screen would show a view of whoever you were interrogating at the moment, with a
great many subtle facial expressions and body language for each person. If you were watching
closely enough, they would give you clues about what effect your questions were having on the
person's state of mind. If the project didn't have much money we could implement this with a
large number of photographs of real actors. If money were no object, we could create a 3D
model of a person with fully implemented facial expressions such as Jeff Lander described in his
Gamasutra article "Flex Your Facial Muscles." Unfortunately, 3D rendered people still don't look
much like real people (they're too symmetrical and their movements are too mechanical,
among other things), so that might harm the effect somewhat.
Each person's replies would be pre-recorded sound bites, or possibly artificially-generated

speech if the technology has gotten that far. At the moment, however, we're even farther
behind at generating the subtle nuances of tone in real speech than we are at generating subtle
facial expressions. Another and far cheaper approach, although somewhat lacking in subtlety,
would be to do the whole game in text. It would print out what the person said, what tone he
used, and how he looked when he said it. However, because words are clearer and more direct
than body language, the clues about each person's inner feelings could be a little too easy to
spot. If that proved to be the case, it might be better to stick only to questions and answers,
like a chat conversation. You would have to pick up cues from the person's vocabulary, a bit
like reading a Shakespeare play.
The questions themselves would be asked by assembling a sentence out of words from a menu,
and as time went on and you learned more, the menus would grow so that you could ask about
more and more things. As for the answers, obviously it would be wonderful to develop an entire
psychological model of a person with full sentence-generation capabilities, but that's the work
of a lifetime, if not several. In any case the goal of the project is not to develop new
technology, but to create a new kind of experience for the player, regardless of how that's
achieved. Although it's technologically uninteresting, I would probably just treat each person as
a very large finite state machine. Asking the same question would not always elicit the same
answer, however, because each person's "state" would change as the game progresses. The
response you get would depend on when you ask the question. If you ask, "Did you kill your
brother?" right at the beginning, the suspect is bound to shout "No!" Later on, once you've
delved into his psyche a little, you might get a different answer: "No… but I wanted to."
Now, undoubtedly there are a few pragmatical types reading this who are thinking, "Why build
this? Nobody would ever buy it." The game as described doesn't have much replayability,
either, but I don't think that's important. This isn't supposed to be a commercial product; it's an
experimental project to test the boundaries of what our medium can do. We need these kinds
of tests, and as we're now starting to see academic programs devoted to game development, I
hope more of them will appear. The nice thing about academic research is that it's not intended
for sale; it's intended to expand our understanding (although if it has commercial applications,
so much the better).
There's no shortage of games that are mysteries of one kind and another, but most of them are
solved by physical exploration and physical evidence. I haven't yet seen anything like what I've
described. My goal would be, to put it rather romantically, to allow the player to explore new
mysteries, the mysteries of the human heart.
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010808/adams_01.htm

Letters To The Editor: Submit A Letter 04.28.2005
View All Letters
Postscript to
Hejdenberg's
The
Psychology
of Games
article
A paper that begins
with Maslow's
hierarchy of human
needs theory will
win my favor nearly
every time, and
Anders
Hejdenberg's
excellent current
article published on
Gamasutra.com is
no exception.
Once a theory
taught in depth at
the post-graduate
level to introduce
certain theories of
human
communication,
Maslow's work is a
rock- solid
foundation upon
which to build a
serious and
thoughtful article.
From my own area

of professional
endeavor, and as a
life-long student
(and professional
practitioner) of the
arts and sciences o
human
communications
(with its own
unique vantage
point - akin to that
of psychology but
without all the
Freudian guilt-
trips), I write to
suggest a few
additional areas of
study that astute
game developers
can benefit from
mastering. What
follows are offered
as a supplement to
Hejdenberg's
excellent and
scholarly work.
They deal for the
most part with the
specific area of
human
communication
known as
interpersonal
communications.
I suggest game
developers would
benefit by obtaining
at least some
degree of
familiarity with
each of the many
theories that apply
to interpersonal
communications. I
recommend this
because
understanding the
unique perspective
of interpersonal
communications is
just as important to
game developers a
the purely
psychological
aspects discussed
by Hejdenberg.
After all, today's

computer games
with their
constantly
improving visual
and aural
components are
morphing into
interactive
mediums for
communicating -
both on an
interpersonal level
(through
competitive play)
and a mass
communications
level - as a new
media for
advertising.
The theoretical
knowledge of what
keeps humans
engaged in
relationships is
important.
Relationships are
fundamentally
dyads - where 2
people are engaged
in 2 way
communications in
an ongoing,
satisfactory, even i
not completely
pleasurable way.
Understanding the
motivating reasons
why we remain in
communication
with each other is
an essential
component of game
developer
knowledge.
A theory that I
especially favor is
known as the "the
exchange theory".
As it applies to
interpersonal
communications:
people will stay in
relationships (or,
communicating
with each other, or
playing a game)as
long as their
individual
perception is that
they are getting
more out of it (the
relationship, or the
game) than they
are putting into it.
Another way to
view it is that
human nature is at
its very core self-
oriented. People
engage in random
acts of selfishness
by their nature,
and no bumper
sticker is necessary
to remind us of it.
Ayn Rand, the
founder of the
philosophy known
as Objectivism, and
a widely read
novelist, is well
known for
authoring "The
Virtues of
Selfishness" thirty
some years ago.
Another
communications
tidbit is what this
writer first
theorized while in
graduate school at
Western Michigan
University - also a
good while ago.
"Nocera's Theory"
came to me as an
effort to condense
and simplify all I
had been exposed
to during my years
of intense post-
graduate study
there in
Kalamazoo. It is
still valid:
"everything
communicates
something."
Because it takes
time for a theory to
be proven or
disproved, and
subject to academi
processes like peer
review, over the
years I gave my
initial theory more
thought. This time,
however, I was
aiming towards a
goal of absolute
simplicity - like
E=MC2. (Short and
sweet and easy to
remember.) During
that time of
additional intense
reflection it dawned
on me, like the
fabled apple falling
upon Newton's
head, that I could
drop the word
"something" and
leave the world of
communications
with Nocera's Law:
"Everything
communicates!
(Note to the
studious: the
exclamation point
is essential. It adds
an element of
instantaneous proo
of the law itself.
Therefore, any
omission of the
exclamation point
is not truly
representative of
Nocera's Law.)
Finally, I will
conclude this with
two additional
recommendations
as a bonus for
those who are
serious enough
about their craft to
be reading this.
First, get the

complete
knowledge of left-
brain/right-brain
function. However,
keep in mind that
those widely
accepted
generalities are
subject to the
ubiquitous 80-20
rule. Thus, while
always applying to
a majority of
gamers, they will
never be applicable
to all gamers. (And
lefties, as well as
those who have
evolved (or maybe
regressed) into
being "whole-
brainers," - well,
we need love and
attention to our
needs and
proclivities, too!)
One last essential,

know that our ears
will direct our eyes
This is a critical,
but often
overlooked part of
our human nervous
system's hard-
wiring and
neurological
programming.
Think of it like this
we have descended
from the successfu
mating of
survivors. (See:
evolutionary
theory!) The sense
of hearing for early
man was essential
to survival of our
species. It would
often serve as our
first alert to
possible danger, or
a possible source o
food for early
hunters. Happily
those who had it
obviously survived
at least long
enough to mate -
and we, as their
descendents still
get along with
brains wired that
way.
So ears will always

tell the eyes where
to look, and not
vice versa.
Therefore, the aura
stimulation found in
better, or more
compelling games
should appear not
encoded to occur in
precise conjunction
with a visual event
- but, rather as the
precursor to the
visual. Experiment
with triggering the
sound a few
milliseconds in
advance both as an
alert and to draw
the eyes to where
and what might
next occur.
-Thomas Nocera,
M.A.
join | contact us | advertise | write | my profile

news | features | contract work | jobs | resumes | education | product guide | store
Copyright © 2003 CMP Media LLC
privacy policy | terms of service

Behavioral Game Design

By John Hopson
Gamasutra
April 27, 2001
URL: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010427/hopson_01.htm
Every computer game is designed around the same central element: the player. While the
hardware and software for games may change, the psychology underlying how players learn
and react to the game is a constant. The study of the mind has actually come up with quite a
few findings that can inform game design, but most of these have been published in scientific
journals and other esoteric formats inaccessible to designers. Ironically, many of these
discoveries used simple computer games as tools to explore how people learn and act under
different conditions.
The techniques that I'll discuss in this article generally fall under the heading of behavioral
psychology. Best known for the work done on animals in the field, behavioral psychology
focuses on experiments and observable actions. One hallmark of behavioral research is that
most of the major experimental discoveries are species-independent and can be found in
anything from birds to fish to humans. What behavioral psychologists look for (and what will be
our focus here) are general "rules" for learning and for how minds respond to their
Some common terms in behavioral
psychology as they apply to game
design considerations:
environment. Because of the species- and context-free nature
of these rules, they can easily be applied to novel domains such Reinforcer: An outcome or result,
as computer game design. Unlike game theory, which stresses generally used to refer to a reward.
how a player should react to a situation, this article will focus Examples: an experience point,
winning a level, a bigger gun.
on how they really do react to certain stereotypical conditions.
Contingency: A rule or set of rules
What is being offered here is not a blueprint for perfect games, governing when reinforcers are given.
it is a primer to some of the basic ways people react to Also referred to as a schedule of
reinforcement. Examples: a level
different patterns of rewards. Every computer game is implicitly every 1,000 experience points, a
asking its players to react in certain ways. Psychology can offer bonus level that is only available if
a framework and a vocabulary for understanding what we are you kill a certain opponent.
already telling our players.

Response: An action on the part of
the player that can fulfill the
Contingencies and Schedules contingency. This could be killing a
monster, visiting an area of the game
board, or using a special ability.
The concrete translation of "What are we asking of our
players?" is "What are our contingencies?" A contingency is a
rule or set of rules governing when rewards are given out. The anecdote about this discovery
(as passed to me by one of his students) is that one day B. F. Skinner ran low on the small food
pellets he gave the rats in his experiments. Rather than risk running out and having to stop
work for the day, he began to provide the pellets every tenth time the rats pressed the lever
instead of every time. Experimenting with different regimens of reward, he found that they
produced markedly different patterns of response. From this was born a new area of
psychology, and one that has some strong implications for game design.
The contingencies in computer games are more complex, but the analogy is clear enough. For
example, players in an RPG earn experience points to gain levels or collect bonus items to gain
extra lives. In an arcade-style game, power-ups appear at random intervals, or only when
certain conditions are met. As in any contingency, there are actions on the part of the
participant which provide a reward under specific circumstances. This is not to say that players
are the same as rats, but that there are general rules of learning which apply equally to both.
As in any contingency, there are actions

on the part of the participant which
provide a reward under specific
circumstances.
Ratios and Intervals
There are essentially two fundamental sorts of contingencies, ratios and intervals. Ratio
schedules provide rewards after a certain number of actions have been completed. For
example, a player might gain an extra life after killing 20 opponents. This would be called a
"fixed ratio" schedule, because the same number of kills is required every time. Other types of
ratios will be discussed later.
One of the most common contingencies found in games, fixed ratio schedules typically produce
a very distinct pattern in the participant. First there is a long pause, then a steady burst of
activity as fast as possible until a reward is given. This makes sense when one considers that
the very first action never brings a reward, so there is little incentive to make that first kill.
Once participants decide to go for the reward, they act as fast as they can to bring the reward
quickly.
The distinct pause shown under a fixed ratio schedule can be a real issue for game designers.
Having a period of time where there is little incentive to play the game can lead to the player
walking away. Additionally, the length of the pause is a function of the size of the ratio (the
number of actions required), so the more actions required the longer the pause. This means
that if the ratio increases over time, such as the increasing number of experience points
required to gain a level in Dungeons & Dragons, so does the pause. Eventually, the pause can
become infinite, and the player simply decides it's not worth it and walks away.
On the plus side, during the pause other, less rewarding activities often come to the fore. For
example, if players know it will take them a long time to gain their next level, they might take
the time to test a new tactic or try out different aspects of the game.
Killing opponents to gain experience

points and gain levels is one example of a
ratio contingency.
There are also "variable ratio" schedules, in which a specific number of actions are required, but
that number changes every time. A player might be required to shoot down approximately 20
enemy fighters to gain an extra ship, but the precise number is randomly generated each time.
It's important to note that the player does not know how many actions are required this time,
just the average number from previous experience.
Under variable ratio schedules, participants typically respond with a steady flow of activity at a
reasonably high rate. While not quite as high a rate as the burst under a fixed ratio schedule, it
is more consistent and lacks the pausing that can cause trouble. Since it's possible (though
unlikely) that the player can gain a life for shooting down only one enemy, there's always a
reason to go hunting.
In general, variable ratio schedules produce the highest overall rates of activity of all the
schedules that I'll discuss here. This doesn't necessarily mean they're the best, but if what
you're looking for is a high and constant rate of play, you want a variable ratio contingency.
On the other side of the coin there are interval schedules. Instead of providing a reward after a
certain number of actions, interval schedules provide a reward after a certain amount of time
has passed. In a "fixed interval" schedule, the first response after a set period of time produces
a reward. For example, the game might introduce a power-up into the playing field 30 minutes
after the player collected the last one.
Participants usually respond to fixed interval contingencies by pausing for a while after a reward
and then gradually responding faster and faster until another reward is given. In our power-up
example, the player would concentrate on other parts of the game and return later to see if the
new power-up had appeared. If it hadn't, the player would wander off again. Gradually the
checks would become more frequent as the proper time approached, until at about the right
time the player is sitting there waiting for it.
As in the fixed ratio, there is a pause that can cause problems for a game designer. Unlike the
fixed ratio, there is no sharp transition to a high rate of activity. Instead, there is gradual
increase as the appropriate time approaches. The pause remains, a period where player
motivation is low.
There are also "variable interval" schedules, where the period of time involved changes after
each reward. A counterpart to the variable ratio schedules, these also produce a steady,
continuous level of activity, although at a slower pace. As in the variable ratio schedule, there is
always a reason to be active. The power-up mentioned in the earlier example could reappear
immediately after being collected or an hour later. The motivation is evenly spread out over
time, so there are no low points where the players' attention might wander. The activity is
lower than in a variable ratio schedule because the appearance is not dependent on activity. If
the player looks for the power-up 1,000 times during the interval, it will appear no faster.
Experiments have shown that we are very good at determining which consequences are the
results of our own actions and which are not.
These are the basic building blocks, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Each
contingency is an arrangement of time, activity, and reward, and there are an infinite number
of ways these elements can be combined to produce the pattern of activity you want from your
players.
Special Cases
There are a few special cases in the study of contingencies that deserve special mention. First,
there are "chain schedules," situations where there are multiple stages to the contingency. For
example, players may have to kill 10 orcs before they can enter the dragon's cave, but the
dragon may appear there at random points in time. These schedules are most commonly found
in multi-stage puzzles and RPG quests, and people usually respond to them in a very specific
way: they treat access to the next stage of the schedule as a reward in itself. In the example
just mentioned, most players would treat the first part as a fixed ratio schedule, the reward
being access to the subsequent variable interval schedule.
Secondly, there is the question of what happens when you stop providing a reward, which is
referred to as "extinction." Say the player is happily slaying the dragon every time it appears,
but after a certain number of kills it no longer appears. What will the player do? The answer is
that behavior after the end of a contingency is shaped by what the contingency was. In a ratio
schedule, the player will continue to work at a high rate for a long period of time before
gradually trailing off. In a fixed interval schedule, their activity will continue to peak at about
the time they expect to be rewarded for a few intervals before ceasing.
As a general rule, extinction involves a lot of frustration and anger on the part of the subject.
We expect the universe to make sense, to be consistent, and when the contingencies change
we get testy. Interestingly, this is not unique to humans. In one experiment, two pigeons were
placed in a cage. One of them was tethered to the back of the cage while the other was free to
run about as it wished. Every 30 seconds, a hopper would provide a small amount of food (a
fixed interval schedule, as described earlier). The free pigeon could reach the food but the
tethered one could not, and the free pigeon happily ate all the food every time. After an hour or
so of this, the hopper stops providing food. The free pigeon continues to check the hopper
every 30 seconds for a while, but when it's clear that the food isn't coming, it will go to the
back of the cage and beat up the other pigeon. Now, the interesting thing is that the tethered
pigeon has never eaten the food and the free pigeon has no reason to think the other is
responsible for the food stopping. The frustration is irrational, but real nonetheless.
This simple experiment illustrates the
"avoidance" principal.
A related phenomenon, called "behavioral contrast," occurs in chimpanzees, among other

species. A chimpanzee is doing a simple task such as pulling a lever and is being rewarded with
pieces of lettuce, which they like to eat. After doing this for a while, one pull is rewarded with a
grape, which they really love to eat. On the next pull, the chimp is given lettuce again and they
get very upset, throwing the lettuce at the experimenter. They were perfectly happy with
lettuce before, but the presentation of the grape creates new expectations and when those
expectations aren't met, frustration and anger invariably results.
The moral here is that reducing the level of reinforcement is a very punishing thing for your
players and can act as an impetus for them to quit the game. It needs to be done carefully and
gradually, or there may be an undesirable backlash. This applies even to temporary reductions,
such as when killing orcs stops producing points but the player has not yet discovered that
trolls can be killed instead. Sudden loss of reward is very aversive and should be avoided when
possible.
A final special case that bears mentioning is what is called "avoidance," contingencies where the
participants work to keep things from happening. A simple laboratory example involves a rat in
a cage with a small lever. Every so often, a small shock (on the order of a static discharge from
a walking across a carpet) is given through the metal floor of the cage. However, if the rat
presses the lever, the shock won't happen for at least 30 seconds. The rat quickly learns to
press the lever at a slow, steady rate and thus prevent the shock from occurring.
The best game example of this I know of is in Ultima Online, where players who own castles or
houses are required to visit them regularly or they'll start to decay. As in the laboratory
example above, you have participants who are working to keep things from happening, to
maintain the status quo. This is a relatively cheap strategy from the point of view of game
developers, since they don't have to keep providing the player with new toys or rewards.
Contingencies have been a major tool in psychology for more than 50 years, so there are a
wide variety of special cases and unusual schedules. These three are just a sample of some
special cases that are particularly applicable to game developers.
Recipes
To help drive home the ideas I've discussed, here are some simple formulas of what
contingencies to use to achieve specific results. These are not the only ways to solve these
problems, but they are simple, reliable, and very effective.
How to make players play hard. Translated into the language we've been using, how do we
make players maintain a high, consistent rate of activity? Looking at our four basic schedules,
the answer is a variable ratio schedule, one where each response has a chance of producing a
reward. Activity level is a function of how soon the participant expects a reward to occur. The
more certain they are that something good or interesting will happen soon, the harder they'll
play. When the player knows the reward is a long way off, such as when the player has just
leveled and needs thousands of points before they can do it again, motivation is low and so is
player activity.
How to make players play forever. The short answer is to make sure that there is always,
always a reason for the player to be playing. The variable schedules I discussed produce a
constant probability of reward, and thus the player always has a reason to do the next thing.
What a game designer also wants from players is a lot of "behavioral momentum," a tendency
to keep doing what they're doing even during the parts where there isn't an immediate reward.
One schedule that produces a lot of momentum is the avoidance schedule, where the players
work to prevent bad things from happening. Even when there's nothing going on, the player
can achieve something positive by postponing a negative consequence.
Activity level is a function of how soon the

participant expects a reward to occur. The
more certain they are that something
good or interesting will happen soon, the
harder they'll play.
How to make players quit. In other words, under what circumstances do players stop
playing, and how can you avoid them? I've discussed two main conditions under which players
will stop playing. The first is pausing, where their motivation to do the next thing is low.
Motivation is relative: the desire to play your game is always being measured against other
activities. While they may have a high overall motivation to play your game, during play they're
comparing their motivation to do the very next thing in the game to all the other next things
they could be doing. If they've just gone up a level and know that they have an hour of play
before anything interesting happens, their motivation will be low relative to all the other
activities they could be doing.
One way around this problem is to have multiple activities possible at any given time. This
means that even if killing monsters becomes unrewarding, there are other activities within the
game that can take up the slack. If monsters are unprofitable, exploration may be better. The
player could take some time to improve their equipment or to practice a new tactic. Note that
this is the same phenomenon that led to quitting before, a drop in motivation in the main
activity raising the motivation of lesser activities. In this case, the lesser activities are also part
of the game, redirecting their attention within the game and maintaining a high level of play.
The other situation that can lead to quitting is the sharp drop in rate of reward which I
discussed in the chimpanzee example. Just like motivation, reward is relative. The value of the
current reward is compared to the value of the previous rewards. If the current reward is 10
times the last one, it will have a big impact on the participant. If the current reward is weaker
than experience has led them to believe, the player will experience frustration and anger.
Violation of expectations is perceived as an aggressive act, an unfair decision by the game's
creators. While the game can get more difficult over time, it's best to avoid sharp changes in
the rate of reward. This is particularly applicable to puzzle games, where the player may have
to spend hours on the same problem before moving on to the next. If the current problem is
sharply more difficult than previous puzzles, the player may simply walk away.
Conclusion
The application of general rules to a specific case is always tricky, especially in situations where
there is more than one type of contingency operating. Most experiments in behavioral
psychology are designed to illuminate a single phenomenon, like an X-ray revealing the bones
of an arm. The skin, muscles, and so on aren't shown, so the resulting picture is incomplete.
But even with just the bones, we can make a good guess about how the arm works, its
limitations and flexibilities. The behavioral principles discussed here should be understood to
have similar benefits and limitations. There are numerous other things that influence players,
but the basic patterns of consequences and rewards form the framework which enable all the
rest. By understanding the fundamental patterns that underlie how players respond to what we
ask of them, we can design games to bring out the kind of player we want.
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010427/hopson_01.htm
Beyond Psychological Theory: Getting Data that
Improves Games
By Bill Fulton
Gamasutra
March 21, 2002
URL: http://www.gamasutra.com/gdc2002/features/fulton/fulton_01.htm
How can I make my game more fun for more gamers?
This is the question for those who want to make games that are popular, not just critically
acclaimed. One (glib) response is to "design the games better." Recently, the idea of applying
psychological theories as a way of improving game design has been an increasingly popular
topic in various industry publications and conferences. Given the potential of applying
psychological theory to game design, I anticipate these ideas to become more frequent and
more developed. While I think using psychological theories as aids to think about games and
gamers is certainly useful, I think that psychology has much more to offer than theory. An
enormous part of the value of psychology to games lies in psychological research methods
(collecting data), not the theories themselves.
I should clarify some terms here. When I talk about "psychology," I do not mean the common
perception of psychology--talking to counselors, lying on the Freudian couch, mental illness,
etc. In academia, this kind of psychology is called "clinical psychology." In this paper,
"psychology" refers to experimental psychology, which employs the scientific method in
studying "normal populations functioning normally."
But before I talk about how psychological research methods can help improve games, I need to
first explain more about how psychological theories are helpful, and the limitations they have
with respect to game design.
Psychological theories can be useful, but data are more useful

All designers think about what people like, hate and want. Some designers may be consciously
using theories from psychology as part of the process to evaluate what people want, but most
designers probably just rely on their intuitive theories of what they perceive gamers want.
The risks of relying on intuitive psychology. What I call "Intuitive psychology" is the collection of
thoughts, world views, 'folk wisdom' etc. that people use to try to understand and predict
others. Some examples might make this clearer--one common intuitive psychological belief
about attraction is that "opposites attract." However many people (and many of the same
people) also believe the opposite, that "birds of a feather flock together." Both of these ideas
have some merit and are probably true in some ways for most people. But given that they are
clearly conflicting statements, it is unclear which statements to believe and act on--which
statement is true? Or, more likely, when is each statement more likely to be true? Does the
degree of truthfulness for these statements vary by people? By situation? By both? The problem
with intuitive psychology is that many intuitions disagree with each other, and it is unclear
which world view is more likely to be right, if either of them are at all. You're just trusting that
the designer's theories are close enough to reality in that the design will be compelling.
The insufficiency of formal theories of psychology. Formal theories of psychology have been
subjected to rigorous testing to see when they map onto reality, and when they do not. In
order for a theory of psychology to gain any kind of acceptance, the advocates have to have
battled with some success against peers who are actively attempting to show it to be incorrect
or limited. This adversarial system of determining "truth" and reliable knowledge employs the
scientific method of running experiments and collecting data. Because of this adversarial
system, formal theories of psychology are more trustworthy than intuitive theories of
psychology--you know that they are more than just one person's unsubstantiated opinion about
what people want.
But while theories of psychology from academia can be quite useful as a lens to examine your
game, their limitation is that they are typically too abstract to provide concrete action items at
the level designers need. This lack of specificity in psychological theories hasn't really hurt
designers too much, because in the most part designers (and people in general) have a decent
enough idea of how to please people without needing formal theories. I think very few people
had light bulbs go on when they learned that Skinner's theory of conditioning stipulates that
people will do stuff for rewards. But the work that Skinner and others did on how to use
rewards and punishers well in terms of acquisition and maintenance of behaviors can be
enlightening. But academic theories of psychology don't get granular enough to tell us whether
gamers find the handling of the Ferrari a bit too sensitive.
An example of why academic theories of psychology aren't enough is in order. Skinner's

Behaviorism is probably one of the most well-defined and supported theories, and the easiest to
apply to games. (In fact, John Hopson wrote an excellent article in Gamasutra in April 2001
demonstrating how to analyze your game through behaviorism's lens.) One of Hopson's
examples is about how players in an RPG behave differently depending upon how close they are
to reinforcement (e.g., going up a level, getting a new item, etc.). He talks about how if
reinforcers are too infrequent, the player may lose motivation to get that next level. However,
how often is not often enough? Or too often? (Who wants to level up every five seconds?) Both
"too often" and "not often enough" will de-motivate the player. Designers need to find a 'sweet
spot' between too often and not often enough that provides the optimal (or at least a sufficient)
level of motivation for the player to keep trying to level up. Theory may help designers begin to
ask the more pertinent questions, but no theory will tell you exactly how often a player should
level up in three hours of play in a particular RPG games.
Beyond Theory: the value of collecting data with psychological methods

So I've argued that the psychological theories (both intuitive and academic) have limitations
that prevent them from being either trustable or sufficiently detailed. Now I'm going to talk
about what IS sufficiently trustworthy AND detailed--collecting data with psychological
methods. Feedback gleaned via psychological testing methods can be an invaluable asset in
refining game design.
As I said at the beginning of this paper, the central question for a designer who wants to make
popular games is "how do I make my game more fun for more gamers?" and that a glib
response is to "design the games better." Taking the glib answer seriously for a moment, how
do you go about doing that? Presumably, designers are doing the best they can already. The
Dilbertian "work smarter, not harder" is funny, but not helpful. The way to help designers is the
same way you help people improve their work in all other disciplines--you provide them
feedback that helps them learn what is good and not so good about their work, so that they can
improve it.
Of course, designers get feedback all the time. In fact, I'm sure that many designers sometimes
feel that they get too much feedback--it seems that everyone has an opinion about the design,
that everyone is a "wannabe" designer (disguised as artists, programmers, publishing execs,
etc.), as well as everyone's brother. But the opinions from others often contradict each other,
and sometimes go against the opinions of the designer. So the designer is put in the difficult
situation of knowing that their design isn't perfect, wanting to get feedback to improve it, and
encountering feedback that makes sense, yet is often contradictory both with itself and with the
designer's own judgment. This makes it difficult to know what feedback to act on. So the
problem for many designers is not a lack of feedback, but an epistemological problem--whose
opinion is worth overruling their own judgment? Whose opinion really represents what more
gamers want?
Criteria for good feedback and a good feedback delivery system

Before launching into a more detailed analysis of common feedback loops and my proposed
"better" one, I need to make my criteria explicit for what I consider "good" feedback and a
good feedback delivery system. The addition of "delivery system" is necessary to provide
context for the value (not just accuracy) of the feedback. The criteria are:
1. The feedback should accurately represent the opinions of the target gamers. By "target
gamers," I mean the group of gamers that the game is trying to appeal to (e.g., driving
gamers, RTS gamers, etc.) If your feedback doesn't represent the opinion of the right
group of users, then it may be misleading. This is absolutely critical. Misleading feedback
is worse than no feedback, the same way misleading road signs are worse than no signs
at all. Misleading signs can send folks a long way down the wrong road.
2. The feedback should arrive in time for the designer to use it. If the feedback is perfect,
but arrives too late (e.g., post RTM, or after that feature is locked down), the feedback
isn't that helpful.
3. The feedback should be sufficiently granular for the designer to take action on it. The
information that "gamers hate dumb-sounding weapons" or that "some of the weapons
sound dumb" isn't nearly as helpful as "Weapon A sounds dumb, but Weapons B, C, and
D sounds great."
4. The feedback should be relatively easy to get. This is a pragmatic issue--teams won't
seek information that is too costly or too difficult to get. Teams don't want to pay more
money or time than the information is worth ($100k and 20 person hours to learn that
people slightly prefer the fire-orange Alpha paint job to the bright red one is hardly a
good use of resources.)
The first criterion is about the accuracy of the feedback which is critical; the rest are about how
that feedback needs to be delivered if it is going to be useful, not merely true.
Common game design feedback systems and their limitations
There are many feedback systems that designers use (or, in some cases, been subjected to).
Most designers, like authors, recognize that they need feedback on their work in order to
improve it-- few authors have reason to believe that their work is of publishable quality without
some revision based on feedback. I'm going to list the feedback systems of which I am aware,
and discuss how good of a feedback delivery system it is. There are two main categories of
feedback loops: feedback from professionals in the games industry, and from non-professionals
(i.e., gamers). While these sources obviously affect each other, it is easier to talk about them
separately
Feedback from Professionals in the games industry

There are two main sources of this kind of feedback:
1. Feedback from those on the development team. This is the primary source of feedback
for the designer--people working on the game say stuff like "that character sucks" or
"That weapon is way too powerful." This system is useful because it ably suits criteria
two through four (the feedback is very timely, granular enough, and easy to get), but
still leaves the designer with a question mark on criteria one--how many gamers will
agree that that weapon is way too powerful
2. Feedback from gaming industry experts. Game design consultants ("gurus"),

management at publishers, game journalists, etc. can also provide useful feedback.
While their feedback can often meet criteria three (sufficiently granular), criteria two
(timely) is sometimes a problem--long periods can go between feedback, and
recommendations can come after you can use it. And the designer is still left with
questions about criteria one (accurately represents gamers), although some could argue
that they may be more accurately representing gamers because they have greater
exposure to more games in development.
So while feedback from professionals is the current bread and butter for most teams and
definitely nails criteria two, three and four, it operates a great deal on faith and hope on
criterion one--that the feedback from industry professionals accurately maps onto gamers'
opinions. The reason this assumption is questionable is perhaps best illuminated by a simple
thought experiment--how many games do you think a typical gamer tries or sees in a year?
How many do you think a gaming industry professional tries or sees? They are probably
different by a factor of ten or more. Gaming industry professionals are in the top 1 percent in
knowledge about games, and their tastes may simply be way more developed (and esoteric)
than typical gamers' tastes. While some professionals in the industry are probably amazingly
good at predicting what gamers will like, which ones are they? How many think they are great
at it, when others disagree?
So while feedback from industry professionals is necessary when designing the game, they may
not be the best at evaluating whether gamers will like something. In the end, they can only
speak for themselves.
Feedback from Non-professionals

Game teams are not unaware of the problem of their judgment not always mapping onto what
most gamers really want. Because of this, they often try to get feedback from those who are
more likely to give them more accurate feedback, and the obvious people to talk to are the
gamers themselves. Some common ways that this is done are listed below, along with some
analysis of how good a feedback system it is according to the four criteria.
1. News group postings/Beta testing/fan mail. This is reading the message boards to see
what people say about the game. The main problem with this as a feedback system is
with criteria two (timely). The game has to be able to be fairly far along (at least beta, if
not shipped) in order to get the games to people; typically, that feedback arrives too
late to make any but the most cosmetic of changes. Also, the feedback often runs into
problems of not being sufficiently granular to take action on. ("The character sucks!")
But at least this kind of feedback is relatively cheap in both time and money.
2. Acquaintance testing. This is where you try to get people (typically relatives, neighbor's
kids, etc.) from outside the industry to play your game and give you feedback. This
feedback is often sufficiently granular and may be relatively accurate, but it is often not
that timely due to scheduling problems, and can be costly in time.
3. Focus groups/Focus testing. This kind of feedback system is typically done by the
publisher, and involves talking to small groups (usually four - eight gamers) in a room
about the game. They may get to see or play demos of the game, but not always. One
typical problem with focus groups is that often tend to happen very late in the process
when feedback is hard to action on (not timely) and not sufficiently granular. The costs
for focus groups can also be quite high.
This approach has potential to be useful, in that it involves listening to gamers who aren't in the
industry. However, there are many pitfalls to this--It is often dubious as to how accurately the
feedback represents gamers due to the situations themselves (only certain kind of people post
messages, people feel pressured to say positive things, the people running the test often lack
sufficient training in how to avoid biasing the participants, etc.), and the relatively small
number of people. How to minimize these concerns and create a feedback system that works
on all four criteria is discussed in the next section.
Designing a better feedback system
Up to this point, I've mostly been criticizing what is done. Now I need to show that I have a
better solution. I'm going to outline some of the key factors that have allowed Microsoft to
develop a feedback system that we think meets the four criteria that I set up for a "good"
feedback system. We call this process of providing designers with feedback from real users on
their designs "user-testing," and the people who do this job "user-testing specialists."
The importance of using principles of psychological testing. Experimental psychology has been
studying how to get meaningful, representative data from people for over 70 years, and the
process we use adheres to the main principles of good research. This is not to say that all
psychological research is good research any more than to say that all code is good code;
researchers vary in their ability to do good research the same way that not all programmers are
good. But there are accepted tenets of research methodology that have been shown to yield
information worth relying on, and our processes have been designed with those in mind. (For
the sake of not boring you senseless, I'm not going to attempt to summarize 70 years of
research on how to do research in this paper.) What I'm going to do instead is describe the
day-to-day work that the user-testing group at Microsoft does for its dev teams (both first and
third party).
The actual testing methods we use. The user-testing group provides three major services:
usability testing, playtesting, and reviews. These services are described in detail below.
1. Usability research is typically associated with small sample observational studies.

Over the course of 2-3 days, 6-9 participants come to Microsoft for individual 2-hour sessions.
In a typical study, each participant spends some unstructured time exploring the game prior to
attempting a set of very specific tasks. Common measures include: comments, behaviors, task
times and error rates. Usability is an excellent method to discover problems that the dev team
was unaware of, and to understand the thoughts and beliefs of the participant and how they
affect their interaction with the game. This form of testing has been a part of the software
industry for years and is a staple of the HCI (Human-Computer Interaction) field more so than
psychology. However, methods used in HCI can be traced to psychological research methods
and can essentially be characterized as a field of applied psychology.
2. Playtest research is typically associated with large, structured questionnaire

studies that focus on the first hour of game play. The sample sizes are relatively large
(25-35 people) in order to be able to compute reliable percentages. Each person gets just over
60 minutes to play the game and answer questions individually on a highly structured
questionnaire. Participants rate the quality of the game and provide open-ended feedback on a
wide variety of general and genre-specific questions. Playtest methods are best used to gauge
participants' attitudes, preferences, and some kinds of behavior, like difficulty levels. This form
of testing has a long history in psychology in the fields of attitudinal research and judgment and
decision-making.
3. Reviews are just another version of feedback from a games industry professional.
However, these reviews are potentially more valuable as the reviewers are user-testing
specialists, who are arguably have more direct contact with real gamers playing games than
other game professional. Their entire job is to watch users play games and listen to their
complaints and praises. Furthermore, teams often repeat mistakes that other games have
made, and thus experienced user-testing specialists can help teams avoid "known" mistakes.
The result of each of these services is a report is sent to the team which meticulously
documents the problems along with recommendations on how to fix those problems. Our stance
is that the development teams are the ones who decide if and how to fix the problems.
One noticeable absence in our services is "focus groups." Our belief (supported by research on
focus groups) is that focus groups are excellent tools for generation (e.g., coming up with new
ideas, processes, etc.), but are not very good for evaluations (e.g., whether the people like
something or not). The group nature of the task interferes with getting individual opinions,
which is essential for the ability to quantify the evaluations.
How this feedback system fares on the four criteria for a good feedback system. So, how does
the way we do user-testing at Microsoft stack up to the four criteria? Pretty well (in my humble
opinion). A recap of the criteria, and my evaluation of how we do on them is given below.
1. The feedback should accurately represent the opinions of the target gamers. We supply
reasonably accurate, trustworthy feedback to teams, because:
a. We have a large database of gamers (~12,000) in the Seattle metro area, who play
every kind of game. So we can almost always bring the right kind of gamers for each
kind of game.
b. We hire only people with strong backgrounds in experimental or applied psychology in

order to minimize the biases of the user-testing specialist. We also have a rigid review
process for all materials that get presented to the user.
c. We thoroughly document our findings and recommendations, and test each product
repeatedly, which allows us to check the validity of both our work and the team's fixes
over multiple tests and multiple participants.
2. The feedback should arrive in time for the designer to use it. We are relatively fast at
supplying feedback. The entire process takes about six days to get some initial feedback,
and about 11-14 days for a full report. If the tests are well planned, they can happen at
key milestones to maximize the timeliness of the feedback.
level of feedback in the reports is extremely granular, because the tests are designed to
yield granular, actionable findings. The user-testing specialist typically comments at the
level of which cars or which tracks caused problems, or what wording in the UI caused
problems. The recommendations are similarly specific. Usability tests typically yield more
than 40 recommendations, whereas playtest tends to have anywhere from 10-30 items
to address.
4. The feedback should be relatively easy to get. The feedback is relatively easy for the dev
team to get--they have a user-testing lead on their game, and that person sets up tests
for them and funnels them the results. However, the feedback is relatively inexpensive,
when compared to the multi-million dollar budgets of modern games. The total cost of
our operation is "substantial," but economies of scale make the cost per game relatively
small.
Vital statistics on the user-testing group at Microsoft
Group history: the usability portion of the user-testing group has been around in a limited
fashion since Microsoft entered the games business in earnest, in 1995. Funding was at a very
low level (one usability contractor and 30+ titles to support) until the Games Group began
investing more heavily in 1998 with the introduction of the Playtest group. The usability and
playtest group merged to form the user-testing group in 2000. The current user-testing
processes have been relatively stable since 1997 (usability) and 1998 (playtest).
Current composition of user-testing group: 15 FT user-testing specialists, 3-5 contract

specialists, 3 FT support staff. Almost all user-testing specialists have either two or more years
of graduate training in experimental psychology, or equivalent experience in applied psychology
and are gamers. All four founding members of the user-testing group are still with the group.
Amount of work: In 2001, we tested approximately 6500 participants in 235 different tests,
on about 70 different games. 23 of those games were non-Microsoft products. In 2002, we
expect to produce about 50 percent more than we did in 2001. From 1997 to Jan 2002, the
group has produced 658 reports on 114 products (53 Microsoft, and 61 non-Microsoft products)
representing the opinions of more than 15,000 hours of consumer reactions to games prior to
their release.
Special thanks to Randy Pagulayan and Ramon Romero for their help editing this article.
The Psychology of Choice
By John Hopson
Gamasutra
February 6, 2002
The play of any computer game can be described as a series of choices. A player might choose
the left or right hand tunnel, decide to skip this target and save ammunition, or play a fighter
rather than a mage. The total path of a player through the game is the result of a thousand
little choices, leading to success or failure in the game and to enjoyment or dislike of the game
itself. The principles underlying the choices players make and the way in which a designer can
shape those choices is a key component of game design.
As in my previous article, the kind of psychology discussed here is often called behavioral
psychology. This sub-field of psychology focuses on experiments and observable actions, and is
a descriptive rather than normative field of study. Instead of looking at what people should do,
it studies and tries to explain what they actually do. By understanding how people react to
different kinds of choices, we can design games that help them make the kind of choices that
they'll enjoy, and understand how some game designs can unintentionally elicit bad choices.
Maximizing
The most obvious thing to do when confronted with multiple options is to pick the choice or
pattern of choices that maximizes reward. This is the sort of solution sought by game theory,
one that mathematically guarantees the greatest level of success. While most players don't try
to work out the exact algorithms behind weapon damage, they will notice which strategies work
better than others and tend to approach maximal reward.
Usually, participants maximize when the choices are simple and deterministic. The more
complex the problem, the more likely they are to engage in exploratory actions and the less
likely they are to be sure that they are doing the optimal thing. This is particularly true in
situations where the contingency is deterministic. If the pit monster attacks every time the
player gets to a certain point, they'll quickly pick this up and learn the optimal point to jump
over it. If it attacks probabilistically, the player will take longer to guess what rules govern the
pit monster's attack.
While maximizing is the best thing for the player, it's probably not a good thing for the
designer. If the player is doing as well as it's possible to do, it implies that they've mastered the
game. It also means that the game has become perfectly predictable and most likely boring. A
contingency with an element of randomness will maintain the player's interest longer and be
more attractive. For example, subjects will generally prefer a 30 second variable interval
schedule (rewards being delivered randomly between zero and sixty seconds apart) to a 30
second fixed interval schedule (rewards being delivered exactly 30 seconds apart), even though
both provide the same overall rate of reward.
There is another, subtler problem with maximizing. As discussed in the previous article, sharp
declines in the rate of reward are very punishing for players and can result in quitting. If the
player has learned to maximize their reward in one portion of the game, creating a high and
consistent level of reward, moving to another part or level of the game will most likely result in
a drop in reward. This contrasting low level of reward is extremely aversive and can cause the
player to quit. It may even be an effective punishment for exploring new aspects of the game,
as the transition from the well understood portion to the unknown marks an inevitable drop in
rewards.
To avoid maximizing, there are two basic approaches. First, one can make sure that the
contingencies are never so simple that a player could find an optimal solution. The easiest way
of doing this is to make the contingencies probabilistic. Massive randomness isn't necessary,
just enough to keep players guessing and engaged. Second, the more options there are within
the game, the more things there are to compare, the less likely it is that there will be a clear
ideal strategy. If all the guns in the game work the same but do different levels of damage, it's
easy to know you have the best one. If one gun is weaker but does area damage and another
has a higher rate of fire, players can explore a wider variety of strategies. Once there is a clear
best way to play the game, it ceases to be interesting in its own right.
Matching
Once there are multiple options producing rewards at different rates, the most common pattern
of activity observed in humans and animals is matching. Essentially, matching means that the
player is allocating their time to the various options in proportion to their overall rate of reward.
More formally, this is referred to as the Matching Law, and can be expressed mathematically as
the following equation:
Let's say our player Lothar has two different areas in which he can hunt for monsters to kill for
points. In the forest area, he finds a monster approximately every two minutes. In the swamp
area, he finds a monster every four minutes. Overall, the forest is a richer hunting ground, but
the longer Lothar spends in the forest the more likely it is that a new monster has popped up in
the swamp. Therefore Lothar has a motive to switch back and forth, allocating his time between
the two alternatives. According to the Matching Law, our player will spend two-thirds of his time
in the forest and one-third in the swamp.
The key factor in matching is rate of reward. It's the average amount of reward received in a
certain period of time that matters, not the size of an individual reinforcer or the interval
between reinforcers. If the swamp has dragons that give Lothar 100 points, while the forest has
wyverns that give him only 50 points but appear twice as often as the dragons, the overall
rates of reward are the same and both areas are equally desirable.
Now that I've set up a dichotomy between matching and maximizing, let me confuse things a
bit. Under many circumstances, matching is maximizing. By allocating activity according to
rate, the player can receive the maximal amount of reward. In particular, when faced with
multiple variable interval schedules, matching really is the best strategy. What makes matching
important to our understanding of players is that matching appears to be the default strategy
when faced with an ongoing choice between multiple alternatives. In many cases, experiments
show subjects matching even when other strategies would produce higher rates of reward.
Matching (and switching between multiple options in general) also has the helpful property of
smoothing out the overall rate of reward. If there are several concurrent sources of
reinforcement, a dip in one of them becomes less punishing. As one source of points falls off, a
player can smoothly transition to others. A player regularly switching back and forth between
options also has a greater chance of noticing changes in one of them.
Overmatching, Undermatching, and Change-Over Delays
At its discovery, matching was hailed as a great leap forward, an example of a relatively
complex human behavior described by a mathematical equation, akin to physics equations
describing the behavior of elementary particles. However, it was quickly discovered that
humans and animals often deviated from the nice straight line described by the Matching Law.
In some situations, participants overmatched, giving more weight to the richer option and less
to the leaner option than the equation would predict. In others, the participants undermatched,
treating the various contingencies as more equal than they actually were.
Neither of these tendencies is especially bad for game design, in small quantities. As long as
the players are exploring different options and aren't bored, we don't usually care how much
time they spend on each. Extreme undermatching implies the player isn't really paying
attention to the merits of each option. Overmatching can mean that the player has chosen an
option for reasons other than merit, such as enjoyment of the graphics.
Fortunately for behavioral psychology, these deviations could be predicted and controlled. One
important factor in determining how closely participants match is the amount of time and/or
effort required to change between options. The farther apart the options are or the more work
is required to switch between them, the more players will tend towards overmatching. For
example, imagine a typical first person shooter game, in the vein of Quake or Unreal. If
switching from their current gun to a different one has a delay of 20 seconds during which they
can't fire, they'll switch from one to another less often than they would otherwise. Even if the
current gun isn't perfect for the current situation, the changeover cost might keep the player
from switching. If the delay is long enough, switching can become non-existent as the costs
outweigh any possible benefits.
At the other end of the spectrum is the case where changeover is instantaneous. Consider a
massively multiplayer game where monsters spawn periodically in various locations. Switching
between multiple spawning sites normally takes time, but suppose a player could teleport
instantly from one to another with no cost. The best strategy would be to jump continuously
back and forth, minimizing the time between the appearance of a monster and the kill. That
makes sure the player gets as many points as possible in a given period of time.
Obviously, neither of these extremes is really desirable for game designers. Ideally we want to
be able to adjust the time/difficulty/expense of changing strategies to strike just the right
balance exploration and exploitation. What that balance is has to be an individual choice, the
concept of a change-over delay is just a tool for achieving that balance.
Risk
Another important factor players consider in choosing between alternatives is risk. Game theory
says that players should weigh the options such that they'll maximize overall reward in the long
term. For each alternative, they should multiply the possible reward by the odds of receiving
that reward and choose the best option.
However, this article is concerned with what players actually do, not what they mathematically
should do. Psychologists generally use two terms to describe how subjects react to risky
situations. Subjects are risk-prone when they prefer the more uncertain alternative and risk-
averse when they tend towards safer options. In one experiment, pigeons were offered a choice
between two keys to peck. The left provided 8 pieces of food every time, the right provided 16
half the time and no food half the time. The pigeons consistently preferred the more reliable
schedule, and were therefore risk-averse. In a later study, the left key produced 3 bits of food
every time while the right key produced 15 one-third of the time. In this study, the pigeons
preferred the riskier alternative.
So far, this is perfectly in accord with game theory, with subjects taking risks when those risks
offer an overall greater chance of reward. But what about the example mentioned earlier in this
article, where subjects preferred a variable interval schedule to a fixed interval schedule? Even
when the two options provided equal rates of overall reward, subjects preferred the
probabilistic option. The difference lies in the expected outcome of each individual response. In
the pigeon experiment we just described, each choice was discreet. A peck, an outcome, and
the subject was presented with a fresh choice. Each choice contained the totality of possible
outcomes, so the subjects' behavior reflected the total contingency.
In the fixed-interval / variable-interval experiment, one could respond any number of times on
the fixed interval option but would not receive the reward until the interval had elapsed. On the
variable interval schedule, every single response had a small chance of being rewarded.
Therefore, there was always a reason to try the variable schedule, but only occasionally a
reason to respond on the fixed schedule. The subjects were responding to the proximate
outcomes, rather than the overall outcomes. This is an example of how subtle changes in the
schedule can cause drastic changes in behavior. Whenever we provide players with rewards,
we're creating a schedule of reinforcement that will influence them to behave in particular
ways. Because we can't avoid these effects, we have to understand them so that they can be
made to work for us, rather than against us.
Odysseus' Choice
One factor we haven't addressed yet is when the decisions are made. Many of the choices we
make in games don't have immediate effects, only helping or harming the player minutes or
hours down the line. A character might have to choose whether to take a potion that gives
them extra strength now or save it for later play. A player in a tank combat game might choose
a fast, lightly armored tank rather than a slower, better protected one. Not all choices are
followed by immediate consequences, and this delay often distorts the player's perception of
their options.
Take the situation where a person has two possible options, each with a different level of
reward. For example, a person might choose between receiving one piece of candy or two
pieces of candy. If the delays are equal, the person would naturally choose the one with the
larger reward. However, as the delay to the lesser reward decreases, the relative value of that
reward starts to rise. If someone is offered one piece of candy right now compared to two
pieces next year, most people would probably choose the more immediate reward.
Because he wanted to hear the Sirens but also make it home alive,
Odysseus ordered his crew to tie him to the mast and to plug their ears.
This kind of decision making is often studied in children, who tend to be more strongly affected
by these delays. However, its effects can be seen throughout life, from decisions about saving
money to the relative addictive qualities of recreational drugs. A drug which takes effect faster
will generally be more addictive than a slower one of equivalent strength.
A practical question arising from this research is under what circumstances do people tend to
make more accurate decisions. One of the answers that psychologists have discovered has a
parallel in an ancient Greek myth, Odysseus and the Sirens. Odysseus knew his boat was about
to sail near the place where the Sirens were singing and that anyone who heard them would
throw themselves into the sea in a vain attempt to reach them. Because he wanted to hear the
Sirens but also make it home alive, he ordered his crew to tie him to the mast and to plug their
ears with beeswax so they would not hear the call. In this way, his ship sailed safely past, his
crew unhearing of both the Sirens and his pleas to be untied.
Because he made the decisions at a long delay from both outcomes, his choice was a good one.
If he'd waited until the Sirens were right there and had to choose, his decision would have
maximized the short term happiness of listening to their song over the longer term reward of
making it home alive.
More generally, the more distant all of the outcomes are, the more people's choices tend to
maximize long-term success. Of course, you may not want players doing deep long-term
thinking. It's up to the designer what's best for his or her game, whether to skew the players
towards one option or another, towards one strategy or another. Delays between action and
outcome are just one of the tools available to influence how players choose.
Conclusion
To explain every choice a real human being makes would take a model as complex as the
human mind. Psychology cannot offer use that yet, but it can give us rules of thumb and
general patterns of choice that can describe a generous portion of what we do when presented
with multiple options. Every game offers its players a sequence of choices, each with attendant
consequences for choosing wisely or poorly. By understanding some portion of the rules that
govern how human beings react to those choices, we can design games that elicit the kinds of
choices that make the game a more enjoyable experience for the player.

