New Gamer Psychology and Elite

[deMangler]

I have been reading a lot lately about how the internet is changing peoples expectations and perceptions.
A good book I highly recommend is "The Shallows" By Nicholas Carr that goes into some depth about this.

Here is a good recent article that sums up one aspect of this phenomena:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/14/computers_electronic_cocaine/

I was thinking about how this effect seems to be manifest in this forum, we have a few topics, in the Elite Dangerous section, where it seems to me that the wishes and expectations of people who want to preserve the "long view" feel and gameplay of Elite are clashing with a more recent culture of instant gratification.

Anyway, there ya go, I thought it would be interesting to discusss this phenomena and how it might affect design decisions.

 

[Cosmos]

Its an interesting area of study but making comparisons with cocaine is simply hyperbole.

Its worth making a distinction between someone who regularly plays games and uses the net to someone who sits at the computer for 48 hour sessions without eating or managing their bodily requirements.

Many of today's games involve a large investment of time (in a character) and are designed to illicit an emotional response and social media means we are also invested in what our peers think of us. I know I was pretty vocal about getting constantly killed in wow PvP because of a very unfair class imbalance (yeah thanks kalgan). That would be no different to playing football and the referee turning a blind eye to one side constantly cheating - many would be angry about that too.

A healthy debate will have people of differing views who challenge each other, perhaps quite strongly, hopefully respectfully, but I don't see how it can be classed as some sort of computer addiction because we are invested in the ED kick starter project.

Having said that we are seeing techniques in games that attempt to feed that ancient circuitry.. The ching ching of looting a corpse, the achievement ding.. I wonder if the author would compare certain game developers as digital drug pushers?

 

[Cmdr Andy B]

Its an interesting area of study but making comparisons with cocaine is simply hyperbole.

A healthy debate will have people of differing views who challenge each other, perhaps quite strongly, hopefully respectfully, but I don't see how it can be classed as some sort of computer addiction because we are invested in the ED kick starter project.

I could give it up any time i like, honestly - I only do it socially

 

[Cosmos]

I could give it up any time i like, honestly - I only do it socially

Me too I could give it up, but I just don't want to, honest

 

[deMangler]

I threw that article link in as an example not to emphasize the comparison with cocaine for the addiction point but more the instant gratification due to production of dopamine point.

"...postulates that computers activate dopamine producers in the older parts of our brains, the medulla and cerebellum. These can start dopamine production to flood our brains with pleasure when we find something new and interesting, and computers can cause a constant state of production...."

I was thinking about it from the angle of how gamers lately seem to want to have an instant hit that doesn't last followed by another one (WOW) that is consumed, rather than a slowly evolving fun experience that requires a greater degree of internal creativity (Elite).
There is also the case that some games are carefully engineered to be Skinner boxes for monetization purposes, this cultivates that psychology in gamers. These companies are little better than drug pushers IMHO.
Gamers that have had their gameplay expectations forged by such games, this I expect includes mostly younger gamers, would find a game like Elite slow and boring and would need lots of constant changing and novelty to be introduced to it to find it satisfying.
It struck me reading some of the more polarized forum debates re Elite: Dangerous how the contrasting views on some of the features might be shaped by this effect.

 

[Malicar]

I think the trend is swinging back in favor of the more hardcore or roguelike games. This is why more and more people are asking for hardcore options and or survival options. Games have just gotten too easy. To the point of they basically play themselves you just follow the train tracks.

Fast travel in my opinion is a joke. Current day RPG's aren't like the old school ones because you don't have to travel and fight your way to get anywhere. Even Zelda on the NES was more hardcore than any RPG today where you really don't walk anywhere except once you get to your destination.

Hyperspace jumping is a form of fast travel but is expected with such long distances. Inner system travel though requires real time flight even with a warp drive or the game is just silly. Even Star Trek Online with it's instanced based navigational space really kills the immersion and feel of space travel because you can get anywhere in the game almost instantly. One of the reasons I no longer play it.

