|
Previous
Post: Frustration
In the
previous post, the concept of Frustration was defined and discussed with regard
to the system of Experience. In this post, the Lens of the System of
Experience is used to reveal distinct categories of perceived Variation and the
different ways the system responds to them. Everyone should feel encouraged
to join the discussion and comment on or debate the assertions presented. All
relevant comments are welcome and appreciated.
Variation, Chance
and Randomness
Discrepancies between Prediction and
Perception can either be evaluated positively or negatively, in terms of the
current efforts’ Efficiency tradeoff. When
these variations between Prediction and Perception are significant, the
Variation itself becomes a subject of Attention effort for the Cognitive Model of the world. The Variation will be modeled according to
Perception, Memory and any relevant associations to other Cognitive Model
subsets to arrive at a more reliable Prediction of that variance. Motivation will focus one’s Attention on
significant Variation to try and arrive at a state of Understanding regarding
its nature.
There are three broad
categories of Variation that will be considered by the system of Experience: Variation, Chance and
Randomness. True Variation is a
discrepancy that follows a set of consistent rules one is able to discern. Chance is discrepancy that is not predictable
in nature, but is predictable in degree, range or scope. Randomness is truly unpredictable; with no
patterns or discernable structure and no bounds to the scope of the
discrepancy.
If successive Perception is
acquired, and significant Memory is built up regarding the nature of the
Variation, a more accurate evaluation of the Variation is possible, based on
the discrepancies between Prediction and Perception. In light of the current tasks leading toward
Understanding and their predicted Efficiency gains, discrepancies between the
Prediction and Perception of Variation that impact the tasks are seen as either
potential risks to the predicted value of the exchange of Attention and
Efficiency or as potential opportunities to minimize the Attention cost or to
increase Efficiency gain. If the
Variation is predictable in some way, there is a potential to exploit the
Variation and achieve a more valuable Efficiency tradeoff than previously
predicted. In this situation, the
Variation can be seen as relatively interesting and it will likely continue to
be attended to. However, if the
Variation is evaluated as wholly unpredictable, as in Randomness, the Motivation
evaluation highlights an increased risk to the predicted Efficiency tradeoff of
the current associated effort toward Understanding. Perceived Randomness is a significant threat
to the goal of Understanding in general.
Next Post: Competency, Autonomy and Relatedness
Sentiology?
|
I'm probably far behind what you have with it all already, but I can, now clearly, see practical use of these concept package as a polishing tool. Of course, such tool should be aplied during iteration and test cicles before it's too late and expensive to make chances.
I still can't, by no means, see a way to start off a project or brainstorming by getting from these tools, of course there's no formula for game/experience design. But, as soon as you get your rough draft of a prototype, plot, level design or mechanics system, put this draft on the tool to fix whats needed and seek room for improvement (as much as testing and itaration does, and as analogy, a spell-checking tool), then I cannot defend that the guts can do better alone. These methods can't do the job, but can help highlighting where to give greater attention.
Yes, I agree. There isn't, and shouldn't be, imho, any formula or blueprint or checklist for creation of design. It's informed by many factors, starting and ending with the audience/client/end user, and frankly, that's just not what this study or the resulting Lens tool is about. I picked the concept of Lens, or rather outright stole it from Jesse Schell, because it doesn't assume to contain that kind of knowledge. Instead a Lens assumes nothing more than a focus on a particular aspect for the purpose of allowing the operator to *ask targeted questions*. It is an evaluation and analysis tool; something to use once you have your sketch of an idea, a GDD or prototype. When Game Designers are at the stage of asking some of the more esoteric and subjective questions related to quality of design, this Lens of the System of Experience is available to help focus those questions for the purpose of getting consistent answers; ones that can be considered somewhat reliable.
So, in short; I agree, this is not meant to be the starting point for design; to plan a destination or route, such as map, but rather a means to help the designer to course correct throughout the design process, to steer away from pitfalls and target the desired audience experience more precisely, such as a compass.
(... Is that an appropriate metaphor? I reserve the right to take that back. I haven't given such a metaphoric summary description much thought yet.)