SRC="http://as.cmpnet.com/js.ng/Params.richmedia=yes&site=game&affiliate=gamasutra&pag
By Jacob Habgood
[Author's Bio]
Features
Gamasutra
August 7, 2006 Compulsory Game
Development for Everyone
Children
I believe the games industry has a lot to lose from failing to train the game developers of th
future. Many of us from the present generation learned our craft from a very early age, on
the home computer systems of the 80’s. We were able to do this because these computers
came with their own novice programming languages and editable example games to help
get us started. Unfortunately this is no longer the case, so future generations of developers
are actually in danger of having a worse grounding than our own. Hopefully tools like
Game Maker can fill this gap and make sure that there is still a vibrant hobbyist community
to nurture young talent. Nonetheless, if we want to harness the best potential talent from
future generations, then children need to be given a chance to try game development for
themselves in clubs and schools.
I’m married to a teacher, so I’m well aware that the last thing they need is another
compulsory topic to add to their workload (the games industry may have a reputation for
long hours, but I can assure you that many teachers put in just as many!). However, game
development is such a multi-disciplinary field that it is can often provide a great way of
meeting existing curriculum requirements in a fun and engaging way. For example, here in
the UK there is a “Command and Control” ICT curriculum for 7-11 year olds, which is
often taught through activities involving computer-controlled traffic lights. My wife has
recently developed her own ‘scheme of work’ for teaching the same objectives by making
computer games with Stagecast Creator (see the resources page of Gamelearning.net). Oth
projects are trying to bring game development into the classroom as a way of inspiring
storytelling and traditional literacy skills. There are also numerous clubs and holiday camp
around the world that are already successfully teaching game development to children
outside of the school curriculum.
“Nile The Quartz Crystal”: If you want an original idea – ask a seven year old.
Consumers
Consumers may be the source of our industry’s success, but they are also the source of a
decent amount of frustration and bewilderment too. The fact is that consumers are an
unpredictable bunch; meaning that good games don’t always make money and bad games
can sell by the lorry load. Most children don’t end up working in game development, but
they do end up being part of a future generation of game consumers. Giving them a basic
understanding of game development would allow them to make more informed choices and
ultimately create a more discerning audience. This can only be good for innovation and
creativity in the development industry, and may even help publishers by creating a more
predictable audience that is seeking a quality gameplay experience. Of course there’s no
point trying to change consumers, if the people responsible for commissioning and selling
the games can’t respond to the change…
Publishers, Marketing Departments and Journalists
It may be more controversial, but I think there is also a strong argument for members of the
wider games industry being more literate in game development. It’s important to stress tha
I’m not trying to say that these groups don’t understand games, but just that they could gain
a deeper understanding of games from going through the process of making their own. To
be fair, many people in these areas already have development experience, but in an ever-
expanding industry a marketing executive is as likely to have made their career selling
cheese as computer games. If your marketing department don’t understand what gameplay
is then how can they be expected to sell it? All these groups deal with games professionally
so surely an understanding of them is as important to their jobs as knowing how to use MS
Project, Excel or Word. So why not have your next staff training day on game
development? If teenagers can do it then so can you…
Women
According to the ESA, some 38% of game players are female, but we all know that the
proportion of women working in game development is far less than that. In our experience,
girls up to about the age of eleven are just as interested in making games as boys, and we
get a very even split at the clubs. Unfortunately, by the time they reach their teens the
proportion of girls prepared to attend game-making workshops drops off completely. It
appears that by this age it is labelled as a boys activity and only the most independently
minded girls are willing to go against the flow. Bringing game development into schools
would give more girls a chance to try it out, without feeling they were doing something
wrong. They would then quickly find that they are just as good as the boys – if not better –
because girls usually listen to instructions! In fact, there are already initiatives like CC4G
(Computer Clubs for Girls) in the UK that are attempting to introduce game development t
girls. Nonetheless its clear that more needs to be done if the games industry wants to make
the most of the balance of potential talent that is out there for the future.
Society
The controversy over violent videogames is likely to remain a thorn in the industry’s side
for the foreseeable future, but everyone involved in the argument would benefit from a
deeper understanding of games. Parents could certainly have a better understanding and
awareness of game ratings, and legislators would benefit from a better understanding of
what they are arguing about. Making computer games with your child is a great way to
interact with them, and the perfect context to discuss issues such as violence and age rating
in a natural way. Making a game with appropriate content for their classmates makes a goo
pretext for exploring this issue, and you may both learn something from the experience.
PEGI in Europe and the ESRB in the US offer information on game ratings.
Producers and Game Designers
While there are some producers and designers who began their careers as programmers,
many will never actually have made a game by themselves before. Nonetheless their jobs
put them at the heart of the synthesis and evaluation feedback loop, so it would be unfair to
suggest that they couldn’t gain similar insights as their programming colleagues. However,
a good game programmer is constantly tweaking and refining a game and even the most
rigorous game design has some gaps that need to be filled. Consequently I believe that
many producers and game designers would still benefit from developing a complete mini-
game of their own. In particular I believe it would help to reinforce their understanding of
the mechanics of creating good gameplay, and maybe even provide a new platform for
prototyping their game ideas without having to rely on a programmer. Ultimately this can
only be good for game development and could even result in better games.
Academics
Games have finally become an area of serious academic study, with computer scientists,
sociologists, educationalists, and psychologists all getting in on the act. However, there wil
always be a certain animosity between theorists and practitioners in any field, for obvious
reasons. Many academics do create their own games as part of their research, but there are
plenty that do not – and getting research students to do it for you doesn’t count! The only
way to earn your development wings is to go through the holistic experience of designing
and making your own game from scratch. It doesn’t matter if the final product looks like
something from the 80’s; if you can make a game that someone else enjoys playing then
you’ve made the grade. With tools like Game Maker around there are no excuses for anyon
publishing work about computer games not to have been through the experience of
designing and making their own game!
“By actually making the game and thinking about game concepts like difficulty, I learnt jus
how many variables there are in even a small game which can be varied to change the
gaming experience. Although I have played a lot of games and experienced flow, I had
never really considered what the state was composed of or how different variables in game
could differentially give rise to it.”
Chris Dowsett, MSc Student at the LSRI
Conclusion
Games are affecting the lives and livelihoods of more and more people, and they are no
longer the preserve of a geeky minority. However, if you want to truly understand the
medium then you need to have a go at making one for yourself. It doesn’t require a
computer science degree and you won’t have to read a book the size of a telephone
directory. So stop what you’re doing, and try making a game for yourself.
Just don’t expect any respect from students!
References:
Bloom, B. (editor). 1956.Taxonomy of educational objectives: Book 1, Cognitive domain.

New York: Longman
Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston
Habgood, J., Overmars, M (2006). The Game Maker's Apprentice: Game Development for
Beginners, Berkeley (CA): APress

news | features | companies | jobs | resumes | education | product guide | projects | store

By Jacob Habgood
[Author's Bio]
Features
Gamasutra
Blooming Minds
Compulsory Game
Development for The argument I want to make is based on the premise that creating computer games gives
Everyone you a deeper understanding of games than you get from just playing them. Unfortunately, a
a game developer myself, this could just sound like I just want to present my own
Change Login/Pwd
Introduction occupation as superior to others connected with the industry. Consequently, I think it will
Post A Job
GameALiteracy help to back up my argument with some general theory that has been applied to learning in
Post Project
Benefits many different domains. The table below provides a hierarchy of educational objectives as
Post Resume
proposed by an educational psychologist called Benjamin Bloom (1956). There are few
Post An Eventin as:
Logged theories that are universally accepted in the learning sciences, but Bloom’s taxonomy
PostRalph
A Contractor
Noble broadly concurs with another one by Gagné (1985) and seems to have stood the test of time
Post A Product
as well as most. I’ve also tried to add relevant examples alongside each level to show how
Write An Article
No resume hosted. you might interpret these objectives in terms of understanding games.
Get In
[UploadArtResume]
Gallery
Submit News
Latest Letters to the Cognitive learning:
Editor:
RE: Persuasive  Knowledge – observe and recall factual information (e.g. Sly Racoon is a game
Games: How I about a master thief who goes around stealing things).
Stopped Worrying  Comprehension – understand the meaning of knowledge (e.g. Sly Racoon is part o
About Gamers And the action-adventure genre. These usually contain a mix of fighting, solving puzzles
Started Loving People and collecting items linked together by a story).
Who Play Games by  Application – apply knowledge in new situations (e.g. PacMan World is also an
Steven An action-adventure game so it probably involves fighting, solving puzzles and
[08.03.2007] collecting items linked together by a story).
 Analysis – identify and extract patterns in knowledge (e.g. both Sly Racoon and
Latin American Prince of Persia empower the player by allowing them to perform cool moves very
Game Development easily).
by Patrick Dugan  Synthesis – use old ideas to create new ones (e.g. create a sports game that
[07.26.2007] empowers the player by allowing them to perform cool moves very easily).
 Evaluation – reflecting on the success of ideas (e.g. did the system empower the
June NPD numbers -
PSP software by Carl
player without making them feel like they had lost control of the game?)
Observing, recalling and comprehending knowledge are considered the easiest educational
objectives to achieve, and this is the initial level of most children’s understanding of games
They are full of facts and opinions about games, and often have an appreciation of differen
genres, but they find it much harder to apply this knowledge in any useful way. This is mos
obvious when children try to design and create their own games for the first time. Children
can recognise and acknowledge flaws in commercial games such as being too hard, having
unclear objectives or limited interactivity, yet they frequently make these same mistakes
when creating their own first games. They are unable to turn the knowledge they’ve gained
from observing other games into a successful strategy for creating their own. This may also
explain why testing games on a consumer audience is often a reliable way of finding out
whether your game is good, but a poor way of getting suggestions on how to improve it. It’
common sense really to suggest that learning facts and making observations is easier than
applying what you’ve learnt to a new situation.
I bet he doesn’t look that engrossed in his English lessons. (Workshop photo ©2004 Jon
Jordan)
You might expect that older children would naturally progress to applying and analysing
their knowledge about games, but this hasn’t been my experience in practice. Teenagers
certainly progress up the hierarchy more quickly than seven year olds, but they begin by
making the same mistakes as younger children. Fortunately, making games provides a
context for not just applying and analysing knowledge about games, but synthesisand
evaluation as well. Synthesis and evaluation are considered a key part of developing
cognitive strategies, in this and a number of other learning theories. Children are not
naturally very good at reviewing and modifying their own work, but watching another chil
play their game creates an ideal means of self-evaluation. The children’s finished games
also provide a relevant context to go back and review their ability to apply and analyse the
knowledge they have gained from the experience. This is not to suggest that children gain
some kind of visionary insight after making their first game, but I believe they do develop
an appreciation of gameplay and design over a number of projects that they could only get
from developing games.
The Game Maker’s Apprentice
In effect, this is precisely what we’ve tried to put into practice in our book, “The Game
Maker’s Apprentice”. Mark Overmars and I have worked together to create a step-by-step
guide for building a series of motivating 2D games using Mark’s Game Maker tool. Each
set of projects is followed by a game design chapter that encourages the reader to take a ste
back in order to reflect and improve upon the design of an earlier game. We try to
demonstrate game design principles in a practical and relevant way by providing variations
of the games for the readers to play and experience for themselves. Combined with the
simplicity of the Game Maker tool this structure is ideal for supporting the reader through
the process of synthesis and evaluation that helps to deepen their understanding of games.
It contains lots of lovely colour illustrations too!
This understanding is essentially the basic psychology of games. It is an appreciation of the

interplay between concepts like challenge, control, goals and rewards in creating playable
game mechanics. It is understanding how a game needs to change in order to keep the
player’s interest through the course of its levels. It is recognising the need for a theatrical
threat of failure, whilst actually doing everything you can to help the player complete their
goals. These are all concepts you can read about in any number of books, but you will only
gain a true understanding by practically applying them for yourself. Game design is simply
not an abstract subject that can be learned in isolation. Phil Wilson, producer at Realtime
Worlds (and one of the best designers I’ve worked with), sums it up well in the foreword to
our book:
“[…] there's a world of difference between having a great idea for a game and being a grea
game designer. The initial idea is simply the seed from which the game grows, or the stone
from which the pillars are hewn. The role of a designer is to fully realize the vision:
conceiving and continually refining the various supporting mechanisms to make them mesh
like the components of a Swiss timepiece.”
Phil Wilson, Realtime Worlds
The cynics amongst you may be thinking that I’m only promoting game development to se
copies of our book, but it’s actually the other way around (I made far more money as a
senior programmer in the games industry than I do doing research in schools!). I’m
passionate about getting as many people as possible to have a go at game development,
mainly because it’s good fun, but also because there are potentially huge benefits for the
games industry too. Some of these are more controversial than others, but I’ll take each
sector in turn and explain what benefits I think an improved level of gaming literacy could
provide.
Benefi


By Jacob Habgood
[Author's Bio]
Features
Gamasutra
Children
Compulsory Game
Development for I believe the games industry has a lot to lose from failing to train the game developers of th
Everyone future. Many of us from the present generation learned our craft from a very early age, on
the home computer systems of the 80’s. We were able to do this because these computers
Change Login/Pwd
Introduction came with their own novice programming languages and editable example games to help
Post A Job
GameALiteracy get us started. Unfortunately this is no longer the case, so future generations of developers
Post Project
Benefits are actually in danger of having a worse grounding than our own. Hopefully tools like
Post Resume
Game Maker can fill this gap and make sure that there is still a vibrant hobbyist community
Post An Eventin as:
Logged to nurture young talent. Nonetheless, if we want to harness the best potential talent from
PostRalph
A Contractor
Noble future generations, then children need to be given a chance to try game development for
Post A Product
themselves in clubs and schools.
Write An Article
No resume hosted.
Get In
[UploadArtResume]
Gallery
Submit News I’m married to a teacher, so I’m well aware that the last thing they need is another
Latest Letters to the compulsory topic to add to their workload (the games industry may have a reputation for
Editor: long hours, but I can assure you that many teachers put in just as many!). However, game
RE: Persuasive development is such a multi-disciplinary field that it is can often provide a great way of
Games: How I meeting existing curriculum requirements in a fun and engaging way. For example, here in
Stopped Worrying the UK there is a “Command and Control” ICT curriculum for 7-11 year olds, which is
About Gamers And often taught through activities involving computer-controlled traffic lights. My wife has
Started Loving People recently developed her own ‘scheme of work’ for teaching the same objectives by making
Who Play Games by computer games with Stagecast Creator (see the resources page of Gamelearning.net). Oth
Steven An projects are trying to bring game development into the classroom as a way of inspiring
[08.03.2007] storytelling and traditional literacy skills. There are also numerous clubs and holiday camp
around the world that are already successfully teaching game development to children
Latin American outside of the school curriculum.
Game Development
by Patrick Dugan
[07.26.2007]
June NPD numbers -

PSP software by Carl
“Nile The Quartz Crystal”: If you want an original idea – ask a seven year old.
Consumers
Consumers may be the source of our industry’s success, but they are also the source of a
decent amount of frustration and bewilderment too. The fact is that consumers are an
unpredictable bunch; meaning that good games don’t always make money and bad games
can sell by the lorry load. Most children don’t end up working in game development, but
they do end up being part of a future generation of game consumers. Giving them a basic
understanding of game development would allow them to make more informed choices and
ultimately create a more discerning audience. This can only be good for innovation and
creativity in the development industry, and may even help publishers by creating a more
predictable audience that is seeking a quality gameplay experience. Of course there’s no
point trying to change consumers, if the people responsible for commissioning and selling
the games can’t respond to the change…
Publishers, Marketing Departments and Journalists
It may be more controversial, but I think there is also a strong argument for members of the
wider games industry being more literate in game development. It’s important to stress tha
I’m not trying to say that these groups don’t understand games, but just that they could gain
a deeper understanding of games from going through the process of making their own. To
be fair, many people in these areas already have development experience, but in an ever-
expanding industry a marketing executive is as likely to have made their career selling
cheese as computer games. If your marketing department don’t understand what gameplay
is then how can they be expected to sell it? All these groups deal with games professionally
so surely an understanding of them is as important to their jobs as knowing how to use MS
Project, Excel or Word. So why not have your next staff training day on game
development? If teenagers can do it then so can you…
Women
According to the ESA, some 38% of game players are female, but we all know that the
proportion of women working in game development is far less than that. In our experience,
girls up to about the age of eleven are just as interested in making games as boys, and we
get a very even split at the clubs. Unfortunately, by the time they reach their teens the
proportion of girls prepared to attend game-making workshops drops off completely. It
appears that by this age it is labelled as a boys activity and only the most independently
minded girls are willing to go against the flow. Bringing game development into schools
would give more girls a chance to try it out, without feeling they were doing something
wrong. They would then quickly find that they are just as good as the boys – if not better –
because girls usually listen to instructions! In fact, there are already initiatives like CC4G
(Computer Clubs for Girls) in the UK that are attempting to introduce game development t
girls. Nonetheless its clear that more needs to be done if the games industry wants to make
the most of the balance of potential talent that is out there for the future.
Society
The controversy over violent videogames is likely to remain a thorn in the industry’s side
for the foreseeable future, but everyone involved in the argument would benefit from a
deeper understanding of games. Parents could certainly have a better understanding and
awareness of game ratings, and legislators would benefit from a better understanding of
what they are arguing about. Making computer games with your child is a great way to
interact with them, and the perfect context to discuss issues such as violence and age rating
in a natural way. Making a game with appropriate content for their classmates makes a goo
pretext for exploring this issue, and you may both learn something from the experience.
PEGI in Europe and the ESRB in the US offer information on game ratings.
Producers and Game Designers
While there are some producers and designers who began their careers as programmers,
many will never actually have made a game by themselves before. Nonetheless their jobs
put them at the heart of the synthesis and evaluation feedback loop, so it would be unfair to
suggest that they couldn’t gain similar insights as their programming colleagues. However,
a good game programmer is constantly tweaking and refining a game and even the most
rigorous game design has some gaps that need to be filled. Consequently I believe that
many producers and game designers would still benefit from developing a complete mini-
game of their own. In particular I believe it would help to reinforce their understanding of
the mechanics of creating good gameplay, and maybe even provide a new platform for
prototyping their game ideas without having to rely on a programmer. Ultimately this can
only be good for game development and could even result in better games.
Academics
Games have finally become an area of serious academic study, with computer scientists,
sociologists, educationalists, and psychologists all getting in on the act. However, there wil
always be a certain animosity between theorists and practitioners in any field, for obvious
reasons. Many academics do create their own games as part of their research, but there are
plenty that do not – and getting research students to do it for you doesn’t count! The only
way to earn your development wings is to go through the holistic experience of designing
and making your own game from scratch. It doesn’t matter if the final product looks like
something from the 80’s; if you can make a game that someone else enjoys playing then
you’ve made the grade. With tools like Game Maker around there are no excuses for anyon
publishing work about computer games not to have been through the experience of
designing and making their own game!
“By actually making the game and thinking about game concepts like difficulty, I learnt jus
how many variables there are in even a small game which can be varied to change the
gaming experience. Although I have played a lot of games and experienced flow, I had
never really considered what the state was composed of or how different variables in game
could differentially give rise to it.”
Chris Dowsett, MSc Student at the LSRI
Conclusion
Games are affecting the lives and livelihoods of more and more people, and they are no
longer the preserve of a geeky minority. However, if you want to truly understand the
medium then you need to have a go at making one for yourself. It doesn’t require a
computer science degree and you won’t have to read a book the size of a telephone
directory. So stop what you’re doing, and try making a game for yourself.
Just don’t expect any respect from students!
References:
Bloom, B. (editor). 1956.Taxonomy of educational objectives: Book 1, Cognitive domain.

New York: Longman
Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston
Habgood, J., Overmars, M (2006). The Game Maker's Apprentice: Game Development for
Beginners, Berkeley (CA): APress

It's All in Your Mind: Visual Psychology and

Perception in Game Design
By Hayden Duvall
Gamasutra
March 9, 2001
URL: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/200103009/duvall_01.htm
Making a game is sometimes like being in a bad relationship. In the beginning, everything ticks
along nicely and your partner seems happy as you try and provide for their needs. You both
know what you want, and all seems well with the world. After a while however, your partner
begins insisting that you spend more time with them, you never seem to be able to do enough,
and they become more demanding. Your life soon becomes dominated by a never-ending list of
things they want. Fail to give them the care and attention that they dictate, and they
stubbornly refuse to do a single thing that you ask of them. Eventually you give in to their
requests, secretly plotting to end the relationship as soon as you can, moving on to something
better that will allow you the space and freedom you need to truly express yourself. When the
split finally comes, it is a relief, but looking back, seeing all the things you achieved together,
you realize that through pain there is reward. Next time, however, you won't be pushed around
quite so easily.
You may think that this article will address that most insidious of evils: Feature Creep (which to
me always sounds like one of Spiderman's less successful foes). This however, was not the
purpose of my "a game is like a relationship" analogy. My intended point was that a game (like
a relationship) is a complex, dynamic thing that requires the participants to draw on all areas of
understanding to make it successful. Similarly, the more involving and well constructed the
game world is, the more a player will be drawn in and rewarded.
It is from this point of view that I propose that psychology has a part to play in game
development. OK, I can hear you groaning. Psychology: the realm of ink blots and Freudian
slips. But stifle that yawn and bear with me. Psychology aims to explain how the mind works,
and how this leads you to act, think and experience everything from falling in love to dressing
as your mother and attacking women in showers with a carving knife. Whether your game is
trying to be a perfect simulation of flying an F-16 or an epic adventure set in a unused carpet
factory, understanding psychology can improve your game's design and execution.
Psychological techniques have been effectively used by video games for years, simply because
we all live in the same world and decode our surroundings using basically the same physical
and mental machinery. Our life's experience brings us into contact with a similar range of
emotions, and it is this framework that we draw upon when we create something, whether it be
a book, a song or a game. What I suggest is that we put names to these psychological aspects.
So, where to begin? Let's see how the player interprets what they observe and hear.
You Think That's Air You're Breathing?
First of all, a brief overview:
FIGURE 1. Perception.
Theories of perception generally draw upon the same basic idea. Gregory's definition reads:
"Perception is not determined simply by stimulus patterns; rather it is dynamic searching for
the best interpretation of the available data ... perception involves going beyond the
immediately given evidence of the senses" (Gregory, 1966)
or more succinctly put:
"Perception creates faces, melodies, works of art, illusions etc. out of the raw material of
sensation". (Coon, 1983)
The model is perhaps an obvious one, and as far as creating a game goes, we only need to
concern ourselves with visual and aural input (with the tiny exception of force-feedback
controllers). This restriction puts extra pressure on the visual and audio aspects of our game,
and removes the need for us to create a convincing "smellscape".
It is worth pointing out that impairments to a player's senses can impact a game. At the most
basic level, deafness rules out most dialog-heavy games that don't have subtitles, as well as
making games in which audio cues form an important part of the gameplay all but impossible.
Colorblindness is also a rarely considered, yet significant condition, which can affect a player's
enjoyment. Red and green color blindness is the most common form, and while it only occurs in
0.4 percent of the female population, it is estimated to affect eight percent of males, and as
gamers are still overwhelmingly male, this figure is not inconsequential. As this form of color
blindness restricts the sufferers' ability to differentiate between red and green (hence the
name) any vital information in a game that requires color matching (puzzles) or easy
identification of colored objects (the baddies are wearing red, the goodies green, for example)
could be enough to render the game unplayable.
FIGURE 2. Colorblindness.
Seeing is Believing
The first and most obvious area of perception is vision, so this article concentrates on this
particular type of sensory input. If I had been writing fifteen years ago, this section would only
be about two paragraphs long, as the limitations on game visuals would have left me with little
to say. As it is, today's games are so visually complex that what we see on the screen is
beginning to rival the intricacies of the real world. Yes, it is true that a game world has
significant technical limitations as to the content of a scene, but when we consider that the
range of things that a game can present us with visually extends way beyond that which we will
ever see in the real world, the balance begins to be redressed slightly.
Consider for a moment, the following images:

FIGURE 3. Image A: Salvidor Dali's The Slave Market With
Disappearing Bust of Voltaire (1940), presents the viewer with
an ambiguous image of choir boys in an archway that can also
be seen as the face of the famous French Writer-Philosopher.
Image B: the well known (Muller-Lyer) optical illusion, shows a
row of symbols who's central vertical lines are all of equal
length, despite their immediate appearance.
While these kind of illusions may not in themselves be of any practical use in game design, they
illustrate the process by which our brain translates what it sees (stimulation of retinal cells) into
what it believes this information represents, and what this means. Clearly as these images
show, what we think we see is in fact not necessarily what is actually there. Fortunately for
those of us making games, our brain can be tricked into thinking it sees a whole range of things
that are, in reality, no more than a collection of glowing dots of color on a flat screen.
There is quite a selection of rules that influence how we interpret what we see. Some, like
binocular disparity (the fact that our eyes are slightly separated and so receive slightly different
images), have no value in the average game world (put those 3D glasses down). But certain
others are of more interest.
Similarity: objects that appear the same or similar are grouped together in our mind. This can
often be reinforced in a game when animation cycles of several similar objects run in synch:
trees wave in the wind in unison, torches all burn at precisely the same rate. Sometimes
grouping may be what we want, but more often than not, this similarity just serves to highlight
the fact that some elements of a game are repeated.
Relative brightness: as things get further away from us, they tend to fade and take on a
bluish hue. This phenomenon is used as a depth cue, and is of course great news for fans of
fogging. The trick though, is in the subtlety and distance of the fade-out. If the fogging distance
is too close, and the drop-off too severe, instead of an acceptably natural haze that reinforces
the expansiveness of a landscape, the player will begin to feel that they have wandered onto
the set of a 1930's Sherlock Holmes movie.
FIGURE 4. Relative brightness: as things get further away from us, they
tend to fade and take on a bluish hue.
Scale: perhaps the most important aspect of scale is that it is relative. Perceptual
consistencies, as psychology calls them, dictate that elephants are large and gerbils are small.
No matter what the viewing conditions, our past experience provides us with this sort of
information, which is used by our brain to decide that the elephant on a distant hill is smaller
than the gerbil in our hand (Helmholtz, 1909). In a video game of course, elephants can be two
feet tall and gerbils can weigh four hundred pounds. The rules of consistency are of little
consequence. In addition, everything we see is effectively in screen-space, and will actually be
observed in a physical sense, as being only inches high. In view of this, context within the
game environment, has a large part to play.
FIGURE 5. The effect of context on perceived brightness.
In the example above, the central gray squares within each of the four larger squares are
exactly the same. The change of brightness across the four surrounding squares however,
tricks us into seeing a corresponding (but inverted) shift in brightness across the inner squares.
The effect of context dependency is also valid within a game setting, when dealing with scale.
Size, relative to the player's character (or vehicle etc.) can be used as a starting point for scale
comparisons. What appears to be a human sized character, will be interpreted as such, if the
surroundings reinforce this with appropriately sized trees, cars etc. If however, the character
has to climb a can of beans 10 times his size, or run across a massive piano keyboard in a Tom
and Jerry kind of style, the character may take up an identical amount of screen space, but will
be judged to be tiny. In the same way that geometry sizing can convey scale information,
textures can also have a part to play, with the scale at which a texture is applied to a surface,
having a contributing (if sometimes subconscious) effect on a players sense of scale.
Speed: moving things rapidly around the screen may seem like the obvious solution in this
case, but speed isn't just about being quick (not when it's on a screen at least). Let's pause for
a second, and consider what most of us see as Lee Major's career high: the Bionic Man. Apart
from an impressive line in polyester sportswear, one of the bionic man's most important assets
was his speed. TV budgets being what they were in the Seventies, as well as the limited range
of special effects on offer, the bionic man's production team had to come up with an acceptable
way of making him fast. So what did they do? They slowed him down. On the one hand, this
perhaps explains how the logic of this decade brought extreme chest hair into fashion and made
Elton John famous, but it also makes sense. TV and film had already established the concept of
slow motion, and it was of course predominantly used to show something happening too fast to
be appreciated. Drawing on this convention, the bionic man gave us something that was
visually slow, but translated by our brain into extreme speed. So what does this imply for
creating the impression of speed in a game?
Essentially, we can use things that we associate with speed (like slow motion) as indicators that
something is fast. Motion blur is perhaps the most widely used of these. Once only available as
a pre-rendered effect, we now see it executed in real time. Apart from the fact that motion blur
actually produces a moving image that the brain accepts as more convincing, we have now
become familiar with the convention that blurring equals speed (in this respect I am talking
about exaggerated, visible blurring). Roadrunner cartoons are particularly fine examples of this,
building on the traditional static cartoon methodology for conveying speed. A more recent
example in film would be The Matrix, where extreme, bullet-dodging speed is expressed with an
adapted form of motion blur. Other visual cues to speed would include things like clouds of dust
and debris in an object's wake, or the intensity of flame from a spaceship's rockets increasing
(the afterburner effect). Indicators like these will help steer the player's brain towards
association with speed, making the effect both easier to achieve and more convincing.
FIGURE 6. Roadrunner cartoons are particularly fine example of how

blurring is used to suggest speed.
Once we are able to perceive the game visually, and identify its constituent elements, the next
trick is making sense of it all. At this stage, there is a whole world of pain, ready to be explored
when looking for a model that explains how we do this (see: Hochberg 1978, Koffka 1935 and
Marr 1982), but perhaps of more interest to game design, is how we can help the process
along.
Linearity in a modern game seems to have become as unpopular as a mime artist in a …well, as
unpopular as a mime artist. The days of simply routed games, where all you needed to think
about was collecting giant golden keys and making your way towards a fight with the big red
dragon are long gone. Free roaming, unrestricted exploration is the norm nowadays, with
complex environments that allow the player to wander for hours, marvel at the scenery, and
cavort across hilltops with a Julie Andrews-like abandon. But freedom comes at a price.
Dropping a player into a strange new environment can be confusing. The amount of information
presented can mean that a player becomes unsure about which direction to take and unless
some kind of help is available. The appeal of free exploration can be crushed under the tedium
of random wandering. Solving this problem relies on good design and well-executed
construction, but there is one additional area that plays a part: memory.
At the Copa… Copacabana…
Remembering where we've been, what we're doing and where we are going, can, for some of
us, be a difficult feat in our everyday lives. I for one often find myself starring blankly into the
fridge, having no recollection of even entering the kitchen, let alone what I am looking for. Add
into the equation, a story line, several characters, a world full of caves and a sacred quest of
some description, and suddenly, keeping track of what's going on becomes quite an issue.
There are a couple of memory related problems that often crop up in games, which can in my
opinion, reduce a players enjoyment considerably:
FIGURE 7. Remembering where

we've been, what we're doing
and where we are going, can,
for some of us, be a difficult
feat in our everyday lives.
First there's the common fault of Information Induced Panic (or IIP). We've all played games
that from the very instant they start, begin to load the player with heap upon heap of what
seems to be vital information. Whether it's in the great hall of Castle Colon, or in the
transporter room of the Starship Artichoke, there are always characters ready to give us what
seems like thirty minutes of introductory background story and a comprehensive rundown of
our mission. Unfortunately, remembering that our sworn enemy Thoth'l, son of Thathel, has
captured the Princess Thath-oth, and is taking her to his lair just outside the town of Thimbar,
can readily merge with the fact that Kaboth'l our trusted guide has located Thim-Athlothal, the
once powerful Sorcerer, and has recommended that you travel to Hack-Matheth to find him.
What we end up with is the vague impression that we need to find someone, who is going to
help us rescue someone (possibly a Princess) from somewhere, and that we may need to do
some fighting on the way.
OK, I have been a little facetious with all of the "th" sounds, but this scenario is one that pops
up constantly. Without mentioning any of the worst culprits (you know who you are), the verbal
ping-pong that can take place, firing out character and location names which obviously mean
nothing to the player, whilst he slowly begins to bleed from his ears under the strain of trying
to take it all in, is not entirely uncommon. True enough, many games that do this do not expect
you to remember everything, and much of the information is meant as nothing more than
supportive detail to the central plot. The problem however, is that the player doesn't know this.
The player has no idea if the names of Emperor Xioachin's four trusted Generals: Chai-Sin-Wa,
Sai-Chin-Ho, So-Ha-Xiao and Se-Chaio-Hin are important, or if they just add color to the story.
When unfamiliar information is presented, there is usually little a player can do to discern what
is relevant, and what isn't, and this problem is made worse as more information is given.
The second memory related problem is Exploration Anxiety. As mentioned previously, the trend
away from linearity- towards free exploration exacts its own peculiar price on the player. This
anxiety comes in two basic forms, the first of which, as mentioned before, has the player
wandering aimlessly around a world, searching for something specific (or unspecified- in the
worst cases), unable to remember whether or not they have been along this particular path
before. Unproductive rambling can drive any player towards the escape button, but coupled
with the common game-world problem that trees, corridors, paths and caves can often look the
same (regularly using the same geometry), exploration can sometimes be its own worst enemy.
The other form of Exploration Anxiety that most of us will be familiar with, is the nagging
feeling that sometimes appears during a game, niggling at the back of your mind saying "I bet
you missed one of the rooms back there", and "I bet there was a huge magic sword in it".
Progressing from level to level is generally the driving force behind the gameplay, but the
thought of having missed something vital, or of significant value along the way, can sometimes
be detrimental.
So, what has psychology got to offer, to help game designers cope with memory issues and
their associated problems? I would suggest a look at the following three rules.
The Magic Number
Funnily enough, this number is seven (Miller 1967). Or more precisely: seven plus or minus
two. In psychology, things are only talked of in terms of theory, the Law of Penile Envy for
example doesn't exist in the same way as the Law of Gravity. Even though certain elements of
thought and behavior seem to be well established, psychologists are happy to regard them as
theoretical and not proven. The concept of a magic number is however, one of the most robust
of these phenomenon, demonstrable across many cultures and age ranges.
Try it out for yourself:
There follows several lists of letters, read the first one through slowly, only once
(this actually works best if they are read to you aloud), and then write down the
letters in the order that you remember. Repeat this procedure for the next, longer
list, and so on, until you can no longer recall all the letters correctly.
J, N, A, X, G
S, D, Q, B, F, A
I, Y, V, M, R, L, W
G, K, E, Z, H, B, A, X,
D, P, B, F, I, V, G, E, C
P, Y, N, J, S, E, D, T, Q, F
M, Z, T, U, J, W, L, N, Y, O, G
All things being equal, your recall should have fallen between 5 and 9 letters: the magic
number. There are a range of interesting modifiers to this phenomenon that allow recall to
extend beyond the magic number. Chunking for example, suggests that we place the
information into lumps (or chunks even) and thus the overall amount that we remember, is
increased. As an example, it would be relatively simple to remember the sentence: aliens ate
my best-friend's underwear, which in actual fact gives us a total letter recall of 30. This
chunking process allows letters to be made into words. The same trick is used with phone
numbers -- businesses want us to remember 0800 60 40 2200, for example.
This principle is probably most applicable in a game, to puzzles. Using too many elements at
any one time will most often result in the player loosing track of what they're doing, or will
force them to begin writing things down.
Primacy and Regency
This is best illustrated by the following exercise:
There follows a list of 20 ordinary words that should be read through slowly, only
once (again, the experiment works better if the list is read out to you, one word per
second). Once the list has been completed, you should attempt to write down all
the words that you remember in any order.
Camera, chain, octopus, boot, cream, mirror, holiday, basket, lamp, carpet,
mountain, television, chair, hotel, shelf, water, flower, camel, boat, steak .
Typically, the words at the beginning of the list and those at the end, are most easily recalled
(Murdock, 1962).
FIGURE 8. The items at the beginning or
end of a series are generally recalled more
accurately than those in the middle.
Primacy therefore, refers to the effect that makes the earliest words easier to remember, and
regency the enhanced recall for words at the end of the list.
How does this help game design? It can be established that once the amount of information
presented spills over the normal limits of short-term memory (seven items, plus or minus two),
the middle ground becomes fuzzy. In terms of cut-scenes and long-winded intros: if they serve
to build atmosphere and establish character, fair enough, but place any important information
in the beginning or the end.
Repetition
However unreliable my memory is, the two things for which my recall is perfect are the words
to Fiddler on the Roof, and the monument to modern song-writing that is Barry Manilow's
Copacabana. This is not due to either an obsession with musicals from the '70s nor too many
nights spent at karaoke, but rather my parents' unfortunate taste in music as I was growing up.
Whether we like it or not, repetition is a reliable method for reinforcing memory, and is an
effect that can be used in games.
On the most basic of levels, repetition of important story elements helps the player remember
details that could at first be difficult to retain. In terms of familiarizing a player with a control
system, or having them learn certain procedures within a game, repetition is both a way to help
the player remember what to do, and provides the opportunity to practice these actions. As
long as the repetition is skillfully paced and well integrated into the overall flow of the game, it
should do its job without becoming tedious.
Resistance is Futile
While game players are unlikely to submit to having large metal probes inserted into the back
of their heads (I'd like to see Sony try and sell that to the gaming public), they may well end up
being more like The Matrix than Tron. As the power of the games machine begins to free
designers to explore new areas of gaming potential, playing will evolve into participation, and
that will evoke stronger emotions and reactions.
Examining what psychology can bring to the table as part of the game creation process, could
be seen as an overindulgence that even the Marquis de Sade would categorize as excessive.
However, treated as a practical means by which the game playing experience can be enhanced,
a greater understanding of the inner workings of a player's mind will ultimately give the
designer more power to create the emotions and experiences that are needed to make the
games of the future.
References
Coon, D. 1983, Introduction to Psychology 3rd edition. St. Paul, Minnesota, West Publishing Co.
Gregory, R. L. 1966, Eye and Brain. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Helmholtz, H. 1909, Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, II, pp 764-843.
Hochberg, J. 1978, Art and Perception. In E.C. Carterette and H. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of
Perception, Vol. 10. London: Academic Press.
Koffka, K. 1935, Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Marr, D. 1982, Vision. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Miller, G. A. 1956, The Magical Number 7 Plus or Minus 2: Some Limits in Our Capacity For
Processing Information. Psycological Review 63: 81-97.
Murdock, B. 1962, The Serial Position Effect of Free Recall: Journal of Experimental Psychology,
64: 482-488.
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/200103009/duvall_01.htm
Are Games Addictive? The State of the Science
By Neils Clark
Gamasutra
February 28, 2006
URL: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060228/clark_01.shtml
We make games so that people can enjoy them, and I've noticed that throwing around a dirty
word like “addiction” is a lot like throwing rocks at people. Heavy rocks. I try to be very careful
with how I use that word in relation to games, because it's a very, very complicated subject.
Yes, South Korean and American gamers have died from exhaustion. Yes, this makes bored
journalists and unpopular politicians very happy. China has already thrown a fair bit of
legislation at video games, whether or not games are the problem. On the other hand, such
legislation might fail to address the real problem. In this article I explain addiction simply.
Then, I talk about research that attempts to connect addiction to gaming, and some clear
problems in that research. One caveat: this article is not going to make anyone into a trained
clinician.
A PC Bang (Internet Cafe) in Seoul.
Part 1: Psychology lite, with neuroscience sprinkles.
If gaming can be considered an addiction, it would most likely fit the mold of a behavioral
addiction. First, we're going to talk about the common-sense psychology side of addiction:
behavioral addiction. Then we'll talk about the neuroscience side of addiction: brain chemistry
and dopamine. What you should get from the following section is a very basic sense of what
addiction is. After this section we'll explore how addiction might or might not relate to games.
Theoretical Behavioral Addiction
Dr. Mark Griffiths is one of a growing body of psychologists forwarding the concept that
“excessive behaviors of all types,” for instance addictions to shopping, gambling, or sex, are
addictive in very similar ways. These addictions don't have to involve drugs, yet even drug
addiction shares features with these other addictions. The actual features cited by Griffiths
hearken back to the theoretical models of Iain Brown, and may even represent a psychology-
based foundation for all addiction.
Everyone is vulnerable to becoming addicted, according to Brown, but to different extents.
Some people have had an excessively rough life, and still others have had too easy a life, or are
just bored. Specifically culture, economics, social circumstances, personality, and low tolerances
for stress are some of the factors that might make one person more susceptible to addiction.
You might call particularly vulnerable people “addictive personalities,” simply because they are
more at risk.
While these certain personalities are susceptible, behavioral addiction requires a behavior. A
normal personality usually has a number of activities that they regularly use to feel excited,
relaxed, or what have you. Yet people are drawn to some things over others. A huge gambling
win is more attractive than cleaning a toilet. For most people. When the soon-to-be addict finds
that special activity, they can have what Brown calls an “aha” moment. As this especially
alluring behavior becomes more prominent in a person's life, other things disappear completely
from that person's repertoire of activities. At its most extreme, such a behavioral addiction
dominates a person's life. They need the activity, and they'll sacrifice nearly anything – long
term plans, the company of people, even work in order to have it.
Dopamine and Brain Chemistry
Back in the forbidden caverns of hard science, addiction is usually attributed to genetic factors
and dopamine. The National Institute of Health states that genetic factors are significant in
addiction. Some brains are just more susceptible to the neurotransmitter dopamine, a type of
chemical in the brain. The research of neuroscientists Depue and Collins reflects this in stating
that individual differences in dopamine processing can predetermine individuals as more or less
likely to develop addictions. They also assert that motivation is based on two major factors,
“the availability of reward, and the effort required to obtain it…”
Enter such a nefarious behavior. So much dopamine is released while engaging in some
behaviors that neurons, our basic brain cells, get accustomed to having that dopamine around.
These neurons stimulate the nucleus accumbens, part of the brain. As the brain gets used to
this stimulation, it requires more and more dopamine for the same effect. When the dopamine
producing behavior is finally stopped, the brain isn't used to the lowered dopamine levels. At
this point, craving and addiction enter the picture.
Regardless of the perspective you like best – psychology, neuroscience, or any of the many
humanities-based theories out there, there seems to be good backing for the idea that
addiction has a lot to do with your personality. If a person has an addictive personality, then
the actual activity isn't the problem. These people are going to get addicted to whatever they
try, be it games, running, eating peanuts, or even work. If a person thinks that they have a
problem, then they need to take responsibility, seek treatment, and modify their behavior.
Following is research that has actually suggested that some gamers may be addicted.
Research
German researchers Sabine Grüsser and Ralf Thalemann have suggested that some gamers
exhibit signs traditionally associated with addiction: susceptibility to triggers and diminished
startle reflex. Grüsser additionally reflects our earlier conversation on addiction by saying that
as one activity comes to be used exclusively in order to deal with adversity, it becomes the only
behavior that can activate the brain's dopamine system, and that such chemical monopolization
is common to all addictions.
Is this great news for journalists, unpopular politicians, or groups such as Online Gamers
Anonymous and EverQuest Widows? First off, keep in mind that much of the research in this
field is above all preliminary in nature. Moreover, so far research has simply suggested that at
most, people are becoming addicted to games, not that games themselves are actually
responsible for addicting people. The difference is subtle, yet significant. It also helps to keep in
mind that certain works in psychology and the humanities are not entirely definitive.
This is not to discount addicted gamers. Some people do play to a point where gaming
negatively affects their lives, and we need to be sensitive to that. The most populous country in
the world, China, wouldn't have passed a law regulating massively multiplayer online (MMO)
gameplay without at least some reason. Who knows? Dazzling new research might,
hypothetically, prove that games addict in ways that television and gambling may never hope
to rival. But for now we don't know exactly what's happening. Research into games is new.
Part 2: Trouble in paradise.
There are problems with some of the most influential articles studying both games, and their
relation to addiction. The most notable problems have to do with conceptual confusion, reliance
on self tests, sampling techniques, and differences between games. Problems with all of these
slow the advancement of gaming knowledge.
Conceptual Confusion
Conceptual confusion is when an author takes two or more important keywords, and then mixes
them up. Usually this just happens when one researcher talks about another researcher's work
a little bit carelessly. In Internet addiction research, which originally served as a foundation for
computer-related and gaming-related addiction research, major works have been accused of
conceptual confusion. This is important, because this research continues to be used by new
studies, even studies involving games. This means that new researchers entering the field must
critically analyze any addiction criteria they plan on using. Additionally, these foundational
authors could gain a great deal of credibility by revisiting and defending their methods.
Self Assessments
Size matters. While Dr. Kimberly Young's criteria for Internet addiction has recently grown in
size, her criteria for 'obsessive online gaming' still consists of eight questions. According to
Young the test taker “may be addicted to online gaming” if they answer yes to just one of the
eight questions. Psychologist John Charlton has asserted that attempting to diagnose addicts
using checklists is likely to drastically overestimate the amount of people who are actually
addicted.
Sampling
Many studies, especially the more humanities-based studies of gaming in general, suffer from
major problems when it comes to something called sampling. A researcher can have the
greatest survey of all time, but it won't matter if the right people don't fill it out. The goal here
is to make sure that the 50 people who take that survey perfectly represent the 5000 people
that you want to talk about. Gaming research so far has distributed most surveys through
online forums, college classrooms, and websites. The problem is that the people who visit
online forums, or go to college, or visit gaming websites, probably don't represent the whole
gamer population. Some people get their games at Blockbuster. Some MMO players aren't very
likely to take boring academic surveys when “rolling on epic drops” is also an option for their
evening. Very little of the gaming research out there represents all gamers.
Differences Between Games
One last distinction that is sometimes overlooked by psychologists and other practitioners: the
differences between games. We have to be careful not to interchangeably use some studies of
single player, online, or especially MMO games. There are differences between these games.
For example, if one study examines single player and online FPS game players, and finds that
they enjoy greater visual acuity, then we should not assume that MMORPG players will
necessarily also enjoy such benefits. It's possible, even probable that players in different types
of games will reap these ocular benefits, but it is not guaranteed.
Part 3: Are games addictive?
To revisit part one: so far research has simply suggested that at most, people are becoming
addicted to games, not that games themselves are actually responsible for addicting people.
Some people do seem to be addicted, yet games may not be the real culprit. Nevertheless,
research that directly examines whether certain games are addictive should not be shunned, it
should be welcomed. There are two reasons for this, neither of which is completely obvious.
First, it is entirely possible that games are in no way addictive. If research can prove this, then
it would inspire a huge amount of confidence in parents, legislators, and gamers. The second,
less obvious, advantage to studying links between addiction and games is understanding. If
games can be linked to addiction, then knowing how and why could possibly show us what a
“healthier” game would look like.
To keep this article in perspective, we're talking about games. Recreation. Stuff that people do
for fun. Even if it were possible to remove the proverbial nicotine, or addictive ingredient, would
we want to? If it takes the fun out of games, then the answer is probably no. We still have
responsible players who count on us for quality entertainment. But who knows? Perhaps
laborious, calculated efforts to create that “healthier” game will help one developer to produce
the most exciting game ever. In any case, there are people who do seem to have serious
problems with gaming, but there are also people who watch too much TV, or spend too much
time reading. Do these other media forms face criticism, or a looming threat of legislation? Not
really.
Addiction is complicated. To revisit the introduction's caveat: this article isn't intended to
transform you into a trained clinician. Instead, it's meant to shed some light on the very basics
of addiction. It also shows why some of the research deserves to be viewed with a critical eye.
Some people do have problems with games; that's getting harder to discount. What we can do,
as game creators, is understand that a problem exists, and try to understand research
advances as they occur.
Resource List
Brown, I., A Theoretical Model of Behavioral Addictions – Applied to Offending. In Hodge, J. E.,
McMurran, M. & Hollin, C. R. Eds. (1997). Addicted to Crime? John Wiley & Sons Ltd., New
York , NY . (p. 13).
Charlton, J.P. (2002). A factor-analytic investigation of computer ‘addiction' and engagement.

