7 ms·

Interesting how some "dark patterns", especially of the psychological kind, are actually important elements of good game design. For example the "illusion of c

by GuB-42 5y ago

Interesting how some "dark patterns", especially of the psychological kind, are actually important elements of good game design. For example the "illusion of control" (The game cheats or hides information to make you think you're better than you actually are) is everywhere, and it makes better games. One classic example is "coyote time" in platform games. Or for a more specific example, in Portal, at one time, you have to quickly fire a portal to avoid being crushed, it is a tense situation, and an important part of the story. So, to avoid a stupid death at the worst time, if you fire the wrong portal, it silently switches the other portal to correct your mistake. Aesthetic Manipulations (Trick questions or toying with emotions or our subconscious desires) is the entire point of many games. We want games to play with our emotions. Take a horror game for instance, you are sitting on a couch, at home, in the least scary environment you can imagine, the game has to pull all the trick on you if you want the scares you paid for. And no one is going to tell you that getting attached to characters is a bad thing and they would rather see them as the bunch of pixels they are. Frequency biases are all over the place too, usually in favor of the player. So much that when the game uses true randomness, it feels unfair. Good games are designed for player enjoyment, not to punish them with randomness. It also considers competition a dark pattern, are sports a dark pattern too?

bduerst 5y ago
Yeah, I looked up Dead Cells, and it lost points for being "too grindy", which is a big part of playing Rogue-likes.
- glenstein 5y ago
  It's also a big indictment of them. I remember with Rogue Legacy, a game I was into for a time, a central debate about whether it was good or bad related to whether it was "too grindy", with some insisting it was (which was bad) and others insisting it wasn't (which is good!). And yet, whatever you call it, the grind, the accumulation of upgrades is central to the experience of the game.
- Kaze404 5y ago
  Dead Cells is one of my favorite games but I would agree it's too grindy. In my opinion the game can be even more addicting by speeding up the rate at which the player unlocks new weapons. I started enjoying the game a lot more after installing a mod that makes things drop more cells. Edit: I forgot to mention that I don't think it's a dark pattern, just a relatively poorly balanced mechanic.
ehsankia 5y ago
I have hundreds of hours in Portal games and an avid Valve fan, but I had never heard of that Portal trick. Do you have any sources on it?
- tricot 5y ago
  I would like to hear about that aswell.
dragontamer 5y ago
Homing bullets in Halo was my introduction to the concept. Lesser players may not know this: but _ALL_ bullets (except sniper shots) home in Halo, not just Needler shots. Those crazy across-the-map pistol headshots you were doing do have an element of skill, but as a console platformer with relatively poor joystick controls (compared to accurate keyboard/mouse controls), it was necessary to have this auto-aim in order for fast-paced combat to exist. Besides, no one plays FPS games to practice joystick control or aim. The "fun" part of the game is positioning and team-dynamics. ------- This isn't a dark pattern at all. Its necessary to make the "mundane" or "unfun" parts more automated, so that the players can focus on the fun parts.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  It's not the bullet that "homes", it's your crosshair that has a bit of stickyness. If someone walks by you slowly it'll grab on to them and follow it. You need a little bit of auto aim because aiming with your thumbs (joystick) isn't as accurate as a your wrist (mouse). It's the reason why sweep shooting works so well. Sweep your crosshairs across the screen, pull the trigger when it crosses something, it'll hold onto them slightly as it goes by. You can still be more accurate on a PC without autoaim vs a console with. > Besides, no one plays FPS games to practice joystick control or aim Not really true. They do to be better among their peers, doesn't matter if there are PC players out there, irrelevant. Auto aim is simply necessary to fix a limitation in the hardware, sometimes it gets in the way, most of the time it helps with frustration of the dead area of the joystick.
  - p1necone 5y ago
    This is true with a lot of console FPS games, but Halos auto aim is more complicated/intentionally designed than average. Halo does a bunch of things to make aiming easier on a controller, sticky crosshairs and homing bullets are both involved.
  - Buttons840 5y ago
    Its probably both, but even without the auto tracking you describe, it's still quite possible for the space within a single pixel to be mostly misses. If someone positions their cursor in this single pixel, the game gives them the benefit of the doubt and counts it as a hit.
gfody 5y ago
Pacman is a good example - the ghosts are deliberately simple so you have a chance of avoiding them and the game is fun. I wouldn't call it a "dark" pattern unless the ghosts were also mind hacking my desire to play more with gacha techniques
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Pacman is funny: one ghost was incredibly bugged and basically doesn't function right. They fixed the glitch in "Ms. Pacman", and the game definitely feels better because of it. ---------- Strong Ms. Pacman players know the personalities of the ghosts. IIRC, Blinky (Red) aims at a direct path towards the player. I think the Blue-one IIRC tries to form a pincer attack. The other two I always forget (I'm not strong enough to really pick them apart at that level... but I'm strong enough to avoid most Blinky issues).
