ID:154565
 
On 5/6/01 8:18 am sunzoner wrote:
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010427/hopson_01.htm

'nuff said.
In response to Leftley (#1)
On 5/6/01 11:39 am Leftley wrote:
On 5/6/01 8:18 am sunzoner wrote:
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010427/hopson_01.htm

'nuff said.

I think it is important to point out a few things the article forgot to mention. First of all the 'shocks' and other deterrants administered to the animals were very small, just enough to be uncomfortable and do no lasting harm. Second, all of this research was done almost 50 years ago. BF Skinner is now in his late 70s, I believe! Countless studies have affirmed most of his findings, but it is interesting to see it applied to the science of gaming. One thing the article did fail to mention about extinction behaviour is that it applies to all forms of behaviour that produce gain. In this light it is impossible to make a game that people will play forever (other survival needs aside) because other products will become increasingly desirable as they advance. Now, arguably, the game could be continually updated, but, practically, this becomes unfeasible after a certain point. At most a game could probably hook players for a few years. I think real life examples such as Legends of Kesmai, MUDs, Ultima Online, and Everquest demonstrate this nicely.

-James
In response to Jmurph (#2)
I think it is important to point out a few things the >article forgot to mention. First of all the 'shocks' and >other deterrants administered to the animals were very >small, just enough to be uncomfortable and do no lasting >harm.

Party pooper.

At most a game could probably hook players for a few years.

Reliably, you mean. Some players have been living their lives on the same MUD for the past 5 or more years. But yeah, even among players who really get into a game, the average playing term is only a few years.
On 5/6/01 8:18 am sunzoner wrote:
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010427/hopson_01.htm

Its interesting for games theory, but is it ethical to conciously practice this in real life? Post answers to babble.
In response to Leftley (#3)
On 5/6/01 1:29 pm Leftley wrote:
I think it is important to point out a few things the >article forgot to mention. First of all the 'shocks' and >other deterrants administered to the animals were very >small, just enough to be uncomfortable and do no lasting >harm.

Party pooper.

At most a game could probably hook players for a few years.

Reliably, you mean. Some players have been living their lives on the same MUD for the past 5 or more years. But yeah, even among players who really get into a game, the average playing term is only a few years.


Another thing that everyone has been missing is the element of in-game change...

MUSH's, for example, allow for players to learn to become low-level builders within the game. The players, before hitting the boredome threshhold, become builders.

This reality of being able to play in a world that consists of multiple and changing mindsets allows for an indefinite length of appeal for those who -just- remain players.

The volitile and morphing responses of a changing player environment allow for an indefinite length of appeal for those who -just- remain builders.

Admittedly, the MUSH does eventually lose the interest of those who play it, yet the way it works is evidence that it's on the right track to creating a game that never runs out of appeal. Said game could exist in theory. I bring the readers to note the science-fiction novel "Blue Adept". The Game, a computer with capability of playing infinite games for the sake of climbing a ladder and earning citizenship, is pretty much infinite in that one could spend a lifetime playing it and never bore of it....

Admittedly, this game is not the -best- example of a perfect game, since it just combines every known game (something we cannot do). At the same time, there -is- some sort of perfect, or near-perfect, gaming type that will hook those who enjoy it indefinitely...

What to look for in it?
NOT technology. YOu can't keep up with technology in a game that is supposed to keep long-term appeal. That's why MUDs do as well as Ultima Online in that sense.

NOT popularity. That follows technology and graphic appeal

Howabout...player-effected: Players can change the world, create quests, etc

Or... Constantly changing: The GMs change it very often, with or without player aid.

Or... Constant update: The game is made in such a way that it will always try to keep up with technology. This may be for better or worse...

*shrugs*

It is within the grasp of the DM language to create the ideal game, except for the "constant update" part that may not be useful...

That brings up a lot of questions *shrug*