British Journal of Psychology, 93, 329-344.
Depue, R. & Collins, P. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine,
facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 22, p.
491-569.
Griffiths, M. (2005). A ‘components' model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework.

Journal of Substance Use, vol. 10, p. 191-197
Kimberly Young's website. Links to her surveys come from her website:
National Institute of Health website
Press release discussing Sabine Grüsser and Ralf Thalemann's research, presented at the 2005
Annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience.
_____________________________________________________
Beyond Psychological Theory: Getting Data that

Improves Games
By Bill Fulton
Gamasutra
March 21, 2002
URL: http://www.gamasutra.com/gdc2002/features/fulton/fulton_01.htm
How can I make my game more fun for more gamers?

This is the question for those who want to make games that are popular, not just critically
acclaimed. One (glib) response is to "design the games better." Recently, the idea of applying
psychological theories as a way of improving game design has been an increasingly popular
topic in various industry publications and conferences. Given the potential of applying
psychological theory to game design, I anticipate these ideas to become more frequent and
more developed. While I think using psychological theories as aids to think about games and
gamers is certainly useful, I think that psychology has much more to offer than theory. An
enormous part of the value of psychology to games lies in psychological research methods
(collecting data), not the theories themselves.
I should clarify some terms here. When I talk about "psychology," I do not mean the common
perception of psychology--talking to counselors, lying on the Freudian couch, mental illness,
etc. In academia, this kind of psychology is called "clinical psychology." In this paper,
"psychology" refers to experimental psychology, which employs the scientific method in
studying "normal populations functioning normally."
But before I talk about how psychological research methods can help improve games, I need to
first explain more about how psychological theories are helpful, and the limitations they have
with respect to game design.
Psychological theories can be useful, but data are more useful

All designers think about what people like, hate and want. Some designers may be consciously
using theories from psychology as part of the process to evaluate what people want, but most
designers probably just rely on their intuitive theories of what they perceive gamers want.
The risks of relying on intuitive psychology. What I call "Intuitive psychology" is the collection of
thoughts, world views, 'folk wisdom' etc. that people use to try to understand and predict
others. Some examples might make this clearer--one common intuitive psychological belief
about attraction is that "opposites attract." However many people (and many of the same
people) also believe the opposite, that "birds of a feather flock together." Both of these ideas
have some merit and are probably true in some ways for most people. But given that they are
clearly conflicting statements, it is unclear which statements to believe and act on--which
statement is true? Or, more likely, when is each statement more likely to be true? Does the
degree of truthfulness for these statements vary by people? By situation? By both? The problem
with intuitive psychology is that many intuitions disagree with each other, and it is unclear
which world view is more likely to be right, if either of them are at all. You're just trusting that
the designer's theories are close enough to reality in that the design will be compelling.
The insufficiency of formal theories of psychology. Formal theories of psychology have been
subjected to rigorous testing to see when they map onto reality, and when they do not. In
order for a theory of psychology to gain any kind of acceptance, the advocates have to have
battled with some success against peers who are actively attempting to show it to be incorrect
or limited. This adversarial system of determining "truth" and reliable knowledge employs the
scientific method of running experiments and collecting data. Because of this adversarial
system, formal theories of psychology are more trustworthy than intuitive theories of
psychology--you know that they are more than just one person's unsubstantiated opinion about
what people want.
But while theories of psychology from academia can be quite useful as a lens to examine your
game, their limitation is that they are typically too abstract to provide concrete action items at
the level designers need. This lack of specificity in psychological theories hasn't really hurt
designers too much, because in the most part designers (and people in general) have a decent
enough idea of how to please people without needing formal theories. I think very few people
had light bulbs go on when they learned that Skinner's theory of conditioning stipulates that
people will do stuff for rewards. But the work that Skinner and others did on how to use
rewards and punishers well in terms of acquisition and maintenance of behaviors can be
enlightening. But academic theories of psychology don't get granular enough to tell us whether
gamers find the handling of the Ferrari a bit too sensitive.
An example of why academic theories of psychology aren't enough is in order. Skinner's

Behaviorism is probably one of the most well-defined and supported theories, and the easiest to
apply to games. (In fact, John Hopson wrote an excellent article in Gamasutra in April 2001
demonstrating how to analyze your game through behaviorism's lens.) One of Hopson's
examples is about how players in an RPG behave differently depending upon how close they are
to reinforcement (e.g., going up a level, getting a new item, etc.). He talks about how if
reinforcers are too infrequent, the player may lose motivation to get that next level. However,
how often is not often enough? Or too often? (Who wants to level up every five seconds?) Both
"too often" and "not often enough" will de-motivate the player. Designers need to find a 'sweet
spot' between too often and not often enough that provides the optimal (or at least a sufficient)
level of motivation for the player to keep trying to level up. Theory may help designers begin to
ask the more pertinent questions, but no theory will tell you exactly how often a player should
level up in three hours of play in a particular RPG games.
Beyond Theory: the value of collecting data with psychological methods

So I've argued that the psychological theories (both intuitive and academic) have limitations
that prevent them from being either trustable or sufficiently detailed. Now I'm going to talk
about what IS sufficiently trustworthy AND detailed--collecting data with psychological
methods. Feedback gleaned via psychological testing methods can be an invaluable asset in
refining game design.
As I said at the beginning of this paper, the central question for a designer who wants to make
popular games is "how do I make my game more fun for more gamers?" and that a glib
response is to "design the games better." Taking the glib answer seriously for a moment, how
do you go about doing that? Presumably, designers are doing the best they can already. The
Dilbertian "work smarter, not harder" is funny, but not helpful. The way to help designers is the
same way you help people improve their work in all other disciplines--you provide them
feedback that helps them learn what is good and not so good about their work, so that they can
improve it.
Of course, designers get feedback all the time. In fact, I'm sure that many designers sometimes
feel that they get too much feedback--it seems that everyone has an opinion about the design,
that everyone is a "wannabe" designer (disguised as artists, programmers, publishing execs,
etc.), as well as everyone's brother. But the opinions from others often contradict each other,
and sometimes go against the opinions of the designer. So the designer is put in the difficult
situation of knowing that their design isn't perfect, wanting to get feedback to improve it, and
encountering feedback that makes sense, yet is often contradictory both with itself and with the
designer's own judgment. This makes it difficult to know what feedback to act on. So the
problem for many designers is not a lack of feedback, but an epistemological problem--whose
opinion is worth overruling their own judgment? Whose opinion really represents what more
gamers want?
Criteria for good feedback and a good feedback delivery system
Before launching into a more detailed analysis of common feedback loops and my proposed
"better" one, I need to make my criteria explicit for what I consider "good" feedback and a
good feedback delivery system. The addition of "delivery system" is necessary to provide
context for the value (not just accuracy) of the feedback. The criteria are:
1. The feedback should accurately represent the opinions of the target gamers. By "target
gamers," I mean the group of gamers that the game is trying to appeal to (e.g., driving
gamers, RTS gamers, etc.) If your feedback doesn't represent the opinion of the right
group of users, then it may be misleading. This is absolutely critical. Misleading feedback
is worse than no feedback, the same way misleading road signs are worse than no signs
at all. Misleading signs can send folks a long way down the wrong road.
2. The feedback should arrive in time for the designer to use it. If the feedback is perfect,
but arrives too late (e.g., post RTM, or after that feature is locked down), the feedback
isn't that helpful.
information that "gamers hate dumb-sounding weapons" or that "some of the weapons
sound dumb" isn't nearly as helpful as "Weapon A sounds dumb, but Weapons B, C, and
D sounds great."
4. The feedback should be relatively easy to get. This is a pragmatic issue--teams won't
seek information that is too costly or too difficult to get. Teams don't want to pay more
money or time than the information is worth ($100k and 20 person hours to learn that
people slightly prefer the fire-orange Alpha paint job to the bright red one is hardly a
good use of resources.)
The first criterion is about the accuracy of the feedback which is critical; the rest are about how
that feedback needs to be delivered if it is going to be useful, not merely true.
Common game design feedback systems and their limitations
There are many feedback systems that designers use (or, in some cases, been subjected to).
Most designers, like authors, recognize that they need feedback on their work in order to
improve it-- few authors have reason to believe that their work is of publishable quality without
some revision based on feedback. I'm going to list the feedback systems of which I am aware,
and discuss how good of a feedback delivery system it is. There are two main categories of
feedback loops: feedback from professionals in the games industry, and from non-professionals
(i.e., gamers). While these sources obviously affect each other, it is easier to talk about them
separately
Feedback from Professionals in the games industry

There are two main sources of this kind of feedback:
1. Feedback from those on the development team. This is the primary source of feedback
for the designer--people working on the game say stuff like "that character sucks" or
"That weapon is way too powerful." This system is useful because it ably suits criteria
two through four (the feedback is very timely, granular enough, and easy to get), but
still leaves the designer with a question mark on criteria one--how many gamers will
agree that that weapon is way too powerful
2. Feedback from gaming industry experts. Game design consultants ("gurus"),

management at publishers, game journalists, etc. can also provide useful feedback.
While their feedback can often meet criteria three (sufficiently granular), criteria two
(timely) is sometimes a problem--long periods can go between feedback, and
recommendations can come after you can use it. And the designer is still left with
questions about criteria one (accurately represents gamers), although some could argue
that they may be more accurately representing gamers because they have greater
exposure to more games in development.
So while feedback from professionals is the current bread and butter for most teams and
definitely nails criteria two, three and four, it operates a great deal on faith and hope on
criterion one--that the feedback from industry professionals accurately maps onto gamers'
opinions. The reason this assumption is questionable is perhaps best illuminated by a simple
thought experiment--how many games do you think a typical gamer tries or sees in a year?
How many do you think a gaming industry professional tries or sees? They are probably
different by a factor of ten or more. Gaming industry professionals are in the top 1 percent in
knowledge about games, and their tastes may simply be way more developed (and esoteric)
than typical gamers' tastes. While some professionals in the industry are probably amazingly
good at predicting what gamers will like, which ones are they? How many think they are great
at it, when others disagree?
So while feedback from industry professionals is necessary when designing the game, they may
not be the best at evaluating whether gamers will like something. In the end, they can only
speak for themselves.
Feedback from Non-professionals

Game teams are not unaware of the problem of their judgment not always mapping onto what
most gamers really want. Because of this, they often try to get feedback from those who are
more likely to give them more accurate feedback, and the obvious people to talk to are the
gamers themselves. Some common ways that this is done are listed below, along with some
analysis of how good a feedback system it is according to the four criteria.
1. News group postings/Beta testing/fan mail. This is reading the message boards to see
what people say about the game. The main problem with this as a feedback system is
with criteria two (timely). The game has to be able to be fairly far along (at least beta, if
not shipped) in order to get the games to people; typically, that feedback arrives too
late to make any but the most cosmetic of changes. Also, the feedback often runs into
problems of not being sufficiently granular to take action on. ("The character sucks!")
But at least this kind of feedback is relatively cheap in both time and money.
2. Acquaintance testing. This is where you try to get people (typically relatives, neighbor's
kids, etc.) from outside the industry to play your game and give you feedback. This
feedback is often sufficiently granular and may be relatively accurate, but it is often not
that timely due to scheduling problems, and can be costly in time.
3. Focus groups/Focus testing. This kind of feedback system is typically done by the
publisher, and involves talking to small groups (usually four - eight gamers) in a room
about the game. They may get to see or play demos of the game, but not always. One
typical problem with focus groups is that often tend to happen very late in the process
when feedback is hard to action on (not timely) and not sufficiently granular. The costs
for focus groups can also be quite high.
This approach has potential to be useful, in that it involves listening to gamers who aren't in the
industry. However, there are many pitfalls to this--It is often dubious as to how accurately the
feedback represents gamers due to the situations themselves (only certain kind of people post
messages, people feel pressured to say positive things, the people running the test often lack
sufficient training in how to avoid biasing the participants, etc.), and the relatively small
number of people. How to minimize these concerns and create a feedback system that works
on all four criteria is discussed in the next section.
Designing a better feedback system
Up to this point, I've mostly been criticizing what is done. Now I need to show that I have a
better solution. I'm going to outline some of the key factors that have allowed Microsoft to
develop a feedback system that we think meets the four criteria that I set up for a "good"
feedback system. We call this process of providing designers with feedback from real users on
their designs "user-testing," and the people who do this job "user-testing specialists."
The importance of using principles of psychological testing. Experimental psychology has been
studying how to get meaningful, representative data from people for over 70 years, and the
process we use adheres to the main principles of good research. This is not to say that all
psychological research is good research any more than to say that all code is good code;
researchers vary in their ability to do good research the same way that not all programmers are
good. But there are accepted tenets of research methodology that have been shown to yield
information worth relying on, and our processes have been designed with those in mind. (For
the sake of not boring you senseless, I'm not going to attempt to summarize 70 years of
research on how to do research in this paper.) What I'm going to do instead is describe the
day-to-day work that the user-testing group at Microsoft does for its dev teams (both first and
third party).
The actual testing methods we use. The user-testing group provides three major services:
usability testing, playtesting, and reviews. These services are described in detail below.
1. Usability research is typically associated with small sample observational studies.

Over the course of 2-3 days, 6-9 participants come to Microsoft for individual 2-hour sessions.
In a typical study, each participant spends some unstructured time exploring the game prior to
attempting a set of very specific tasks. Common measures include: comments, behaviors, task
times and error rates. Usability is an excellent method to discover problems that the dev team
was unaware of, and to understand the thoughts and beliefs of the participant and how they
affect their interaction with the game. This form of testing has been a part of the software
industry for years and is a staple of the HCI (Human-Computer Interaction) field more so than
psychology. However, methods used in HCI can be traced to psychological research methods
and can essentially be characterized as a field of applied psychology.
2. Playtest research is typically associated with large, structured questionnaire

studies that focus on the first hour of game play. The sample sizes are relatively large
(25-35 people) in order to be able to compute reliable percentages. Each person gets just over
60 minutes to play the game and answer questions individually on a highly structured
questionnaire. Participants rate the quality of the game and provide open-ended feedback on a
wide variety of general and genre-specific questions. Playtest methods are best used to gauge
participants' attitudes, preferences, and some kinds of behavior, like difficulty levels. This form
of testing has a long history in psychology in the fields of attitudinal research and judgment and
decision-making.
3. Reviews are just another version of feedback from a games industry professional.
However, these reviews are potentially more valuable as the reviewers are user-testing
specialists, who are arguably have more direct contact with real gamers playing games than
other game professional. Their entire job is to watch users play games and listen to their
complaints and praises. Furthermore, teams often repeat mistakes that other games have
made, and thus experienced user-testing specialists can help teams avoid "known" mistakes.
The result of each of these services is a report is sent to the team which meticulously
documents the problems along with recommendations on how to fix those problems. Our stance
is that the development teams are the ones who decide if and how to fix the problems.
One noticeable absence in our services is "focus groups." Our belief (supported by research on
focus groups) is that focus groups are excellent tools for generation (e.g., coming up with new
ideas, processes, etc.), but are not very good for evaluations (e.g., whether the people like
something or not). The group nature of the task interferes with getting individual opinions,
which is essential for the ability to quantify the evaluations.
How this feedback system fares on the four criteria for a good feedback system. So, how does
the way we do user-testing at Microsoft stack up to the four criteria? Pretty well (in my humble
opinion). A recap of the criteria, and my evaluation of how we do on them is given below.
1. The feedback should accurately represent the opinions of the target gamers. We supply
reasonably accurate, trustworthy feedback to teams, because:
a. We have a large database of gamers (~12,000) in the Seattle metro area, who play
every kind of game. So we can almost always bring the right kind of gamers for each
kind of game.
b. We hire only people with strong backgrounds in experimental or applied psychology in

order to minimize the biases of the user-testing specialist. We also have a rigid review
process for all materials that get presented to the user.
c. We thoroughly document our findings and recommendations, and test each product
repeatedly, which allows us to check the validity of both our work and the team's fixes
over multiple tests and multiple participants.
2. The feedback should arrive in time for the designer to use it. We are relatively fast at
supplying feedback. The entire process takes about six days to get some initial feedback,
and about 11-14 days for a full report. If the tests are well planned, they can happen at
key milestones to maximize the timeliness of the feedback.
level of feedback in the reports is extremely granular, because the tests are designed to
yield granular, actionable findings. The user-testing specialist typically comments at the
level of which cars or which tracks caused problems, or what wording in the UI caused
problems. The recommendations are similarly specific. Usability tests typically yield more
than 40 recommendations, whereas playtest tends to have anywhere from 10-30 items
to address.
4. The feedback should be relatively easy to get. The feedback is relatively easy for the dev
team to get--they have a user-testing lead on their game, and that person sets up tests
for them and funnels them the results. However, the feedback is relatively inexpensive,
when compared to the multi-million dollar budgets of modern games. The total cost of
our operation is "substantial," but economies of scale make the cost per game relatively
small.
Vital statistics on the user-testing group at Microsoft
Group history: the usability portion of the user-testing group has been around in a limited
fashion since Microsoft entered the games business in earnest, in 1995. Funding was at a very
low level (one usability contractor and 30+ titles to support) until the Games Group began
investing more heavily in 1998 with the introduction of the Playtest group. The usability and
playtest group merged to form the user-testing group in 2000. The current user-testing
processes have been relatively stable since 1997 (usability) and 1998 (playtest).
Current composition of user-testing group: 15 FT user-testing specialists, 3-5 contract

specialists, 3 FT support staff. Almost all user-testing specialists have either two or more years
of graduate training in experimental psychology, or equivalent experience in applied psychology
and are gamers. All four founding members of the user-testing group are still with the group.
Amount of work: In 2001, we tested approximately 6500 participants in 235 different tests,
on about 70 different games. 23 of those games were non-Microsoft products. In 2002, we
expect to produce about 50 percent more than we did in 2001. From 1997 to Jan 2002, the
group has produced 658 reports on 114 products (53 Microsoft, and 61 non-Microsoft products)
representing the opinions of more than 15,000 hours of consumer reactions to games prior to
their release.
Special thanks to Randy Pagulayan and Ramon Romero for their help editing this article.
The Psychology of Choice

By John Hopson
Gamasutra
February 6, 2002
The play of any computer game can be described as a series of choices. A player might choose
the left or right hand tunnel, decide to skip this target and save ammunition, or play a fighter
rather than a mage. The total path of a player through the game is the result of a thousand
little choices, leading to success or failure in the game and to enjoyment or dislike of the game
itself. The principles underlying the choices players make and the way in which a designer can
shape those choices is a key component of game design.
As in my previous article, the kind of psychology discussed here is often called behavioral
psychology. This sub-field of psychology focuses on experiments and observable actions, and is
a descriptive rather than normative field of study. Instead of looking at what people should do,
it studies and tries to explain what they actually do. By understanding how people react to
different kinds of choices, we can design games that help them make the kind of choices that
they'll enjoy, and understand how some game designs can unintentionally elicit bad choices.
Maximizing
The most obvious thing to do when confronted with multiple options is to pick the choice or
pattern of choices that maximizes reward. This is the sort of solution sought by game theory,
one that mathematically guarantees the greatest level of success. While most players don't try
to work out the exact algorithms behind weapon damage, they will notice which strategies work
better than others and tend to approach maximal reward.
Usually, participants maximize when the choices are simple and deterministic. The more
complex the problem, the more likely they are to engage in exploratory actions and the less
likely they are to be sure that they are doing the optimal thing. This is particularly true in
situations where the contingency is deterministic. If the pit monster attacks every time the
player gets to a certain point, they'll quickly pick this up and learn the optimal point to jump
over it. If it attacks probabilistically, the player will take longer to guess what rules govern the
pit monster's attack.
While maximizing is the best thing for the player, it's probably not a good thing for the
designer. If the player is doing as well as it's possible to do, it implies that they've mastered the
game. It also means that the game has become perfectly predictable and most likely boring. A
contingency with an element of randomness will maintain the player's interest longer and be
more attractive. For example, subjects will generally prefer a 30 second variable interval
schedule (rewards being delivered randomly between zero and sixty seconds apart) to a 30
second fixed interval schedule (rewards being delivered exactly 30 seconds apart), even though
both provide the same overall rate of reward.
There is another, subtler problem with maximizing. As discussed in the previous article, sharp
declines in the rate of reward are very punishing for players and can result in quitting. If the
player has learned to maximize their reward in one portion of the game, creating a high and
consistent level of reward, moving to another part or level of the game will most likely result in
a drop in reward. This contrasting low level of reward is extremely aversive and can cause the
player to quit. It may even be an effective punishment for exploring new aspects of the game,
as the transition from the well understood portion to the unknown marks an inevitable drop in
rewards.
To avoid maximizing, there are two basic approaches. First, one can make sure that the
contingencies are never so simple that a player could find an optimal solution. The easiest way
of doing this is to make the contingencies probabilistic. Massive randomness isn't necessary,
just enough to keep players guessing and engaged. Second, the more options there are within
the game, the more things there are to compare, the less likely it is that there will be a clear
ideal strategy. If all the guns in the game work the same but do different levels of damage, it's
easy to know you have the best one. If one gun is weaker but does area damage and another
has a higher rate of fire, players can explore a wider variety of strategies. Once there is a clear
best way to play the game, it ceases to be interesting in its own right.
Matching
Once there are multiple options producing rewards at different rates, the most common pattern
of activity observed in humans and animals is matching. Essentially, matching means that the
player is allocating their time to the various options in proportion to their overall rate of reward.
More formally, this is referred to as the Matching Law, and can be expressed mathematically as
the following equation:
Let's say our player Lothar has two different areas in which he can hunt for monsters to kill for
points. In the forest area, he finds a monster approximately every two minutes. In the swamp
area, he finds a monster every four minutes. Overall, the forest is a richer hunting ground, but
the longer Lothar spends in the forest the more likely it is that a new monster has popped up in
the swamp. Therefore Lothar has a motive to switch back and forth, allocating his time between
the two alternatives. According to the Matching Law, our player will spend two-thirds of his time
in the forest and one-third in the swamp.
The key factor in matching is rate of reward. It's the average amount of reward received in a
certain period of time that matters, not the size of an individual reinforcer or the interval
between reinforcers. If the swamp has dragons that give Lothar 100 points, while the forest has
wyverns that give him only 50 points but appear twice as often as the dragons, the overall
rates of reward are the same and both areas are equally desirable.
Now that I've set up a dichotomy between matching and maximizing, let me confuse things a
bit. Under many circumstances, matching is maximizing. By allocating activity according to
rate, the player can receive the maximal amount of reward. In particular, when faced with
multiple variable interval schedules, matching really is the best strategy. What makes matching
important to our understanding of players is that matching appears to be the default strategy
when faced with an ongoing choice between multiple alternatives. In many cases, experiments
show subjects matching even when other strategies would produce higher rates of reward.
Matching (and switching between multiple options in general) also has the helpful property of
smoothing out the overall rate of reward. If there are several concurrent sources of
reinforcement, a dip in one of them becomes less punishing. As one source of points falls off, a
player can smoothly transition to others. A player regularly switching back and forth between
options also has a greater chance of noticing changes in one of them.
Overmatching, Undermatching, and Change-Over Delays
At its discovery, matching was hailed as a great leap forward, an example of a relatively
complex human behavior described by a mathematical equation, akin to physics equations
describing the behavior of elementary particles. However, it was quickly discovered that
humans and animals often deviated from the nice straight line described by the Matching Law.
In some situations, participants overmatched, giving more weight to the richer option and less
to the leaner option than the equation would predict. In others, the participants undermatched,
treating the various contingencies as more equal than they actually were.
Neither of these tendencies is especially bad for game design, in small quantities. As long as
the players are exploring different options and aren't bored, we don't usually care how much
time they spend on each. Extreme undermatching implies the player isn't really paying
attention to the merits of each option. Overmatching can mean that the player has chosen an
option for reasons other than merit, such as enjoyment of the graphics.
Fortunately for behavioral psychology, these deviations could be predicted and controlled. One
important factor in determining how closely participants match is the amount of time and/or
effort required to change between options. The farther apart the options are or the more work
is required to switch between them, the more players will tend towards overmatching. For
example, imagine a typical first person shooter game, in the vein of Quake or Unreal. If
switching from their current gun to a different one has a delay of 20 seconds during which they
can't fire, they'll switch from one to another less often than they would otherwise. Even if the
current gun isn't perfect for the current situation, the changeover cost might keep the player
from switching. If the delay is long enough, switching can become non-existent as the costs
outweigh any possible benefits.
At the other end of the spectrum is the case where changeover is instantaneous. Consider a
massively multiplayer game where monsters spawn periodically in various locations. Switching
between multiple spawning sites normally takes time, but suppose a player could teleport
instantly from one to another with no cost. The best strategy would be to jump continuously
back and forth, minimizing the time between the appearance of a monster and the kill. That
makes sure the player gets as many points as possible in a given period of time.
Obviously, neither of these extremes is really desirable for game designers. Ideally we want to
be able to adjust the time/difficulty/expense of changing strategies to strike just the right
balance exploration and exploitation. What that balance is has to be an individual choice, the
concept of a change-over delay is just a tool for achieving that balance.
Risk
Another important factor players consider in choosing between alternatives is risk. Game theory
says that players should weigh the options such that they'll maximize overall reward in the long
term. For each alternative, they should multiply the possible reward by the odds of receiving
that reward and choose the best option.
However, this article is concerned with what players actually do, not what they mathematically
should do. Psychologists generally use two terms to describe how subjects react to risky
situations. Subjects are risk-prone when they prefer the more uncertain alternative and risk-
averse when they tend towards safer options. In one experiment, pigeons were offered a choice
between two keys to peck. The left provided 8 pieces of food every time, the right provided 16
half the time and no food half the time. The pigeons consistently preferred the more reliable
schedule, and were therefore risk-averse. In a later study, the left key produced 3 bits of food
every time while the right key produced 15 one-third of the time. In this study, the pigeons
preferred the riskier alternative.
So far, this is perfectly in accord with game theory, with subjects taking risks when those risks
offer an overall greater chance of reward. But what about the example mentioned earlier in this
article, where subjects preferred a variable interval schedule to a fixed interval schedule? Even
when the two options provided equal rates of overall reward, subjects preferred the
probabilistic option. The difference lies in the expected outcome of each individual response. In
the pigeon experiment we just described, each choice was discreet. A peck, an outcome, and
the subject was presented with a fresh choice. Each choice contained the totality of possible
outcomes, so the subjects' behavior reflected the total contingency.
In the fixed-interval / variable-interval experiment, one could respond any number of times on
the fixed interval option but would not receive the reward until the interval had elapsed. On the
variable interval schedule, every single response had a small chance of being rewarded.
Therefore, there was always a reason to try the variable schedule, but only occasionally a
reason to respond on the fixed schedule. The subjects were responding to the proximate
outcomes, rather than the overall outcomes. This is an example of how subtle changes in the
schedule can cause drastic changes in behavior. Whenever we provide players with rewards,
we're creating a schedule of reinforcement that will influence them to behave in particular
ways. Because we can't avoid these effects, we have to understand them so that they can be
made to work for us, rather than against us.
Odysseus' Choice
One factor we haven't addressed yet is when the decisions are made. Many of the choices we
make in games don't have immediate effects, only helping or harming the player minutes or
hours down the line. A character might have to choose whether to take a potion that gives
them extra strength now or save it for later play. A player in a tank combat game might choose
a fast, lightly armored tank rather than a slower, better protected one. Not all choices are
followed by immediate consequences, and this delay often distorts the player's perception of
their options.
Take the situation where a person has two possible options, each with a different level of
reward. For example, a person might choose between receiving one piece of candy or two
pieces of candy. If the delays are equal, the person would naturally choose the one with the
larger reward. However, as the delay to the lesser reward decreases, the relative value of that
reward starts to rise. If someone is offered one piece of candy right now compared to two
pieces next year, most people would probably choose the more immediate reward.
Because he wanted to hear the Sirens but also make it home alive,
Odysseus ordered his crew to tie him to the mast and to plug their ears.
This kind of decision making is often studied in children, who tend to be more strongly affected
by these delays. However, its effects can be seen throughout life, from decisions about saving
money to the relative addictive qualities of recreational drugs. A drug which takes effect faster
will generally be more addictive than a slower one of equivalent strength.
A practical question arising from this research is under what circumstances do people tend to
make more accurate decisions. One of the answers that psychologists have discovered has a
parallel in an ancient Greek myth, Odysseus and the Sirens. Odysseus knew his boat was about
to sail near the place where the Sirens were singing and that anyone who heard them would
throw themselves into the sea in a vain attempt to reach them. Because he wanted to hear the
Sirens but also make it home alive, he ordered his crew to tie him to the mast and to plug their
ears with beeswax so they would not hear the call. In this way, his ship sailed safely past, his
crew unhearing of both the Sirens and his pleas to be untied.
Because he made the decisions at a long delay from both outcomes, his choice was a good one.
If he'd waited until the Sirens were right there and had to choose, his decision would have
maximized the short term happiness of listening to their song over the longer term reward of
making it home alive.
More generally, the more distant all of the outcomes are, the more people's choices tend to
maximize long-term success. Of course, you may not want players doing deep long-term
thinking. It's up to the designer what's best for his or her game, whether to skew the players
towards one option or another, towards one strategy or another. Delays between action and
outcome are just one of the tools available to influence how players choose.
Conclusion
To explain every choice a real human being makes would take a model as complex as the
human mind. Psychology cannot offer use that yet, but it can give us rules of thumb and
general patterns of choice that can describe a generous portion of what we do when presented
with multiple options. Every game offers its players a sequence of choices, each with attendant
consequences for choosing wisely or poorly. By understanding some portion of the rules that
govern how human beings react to those choices, we can design games that elicit the kinds of
choices that make the game a more enjoyable experience
for the player.
Designing for Motivation
By David Ghozland
The importance of a game's experience depends on the how much general interest it can generate.
Creating and keeping the player’s interest is the way to manage his motivation. His motivation is
the factor that will determine if a player will continue playing after a few minutes, as well as how
long he will play and whether he will finish the game.
As game creators, we have the advantage of knowing that the player is motivated when he starts a
game, because the player has already taken the first steps: both buying and launching the game on
his PC or console (this motivational work has been done by marketing).
This is where we step in, seizing these invaluable moments when the player starts playing. These are
the very first minutes when we must deploy a maximum of ingenuity and design. The first contact is
done at that critical moment; when everything begins and when everything can end as well.
The player’s action responds to a paramount need which we should never forget or undermine – that
is, HAVING FUN (everything else just serves to increase the intensity of the game experience). The
essence of our work is to answer this necessity while keeping or even increasing his initial
motivation throughout the game. If the player loses his motivation, it is because he does not have fun
anymore. He will first “switch off’, and then stop playing.
Managing the player’s motivations means meeting his needs. If the general need is to have fun (the
reason for the purchasing the game), then the needs that must be answered by a game designer are
created beforehand by the game design and are also accepted by the player.
I. Motivated Game Design

The game designer is in the position of “the one who proposes”. The proposal is: "come and play in
my world, following my rules." It is a negotiation between the game designer and the player, where
the game's design must convince the player of the legitimacy of its rules, and persuade him about the
game's interest. The gameplay and the game systems will play the role of immersive catalyst, in
order to monopolize the whole attention of the player. The persuasion capacity of a game designer is
measured by the strength of his game systems.
It is all about universe coherency, about credibility and also accessibility. The player has to
“believe” in the game, identify himself with something and quickly get one’s bearings.
The tutorial is essential to guide the player in this development. This is an interactive part where the
player becomes acquainted with the game. In general, the tutorial should be the first level(s) where
the basics are taught; however, this should not be apparent. Motivated by his need to learn and to
understand, the player will be even more receptive if the tutorial seems to be a “natural way to go”.
A tutorial that only enumerates rules and controls is absolutely anti-immersive and not very
motivating.
Once in possession of a "young hero’s set", knowing the bases of the world, the interface and
controls, what motivates the player to go on?
The story? It is, indeed, a considerable source of motivation – considerable, but not sufficient. The
narration can keep a spectator in suspense, but cannot in any case compel a player to act.
The world? Indeed, if the universe "speaks" to the player, if it is original enough and its coherency is
sufficient, then it is a motivating element. If at the beginning it is necessary to discover the universe,
then at the end the objective is to control it and master it. Even if it is not the principal motivation,
one can consider the universe to be a background motivation if it is rich enough.
The gameplay? Yes, the game design is the essence of the game and it is here that we find the real
potential for motivation. This is also the point that I will develop further on.
The motivation depends on the needs. After the first minutes, the needs of the player immersed in
the universe are directly linked to the game. These needs are artificially created by the game design
according to the tacit agreement with the player.
This silent agreement takes the form of a promise stated by the game design at the time of the
presentation of the game’s universe and the game itself. For example, a RPG promises character
growth combined with a measure of empowerment. A FPS, on the other hand, promises large
weapons and powerful enemies.
This is an explicit shortcut to highlight the relationship mechanisms between the game designer and
the player and thus of the motivation. In order to obtain more quality and more efficiency, we have
to consider from now on the player as a variable of the game systems.
II. The PNRC System

The purpose of the system that I am presenting is to manage internal motivations both coming from
the game and in the game context. The player’s external motivations are non-estimable and
unverifiable. We cannot know if the player made the bet to finish the game or if his circle wanted
him to stop playing. What we are interested in here is the motivation induced by the game
mechanisms and systems.
We have to offer challenges to the player in order to entertain him and test him along with rewards
that would motivate him to continue playing. Motivating the player is also to understand his needs
with the purpose of fulfilling them. It is thus to know but also “to control” the progress of his needs
in order to increase them, vary them and modify them from the beginning till the end of the game.
A reward can take several forms but it must be in correlation with the universe and with the player’s
expectations. A reward is related to a challenge, a test or an effort, and thus must be proportional to
the difficulty to obtain it.
To reward a player in a FPS with a bouquet of flowers would be a proof of no common sense.
However, in a game of seduction this kind of reward is in adequacy with the game universe.
Likewise, to loot Excalibur on a goblin or a rusty dagger on a giant are serious mistakes in the game
design. The player receives a reward either disproportionate or inferior to the difficulty and the
reward system collapses. Another dangerous and common practice is to have random rewards. Based
only on luck, this system is difficult to tune and it can be a source of frustration to the players.
We have to reward for a given challenge, according to the difficulty and the needs. This is the
PNRC system or the Motivation loop:
We have to know at any time what the state of the player is. By getting this information we can
determine what his needs are, what rewards will be adequate and what level of challenges we can
propose.
Hence, we can say that the player’s motivation is an outcome of 4 following functions:
 PLAYER STATE (P): This is the state of game variables of the player’s avatar. His life,
armor, and the quality of his equipment, etc. It is also his talent, his knowledge of the world
and of game mechanisms. We can say that this is the strength of the player.
 NEEDS (N): These are the needs at the moment when the challenge arises. These needs
depend on the player’s state and on his advancement into the game. There are also the needs
added, by the game design, as the player goes along.
 REWARD (R): This is the player’s expectation of the reward. The value depends on the type
of reward (function of the needs); it depends on the estimated difficulty and also on the
player’s past experience with the reward system.
 CHALLENGE (C): This is the player’s expectation regarding the challenge. The value is
high if the player believes in his own capacities. However, if he does not feel comfortable or
if he doubts in his skills, the value is low.
For a particular Player State we have the following equation for motivation (M):
M(p) = N(p)*C(p)*R(p)
Indeed, the function of time P(t), is the parameter of N, C and R. These three functions interact in
multiplicative ways. As soon as one is null, the motivation for this player state is null.
For example, for a particular player state (P), a player can be demotivated when his good
performance is not recognized by the system. Poor reward (R ~ 0) results in poor motivation even
when the player believes in his own skills (C high) and his needs are significant (N high).
Another example: the player can believe in himself (C is high), and considers that a high
performance results in high reward (R high), but he is too well equipped or armed (N ~ 0). M is then
low.
III. Motivating Systems

Once the learning phase is achieved, the player is in expectation. He has new skills, a lot of good
will and a basic set of equipment to begin his career as a hero. From now on, the role of the designer
is to open up his universe and to guide in it the player step by step. He does this by offering
progressive challenges rewarded by new tools to help him to take up new challenges and so on. The
game designer creates the needs for the player; he organizes his wishes and provides the challenges
and rewards to satisfy him.
The game design must build the loop of player’s needs, and then answer them by a succession of
challenges/rewards. This structure inherent in a game is built around the principles of progression,
growth and accomplishment.
To create a challenge/reward cycle is relatively easy. The one most used is the D&D method
commonly known as “door, monster, treasure.” This system is functional but restrictive and
repetitive. It allows building solid bases but it remains tedious and wearisome in a short run. This
tool is raw but functional and if it does not allow subtle tuning, it is a motivating system.
Motivation on the Reward

The “reward system” is the fundamental base for all motivation management. The rule is that every
player’s effort must be rewarded. Even though the reward could take many forms, its role is mainly
to motivate.
In action-RPG titles such as Diablo or Guild Wars, the gameplay is built on the growth of the
character's strength. This is carried out by a system of experience and levels associated with a system
of equipment. To reach the next level the player has to cumulate enough points of experience. By
passing through a succession of challenges, he will obtain this experience as well as the equipment
needed for the next challenge.
Diablo's inventory system at work
The motivation loop is closed and the player runs from monster to monster to satisfy his thirst for
power. The needs N are big (equipment and levels) and expectations on reward R are big
(experience and treasures). Expectations on challenge C are proportional to the strength P of the
player. Since P continues to grow, N, R, and C follow the same evolution during the game.
Even though this system looks ideal and scalable, it

has its weaknesses. When the limit of progression is
reached, the game looses its interest and the
motivation disappears. If there is no limit, the system
does not offer any objectives or references and thus
the motivation is very weak.
In the case of Everquest, the scarcity of rewards that

gave birth to a "camp system" exhausts the players’
motivation until they are completely de-motivated.
The rule that every effort merits a reward is no
longer valid.
In the case of Diablo, the randomness of categories and reward characteristics increases the
motivation of players to replay in order to achieve the perfect item. The disadvantage is that the
player has no real reference of the ratio challenge / reward since one “unique” item can be the
reward for next to no challenge.
Motivation on the Needs

The core of the game play in RTS is generally the source of the motivation. In StarCraft, the entire
game mechanic is based on resource acquisition and control. The player starts the game close to sites
with just enough minerals and gas to be able to begin the development of his base and his troops.
In this case P is at its minimum (the player is weak) and N is big (need for development). Challenge
expectation C is small but greater than his power P (defend his development). Reward expectation R
is big (to obtain a complete base and an army to fight) hence the motivation M is significant at the
beginning of the game.
Thereafter, once his resources are exhausted, the player will have to find some new ones to exploit.
N is still big, C depends on the strength achieved by the player P (battle for the control of new sites),
and R remains big (possibility to upgrade units and to construct new ones).
In general, RTS games are based on construction mechanics that require resources. This mechanic is
constantly motivating because troops and buildings will be destroyed during battles, and as a result
new resources will be needed. The needs N are still significant, P changes with battles, C depends on
P, and R is linked to needs N. The motivation loop is well established and exists until there are no
resources left.
However, the strong point of this system is also its weak point. The game is decided once a player
does not have access to resources any more; however, waiting for the game to be over can take a
long time. The motivation loop is broken since it is impossible to access resources. Thus, there is no
reason for the player to continue; he quits the game leaving the winner frustrated to have won by the
retirement of his opponent.
Blizzard's popular sci-fi themed RTS Starcraft
Some RTS titles like Age of Empires tried to propose solutions to keep the motivation going by
either creating other resources that would be easier to access (food and farms) or by creating a
possibility to obtain resources by other means (trade, reinforcements). In other RTS title, such as
Total Annihilation, M.A.X, and Company of Heroes, resources cannot be exhausted and both the
motivation and the gameplay are based on the number of sites to control and on time optimization.
Motivation on the Challenge

