A problem I have with modern games is that they literally string you along. I recently played Alan Wake on the Xbox 360. It was an unexpected experience because

A problem I have with modern games is that they literally string you along. I recently played Alan Wake on the Xbox 360. It was an unexpected experience because it paced relatively boring parts with some sudden spikes of adrenaline, and this happened over and over and over. In essence, nothing goes on for about two or three minutes, and suddenly two or three bad guys appear, trying to take you down. After an hour or two of playing this game, I couldn't help but think that this was carefully balanced, and little more than a clever attempt to stretch the length of the game. I wouldn't be surprised if I the creators of the game (Microsoft and Remedy) had some psychologist conduct studies on how long it takes for people to lose interest. I completed the game, but I felt like in some kind of stupor: never completely engaged, but never so bored that I wanted to quit. Something quite similar happens in MMORPGs where the "drop rates" of items are carefully balanced to maximize the time you invest. From a relevant article [0]: "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." That article makes for some chilling reading. To get back to the point Michael was making: I do think that games nowadays are in general much more unappealing than they used to be. I know, I know, in the early 90s we had one platformer after another, but they often had quite distinct graphical styles and the mechanics didn't transfer 1:1 either --- just compare Mario to Sonic --- but today you've got one FPS after another, and almost all of them strive for realism and instant gratification a la Call of Duty. Many FPS games have absolutely identical mechanics, down to the button mapping. Storywise, FPS games are an absolute disaster. Very few games try to be different, like Spec Ops: The Line which provided a rather unusual emotional experience. Sadly, it sold very poorly. [0] http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131494/behavioral_game_design.php?print=1 http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131494/behavioral_game...