  - gfody 5y ago
    you're thinking of Clyde (https://ryanharveyauthor.com/2018/09/27/learning-clyde-sensitive-pac-man-ghost/ https://ryanharveyauthor.com/2018/09/27/learning-clyde-sensi...) he's the most interesting one
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  The classic coin-op arcade game dark pattern is the Continue screen. Put more money in me to keep going, but hurry you only have a few seconds.
CapsAdmin 5y ago
I agree that these probably shouldn't be called dark patterns, maybe neutral? > For example the "illusion of control" is everywhere, and it makes better games. But what is a better game? A game that is enjoyed by most people, good retention or maybe a bit of both? I'm also curious to see your take on what a dark pattern is.
unfocussed_mike 5y ago
> Interesting how some "dark patterns", especially of the psychological kind, are actually important elements of good game design. Right. I really think this website is a great idea, but I'm surprised to see people reporting "dark" patterns in Lumino City, for example, when what they are actually talking about is a game so beautiful and gently maddening that you want to finish it.
armchairhacker 5y ago
“Dark patterns” which make an actually fun game aren’t really dark patterns because they’re mutual. Players want their games to have illusion of control (even if they don’t realize it - I sound condescending here but it’s true, e.g. in the Portal example if players were to get crushed they would be more frustrated than having the game cheat them out of it). Real dark patterns are parasitic. e.g. loot boxes: players would rather just buy the items directly, and even if they end up spending more on the loot boxes, they’re not happy about it. When a player says “I’ve wasted 1000 hours on X game and I love it” (e.g. Factorio), it’s a good game with addictive mechanics. When a player says “I’ve wasted 1000 hours on X game and I hate it” (e.g. LoL) it’s a bad game with addictive mechanics. Now those games blend the lines - if a game gets too addicting it probably starts negatively affecting you either way.
- glenstein 5y ago
  I think this is a great way of putting it, because I think there's a real and necessary distinction here. The sophomoric relativism of "Gee aren't all games dark patterns?" feels like a smart thing to say, but is wrong for reasons that feel obvious but get kind of tedious to unpack. As a different way of making the same point as you, I think critical differences are: (1) whether the compulsion to play serves you or the game creator, (2) whether the game mechanics serve an entertainment purpose or are grafted on to a game that would be just as fun without them, (3) whether it's designed around an "upgrade treadmill" as the core interactive structure of the game, as opposed to elements that have some degree of human craftsmanship to them (e.g. the mobile game Sorcery is fundamentally about the story).
  - GreenWatermelon 5y ago
    "Upgrade Treadmill" is a very nice way to put it. I'm using this term from now on. All your points are pretty much how'd I put it. If the core gameplay loop is all about leading me to the microtransactions window, it's an instant No for me. This goes for almost all free games such as Apex, Fortnite, Destiny, etc... where skins are the primary source of revenue. That's without mentioning "games" which I consider gambling like Genshin impact, Fifa ultimate team, and all kinds of shameless gacha out there "It's free" is not an excuse for preying on people's psychological weaknesses.
bb88 5y ago
There was a racing game for the PS2 back when I played video games that had a drift mechanic. A friend of mine figured out that if he drifted while turning the wheel the wrong direction, the game would drift the car around the turn -- albeit facing the wrong way. But, it didn't ask for my social graph, nor did it ask for my credit card to get me more powerful cars. I saw a golf game I thought that would be fun to play on android. The problem is that in order to get better, you had basically shell out cash to get better clubs and more powerful balls. It didn't rely on skill as much as it relied upon how much free cash you were able to devote to the game. At that point, it wasn't fun anymore.
TheNewAndy 5y ago
I made a game for touchscreens, and a single pixel of "error" in input could be the difference between winning and losing. The game will cheat behind the scenes to try a few variations on your inputs to see if any of them can win - and it chooses the winner if it finds one. I don't really consider this to be cheating though - it isn't like a person is capable of doing pixel perfect inputs to a touchscreen, nor is a touchscreen going to give pixel perfect finger positioning.
meheleventyone 5y ago
I think more broadly games are all about psychological manipulation. But I also think that means we have a much greater responsibility to make sure that remains safe and consensual. The taxonomy is therefore contextual and requires looking at the sum of any one game. Not only that but within categories different techniques can be weaker or stronger and that will vary per game. Likewise consequence is an important consideration. Is it bad that someone will finish a terrible game because they love the story? Probably not. Is it bad that someone spent money they can’t afford on gacha mechanics? Probably. One thing consumers should be very aware of is that sanding off sharp corners is very much about broadening audience reach and retention not necessarily making a better game. Particularly as more games employ a GaaS model.