In fighting games and sports games, the motivation is related to the challenge. The player state P
follows the learning curve which represents the level of player’s skills. The induced need N is then a
need for knowledge and excellence. It is the need to dominate all aspects of the game and to master
all controls in order to face successive challenges C (beat the adversary). The reward R is the victory
in each challenge which proofs the skills and which brings the player closer to the final victory.
The motivation loop is an ascending spiral that results in the player’s progress and in his skill
affirmation. Yet, a simple victory is not a sufficient reward to keep in a long run the motivation.
Namco's PlayStation 2 3D fighter Soul Calibur III
Games like Soul Calibur or Need for Speed suggest unlocking the options according to the
performance or to the accumulation of points (new characters, new arenas, looks, etc.). It is a parallel
system of motivation that is linked to the game mechanics while preparing the multi player.
Motivation on the Player State

In general, shoot'em up and beat'em up style games are based on the player state P. The player’s
characteristics (character, ship, etc.) are upgradeable but are not permanent. Everything the player
can acquire is temporary. He can lose his bonuses at the end of the level or when he dies. The
player’s objective is to keep his strength as high and as long as possible to defeat the final boss.
The need N of the player is high, and he has to increase his strength P through bonuses and
upgrades. Challenge expectation C is directly linked to P: weak when the player has no upgrade and
strong when he acquires enough bonuses. The reward R is represented by a consequent increase of
fire power and hence by the decrease of the difficulty.
Since the difficulty is here independent from the player state P, the motivation of the player
decreases with his strength to finally disappear when the difficulty rises too high. We quickly reach a
selection between the strongest and the most perseverant players that progress and the others that
give up.
There exists some efforts in these types of games to make them more accessible, including
permanent bonuses, adaptation of the difficulty level, and the possibility to win without upgrades.
For now, however, core gamers remain the main target of these kinds of games.
Mixed Motivation
Most games build their motivation on the four PNCR functions. Because these functions are
interdependent, to succeed in an efficient management of motivation one has to balance the four
parameters. It is a question of tweaking and tuning to achieve the desired game experience.
id Software's first person shooter Quake IV features mixed motivation
For example, online first person shooters like Quake or Unreal Tournament have a mixed motivation
that is based at the same time on the challenge C (tournaments Game play), the need N (arms/
armor/ ammunition/ health), the player state P (bonuses and temporary boosts), and the reward R
(score and the victory).
In the context of tournament and competition experience, even if the main motivation is the victory,
the balance among the four functions is essential.
IV. PNRC Applications

Expectations
To achieve motivating game systems, we need to take into consideration every PNRC variable and
to ensure the follow-up of the motivation for each challenge. We can conceive the game structure as
a succession of iterations of challenges along the difficulty curve. Each iteration is linked from the
previous to the next one by the player state P.
The player state allows retrieving necessary information for the adjustment of the "challenge" and of
the "reward," the reward responding to the "needs" created by the game design. The objective is to
increase or at least to maintain the motivation of the player during his progression.
The motivation will change from iteration to iteration, and it will increase or decrease, according to
adequacy of the game compared to player’s expectations. To keep the player motivated, the reality
of the game system (S) must be equivalent to the expectation (E) of the player.
If at the beginning of each iteration of challenge, the player starts with motivation Mprev, let’s then
call Mnext the motivation at the end of the iteration:
There is: S <> E (Equivalency)
N and P are constants at the considered time:
S = (RS*CS) E = (RE*CE) (Definition)
And: CS <> RS > N (Conditions)
S is the motivating factor from the system parameters and E is the player’s expectations. P (player
state) represents the player’s strength at the given time, N his needs:
 The motivating value of the system has to be equivalent to player’s expectation.The

challenge has to be proportional to the reward and, if possible, slightly superior to player’s
capacities.The reward has to fulfill player’s needs and has to give him a bonus that is relative
to the difficulty of the challenge.
 The challenge has to be proportional to the reward and, if possible, slightly superior to
player’s capacities.
 The reward has to fulfill player’s needs and has to give him a bonus that is relative to the
difficulty of the challenge.
The resulting player's motivation, Mnext, is then the initial motivation, Mprev, affected by the ratio
of system and expectation:
Mnext = (S/E)*Mprev
Note: if the ratio of S/E is constant during the whole game then the motivation is a geometric
progression: un+1 = q un
For example, if a player can have no expectation on needs, N = small, but he can have a big
expectations of challenge, CE = large. If CS <> CE, even if his needs are fulfilled, the system still
has to take into account his performance (RS > RE > N), otherwise S is smaller than E and the
motivation Mnext decreases.
Score System, Key system, and Multi-Choice

Here are 3 examples of the management of the motivation commonly used that will well illustrate
the PNRC mechanic and its advantages.
Score system:
The score system is a good way of how to manage the motivation. It is an integral part of a reward
system, which allows both rewarding and confirming the success of the player (R). This goes from
encouragement to applause, from score bonuses to experience points.
The player is rewarded by points and/or by ranking. The score determines the progression, and the
bonus rewards the performance. The player creates a logical system where the game universe is
organized and structured in form of point values. The difficulty of the challenge is measured by the
number of points it brings and vice-versa. The player is then pushed to bigger and bigger challenges
(C) in order to gain more points.
The experience points follow the same principles with the difference that the score is integrated into
the game system. The progression takes the form of levels and associated talents (N). Another
motivating aspect of the experience system is the resulting ranking compared to other players and
compared to the world. The problem with this system is the limit of the progression (maximum
level), once this limit is reached it sounds the death knell for the motivation.
Here, the motivation is related to the progression and the performance. The score is thus an efficient
tool of the system to recognize player’s efforts and to follow his evolution (P).
Key system:
The system is an additional layer of the challenge/reward mechanic. Challenges (C) are trials where
in order to progress the player must first successfully finish previous trials. The principle is that the
player is in front of a locked door and he needs a key to open it. In order to succeed in this challenge
he needs first to find this key (N) which, however, is a reward (R) in a different challenge. The key
then becomes both the need and the reward and thus increases the motivation to gain it.
Multi-choice:
Giving a choice to the player increases the possibilities of both the game and gameplay. Motivating
is also used to increase the player’s chances to find what he is looking for (N). Being able to
apprehend the challenge before the confrontation is an enormous advantage. The fact that the player
can prepare himself for the confrontation (C) is in itself a very motivating element.
Also, having even a partial knowledge of the reward before the challenge is quite interesting. The
player can avoid the frustration of discovering a non satisfying reward or he can strive to gain a
reward (R) that motivates him.
I am talking about positive motivation that pushes the player forward to a feeling of
accomplishment. However, there are opposite motivations based on negative characteristics as well,
such as addiction, alienation, anger, frustration, etc. It can be interesting to exploit these feelings
sometimes, for deeper needs, but to build a complete system based on this would be destructive. At
the end, the player would be left feeling bitter and would be repelled by the game.
With score system, key system and multi-choice, the motivation loop is a loop of positive
reinforcement that feeds itself. The player is immersed in the game and pushed forward. He will live
through a motivating experience.
V. A Little Further
Inspired by the theory of processes and adapted to video games, the system PCNR that I propose is a
simple and satisfying tool to manage players’ motivation. We could extend it to more variables but
with the risk of increasing the complexity.
In this article I presented only the mechanisms of the motivation within the process frameworks that
lead to it. There are several points that were not discussed, such as evolution of the needs and their
hierarchy, as well as the future needs that the player is yet not aware of, which are also added to the
motivation loop. Also, we cannot forget motivations issued from the context and the story as they are
non-negligible ingredients of the motivation.
Finally, communities and groups bring additional dimensions to the player’s motivation. The
multiplayer and the massive multiplayer game types have specific constraints that should be taken
into consideration. Some aspects of motivation depend on the relations with other players, on types
of players, and their specific needs.
I will focus on all these points in my next article where I will explore in more detail how to respond
to a universe much more complex that it appears to be.

The Chemistry Of Game Design
By Daniel Cook
1. Moving Beyond Alchemy

“…it was clear to the alchemists that "something" was generally being conserved in chemical
processes, even in the most dramatic changes of physical state and appearance; that is, that
substances contained some "principles" that could be hidden under many outer forms, and revealed
by proper manipulation.”
I recently happened across a description of alchemy, that delightful pseudo-science of the last
millennium that evolved into modern chemistry. For a moment I thought that the authors were
instead describing the current state of the art in game design.
Every time I sit down with a finely crafted title such as Tetris or Super Mario Brothers, I catch hints
of a concise and clearly defined structure behind the gameplay. It is my belief that a highly
mechanical and predictable heart, built on the foundation of basic human psychology, beats at the
core of every single successful game.
What would happen if we codified those systems and turned them into a practical technique for
designing games?
In A Time Before Science

“Throughout the history of the discipline, alchemists struggled to understand the nature of these
principles, and find some order and sense in the results of their chemical experiments—which were
often undermined by impure or poorly characterized reagents, the lack of quantitative
measurements, and confusing and inconsistent nomenclature.”
Historically, the process of understanding games has been limited by numerous factors ranging from
messy experimental practices, spiritual reliance on untested theories of play, and confused
terminology. We are still alchemists of our trade, mixing two parts impure story with one part
polluted game play with three parts market voodoo.
As an industry, we need to beyond the mystical hand waving that defines modern game design. It is
now possible to craft, test and refine practical models of game design built from observable patterns
of play. We can describe what the player does and how the game reacts. Recently, we’ve begun to
crack open why players react to certain stimuli and are able to create models that predict pleasure
and frustration.
This essay will describe into one such model.
Fundamental Science Forms The Future

Diagram 2: Condensation polymerization of Nylon,
(a substance not available to alchemists)
The bigger hope is to move our alchemical craft towards the founding of a science of game design.
We currently build games through habit, guesswork and slavish devotion to pre-existing form.
Building a testable model of game mechanics opens up new opportunities for game balancing,
original game design and the broader application of game design to other fields.
The advent of basic chemistry gave us tools to build a new world of technologies far beyond that
imagined by our alchemist forefathers. Plastics, engines, fabrics, power sources revolutionized our
lives. It is a worthy effort to crack the fundamental scientific principles behind the creation of games.
2. The Foundations Of A Model Of Game

Design
Where chemistry separated itself from alchemy by building testable models of physical atoms, a
science of game design concerns itself with testable models of human psychology.
Many of the attempts to define games have focused on the mechanistic elements of the game, such
as the primitive actions that the system allows the player to perform or the tokens that the player
manipulates. The approach has been to treat games as self contained logical system.
Mechanics and aesthetics are certainly important pieces of any model of game design, but in the end,
such analysis provides little insight into what makes a game enjoyable. You end up with a set of
fragmented pieces that tell you almost nothing about the meaningful interactions between the game
as a simulation and the player as an active and evolving participant. Games are not mathematical
systems. They are systems that always have a human being, full of desires, excitement and immense
cleverness, sitting smack dab in the center. To accurately describe games, we need a working
psychological model of the player.
Player Model
Our player model is simple: The player is entity that is driven, consciously or subconsciously, to
learn new skills high in perceived value. They gain pleasure from successfully acquiring skills.
Diagram 3: The player follows clues to the acquisition of a new skill
Let’s dig into three key concepts in our player model.
 Skills
 Driven to learn
 Perceived value
Skill
A skill is a behavior that the player uses to manipulate the world. Some skills are conceptual, such as
navigating a map while others are quite physical, such as pounding in a nail with a hammer.
Driven To Learn
Play is instinctual. In low stimulation environments where we are not actively pursuing activities
related to food and shelter, people will begin playing by default. Strong feedback mechanisms in the
form boredom or frustration prod us into action. Given a spare moment, we throw ourselves into
playing with blocks or dolls as children and more intricate hobbies as adults. It is a sign of our need
for meaningful stimulation that solitary confinement remains a vicious punishment for the most
hardened criminals.1
The flip side is that we are rewarded for learning. The sensation that gamers term ‘fun’ is derived
from the act of mastering knowledge, skills and tools. When you learn something new, when you
understand it so fully you can use that knowledge to manipulate your environment for the better, you
experience joy.
There is a reasonable amount of neuroscience available to support this claim. Edward A Vessel, a
cognitive neuroscientist at the NYU Center for Neural Science writes:
“These “aha” moments, when a concept or message is fully interpreted and understood, lead to a
flood of chemicals in the brain and body that we experience as pleasurable. It feels good to “get” it.
The deeper the concept is, the better it feels when we are finally able to wrap our head around it.”
Upon the click of comprehension, a natural opiate called endomorphin, a messaging chemical in the
brain similar in structure to morphine, is released. As humans, we are wired to crave new
information constantly. In some sense, what you and I term curiosity can be interpreted as our brain
looking for its next fix of deliciously fascinating information.
As game designers, we deal with the fun, boredom and frustration on a regular basis. It is good to
recognize that these are biological phenomena, not some mystical or mysterious sensation. For more
thoughts on the topic, I encourage you to have a quick read through Raph Koster’s book “A Theory
of Fun for Game Design”
Perceived Value
Players pursue skills with high perceived value over skills with low perceived value
Play is, perhaps counter intuitively, a deeply pragmatic activity. Our impulses to engage in play are
instinctual, selected for by evolution because it provides us with the safe opportunity to learn
behaviors that improve our lot in life without the threat of life threatening failure. We play because
we are built to expect the eventual harvesting of utility from our apparently useless actions. We stop
playing when we fail to find that utility.
The perception of value is more important than an objective measurement value. Humans are not
creatures of pure logic. We know people exhibit consistent biases in how they weight their actions.
For example, they’ll often undertake bizarre risks because they are unable to properly evaluate
statistical odds. We’ve also realized that people have substancial limits on how much information
they can take into account when making any one decision. Many decisions are made based off
highly predictable ‘gut’ reactions that have their own subconscious rules.
Chapter 3: Skill Atoms

With our player model in hand, we can describe how the player interacts with the game.
The basic ingredients of a game are, if not standardized, at least well described in a variety of books
and rambling by designers across the past decade or two. I’ve taken the basic ingredients of tokens,
verbs, rules, aesthetics, etc and remixed them into a self contained atomic feedback loop called a
skill atom. Each unit describes how the player gains a new skill.
Diagram 4: The player follows clues to the acquisition of a new skill
A skill atom feedback loop is composed of four main elements:
-Action:The player performs an action. For a skill atom encounter by a new player, the action might
involve pressing a button. More advanced atoms might instead require the player execute a batched
set of actions such as navigating a complex maze.
- Simulation: Based off the action, an ongoing simulation is updated. A door might open.
- Feedback:The game provides some form of feedback to the player to let them know how the
simulation has changed state. This feedback can be auditory, visual, or tactile. It can be visceral in
the form of an exploding corpse or it can be symbolic in the form of a block of text.
- Modeling: As the final step, the player absorbs the feedback and updates their mental models on the
success of their action. If they feel that they have made progress, they feel pleasure. If they master a
new skill or other tool, they experience an even greater burst of joy. If they feel that their action has
been in vain, they feel boredom or frustration.
A shorthand diagram that I find useful for recording atoms is as follows:

Diagram 5: Our canonical skill atom
For example, let’s dissect the act of jumping in Mario
Diagram 6: The skill atom of the player learning how to make Mario jump
 Action: An inexperienced player pushes a button.
 Simulation: The simulation notes the action and starts the avatar of Mario on the screen moving in
an arc.
 Feedback: The screen shows the user an animation of Mario jumping.
 Modeling: The user forms a mental model that pressing the button results in jumping.
Implicit in this model is that the atom is often looped through multiple times before the user
understand what it teach. The first pass may only clue the user that something vaguely interesting
happened. The user then presses the button again to test their theory and Mario once again bounces
up into the air. At this point, the player smiles since they realize they’ve acquired an interesting skill
that may be of use later on.
This Thing We Call Play

“Man is a Tool-using Animal. . . . Nowhere do you find him without Tools; without Tools he is
nothing, with Tools he is all.” – 19th century essayist Thomas Carlyle
Upon the acquisition of a shiny new skill from a skill atom, players experiment with it. They try it
out in different environments and see if it does anything useful. This semi-random exploration is the
classic ‘play’ activity that we see children perform. For example, when a new player masters how to
jump, you’ll notice they’ll almost immediately start happily hopping about the level. On the surface,
it is a silly frivolous activity. In reality, we are observing humanities instinctual process of learning
in action.
In the course of experimenting, the player will occasionally stumble across something in the
environment that gives them interesting information that might lead to the mastery of a new skill. At
this point, you’ll see the behavior of the player become more deliberate. A mental model begins
coalescing in their minds. In our jumping example, the player starts bumping against a platform.
They may even reach the top of a platform. It is very common that skills acquisition requires
multiple passes through the new skill atom before mastery is achieved.
Eventually, the player uses an existing skill to grok another skill. They experience a wash of pleasure
and start the process all over again.
Chaining Of Game Mechanics

We can visually represent how players learn by linking our basic skill atoms together to create a
directed graph of atoms called a skill chain.
Diagram 7: Two linked atoms
The skill from one atom feeds into the actions of another atom further down the chain. By linking
more and more atoms in, you build a network that describes the entire game. Every expected skill,
every successful action, every predicted outcome of a simulation, every bit of required feedback can
be included in a simple, yet functional fashion.
Diagram 8: Sample skill chain for Tetris
(Click here for the full sized PDF)
A skill chain is a general notation that can be used to model pretty much any game imaginable. Your
design can be broken down into dozens of simple atoms that link together to form a clear and easily
readable map of how the game plays. The skill chain, with its ability to describe the player
experience instead the mere mechanics of the game, provides a far richer description of the
meaningful moments that occur during gameplay.
How Players Interact WithA Skill Chain

Players will travel from atom to atom like Pac-Man following a trail of dots towards the power
pellet. They move from one skill to the next even when they have only a vague concept of the
ultimate destination. Chomping up those dots is good.
One of our peculiarly human limitations comes into play at this point. Players are unable to predict
the value of a new skill more than a couple atoms down the chain. As long as there a new skill with
potential value within our prediction horizon, players will pursue it. There may be no long term
payoff other than the pleasure of the experience, but we don’t care. As long as the short term rewards
keep coming, we assume that there will be some final benefit from our efforts.
Diagram 9: Players have limited foresight
If you look at this from an evolutionary perspective, our behavior makes quite a bit of sense. Many
useful skills take upwards of five to 10 years to master. During those early days of our education, the
basic playful activities such as gossiping about which girls have cooties seem rather silly. Later on
however, our mastery of politics, science, or in the case of the cooties, mating rituals, yields a hugely
positive impact on our well being.
The just-so story here is that playful folks that instinctually engaged in long term learning with no
immediate benefit were the ones that mastered agriculture, hunting and language. These folks
thrived. Those that did not died off.
However, our brains never evolved to deal with modern games. The existence of a set of skill atoms
that are tuned just to entertain us and that never actually lead up to a real world skill is something
new to the world. At their most puerile, games are a grand hack. The minute by minute experience
fits all our biological heuristics and sounds all the right bells. So we keep on playing. And we
wonder why so many games have such horrible endings.
4.Status Of Atoms In The Skill Chain

A skill chain provides some rather useful information about the state of the player as they engage the
game. Imagine that the skill chain is the instrumented dashboard that lights up with the player’s
progress. At any point in time you can tell the following information
 Mastered skills: Skills that have been recently mastered.

 Partially mastered skills: Skills that the player is toying with, but has not yet mastered.
 Unexercised skills: Skills the player has yet to attempt.
 Active skills: Skills that the player is actively using. (aka the Grind)
 Burned out skills: Skill atoms that the player has lost interest in exercising.
Diagram 10: Icons for skill status
We’ve talked a little bit about mastered and partially mastered skills. Unexercised skills are pretty
self explanatory. If a player can’t perform the actions necessary to understand a skill, that atom will
never be exercised or mastered. Mastery flows down the chain and if players are blocked early on,
they’ll never each the further atoms.
The two states that are worth a bit more explanation are active skills and burned out skills.
Active Skills
The player only experiences the joy of mastery for an atom only once. After the moment of mastery,
a biological feedback system kicks in that dampens the pleasure response to exercising those same
pathways again. What was once exciting becomes boring.
However, players will continue exercising an already mastered atom as a new tool for manipulating
their world. A mastered atom is as good as a shiny new hammer hanging from a workman’s belt.
When a new opportunity comes up, typically in the form of an atom further down the skill chain, the
player makes use of their new skill to advance their knowledge.
Players have enormous patience. They are willing to exercise a basic skill atom thousands of times
in order to achieve mastery of a higher order atom. Players jump innumerable times in Super Mario
Brothers in order to reach more powerful skillsets further down the chain.
A skill that has been mastered and is now simply being used to activate other icons is represented by
the lit light icon.
Diagram 11: Active Icon
Burnout
Players don’t always bridge the gap between one atom and the next. They master a new skill, they
play with it but fail to find any interesting use for it. This is known as burnout.
Diagram 12: Burned out icon
For example, suppose our player pressed the jump button. They performed the jump and we
recorded their mastery of the skill. However, this particular player never figured out that how the
jump might be useful. Perhaps they didn’t jump near the platform and receive interesting feedback
on the next atom. After a short period of experimentation with no interesting results, the player
stopped pressing the jump button entirely.
When a player burns out on a particular atom, the consquences ripples up and down the chain.
Early Stage Burnout

In the example above, the Reach Platform atom will never be mastered. The foundational skills are
not in place. In a deeply linked skill chain, a burnout early on can chop off huge sections of the
player’s potential experience. You can think of learning curves in terms of managing early stage
burnout.
Later Stage Burnout

On the other hand, a burnout later on down the chain can devalue active skills.
Diagram 13: Skill atrophy due to later stage burnout
For example, assume we have a single platform in our jumping game and there is really nothing on
it. The player jumps on the platform, discovered no interesting new activities and so stops jumping
on platforms. This, in turn, atrophies the Jump skill, because if the player doesn’t need to jump on
platforms, why would he bother jumping?
Burnout Is Our Gateway To Testability

Burnout is a very clear signal that our game design is failing to keep the players attention. As you
watch burnout creeps across a game’s skill chain, it is a signal that players will soon stop playing the
game. They are becoming bored, frustrated and perhaps even angry.
Perhaps most importantly, we can measure when burnout occurs for an individual atom. This gives
us, as game designers, unprecedented qualitative insight into how a particular design is performing
with play testers. When you start tracking burnout along with the other skill states, you can visualize
the problematic areas with great clarity and accuracy. The entire topic of measuring performance of
a game through instrumentation of its skill chain is a rich topic for further exploration.
5. Advanced Elements Of A Skill Chain

We’ve covered the basic elements of a skill chain and how to record that status of the player’s
progress. There are only a few more pieces we need so that you can start building your own skill
chains.
 Pre-existing skills: How the skill chain is jump started.

 Red Herrings: How we represent story and other such useless, but pleasurable aspects of
modern game design.
Pre-existing Skills
Players bring an initial set of skills to a game. These skills always form the starting nodes of a skill
chain. Accurately predicting this skill set has a big impact on the player’s enjoyment of the rest of
the game.
Diagram 14: How pre-existing skill feed into initial skill atoms
Lack Of The Correct Initial Skills

If the player lacks expected skills, they will be unable to engage the initial atoms in the game. In our
example about jumping, imagine a player that didn’t realize that you need to push the button on the
joystick in order to do something. Such an example may seem ludicrous, but it is one faced by many
non-gamers whenever they are faced with a freakishly complex modern controller. Many game
designs automatically assume the ability to navigate a 3D space using two fiddly little analog stick
and a plethora of obscure buttons. Users without this skill give up in frustration without ever seeing
the vast majority of the content.
It is very important to realize that such users aren’t stupid. They merely have a different initial skill
set. One of our jobs as designers is to ensure that the people who play our game are able to master
the game’s early skill atoms. Ultimately this means making an accurate list of pre-existing skills for
the target demographic and building our early experience around those skills. Don’t assume skills
that may not be there.
Pre-mastery Of Skills Taught In The Game

The flip side of all this is that if players have already mastered existing skills, the process of
mastering early atoms is likely to be quite boring. When a player, who has completed a dozen
hardcore titles, plays a game sporting a 10 minutes navigational tutorial they become bored. All the
reward notes are sour because their jaded brain doesn’t react at the appropriate points. If a game
doesn’t teach the player anything new, the player is very likely to experience burnout on the early
atoms.
Targeting the correct set pre-existing skills is a balancing act. If you choose correctly, you’ll end up
with an ‘intuitive’ game that players enjoy. If you choose incorrectly, you risk frustration, boredom
and inevitable burnout.
Red Herrings
Games are laden with story, setting, and imagery intended to evoke a particular mood and other
intriguing but useless elements. Gamers derive great pleasure from this feedback. We can represent
much of this mélange of artistry with the use of a special type of atom known as a red herring.
Red herrings are atoms that designer knows will never result in a useful in-game skill, but that still
evokes the pleasure of partial mastery in the player. When the player experiences the information
cues, existing player memories are activated and the brain greedily sucks up the clues. For example,
many players have pre-existing associations with mushrooms. If you are of a certain age and a
certain liberal background, you may even own a rainbow colored T-shirt that sports a mushroom or
two. When such a person plays Super Mario Brothers for the first time, they are quite likely to perk
up at the sight of magic mushrooms. A skill atom in their brain is activated and they begin free
associating why might dear Miyamoto have placed such a counter culture reference in the game.
Of course, the reality is that the mushrooms mean nothing of the sort. The combination of the
player’s limited prediction horizon with the chemicals gained from associating the in game feedback
with their existing mental structure is enough to create a jolt of pleasure that the player will happily
seek again.
The downside of Red Herrings in their games is that most players rapidly burnout on such sleights of
hand. The first time you see the mushroom, you might think it interesting. The second time, you see
it as its true nature: a key that unlocks another skill that helps you advance.
6. Conclusion
We’ve covered a lot of ground in this essay. Hopefully, the diagrams give you a good understanding
of how to describe a game using skill chains.
Using Skill Chains
As a tool, I’ve found that skill chain diagrams dramatically improve my understanding of how a
game works, where it fails and where there are clear opportunities for improvement.
Creating a skill chain provides you with the following information:
 Clearly identify the pre-existing skills that the player needs to begin the game
 Clearly identify the skills that the player needs to complete the game
 Identify which skills need feedback mechanisms.
 Identify where the player experiences pleasure in your game
 Alert the team when and where players are experiencing burnout during play
 Provide a conceptual framework for analyzing why players are experiencing burnout.
Though it takes a little practice, skill atoms aren’t all that complicated to define and are really no
more of a burden than writing unit tests for a chunk of code.
Future Topics
Skill chains are a deep topic and we’ve described only the most basics aspects of how they function.
Further topics of inquire include:
 Use of instrumented skill chains as a tool in iterative development

 How skill chains related to traditional interaction design
 The role of timing and other reward distribution technique in skill chains
 Critiques of common games using skill chains
 Limitations of skill chains
From Alchemy To Chemistry
I like to imagine that models like skill chains will help raise the level of intent and predictability in
modern game design. With the concepts in this essay, you can start integrating this model into your
current games and collecting your own data. We’ve got some immensely bright people in our little
market and it is almost certain that they can improve upon this foundational starting point. By
sharing what you’ve learned, we can begin to improve our models of design. What happens if game
designers embrace the scientific process and start build a science of game design?
The alchemists of ages past dreamt of turning lead into gold. They performed mad experiments with
imprecise equipment and questionable theories of how the universe worked. Modern game designers
are not really so different. Those not simply here for the sake of profit instead rally around equally
fantastical dreams such as creating a game that makes the user cry or enlightening the world with
games of politics or hunger. We crib cryptic notes from past successes and chortle merrily when our
haphazard experiments manage to mildly entertain our audience. We are on the leading cusp of deep
human / software interaction and yet we know so little.
It is only by gaining a deeper understanding of the fundamental building blocks of design that game
designers with gain the power to break free from the accidental successes of the past. With practical
techniques gained from controlled experiments, we will create radically effective new applications.
When we have our basic chemistry, our basic systems of measurement and our basic atomic theory,
perhaps then we can consistently build games that tap into the heart of human psychology.
The reproducible application of psychological manipulation of individuals and groups using

software is big heady stuff. In the short term, I would hope that a deep understanding of models like
skill chains help us crack open the rigid craftsmanship of existing genres so that we can build better,
more potent games. Long term, it will be interesting to see what world changing uses we can find for
our ever improving psychological technology.
References And Notes

The original essay on skill atoms
 http://www.lostgarden.com/2006/10/what-are-game-mechanics.html
Effects of solitary confinement on prisoners

 http://www.prisoncommission.org/statements/grassian_stuart_long.pdf
Perceptual pleasure and the Brain
Irving Biederman and Edward Vessel, American Scientist, May-June 2006
Abstract: “From hand-held DVD players to hundred-inch plasma screens, much of today's
technology is driven by the human appetite for pleasure through visual and auditory stimulation.
What creates this appetite? Neuropsychologists have found that visual input activates receptors in
the parts of the brain associated with pleasure and reward, and that the brain associates new
images with old while also responding strongly to new ones. Using functional MRI imaging and
other findings, they are exploring how human beings are "infovores" whose brains love to learn.
Children may enjoy Sesame Street's fast pace because they get a "click of comprehension" from each
brief scene.”
 Press release: http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/12543.html
Six sinister things about Super Mario
 http://www.destructoid.com/six-sinister-things-about-super-mario-28654.phtml
An example of game chemistry in action
Here is a rough draft of a skill chain for Tetris. It is interesting to note that a game that is
mechanically quite simple can possess an expansive skill chain.
 PDF (800k)
 Description of expert level Tetris skills
Relationship of Skill Chains to MDA (Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics)
This is a question that has been posed on occasion. MDA is a game analysis framework put forth by
Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc and Robert Zubek. It is one of many descriptive techniques that
catalog the elements of a game. The hope is that in the process of defining the pieces of a game, the
designer will clarify their thinking about a design. This is certainly an admirable goal.
The major differences between the two approaches is that in MDA there is little attempt to model the
actual player experience with the game. MDA analysis also fails to provide any objectively testable
structure. With skill chains, you can always hook up logging software and observe where atoms light
up and where they burn out.
You can read more on MDA here.
A quick overview of alchemy, from a reliably alchemical web 2.0 source

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy
It's All in Your Mind: Visual Psychology and

Perception in Game Design
By Hayden Duvall
Gamasutra
March 9, 2001
URL: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/200103009/duvall_01.htm
Making a game is sometimes like being in a bad relationship. In the beginning, everything ticks
along nicely and your partner seems happy as you try and provide for their needs. You both
know what you want, and all seems well with the world. After a while however, your partner
begins insisting that you spend more time with them, you never seem to be able to do enough,
and they become more demanding. Your life soon becomes dominated by a never-ending list of
things they want. Fail to give them the care and attention that they dictate, and they
stubbornly refuse to do a single thing that you ask of them. Eventually you give in to their
requests, secretly plotting to end the relationship as soon as you can, moving on to something
better that will allow you the space and freedom you need to truly express yourself. When the
split finally comes, it is a relief, but looking back, seeing all the things you achieved together,
you realize that through pain there is reward. Next time, however, you won't be pushed around
quite so easily.
You may think that this article will address that most insidious of evils: Feature Creep (which to
me always sounds like one of Spiderman's less successful foes). This however, was not the
purpose of my "a game is like a relationship" analogy. My intended point was that a game (like
a relationship) is a complex, dynamic thing that requires the participants to draw on all areas of
understanding to make it successful. Similarly, the more involving and well constructed the
game world is, the more a player will be drawn in and rewarded.
It is from this point of view that I propose that psychology has a part to play in game
development. OK, I can hear you groaning. Psychology: the realm of ink blots and Freudian
slips. But stifle that yawn and bear with me. Psychology aims to explain how the mind works,
and how this leads you to act, think and experience everything from falling in love to dressing
as your mother and attacking women in showers with a carving knife. Whether your game is
trying to be a perfect simulation of flying an F-16 or an epic adventure set in a unused carpet
factory, understanding psychology can improve your game's design and execution.
Psychological techniques have been effectively used by video games for years, simply because
we all live in the same world and decode our surroundings using basically the same physical
and mental machinery. Our life's experience brings us into contact with a similar range of
emotions, and it is this framework that we draw upon when we create something, whether it be
a book, a song or a game. What I suggest is that we put names to these psychological aspects.
So, where to begin? Let's see how the player interprets what they observe and hear.
You Think That's Air You're Breathing?
First of all, a brief overview:
FIGURE 1. Perception.
Theories of perception generally draw upon the same basic idea. Gregory's definition reads:
"Perception is not determined simply by stimulus patterns; rather it is dynamic searching for
the best interpretation of the available data ... perception involves going beyond the
immediately given evidence of the senses" (Gregory, 1966)
or more succinctly put:
"Perception creates faces, melodies, works of art, illusions etc. out of the raw material of
sensation". (Coon, 1983)
The model is perhaps an obvious one, and as far as creating a game goes, we only need to
concern ourselves with visual and aural input (with the tiny exception of force-feedback
controllers). This restriction puts extra pressure on the visual and audio aspects of our game,
and removes the need for us to create a convincing "smellscape".
It is worth pointing out that impairments to a player's senses can impact a game. At the most
basic level, deafness rules out most dialog-heavy games that don't have subtitles, as well as
making games in which audio cues form an important part of the gameplay all but impossible.
Colorblindness is also a rarely considered, yet significant condition, which can affect a player's
enjoyment. Red and green color blindness is the most common form, and while it only occurs in
0.4 percent of the female population, it is estimated to affect eight percent of males, and as
gamers are still overwhelmingly male, this figure is not inconsequential. As this form of color
blindness restricts the sufferers' ability to differentiate between red and green (hence the
name) any vital information in a game that requires color matching (puzzles) or easy
identification of colored objects (the baddies are wearing red, the goodies green, for example)
could be enough to render the game unplayable.
FIGURE 2. Colorblindness.
Seeing is Believing
The first and most obvious area of perception is vision, so this article concentrates on this
particular type of sensory input. If I had been writing fifteen years ago, this section would only
be about two paragraphs long, as the limitations on game visuals would have left me with little
to say. As it is, today's games are so visually complex that what we see on the screen is
beginning to rival the intricacies of the real world. Yes, it is true that a game world has
significant technical limitations as to the content of a scene, but when we consider that the
range of things that a game can present us with visually extends way beyond that which we will
ever see in the real world, the balance begins to be redressed slightly.
Consider for a moment, the following images:

FIGURE 3. Image A: Salvidor Dali's The Slave Market With
Disappearing Bust of Voltaire (1940), presents the viewer with
an ambiguous image of choir boys in an archway that can also
be seen as the face of the famous French Writer-Philosopher.
Image B: the well known (Muller-Lyer) optical illusion, shows a
row of symbols who's central vertical lines are all of equal
length, despite their immediate appearance.
While these kind of illusions may not in themselves be of any practical use in game design, they
illustrate the process by which our brain translates what it sees (stimulation of retinal cells) into
what it believes this information represents, and what this means. Clearly as these images
show, what we think we see is in fact not necessarily what is actually there. Fortunately for
those of us making games, our brain can be tricked into thinking it sees a whole range of things
that are, in reality, no more than a collection of glowing dots of color on a flat screen.
There is quite a selection of rules that influence how we interpret what we see. Some, like
binocular disparity (the fact that our eyes are slightly separated and so receive slightly different
images), have no value in the average game world (put those 3D glasses down). But certain
others are of more interest.
Similarity: objects that appear the same or similar are grouped together in our mind. This can
often be reinforced in a game when animation cycles of several similar objects run in synch:
trees wave in the wind in unison, torches all burn at precisely the same rate. Sometimes
grouping may be what we want, but more often than not, this similarity just serves to highlight
the fact that some elements of a game are repeated.
Relative brightness: as things get further away from us, they tend to fade and take on a
bluish hue. This phenomenon is used as a depth cue, and is of course great news for fans of
fogging. The trick though, is in the subtlety and distance of the fade-out. If the fogging distance
is too close, and the drop-off too severe, instead of an acceptably natural haze that reinforces
the expansiveness of a landscape, the player will begin to feel that they have wandered onto
the set of a 1930's Sherlock Holmes movie.
FIGURE 4. Relative brightness: as things get further away from us, they
tend to fade and take on a bluish hue.
Scale: perhaps the most important aspect of scale is that it is relative. Perceptual
consistencies, as psychology calls them, dictate that elephants are large and gerbils are small.
No matter what the viewing conditions, our past experience provides us with this sort of
information, which is used by our brain to decide that the elephant on a distant hill is smaller
than the gerbil in our hand (Helmholtz, 1909). In a video game of course, elephants can be two
feet tall and gerbils can weigh four hundred pounds. The rules of consistency are of little
consequence. In addition, everything we see is effectively in screen-space, and will actually be
observed in a physical sense, as being only inches high. In view of this, context within the
game environment, has a large part to play.
FIGURE 5. The effect of context on perceived brightness.
In the example above, the central gray squares within each of the four larger squares are
exactly the same. The change of brightness across the four surrounding squares however,
tricks us into seeing a corresponding (but inverted) shift in brightness across the inner squares.
The effect of context dependency is also valid within a game setting, when dealing with scale.
Size, relative to the player's character (or vehicle etc.) can be used as a starting point for scale
comparisons. What appears to be a human sized character, will be interpreted as such, if the
surroundings reinforce this with appropriately sized trees, cars etc. If however, the character
has to climb a can of beans 10 times his size, or run across a massive piano keyboard in a Tom
and Jerry kind of style, the character may take up an identical amount of screen space, but will
be judged to be tiny. In the same way that geometry sizing can convey scale information,
textures can also have a part to play, with the scale at which a texture is applied to a surface,
having a contributing (if sometimes subconscious) effect on a players sense of scale.
Speed: moving things rapidly around the screen may seem like the obvious solution in this
case, but speed isn't just about being quick (not when it's on a screen at least). Let's pause for
a second, and consider what most of us see as Lee Major's career high: the Bionic Man. Apart
from an impressive line in polyester sportswear, one of the bionic man's most important assets
was his speed. TV budgets being what they were in the Seventies, as well as the limited range
of special effects on offer, the bionic man's production team had to come up with an acceptable
way of making him fast. So what did they do? They slowed him down. On the one hand, this
perhaps explains how the logic of this decade brought extreme chest hair into fashion and made
Elton John famous, but it also makes sense. TV and film had already established the concept of
slow motion, and it was of course predominantly used to show something happening too fast to
be appreciated. Drawing on this convention, the bionic man gave us something that was
visually slow, but translated by our brain into extreme speed. So what does this imply for
creating the impression of speed in a game?
Essentially, we can use things that we associate with speed (like slow motion) as indicators that
something is fast. Motion blur is perhaps the most widely used of these. Once only available as
a pre-rendered effect, we now see it executed in real time. Apart from the fact that motion blur
actually produces a moving image that the brain accepts as more convincing, we have now
become familiar with the convention that blurring equals speed (in this respect I am talking
about exaggerated, visible blurring). Roadrunner cartoons are particularly fine examples of this,
building on the traditional static cartoon methodology for conveying speed. A more recent
example in film would be The Matrix, where extreme, bullet-dodging speed is expressed with an
adapted form of motion blur. Other visual cues to speed would include things like clouds of dust
and debris in an object's wake, or the intensity of flame from a spaceship's rockets increasing
(the afterburner effect). Indicators like these will help steer the player's brain towards
association with speed, making the effect both easier to achieve and more convincing.
FIGURE 6. Roadrunner cartoons are particularly fine example of how
blurring is used to suggest speed.
Once we are able to perceive the game visually, and identify its constituent elements, the next
trick is making sense of it all. At this stage, there is a whole world of pain, ready to be explored
when looking for a model that explains how we do this (see: Hochberg 1978, Koffka 1935 and
Marr 1982), but perhaps of more interest to game design, is how we can help the process
along.
Linearity in a modern game seems to have become as unpopular as a mime artist in a …well, as
unpopular as a mime artist. The days of simply routed games, where all you needed to think
about was collecting giant golden keys and making your way towards a fight with the big red
dragon are long gone. Free roaming, unrestricted exploration is the norm nowadays, with
complex environments that allow the player to wander for hours, marvel at the scenery, and
cavort across hilltops with a Julie Andrews-like abandon. But freedom comes at a price.
Dropping a player into a strange new environment can be confusing. The amount of information
presented can mean that a player becomes unsure about which direction to take and unless
some kind of help is available. The appeal of free exploration can be crushed under the tedium
of random wandering. Solving this problem relies on good design and well-executed
construction, but there is one additional area that plays a part: memory.
At the Copa… Copacabana…
Remembering where we've been, what we're doing and where we are going, can, for some of
us, be a difficult feat in our everyday lives. I for one often find myself starring blankly into the
fridge, having no recollection of even entering the kitchen, let alone what I am looking for. Add
into the equation, a story line, several characters, a world full of caves and a sacred quest of
some description, and suddenly, keeping track of what's going on becomes quite an issue.
There are a couple of memory related problems that often crop up in games, which can in my
opinion, reduce a players enjoyment considerably:
FIGURE 7. Remembering where
we've been, what we're doing
and where we are going, can,
for some of us, be a difficult
feat in our everyday lives.
First there's the common fault of Information Induced Panic (or IIP). We've all played games
that from the very instant they start, begin to load the player with heap upon heap of what
seems to be vital information. Whether it's in the great hall of Castle Colon, or in the
transporter room of the Starship Artichoke, there are always characters ready to give us what
seems like thirty minutes of introductory background story and a comprehensive rundown of
our mission. Unfortunately, remembering that our sworn enemy Thoth'l, son of Thathel, has
captured the Princess Thath-oth, and is taking her to his lair just outside the town of Thimbar,
can readily merge with the fact that Kaboth'l our trusted guide has located Thim-Athlothal, the
once powerful Sorcerer, and has recommended that you travel to Hack-Matheth to find him.
What we end up with is the vague impression that we need to find someone, who is going to
help us rescue someone (possibly a Princess) from somewhere, and that we may need to do
some fighting on the way.
OK, I have been a little facetious with all of the "th" sounds, but this scenario is one that pops
up constantly. Without mentioning any of the worst culprits (you know who you are), the verbal
ping-pong that can take place, firing out character and location names which obviously mean
nothing to the player, whilst he slowly begins to bleed from his ears under the strain of trying
to take it all in, is not entirely uncommon. True enough, many games that do this do not expect
you to remember everything, and much of the information is meant as nothing more than
supportive detail to the central plot. The problem however, is that the player doesn't know this.
The player has no idea if the names of Emperor Xioachin's four trusted Generals: Chai-Sin-Wa,
Sai-Chin-Ho, So-Ha-Xiao and Se-Chaio-Hin are important, or if they just add color to the story.
When unfamiliar information is presented, there is usually little a player can do to discern what
is relevant, and what isn't, and this problem is made worse as more information is given.
The second memory related problem is Exploration Anxiety. As mentioned previously, the trend
away from linearity- towards free exploration exacts its own peculiar price on the player. This
anxiety comes in two basic forms, the first of which, as mentioned before, has the player
wandering aimlessly around a world, searching for something specific (or unspecified- in the
worst cases), unable to remember whether or not they have been along this particular path
before. Unproductive rambling can drive any player towards the escape button, but coupled
with the common game-world problem that trees, corridors, paths and caves can often look the
same (regularly using the same geometry), exploration can sometimes be its own worst enemy.
The other form of Exploration Anxiety that most of us will be familiar with, is the nagging
feeling that sometimes appears during a game, niggling at the back of your mind saying "I bet
you missed one of the rooms back there", and "I bet there was a huge magic sword in it".
Progressing from level to level is generally the driving force behind the gameplay, but the
thought of having missed something vital, or of significant value along the way, can sometimes
be detrimental.
So, what has psychology got to offer, to help game designers cope with memory issues and
their associated problems? I would suggest a look at the following three rules.
The Magic Number
Funnily enough, this number is seven (Miller 1967). Or more precisely: seven plus or minus
two. In psychology, things are only talked of in terms of theory, the Law of Penile Envy for
example doesn't exist in the same way as the Law of Gravity. Even though certain elements of
thought and behavior seem to be well established, psychologists are happy to regard them as
theoretical and not proven. The concept of a magic number is however, one of the most robust
of these phenomenon, demonstrable across many cultures and age ranges.
Try it out for yourself:
There follows several lists of letters, read the first one through slowly, only once
(this actually works best if they are read to you aloud), and then write down the
letters in the order that you remember. Repeat this procedure for the next, longer
list, and so on, until you can no longer recall all the letters correctly.
J, N, A, X, G
S, D, Q, B, F, A
I, Y, V, M, R, L, W
G, K, E, Z, H, B, A, X,
D, P, B, F, I, V, G, E, C
P, Y, N, J, S, E, D, T, Q, F
M, Z, T, U, J, W, L, N, Y, O, G
All things being equal, your recall should have fallen between 5 and 9 letters: the magic
number. There are a range of interesting modifiers to this phenomenon that allow recall to
extend beyond the magic number. Chunking for example, suggests that we place the
information into lumps (or chunks even) and thus the overall amount that we remember, is
increased. As an example, it would be relatively simple to remember the sentence: aliens ate
my best-friend's underwear, which in actual fact gives us a total letter recall of 30. This
chunking process allows letters to be made into words. The same trick is used with phone
numbers -- businesses want us to remember 0800 60 40 2200, for example.
This principle is probably most applicable in a game, to puzzles. Using too many elements at
any one time will most often result in the player loosing track of what they're doing, or will
force them to begin writing things down.
Primacy and Regency
This is best illustrated by the following exercise:
There follows a list of 20 ordinary words that should be read through slowly, only
once (again, the experiment works better if the list is read out to you, one word per
second). Once the list has been completed, you should attempt to write down all
the words that you remember in any order.
Camera, chain, octopus, boot, cream, mirror, holiday, basket, lamp, carpet,
mountain, television, chair, hotel, shelf, water, flower, camel, boat, steak .
Typically, the words at the beginning of the list and those at the end, are most easily recalled
(Murdock, 1962).
FIGURE 8. The items at the beginning or

end of a series are generally recalled more
accurately than those in the middle.
Primacy therefore, refers to the effect that makes the earliest words easier to remember, and
regency the enhanced recall for words at the end of the list.
How does this help game design? It can be established that once the amount of information
presented spills over the normal limits of short-term memory (seven items, plus or minus two),
the middle ground becomes fuzzy. In terms of cut-scenes and long-winded intros: if they serve
to build atmosphere and establish character, fair enough, but place any important information
in the beginning or the end.
Repetition
However unreliable my memory is, the two things for which my recall is perfect are the words
to Fiddler on the Roof, and the monument to modern song-writing that is Barry Manilow's
Copacabana. This is not due to either an obsession with musicals from the '70s nor too many
nights spent at karaoke, but rather my parents' unfortunate taste in music as I was growing up.
Whether we like it or not, repetition is a reliable method for reinforcing memory, and is an
effect that can be used in games.
On the most basic of levels, repetition of important story elements helps the player remember
details that could at first be difficult to retain. In terms of familiarizing a player with a control
system, or having them learn certain procedures within a game, repetition is both a way to help
the player remember what to do, and provides the opportunity to practice these actions. As
long as the repetition is skillfully paced and well integrated into the overall flow of the game, it
should do its job without becoming tedious.
Resistance is Futile
While game players are unlikely to submit to having large metal probes inserted into the back
of their heads (I'd like to see Sony try and sell that to the gaming public), they may well end up
being more like The Matrix than Tron. As the power of the games machine begins to free
designers to explore new areas of gaming potential, playing will evolve into participation, and
that will evoke stronger emotions and reactions.
Examining what psychology can bring to the table as part of the game creation process, could
be seen as an overindulgence that even the Marquis de Sade would categorize as excessive.
However, treated as a practical means by which the game playing experience can be enhanced,
a greater understanding of the inner workings of a player's mind will ultimately give the
designer more power to create the emotions and experiences that are needed to make the
games of the future.
References
Coon, D. 1983, Introduction to Psychology 3rd edition. St. Paul, Minnesota, West Publishing Co.
Gregory, R. L. 1966, Eye and Brain. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Helmholtz, H. 1909, Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, II, pp 764-843.
Hochberg, J. 1978, Art and Perception. In E.C. Carterette and H. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of
Perception, Vol. 10. London: Academic Press.
Koffka, K. 1935, Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Marr, D. 1982, Vision. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Miller, G. A. 1956, The Magical Number 7 Plus or Minus 2: Some Limits in Our Capacity For
Processing Information. Psycological Review 63: 81-97.
Murdock, B. 1962, The Serial Position Effect of Free Recall: Journal of Experimental Psychology,
64: 482-488.
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/200103009/duvall_01.htm