Games like Day Z are a perfect example. You start the game with nothing no weapons no food nothing. You scavenge for stuff while avoiding zombies. Eventually you get some weapons and supplies and a tent. Now you can make a camp and store some supplies and fight off zombies. The treadmill needs to require work but reward the player.

If you make a game too accessible it becomes tedious and boring. Another example is Red Dead Redemption. Open World Sandbox style multiplayer for coop and pvp. Awsome design except one problem. Fast travel. There is no point in playing a sandbox game with fast travel. If I decide to run from my enemy and he fast travels to a town ahead of my direction what is the point.

Many and I mean many games have been ruined by these accessibility options. I'm not saying Hyperspace shouldn't be instant however I am saying that inner system travel shouldn't be. Also cooldowns on things like hyperdrives should be balanced to the point of where the player might have some concern about being defenseless without the drive charged.

Survival options must also make there way into these games. Fuel in itself is a survival option. However we could enrich the experience by requiring more survival options like regular maintenance on the drives. My only concern here is the game will be too accessible and some things will be overly simplified for the masses instead of the hardcore that have been waiting all this time.

 

[Cosmos]

Yeah, that word 'accessibility' ends up being doublespeak for dumbing things down. I do agree with you Malicar on that one. Michael has said that the design decision forums will be up by the end of January and I presume we are going to hear more about these matters.

I think its worth giving Frontier some credit, remember they are gamers too and one of the reasons for the KS funding method (?) was to avoid bean counters having input on how the game will be developed.

I'd say the game should be intuitive to pick up and play but be difficult to master.

 

[Susimetsa]

Here's rather a good commentary on the "dumbing down" thing with the case of the Elder Scrolls series:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JweTAhyR4o0

 

[psykokow]

I think the sheer size of the donation pot suggest's that a lot of people LONG for a game without a "Congratulations" screen and rather a game where the playing field is there to be played and at your own risk. Having your character executed and cast adrift in space should be gut wrenchingly hard to take, like losing your star sniper in X-Com enemy unknown. (it upsets me).

It has to be challenging but accessible so people can get deep quick then get hooked.

 

[Cmdr M.G.Dangerous]

There is also the case that some games are carefully engineered to be Skinner boxes for monetization purposes, this cultivates that psychology in gamers. These companies are little better than drug pushers IMHO.
Gamers that have had their gameplay expectations forged by such games, this I expect includes mostly younger gamers, would find a game like Elite slow and boring and would need lots of constant changing and novelty to be introduced to it to find it satisfying.

Agreed I have personally been observing, with some disgust, over the past couple of years, this trend, to the point that now there is at least 70% of the market containing titles that use this either partially or even is the only point to them.

There was a point a few years back when some great IP's come out, with some great features, that over the period of just a few sequels, plus other IP's that have come along at the same time have been eroded to leave the culture of, pay too much for some crud, move on, and pay again. The spread of downloaded titles & expansions, of the achievements/trophies system, bragging rights, clans, and industry rearranging of reality etc, have led to a flooding of substandard material that is being lapped up by mindless drones. The more that good devs get bought up by huge publishers like EA & Blizzard/Activision, the more the industry puts profit before product.

Referring to my comment re: Industry rearranging of reality. Certain bodies in the industry see that they can make more money by churning out crud than they can by taking the time and effort to make a title to be proud of. They see that they can make more money if they can deliver it instantly with no refunds. To this end they tell us we want things that we didn't say we wanted, and tell us it's the next big thing, it's they way the industry is moving anyway, everyone loves it etc, but that actually they want, safe in the knowledge that there are so many dum-dums out there that will lap up whatever they shovel out. So the dum-dums by every map pack addon, every iteration of an IP that has gone down the drain, every iteration of an IP that has become yearly or worse instead of every 3 years, every gadget, every peripheral, etc. Which enables the industry to continue on this downward spiral. The instant gratification followed by pay again & again model just allows them to do it quicker.