by GuB-42 5y ago

bduerst 5y ago

Yeah, I looked up Dead Cells, and it lost points for being "too grindy", which is a big part of playing Rogue-likes.

glenstein 5y ago
It's also a big indictment of them. I remember with Rogue Legacy, a game I was into for a time, a central debate about whether it was good or bad related to whether it was "too grindy", with some insisting it was (which was bad) and others insisting it wasn't (which is good!). And yet, whatever you call it, the grind, the accumulation of upgrades is central to the experience of the game.
Kaze404 5y ago
Dead Cells is one of my favorite games but I would agree it's too grindy. In my opinion the game can be even more addicting by speeding up the rate at which the player unlocks new weapons. I started enjoying the game a lot more after installing a mod that makes things drop more cells. Edit: I forgot to mention that I don't think it's a dark pattern, just a relatively poorly balanced mechanic.

ehsankia 5y ago

I have hundreds of hours in Portal games and an avid Valve fan, but I had never heard of that Portal trick. Do you have any sources on it?

tricot 5y ago
I would like to hear about that aswell.

dragontamer 5y ago

Homing bullets in Halo was my introduction to the concept. Lesser players may not know this: but _ALL_ bullets (except sniper shots) home in Halo, not just Needler shots. Those crazy across-the-map pistol headshots you were doing do have an element of skill, but as a console platformer with relatively poor joystick controls (compared to accurate keyboard/mouse controls), it was necessary to have this auto-aim in order for fast-paced combat to exist. Besides, no one plays FPS games to practice joystick control or aim. The "fun" part of the game is positioning and team-dynamics. ------- This isn't a dark pattern at all. Its necessary to make the "mundane" or "unfun" parts more automated, so that the players can focus on the fun parts.

hunterb123 5y ago
It's not the bullet that "homes", it's your crosshair that has a bit of stickyness. If someone walks by you slowly it'll grab on to them and follow it. You need a little bit of auto aim because aiming with your thumbs (joystick) isn't as accurate as a your wrist (mouse). It's the reason why sweep shooting works so well. Sweep your crosshairs across the screen, pull the trigger when it crosses something, it'll hold onto them slightly as it goes by. You can still be more accurate on a PC without autoaim vs a console with. > Besides, no one plays FPS games to practice joystick control or aim Not really true. They do to be better among their peers, doesn't matter if there are PC players out there, irrelevant. Auto aim is simply necessary to fix a limitation in the hardware, sometimes it gets in the way, most of the time it helps with frustration of the dead area of the joystick.
- p1necone 5y ago
  This is true with a lot of console FPS games, but Halos auto aim is more complicated/intentionally designed than average. Halo does a bunch of things to make aiming easier on a controller, sticky crosshairs and homing bullets are both involved.
- Buttons840 5y ago
  Its probably both, but even without the auto tracking you describe, it's still quite possible for the space within a single pixel to be mostly misses. If someone positions their cursor in this single pixel, the game gives them the benefit of the doubt and counts it as a hit.

gfody 5y ago

Pacman is a good example - the ghosts are deliberately simple so you have a chance of avoiding them and the game is fun. I wouldn't call it a "dark" pattern unless the ghosts were also mind hacking my desire to play more with gacha techniques

dragontamer 5y ago
Pacman is funny: one ghost was incredibly bugged and basically doesn't function right. They fixed the glitch in "Ms. Pacman", and the game definitely feels better because of it. ---------- Strong Ms. Pacman players know the personalities of the ghosts. IIRC, Blinky (Red) aims at a direct path towards the player. I think the Blue-one IIRC tries to form a pincer attack. The other two I always forget (I'm not strong enough to really pick them apart at that level... but I'm strong enough to avoid most Blinky issues).
- gfody 5y ago
  you're thinking of Clyde (https://ryanharveyauthor.com/2018/09/27/learning-clyde-sensitive-pac-man-ghost/ https://ryanharveyauthor.com/2018/09/27/learning-clyde-sensi...) he's the most interesting one
meheleventyone 5y ago
The classic coin-op arcade game dark pattern is the Continue screen. Put more money in me to keep going, but hurry you only have a few seconds.

