GAME JOBS
Contents
Staying Power: Rethinking Feedback to Keep Players in the Game
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
June 6, 2013
 
LeapFrog
Associate Producer
 
Off Base Productions
Senior Front End Software Engineer
 
EA - Austin
Producer
 
Zindagi Games
Senior/Lead Online Multiplayer
 
Off Base Productions
Web Application Developer
 
Gameloft
Java Developers
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
June 6, 2013
 
Tenets of Videodreams, Part 3: Musicality
 
Post Mortem: Minecraft Oakland
 
Free to Play: A Call for Games Lacking Challenge [1]
 
Cracking the Touchscreen Code [3]
 
10 Business Law and Tax Law Steps to Improve the Chance of Crowdfunding Success
spacer
About
spacer Editor-In-Chief:
Kris Graft
Blog Director:
Christian Nutt
Senior Contributing Editor:
Brandon Sheffield
News Editors:
Mike Rose, Kris Ligman
Editors-At-Large:
Leigh Alexander, Chris Morris
Advertising:
Jennifer Sulik
Recruitment:
Gina Gross
Education:
Gillian Crowley
 
Contact Gamasutra
 
Report a Problem
 
Submit News
 
Comment Guidelines
 
Blogging Guidelines
Sponsor
Features
  Staying Power: Rethinking Feedback to Keep Players in the Game
by Bruce Phillips [Design, Game Developer Magazine]
15 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
October 27, 2009 Article Start Previous Page 4 of 4
 

Measure for Measure

One likely reason we don't often incorporate learning goals is that implementing them into a game is more difficult and requires more thought than traditional performance goals. It requires breaking from molds and doing something new. It's much easier to pop up a "level completed" message, a story cinematic, or an "achievement unlocked" notification after the player hits a predefined milestone in the game than it is to integrate learning goals that reflect the improvements players make.

Only recently have games been tracking player data in a way that could support learning goals, which could also be a contributing factor. But most likely, we have simply been stuck following conventional wisdom about how we reward players and provide feedback.



There are ways to start implementing learning goals in your games. One of the easiest (and most likely to have a significant effect on player motivation) is to tell the player how he has improved. While this is not a goal per se, it provides the player the information he requires to track his progress and set his own goals, and also provides the foundations upon which you can build actual learning goals.

First, break the game down into component skills. What skills does the player need to be successful? Does he need to do double-jumps? Does he need to master aiming? Does he need to figure out how to counter an attack?

Learning goals should focus on behaviors or skills that, when combined, give the player tools to complete more complex activities. Of course, these also need to be skills or strategies that your game can track. For example, if the player needs to understand how to play with stealth, it might be impossible to track [understands the stealth system], but you could track [was hit by enemy] or [used crouch].


Feedback can help teach players more effective strategies.

Then display progress on these component skills to the player. Rather than listing how many times x or y event happened, communicate metrics that relate to improvement, much like the example cited previously from Team Fortress. The obvious places to display progress information to players are 1) at the end of a level, 2) when they pause or quit the game, and 3) when they die.

Better yet, display a progress chart that players can access whenever they want. One example from Gears of War 2 are the messages that appear as a player nears a new achievement.

Another example from Gears of War 2 is the "war journal" which keeps track of the player's current campaign status. There's no reason we couldn't put similar messages in other games to keep players informed about their progress in mastering basic skills.

Of course, people have their own motivations and mindsets that they bring to games. Some people have a learning mindset and are likely to focus on getting better at a game. Others prefer goal-based achievements and do in fact feel motivated by them. In both cases, players are likely to have some preexisting beliefs about their gameplaying abilities. However, the type of goals presented and the feedback they receive during both success and failure can have a significant effect on how they respond to those setbacks.

Through better feedback and goal-setting, we can encourage a mindset of competence, reduce frustration, and encourage players to play longer, try harder, and feel more confident about future gameplay challenges. 

Resources

Anderson, C. A. & Jennings, D. L. (1980). "When experiences of failure promote expectations of success: The impact of attribution failure to ineffective strategies," Journal of Personality, 48, 393-407.

Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1981). "Competitive versus individualistic goal structures: The salience of past performance information for causal attributions and affect," Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 411-418.

Butler, R. (1987). "Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance," Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 474-482.

Clifford, M. M. (1986a). "The comparative effects of strategy and effort attributions," British Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 75-83.

Clifford, M. M. (1986b). "The effects of ability, strategy, and effort attributions for educational, business, and athletic failure," British Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 169-179.

Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). "Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.

Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). "Person versus process praise and criticism: Implications for contingent self-worth and coping," Developmental Psychology, 35, 835-847.

Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2006). "Learning goals or performance goals: Is it the journey or the destination?" Ivey Business Journal, 70, 1-6. 

 
Article Start Previous Page 4 of 4
 
Top Stories

image
Microsoft's official stance on used games for Xbox One
image
Keeping the simulation dream alive
image
A 15-year-old critique of the game industry that's still relevant today
image
The demo is dead, revisited
Comments

Sam Anderson
profile image
Dweck's book Mindset is one of the only self-help books I've been able to stomach.

Damien King
profile image
Great article. I think this covers some very important points. Focusing design around player motivation and encouragement is still in it's infancy I think - its easy to overlook player feedback when you're busy tweaking Awesome Boss Monster #4.



Console based games seem to be growing into the habits of showing real time advice, likely due to it's (generally) more casual audiences. For example, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 will remind the player about blocking (and which button to use for it) if they're taking a lot of hits and not blocking them. Little things like this make a big difference, in my opinion.

Christopher Braithwaite
profile image
Excellent article! I do have one request, can you give a more concrete example of how a learning goal would be implemented in a game?