<SCRIPT
LANGUAGE="Jav
ascript1.1"
SRC="http://as.cmp
net.com/js.ng/Param
s.richmedia=yes&si
te=game&affiliate=
gamasutra&pagepos
=articlesky&gam_p
os=home&ord=967
38913962561490?"
></SCRIPT>
| |
SRC="http://as.cmpnet.com/js.ng/Params.richmedia=yes&site=game&affiliate=gamasutra&
SRC="http://as.cmpnet.com/js.ng/Params.richmedia=yes&site=game&affiliate=gamasutra&
Postcard From GDC 2004

B
y
B
The Power of Collectibes:
r Leveraging Your Player's
a
d Inner Obsessive-Compulsive
K Damion Schubert of Wolfbane Studios led a discussion on Friday morning about the
a Damion Schubert benefits and challenges of developing systems of collectibles in console and online ga
n leads the "Power
e of Collectibes" A collectible was defined as any set of objects, either open or closed, that a player ca
round table acquire within a game. Often, these are implemented as lateral components of a gam
discussion.
[
Aexperience -- elements that are not integrated with the primary gameplay. Schubert and participants discus
uthe reasons for this trend, and talked about some of the challenges of developing games with heavily collect
Change Login/Pwd
t oriented components:
Post
h A Job
oCollecting
Post A Projectfor the Sake of Collecting
r
Post Resume
' Schubert
Post identified two distinct situations in which players attempted to collect items within a game.
An Event
s
Post A Contractor
In A
Post developer-driven
Product situations, collecting is motivated by a design decision, and serves to enhance the repla
Bvalue of a game. For instance, collecting coins in Super Mario Brothers allows a player to gain more lives, an
Write An Article
i continue playing; collecting Pokemon in any of the Pokemon games gives players a motivation for fighting b
Get
oand In Art Gallery
collecting cards in Magic: The Gathering serves as an enjoyable side-quest for players wishing to take a
Submit News
]from battle.
Latest Letters to the
Editor:
G
In other situations, though -- particular in Massively Multiplyer Online games -- gamers collect for other reas
a Persuasive
RE:The act of collecting is in itself a social activity for many players, and impressive collections of rare items can
m
Games:
serveHow I
as status symbols in an online world. In these cases, developers support the drive to collect by inventi
a
Stopped
itemsWorrying
and methods of collecting, but do not necessarily drive the collection process itself.
s
About
u
Gamers And
t The key,
Started Schubert
Loving People said, is that players like to be able to choose to collect, but do not like being forced to. Th
Who why collecting
Play Games items or game elements is, in so many cases, what Schubert referred to as an "opt in, lateral
r
gameplay"
Steven
a An -- a side-quest or adjunct to a much larger game.
[08.03.2007]
MCollecting in Persistent Worlds
a
Latin American
r In console
Upcoming games, collectibles are manageable, said the roundtable participants, since space and time are bo
Events:
Game Development
climited.
Venezia In online worlds, though, challenges arise in attempting to manage item systems that are potentially
Digitale
byhinfinite
Patrick Dugan
in size and scope.
Venice, Italy
[07.26.2007]
09.03.07
2Some participants noted that online gaming tends to employ a "variable reinforcement schedule" in the plac
June NPD numbers
6of collectible - -- a term from Behavior Psychology that refers to the random GIVING of a reward in rew
items
2007
PSPfor Austin
repeated
, software
Game
attempts at an action. (Slot machine gambling is the class example from psychology.) These
Developers
systems, which
Chavez [07.24.2007] encourage players to, for instance, fight the same monster twenty-five times in pursuit of a
Conference
2item, result in potentially obsessive play habits that not all developers saw as positive.
Austin,
0 United States
09.05.07
0Roundtable participants offered several suggestions for ways to implement collectibles that would resonate m
4closely with the desires of the user.
Presenting Yourself:
The
Note:Big Pitch
Collection
Discussion forums for Display Capabilities. In Star Wars Galaxies, players can show off their collections within
London, United space
virtual
Gamasutra are hosted by
the IGDA, which is free to
"house." Participants agreed that online gamers need ways to display their finds.
Kingdom  Interesting Collectibles. Research has shown that players look for items to collect even when there
09.05.07 built-in support for the feature. That being the case, some participants thought that making collectibl
more interesting all around would help players enjoy the experience of pusuing items, especially in ca
GC Asia Conference
where players are pursuing items in an open sets (i.e. sets that due to their nature cannot be comple
Singaopre, Singapore
 Item Catalogues. Providing a comprehensive list of everything that can be collected, and then lettin
09.06.07
players try to collect it all, is another technique that some have found successful in their games. This
model that succeeded for Pokemon, and is also reflected by user-driven "auction sites" in which playe
GAMEON-NA 2007
Gainesville, United
trade items with one another.
 Completion Bonuses. Giving the player a reward for completing a given set of collectibles, or allowi
the set to be traded in for something more useful, was suggested as a means of motivation the existe
of lateral collectibles.
Integrated Collection Experiences
Overall, the focus at the roundtable was on finding ways to leverage the fact that players independently pur
items to collect, and learning from the successes and mistakes of other games that have done the same. Th
concescus seemed to be that collecting would continue to exist as potent form of lateral entertainment in ga
and especially in online worlds, but it was walso clear that developers will need to find ways to better integra
these gameplay elements into their larger gaming experiences.


<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="Javascript1.1" SRC="http://as.cmpnet.com/js.ng/Params.richmedia=yes&site=game&
SRC="http://as.cmpnet.com/js.ng/Params.richmedia=yes&site=game&affiliate=gamasutra&pagepos=button&gam_
Puzzled at GDC 2000: A Peek Into Game Design

By Bernd Kreimeier
Gamasutra
April 13, 2000
URL: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20000412/kreimeier_01.htm
"Game design" is a broad concept, and there are as many definitions of it out there as there are game design
large-scale online worlds, and more. There were numerous lectures to choose from in the GDC's Game Design
design-related sessions in other tracks -- like the tutorial on artifical life, and the "Visual Storytelling through
word "story" in one form or another.
All in all, this was a good deal more than a mere mortal could hope to digest, even if fully dedicated to the tas
to focus on what, to me, seems to be the most interesting and promising approach to game design: the attem
Church, Marc LeBlanc, Zach Simpson and Warren Spector.
Abdicating Authorship
Doug Church's presentation, "Abdicating Authorship," probably aimed the closest to the heart of the storytellin
"Our desire to create traditional narrative and exercise authorial control over the gaming world often inhibits
Church is trying to determine what games can accomplish through the features presumed to be unique to this
loop" recipient that perceives and interprets the author's work. Church concluded that "revelation of the [gam
Dismissing multimedia authoring approaches that simply extend text to hypertext, Church said that he expect
games as examples of each genre. He pointed out that most adventure games and RPGs have, between puzzl
dominated by ability, which requires an "in the loop" player. Being entirely driven by player actions and playe
Church referenced to Marc LeBlanc's 1999 GDC discussion of feedback loops, which said that designers could
audience, not by assuring a constant level of it. As an alternative to external intervention (where the game is
within the game simulation. For a racing game, this could be some kind of forward-pointing device that could
Of course, there are also the deathmatch/FPS action games -- a la Quake. In the past, John Carmack has des
environmental storytelling articles here on Gamasutra.) Church admitted that the shooters have, so far, spear
the fear that maybe this is already the limit of interactivity possible with current technology.
Here, as in many other discussions, it seemed to me that game designers may not have looked closely enoug
being the heart of, and cheapest way to, dramatic action has been made before. But somehow I suspect that
expression only 2D aiming and button pushing. This inevitably limits the amount of meaningful interaction, at
new venues, or whether better immersion will require new controllers and devices. Certainly no fancy hardwa
a case for empowering the player with a virtual (empty) hand, trading the ability to grasp, carry, and place ob
The genre Church focused on last was simulation and strategy games. Certainly this genre has the simulation
games, reaching all the way to virtual pets. "The Sims" are certainly closer relatives to "Creatures", or even T
which children of all ages can project their own lives, memories, and personalities.
As Doug Church also pointed out, the shortcuts, "done quick" demos and walkthroughs available on the web a
external control by a game's "author". It is a natural consequence of game designs that offer exploration, but
Having been a professional storyteller for many years, I found it amazing that I had fewer problems abandoni
attempts to redefine "narrative" seem unsuccessful. Church suggested that players involved in a deathmatch
To me, statements like "the designer 'authors' the rules, while the player 'authors' the real story" try to evade
against the game designer (the designer is the opponent by proxy -- he sets the stage and defines the simula
"dungeon keeper" for his customers, entertaining perhaps, but still a tyrant. During the discussion of Church's
Game designers might want to consider the possibility that there might be little future for narrative in cybersp
appeal in the possibility that the voyeurism, inertia and passivity which made TV a success will also dominate
Formal Abstract Design Tools
In the lecture preceding Doug Church's, Marc LeBlanc sought out a different approach to game design. Under
understanding of game design as a craft. The ideal FADT, according to definition, is "well-defined," "abstract"
resistance game designers exhibit when facing the idea that their work and thinking could possibly be describ
His presentation started with the battle cry "down with fun," which he elaborated upon as he created a taxono
the satisfaction of solving intellectual challenges, from social interaction to submission, from exploration of an
Personally, I suspect that a good share of the FADT efforts are trying to reinvent the wheel. The problems and
Christopher Alexander's work on "design patterns" seems the most promising avenue (more about this in a up
Zach Simpson's collection of game programming patterns as an example.)
Marc LeBlanc also looks to other disciplines for inspiration. In his GDC talk last year, he introduced feedback l
"Complex systems" (much like "fractals," "nonlinear dynamics," or "emergence") has become a popular scienc
its set of rules, even if those rules are deceptively simple. In reverse, mere observation of a sample system w
The example commonly used to illustrate complex systems and their dynamics is that of cellular automata (fo
set of rules. He then compared this 2D cellular automaton with 2D board games like Chess or Go, where attac
EverQuest (the latter makes emergent properties look more like a problem than an asset).
LeBlanc tried to make a case for emergent complexity as a possible source for "fun." In his view, such emerge
constituents are quite complex . The one word he did not use was "combinatorial" – a good deal of the comple
blown up beyond human comprehension by combinatorial explosion.
There is little to be learned from cellular automata that could be applied to game design, thus his presentation
lecture on physically accurate vehicle dynamics for Need For Speed was a case in point). For most games, diff
respect to game design: one detail LeBlanc did not elaborate on was that they are fully deterministic systems
devices -- initial conditions and laws of dynamics -- will be the essence of the tools left at their disposal. Rand
The lecture made the point that complexity is not accomplished by creating lots of rules. In fact, the common
development. The properties created by rule-based simulations don't always make sense, and might even be
Quake 2 (whereby players fire the the rocket launcher at the floor and use the reactive force to propel themse
He explained that the interplay between the game's AI and the sound caused by a single bullet casing hitting
was seemingly not an option).
Marc LeBlanc pointed out that degenerate player strategies indicate a flaw in the simulation of resource excha
my physicist's eyes, this is just a way of saying that game simulations usually fail to model the conservation o
are simply perpetual devices discovered by the player -- or at least a vast heat reservoir to tap into.
In other words, the solution to many such problems might be found in modeling the economy of transactions
solution, namely dampening the system dynamics to prevent spikes. From a physicist's experience, adding fri
recommendation to prototype early and test often games that exhibit emergent behavior. He also pointed out
situations, while strong negative feedback can make the system too stable. Friction that overwhelms every ot
All in all, the discussion of game dynamics in terms of nonlinear dynamics certainly opens an intriguing area o
concept, and even physicists have applied them in sloppy and reckless ways. Beyond metaphor, there might b
LeBlanc concluded his presentation by reviewing ways that various flavors of "fun" might emerge from toying
mathematically nor as a professional storyteller. Marc LeBlanc proposes "embedded (authored) narrative" as a
suffice.
This uneasy marriage of simulation-driven and scripted events fell apart when Marc LeBlanc made a case for "
not remove the tension between the designer's desire for authorship and the player's desire for control. Game
game designer by pointing out that interaction that is irrelevant to the chain of events at large is shallow and
one of two or three possible outcomes. (Incidentally, this kind of choice does not have in-game consequences
An example mentioned during the discussion put the conflicting forces between authorship, emergence and ex
player became aware of it.
LeBlanc offered valuable practical advice based on his experiences at Looking Glass: simplify game elements b
expected to survive the development process unchanged. It is as difficult for the game designer to predict the
presentations are available as Powerpoint files.
Game Design and Game Culture
The panel on "Game Design and Game Culture," brought together designers like Warren Spector, Marc LeBlan
culture, no shared critical vocabulary, no artist's recognition, and no historical perspective (primarily due to ra
I see counterexamples to the alleged shortlivedness of games, in the form of emulators, open source legacies
The panel, from various viewpoints, touched upon the issue of turning games into sports. This discussion cove
Costikyan were repulsed by the attempts to "turn shooters into sport". Citing the example of Wing Commande
player gaming was in fact a social event: people gathered about a box, and there were fuzzy lines between sp
today.
Katie Saling, from the University of Austin, pointing to hidden audiences like the Machinima culture of Quake
Quake matches (as well as scripted performances) created a "culture of production."
Greg Costikyan must have felt deja vu as he listened to everyone revisit the issue of why games are not yet c
discussions repeat themselves in cycles. Little is to be gained by asking whether "game is the right word" or b
and the general populace.)
For me, Warren Spector's reassurance that "the real world is paying attention" conjured the image of a shrink
established form, the subversion of it. I suspect the time span between the pioneering and the "postmoderniz
to outpace invention of the form.
Katie Saling's question "who is the designer, and who isn't?" got to the heart of interactive games. There is hu
proposal to apply the lessons of behavioral science to game design can be extended all the way to Pawlow and
Marc LeBlanc observed that game designers consider themselves authors that have to deliver entertainment,
challenge, narrative, sensational aspects, player as foe, competitiveness. He pointed out that such tunnel visio
using the language used in other media, like movies or writing. Moderator Eric Zimmerman called this the "Ma
Responding to this "manifesto," Warren Spector found himself agreeing with its requests and recommendation
past twenty years. Spector described Deus Ex as an attempt to create an RPG with the intricate complexity of
Quake, and pointed out that the hardest challenge is to find ways of communicating to players the differences
intentionally left gaps in the rules.
LeBlanc put forth that what designers decide to omit is as important as what they include in their games. Acco
No game is exempt from the need for consistency, Richard Garfield said, and he used Magic: The Gathering a
players network in larger, more organized groups. Games get "hacked" easily in local meetings and will be ad
game masters for massively multiplayer worlds, or the "artifical playwrights" predicted with an echo of 1960 A
In the end, a conclusion might be just this: if games are about fun, then capturing that elusive quality seems
Ethics in Game Design
The difficult topic of "ethics in game design" (not to be confused with ethical considerations about making gam
Bates, Toby Ragaini, Austin Grossman, and Doug Church. Beginning with a brief introduction to ethics, the dis
Altruistic decisions require choice and consequence within the game. Yet in-game consequences cannot includ
The idea of player decisions not guided by the cruel equations of in-game economy seemed very troublesome
such an attitude denies that our thoughts and reactions have ethical -- or other -- relevance. A truly ethical m
Addressing first audience comment (which, predictably, failed to separate the designer's ethic from the ethica
adding this element to the game in jest -- and had resigned from the project when it was actually added. Ente
ethical choice is striking. Games will be considered a medium of self-expression and self-exploration only whe
Similarly, there was dissent on the possibility of ethics in single-player games. Toby Ragaini claimed that sing
on the border between living and dead, be it insects or (as detailed in Sherry Turkle's The Second Self: Comp
response to perception). The black-and-white world of Half-Life offers "questionable" design, not ethics. Doug
For me, one of the most intriguing observations was how the panel and audience quietly subscribed to Manich
allow only for right or wrong at most. Bob Bates was the only exception, conjuring an example where there is
confinement for "ethical" games might be expressed by "If everything is either reward or punishment, everyb
It was quite telling that the panelists had to struggle for a response to the question as to whether they had ev
sidekick "Floyd the Robot" in Steve Meretzky's Infocom game, Planetfall. Unfortunately, the designer himself p
opposed to actual choice -- powerful enough to make a roomful of game designers blame themselves for som
Other aspects covered in the discussion included whether ethics in games requires the presence of a (human)
adressed inside the game or outside, and whether players actually want to play "bad guys." Yee pointed out t
on the limited number of actions available to most players. In his view, WALK, SHOOT, and RUN might not be
I did not find the attempts to define ethics as non-optimal decisions (with respect to personal gain) entirely co
to a different cost function (see Kant's "categorical imperative," or even the examination of apparent altruism
The analysis of "tit for tat" in game theory is an interesting perspective when considering players that cheat o
In the end, whether outside or inside the game world, the economy -- not ethics -- guides most decisions. If g
One other observation suspiciously absent from these discussions on ethics was that ethics is "no fun." Ethica
probably right on target in suggesting that the ethical dimension of a game is brought about by raising questi
Let me conclude by making some observations about Yu Suzuki's Shenmue keynote presentation. In my bless
fit into a single room, Suzuki commanded 300 internal and external contributors and a staggering amount of r
films (digital cameras and post-production technology have let people bring independent movies into theatres
much less. As Suzuki pointed out with a smile, he was "not making games for PSX2."
Motion capture is a prime example of how the limitations of movie production affect both the budget and artis
accomplished martial artists for motion captured scenes). Like movies, games now have to create reality first.
A Sega promotional movie shown during Suzuki's presentation posed the question, Is this really a game? As m
words "too many, too expensive"). This game goes through painstaking efforts to fill the gaps of mundane tas
To me, all the meticulous effort put into Shenmue seemed more appropriate as edutainment than entertainme
pointless complexity of cellular automata, games have to find a way to create meaning and relevance outside
Suzuki has fulfilled for himself a dream, one shared by many (if not the majority of) game designers. He striv
industries, all of which presumably are at home in the movie business. Time will tell whether the "movie-as-g
Bernd Kreimeier is a physicist, writer, and coder, working as senior programmer and project lead a
from the Ranks: Rating for Multiplayer Games". See Graphics at GDC for more of his coverage of G

By Katherine Isbister
Gamasutra
Features
June 2, 2006
Book Excerpt: Better Game Characters By

Design
The following is a continuation of a selected excerpt from Better Game Characters By
Design (ISBN 1-55860-921-0), published by Elsevier.
Excerpted from: --
6.3. Design Pointers
6.3.1 Think between Characters

When coming up with initial character concepts and sketches, think not just about how
each character behaves in isolation but also about the relationships between
characters. How does this character feel about that one? How does he express this in
how he moves? Does he keep a greater distance from the other? Are his movements
more closed and tense around the other? It is possible to provide a much richer and
more socially realistic experience for the player if designs are grounded within the
larger social framework of the interactions between bodies.
6.3.2 Use Touch and Interpersonal Distance

Consider using touch and interpersonal distance to help players understand character
relationships and to enhance emotional reactions to what is going on. If a player is
being mentored by a character, why not have that character give the player’s characte
a friendly pat on the shoulder? If a player is closer to one character and not friendly
with another, show this in how close they stand when they talk and how their bodies
orient toward one another. You can even incorporate social touch into core game-play
dynamics, as in ICO, expanding the notion of physical contact in games beyond trading
[More information...]
blows.
6.3.3 Imitation: A Missed Opportunity

The principle of imitation was included in this chapter, although I could not find a good
current game example, leading me to believe that this is a powerful, missed design
opportunity. Consider how the subtle imitation of a powerful character’s movements b
more submissive characters could enhance their apparent authority and charisma.
Imagine showing shifting alliances in a complex RPG through imitation by characters.
Envision showing friendship networks and hierarchies in a social online game through
automated imitation by player-characters. Think creatively about making use of
imitation.
6.3.4 Group Dynamics

The designers at There have demonstrated the value of incorporating group dynamics
into 3D chat. When creating a multiplayer environment, consider building and
extending from their work to help make the game more socially realistic and engaging
6.3.5 Extend a Game’s Character-Style Palette

Latest Letters to the When planning how characters will move, consider the signature dimensions of body
Editor: movement that were discussed earlier and choose a palette of physical qualities that
evokes the experience you want the player to have. Not all characters should possess
RE: Persuasive the exaggerated grace and flow of professional athletes. ICO is a splendid example of
Games: How I using some awkward movement traits to create a different sort of engaging player
Stopped Worrying experience.
About Gamers And
Started Loving People Consider taking time during the design phase to give each character a rating along
Who Play Games by Gallaher’s dimensions: expressiveness, animation, expansiveness, and coordination.
Steven An When crafting specific animations, Laban’s effort dimenions—space, weight, time, and
[08.03.2007] flow—may be useful for helping to capture the personality and mood of a character
performing that motion.
Latin American
Upcoming Events: 6.4 Interview: Chuck Clanton
Game Development
Venezia Digitale Chuck Clanton wore many hats during the creation of There, including director of user
by Patrick
Venice, Dugan
Italy experience, principal designer, and executive producer of social interaction. Clanton
[07.26.2007]
09.03.07 was codesigner of this avatar-centric communication project (described in Section 6.2.
under Social Grouping and discussed in this interview). Prior to joining the There team
June Clanton was at Bullfrog and Electronic Arts U.K. Studio.
2007 NPD numbers
Austin Game -
PSP
Developers by Carl
software
Chavez [07.24.2007] Q: First of all, a little about There itself: some folks might not consider this a
Conference game. What about you? Do you think that There falls within the “game”
Austin, United States context? Why or why not? What is or are the primary driver(s) for
09.05.07 participation in There for players?
[Submit Letter]
[Enter
[ViewForums...]
All...]
Presenting Yourself: Based on strict definitions, There is certainly not a game. It has a physics, which could
The
Note:Big Pitch forums for
Discussion be considered rules, but there is no way to win or lose. In the entertainment sense, it
Gamasutra are hosted by
London, United a toy, something you use for play. Psychologically, it is an immersive environment, a
the IGDA, which is free to
world, and a place where you can live part of your life.
Kingdom join.
09.05.07
We thought and talked about There as being a virtual world, a place where games
could be invented and played. Like the real world, much of the fun surrounds rather
GC Asia Conference than inhabits games. You anticipate a game, you prepare to play or to watch your
Singaopre, Singapore team, you talk about what happened afterward and are elated or depressed at the
09.06.07 results, sharing those feelings with others. Like the real world, games result in social
fun outside the game itself.
GAMEON-NA 2007
Gainesville, United So, activities in There are certainly games. I ran one of the first Buffy Trivia Contests i
States There. It was great fun and definitely a game. One woman knew the answer to every
question and was fast on the buzzer. The contest was so one-sided that we all got quit
09.10.07 silly and giggly, spending more time talking and razzing each other than actually
playing. I talked with contestants and even others who had heard about it for days
[Submit Event] afterward.
[View All...]
(The winner ended up running most of the Buffy Trivia Contests later because no one
wanted to play against her!)
Most people are attracted to There because of the opportunity to do fun activities with
other people, and they stay in There because they form friendships. Fun activities
include those available in real life, like shopping for the right outfit, and those that are
purely fantasies, like “surfing” the boneyard in Tyr under the full moon on a
hoverboard. For some, their avatar is an extension of themselves so they are living in
this virtual world. For others, their avatar is a fantasy of some part of themselves they
would like to experience and cannot in any other way. An example of this is selecting
an avatar of the opposite gender. It is quite thought provoking as a guy to have a
female avatar and see all the ways other guys relate to me. (And I enjoy all of the
possibilities for clothing that are not available to male avatars. In Elizabethan times,
men got to wear all sorts of fancy clothing, but today most finery is reserved for
women. In the animal kingdom, adornment of the male is commonplace, often more
than of the female. Too bad for modern men, but in a virtual world, you can choose to
have a female avatar and take advantage of all of the wonderful clothing that exists in
There.)
Q: There seems to be primarily a social activity space. Did this focus of play
affect how you developed player-character styling, animation, and actions?
How so?
Yes, very much so. Very early in the development of There, we initiated a project calle
“avatar-centric communication.” The team working on this was Jeffrey Ventrella, who
codesigned most of this with me; Fernando Paiz, who was our lead engineer and a ver
creative contributor; and Ko Patel, another very creative engineer who contributed
many ideas as well. Tom Melcher, the president at that time, was really our executive
producer and a creative contributor as well. We believed very strongly that There woul
be primarily a social place. So talking with others would be extraordinarily important.
In real life, talking in person has great value compared to a disembodied voice, like th
telephone, or even this email conversation. We knew we needed to express that value
in There to realize the benefit of having an avatar. Otherwise, you might as well use
email and IM. There are several reasons why having a conversation in a body in a plac
is important. The place itself adds context. Talking while looking out at an incredible
vista from the top of a volcano is very different from meeting someone in a small dark
tomb whose hidden entrance you just discovered. A crowded bar adds a different flavo
than the seashore. The greatest value comes from the body of your avatars, body
language.
Body language appears in two ways . . . autonomic and intentional. The autonomic
nervous system is what keeps you alive, it runs your heartbeat and breathing. Avatars
breath and move around slightly all of the time, just like humans. This makes them
seem alive. Intentional expressions are driven by the intentions of the user. You can
use the smiley language to smile or laugh or cry. In addition, if you use certain words
like “yes” and “no” in your chat balloons, your avatar nods or shakes its head. In fact,
we keep track of the emotional state of the body language you use and the level of
attention based on how much you are chatting, and change the poses of the avatar
continuously to make the ongoing body language of your avatar consistent with the
conversation. And finally, there are many elements to body language that create socia
context. For example, when someone joins a conversation group, everyone looks at
them briefly. This makes you feel acknowledged and welcome but is much too small a
behavior to require that the user control it. So our avatars do these nearly
subconscious social acts as part of their autonomic behavior, and it makes
conversations feel much more natural.
The styling of the avatars went through several iterations. Our first avatars were very
simple and cartoonlike and incredibly expressive. Cartoon faces can do things that rea
faces cannot. But they were so cartoonlike that it was hard to “inhabit” the avatar as
yourself. We then made avatars that were much more realistic. This caused
expressivity of the faces to suffer. So the final version you see today is somewhat less
realistic and more expressive.
And just as the avatars are somewhat less realistic in order to be more expressive, we
also added emotional expressions that are familiar but not realistic . . . what we call
moodicons. I can send a big red heart from my chest to yours with the smiley languag
or cause yellow question marks to rise out of my head. We are all familiar with this
language from cartoons, and it has a lot of emotional power that mere expressions do
not.
Q: I notice that the There avatars move on their own during chat. Why is this?
What did you have in mind when designing these animations? Have you done
any play testing of player reactions to this low-level autonomy of their
avatars? If so, how did they feel?
I did dozens of play tests as we progressed through the avatar-centric communication

project. Of course, we tried many variants and found many dead ends as well as -
fortuitous discoveries. Social autonomic behaviors have a very significant impact on
improving the sense of presence and welcome and involvement in the group. For
example, if others look at you when you speak, you feel their presence and you are
more likely to talk and feel involved.
Another element that bears mentioning is the camera. In most virtual worlds, there is
single, fixed third-person camera that trails your avatar and creates the experience of
having a body in the world. However, in films, the camera is used much more
expressively. Studies on the psychology of TV and film show that the bigger an image
is on your retina, the greater its emotional impact. That’s why the close-up shot in film
is used to create emotionally powerful scenes. In There, we wanted social interactions
to have similar power. So we created a cinematic camera for conversational groups.
When someone uses a strong emotional expression like laughing, the camera cuts to
their face briefly to give power to that expression. Play testing did prove that this was
very powerful, but it could also be annoying. In large conversational groups, the
camera cuts felt distracting, and we also noticed that most members used fewer
emotions and focused more on chat in that setting. So, over time, we carefully tuned
the context where camera cuts would be used.
We also gave users control over the camera so they could accept the default view on
joining a conversational group, which shows everyone but is quite distant, or they cou
rotate and zoom the camera in to better see what they are interested in. So, for
example, when seated in the audience at a stage, you can choose to have a close-up
camera view of the people on the stage or of the audience or of yourself and your
nearest neighbors. In some games, audience members may need to talk among
themselves, which is best done with one camera, and then call out answers to someon
on a stage, which is best viewed with a different camera.
The camera is one of the most powerful tools in There for creating social spaces and
increasing the expressive power of body language.
Q: How did the design process unfold? Any anecdotes you are willing to share
with readers about choices you made in developing the player-characters for
There (body language or any other factors)?
The avatar-centric communication project went through three major phases that revea
the power of iterative design. We created an initial prototype for two avatars where
conversations could occur any time the two approached one another face to face. Most
of the social and body language features were invented in this phase. Our intelligent
cinematic camera worked very well, and we were all sold by this prototype on the
success of our approach. Then we added more avatars, and the camera could not be
made to work. It is a very hard problem finding good camera angles to view everyone
in a conversation when they are allowed to stand in arbitrary positions relative to one
another in the world, and without a good camera, most of the emotional power
disappears. We needed avatars to be in specific positions to engage in conversation.
We invented the chatprop, and our first chatprop was the loveseat. The loveseat was a
two-person bench where we imagined a couple sitting, talking, flirting, arguing . . . an
we made the camera change its position as the avatars changed their poses. If you sa
facing your partner, the camera shot would emphasize togetherness. If you turned
away, it would emphasize separation. This chatprop was great, but unfortunately it wa
a dead end. In almost every other chatprop, emotional expression of pose and camera
view needed to be separately controlled. Another iteration in our design lead to many
chatprops, like a living room with a sofa and two chairs, a stage with audience seats,
where camera view is directly controlled. All during this phase, conversational groups
could only form when seated, never when standing around in the world because we did
not know how to solve the camera problem with free-form groups. We knew what we
wanted, but it was very difficult to program. We wanted avatars to be nudged into fixe
positions relative to one another when they started talking. And we finally figured out
how to do it. So, today if you walk up and talk to another avatar, you are both nudged
into a specific position relative to one another, and the camera works correctly to show
the conversation and cut to your facial expressions. Others can come up and join the
conversation, and everyone moves sideways slightly to let them in.
We began with a simple prototype that allowed conversations in the world to work wel
it didn’t scale, we had to solve many problems along the way, and finally we came full
circle to solving our original problem. Of course, there were many design areas like
this. For example, chat balloons rise from each avatar and their order tells you about
the conversational order. If they rise too fast, it is impossible to follow the
conversation. So we designed a fairly complex scheme to make conversations as legib
as possible by keeping the chat balloon ascent as slow as possible during heavy chat.
Q: Do you think your players are conscious of all the body language you’ve pu
into the avatars?
I know they are not conscious of it from play-testing results, but it has its intended
effect without calling attention to itself.
6.5 Summary and What Is Next
This chapter discussed some of the social cues bodies convey about a person’s
relationships and identity, using examples from games that make use of these
principles. Design suggestions were made for incorporating body cues into character
designs, including the missed opportunity of imitation. Chapter 7 will complete this
section on using characters’ social equipment with a discussion of the power of the
voice.
6.6 Exercise: Social Bodies
Watch a movie together, with the sound turned off. Look for the social uses of the bod
that were discussed in this chapter: interpersonal distance, touch, identity, social
grouping, and attitude. As you watch, pause and rewind the movie whenever necessar
to get a better look at particular examples. Have one person jot down notes about
where and how body dynamics are being used in the film that you can use later as
reference. Working in teams, design and begin to animate a party of characters for an
RPG that use some of the behaviors you saw, focusing on how the space and actions
between characters work.
6.7 Further Reading
DePaulo, B. M., and H. S. Friedman. 1998. Nonverbal communication. In The Handboo

of Social Psychology, eds. D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey. Boston, MA: The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Fagerberg, P., A. Ståhl, K. Höök. 2003. Designing Gestures for Affective Input: An
Analysis of Effort, Shape, and Valence. In Proceedings of Mobile Ubiquitous and
Multimedia, MUM 2003, Norrköping, Sweden.
Hall, E. T. 1966. The Hidden Dimension. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.
Gallaher, P. E. 1992. Individual differences in nonverbal behavior: Dimensions of style
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(1): 133–145.
Knapp, M. L., and J. A. Hall. 2002. Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction.

Australia: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
Laban, R., and F. C. Lawrence. 1974. Effort: Economy in Body Movement. Boston, MA:
Plays, Inc.
Nass, C., K. Isbister and E.-J. Lee. 2000. Truth is beauty: Researching embodied
conversational agents. In Embodied Conversational Agents, eds. J. Cassell, S. Prevost,
J. Sullivan, and E. Churchill. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
_____________________________________________________
Back to Excerpt Star


Uncanny AI: Artificial Intelligence In The Uncanny Valley
By David Hayward
I ring the bell and Trip answers the door.
"How's it going asshole?", I ask, and instantly his face falls. My mouth opens and I feel a quick spike
of guilt before telling myself he's not real. In silence, with a heartbreakingly sad look, Trip slowly
shuts the door in my face. Well that was new. I reload.
I expected the AI to break, not look like a kicked puppy at the right moment. On each run through
Façade it pushes back at me a little, marginally understanding a bit of what I'm doing and saying. It
does feel broken, but within a small and repetitive setting it keeps on creating microscopic and novel
bits of emotional engagement. All of those fall to experience eventually: my unconscious gradually
catches up with my conscious knowledge, learning that Trip and Grace are things, not people.
The ability of things to fool us is often a question of resolution. Something that can fool you at a
glance will not stand against a close look or a prolonged gaze. Spend long enough watching a
magician doing the same trick, or see it from the right vantage, and eventually you'll unravel it.
This goes for CGI imagery of people, such as photo-realistic vector art or 3D models. What looks
incredibly realistic at a distance may not under closer scrutiny. When we’re accustomed to or
expectant of it, a lack of detail can be stylistic to the point of being painterly, but when unexpected it
can pitch a nearly photographic representation headlong into the Uncanny Valley.
The valley has enjoyed widespread discussion in relation to the appearance of CGI humans over the
past few years, and while thinking about it recently, the very worst moments of my social life
flashed in front of me interlocked with thoughts of some of the best game AI. I now think that the
uncanny valley applies to behavior too.
There's a small minority of people who are consistently strange in particular ways. You've probably
met a few of them. Human though they are, interaction with them doesn't follow the usual dance of
eye contact, facial expressions, intonations, gestures, conversational beats, and so forth. For most, it
can be disconcerting to interact with such people. Often, it's not their fault, but even so the most
extreme of them can seem spooky, and are sometimes half jokingly referred to as monstrous or
robotic.
I don't mean to pick on them as a group; nearly all of us dip into such behavior sometimes, perhaps
when we're upset, out of sorts, or drunk. Relative and variable as our social skills are, AI is nowhere
near such a sophisticated level of interactive ability. It is, however, robotic. Monstrous and
sometimes unintentionally comedic; the intersection of
broken AI and spooky people is coming.
The problem is compounded by the fact that there's no way

to abstract behavior or make it "cute". Cuteness is visual, so
by rendering it as a cartoon even the repellent appearance of
an ichor-dripping elder god can be offset. In a similar way,
by its visual characteristics a Tickle Me Elmo doll pushes a
lot of our "cute" buttons. However, when it's set on fire and continues to giggle, kick it's feet and
shout "Stop! Stop! It tickles!" while it burns into a puddle of fuming goo, it seems horrific, profane
and hilarious by turns.
That’s programmed behavior pushed out of context, and the highly specialized fragments of AI
currently integrated into video games easily break in the same way when they stray from their
intended stages.
Strange or sick behavior can't be abstracted into a cuter, more appealing version of itself unless it's
made burlesque, naive, or consequence free, and of course this would have drastic narrative effects.
While a story can be told through any number of sensory aesthetics, behavior itself works through
time, its meaning often independent of representation. That's extremely important for interactive
media.
There are lots of things across all media that can already fool us. The crucial question, though, is
how well do they do it? Distance and brevity obscure all manner of flaws, but at some point in a
game, the player can always get closer or look for longer.
This applies to absolutely every aspect of simulation, but the aspects centered on other humans are
critical. We're a very social species, and as a result large amounts of our cognitive resources are
thrown into the assessment of other human beings. For instance, we show extraordinary
specialization in recognizing, processing and categorizing the faces of other humans. We're acutely
aware of whether or not other people are looking at us. We spend every second of interaction
inferring the emotional state, values, and likely actions of others.
Of all the sensory data we deal with, other people are among the most relevant to our existence, so of
course we have some highly specialized capacities to deal with it. Speech, movement, body
language, behavior, and consistency of actions are all things we're well accustomed to.
That means people are much more difficult to simulate than rocks and trees, not just because of
relative complexity, but because we're more wired to scrutinize our fellow humans. In film and real-
time rendering alike, the plastic sheen of 90's CGI has given way to environments my unconscious
mind doesn't balk at and just accepts even if not quite photoreal, but simulated people continue to
pop out of them as fake.
Whether or not something is "realistic" is largely a red herring. The more important test is whether
or not it's convincing, and I suspect behavior will prove to be a much bigger challenge than
appearance.
Simulated appearance can be constructed from various elements that we are presently mastering.
behavior is a complex, dynamic, context sensitive system that, in addition to dealing with immediate
situations, can also operate informed by elaborate historical contexts and long term aims. Where
actions and physicality are based on syntax, the behaviors underlying the vast scope of human
actions, along with the limited repertoires imparted to AI, are often about meaning and have a rich
undercurrent of semantic relations.
Real human behavior, for the most part, seamlessly elicits my empathy, and also tells me that, in
turn, others understand and empathise with me. It also tends to demonstrate consistency, and at some
point can generally be expected to explain any inconsistencies.
At best, such dynamics exist in a fragmented fashion if at all in game AI, which generally follows a
very predictable cycle no matter how good it is: When it's new it may surprise me a few times with
various tricks, and will tend to elicit empathy too, but every time a human seeming art asset or piece
of behavior is instanced or recurs, my empathy diminishes. This continues until eventually I can let
my Id go to town on NPCs without feeling bad. The greater the degree to which AI repeats itself, the
more likely this result is.
Beyond patchy AI, the emotional engagement of a game is in the motivation I have to achieve goals,
which are nothing but syntax. Games can and do rise above this. At present, there seem to be two
ways in which they can use NPC behavior to drive emotionally engaging narrative and social
interaction.
The first is traditional, non-interactive storytelling. By putting a game on rails or inserting huge
cutscenes, a lot of traditional media techniques are of course open to game developers.
The second way is to use convincing fragments of interaction. This is more adaptive, but as yet not
sustainable through time. For example, in F.E.A.R., at one point when I did particularly well at
taking down a group of soldiers, the last one exclaimed "No fuckin' way!" just before I dispatched
him. Though it was of course pre-recorded voice acting, the triggering of it was very well timed and
created a brilliant moment, raising the game above the syntax of combat. In that instant the soldier
was a character, not an entity.
Of course, any attempt to extend that into a conversation rather than a fight would, at present, break
rapidly. This is exactly what happened repeatedly in Façade. No matter how many sad looks Trip
shot at me, I'd always catch him doing something inhuman shortly after. Many game AIs have
engaged and convinced me for a moment or two, but ultimately a five second Turing test isn't a very
high benchmark.
As a result of this limit of game AI, I automatically assume it won't be convincing and forgive any
errors it makes, such as running into things, repeating itself, taking unnaturally long pauses during
conversation, and staring at me. Fragmented AI regularly communicates its inhumanity and
punctures immersion.
However, it is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and that means that as it engages more of the
parts of our brain used in socialization, it will pass a point where it will stop looking like good AI
and start looking like bad acting or dysfunctional behavior. When interactive entertainment hits that
point, it won't just be something we can laugh at like a B-movie, because it won't be a passive
experience. It's going to be reaching out to us and pushing all the wrong buttons.
There are limited examples of it happening already. In Half Life 2, Alyx being programmed to look
at the player while talking to them to create a sense of eye contact was a step above the previous
generation of art and AI, but the illusion snapped when she was talking to me on a descending lift:
Her eyes kept slowly rolling upward then flicking back down to me, because the point she was
scripted to look at wasn't updating as fast as my location. If a real human did that near me, I'd be
concerned for their well-being.
In that game, despite every emotionally convincing moment delivered by the combination of story
telling, AI and art assets, it only took that one error to unhook a great big wedge of my empathy and
make me laugh.
The closer a representation of a human is to reality, the slighter the flaws that can suddenly de-
animate it. AI systems are rather fragile right now, whereas organic intelligence is decidedly robust,
being able to operate in and adapt to a multitude of contexts.
We tend to take our own adaptivity for granted because it's such an everyday thing, and it's often the
oddities of humans that make them more interesting and charming. Only certain subsets of
characteristics make socialization more challenging, and even then it can be offensive to define them
as flaws.
Sometimes it's just that people are a little de-socialized, but even so I think an important and much
more formal connection between people and present level game AI can be found in psychiatry: the
autism spectrum.
This spectrum is a psychiatric construct that defines various behavioral symptoms as disorders,
varying in severity. Stated very simplistically, some positions on the spectrum involve enhanced
specialization and lack of social ability, but it should be stressed that this is not a trade off.
The extraordinarily talented autistic savants sometimes paraded on TV and brought especially into
public consciousness by the film Rain Man only comprise a fraction of autistic people. Also, while it
is well known and obvious that they have limited social ability, an incredibly important component
of autism is rarely discussed in popular culture: The ability of autistic people to understand the
subjective viewpoints of others is drastically impaired.
To illustrate, an autistic child is shown a model in which person A puts an object away in front of
person B, then leaves the room. Person B then takes the object and conceals it in a different location,
then person A re-enters. If told that person A wants the object back and asked to show where he will
go first to get it, an autistic child will likely point straight to the hiding place used by person B.
Asperger’s syndrome is a less severe part of the spectrum, in which people generally show some
form of above normal mental ability coupled with somewhat obsessive interests, and are somewhat
disconnected and uncomprehending of the emotions of those around them. It's sometimes claimed
that Albert Einstein had Asperger’s.
In its high specialization and complete inability to understand people, game AI shows very similar
symptoms to people on the autism spectrum. It doesn't really have a place on the spectrum itself
though, because it breaks out of the far end, being so narrowly active and empathically blind as to be
beyond autistic.
The more comprehensive it gets though, the less machine like it seems and the closer it comes to
behaving like a particular subset of unusual human beings. Advanced AI will probably follow a
reverse trajectory down the autism spectrum before it really
fools us.
As a result, I suspect that consultation with and evaluation

by psychology departments may become relevant to game
AI in the coming years, given that they're the most
comprehensive resource in existence on human behavior,
Psychology generally has a hard time, often being accused of

unscientific practice, and psychiatry is also accused of
prejudice in the way it defines certain things as disorders.
Psychology has been through so many upheavals, and has so
many schools and movements, that to even define it as a
single thing can seem like a stretch sometimes.
Furthermore, despite over a century of study, much of the

human mind and brain remain a black box to us. We see
what is going on from the outside, but have so far had only
limited ability to measure and peer into what's going on internally.
This is where game developers are going to have some significant advantages over psychologists. If
looked at from the point of view of hard data and proven theories, psychology is very difficult to
penetrate.
However, where a scientist must test, measure, revise and prove things, game developers can
simulate and create systems. Looked at in terms of unproven theories, psychology is a smorgasbord
of ifs, maybes, and analytical skills rather than hard facts.
A lot of what we intuitively know about people remains immeasurable because of limitations on our
technology and knowledge. For instance, the positive and negative valence of emotional states in
others is obvious to most people through facial expression, voice intonation, posture, and so forth,
yet none of these constitute an impossible to fake, objectively reliable measure, and magnetic
resonance imaging has not yet reached a fine enough resolution to allow sufficient neurological
observation.
While reliable enough for everyday interaction, the signs we read by second nature are not absolute.
It is our unconscious knowledge of how humans behave that enables us to pick out the good fakes,
and bringing that knowledge to light will take a lot of study and analysis.
Comprehensive knowledge of the mechanics upon which human behavior operates is a tall order, but
luckily, while still a mountain we're yet to scale, a well informed AI performance is not so
ambitious. By building towards more convincing AI, game developers are not becoming scientists,
merely better magicians.
Conversations From GDC Europe:

Mark Cerny, Jonty Barnes, Jason Kingsley
By John McLean-Foreman
Gamasutra
September 11, 2002
URL: http://www.gamasutra.com/20020911/mclean_01.htm
Editor's Note: This article is the second in a series of
interviews and round-ups from the GDC Europe,
which was held August 27-29 in London, UK. In this
second dispatch, John McLean-Foreman interviews
another three developers who spoke at the event: Bill
Fulton, Zeno Colaco and Harvey Smith.
Bill Fulton (Microsoft) A classroom at the GDC Europe, at

Session Title: "Getting Data that Improves Games: A Earls Court in London.
Case Study of Halo"
Bill Fulton was a founder of the User-Testing Group for Microsoft Games, which uses psychological
research methods to get feedback that improves the usability and fun of games published by
Microsoft. Since 1998, the group has tested 12,000+ gamers playing 80+ different games, including
most Microsoft titles like Age of Kings, Combat Flight Sim, Halo and Rallisport Challenge. Prior to
working at Microsoft, Bill did four years of post-graduate training in cognitive & quantitative
psychology at the University of Washington, studying how people form judgments and make
decisions, and how to meaningfully quantify theoretical ideas.
What does "usability" mean to you?
Usability work is essentially an attempt to see how consumers respond to the game prior to you [the
developer] finishing the game, and buying the game and, , so you have a chance to revise prior to
shipping. The basic ideas you want from the productivity world is that you want your version 1 to
really feel like a version 2.
We use two major research methods to get information from people. The devil is completely in the
details. It's all about how you get the right information from the right people at the right time. So,
something comes online, and you have the time and schedule to actually fix it. You figure out who
that segment of the game is being targeted towards. In the case of a tutorial, you would bring novices
to the game, not experts of the genre, because you're not trying to teach experts.
If, however, you were dealing with an advanced feature of the game, you'd bring
in experts because they're the people that are going to find the advanced features
and are going to want them to be fun.
Why would a development team need psychologists? Why not have the
designers watching the game testers instead?
For the same reason that you wouldn't hire me to go and do your art for you. Bill Fulton
Doing research with humans is extremely tricky. Anyone who as ever filled out a
questionnaire and seen a dumb question, or seen through to what the answer is desired to be, knows
how easy and transparent it is to figure out what people are trying to get at. Often, if they know what
you're trying to get at, they will either intentionally tell you what you want to hear (I'm sure that
anyone who has been in a focus group has seen that), or sometimes they will purposefully tell you
what you don't want to hear to antagonise you. You don't always know which is which. So,
psychology has worked out a lot of methods on how you get information from people, how people
tend to respond in research situations, how to know when they are suspicious or when they are going
to give you incorrect answers and what you can do to minimize it. A risk is being run that people are
going to behave in a way that doesn't reveal their true feelings and thoughts.
Some companies can't afford to set up a psychology department. Is there a book that
developers can study so that they can get more accurate results from their own tests?
That's a very difficult one -- the books that I know of are designed for academics, not necessarily for
lay people. I think that the best introduction to thinking about the effects of design, as opposed to
game usability (for which there are not books yet), is Donald Norman's The Design of Everyday
Things. Basically it's a book that looks at bad designs in common tools, like the telephone, light
switches, and teapots. The people who designed them failed to think about the user's tasks and what
the user's decisions are. My favorite example is doors. They're terrible. Half the time you don't know
whether you should push or pull a door. You sometimes don't know which side the hinges are on
when they give you the long bar across the middle. It's because the people designing those doors
didn't think about how people would really use them. This book is more for planting the seed of
thought, "How am I doing that with my design? How am I failing to remember the kind of people
that I'm trying to suit?"
Another book on the subject is be Jakob Nielsen's Usability Engineering. He's considered one of the
biggest figures in the field, but he's very academically oriented and very productivity oriented. I
don't think that there are good texts for games specifically.
One of my colleagues wrote a chapter for a usability handbook, which is basically what we consider
the opening shot to the game usability field. He's written a methodology of how and why it's
different, how it's interesting and important, and you can access it on our website:
http://www.microsoft.com/playtest/Publications/User%20Centered%20Game%20Design.doc
We're trying to start the usability field into thinking about games.
Do you feel that usability studies will make a better game and increase its sales?
Do I believe it makes a better game? Absolutely. We can show people unable to do something in one
case, like in the A-1 level [which was supposed represent enemy difficulty levels and read "A.I.", but
testers thought it said A-1 and didn't know what that meant], and all people succeeding after the
design is fixed. We have very good evidence of how our changes actually affect consumers more so
than virtually any other discipline.
As far as tracking sales, that's the perpetual question. I don't have a good answer, but we are
beginning to examine it now. We now have enough data and bandwidth to look at the relationship,
but quite frankly I think that the correlation is going to be muddled at best. The only thing I can say
is that I find it interesting that people ask us to justify usability because they view it as an additional
cost. But how do you determine how much improvement your product will realize by adding an
artist, or another tester? No discipline knows how adding one more person or doing something
slightly differently is really going to affect the bottom line. You use your best intuition, you use your
judgement and you say, "I believe that adds value."
After your speech I overheard someone saying that through usability you're not designing
something new and creative, but are in fact designing games for the "lowest common
denominator and idiots".
I think anyone who describes a consumer as an idiot should perhaps not be in the games publishing
business. They should make games that they enjoy playing, and there's nothing wrong with that. Lots
of people take up hobbies that they enjoy. But, if you're in the business of making games for other
people, then one ought to attempt to find out what other people like. To me, it's very basic. Even if
you throw away the profit motive, as an artist you want lots of people to understand and enjoy your
work. Unless you believe they're too stupid to understand, say, modern art -- then therefore modern
artists are making art for modern artists, and they don't care. As long as that's fine for them then
that's great. If they don't make something that can appeal to someone like me who is uneducated,
then I will be disinterested in their work. I assume that most people's egos would prefer a million
people to love their game, to have said, "I spent 50 bucks and I'm proud to have done so because it
was fun." as opposed to, "Oh… those are for other people."
Zeno Colaço (Sony Computer Entertainment Europe)

Session Title: "From Pitch to Publish: Getting the Deal"
In his current role as Vice President, Publisher & Developer Relations at SCEE,
Colaço is responsible for the day-to-day management of SCEE's European
licensee community that has over 250 active developers and 40 publishers on the
PS2 alone. This includes licensee relations, product planning and the
development of strategic partnerships. Colaço and his team are a focal point for Zeno Colaço
emerging talent and new businesses looking to break into interactive games.
What was your talk about?
My talk tried to give some guidance to developers about what I think publishers want in the next big
games, and tried to coach developers on how to pitch their title to publishers. Granted, that's slightly
outside my general remit, being Vice President of Sony's third party division, [which] really looks
after the platform edge.
How often do publishers try to look beyond the presentation to see what value is underneath?
We at Sony don't believe that we're necessarily the best ones to tell people how to write games. The
talent and the creativity are the people themselves, and what they want to bring to the table. I think it
is important and necessary to treat game development as a business. Whether it's the developers
themselves employing someone who's got some exposure to that [part of the industry] to represent
them, or even a third party, it's becoming more important. Tried and tested methods are there. It's
about hooking up to one of those and trying to deliver it.
A lot of publishers are risk averse and as a result, they're putting the same game on the shelves
again and again. Doesn't it makes sense to take risks at least part of the time?
I completely agree. As you probably saw in the panel, I felt it was something that needed to be said.
Risk aversion is one thing, but "no new I.P.s" (Intellectual Properties) is going to lead to the death of
great creativity. One thing that we do as a platform, and I'm sure publishers are looking at it as well,
is that we want to try and help risky products. Something that pushes the genres on our platform, we
tend to try and give a better voice to. We support many of these titles when they are coming out,
sometimes even with a direct marketing contribution from the platform to the publisher involved.
I think developers should try to use and leverage the platform companies in the process of pitching.
For instance, perhaps you're working on a title that is slightly different and is pushing a particular
genre -- say, it's a music product. That is a smaller genre, but it might expand the platform's
capabilities for some of the consumers. Clearly a music product is probably not going to do the same
sales as a football product, but if that product were brought as a concept to my team, they would be
happy to give feedback on how to maximize and broaden that genre. That meeting in turn could be
used as leverage with a publisher who could get into early discussions with the platform company to
say, "If we brought this to your platform, would you support us? Would you give us exposure in
your catalogues, or maybe in your in-machine demo?" Or even, as I said, to request support for the
marketing costs.
It's almost like incubating creativity in that way. But the developer has to [take the initiative] in the
first place. The developer has to show some sort of originality to both platform [and publisher]. I
think sometimes developers go straight to the publisher and miss out on the platform holder, and
they then lose any leverage that the platform holder might have been able to give them.
Harvey Smith (Ion Storm Austin)

Session Title: "Systemic Level Design for Emergent Gameplay"
Harvey Smith is the project director on Ion Storm's DX2: Invisible War. He held
the lead designer position on Deus Ex. Prior to that he worked as lead designer
of FireTeam (an Internet squad game developed by Multitude, Inc.), and at
Origin Systems, as a designer, associate producer and quality assurance tester
on such games as System Shock, Cybermage, and the CD verson of Ultima VIII: Harvey Smith
Pagan.
What was your talk about at the GDCE 2002?
My talk was about what I call "systemic level design". After working on Deus Ex and seeing the
contrast in the two different ways that we worked on levels (one was more systemic, one was more
special case), it drove me to want to talk about when one was the right answer versus when the other
one was the right answer.
How do you define "emergent gameplay"?
We talk a lot about game interactions on a class-to-class basis. When the player does one thing in the
environment, and it causes an interaction between two other game elements that provide a second
order of consequence, that maybe the development team didn't predict. [The game] behaves in a
rational way that surprises the player. We call that emergent gameplay.
The example I used in my speech was an enemy unit that explodes when it dies, and a bunch of
containers that the player could open with explosive resources or lock picking resources. Players
figured out that if they lead that enemy unit over to those containers before delivering the deathblow,
that the resulting explosion would open the container. We call that emergent gameplay.
In your session you mentioned that Deus Ex players created ladders using the removable
proximity grenades and climbed off the map. How do you then make the player finish the level
and go where they're supposed to?
Ultimately our game is still a combination of special case moments and systemic moments. We still
say, "Get to the exit" or, "Go talk to this guy" or, "Go do X". How you do accomplish those goals is
more or less up to you, however. We reward you for goal completion, not goal completion
methodology.
Will designing levels like this give players an experience they've never had before?
The sense of possibility that players talk about when they play Grand Theft Auto 3 -- or any game
that tries to make a really in-depth environment where the world is not just full of one-to-one
interactions that were prescripted -- is a very powerful thing. It's empowering to the player. The
gameplay itself becomes largely about exploring the possibility space. So yeah, we think it's pretty
innovative. As game worlds get more complex, keeping this angle going will mean that every game
experience will be richer and richer.
CMP Game Group Presents:
Event Wrap-Up: DiGRA05

By Ren Reynolds
Gamasutra
June 27, 2005
URL: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20050627/reynolds_01.shtml
The industry panel for the session entitled Developers in

Play: Changing Views on Game Creation.
Last week DiGRA, the Digital Games Researchers Association, hit Vancouver for its second bi-
annual gathering. The four day event saw academics from around the world gather to present
papers on computer games, play computer games, engage in a GPS-enabled pub crawl, and
variously drink, eat, dance, and debate in many of British Columbia's fine establishments (one
of which actually did turn the music down when
I told them that we were academics and all we were there for was the booze and arguing - after
all, the real business of any conference occurs in the bar).
Before diving into some of the many themes that permeated this year's get-together I should
spend a short moment explaining what exactly a Games Researcher is and is not.
Games Researchers are predominantly academics with the odd hybrid

professional/journalist/something-or-other who engage in Games Studies. Now, the exact
definition of Games Studies is still a hotly debated topic (cf. bar talk above; or for a more sober
discussion Espen Aarseth's Computer Game Studies, Year One) but at its core, games studies is
the analysis of video games, gamers, and game culture from the perspective of social sciences
such as psychology, sociology, communications studies, as well as my own field, philosophy. At
the fringes, Games Studies embraces issues such as the process of game design but is very
unlikely to be concerned with path-finding algorithms or triangle meshing techniques.
Having said this, in my experience most Games Researchers are fairly hardcore gamers and a
few got tech. For example M. Eladhari is an ex-commercial game developer who now
researches AI, emotion and story construction. J. Jull, one of the foremost theorists of games is
also an indie/commercial game developer.
In short, Game Studies is the academic social study of games, gamers, and game culture.
Grrr, Arrg, w00t & other Emotions
The theme of emotion and games threaded its way through the conference this year. One paper
that drew much attention was The Psychophysiology of Video Gaming: Phasic Emotional
Responses to Game Events by a group of Finnish researchers.
In the study the group monitored a number of physiological indicators of positive and negative
emotions such as skin conductance, cardiac interbeat intervals, and a range of involuntary facial
muscle reactions, while subjects played a group of video games. The results indicated that
players experience highly positive emotions when experiencing seemingly negative game
events, e.g. the ball falling off the edge of the lane in
Sega's Monkey Bowling 2.
The data also seemed to indicate that in a first person shooter the strongest emotional reaction
is not related to killing but to one's own death - a result that might have a bearing on the whole
video game violence debate. More broadly the methods used by the team seem to be applicable
to play testing and might provide some fascinating insights into what is actually going on in
players' heads. The same group also presented a paper on using these insights with bio-
feedback to create games that generate user selected emotional states, using so-called Emotion
Knobs (Finnish humor or cruel translation - you decide).
Accompanying the Finnish presentation (mercifully given in English) was a paper by Montreal's
Bernard Perron titled A Cognitive Psychological Approach to Gameplay Emotions which might
have been subtitled: "Taking What We Know From Film Studies About Plot and Viewer Reaction
and Applying It to Games." Again this was an applied
paper which tried to understand just how games and emotions interact. While the work lacked
hard data, the numerous examples from games such as ICO, Resident Evil, XIII, etc. made the
paper highly applicable to game design.
A scan of the proceedings reveals ten or so other papers dealing with emotion, player
motivation, immersion, and one paper on the use of pupil dilation to measure arousal, which
sounded scarily like Blade Runner to me.
The Joy-pad of Learning
The most significant emerging topic at DiGRA05 was Games and Learning. This is not surprising
given the recent rise in interest in so called "serious games." Indeed, when
the conference closed a posse of attendees high-tailed it out of Vancouver to Madison,
Wisconsin, for Jim Gee's Games, Learning, and Society which ran a couple of days later.
Participants came at this from every conceivable angle: level editing applied to art and design,
teaching kids about infectious diseases, games and moral education and, to be completely self
referential, game design theory as a game.
The most interesting thing about this trend is that we have moved beyond the simple notion
that learning is restricted to simulation games like Sim City providing objective lessons in city
planning. Today's scholars have expanded the understanding of what games can teach, how
they act as learning tools and are gaining insights into how we learn. This work is
complemented by the broad research into the meaning and interpretation of games as cultural
artifacts by scholars coming from feminist, race
and queer studies traditions. A theme that was discussed during coffee breaks was the
refreshing thought that some people no long believe that making games which appeal to
females equates to liberal use of the color pink.
The future of the IGDA meeting.
But back to learning - one research project that might find wide interest is Galarneau's ongoing
work on spontaneous learning communities and authentic learning in MMOs. Coming from a
commercial background I can see how the study of social practices and the
generation/transmission of information in MMOs could provide insights into corporate
knowledge management.
Designs on Designing
As I've already touched on, the process of game design featured in a smattering of papers this
year. In addition to individual papers (such as this, this, and this.), the ever-energetic Eric
Zimmerman conducted a panel on the relationship between game design and game theory,
where the status of game design research and grand formalist theories of play were thrashed
within an inch of their lives in a packed and increasingly sweaty room.
Immediately before this the IGDA's equally energetic Jason Della Rocca hosted a face-off
between industry types, including EA's Steve Rechtaschaffner, and the gathered throng of
pointy heads.
A topic touched on at both sessions was the perceived lack of access to game design in the raw
that many academics feel. So if you or your company would like to be lab rats I'm sure DiGRA
would be happy to hear from you, and as any H2G2 fan knows - it's
really the rats that run the lab.
Esoteria without Shame
To close, I want to make sure that I have not left any non-academic with the wrong impression
of DiGRA. There is a lot of content that is applicable to the business of computer games, but the
conference has not turned into an academic/industry lovefest. Industry participation is very
low, lower that I think it should be, and seemingly esoteric content is high. For example there
were at least two papers dealing solely with the notion of the magic circle. The narratology vs.
ludology war (a dispute so obscure even many games researchers have little idea what it's
about) mutated into widespread denial that it had happened/meant anything or was still alive.
For those that care, it still bangs away in the attic that the old gods thought they had locked it
in. But all this is good, it's diversity, it's new ways of thinking about stuff, and heck, it's fun.
Game Design: Secrets of the Sages

Creating Characters, Storyboarding, and Design Documents
By Marc Saltzman
Gamasutra
March 15, 2002
URL: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20020308/saltzman_01.htm
Mario. Pikachu. Lara Croft. Sonic. Pac-Man. Crash Bandicoot. Duke Nukem. Earthworm Jim.
Pajama Sam.
What do these words have in common? The answer is simple—all of them are household
names, but they're not famous actors from a Hollywood movie or some hit TV show. They're
not Saturday morning cartoon characters (okay, some of them went on to that) and they're not
the latest doll craze for kids. These are the video game heroes, the stars of the interactive
screen whose marketing potential has kept them in the limelight for many years, and lined the
pockets of their creators with green.
Many developers and publishers have tried desperately to create the next billion-dollar game
icon, but a catchy name or cute look often isn't enough. So what's the secret? This chapter
contains words of wisdom from many of those aforementioned creators. But that's not all we're
going to explore here.
If there was a common theme running through this chapter, it would be "how to get your ideas
down on paper." Some game designers prefer to sketch out rough characters or backgrounds
on paper (or work with artists to do so); others draw sequential storyboards to help shape the
vision and flow of the game or a cinematic cut-scene sequence; and in other cases, designers
write fiction or game screenplays (usually for adventure games or RPGs where there's a lot of
dialogue).
Design documents are often lengthy paper reports used to communicate the entire blueprint of
the game, covering all its features, story elements, characters, locations, dialogue, puzzles,
artwork, sound effects, music, and much more. These documents are usually designed in a
modular fashion so they can be updated and modified if the design of the game takes a new
form.
This chapter highlights how some of the more famous characters in the gaming industry were
born, plus we talk with game designers and artists about storyboarding, script writing, design
documents, and other ways to flesh out your hit game before you type your first line of code.
As a special addition to this lengthy chapter, veteran freelance game designer Daniel Greenberg
(http://www.danielgreenberg.com) has written an educational and enlightening essay on
interactive script writing. But wait—there's more—designer American McGee has provided us
with the complete narrative to the beginning of American McGee's Alice.
Shigeru Miyamoto, Nintendo
A man who needs little introduction, the humble Mr. Miyamoto is a living legend in the
interactive entertainment industry. He has conceived some of our most beloved electronic
characters, such as Mario, Luigi, Donkey Kong, and Link from the Legend of Zelda series.
When asked how to create such internationally recognizable and deeply loved characters,
Miyamoto said it all boils down to the fun factor:
Making games "fun" is our only objective, and we're always making an effort to accomplish this
goal. I believe that the creation of game characters is simply one of the processes to achieve
this goal. If Mario games hadn't been fun to play, the character wouldn't be popular at all.
Exactly what makes a character fun? Is it solely appearance? A cute voice? Ease of control?
Why do many game developers fail when trying to create the next Mario?
I'm not sure why some fail to create a memorable character. A player can emotionally relate to
the video game character as his/her other self, which is the decisive difference from the
characters in other media. Mario, for instance, can be a character with completely different
meaning when he's driving a car and when he's jumping. The other design elements will affect
the look and feel of the character.
Miyamoto recognizes that his characters are quite cute and family friendly, and therefore won't
appeal to all kinds of gamers: "I think a number of game players feel, 'If Miyamoto's characters
had cooler appearances, I could love them.' All I can say to them is, "I am sorry."
Where does Miyamoto find inspiration for his beloved games and characters? How exactly did
Mario come to life?
The inspirations come from all over: my childhood adventures, the stories I heard growing up,
the legends in Japan. After all, we can get inspiration from the ordinary things that everyone is
experiencing in our daily lives, by looking at them from a different angle. In the case of Mario,
back in or around 1980, when we couldn't reproduce sophisticated designs on TV game
machines due to the technological limitations, I had to make his nose bigger and put on a
mustache so that players could notice he had the nose. I had to let him wear overalls so that
his arm movements became noticeable. Mario was the result of these rational ideas, plus the
Italian design touch that I loved.
One last note: Miyamoto warns that designers may not be able to objectively comprehend how
players will feel when playing the game for the first time, because the designer is so close to
the project.
Lorne Lanning, Oddworld Inhabitants
In Chapter 2, Lorne Lanning, responsible in part for the memorable characters found in the
various Oddworld games, talks about game design theory and production. Here, he discusses
the "secret" to creating protagonists such as Abe or Munch.
First you have to know what you're after when designing lead characters. Is it a heroic
character? An outlaw? A spy? What are they all about and what do they represent? You have to
know exactly how you want them to communicate to the viewer. You need to know as much
about them as you can conjure up. What they like and dislike, what their dilemmas are, what
makes them tick. These are the things that give characters depth. The depth of the character is
something that you should understand before you even start to design how it looks visually.
What's the first step, then? Lanning references Oddworld's lovable aliens:
Before we hit the drawing table, our focus was to create hero characters who were true
underdogs. They're unlikely heroes who couldn't believe what had happened to them, their
species, their cultures, etc. These characters would be considered the garbage of society. They
come from the native aboriginal class, the working class, or from the wild. They're looked upon
as pure commodity in their world, but not as living, sensitive beings. They're not the muscle-
bound superheroes that you wish you could be; they're the poor schmucks that we already are.
We wanted characters that embrace the notion of finding their inner strength and purpose.
You then have to be willing to go through a ton of design iterations. When Farzad Varahramyan
[a production designer on the Oddworld games] started to design Munch, we went through
literally hundreds of designs. We already knew that Munch was an amphibious creature who
hopped on one leg like a bird on land, yet swam like a dolphin in the water. We knew he had
only one leg, two little arms, a big mouth, and a big head. We knew he had a remote zap port
implanted in his skull. We knew that he was young and the last of his kind. We knew that he
was in denial regarding the condition of his species. We knew that he was lonely and searching
out others of his kind. He was uneducated. He was really just a child in the scheme of things.
We knew all of these things when Farzad began to create many, many cool designs...but still
we weren't hitting the emotional mark of our goal.
Next, Lanning says they passed different iterations past Sherry McKenna, executive
producer/CEO of Oddworld Inhabitants.
Her read is predictably non-biased—as she puts it, "completely pedestrian." She looks at things
and just registers how it makes her feel. She's a great litmus test for us in this respect. We
wanted to make sure that Munch held a place in the hearts of males and females. It was a very
difficult character to design and we spent a lot of time finalizing him. Farzad stuck to it and
didn't get discouraged. In the end, he came through and we were able to create a new hero
who hooked those who saw him. He had to look like he came from Oddworld; he had to look as
though he could have evolved there, and he had to capture our hearts.
Interestingly, Lanning says their various publishers were skeptical at first that this critter could
win people's hearts.
However, we believed we had hit the mark on our final iteration, and after much debate the
final Munch design prevailed. Since then, it has gone over extremely well with all the audiences
who have seen him. Had the publishing forces had their way, Munch could have been watered
down into something less strange-looking, and thus less edgy. You need to believe when you
have something that communicates to an audience, and you need to be prepared to defend and
substantiate what you believe works and why it works. You also need to listen to feedback in
case you're wrong. It's one thing to believe you have a solid design; it's another to be able to
convince others.
When you're on the creative front, the people who are paying for the product want assurances
that the "creative" will work for the target audience. Of course, to have assurances usually
means that it's proven historically. Unfortunately, history doesn't reveal what will creatively
work for today's and tomorrow's audience. So the dance of selling something new and different
is almost as important as the ability to create it.
This chapter also discusses the importances of design documents and storyboarding. Lanning
contributes his thoughts on these topics:
Design documents are critical. They are the equivalent of a movie script or a business plan;
without one, you don't have a roadmap that will keep you on course throughout the storm that
is production—let alone getting you financing in the first place.
In addition, today games take large teams of people and have multimillion-dollar budgets. This
means that everyone needs to have clear communication or else a lot of money can be wasted
very quickly. The team, the publisher, the management—everyone needs to know what you're
getting into if you're to pull it off and have production go smoothly. It also becomes the basis of
your schedule at the beginning of the project.
Storyboarding is critical to us in the video sequences. We used to do storyboards for gameplay,
but this became more of a burden than an asset. Then we started doing actual visualizations,
which helped to communicate ideas much more clearly. For these we used 3D data to illustrate
the moves, lighting, effects, animations, etc. that the game engine would eventually run.
There's nothing like seeing something do exactly what you want it to do—before it has been
coded—to help communicate new ideas to a team of people.
The third game in the Oddworld series, dubbed Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee, is a Microsoft
Xbox launch title, slated for a November 2001 release. It's the first 3D game in the popular
series.
Be sure to visit Chapter 8, which contains some stellar advice from Lorne Lanning on how to
create good puzzles in your games.
Tsunekazu Ishihara, Pokémon Co.
It's hard to argue that Pokémon has become one of the world's biggest phenomena over the
past few years. It first started out as a Game Boy title in Japan and then became a popular
kid's TV show, collectible card game, successful toy line, movie franchise, and more.
Here to speak about creating successful video game characters is Tsunekazu Ishihara, the
producer on all Pokémon and Pokémon-related products for Nintendo.
Naturally, the first question is whether there's a formula, secret, or technique to creating
characters such as Pikachu and other mega-popular Pokémon icons. Ishihara responds:
When talking about Pokémon games, its success is because the characters are described in
thorough detail, I believe. More specifically, for each Pokémon, there's weight, height, effective
offense/defense, and other attributes. These details help make Pokémon video games very well
balanced; on the other hand, they help make such imaginary Pokémon characters as Pikachu
have more of a realistic existence. With this information, children form their images of each
Pokémon in their minds, empathizing with each of the characters and feeling as if they were
actually traveling with Pokémon. Such well-detailed characteristics may be the secret of why
Pokémon characters such as Pikachu are well received by children around the world.
On its international success, Ishihara says "It was not something we had originally intended."
Instead, Pokémon was designed originally for the Japanese people, says Ishihara. Honestly, he
later admits, it was designed for his nephews and nieces!
After the success in Japan, when we were to bring them to the U.S., our U.S. people demanded
a variety of modifications in order to Americanize them. For example, they said that Pokémon
are too cute and that they wanted to add muscular nature and such themes as fighting against
evil. In the end, however, we haven't complied with their requests. If we were to do so,
Pokémon would not be Pokémon. As a result, children around the world fell in love with
Pokémon.
One final, funny note. "It has turned out that my nephew and niece are happy they sort of
brought Pokémon to the rest of the children in the world!" jokes Ishihara.
David Perry, Shiny Entertainmen
President of Shiny Entertainment and game designer extraordinaire David Perry has brought to
life a number of hit characters over the years. This includes protagonists from the Earthworm
Jim games, MDK, Wild 9, Messiah, Sacrifice, and soon The Matrix.
Perry was asked to provide three (in)valuable pieces of advice on creating a successful game
character, and all three of his answers are thought-provoking:
1. Humor is a very important part of entertainment. So if you can make it amusing, that's
the easiest way to go. Unique abilities are also good. Earthworm Jim's suit would use
him to achieve its goals. Funny stuff like that adds spice to the characters you're
creating.
2. Somebody once said that a great character has a unique silhouette—if you can identify a
character just by its outline, you know you've made something that will stand out in a crowd.
3. New and interesting weapons are also important. Nothing is worse than playing a game
with a leaky peashooter. So great firepower is a good way to pat a gamer on the head.
Perry says he hates to advertise this, but...
I have to say that the best way to learn how to make a great character is to take this class:
http://www.beyondstructure.com. I highly recommend it. If you're new to the business, you're
not going to get away with Pac-Man anymore; you have to make real, intelligent, interesting
characters. This seminar will tell you exactly how to do just that.
Many times throughout this book you may see conflicting advice on certain topics. Case in
point: Asked about the importance of design documents, Perry directly contradicts Lorne
Lanning and others:
I used to think they were a waste of time. I still do, to be honest. I prefer different documents
that matter to certain people that they will bother to read:
 The game walkthrough script. We write in a program called Final Draft

(http://www.finaldraft.com) and we write the experience we would love to see from the
beginning to the end of the game. It's written kinda like a movie, but describes the
ambiance, who's there, what you see, what you don't see, the action, what they say,
etc.
 The lists. These are done in Microsoft Excel and are tracked. These are lists of
everything—objects, weapons, characters, balance statistics, etc.
Does Perry storyboard his games?
Over the years, I've worked with all sorts of business people. Some "get it," but some are
completely flatline when it comes to any ability to think creatively. I found that the saying is
indeed true, "A picture paints a thousand words." We extensively draw storyboards now, so
that anyone that needs to understand the vision can just look at the pictures like a comic book.
It saves a lot of discussion.
I've found that taking 3D sculptures of your characters to meetings is great because it's an
instant conversation piece, and the people you're pitching become mesmerized by the sculpture
as you describe the design. How do you get a good sculpture? There are several ways, but
these are the best two I know:
 Use a great sculptor who works with action/pitch characters. Just ask for photos of
previous work.
 Use a technology called rapid prototyping (search on the Net). Companies like Gentle
Giant will take your game's 3D model data and then sculpt it using lasers so you get an
exact replica of your character. We have some quite amazing sculptures from these guys
that took zero effort at our end.
Perry's words of wisdom can be found in other places throughout this book—be sure to read his
thoughts on general game design theory and implementation (Chapter 2) and on breaking into
the industry (Chapter 21).
George Broussard, 3D Realms
Ever since the third game in 3D Realms' popular Duke Nukem series came out in 1996,
countless others have tried to create a successful lead character by mimicking its overly macho,
mouthy, badass hero, Duke Nukem. (Heck, his name says it alone!)
3D Realms president George Broussard offers some advice to those looking to create character-
driven action games:
First off, your game has to be great. Without that, nothing you do with a character matters. We
try to create catchy character names—like Duke Nukem or Max Payne—that instantly get a
reaction from people, or create an image in someone's mind. That's the "hook." Once you have
a hook that people find interesting, you just flesh out the character with personality traits,
mannerisms, and catchphrases.
Broussard explains why Max Payne is more than just a cool name:
Remedy Entertainment did a great job with Max Payne. His name has a unique hook and people
usually get the pun—that he delivers "maximum pain." Then you give Max a compelling reason
to act and be motivated. He's an undercover cop, with his back against the wall, out for
revenge after the death of his wife and daughter. Finally, you give Max his "personality"
through the way he speaks. Max narrates his journey metaphorically, in the style of detective
films of the1940s and 1950s. What you end up with is an interesting character who's fairly
unique to games, and hopefully people respond to that. Our gaming audience is getting more
sophisticated every day and won't settle for less.
Broussard adds that this advice really depends on the types of characters you want to make. He
explains:
We typically create over-the-top characters that lean more toward what you might find in comic
books or high-action movies. Characters that are larger than life, and for those types of
characters there's a pretty basic starting point.
To reiterate and summarize his points made above, Broussard says you can break down any
character into the following characteristics:
 Personality traits. This defines the character's personality and how he or she reacts to
situations.
 Appearance. There should be a distinctive look to your character, so people will learn
to recognize the character from appearance alone. Examples: Lara Croft, Superman
(almost any superhero), Darth Vader.
 Motivation. Why do your characters do what they do? What drives them? Once this is
established, your characters will get stronger from doing things the way people expect
them to.
 Catchphrase. The best characters become famous and well known for a simple
catchphrase that sticks in people's minds, and usually becomes part of pop culture.
Remember the "Where's the Beef?" commercials for Wendy's? Examples: "What's up,
doc?" (Bugs Bunny); "Up, up, and away!" (Superman); "Holy hand grenades, Batman!"
(Robin); "I'll be back" (The Terminator); "Go ahead, make my day" (Dirty Harry).
 Name. A character's name should be "catchy" and unique in some way, so people hear
the name and get an instant image in their minds. Rhyming and alliteration are good
tools to come up with a catchy character name. Examples: Duke Nukem, Sonic the
Hedgehog, Earthworm Jim.
To further illustrate his point on the "parts" of a distinguishable character, Broussard provides
these examples:
See if you can guess the character before the name is given, simply from the basic elements:
Personality trait: Egotistical
Appearance: Sunglasses, red muscle shirt, bandoliers, blond flat top
Motivation: Kick alien ass/score with babes
Catchphrase: "Come get some"
Name: Duke Nukem
Personality traits: Determined, inquisitive, loner
Appearance: Black suit, white shirt, tie, cell phone
Motivation: FBI agent/uncover conspiracies
Catchphrase: "The Truth Is Out There"
Name: Fox Mulder, from The X-Files
Says Broussard, "The above is merely a starting point for developing your own characters, and
you can make them more or less complex, depending on your needs. But in the end, these
characteristics are needed for a really memorable character."
How do you translate sketches to real characters in the game? Is it necessary for a series such
as Duke Nukem?
As video games have gotten more and more complex, we've started to adopt the ways that
movies do things. A lot of games today have scripts much like a movie, where all the action,
cut-scenes, and dialogue are carefully laid out in every detail. Another thing that has been
adopted is the idea of concept sketches. These sketches serve to solidify the look and feel of
elements in the game, such as characters, locations, and action sequences.
But what about design documents? Are they necessary for all types of games?
Let me tell you about design docs. Duke Nukem 3D didn't even have one. We did stuff as we
went, adding bits that were cool and discarding ideas that didn't work. Look how the game
turned out. All we had was a vague notion that the game would be based in a future, seedy L.A.
The rest came from a dynamic development process.
Duke Nukem Forever has substantially more on paper from the start because it's a much more
cohesive and large game. But people who write 300-page design docs beforehand are wasting
their time. The game design process (for most) is an evolutionary process. You refine and
redesign as you go, learning and making things better. It's insane to write a 300-page doc,
then just make the game. There's no way you can think of every cool idea before you make the
game, and you have to be flexible enough to roll with the punches and add and refine ideas as
you go, all according to the timeline.
Speaking from our experience, design docs are merely a general guideline that gets more and
more polished as you go. You just try to stay three to four months ahead of things as you go.
The design doc isn't done until the game is.
Also bear in mind that 3D action games are not that complex. They have bad guys, guns,
items, and level locations. Not exactly rocket science, or something needing 300 pages.
Be sure to read all about the exciting Duke Nukem happenings at 3D Realms' official web site.
Scott Miller, 3D Realms
We just heard from George Broussard, president of 3D Realms, about creating such hit
characters as Duke Nukem—but we'll also turn to 3D Realms CEO Scott Miller to reveal the
"secret" to creating successful characters, while so many others have failed.
Positioning and differentiation. Duke is the first white male action hero. No other character will
ever have a chance knocking Duke off his particular pedestal, because it's better to be first than
it is to be better (a key concept of positioning). Likewise, Max Payne is the first character of his
type—a true antihero vigilante cop—and no other developer will ever have a chance making a
better character with this description. Thanks to the well-known psychology of the human mind,
better doesn't win; being first is what really matters.
George [Broussard] and I have studied and discussed characters for almost a decade, and
finally in the last 5–6 years we think we've put together the key pieces of the puzzle better than
anyone else in this industry. A bold statement, maybe, but consider that we planned Max to be
the next great male action character and franchise from day one of the games design, and
guided Remedy (the developers) in the key ways to make it happen. And we're going to do it
again with two more coming game characters, Bombshell (appearing first in Duke Nukem
Forever before starring in her own games), and another game I can't announce yet (wait for E3
2002).
Miller acknowledges that this is a tough topic to cover in brief, because, as he puts it, "It's
worthy of its own book."
But there are specific guidelines to naming a character properly, so that the name is better
remembered and has a catchy hook. A character-based game should be named with the
character's name (much like most comic books do—which was our inspiration for this particular
idea years ago). One commonality of catchy, memorable names is that one of the names is only
one syllable long. For example: Johnny Quest, James Bond, Darth Vadar, Luke Skywalker, Duke
Nukem, Commander Keen, Indiana Jones, Max Payne, Han Solo, Lara Croft, on and on. There
are several important rules like this that should be followed to create a great character name.
Another piece of advice, something that was also touched on by Broussard, is that a character's
name should reflect something about the character. Explains Miller:
Duke Nukem and Max Payne do this very well. Other game character names like Lara Croft,
Kate Archer, John Mullins, John Blade are just generic, valueless names that say nothing about
the personality of the character they represent.
In other areas of this book, Miller shares a lot of great advice on general game design, building
a franchise (in Chapter 2) and on breaking into the industry (Chapter 21).
Jason Rubin, Naughty Dog
As a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc., Naughty Dog has won
worldwide acclaim for its Crash Bandicoot games (1996 to 1999). Jason Rubin, co-founder and
lead designer, is hard at work on Jak & Daxter: The Precursor Legacy, a 3D platformer for the
Playstation 2.
Is there a formula for creating a successful game character?
Ah, the impossible question to answer. Certainly, there are many things that contribute. Good
design, which means making sure that the right people are involved, and the right opinions are
sought. Good integration, which involves making sure that the character fits the game, and the
game is worth playing. Good marketing, to make sure that the character is positioned correctly,
and the public wants to know more about it. And good follow-through, including derivative
products like toys and shirts to reinforce the connection, as well as properly timed sequels, and
continued placement of the character in the public eye. Certainly, no successful character that I
can think of has failed in any of these categories. The best, like Pokémon and Mario, have not
only done well in each, but have always excelled.
So, how important is a cute/cool character in a video game today, such as Crash Bandicoot or
Jak & Daxter?
The farther into the broader marketplace gaming goes, the more important "characters"
become. That might mean a lead character, or a license like Tony Hawk, or the official NBA
teams and logos. The reason that video games are interesting to more people today than they
were in the '80s is that people who couldn't identify with a Pong paddle or Pac-Man are
interested in playing Lara Croft. As the gap between reality or fantasy and the visuals in games
narrows, more people are drawn to the medium. And as story and plot become more involving
in games, even the non-competitive have a reason to play. A look across recent bestsellers
yields (besides the venerable I) a list of games that focus on characters broadly defined, and
the trend should continue.
Without a doubt, many readers of this chapter would be interested in how Rubin and company
came up with the Crash Bandicoot character. He answers with the following anecdote:
Crash was designed by multiple Naughty Dogs and two Hollywood cartoon designers named
Charles Zembillas and Joe Pearson. We did dozens of paper sketches, and then we bred them
together, picking the best features from each, and adding new mutations along the way. After
dozens of generations, we had a 2D Crash. Then we modeled him in a 3D package, and further
refined his attributes to work with the added dimension. Finally, we put him on the PlayStation,
and refined him yet again to make sure that features stood out, and that he worked at the
resolution and with the number of polygons that we were using. The whole process took about
four months.
Speaking of Crash, if Rubin had to summarize it into a paragraph, what would he say is the key
to Crash's success? He ponders the question, then answers:
Crash Bandicoot, the character, appeals to the broadest variety of people: young and old, male
and female, Japanese, North American, or European. Most first-time Crash purchasers,
regardless of nationality, are buying from advertising, promotional material, or the box cover. If
the character fails, then the game fails. Crash excelled in this department thanks to both a
good original design and Sony Computer Entertainment's amazing worldwide marketing
campaign.
With this in mind, was Jak & Daxter any easier, more difficult, or about the same?
Jak and Daxter's design process was similar to Crash's but it took twice as long. We asked more
opinions and had more experience as a group. We also designed Jak and Daxter in conjunction
with our producers and marketing teams from Sony America, Sony Europe, and Sony Japan.
We set out from the beginning to make a character that appealed to the whole world. Crash
was designed in a less global manner, and I think that only luck and a great marketing effort by
Sony facilitated his international appeal. Overall, I'm more excited about Jak and Daxter than I
was with Crash. I love the way they look, and I think that they have more possibilities for
growth as characters.
Want to catch Rubin's advice on game design? Fling yourself back to Chapter 2.
Toby Gard, Confounding Factor
You may not be too familiar with this designer's name, but chances are you're aware of his
most beloved creation—Lara Croft. Toby Gard left Core Design as lead graphic artist and game
designer on the revolutionary title Tomb Raider, to launch his own development studio
alongside fellow Core Design lead programmer Paul Douglas. Their first game, Galleon, is an
epic action/adventure scheduled for a 2001 release.
In a minute, we'll get into creating successful characters. (And Tomb Raider's Lara Croft is as
successful as it gets—complete with her own live action movie starring Angelina Jolie!) First, a
few words from Gard on general game design.
Your objectives should be contingent upon your resources. If you're forced into using a type of
technology, such as a certain engine, or are limited in any other way by your platform or
programming, then you have to come at your design from that direction first. For instance, at
its most severe, if you're making a Game Boy game, then you already know you're limited to it
being 2D and having pretty serious speed and memory restrictions. No Quake 12 for you.
Assuming that you'll be making a game for the PC or one of the newer 3D consoles, however,
as is more often the case these days, your restrictions are pretty loose. I prefer working from
this direction, because you can take a pure idea and you know that in some form you'll be able
to make it happen—however hard that route is. So then you need an idea, right? Well, I think
we all have about a million of them each—it's whatever gets you excited, like wanting to be in
Star Wars or showing people how much fun snowboarding is. Then all you need to do is go
down to the pub and talk endlessly with your mates about what would be cool about it (or
preferably with whoever you're going to make the game with).
During that time, you need to be constantly solving the "How the hell can we do that?"
technical questions. Even if you're just saying stuff like, "Well, we need shadows. Quake does
shadows, so how are they doing that, and can we use a similar technique?" During this period
you should be thinking an awful lot about how your control system will work. I'm a believer in
compressing your control system down to the minimum number of buttons to achieve your
aims; that way you tend to get an elegant rather than a cumbersome control system. You're
basically aiming to be in the position where you have such a clear idea of what the game will be
like that you can actually play it in your head. When you can do that, if you're visualizing it hard
enough, you'll be able to see and address loads of the flaws in the idea before you've
implemented a damn thing!
Therefore, the three most important things for me are a) visualize the control system, including
game mechanics; b) have technology ideas for how to implement all of the above; and c) write
it all down!
When creating a lead character for a video game, Gard says to be sure you really like what
you've designed; then other people have a good chance of liking it too. He expands on this
notion:
If you aren't sure about your character, dump it. If you experiment all the time, drawing
without any particular purpose, and explore avenues that look good in a fairly freeform sort of
way, at some point you'll get something that you just instinctively know works. Then, you see,
you'll start to love the character, and that will shine through in your work because the character
starts to take on its own personality through your drawings. I think that's probably it—you need
to design and redesign again and again, until you can't anymore. Then just draw that character
about a hundred times (having fun with it), and you'll be there. Well, that's the method I use.
Can Gard offer are specific do's or don'ts for creating a hit character like Lara Croft?
 Make a character simple and clear; look at comics to see why. Your art should be an
iconic piece of graphic art, as well as a nicely rendered piece of art. Example: gray,
black, and yellow = Batman. Bold sections of color and a simple overall design.
Whatever style you draw him in, Batman is always Batman because he's so iconic he's
almost a logo in his own right.
 Do something radical. Almost everything can work equally well turned on its head. Most
people are sick of seeing the same sorts of characters, so break the rules.
 If you want people to take to your character, then you should have respect for it. It
should have admirable qualities; it should be something you kind of wouldn't mind
spending a few hours stepping into the shoes of.
After all, that's the whole point, right?
Yuji Naka, Sega
As president of Sonic Team Corporation, Yuji Naka has worked on a number of beloved Sega
games, including Nights, Samba de Amigo, Phantasy Star Online, Sonic Adventure, and others.
Through an interpreter, we chatted with Mr. Naka about game design and creating successful
lead characters.
Asked to give some advice for those interested in making games for a living, Naka's answer was
to try and create a game with its own unique identity (regardless of what others are doing) and
to add as much feeling and character into the game as possible.
Speaking of characters, Sonic the Hedgehog is one of the world's most recognizable video game
mascots. How can someone create the next Sonic?
Characters produced from the games are naturally born of the fun elements of the games.
Because it's much different in that respect from animated cartoons and movies, think about the
game itself and then create characters.
The game's movement and flow are the necessary reason why Sonic was born. There originally
was Super Mario, and although much different from Nintendo's character, we designed—not as
his rival—but as a game that we can be proud of on the same level...and Sonic was born.
On finding inspiration for games, Naka says he tries to direct his attention to various kinds of
things in his everyday life—like everyday entertainment, for example.
What's the best advice Naka can give for creating massively-multiplayer console games such as
Phantasy Star Online? "Carefully create the means of communication." That is, one of the most
important points is the communication among the game players. So when you create a game
such as Phantasy Star Online, you should think about what communication means to the
gameplay.
Does Naka believe multiplayer games are the future for consoles? He responds, "I guess it is in
a way, but I don't think it's the only way. I would say that 30 percent of players will become
multiplayers and the rest won't."
Naka emphasizes that the user interface (see Chapter 14) is one of the most important
considerations for the game designer: "Games that don't take the interface and controls into
account have not been successful in the past—they're the most important points in the game
itself."
Yu Suzuki, Sega
Also at Sega is the one and only Yu Suzuki, responsible for such fantastic games such as the
character-driven Shenmue, the Virtua Fighter series, the Virtua Cop series, Hang On, Space
Harrier, and others.
While Chapter 2 houses Suzuki's answers on creating fun and challenging video games, here we
just asked him one question: How does he create such great characters as Ryo in Shenmue?
Suzuki says:
What's most important is originality. Also, by tightly creating invisible parts like background
stories or personalities of the characters, later development opportunity will be broadened. And
lastly, a note on self-promotion: It's necessary to make an active effort to gain more
recognition, like exposure or advertisement to media such as magazines or home pages.
Hideo Kojima, Konami
The celebrated game designer responsible for the Metal Gear Solid games was asked the
discuss the importance of a lead character, such as Solid Snake, and how to create a successful
one.
This is a tough question. The lead character of a story is the most important element. If you
can't associate yourself with the lead character of a movie or novel, you won't enjoy the
storyline, no matter how great the storyline is. This holds true for games. What's different is
that in games you control the main character. This is why it's necessary to take into
consideration the character's "compatibility" to the viewpoints and psychology of all the people
who would potentially play the game. Maintaining this balance is very difficult. The basic
character description/setting, along with the character itself, is one thing. When the player
actually moves the character, the character becomes complete. The player is the one who adds
to the character what's missing.
Be sure to turn back to Chapter 2 to read Kojima's advice on general video game design.
Michel Ancel, Ubi Soft Entertainment
As project director at Ubi Soft in Paris, France, Michel Ancel is the designer who created the
character Rayman, a huge international hit. He stars in all the versions of the Rayman games
(available on multiple platforms) and for the past two years has been working on a top-secret
project to debut in 2002 or 2003.
Before we dive into Rayman as a character, Ancel offers some game design tips. "Be creative,
be logical, and understand the player's point of view," he begins. Using Rayman as an example,
Ancel continues:
The creativity aspect of Rayman comes from its graphic style. We also tried to imagine some
unique game sequences, like being chased by a pirate spaceship or cooperating with a powerful
but fearful friend. The logic part is about the rules, the gameplay techniques that you have to
follow precisely, like the evolutions of Rayman, the level of skills, the puzzles. And to
understand the player's view, the game must be playable for maybe millions of people. It
means that we must consider how people will react when playing. The typical questions are
about the controls, the story, the challenge, the rewards, etc. Are they good enough? Easy to
understand? etc. The questions that must be answered early in the game's creation.
Is there a special technique for creating world-renowned characters such as Rayman?
When I created Rayman, I didn't really analyze it. I just made it like this because it was fun for
me and my friends. I also wanted an easy-to-animate character. Your character must not look
like [other characters], but at the same time he must appear familiar to people. That's a
challenge between originality and an easy-to-understand character.
Rayman is visually original, but in some aspects he's close to what young people are wanting
from a hero. The visual aspect is important for the first impact. After this first feeling, the next
one is about animation. A lot of the personality is revealed by the animations—the way your
character move in common actions. The next and most important step—especially for games—
comes from his powers, his specific actions. What can he do that will surprise the player? This is
an important question. The next and deepest aspect will come from his feelings, his personality,
the way he reacts in particular situations: danger, love, surprises, victory, etc. You must
consider all these steps of perceptions and be sure that you're not completely copying another
hero!
"Rayman is 50 percent action and 50 percent humor. That's what most young people care
about," says Ancel.
Finally, he discusses the issue of control (discussed in depth in Chapter 14). Ancel agrees that
one of the biggest challenges when making a game is to make the control very intuitive and
comfortable. The Rayman series is a good example of it done right. Ancel explains why:
You must look at the player's reflexes. To avoid frustration, you must think about what's
natural for people. Test your new control with your friends, wife, children—everyone who will
give you feedback. A single delay on the buttons, the acceleration curve of the camera—all
these parameters are important to tune if you want good control. You must have more than
100 of these kinds of parameters in your game, and must be able to change them easily
depending on the player's feedback.
Tim Schafer, Double Fine Productions
Some of the computer game industry's most beloved characters were created by the affable
Tim Schafer, who recently left an eight-year stint at Lucas Arts to start Double Fine
Productions. Schafer brought such memorable, time-withstanding characters to life such as
Manuel "Manny" Calavera and Hector Lemans from Grim Fandango and Ben and Malcolm Corley
from Full Throttle.
According to Schafer, wish fulfillment is the main secret to character (and game) design. He
explains:
Never forget that you're providing players with the chance to do something they can't do in
their daily lives. It should be something that they really want to do, if just for a little while. With
Full Throttle, we were banking on the secret desire to be a biker: big, tough, cool. Riding a
huge hog around. Without a helmet. Ask yourself, what's the wish fulfillment that I'm providing
with my game? What secret desire am I satisfying? This is more important in adventure games
than in a game like, say, Sonic the Hedgehog, because adventure games are always about
fantasy.
Schafer comments on the importance of storyboarding and design documents for creating
adventure games:
We storyboarded every single shot that appears in Grim Fandango, and it was invaluable. It
helps the artists know what to build, what angles it has to look good from. It tells the people
who are placing the characters in the scenes where everybody should be standing. People have
been doing it in movies for years, and games are just figuring it out now.
A design document is the game designer's bible for the development of the game. It shouldn't
just be a burst of ideas you scribble down in the beginning of the process and then forget about
as you enter the heat of production. It should be a living document that you revise after every
brainstorming session to keep fresh and up to date. It's for the team to reference when they (or
you) forget what the plan was.
Take heed to this veteran's advice: "If you don't have one, you'll drift off target, I promise."
Read more from Schafer on general game design tips and techniques (Chapter 3) and how to
create good puzzles in an adventure game (Chapter 8).
Gabe Newell, Valve Software
In Chapter 2, Gabe Newell, founder and managing director of Kirkland, Washington's Valve
Software, talks about creating successful action games such as Half-Life. He briefly comments
here on creating lead characters and writing design documents.
"Actually, I'm not sure that a lead character is necessary, or even beneficial, in first-person
games," admits Newell. He continues:
We made Gordon [Freeman, the protagonist in Half-Life] as transparent to the player as