CapsAdmin 5y ago

I agree that these probably shouldn't be called dark patterns, maybe neutral? > For example the "illusion of control" is everywhere, and it makes better games. But what is a better game? A game that is enjoyed by most people, good retention or maybe a bit of both? I'm also curious to see your take on what a dark pattern is.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

> Interesting how some "dark patterns", especially of the psychological kind, are actually important elements of good game design. Right. I really think this website is a great idea, but I'm surprised to see people reporting "dark" patterns in Lumino City, for example, when what they are actually talking about is a game so beautiful and gently maddening that you want to finish it.

armchairhacker 5y ago

“Dark patterns” which make an actually fun game aren’t really dark patterns because they’re mutual. Players want their games to have illusion of control (even if they don’t realize it - I sound condescending here but it’s true, e.g. in the Portal example if players were to get crushed they would be more frustrated than having the game cheat them out of it). Real dark patterns are parasitic. e.g. loot boxes: players would rather just buy the items directly, and even if they end up spending more on the loot boxes, they’re not happy about it. When a player says “I’ve wasted 1000 hours on X game and I love it” (e.g. Factorio), it’s a good game with addictive mechanics. When a player says “I’ve wasted 1000 hours on X game and I hate it” (e.g. LoL) it’s a bad game with addictive mechanics. Now those games blend the lines - if a game gets too addicting it probably starts negatively affecting you either way.

glenstein 5y ago
I think this is a great way of putting it, because I think there's a real and necessary distinction here. The sophomoric relativism of "Gee aren't all games dark patterns?" feels like a smart thing to say, but is wrong for reasons that feel obvious but get kind of tedious to unpack. As a different way of making the same point as you, I think critical differences are: (1) whether the compulsion to play serves you or the game creator, (2) whether the game mechanics serve an entertainment purpose or are grafted on to a game that would be just as fun without them, (3) whether it's designed around an "upgrade treadmill" as the core interactive structure of the game, as opposed to elements that have some degree of human craftsmanship to them (e.g. the mobile game Sorcery is fundamentally about the story).
- GreenWatermelon 5y ago
  "Upgrade Treadmill" is a very nice way to put it. I'm using this term from now on. All your points are pretty much how'd I put it. If the core gameplay loop is all about leading me to the microtransactions window, it's an instant No for me. This goes for almost all free games such as Apex, Fortnite, Destiny, etc... where skins are the primary source of revenue. That's without mentioning "games" which I consider gambling like Genshin impact, Fifa ultimate team, and all kinds of shameless gacha out there "It's free" is not an excuse for preying on people's psychological weaknesses.

bb88 5y ago

There was a racing game for the PS2 back when I played video games that had a drift mechanic. A friend of mine figured out that if he drifted while turning the wheel the wrong direction, the game would drift the car around the turn -- albeit facing the wrong way. But, it didn't ask for my social graph, nor did it ask for my credit card to get me more powerful cars. I saw a golf game I thought that would be fun to play on android. The problem is that in order to get better, you had basically shell out cash to get better clubs and more powerful balls. It didn't rely on skill as much as it relied upon how much free cash you were able to devote to the game. At that point, it wasn't fun anymore.

TheNewAndy 5y ago

I made a game for touchscreens, and a single pixel of "error" in input could be the difference between winning and losing. The game will cheat behind the scenes to try a few variations on your inputs to see if any of them can win - and it chooses the winner if it finds one. I don't really consider this to be cheating though - it isn't like a person is capable of doing pixel perfect inputs to a touchscreen, nor is a touchscreen going to give pixel perfect finger positioning.

meheleventyone 5y ago

I think more broadly games are all about psychological manipulation. But I also think that means we have a much greater responsibility to make sure that remains safe and consensual. The taxonomy is therefore contextual and requires looking at the sum of any one game. Not only that but within categories different techniques can be weaker or stronger and that will vary per game. Likewise consequence is an important consideration. Is it bad that someone will finish a terrible game because they love the story? Probably not. Is it bad that someone spent money they can’t afford on gacha mechanics? Probably. One thing consumers should be very aware of is that sanding off sharp corners is very much about broadening audience reach and retention not necessarily making a better game. Particularly as more games employ a GaaS model.