5 ms·

Very interesting: "Tarn sees his work in stridently ethical terms. He calls games like Angry Birds or Bejeweled, which ensnare players in addictive loops of fr

by jgfoot 15y ago

Very interesting: "Tarn sees his work in stridently ethical terms. He calls games like Angry Birds or Bejeweled, which ensnare players in addictive loops of frustration and gratification under the pretense that skill is required to win, 'abusive' -- a common diagnosis among those who get hooked on the games, but a surprising one from a game designer, ostensibly charged with doing the hooking. 'Many popular games tap into something in a person that is compulsive, like hoarding,' he said, 'the need to make progress with points or collect things. You sit there saying yeah-yeah-yeah and then you wake up and say, What the hell was I doing? You can call that kind of game fun, but only if you call compulsive gambling fun.' He added: 'I used to value the ability to turn the user into your slave. I don’t anymore.'"

pbhjpbhj 15y ago
FWIW Bejeweled [Blitz] requires skill. I'm moderately good, second in my circle of friends and I go off the boil if I've not played it for a while, it takes time to get back into the groove. That said they do manipulate the scoring a lot and there is a lot of pressure to buy, buy, buy to get a higher score (that I've resisted, that's not my thing). Bejeweled is a very well constructed Skinner Box that has been effectively optimised over time. TBH it should be part of a course on addiction psychology, it probably is. Interesting comments nonetheless. Thanks for sharing.
Produce 15y ago
To put it another way, the makers of Angry Birds are crack dealers while Tarn prefers to expand minds by selling LSD.
- mechanical_fish 15y ago
  I was going to say: I admire Tarn's exquisitely esoteric sense of taste, which informs his art and makes both him and others happy, but I try not to shame other people for being addicted to achievement. We are all addicted to achievement. Some of us are just much, much kinkier about it than others. ;) I have yet to definitively locate the bright shining line between a great game and an evilly addictive game. I certainly believe the people who say that WoW, Minecraft, and now Dwarf Fortress are excellent games, yet I don't play them because I don't want to be addicted. And the fact that, say, bridge and chess are socially approved addictions, requiring much more practice to attain skill, doesn't make them harmless. People get addicted to Scrabble, ice hockey, knitting, model making, composing tiny essays on Hacker News, mathematics, and of course programming just as they get addicted to Angry Birds. Is it the fact that these hobbies are less accessible that makes them less "evil"?
  - saraid216 15y ago
    The line is in the intent of the design. A certain class of game is designed to immerse you in addictive feedback loops purely for the sake of keeping you in place and (usually) draining your wallet. It's the difference between the architectural design of a casino and a museum. They're both very technically beautiful and nuanced in the subtle intent, but one is about trapping you by exploiting your animal brain whereas the other is about something else, like walking you through a narrative. Alternately, distinguish between writing a computer virus and any other kind of excellent code.
Hostile 15y ago
Completely agree with Tarn. I would go further, and describe certain types of games as evil. Social games, in particular, I believe have evil game design. Here's an interview with the somewhat controversial but always interesting game designer Jonathan Blow: http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/02/15/jonathan-blow-interview-social-game-designers-goal-is-to-degrade-the-players-quality-of-life/ http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/02/15/jonathan-blow-interview-so... In the second half, he talks about social game design. I'm very much with him on this.
- johnnyjustice 15y ago
  Hostile, thank you for posting this, Do you think that any other designers are like him?
  - v21 15y ago
    I'm an indie game designer, and I find this is by no means an uncommon view among game designers.
  - starwed 15y ago
    It's a view I've often come across on indie game-related blogs. Companies like Zynga help push the issue to the fore-front: They get continuous real time data about how changes in their games effect player behavior, and try to use that to maximize the addictive factor.
mmatants 15y ago
Yeah right. Every game triggers OC tendencies and desires in people like me. I've regretted binging on both Minecraft and World of Warcraft. The real reason for tension seems to be this: game designers see Zynga et al achieve the same level of player engagement without careful polish and production values (seemingly). In other words, it's the age old plight of the artisan who invested time and money into details and craftsmanship, just to see it lose market share to cheaply-produced slop. In that sense, old juggernauts like EA, who spend many millions in budgets on games, should be concerned too.

by jgfoot 15y ago

pbhjpbhj 15y ago

FWIW Bejeweled [Blitz] requires skill. I'm moderately good, second in my circle of friends and I go off the boil if I've not played it for a while, it takes time to get back into the groove. That said they do manipulate the scoring a lot and there is a lot of pressure to buy, buy, buy to get a higher score (that I've resisted, that's not my thing). Bejeweled is a very well constructed Skinner Box that has been effectively optimised over time. TBH it should be part of a course on addiction psychology, it probably is. Interesting comments nonetheless. Thanks for sharing.

Produce 15y ago

To put it another way, the makers of Angry Birds are crack dealers while Tarn prefers to expand minds by selling LSD.

mechanical_fish 15y ago
I was going to say: I admire Tarn's exquisitely esoteric sense of taste, which informs his art and makes both him and others happy, but I try not to shame other people for being addicted to achievement. We are all addicted to achievement. Some of us are just much, much kinkier about it than others. ;) I have yet to definitively locate the bright shining line between a great game and an evilly addictive game. I certainly believe the people who say that WoW, Minecraft, and now Dwarf Fortress are excellent games, yet I don't play them because I don't want to be addicted. And the fact that, say, bridge and chess are socially approved addictions, requiring much more practice to attain skill, doesn't make them harmless. People get addicted to Scrabble, ice hockey, knitting, model making, composing tiny essays on Hacker News, mathematics, and of course programming just as they get addicted to Angry Birds. Is it the fact that these hobbies are less accessible that makes them less "evil"?
- saraid216 15y ago
  The line is in the intent of the design. A certain class of game is designed to immerse you in addictive feedback loops purely for the sake of keeping you in place and (usually) draining your wallet. It's the difference between the architectural design of a casino and a museum. They're both very technically beautiful and nuanced in the subtle intent, but one is about trapping you by exploiting your animal brain whereas the other is about something else, like walking you through a narrative. Alternately, distinguish between writing a computer virus and any other kind of excellent code.

Hostile 15y ago

Completely agree with Tarn. I would go further, and describe certain types of games as evil. Social games, in particular, I believe have evil game design. Here's an interview with the somewhat controversial but always interesting game designer Jonathan Blow: http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/02/15/jonathan-blow-interview-social-game-designers-goal-is-to-degrade-the-players-quality-of-life/ http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/02/15/jonathan-blow-interview-so... In the second half, he talks about social game design. I'm very much with him on this.

johnnyjustice 15y ago
Hostile, thank you for posting this, Do you think that any other designers are like him?
- v21 15y ago
  I'm an indie game designer, and I find this is by no means an uncommon view among game designers.
- starwed 15y ago
  It's a view I've often come across on indie game-related blogs. Companies like Zynga help push the issue to the fore-front: They get continuous real time data about how changes in their games effect player behavior, and try to use that to maximize the addictive factor.

mmatants 15y ago

Yeah right. Every game triggers OC tendencies and desires in people like me. I've regretted binging on both Minecraft and World of Warcraft. The real reason for tension seems to be this: game designers see Zynga et al achieve the same level of player engagement without careful polish and production values (seemingly). In other words, it's the age old plight of the artisan who invested time and money into details and craftsmanship, just to see it lose market share to cheaply-produced slop. In that sense, old juggernauts like EA, who spend many millions in budgets on games, should be concerned too.