possible. The only time you ever hear yourself is when you're breathing during the disaster
sequence. We had a bunch of third-person scenes, and we slowly realized that they were
hurting the experience, not helping.
However, Newell does admit to using design documents:
We couldn't work without design documents. We have too many people who need to think
through all of the implications of the design in all of the millions of details that go into a next-
generation game. Each hour spent on the design probably saves us 10 hours of
implementation.
Alex Garden, Relic Entertainment
The young game designer responsible for Homeworld and Sigma: The Adventures of Rex
Chance talks about the importance of a design document and how to best tackle one.
A design document is a road map for a team tasked with creating your wacky idea. Members of
your team should be able to reference your design document when they have questions.
Practically speaking, game design is a somewhat organic process though, so the design
document has to be somewhat organic as well to keep people informed correctly. At Relic, we
have one mega, central design document that's used as the basis of the game; then we
supplement it with "Design Updates" that are much shorter and easier to update.
How important is storyboarding a game today?
Considering the cost and complexity of cinematic and animatic sequences, it's critically
important to do as much pre-production as you can (which is relatively cheap) before you start
working on full product (which is very, very expensive). Planning may look like a waste of time,
but it is in fact the single easiest and cheapest way to make your game good in the end.
Bruce C. Shelley, Ensemble Studios
Ensemble Studios designer Bruce Shelley—whose Age of Empires computer games have
become one of the most successful real-time strategy games on the planet—offers his advice on
using design documents:
The design document (DD) is the blueprint of the game design. It begins with a short paragraph
or a long vision statement that sums up what the game is about. This is followed by a longer
two- or three-page vision document, which provides more detail on the look and feel of the
game. This grows into a full-blown DD that may reach several hundred pages for one of our
games. All major systems have separate chapters that explain in detail how each system will
work. For example, in the Age of Empires games, the DDs had a chapter on buildings. Here we
listed all the buildings, their functions, their costs, their prerequisites, when they could be built,
their attributes (hit points, armor), etc. Everyone on the project could go to that part of the DD
to see how a particular building was supposed to work. From this document, the programming
team would create their technical design document, which would list all the programming tasks,
who was assigned to them, and estimates of creation time. The art team builds a list of art
components from the DD. The test team builds its list of systems to be tested. The publisher
compares the DD to the build they receive. The DD is the backbone of the development
process. It's a living document, updated regularly. We keep it on our intranet so it's easily
available to all. We also create a "DD Lite" that someone can read more easily for a quick
overview of the product.
Phil Steinmeyer, PopTop Software
The creator of Railroad Tycoon, Tropico, and others says there are all kinds of design
documents, so it's important to clarify the differences between them:
[They can] range from publisher summaries, which can be 1–10 pages, to general game design
documents, running 15–50 pages, to detailed technical architecture documents listing every bit
of code and art asset that will be needed by the game (sometimes running 1,000 pages and
more).
Steinmeyer says he typically writes and follows two design documents. The first is a short
summary for his publisher, highlighting projected marketing, budget, sales, and competing
games. The second is a longer document for internal use.
For Tropico, it was about 40 pages of text, plus lots of spreadsheets. My team has complained
that the Tropico design document wasn't detailed enough, and it wasn't kept up to date, so I'm
going to try for more detail and keeping it up better on our next game.
Phil Saunders, Presto Studios

Earlier in this chapter we heard from Tim Schafer, best known for his games when employed by
Lucas Arts, and now we have Phil Saunders from Presto Studios to chat further about design
docs and storyboarding in adventure games.
"In our process, storyboarding is really only used for cinematic sequences where we're in
complete control of the player's viewpoint," begins Saunders. He continues:
In environments that are fully realized and navigable, the important part of pre-production is
prototyping. We create simple models early on in the process to define the path and to show
what will and won't be visible to the player in any given location. At this stage, we're able to
discover what players will and won't learn, and when; what we can hide from them; as well as
what's revealed. As an additional benefit, prototyping allows us to have a good grasp of the size
and scope of our production. We can tell what level of detail must be put into what part of the
environment, based on its distance and accessibility to the player.
Why this amount of effort?
We've learned the hard way that preliminary planning pays off in the end. It's sad to see
someone's designs being cut from the game because you've run out of time, or technically it
just won't work. For Myst III: Exile, we spent about a year developing the gameplay, story, and
early visual ideas. At the end of about 11 months, we had a design document 160 pages long.
The design document saves you from over designing and eventually cutting out work that took
someone months to prepare. Months that could have been better spent fine-tuning other areas.
Is a design document necessary? "In my opinion," concludes Saunders, "it's the most important
part of production."
For more about the creation of Myst III: Exile and what could be learned from it, hop back to
Chapter 3.
Ragnar Tørnquist, Funcom
The brilliant and articulate Ragnar Tørnquist—creator of The Longest Journey, arguably one of
the most critically acclaimed adventure games of late—talks in this chapter about creating a
successful protagonist and the importance of design docs and storyboard sequences.
"Creating strong characters in a game is not as hard as people think," begins Tørnquist, when
asked to reveal the "secret" to creating a successful lead character such as April Ryan in The
Longest Journey.
Most of it has to do with depth: depth of personality, depth of background, depth of

characterization. It's important to avoid clichés and stereotypes, and one way to go about it (at
least initially) is to use real people as models for your characters. Think about what it is that
makes a person unique: Is it the way he or she talks, walks, laughs? Observe his or her
expressions—facial, verbal, body language—and dig deep into that person's full history. The
more complex the background, the more thorough your preparation, and the easier it is to
develop a strong character. Even if it isn't mentioned in the game, take the time to write down
personal details such as family history, likes and dislikes, favorite pets—anything and
everything that's suitable for the kind of character you want to create.
In other words, if your character is a butt-kicking marine with a grudge, you probably don't
need to think about his favorite color, but you'll need to find out why this guy became a soldier
in the first place, what makes him tick, and what he wants to accomplish.
Okay, so what about the creation of April Ryan?
With April Ryan in The Longest Journey (TLJ), there was actually a ton of background material
that's only briefly hinted at in the game, but that gave her depth and character. There's a
reason for everything she says and does, and I think that's quite apparent. Long before I
started writing her dialogue, I knew everything that had happened to her from the day she was
born to the day the game started. I knew what made her tick. I knew how she spoke, how she
would react in any given situation. At that point, it's a lot easier to develop the character and to
have him or her become a natural part of the story and the setting.
I said earlier to avoid clichés and stereotypes, but sometimes clichés and stereotypes are great
ways to establish a character immediately, without a lot of dialogue, especially in the case of
supporting characters who may not get a lot of screen time. Don't knock stereotyping; there's a
good reason why some people do conform to stereotypes. With TLJ, we had The Surly
Detective, The Funny Sidekick, The Mysterious Stranger, The Mad Wizard, and so on. These
types of characters, done right, appeal to us on a very basic level: we understand them. We've
seen them before. We know where they fit in. While you don't want your lead character(s) to fit
into an easy mold, clichés and stereotypes are tools that can be used to fill out your character
gallery. After a while, you'll probably want to play with these clichés and stereotypes, twisting
them ever so slightly to keep the players on their toes throughout.
And on the development of these characters, and using the story—or, more precisely, the plot—
Tørnquist says to keep in mind that good characterization (at least in games) comes from
placing ordinary people in extraordinary situations.
This is usually a lot more interesting than extraordinary people in extraordinary situations: By
virtue of the changes in the game world, and the way your characters react to these changes,
you'll find that your protagonist(s) often start to evolve and grow on you, regardless of your
original intent. Let the player experience the world through the eyes of the protagonist; if the
protagonist's eyes are jaded or all-knowing, it's not particularly interesting. But if, as with April,
the extraordinary things that happen on her journey are as surprising to her as to the player,
there's an instant link between the person playing and the character he or she is controlling.
And that's a good thing.
On design docs for an adventure game, Tørnquist mirrors many of the sentiments found in this
chapter:
A design document is a blueprint for the programmers, artists, and level designers. It describes
in detail the concept and ideas, the systems and functions, and the suggested implementation
of all game features—both the obvious ones (visual interface, for example) and the not-so-
obvious ones (AI, scripts, saving and loading, and so on).
Tørnquist expands on this comment, and also touches on storyboarding:
The designer's job is to think of every eventuality that might occur, every action the player may
want to perform, every problem that could pop up, as well as create an interesting world, a
strong story, intriguing characters, and fun gameplay. It's impossible to cover every eventuality
—to second-guess all possibilities—but the point is to be as well prepared as possible. Design
will happen, whether you want it to or not, throughout the production, until the day the game
ships (or, in the case of online games, even after the game has shipped, and for years to
come). A design document is therefore an evolving document, constantly updated by the
designers, providing a living record of intent as well as result.
A storyboard is a visual representation of what occurs onscreen, which is only the tip of the
iceberg in terms of the actual design. A storyboard visualizes what the player will see and do,
and so it's an interesting way to "play the game" long before the game is up and running, but it
doesn't replace the design document. For The Longest Journey, we storyboarded a few
important in-game sequences, but not all of them—not even most of them. However, we did
make detailed concept drawings of all locations and every single character in the game—this is
called the visual or graphic design. By doing that, we were able to plan out what animations,
sound effects, dialogue, and code we needed. Of course, all of the game's cut-scenes were fully
storyboarded, much like with an animated movie.
And lest we forget about a script—arguably the most important part of a creating an adventure
game, Tørnquist has a few words to say on that topic:
Last but not least, an adventure game needs a script; this is the document that "tells the
story," in dialogue, scripted events, every possible response to every possible action—much like
a movie script, but much, much bigger. Combine the three—the design (technical, systems,
interface), the storyboard, and the script—and you're ready to start production, at which point
you'll realize that making adventure games is even more fun than playing them!
Ragnar Tørnquist offers sagely advice in Chapter 3 on creating adventure games.

Ron Gilbert, Humongous Entertainment
The gaming genius behind many of our most lovable characters, such as Monkey Island's
Guybrush Threepwood, Maniac Mansion's Bernard, and Pajama Sam, believes that "there has to
be something about the character that's visually recognizable, and simply understood." He
explains:
We don't have the bandwidth yet for complex characters like in film, so we simplify and often
rely on stereotypes, and then we build them up through storytelling. In action or real-time
strategy games, we rely on these stereotypes for you to instantly understand who the character
is. The story is secondary, more of an afterthought, but not for adventure games, of course.
Daniel Greenberg, Freelance
The talented Daniel Greenberg is an award-winning freelance game designer with almost two
decades of experience making critically acclaimed and commercially successful games. Some of
these include Star Trek: Starfleet Academy, Vampire: The Masquerade—Redemption, Star
Control III, Tenchu II: Birth of the Stealth Assassins, Independence War II: The Edge of Chaos,
Sea Dogs, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons: Al Qadim/The Genie's Curse, and X-Men: The
Mutant Wars. He is also a consultant for a number of well-known computer and console
publishers.
Greenberg was first asked to provide some important pieces of advice to share with newbie
game designers on becoming a success in the industry. His answers are quite thorough, so dig
in and get comfortable.
Apprenticeship: Learn the rules. Stay in school. There's a lot more to game design than being
really into deathmatching. The best way to learn it is to absorb the distilled essence of what
mankind has learned over the last few thousand years. There's a shocking amount of good stuff
in college and even high school—if you keep your ears open. Learn the basics—at least enough
English to write crackling dialogue and avoid passive voice; at least enough dramatic theory to
understand why Aristotelian theory is still essential 2,000 years later; at least enough
programming to create flowcharts that are efficient and meaningful; at least enough art theory
to be able to speak intelligently to artists about color, form, motion, and asset management;
and at least enough business and marketing and corporate culture to talk coherently to people
who will turn your games into cash. None of this stuff is dull to an active mind that is restlessly
churning everything it digests into fodder for games. Once you're firmly grounded in a
multidisciplinary approach, get inside the business any way you can—quality assurance,
administrative assistant, etc. Once you're inside, it's easy to learn the ropes and even find
mentors. Knowing the rules will help you avoid the pitfalls that tripped up so many designers
before you.
Professionalism: Follow the rules. It doesn't matter if you're 16 or 60; there's no excuse for
unprofessional conduct. Handle the basic stuff. When you give your word, can your boss and
coworkers and employees count on you? Make sure they can—every time. Underpromise and
overdeliver. The temptation to do just the opposite is often overwhelming. Resist it.
The rules are there for a reason: they work. The rules can help you isolate bad ideas and
eliminate the pressures that result in crappy games.
Revolution: Break the rules. Game design is full of devotion to stupid conventions that are
slavishly copied in hopes of duplicating success. Innovation requires a leap of faith into the
void. And that's the easy part. Once you've created a brilliant, unconventional, defiant design,
harness your creative powers to create imaginative ways to sell your innovations to marketing.
If you learned how risk-averse corporate culture is during step 1 (apprenticeship), you should
have an edge in this process. Following the rules makes good games. To make great games,
you have to know which rules to break.
With the nearly 20 years of experience Greenberg has under his belt, he can easily support his
advice above with real-world personal/professional examples.
I'm still pillaging classes I took years ago for good ideas. My psychological studies into reaching
autistic children became the basis for the secret final mission in Starfleet Academy ("A World of
Their Own"), in which the only way to survive a confrontation with a planet-killing vessel is to
not try to get them to understand you, but to understand them by getting into their dissociative
world.
In my Advanced Dungeons and Dragons computer game, The Genie's Curse, I drew on notions
of honor and sacrifice from a Philosophy of the Middle Ages course, in order to let players make
meaningful choices about expediency versus the difficult but honorable path. (The Computer
Shopper magazine reviewer said "...it is refreshing to see a game where honor and courtesy are
an integral part, and portrayed in a way that isn't trite.")
Much of this chapter looks at storyboarding, the various theories on why storyboards are
important, and how to approach them. Greenberg looks at the importance of the story itself
and offers the following paragraphs:
Aristotelian dramatic structure has not been repealed in the digital age, but it needs some
adaptation to account for user input. Story structure needs to follow the basic pattern of rising
and falling action, but the player needs some ability to alter the pacing, or the story will feel
forced and labored. But just as Arthur Miller had to seriously rework Aristotle to reach a modern
audience with "Death of a Salesman," good games need to rethink dramatic structure for the
new medium.
Many games have paper-thin characters because our art form is still in its infancy. For all their
rapidly accelerating power, PCs are actually still a very crude canvas. They're bursting at the
seams to contain an art form as potentially explosive as interactive storytelling. Unlike mature
art forms, like books or films, our medium is in its infancy, and our ultimate structure is utterly
unknown to us—though many of us suspect it will make the Holodeck look like a child's toy.
(Wait. The Holodeck is a child's toy.)
The people in our audience who "get" interactive entertainment are still a small subset of the
general population (though this subset is growing and evolving faster than the keepers of our
culture understand or imagine). So we can be excused for catering more to the more primal
interactivity needs of our audience than the more subtle forms of characterization and intricate
plot construction. It only makes sense that we (and our audience) are more enthralled by the
gimcrackery of the exponentially increasing technology than exploring the depths of the human
psyche via video games (though that, too, is happening). So the simple conclusion is that Lara
Croft is about as developed as she needs to be for the style of game she appears in. That style
of gameplay is evolving, however, as we find what's really meaningful in storytelling.
Great stories resonate in us, because somewhere the story relates to journeys we have taken,
struggles we have endured, and burdens we have borne. Even the most fantastic story can
connect with us on a symbolic level. This has tremendous power, even if most people are not
fully conscious of the effects of story on their emotions, actions, and lives. Games can
illuminate our own inner landscape just as books and movies can, showing us a little bit about
ourselves as we play. Good games let us take charge of that process, and let us explore that
inner landscape. One secret to illuminate that path is the tool of multiple good outcomes.
Any secrets Greenberg can share on storytelling in an interactive medium? Indeed there are.
Greenberg provides the following, and supports his comprehensive words of wisdom with
examples from games such as Vampire: The Masquerade—Redemption and Star Trek: Starfleet
Academy.
Multiple "good" outcomes

A big secret of superior interactive storytelling is the concept of multiple good outcomes, with
varying degrees of "good."
When I first began designing, most games had a very linear storyline. Interactive choices
offered were largely illusory, as any deviation from the storyline was punishable by death (or at
least game over). This became too obvious, so some games decided not to kill characters
immediately after the player chose the death path. This made the game livelier, but led to
terrible frustration when players realized they were "dead without knowing it." It was often
quite difficult for players to locate the killer choice point and start over from there. Eventually,
interactive story design evolved to the point where games could offer a third, more ambiguous
choice to spice up the mix of a fairly obvious survival choice and a fairly obvious insta-death
choice. These good, bad, and ugly choices improved the mix, but were still very limited.
My favorite solution was to make the insta-death choice very rare (You chose door number
two? You're dead!), and focus on a wide range of variables to track choices within the main
story. Players don't have cut-and-dried choices that point in obvious directions, but more subtle
choices that could each turn out well. Each choice has real consequences and real rewards far
beyond issues of death and survival. They take the player along differing paths through the
main story, and result in a range of consequences and endings depending on the
preponderance of choices made throughout the game. This lets the player feel more in charge
of his destiny.
This "multiple good options" approach has another beneficial effect. Players can personalize
their character to a greater extent, and therefore feel a closer connection to their avatar. For
example, if the player needs to question a non-player character, consider providing a range of
dialogue approaches. Choosing between dialogue options like browbeating and sweet-talking
lets players sculpt their characters' emerging personalities. Players not only control their
destinies, but shape the kind of ride they have on the way to that destiny.
Technical note: If you're going to offer the player these kinds of choices throughout the game,
it's important to reveal this experientially early on, by setting up a simple, low-impact choice
and result early in the game. The player needs to feel the consequences of his choice very
quickly to know that the game is indeed responding qualitatively to his decisions.
The trick is tracking all the variables set in play, and making sure they're all paid off. It's also
important that the player has a sense of why he gets the outcome he did. He doesn't need to
understand the direct consequences of each choice, but should have some idea. (If he wants to
know the direct consequences of each choice, he's free to replay from a myriad of saved
games, and believe me, a lot of players will. And then they'll post the consequences in great
detail on gaming sites.)
One of the best ways to offer multiple good options is to use the approach of short-term pain
for long-term gain versus short-term gain for long-term pain. Tempt the player with expedient
choices, but hint that there's a price to pay later. And offer a price to be paid now for hope of a
return later. This is a diabolical bind, and makes for very textured choices for the player—
neither of which is obviously objectively bad. When players are wracked with nervous
apprehension while making choices, you have done your job.
Examples (and reviews to show how the goal was accomplished):
Vampire: The Masquerade—Redemption offers the player multiple endings based on ethical
conduct during the game. While ethical vampires might sound confusingly contradictory, in
practice it works well. We implemented the Humanity system that we had used quite
successfully in the paper game version. Vampires are unliving creatures who either cling to the
tattered shreds of their former humanity or yield to the beast within and become ravening
monsters. So if the player made difficult but ethical choices in his dealings with others, he could
forestall the slide to oblivion, and even find a kind of redemption. If he acts like the monster
he's becoming, he hastens his slide into oblivion. However, even this "bad" ending can give him
power to defeat the boss villain, but at the cost of his soul. In the end, the game's basic choices
became a meditation on what we sacrifice for power, on defeat in victory and on victory in
defeat.
Adrenaline Vault said: "The well-constructed storyline and character development system give
VTM: Redemption an overpoweringly immersive quality, possessed in very few offerings today."
Star Trek: Starfleet Academy requires that the player manage a crew of raw cadets and mold
them into a team. Besides having to make career path decisions, resolve inter-crew squabbling,
and deal with opportunities to cheat (just like James T. Kirk), the player has the option to
neglect his studies to help solve a serious problem he and his science officer have stumbled
upon. From the very beginning of the game, it appears that the top victory condition is
graduating first in the class. Therefore, all the academic choices seem far more important than
more fun distractions. And, for the most part, they are. But the player gets an inkling that the
fringe research project he has embarked upon could have tremendous, far-reaching
consequences, saving more than a few lives. The player will have to sacrifice what appears to
be the whole point of the game—winning command of his own ship by graduating first in his
class. The research plan that will let him crack the problem is presented as yet another
tempting distraction from his limited study time. But clues interspersed throughout the game,
including interactions with Academy Special Instructor Kirk, hint that it could be far more than
that. If you actually dare to ask Kirk audacious questions about his notorious defiance of the
Prime Directive, you learn all about how and when to break rules. Many players figure out the
special ending the first time through the game, but not all. Which is as it should be.
Cnet Game Center's review said that Starfleet Academy's "...clever writing and an
understanding of the Trek mythos (and its implications) surpasses most of the current TV
shows and movies. In fact, the question of what we are to learn from Kirk himself and his
"Cowboy Diplomacy" (based on the original series and first set of movies) is one of the major
themes of this story."
Bill Roper, Blizzard Entertainment
Do design docs and storyboarding play an important role in RPGs? To enlighten us, Blizzard
Entertainment's Bill Roper and Blizzard North's Matt Householder (see the next section) speak
on these issues. First, let's hear from Bill Roper:
The different teams within Blizzard approach design documents from different angles. The
Diablo II team kept most of the design within the game. If a change was made to the way
monsters worked, those changes were made directly in the spreadsheets and were recorded
that way as well. The Warcraft III team has integrated their design documents into a web-
based format to make it easier for non-programmers to follow the changes to the game. Both
ways have their strengths and weaknesses, and in the end it's up to each team to find the
method that best suits their particular needs and group of developers.
The common ground that our teams share in regard to design documents is in defining and
following the vision of the project. In the case of Warcraft III, this is to create a real-time
strategy game that infuses elements of role playing into the design. We created the term role-
playing strategy (RPS) to help focus the decisions made by the team. From this basic idea came
the concepts of focusing on fewer and more powerful units, simplifying the resource model,
making exploration a key component of the game, creating more organic campaigns, and
making the game even more immersive than Starcraft. Finding the core essence of the game
and then building upon that concept is how we grow our games, and the documentation
involved is recording decisions and ideas that are made along the way.
With Blizzard's stunning cinematic sequences, you can bet these start out as storyboards before
the computer graphic (CG) artists begin animating these short films. Roper explains how the
process works at Blizzard:
Storyboarding is essential in regard to campaign creation and cinematic sequences. The

cinematic department at Blizzard has walls filled with storyboards scripting out each sequence
they're going to create for each game. They work closely with the development teams to ensure
that the look and spirit of the game are translated into the cinematic sequences and to make
sure that [they've created] the proper continuity. Models are shared when appropriate and
artists from both the cinematic and development teams get together to brainstorm and
eventually create the storyboards. The writers utilize these storyboards to shape the dialogue,
and this can result in a change in the visuals as well as the acting performances or sound and
music design.
Of course, this all has to tie into the game's campaign storyline, and so the level designers get
involved in the process as well. They also create storyboards, although these tend to be with
both words and level outlines. With the ability to create in-game cinematic sequences using the
game engine, we've found it necessary to find key elements in the campaign maps in which to
integrate story elements or give players rewards for completing portions of the campaign. All in
all, it's a very collaborative process involving several different groups within the company.
Matt Householder, Blizzard North
Another key member of the Diablo II group is Matt Householder, who also shares some
comments in Chapter 4. He adds to Roper's discussion on the importance of a design
documents and storyboarding of these mega-popular RPGs:
The purpose of a design document is to present the look and feel of the game to the production
team (and publisher's management) in an efficient and maintainable way. Begin with a one- or
two-page overview, briefly describing the player's viewpoint, gameplay, and controls.
Explain why it will be fun to play. Be sure to cover all the basic issues in brief—single-player,
multiplayer, console versus PC, player characters, opponent/enemy characters, animation style,
background settings, sound/music, story, etc., and then elaborate on them in later sections
devoted to one major topic at a time. Drawings—sketches, character designs, screen mockups
—are very helpful to visualize the game. For a large game, the document could grow to
hundreds of pages!
A design document is a lot like a recipe for the building of a game, but the best cooks often
experiment and modify recipes as they go. Likewise, Blizzard North uses a design document
more as a general guideline rather than a "bible" and encourages creative expression by all the
production team members—even exploring major design changes during the development
process.
And on storyboarding:
It's essential for cinematic production, but not strictly necessary for the production of game
code and artwork. One place storyboarding can help a great deal in game production, however,
is in flowcharting the user interactions of making choices to start up a game, navigating
through game menu screens, and the like.
Both Householder and Roper discuss the art and science that is RPG game design in Chapter 4.
Chris Taylor, Gas Powered Games
The creator of such beloved games as Total Annihilation (when at Cavedog Entertainment) and
Dungeon Siege has provided this book with a design document template (see Chapter 6) that
you can use as a basis for your own custom document, plugging in the necessary game details
to suit your project.
Here, Taylor explains that creating a design document can be approached in many different
ways:
Design documents can vary from highly theoretical to very technical and detailed. Over the
years I've settled on a system in which I create an overview document and then a series of
appendices that add the details. From this I then produce specification documents that break
down everything for the person who will implement the specifics. It's great to have a template
to work from because then you can just go through and fill in each section. You begin with the
high concept, then the feature set. Then you must answer the 10 most jaded and difficult
questions that you think someone might ask you about your design. If you can't answer them
right from the beginning, you may need to go back and think about why you want to make a
game like that in the first place.
Taylor says the importance of storyboarding depends on the type of game:
When there are a huge number of art assets involved, you absolutely must do concept
sketches, storyboards, and anything else you can to reduce risk and any chance of doing stuff
over and over again. Poor planning will frustrate people and de-motivate them, so
storyboarding is a great way to communicate the overall plan, look and feel, style, and scope of
the game.
Warren Spector, Ion Storm Austin
In Chapter 4, Warren Spector—best known for games such as the Ultima Underworld series,
System Shock and Deus Ex—chats at great length about creating award-winning role-playing
games. His suggestions can also be found in Chapters 12, 17, and 21.
Here he discusses the importance of a design doc:
A design doc is absolutely vital to me. I know some other hugely successful developers (who
will remain nameless) who insist they never bother trying to document their games. I can't
imagine that!
For me, a design doc is many things: It's a roadmap—an abstract, iconic version of your
proposed game. If you keep it updated during pre-production and even during production, it's a
snapshot, a picture of where your project stands today, right now. If done "right," it includes
materials, assets, and information that marketing can use to generate early press coverage of
your game (without bugging the development team too much!). Toward the end of the project,
a design doc that has been updated appropriately can be a vital tool for manual and cluebook
writers, as well as for QA teams looking to generate playthrough and feature checklists. Most
important, though, a design doc is a vital communications tool, both internally (ensuring that
everyone on the dev team is on the same page) and externally (for publisher, marketing, and
even press). I just wouldn't know how to make or manage a game without one.
So, how does Spector—or any game designer, for that matter—write a design document?
Unfortunately, no two projects are the same, no two teams are the same, no two genres have
the same requirements, and therefore, no two design docs are going to be the same. You just
have to find the elements necessary to describe your game to your team and to your publisher.
Figure out what you need to provide to ensure that your team has enough information to
implement the vision of a game. Allow each person on the team to contribute to the extent of
their capabilities and/or interests, but give one person "ownership" of the doc. (In other words,
one person should say yes or no to any idea before it's incorporated into the final doc.) Plan on
revising throughout development, to ensure that the doc reflects the changing reality of your
game's development. Recognize that a time will come when reality overtakes your doc and
continued updating may (MAY) be unnecessary. And then read the book I obviously have to
write on this subject! I'm completely overwhelmed by how much there is to say so I better
stop. Sorry...
Spector admits that storyboarding has never been a big part of his development process:
It's vital, obviously, when planning cinematics, but that's about it. You always want concept art
for characters and locations/maps/levels before you spend a lot of money modeling and
creating them, but that isn't really storyboarding per se. I remember reading a fine little book
called Behind the Scenes at Sega, about the making of a platform game, that said every aspect
of the game should be storyboarded. That idea just isn't applicable to the kinds of games my
studio produces (and illustrates the fact that development processes have to be appropriate to
the game you're making—there's no single Right Way to make a game...). Storyboarding is
probably vital to games where you know exactly what path players will take every step of their
journey and where you pre-plan every puzzle and its one solution.
Storyboards were certainly an important part of the Wing Commander games, with their
emphasis on cinematics, and I bet the Lucas Arts adventure games use them heavily. But if
you're making something more open-ended than that, storyboards just don't seem all that
useful. We're not (or shouldn't be) making movies here...
American McGee, Carbon6 Entertainment
American McGee, creative director at Carbon6 Entertainment, has worked on such renowned PC
titles as Doom, Doom III, Quake, Quake II, and most recently, American McGee's Alice for
Electronic Arts.
For this chapter on storyboarding, McGee gives us his vision for the cinematic intro to Alice.
Read on, and enjoy. If you've ever played the game (and you should!), you'll get a lot more out
of this having experienced the breathtaking intro sequence.
American McGee's Alice intro, written by American McGee
Alice Story
Intro:
EXT HOUSE
Snow flurries dot the night sky. Storm has passed.

Camera glides through leaded glass French doors into the library of a comfortable Victorian
manor.
[Full] moon's glow, intensified by snow, lights the room. Shelves overflow with books and
papers.
Camera moves toward a large fireplace.
A napping cat stands, arches his back, and uses the leg of a nearby desk to sharpen his claws.
Retreating, he catches a claw on a damask cloth, which is decoratively draped over part of the
desk.
An oil lamp sits on the cloth.
Trying to get free, cat pulls the cloth. The lamp is drawn to and over the edge. Smashes on
floor.
Oil covers the cat and flows towards the glowing embers in the fireplace.
Flame explodes out of the cinders and engulfs the cat and paper-filled desk.
Fire spreads through the library at an alarming pace.
Smoke slithers the door and up the stairs—along the hallway and slips under Alice's door.
Camera moves to sleeping Alice.
A tendril of smoke wisps up her nostril.
Camera follows.
WONDERLAND—GNOME GARDEN—TEA PARTY
Alice and a small assortment of Wonderland characters—Mad Hatter, Gryphon, March Hare,
Dormouse, White Rabbit—having tea around a huge table. Mood is light and playful.
Mad Hatter, pouring tea for Alice, drops the pot, which shatters with the sounds of breaking
glass. Suddenly, the ground around the table splits open and fire comes through the fissures.
Smoke billows around everyone. The shadow of the Jabberwock passes overhead. Screams.
Fade back to Alice's moonlit, smoke-filled room.
INT HOUSE
Alice awakens from her interrupted dream.
The [muffled] screams are coming from inside the house.

Alice leaps out of bed, clutching her beloved white rabbit, and runs to the door.
Hallway is filled with smoke and licks of fire.
She bolts towards her parents' room, and trying the doorknob burns her hand severely.
She pushes the door in a little—flames come billowing out.
Alice, driven back by heat, distraught, screaming in agony and frustration, retreats.
Camera follows as she runs wildly down hall.
EXT HOUSE
Camera watches as Alice exits house through the front door and stumbles down the steps.
Screaming, coughing, covered with soot, she collapses on the front yard in a large snow drift.
House is completely engulfed in flames; a section of roof/wall dramatically collapses.
She curls up in fetal position, eyes locked on the burning house.
Camera flies into the fire burning in Alice's right eye.
Alice faints.
FADE
Cut to asylum...LET MUSIC MAKE THE TRANSITION
INT CHILDRENS HOSPITAL/ASYLUM
Rain is falling outside.
Camera slowly pulls away from Alice's vacant eye. She's curled on a bed in a private room.
Sterile, impersonal except for framed facing photos of her mum and dad on bedside table.
Shares space with a bowl of food and a large spoon. A chair is the only other piece of furniture.
No longer the pretty little girl of earlier sequences, Alice is a drawn young woman; has not seen
the sun in ages.
She clutches a dirty and threadbare stuffed rabbit, whose only eye stares off into space.
We see numerous scars on Alice's wrists. Some fresh. One wrist is bandaged.
The night, visible through a barred window, is boiling with bad weather.
A nurse in foreground turns and walks slowly to the door shaking her head, speaking to herself.
NURSE
Glad I saved that moth-eaten relic [the rabbit] from the dustbin.
(Turns and says, in full voice)
Please try to eat something, dear. Good night, Alice.
(The nurse will resemble the Duchess in game.)
Nurse locks the door behind her as the darkened sky outside unleashes a burst of lightning.
Alice flinches and grasps the rabbit tight.
Camera pulls in again on Alice.
Every time there is a lightning flash, she flinches slightly; exhibits no other signs of activity.
Another flash offers the opportunity to cut to a close-up of her head and torso, where the rabbit
in her hand slowly turns its head to look at Alice.
It whispers in a raspy voice, sounding like the worn-out toy it is.
RABBIT
Alice, pull yourself together, girl. You must help us!
Another flash pulls the camera back out; Alice slowly turns her head to look downward at the
rabbit.
Another flash and the rabbit is gone from her hand, but something else is in the room with
Alice.
Camera pans as if to look out of Alice's eye and finds a large white rabbit dressed in
undertakers' garb standing before her.
RABBIT
You must help us, Alice. You really must. Follow me, we haven't much time.
Walking toward to the door, the rabbit pulls a key from its waistcoat and unlocks the door.
Pushing it open, the rabbit steps through into darkness and begins to run away, again
exclaiming:
RABBIT
Hurry, Alice; we're very late already!

Alice slowly rises from the bed; she takes the spoon (this will become her knife) and shambles
slowly to the door. Grasping the frame, she propels herself through the door and into the
darkness beyond.
WONDERLAND—INT RABBIT HOLE
Alice is falling.
Alice cries out as she falls. She is once again tossed down the rabbit hole and through the
entrance to Wonderland. But this feels different.
She falls for quite some time, with the images of her parents, her childhood lifestyle, and her
years at the asylum blending together. Images twist and warp and several of the twisted
Wonderland creatures are briefly introduced here.
The shadow of the Jabberwock flies across Alice. The Mad Hatter rides a Victorian bicycle across
her path, only his coattails and top hat visible. Furniture twists and changes, the walls are pure
darkness.
(End Intro)
This feature is taken from chapter five of Marc Saltzman's Game Design: Secrets of
the Sages, Third Edition.
The book is available inside Macmillan Software's Game Programming Starter Kit 5.0.
The Designer's
Notebook
A Symmetry Lesson
By Ernest Adams The more observant among you may have noticed that my column
didn't come out last month. I was on vacation in Oxford, England,
where I was studying the art, architecture, history, and sociology of
the English country house. You might wonder why a computer
game developer would want to be able to tell the difference
between Baroque and Rococo decoration, or why a liberal would
want to study the extravagant mansions of a group of people who
lived lives of ostentatious dissipation while the downtrodden
Gamasutra
working classes slaved away in the hot… where was I? Well,
October 16, 1998 anyway, the short answer is that if game developers don't learn
Vol. 2: Issue 41 something new every once in a while, the whole damn industry is
going to end up behind the eight ball again, that's why.
Got something to say One of the things that the Renaissance brought to English
about something
Ernest has said?
architecture was the classical idea of symmetry, that buildings
[Talk back] in looked better when the left side was a mirror image of the right
Threads. side. This was hardly a new idea, but until the Renaissance,
people hadn't made much of an effort to apply it to houses.
Haven't joined yet? Symmetry applies to all kinds of things besides architecture of
[Join Now]
course; it applies to art and book design and even music, and it
also applies to computer games.
Previous Columns
This is a column about symmetry in game design.
The VR Gorilla-Rhino I've written before about how the essence of game design is
Test balance. In the case of a multiplayer game, balance means the
[08.14.98]
fundamental condition of fairness, the requirement that all the
In Memoriam: Danielle players have an equal chance of winning at the beginning of the
Berry game. In the case of solitaire games (like most computer games),
[07.17.98] balance means that the game must be neither too easy nor too
hard.
Cartographic
Cartwheels
[06.19.98] The issue is less one of fairness than it is of providing a
reasonable challenge and a reasonable chance of winning. One of
the best ways of guaranteeing that a multiplayer game is balanced
at the beginning is by making it symmetric, that is, by making sure
that all the players play by the same rules, and start with the same
resources. If you're trying to balance both sides of a beam scale,
the easiest way to do it is to put identical objects in either pan, i.e.
to pile them up symmetrically.
Chess, checkers, Monopoly, and most other simple games are

symmetric: they start with identical resources on all sides. Even in
a perfectly symmetric game like chess, there's still one
unavoidable element of asymmetry, and that's the fact that
someone has to go first. In many games, like tic-tac-toe, going first
provides an advantage. There are several ways of reducing the
effect of one player going first. One way is to set the game up in
such a way that the initial move provides very little strategic
advantage.
In chess, for example, the rules of the game are such that you can
only move a pawn or a knight on the first turn. These are the two
weakest pieces in the game, not counting the king. Thus, the
advantage conferred is not significant. In addition, the pieces are
four rows apart at the beginning, so no single piece can take or
even significantly threaten an enemy piece on the first move.
Another way to reduce the effect of going first is to make the game
a fairly long one, so that going first makes very little difference
over the course of the whole game.
Tic-tac-toe is a very short game, so going first is extremely
valuable and whoever goes second is usually on the defensive for
the whole game. With a longer game like checkers or chess, it
doesn't matter so much.
Finally, a game can incorporate randomness to reduce the effect

of going first. Monopoly and backgammon are games in which the
players throw dice to move, and since the player going first could
very well have a bad throw and the one going second could have
a good throw, the moves are much more affected by the die roll
than by anything else.
In computer games the issue of who goes first is usually moot,

since real-time games far outnumber turn-based games. And the
few turn-based games that do exist, like X-Com, usually take
much too long for it to make any difference in the end. However, I
include it here because I think a computer game designer should
also be a competent paper game designer, and for paper games
it's an important question.
A variant of the simple symmetry found in chess, checkers,

Stratego and the like is the "rotational" symmetry found in
Rochambeau (rock-paper-scissors). In Rochambeau, two people
choose one of three items at random: rock, paper, or scissors. The
winner is determined by the following formula: scissors cuts paper
and defeats it; paper wraps rock and defeats it; rock breaks
scissors and defeats it. If both choose the same thing they play
again.
This mechanism was also found in the old Brøderbund game,

The Ancient Art of War. In that game, knights had an advantage
over barbarians, barbarians had an advantage over archers, and
archers had an advantage over knights. An additional element of
this kind of game is hidden information: the fact that one player
does not know which of the three options the other player will
choose to use. As a result, there's more psychology involved than
in a simple game of complete information like chess or checkers.
Asymmetry Caveats
As I said, symmetry is the simplest way of making a game fair, but

it tends to emphasize the artificial nature of the contest. Games
are often more interesting, and feel more "real," when they contain
asymmetries. A very ancient asymmetric game is a board game
called Fox and Geese. In Fox and Geese, one player controls one
piece (the fox) and the other controls 17 pieces (the geese). The
fox can move in any direction and can jump the geese as in
checkers, removing them from the board. The geese can only
move towards the fox and cannot jump it. The geese win if they
pin the fox in so it cannot move. The fox wins if it jumps so many
geese that not enough are left to pin it.
Wargames, which often purport to be simulations of historical

events, are often asymmetric because the manpower, equipment,
and field positions of the opposing forces were asymmetric in the
first place. As a result, balancing a wargame so that each player
has a similar chance of winning is a considerable challenge. Often
this is done by giving different victory conditions for each side
(which we also saw in Fox and Geese). In the case of a massive
army besieging a small garrison force, the victory condition for the
garrison is not the defeat of the massive army, which is clearly
impossible, but to hold out for a given length of time or number of
turns. If the army overruns the garrison in the time allowed, it wins;
if not, it loses.
One of the most popular asymmetric computer games right now is

Starcraft. Starcraft is a game that requires constructing a series of
buildings as you build an army; this is also found in Command &
Conquer and Dungeon Keeper. In Starcraft, armies belong to one
of three races: Terrans, Protoss, and Zerg. The functions of the
buildings are relatively similar between the races, but the
weaponry of the units (particularly the high-level ones), their
production costs, their production mechanisms, and their durability
are all quite different.
In general Protoss units are very tough but also very expensive,
while Zerg units are cheaper and weaker, and Terran units are
somewhere in between. Zerg units heal themselves over time;
Terran units can be quickly repaired, but only by a special repair
unit; Protoss units cannot be healed or repaired, but can use
rechargeable shields to defend themselves. This asymmetry has,
of course, given rise to a great deal of debate about which race it
is better to play with. If you read the addendum to the manual, it's
clear that some last minute tuning took place to improve the odds
for some of the races, because a few features to which the manual
refers are not in the game
In computer games it's easier to balance asymmetric elements

because the die rolling is kept out of sight, and you can fudge the
probabilities without the player(s) knowing about it. I don't know
that this was done in Starcraft, but it seems likely.
There's another kind of symmetry, or at least balance, to consider,

and that's the balance among the types of tactics required by a
single player to win the game. Games often contain design flaws
that allow players to exploit loopholes in the rules to win the game
by repeated use of a single tactic.
This is particularly true of on-line multiplayer simulations with an

economic element. The designer wants, and expects, the players
to use a variety of tactics, but because of a design flaw, one tactic
works so much better than the others that the players abandon all
but it, making the game rather dull. In general you want to force
players to adopt a variety of tactics to make the game more
interesting. The simulation of a professional football game that I
work on naturally duplicates the rules of real football. Football
used to be a fairly symmetric game, especially when players
played both offense and defense.
With the advent of specialized offensive and defensive tactics, the

game has become quite asymmetric, at least during any one
series of downs. (Of course, it's not asymmetric in the sense that
the two teams play by different rules or have different victory
conditions.) As a result, the rules are constantly being revised to
try to keep the game balanced between offense and defense.
Similarly, there's the balance between running with the ball and
passing it. In American professional football, passing is slightly
more important than running, but teams really must be able to do
both well to succeed. Canadian football rules aim for a different
balance, significantly emphasizing the passing game and the
offense generally overall.
Going back to the English country house for a minute, another

interesting development was the invention of "landscape
gardening." Instead of laying out a formal (and often highly
symmetric) flower garden, gardeners like Lancelot "Capability"
Brown designed an entire landscape of lawns, sculptures,
waterfalls, copses of trees, and little buildings - usually imitations
of Roman shrines. One of the principles of his designs was
surprise. Following a path would lead to an unexpected vista or a
statue that was hidden from the main house. The landscape
garden encourages - and rewards - the visitor's inclination to
explore.
This is another worthwhile principle to consider in game design.