Jesse Crimson
profile image
Nice article.



Small point of contention: while your ideas and suggestions are sound, your interpretation of the achievement data isn't. In your second table on the first page (campaign completion percentage), you assume this is a sign of how many people "quit" playing the game. That's an unsupported jump in logic. All it says is that people quit playing the campaign. Seven of the nine games listed have very heavy multiplayer components, and the other two (Fable II and GTAIV) are open-world titles. This data might be more useful on a per-genre basis rather than a top-nine or top-13 basis. You suggest that there might be other explanations, but I'm not sure that it's reasonable to assume that "frustration" is the most significant one (at least in the case of the games listed in those tables).

Jonathon Walsh
profile image
Also doesn't the data miss how many people STARTED the campaign. All of those games except Fable II feature prominent multiplayer components that are a draw. For example. I brought CoD4 for PC and never even tried to complete the campaign. I think I maybe played 5 missions of it while I was without internet connection once. I think the data would stand on its own better if it had a metric for starting the campaign.



Also some achievements are multiplayer based vs single player so that will also throw the gamerscore completion % off won't it?

Dan Wilson
profile image
Two popular games without any multiplayer component that I never finished are Bioshock and Dead Rising. There was too much hype, so I lost the feeling of personal investment in the game -- millions of other people were doing the same thing and probably enjoying it much more than I was. Then I had friends constantly updating me on their progress (achievements don't help, either).



These two games felt more like an obligation and catch-up than fun and compelling. It was a chore to play them because I felt like I was not playing on my own terms.

John Petersen
profile image
I think they just get bored silly. I know I do. I can only do the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, for so long.



I don't have to tell you that there is alot more reasons they are putting down the controller. You know already that.



But until you start giving gamers what they really desire, the number of "Ditractors" is going to continually rise until they just say "F" it, and take up knitting or something.

Moeez Siddiqui
profile image
"Prototype" and "Left 4 Dead" are examples of games giving tutorials throughout the entire game, telling the player hints and learning goals. A few more is the excellent positive reinforcement game from 2008, "Prince of Persia" where you never get a game over, get tutorials throughout in the same vein of "Left 4 Dead", and get visually pleasing performance goal completion in the form of healed regions of the world.

Dave Blanpied
profile image
Great article. Thanks. Something to think about indeed.

Ashwin Ram
profile image
Interesting article. There is some recent work on "drama managers" which orchestrate the game to improve the player experience. For example, the game could provide hints by inferring the player's ability, or vary the storyline based on player satisfaction models. See for example: http://tr.im/DlgT



Much of this work is still in research phase but I hope industry-academia collaborations will begin to transition these techniques into production in the near future.

Bart Stewart
profile image
As a bit of additional feedback, I've urged others to come to Gamasutra to read this article.



Along with many approving comments, the criticisms I've heard elsewhere and in the comments here appear to center on two things:



1. The data showing how many people don't finish games do not show *why* people aren't finishing games. This fails to provide adequate support for the author's later analysis and recommendations, which rest on an assumption that at least some players quit a game because they're failing at performance-based goals and not getting any help or encouragement for improvement.



2. The *how* matters, too. Like most people, critics tend to be practical -- they want to see how something will really work before they will accept that it can work at all. The author indicated that describing ways to implement effective feedback would be a complete article in itself -- so perhaps this criticism may actually be taken as encouragement for writing just such an article.



I'd very much enjoy reading that article.

Mark Kelly
profile image
Further to previous comments, as well as 'why', I'd like to also see 'how long'- to use one of the games mentioned in the article as an example, I only acquired a copy of Fable 2 in the last week or so, so while I'm very much part of the 40-odd percent that haven't completed the campaign, the sole reason I haven't completed it is because I haven't completed it /yet/.



This also gives rise to another question- what else is the player also playing at the time? This is perhaps less easily measured- while it would be very easy to see that my progress through Fable 2 has been hampered by my also playing Saint's Row 2 (or that somebody who came late to the GHIII party has moved onto World Tour, Aerosmith, Van Halen, GH5 etc), it is perhaps less clear that I have also been making bits of progress through Little King's Story on Wii, which is something I've been playing in short bursts- which, if it was a 360 game, would also fall foul of my first point.



This is, of course, stat-pedantry, and not directly related to the issue of frustration, which I accept the statistics are simply a framing device. However, without taking these into account, we risk making some very wrong conclusions.



One question I do feel the need to ask, though: GTA IV has a lot of gamerscore dedicated to two large, expensive packages of downloadable content, one of which is not yet available to the general public. How have these been handled in working out the stats for the title in the first graph?

tuan kuranes
profile image
Totally agree, consistent with latest findings too in neuroscience too:

http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/articles/praise-your-child.htm

Hint: "praise the effort, not the abilities."



Still, statistics here needs to be more precise indeed, with more structure :

- hardcore gamers stats and numbers, casual gamers stats and numbers, etc...) using consecutives hours played. we need percentile categories, here because of the highly separate by nature of profiles (hardcode gamers "always" finish games... even multiple times). So average here might not be as interesting.

Luis Guimaraes
profile image
I think the main reason I don't finish games is because they are too long and become boring, or there's a lot of hassle within it, like I must pay 30 minutes of puzzle-solving for each 5 minutes of worth gameplay, and so on... It's a change in the whole game what's needed.



I never had patience to finish the UT3 campaing, but I may had around 100 or 200 hours of gameplay with it... I don't care about achievements and completing or goals, and in FEAR2 it was common to kill myself just to play a nice grunt fight again, since the game have a checkpoint system...

Jimmy Sieben
profile image
Nice article. You should really give credit for the game screenshots.


none
 
Comment:
 




UBM Tech