The obvious parallel is to adventure games, where exploration is
the point, but it can apply to other kinds of games as well. A game
need not be exactly the same from beginning to end. An
unexpected surprise or an unusual twist that emerges partway
through can please, encourage, and reward the player. In a way,
they represent an asymmetry in time: the game's beginning is not
symmetrical with its end. This is a double-edged sword, however.
It's best not to change your style of game too dramatically.
For example, Heart of China started as a more-or-less

conventional adventure game, but at one point jumped to a rather
crudely implemented 3D tank simulation. If you didn't succeed at
that, you couldn't go on. It was frustrating; if I had wanted a tank
simulator, I would have bought a tank simulator. Above all the
surprise, whatever it is, should fit smoothly and naturally into the
game, to seem as if it belongs there. Symmetry in game design is
simple, easy, and intuitive, but it often leads to an artificiality, a
"game-like" feel that nowadays we're usually trying to avoid.
Asymmetry is a very powerful tool for generating interest and
realism, but it complicates the design and tuning of a game
substantially. Use it with care.
Ernest Adams is an audio/video producer for Electronic Arts, currently
working on the Madden NFL Football product line. Once upon a time, he
was a software engineer. He has developed on-line games, computer
games, and console games for everything from the IBM 360 mainframe to
the Nintendo Ultra 64. He was a founder of the Computer Game
Developers' Association, and is a frequent lecturer at the Game
Developers' Conference and anyplace else that people will listen to him.
Ernest would be happy to receive E-mail about his columns at
eadams@ea.com. The views in this column are not necessarily those of
[Back to Top] Electronic Arts.
Game Design Methods: A 2003 Survey

By Bernd Kreimeier
Gamasutra
March 3, 2003
URL: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20030303/kreimeier.shtml
At the Game Developers Conference this week in San Jose, two roundtable discussions [20] will
be dedicated to the topic of "game design methods" - that is, methods for planning and defining
gameplay. To set the stage, this article presents a cursory overview of past and present efforts
to define structured, formal game design methods. Some of the proposals referenced here were
originally started several years ago, others were conceived as recently as a few months ago.
This survey does not claim to be complete, and introductions to efforts not presented here will
be welcomed to the GDC roundtables.
The Aim Of Game Design Methods
Compared with the vast body of operational knowledge found in the world of filmmaking, the
game design community is just beginning to articulate the concepts and techniques specific to
our medium in order to establish methods of game design. What should we expect of a game
design method? To borrow from Doug Church [4], game design methods should:
1. Relate to game design. The method has to be applicable to the actual interaction
structure and mechanics of a game, not to concerns related to marketing, production, or
management. This restriction is debatable (as it is easily violated), but it does define the
scope of this article as well as the roundtables. While methods addressing the
development process and its constraints are certainly needed (whether or not their
substance is specific to games), they are not considered "design methods".
2. Have utility - it should be a "tool". A method has to be more than just a list of concrete
examples or a definition of a building block. A method involves a procedure, a step-by-
step recipe, at least parts of which can be applied by simple, even automatic repetition.
In particular, it should address specific and concrete issues occurring during the design
stage of game development.
3. Be abstract. A method has to apply to a large, presumably infinite number of game
situations or instances. The actual level of abstraction can vary (e.g., genre-specific, or
applicable to any interactive medium, etc.) but it has to be at least one step removed
from the concrete instance (game or game element).
4. Be formalized. A method needs some degree of formal structure, some amount of
specific organization. Typically this consists of a template structure used repeatedly to
contain information. Rollings' use of fictional dialog and anecdote [22] and Rouse's
reliance on interview [29] are examples of forms found outside the context of game
design.
This article focuses on design - how to plan and define gameplay, and how to make it work. As
such, process and production methods are beyond the scope of this discussion. According to
Cerny [3], design is properly part of the pre-production stage. In comparison, most of the
conceptual work of movie making is performed before the actual shooting begins, relying on
tools such as script and storyboard that have also been applied to game production. To
progress beyond adoption, game designers have to ask:
 What are the equivalents of script or storyboard for game pre-production?

 To what extent are such movie-making methods applicable to making games?
 How can movie-making methods be adapted to fit the design of interactive games?
Campbell's "Hero's Journey" [7] is the most prominent example of an abstract framework
which, established in the movie industry, has been discussed extensively with respect to its
applicability to games. Freeman [15] proposes using his approach to scene and dialogue
construction for game scriptwriting, while others refer to Polti [16].
Possibly the earliest attempt to define a game design method is the game
design document. Church's suggestion of "Formal Abstract Design Tools"
[4] in 1998 marks an early explicit demand for a shared vocabulary. It was
also the introduction to conceptual tools specific to game design problems.
Hal Barwood's "400 Rules", introduced at GDC 2001 [1], led to the "400
Project" spearheaded by Noah Falstein (whose quest for "Fundamental
Doug Church.
Principles of Interactive Entertainment" dates back at least to 1996 [9]).
Derivatives of Alexandrian "patterns" have been proposed by several authors (see [17,19] for
recent efforts). The latest addition to this line-up is the "Lexicon Project", an effort hosted at
the University of Texas in Austin [26]. These examples of game design methodologies will be
summarized briefly, opening the door for further discussion at the GDC Roundtable [20].
Game Design Documents
The design document (or "Design Bible Method") is a common attempt to organize the
development process. On the surface, it is a standard method (there is consensus that some
amount of documentation is always needed), yet the details a design document should contain
are often debated. To be considered a method, the proposal has to specify what type of
information to include, how to organize that information, and how to maintain it. Additionally,
questions of revision control and editing privileges must be addressed. The design document
approach has been rejected by some (e.g. [3]). Taken to its extreme, it is often found
unworkable. Detailed recommendations (such as [8]) on game design document structure
might ultimately be self-defeating: by adding more details to the prescription, the maintenance
overhead is only increased. In practice, it appears that primarily the smaller design documents
used in the early stages of the development process, i.e. treatments and outlines, are the most
helpful application of the design document approach.
On some level, most discussions about game design methods can be considered part of a
discourse on how to write a design document. Methods are tools used to extract, identify,
refine, and organize knowledge. They should encourage introspection and observation, and turn
reactive choice into conscious, proactive planning decisions. Game design is typically a process
of iterative refinement [11], and documenting intermediate results is an inherent part of any
such refinement process. Methods help us improve the process, and propose ways to organize
the results. In that sense, many methods are specific recommendations on how to write parts
of a design document.
If we had a unified, ultimate design document template, it would likely resemble some kind of
spreadsheet or document template full of empty fields, each field named and clearly labeled as
to what type of information was to be inserted, with pull-down menus enumerating design
choices and checkboxes to list options. A typical sample of this treatment or outline template
offers exactly that. The archetypical design document can thus be seen as a form into which the
designer fills in the details of a given design-in-progress. The document's hierarchical structure
embodies a decision tree, which, once all branches are traversed, places the designer in a leaf
representing his game. In other words, design document templates are a structured way of
asking the designer questions, thereby forcing decisions.
It is certainly possible to implement structured queries as software tools, even with off-the-
shelf text editing software (DTDs and XML schemas, i.e. structured editing through XML). It is
even possible to conceive documents that incorporate spreadsheet-like elements to ensure
consistency and help you visualize the consequences of design (e.g., score/balancing)
decisions. The problem with the structured query approach is that it attempts a single top-down
solution at a time when game design as a craft is lacking both overarching concepts and
complete foundation.
Furthermore, the structured query approach is sequential, which does not suit well a game
development process based on prototyping, iteration and progressive refinement. Capturing
document iterations by revision control raises issues of depth of the revision history. For
production purposes, only the most recent change is relevant. There are also issues of
granularity: for most team members, the decision itself and its immediate implications are
more relevant than annotation capturing objectives and concerns, or rejected alternatives. This
explains why structured query by design document templates seems to work better for
treatments than outlines, and better for outlines than full reference documents. Issues of
granularity might be resolved to some degree using marked sections and other means to create
partial renderings of a unified document. However, given the complexity of the document
maintenance task, it is possible that design documents approach cannot be taken much further.
It is possible that design document structures for production use simply do not exist outside
specific domains, such as certain well-understood game genres.
However, the concept of structured query is important, even if one rejects the attempt to
create any kind of unified structure. To preserve the concept of structured query in the absence
of such a unified top-level structure, methods are needed to conduct design analysis piecemeal,
discussing specific design concepts in isolation. Ideally, such methods will enable the designer
to make connections between such isolated concepts for purposes of design by composition, as
well as to progress from building blocks to higher levels of abstraction.
Discourse by Anecdote
The collection Game Design Perspectives[21] is the most

recent example of discussing game design with minimal
formal constraints. One of the earliest examples is Chris
Crawford's Art of Computer Game Design[6]. In these and
similar texts, game design experience is presented as a
Chris Crawford.
narrative, e.g., as a series of anecdotes and invented dialogs [22], sometimes as
recommendations derived from interviews [23], or simple as annotated transcript [29].
The narrative, anecdotal representation of knowledge is the predecessor of Alexandrian

patterns. Thus Alexandrian patterns appear intuitive and accessible without prerequisites in
training or adherence to strict form. Typically, a particular insight is described as a specific
incident or concrete example. The rules of the 400 project also attempt capture concrete
experience as instruction. The most common problem with anecdotes is that they do not lend
themselves to placing individual insight into a context of established knowledge. Anecdotes
often don't use existing terminology, or worse, they redefine established terms.
For example, Crawford describes non-transitive relationships between game units as both
"triangularity" and "asymmetric relationship". The term "asymmetric game" (see also [22,30])
is often used referring to other concepts. Essentially, Crawford and also Adams discuss which
payoff matrices for unit-unit encounters deny the player a "dominant strategy". A matching
"400 Rule" formulation would be "Prevent dominant strategies". Rollings [22] presents the
game theory analysis of "dominant strategy" in some depth. This analysis dates back to 1944
[27], yet discussions of game design rarely make references to game theory explicit, or employ
established terminology and notation. This appears to be a natural consequence of the
anecdoctical form. Clearly, while anecdotes are a natural choice to begin the game design
discourse, the time has come to advance beyond this form.
Formal Abstract Design Tools
In 1999, Doug Church proposed [4] a more specific approach that he called "Formal Abstract
Design Tools" (FADT). As he described, "formal, implying precise definition and the ability to
explain it to someone else; abstract, to emphasize the focus on underlying ideas, not specific
genre constructs; design as in [game design]; and tools since they will form the common
vocabulary [needed as an instrument for design]". Church presented a comparative analysis of
aspects of several games, and presented three FADT examples:
1. INTENTION: Making an implementable plan of one's own creation in response to the

current situation in the game world and one's understanding of the game play options.
2. PERCEIVED CONSEQUENCE: A clear reaction from the game world to the action of the
player.
3. STORY: The narrative thread, whether designer-driven or player-driven, that binds
events together and drives the player forward towards completion of the game.
Here, INTENTION is just a definition of a factor to be taken into account: the player's ability to
plot and plan independently. PERCEIVED CONSEQUENCE comes closest to a concept or rule
(e.g. "Ensure the Player Perceives Consequences of Her Actions"). Introducing STORY, a term
burdened with implications and connotations, by mere re-definition ignores the complexity of
narrative concepts. Church even articulates explicit reservations on narrative structures in
games in his article; hence the reference to "player-driven narrative thread[s]" not further
specified. STORY, presented as a tool, would amount to a recommendation like "Define a
narrative thread to guide the player". By not clearly separating the idea of a vocabulary from
that of methods, Church seems to restrain himself to definition instead of recipe. "Tool"
describes devices of intervention as as instruments of observation.
Indeed, Church's FADTs are more than just mutually agreed upon definitions of game design
terms. PERCEIVED CONSEQUENCE is not only specific to interactive media, it also lends itself
directly to explicit implementation requirements. Further examples can be harvested from the
"Game Design Lexicon" forum ([28], no longer accessible) that Gamasutra hosted following the
electronic reprint of the original Game Developer magazine article. In 1999, at least 25 terms
were submitted by almost as many contributors:
CHALLENGE-REWARD PAIR
CONDITIONAL
CONGRUENCE
DETERMINISTIC FINITE OPPONENT
EVENT BASED MUSIC
FORMAL ABSTRACT DESIGN TOOL
GARPHICS [sic]
GLOBALLY CONSISTENT RESPONSE
HOMOGENEITY
I-WORLD
MODEL
NONDETERMINISTIC FINITE OPPONENT
OVERWORLD
OWNERSHIP
PARALLEL INTERFACE ANIMATION
POWER-UP
RULE OF LOGIC
SETBACK
SINGLE-STATE OPPONENT
TRIGGER
UNIVERSALLY ANTICIPATED RESPONSE
WILLING SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF
WORLD REGISTER
WORLD STATE
Some of these terms are synonyms, a few cross-referenced other terms, and several were
related to software implementation (illustrating the problem of separating design concept from
implementation issues). The fact that these submissions existed on varying levels of abstraction
and within different contexts is a natural consequence of performing a query within a "lexicon"
template structure. The choice of "lexicon" instead of "tool" was a natural consequence of the
way Church originally introduced FADT. Others entries, like GLOBALLY CONSISTENT RESPONSE
(and its synonym submitted as HOMOGENEITY), are clearly conceived to match PERCEIVED
CONSEQUENCE, and share its quality. CONSISTENT RESPONSE is at the core of Harvey Smith's
description of systemic level design [24], yet Smith never explicitly defines systemic design as
a FADT. Randy Smith (like Doug Church and Harvey Smith, a designer at Ion Storm) in his GDC
2002 presentation [25] of "Analog Interaction Structures" (and its presumed opposite, "Discrete
Interaction Structures") explicitly calls the concept of analog interaction structures an
"analytical tool…for deconstructing [stealth gameplay] in Thief", but does not introduce the
concept as a FADT, once referring to it as "data analysis tool" instead.
If one considers Church's FADT proposal an attempt to introduce a specific form and
overarching principle to game design methods, it seems that the instrumental notion of "tools"
has outlived both FADT and its complement, the "game design lexicon". Definitions are
instruments only in the most abstract sense; why not aim for recipes, procedures, or
instructions?
The 400 Project: Rules

Hal Barwood, in his GDC 2001 presentation "4 of the
400" [1] proposed representing game design
experience as a series of rules. Subsequently, Noah
Falstein and Barwood initiated the "400 Project",
introduced in Falstein's "Better By Design" Game
Developer magazine column and in the duo's "More of Hal Barwood (left) and Noah
the 400" presentation at GDC 2002 [2]. Falstein deliver their lecture "More
of the 400" at the 2002 Game
The project has progressed steadily since March 2002, Developers Conference.
averaging about one rule per month. The rules
published so far (months refer to print issues, also see the 400 web pages [14]):
1. "Fight player fatigue" (Barwood, GDC 2001)

2. "Maximize Expressive Potential" (Barwood, GDC 2001)
3. "Maintain Level of Abstraction" (Barwood, GDC 2001)
4. "Concretize Ideas" (Barwood, GDC 2001)
5. "Provide Clear Short-Term Goals" (Barwood/Falstein/Horneman, GDC
2002, also March 2002)
6. "Identify Constraints" (Barwood/Falstein, GDC 2002)
7. "Maintain Suspension of Disbelief" (Barrett, GDC 2002, also May 2002)
8. "Emphasize Exploration and Discovery" (Barwood/Falstein, GDC 2002)
9. "Let Player's Turn the Game Off" (Barwood/Falstein/Geist, GDC 2001, again July/Sep/Nov
2002)
10. "Build Subgames" (Barwood/Falstein, GDC 2001)
11. "Provide Parallel Challenges with Mutual Assistance" (Falstein, April 2002)
12."Distribute game assets asymmetrically" (Falstein/Weidemann, August 2002)
13."Begin at the middle" (Falstein, Oct 2002)
14."Make the game fun for the player, not the designer or computer" (Falstein/Meier, Dec
2002)
15."Make the effects of the AI visible to the player" (Falstein, Jan 2003)
16."When simulating a real system, use real-world formulas and cheat as little as possible"
(Falstein, Jan 2003)
17."Add a small amount of randomness to your AI calculations" (Falstein, Jan 2003)
20."Create the AI in the mind of the player through suggestion" (Falstein, Jan 2003)
21."Don't take away points or other hard-won possession from the player" (Feb 2003)
For clarity, "Rules" or "400 Rule" refers to rules published as part of the "400 Project", while
lower-case "rules" will refer to the general concept of representing design insights in the
formulation of a rule. The Rules published so far focus on content design and avoid production
issues (such as "develop the hardest part first" or "throw away the first level you do"). Barwood
and Falstein define a clear structure for Rules [10,14]:
1. A concise, imperative statement of the rule

2. Its domain of application
3. Rules that it trumps (over which this rule takes precedence)
4. Rules that it is trumped by
5. Examples of following and counter-examples of not following the rule.
Barwood and Falstein state [2]: "Rules are tools... Rules are instructions: reasonably concrete,
can be consciously followed, can be broken and ignored...". Particular emphasis is given to
precedence among rules and how rules trump one another. Trumping defines a bi-directional
web of precedence between individual rules, a solution that does not scale well. From a
maintenance and editing point of view, the alternative would be to codify trumping as explicit
meta-rules in "Rule A trumps Rule B" statements.
Falstein further discusses [11] Rules as a method, describing game design as a process of
iterative refinement that requires knowledge of human nature. Consequently, Rules are inspired
from linguistics, "avoiding potentially rigid software engineering techniques as the template for
game design". The assertion that "Rules can be bent, others can be broken..." would defeat the
assertive, authoritative choice of imperative rules in the absence of explicit trumping hierarchy.
Falstein writes: "Rules are tools that provide instructions to the designer, not just observations
on the nature of what has been done previously. To be most useful, they must be reasonably
concrete and aimed at practical use, not pure academic discourse." A similar point from a later
installment [13] formulated a rule about rules: "Use common sense when applying rules".
While new rules have been introduced steadily, the revision and refinement of existing rules has
not been systematic. Perhaps the 400 Rule to receive the most thorough peer review so far is
"Let Players Turn the Game Off". Most of the peer discussion has focused on trumping. "Name
That Trump" [12]) observes that trumping rules are sometimes implied by the recognition that
counter-examples to a rule exist. The issue of whether or not Rules are limited by a scope
defined through design objectives is still open. Rules apply within specific contexts, but the 400
Rule does not make that context explicit. The concept of scope is not to be confused with the
Rule definition of "domain".
Patterns
Alexandrian patterns originated in architecture and have since been successfully applied in
more rigid domains such as software engineering (see [19] for an overview). At its core, a
pattern is a template structure in which experiential knowledge is entered. Like the 400 Rule
format, pattern templates preserve the idea of structured query, yet by themselves lack the
unified global structure implied by the design document method. Alexandrian patterns
incorporate a mechanism resembling trumping, as they attempt to capture side effects of, and
interactions between, patterns in annotation sections. The notion of hierarchy is inherent to
pattern formats, as new patterns can be defined by combining two or more existing ones.
Pattern languages appear to offer a roadmap to arrange individual patterns within a higher level
structure, however, pattern languages beyond a mere collection of patterns are a complex topic
best considered separately. Examples of pattern published so far (see [19]) include the
following:
FILTER
PROXY
PREDICTABLE CONSEQUENCE
PAPER-ROCK-SCISSORS
PRIVILEGED MOVE
WEENIE
WEENIE CHAIN
Patterns were the focus of a workshop at the 2002 CGDC conference in Tampere [17]. Pattern
approaches will also be presented at GDC 2003 [18].
The Lexicon Approach

Rules, patterns and FADT require definitions - a vocabulary. Without definitions specific to game
design, statements about game design are restricted to terms not specific to game design. In
other words, in the absence of a game design vocabulary, rules and patterns will describe
games using terminology borrowed from other media. "SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF" [2] is a
good example of this.
Patterns, rules and FADT alike exhibit in varying degrees the capacity to bundle a name,
definition, and implementation description. Consequently these forms could be specific even in
the absence of a shared vocabulary. The risk, however, is a growing set of increasingly
disconnected rules, patterns or FADT that establish different and even contradictory definitions
within each individual scope. Thus patterns, rules etc. cannot replace definitions, even if they
could theoretically serve as a means of definition. The problem is that patterns, rules and FADT
themselves are not by default definitions, and that the attempt to use them as such biases the
designer to create, say, a pattern where just a simple definition is needed [17]. Methods are no
replacement for a shared vocabulary. Every pattern or rule can define a part of a vocabulary,
but not every vocabulary term is a pattern, or warrants its own rule.
The earliest demands (e.g. [4,5]) for improvements in game design called for a shared
vocabulary - a dictionary of game design terms. The game design community is taking the first
steps taken to names concepts and mechanisms. Collecting these terms and organizing them
into a coherent whole is the objective of the recently begun "Game Design Lexicon" project
[26]. The collaboration between multiple institutions is hosted by IC² and headed by Patrick
Burkat, currently affiliated with the University of Texas in Austin. The lexicon project will deliver
an HTML thesaurus and an XML compatible lexicon of a polyhierarchical vocabulary,
distinguishing three user groups: video game production, game designers and developers, and
players. The project relies on local focus groups and surveys, and ethnographic methods, taking
another step towards a more commonly shared language of design. Efforts like the "Game
Lexicon Project" close the circle: while a lexicon on its own will never suffice as a tool, it is the
indispensable complement to any conceptual tool or method.
Open Questions
How do these three examples of game design methods -- FADTs, 400 Rules, and Patterns --
relate to each other? To what extent are they similar? The use of examples -- instances found
in published games -- is the common denominator. However, our goal is to abstract from
individual examples. We need a representation of knowledge that, to paraphrase, is "as
abstract as necessary, but not more abstract". Taking abstraction too far simply deprives it of
meaning. Examples are the empirical foundation, and relevant data is not just found in
published games, but can also be drawn from usability testing, behavioral psychology, and the
research literature on human-computer interaction.
Game design is an iterative process. Consequently, any structured query as exemplified by

game design documents constitutes only the very first step. Each specific game design decision,
each project-specific design statement is implicitly a challenge: Is this the best choice? What
are the alternatives? Why is this solution preferred? The same principle of iterative refinement
applies on the level on which we discuss design itself. By describing a mechanism (e.g.,
FILTER), by stating a requirement (PREDICTABLE CONSEQUENCE, SHORT-TERM GOALS), by
defining a term (STORY), questions about limitations, consequences and alternatives are raised.
Even the methods themselves should be questioned and refined. Is the pattern format
adequate for instruction? Can rules be observational? How do we address purpose within a
problem-oriented representation? Can trumping capture scope or purpose? Can rules be
conditional? Can design insights be derived from first principles, and can these also be
represented as patterns, rules, FADT? What is the proper level of abstraction, and how do we
maintain it? Do we need a method to identify building blocks? Do we need the top-down
approach of unified design documents? How well does trumping scale with larger numbers of
rules? Do patterns really accommodate detailed descriptions? These questions, and countless
others, will have to be addressed as our methods progress and our ability to employ them
improves. The "Game Design Methods" roundtable at the Game Developers Conference this
week [20] will offer us another chance to advance towards better answers.
References
[1] Hal Barwood. "Four of the Four Hundred". (GDC lecture, 2001.)
[2] Hal Barwood and Noah Falstein. "More of the 400: Discovering Design Rules" (GDC 2002
lecture) http://www.gdconf.com/archives/2002/hal_barwood.ppt
[3] Mark Cerny. "Method" GDCE 2002 Web Lecture

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/slides/cerny/index.htm, also
http://www.gamasutra.com/gdce/2002/mark_cerny.zip
[4] Doug Church. "Formal Abstract Design Tools." (Gamasutra, 1999. Originally Game
Developer magazine, Vol 3, Issue 28, July 1999.)
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/19990716/design_tools_01.htm
[5] Greg Costikyan. "I Have No Words & I Must Design". Originally published Interactive
Fantasy #2, 1994. See http://www.costik.com/nowords.html
[6] Chris Crawford. The Art of Computer Game Design, Chapter 6: "Design Techniques and
Ideals." 1984. http://www.erasmatazz.com/free/AoCGD.pdf
[7] Troy Dunniway. "Using the Hero's Journey in Games." Gamasutra, 1999. See
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20001127/dunniway_pfv.htm
[8] Troy Dunniway. Professional Game Design. Originally scheduled to be published June 2002.
[9] Noah Falstein. "Interactive 'Show, Don't Tell': Fundamental Principles of Interactive
Entertainment", 1996. See http://www.theinspiracy.com/ArShowDT.htm
[10] Noah Falstein. "Better By Design: The 400 Project". (Game Developer magazine, Vol. 9,
Issue 3, March 2002, p. 26.)
[11] Noah Falstein. June 2002, "Better By Design: Game Design at GDC 2002" (Game
Developer magazine, Vol. 9, Issue 6, June 2002, p. 30.)
[12] Noah Falstein. July 2002, "Better By Design: Turn-Offs", (Game Developer magazine, Vol.
9, Issue 7, July 2002, p. 24.)
[13] Noah Falstein, September 2002, "Better By Design: The Story So Far" (Game Developer
magazine, Vol. 9, Issue 9, June 2002, p. 28.)
[14] Falstein, "The 400 Project" website. See http://www.theinspiracy.com/400_project.htm.
[15] David Freeman, "22 Secrets of Dialogue and Scene Flow". Proceedings CD ROM, GDC
2002.
[16] Georges Polti. "The Thirty-Six Dramatic Situations" (translation). The Writer, Inc., Boston,
1916, 1917, 1921, 1931, 1940. See http://harris-donahue.tripod.com/harrisdonahue/id15.html
[17] Jussi Holopainen and Staffan Bjork "Computer Game Design Patterns", workshop at
Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference, June 6-8, Tampere, Finland.
http://www.gamesconference.org/pf_workshop.html
[18] Jussi Holopainen and Staffan Bjork", "Game Design Patterns", upcoming GDC 2003 lecture
with Bernd Kreimeier, See https://www.cmpevents.com/GDx/a.asp?
option=3&V=11&SessID=796
[19] Bernd Kreimeier, "The Case for Game Design Patterns" See
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20020313/kreimeier_pfv.htm
[20] Bernd Kreimeier (moderator): IGDA Roundtable on "Game Design methods", GDC 2003.
Thursday https://www.cmpevents.com/GDx/a.asp?option=3&V=11&SessID=489 and Saturday
https://www.cmpevents.com/GDx/a.asp?option=3&V=11&SessID=910
[21] Francoise Dominic Larame's (ed), Game Design Perspectives, ISBN 1-58450-090-5,
Charles River Media 2002.
[22] Andrew Rollings and Dave Morris. Game Architecture and Design. (The Coriolis Group,
2000.) ISBN 1-57610-425-7
[23] Marc Saltzman (ed), Game Design - Secrets of the Sages, 2nd edition., ISBN 1-56686-
987-0, Brady Publishing, Macmillan 2002.
[24] Harvey Smith, "Systemic Level Design", GDC 2002.

http://www.gdconf.com/archives/2002/harvey_smith.ppt
[25] Randy Smith, "Design Fundamentals of Stealth Gameplay in the Thief Series", GDC 2002.
http://www.gdconf.com/archives/2002/randy_smith.ppt
[26] Warren Spector, Patrik Burkat, Aaron Thibault, private communications, 2003.
See http://www.ic2.org/ for more information on IC&sup2.
[27] J. Von Neumann and O. Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton
Univ. Press, 1944.
[28] "Game Design Lexicon", Forum at Gamasutra.com, 1999-2002, defunct.
[29] Richard Rouse. Game Design: Theory & Practice. (Wordware, Inc., 2000) ISBN 1-55622-
735-3
[30] Ernest Adams, "A Symmetry Lesson". Gamasutra, October 1998.
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/designers_notebook/19981016.htm
Soapbox: ARGs and How to Appeal to Female

Gamers
By Andrea Phillips
Gamasutra
November 29, 2005
URL: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051129/phillips_01.shtml
How to attract women to gaming is one of the trendy issues du jour. The business keeps
examining and re-examining the same roadmap of suggestions and success stories: Women
play The Sims. Women play puzzle games. Women play games designed by female developers.
Women like cooperative gameplay. By now, there is a broad consensus on how to get where we
want to go, but a certain hesitancy about following through. Nobody wants to be the risk-taker
here. Not only is there a large amount of money at stake, but I'm sure some companies are
privately afraid of losing valued developers and their traditional core audience if they "go soft
and make girl games."
Perplex City is an ARG that is
comprised of 256 puzzle cards,
featuring all sorts of problems, from
mazes to pop culture, riddles to
cryptography, and illusions to
crosswords.
Well, I've got good news for you. It's already been done, and it really works. At the end of this
road, you don't find an exclusively female audience and a disenfranchised male ex-playerbase.
Instead, you find a gaming audience that looks a lot like the world we live in every day.
Welcome to the gender-balanced world of Alternate Reality Gaming.
ARGs, for those few of you still unfamiliar, are what happen when you take interactivity to the
next level. Think I Love Bees, Art of the Heist, Jamie Kane, and of course Perplex City. In these
games, a cohesive narrative is revealed through series of websites, emails, phone calls, IM, live
and in-person events. Players often earn new information to further the plot by cracking
puzzles. Most important, the players of these games typically organize themselves into
communities to share information and speculate on what it all means and where it's all going.
These are platform-free MMORPGs, where there is no out-of-character, no avatar, and no
definite distinction between the in-game world and the real world.
The birth of the genre is widely considered to be in 2001, when a team at Microsoft ran such a
game for the Spielberg film A.I. That first community, the Cloudmakers, were an introspective
bunch, and even then were aware that that merry band was a lot more gender-balanced than
anyone would have predicted. Sadly, no solid figures are available. This wasn't just a one-time
phenomenon, though. This summer, a group of ARG players and developers gathered for a
convention in New York. There's one notable group photo from the event; in this self-selected
hardcore crowd of gamers and developers, nearly half are female.
So what's in an ARG that attracts women gamers? Let's take a quick overview of those oh-so-
famous pieces of conventional wisdom on what women are looking for in a game, and see how
ARGs have managed each of these elements without alienating a male audience -- and how a
conventional game might follow suit.
Strong Story
Quality of writing in games is a hot-button issue all on its own these days. If you're trying to
attract a gender-balanced audience, this becomes doubly important -- Final Fantasy and
Legend of Zelda games are oft trotted out as examples of story appealing to women. I'm not
going to try to come up with some evolutionary psychology reason why, but the pundits seem
to agree that women are more sensitive to the presence or absence of story in a game than are
men.
In the most successful ARGs, the game and the story are inextricable from one another. In an
ARG, there simply isn't a way to devise a game without simultaneously devising the story, and
the quality of the game lives and dies based on the quality of the writing. In every ARG team
I'm aware of, the lead writer is a crucial part of the dev team. Poor characterization, bad
pacing, or lack of plausibility are showstoppers just as much as a blue-screen would be.
The action item here for conventional gaming: Make the writing an integral part of the
development process, and not an afterthought.
Strong Female Characters
When you're going after the holy grail -- the maximum-appeal playerbase -- you need to take
some care with how you choose to portray female characters in your game. If you want women
(and even some men) to take your game seriously, evaluate the male/female character ratio in
your game, and then consider carefully what you have those women doing. Here's a hint: If
your women are in the game exclusively to be hot, you need to rethink your strategy.
Many successful ARGs have featured strong female characters, beginning with Laia in the
original A.I. game, who was witty, sarcastic, and proactive without overt sexuality. In Perplex
City, there are female characters in roughly equal numbers to men in all corners of the world.
In fact, the joke is that to have a good ARG, the protagonist *has* to be a strong woman. This
isn't a blanket truth, of course, but it doesn't seem to hurt any. These characters aren't just
somebody's girlfriend, nor are they primarily in need of rescuing. Think Linda Hamilton in
Terminator 2. Think Princess Leia in the original Star Wars movie.
Developers: Consider making half of your characters female. (Yes, even the bad guys.) Apply
this to NPCs and PCs alike.
Female Developers
I've heard laments that recruiting women into games development is difficult. Qualified women
simply don't exist, or so we hear. This is against a backdrop in which, according to a recent
IGDA report, the share of women working in the industry dropped to 11.5% this year vs. 17%
last year. And so we have a Catch-22. You need female developers to make games that appeal
to women; you need games that appeal to women to attract women into the business.
ARGdom apparently missed the memo. The original team for the A.I. game was almost entirely
male, but since then, the rolls of ARG development have grown to be studded with high-profile
women: Brooke Thompson, Krystyn Wells, Jane McGonigal. At Mind Candy, our staff is roughly
30% women -- and though the actual ARG production team varies in size, it's been as much as
twice that for some arcs.
The lesson here is: It's true that if you make a game that women want to play, then women will
want to develop, too. But the reverse isn't true; it's possible for a bunch of men to make a
game with cross-gender appeal. There goes your easy out for not trying, gentlemen.
Vibrant Communities
Women, we have learned, are somewhat more social creatures than are men. In fact, women
are more significantly more likely to participate in online gaming than men -- 53% vs. 43% -- a
fact that could be attributed to the social element of online gaming. In MMORPGs such as World
of Warcraft, guild leaders are slightly more likely to be female than male.
In ARGs, the entire playerbase is usually structured into something like a single guild, typically
with a team of moderators in place. (In the original A.I. game, two of the seven Cloudmakers
moderators were female.) Teamwork and cooperation are the very essence of playing an ARG.
A player in, say, London and one in Houston who have never spoken to each other before can
and will exchange phone numbers to help propagate information during a live event. This kind
of collaboration leads to a strong sense of belonging to something greater than one's self.
Not every game can have the kinds of social structures that an ARG does, but it looks like
gaming as a whole is on the right track, here. Having a well-moderated forum is important.
Allowing networked play, particularly between friends, is even better. There may be other ways
to allow and encourage social structures unique to your game. Don't be afraid to look for them.
Accessible Game Mechanics
Women are notoriously time-poor. I've personally tried and abandoned any number of games
because I can't be bothered to master the interface, and I'm by no means alone. There are
some interesting developments along these lines, now, with Bemani games, EyeToy, and the
coming Nintendo Revolution controllers. Along this same vein, many men and women alike
don't have eight hours at a stretch to commit to their gaming experience. Nobody wants to
spend forty hours trying to get to a single savepoint. That's not fun no matter what your gender
is.
The primary mechanic in ARGs have typically been entirely mental or social. A typical ARG
presents you with a wide array of puzzles, from cracking a character's email password to
decrypting Enigma. Along with puzzles is character interaction; convincing a character to take a
particular course of action via IM, email, or even on the phone. Men and women alike are adept
at and enjoy both of these modes of interaction.
So take a gamble on interface. Consider tailoring your game to deliver rewards immediately
and reliably, and not after hours of gameplay. Consider making a sliding scale of difficulty (if
you don't have one now) and don't call the easiest mode "girly-man." Make it easy on the
moms and dads with full-time jobs who only have twenty minutes at a pop, but still want an
enjoyable gaming experience.
Conclusion
ARGs conform to this list of criteria for attracting female gamers by sheer serendipity. In 2001,
this neat list of actions hadn't yet been firmly ensconced in the mind of the public as "How to
Appeal to Women Gamers." Now that we've drawn out the roadmap, we find that ARGs are
already waiting at the destination.
It's crucial to remember that all of these suggestions are generalities about large groups of
people, and not indicative of the preferences of individuals. Just because men are, in general,
taller than women doesn't mean that Sally can't be taller than Bob. Likewise, Bob might be
happiest playing The Sims and Sally might be happiest playing Far Cry.
It's also important to note that the dearth of women gamers is somewhat overblown in the first
place. When we as an industry decry the absence of women in gaming, we're forgetting that
43% of PC gamers are women already. (Only 19% of action gamers are women, though, and
I'm pretty sure that's where this women-don't-play idea comes from.) We don't have as much
catching up to do as you might think.
We in the gaming industry like to compare ourselves to Hollywood these days. This is one area
where we have an important lesson to learn. Hollywood does make movies geared separately
toward men and women; let's call it romantic comedies vs. baseball championship films. Sure,
some of these movies will defy expectations and attract broader audiences. But at the end of
the day, neither of these kinds of films are the ones that we expect to win Oscars. The Lord of
the Rings trilogy, Schindler's List, The Shawshank Redemption -- all of these films succeeded on
mixed-gender audiences. Inclusiveness is key. Now, as an industry, we need to put our heads
together and figure out how to make our Oscar-winning games. We've got our route to
inclusiveness, and we know it works -- now we just have to take a deep breath and go.
< Back | Home
UT's psychology department studies

multiplayer games
By: Regina Philip
Posted: 7/2/07
The University's psychology department is offering a survey to anyone who has played the popular
World of Warcraft or Second Life online games. The survey analyzes the personalities of those who
play massively multiplayer online role-playing games, which allow users to interact in a fantasy
world with other gamers across the globe.
According to Wow Insider, a World of Warcraft news site, researchers at the University are
conducting the study to "determine the 'personalities and motivations' of people participating in
World of Warcraft and other online games."
The 30-minute survey asks whether one is depressed, lonely, greedy or physically attractive. The
survey also asks how many hours a person spends playing the games and the primary reason for
doing so.
Supratik Lahiri, a UT Asian studies graduate, said he plays World of Warcraft two-to-five hours a
day during the summer. He said he enjoys the social aspect of the game.
"It's the opportunity for people from different parts of the world to come together and accomplish
one goal," Lahiri said. "Even though it's virtual reality, it's a great setting that I enjoy."
Lahiri said he would take the survey to figure out his personality type.
World of Warcraft has resulted in a gaming community from around the world. Gamers are able to
choose a character, set off on quests and battle monsters.
A gamer can schedule a specific time to work together with other gamers to destroy a monster, and
individuals can journey in clans to progress in the game.
The psychology department's survey also asks about a person's gamer and real-life friends. It
inquires about the respondents' social life, whether they tend to be around lots of people and if they
consider themselves likeable.
Angela George, a UT psychology graduate, said she only plays the game when she is bored, but
there are a lot of people who have become addicted.
"There are a lot of different age groups who play," George said. "Even my boss plays the game."
Rachel Halaney, an anthropology senior, said she used to play about 20 hours a week and has made
lasting friendships as a result.
"I think the main goal of the game is the socialization," Halaney said. "That goal definitely applies to
other people who play World of Warcraft."
The survey is currently online at http://www.oldsmarfire.com/survey/main.asp.

© Copyright 2007 The Daily Texan
Book Excerpt (p. x) Mind At Play : the Psychology of Video Games loftus and
loftus
are fundamentally different from all other games in history

because of the computer technology that underlies them. The
marriage of games and computers has produced both costs and
benefits. It enables, for example, the design of games that are
extremely compelling to play. Critics would call the games
addictive. Proponents would call them great fun.
A second theme involves ability. Playing a video game re

quires intricately tuned skills. How are these skills acquired?
What are the mental components that go into them?
A final theme revolves around education. We believe that

the games combine two ingredients—intrinsic motivation and
computer-based interaction—that make them potentially the
most powerful educational tools ever invented. We have dis
covered, much to our delight, a number of research projects
that are striving to harness this educational power. Some are
succeeding. More will succeed in the coming years.
While writing this book, we've had help from a variety of

people who deserve special thanks. Craig Raglund provided a
number of perceptive suggestions about the potential uses of
video games in education. Hank Samson and Jim Diaz, who are
much better players than we've yet become, engaged us in
lively discussions about reinforcement. Ellen Markman, Delia
Gerhardt, and Brian Wandell read and provided useful com
ments on early versions of several chapters. And, finally, there's
no way to adequately thank Judy Greissman, our editor at Basic
Books, who initiated the whole idea and who did a magnificent
job shepherding it through all stages from start to finish.
Geoffrey R. Loftus
Elizabeth F. Loftus

Psychology of Games Reading Assignment PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Psychology of Games Reading Assignment PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychology of Games Reading Assignment PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moves in Mind:

The Psychology of Board Games

Publisher: Psychology Press

Board games have long fascinated as mirrors of intelligence, skill,

Part 1: Introduction. Moves in Mind. Board Games and Cognitive

Fernand Gobet is Professor of Psychology at Brunel University,

Alex de Voogt is at the University of Leiden and Managing Editor of

Part One - Why brains love games

Needs and motivations

1. Physiological needs: To breathe, drink, eat, sleep, bodily comforts, etc.

5. Cognitive needs: To know, to understand, to explore, to seek adventure, to experience new

7. Transcendence: To help others to self-fulfilment and realize their potential.

2. We need to be able to concentrate on what we are doing

3. We need to have clear goals for our activity

4. We need to get constant feedback on our progress

6. We need to exercise control over our environment

7. We become less self-absorbed

Our perception of time is

Games are activities that

Part Two – Designing for humans

The role of the game designer

Designing for humans

1. Market analysis and user profiles

5. The pleasure of learning

6. Pacing and difficulty

Astrid Palm Beskow, Jan Beskow, Teresa Miró

Copyright © 2004 CMP Media Inc. All rights reserved.

My "Next" Games: Families, Psychology, and

Criminal families are great sources of

Each person's replies would be pre-recorded sound bites, or possibly artificially-generated

Copyright © 2003 CMP Media Inc. All rights reserved.

From my own area

After all, today's

First, get the

One last essential,

So ears will always

join | contact us | advertise | write | my profile

Copyright © 2003 CMP Media LLC

privacy policy | terms of service

Behavioral Game Design

already telling our players.

As in any contingency, there are actions

Killing opponents to gain experience

A related phenomenon, called "behavioral contrast," occurs in chimpanzees, among other

Activity level is a function of how soon the

Copyright © 2003 CMP Media Inc. All rights reserved.

How can I make my game more fun for more gamers?

Psychological theories can be useful, but data are more useful

An example of why academic theories of psychology aren't enough is in order. Skinner's

Beyond Theory: the value of collecting data with psychological methods

Criteria for good feedback and a good feedback delivery system

Common game design feedback systems and their limitations

Feedback from Professionals in the games industry

2. Feedback from gaming industry experts. Game design consultants ("gurus"),

Feedback from Non-professionals

Designing a better feedback system

1. Usability research is typically associated with small sample observational studies.

2. Playtest research is typically associated with large, structured questionnaire