Contents
Emotion Engineering: A Scientific Approach For Understanding Game Appeal
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Video Game Watchdog National Institute On Media And The Family Shutting Down [11]
 
Modern Warfare 2 Infinity Ward's 'Most Successful PC Version' Yet [12]
 
New Tech, Design Details Of Project Natal To Emerge At Gamefest In February
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Character Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
3D Environment Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Network Programmer
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Texture Artist
 
Sony Online Entertainment
Brand Manager
 
Monolith Productions
Sr. Software Engineer, Engine - Monolith Productions - #113767
 
Crystal Dynamics
Sr. Level Designer
 
Gargantuan Studios
Lead World Designer
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
arrow Upping The Craft: Susan O'Connor On Games Writing [6]
 
arrow Small Developers: Minimizing Risks in Large Productions - Part II [6]
 
arrow iPhone Piracy: The Inside Story [48]
 
arrow And Yet It Grows: Analyzing the Size and Growth of the European Game Market [5]
 
arrow NPD: Behind the Numbers, October 2009 [13]
 
arrow Reflecting On Uncharted 2: How They Did It [5]
 
arrow Sponsored Feature: Rasterization on Larrabee -- Adaptive Rasterization Helps Boost Efficiency
 
arrow Postmortem: Wadjet Eye's The Blackwell Convergence [2]
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Accepting the Inherent Value of Games
 
Planckogenesis, Part II: Song Structure & Gravy Train [1]
 
Designing Games Is About Matching Personalities [1]
spacer
About
spacer News Director:
Leigh Alexander
Features Director:
Christian Nutt
Editor At Large:
Chris Remo
Advertising:
John 'Malik' Watson
Recruitment/Education:
Gina Gross
 
Features
  Emotion Engineering: A Scientific Approach For Understanding Game Appeal
by Stéphane Bura
21 comments
Share RSS
 
 
July 29, 2008 Article Start Previous Page 3 of 6 Next
 

Finally, making a choice implies that one has the means to act upon it. It would be of no use to the player to decide where to go if Mario couldn't run or jump. So action is also one of our variable characteristics.

A series of interesting choices implies a structured experience, an overarching context. Such experience can be qualified by how it changes the player (self) or his relation to others (social). If the experience didn't affect the player, it would just be wasted time and energy.

Advertisement

Lastly, if the choices are interesting, they're neither boring nor trivial. They're challenging. In A Theory of Fun, Raph Koster posits that fun stems from dealing with challenging situations and acquiring skills to solve them. Similarly, Daniel Cook tracks the player's mastery with skill trees.

Game Design Variable Categories

This list of concepts needed some structure to become useful. It eluded me until I remembered Will Wright's amazing Dynamics for Designers lecture at GDC 2003. His ability to describe the possible dynamic systems in a neat multi-dimensional taxonomy was eye-opening. I decided to organize these concepts into orthogonal families that would provide the axes for various tables. The first one describes the categories of variables:

Action is the level of the body, the visceral, immediacy and short feedback loops.

System is the level of the mind, the cognitive, logic and plans.

Self is the level of the soul, reflexive thoughts, goals, private experiences and inner changes.

Social is the level of the community, shared experiences, rituals, culture and relationships.

Freedom deals with measuring choices and opportunities for choices.

Mastery deals with measuring skills, their acquisitions and their uses.

Data deals with measuring content, information, rules and real-life objects.

Freedom at the Action level: Everything that empowers or hinders the player while making short-term choices. Action opportunities (An enemy presenting its weak spot, Finding a key in a Zelda dungeon). New tools allowing new interactions (Zelda's boomerang or grappling hook, Mario's flying cap). New abilities (Increased health, Increased strength).

Freedom at the System level: Everything that empowers or hinders the player while making medium to long-term choices. Avenues of exploration (Free-roaming gameplay), clear goals (Getting a quest), letting the player experiment with the rules and creating safe environments where to do so.

Freedom at the Self level: Everything that empowers or hinders the player while making choices about the nature of his experience. Strategic and creative thinking (Specialization, Self-imposed limitations, Speed runs). Content creating tools (Level building, Customization, Machinima).

Freedom at the Social level: Everything that empowers or hinders the player in his relationship with other people. Facilitated multiplayer experience and modes. Sharing content and experiences. Active community. Community support and community management tools. Social image conveyed by the playing experience (Coolness, Geekiness, Weirdness, Novelty, etc.).

Mastery at the Action level: Everything that empowers or hinders skill acquisition and skill use at the immediate or physical level. Athletic skills. Rapid appreciation of the parameters of a situation and appropriate response (which can imply the forming of a medium-term plan). Training. Immediate feedback. Affordance.

Mastery at the System level: Everything that empowers or hinders cognitive skill acquisition and skill use. Giving the player the level of control he needs to act on his plans (agency). Providing information about the constitutive rules (see below) (Tech tree in Civilization, Graphs in SimCity). The ability to exploit these rules. It's the dynamics in Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc and Robert Zubek's MDA framework.

Mastery at the Self level: Everything that empowers or hinders skill acquisition and skill use that allow for better control over the game experience. Exploiting metagame data (Reading a walkthrough). Ascribing own meaning to the experience. Feedback about the learning process (Being encouraged, congratulated, rewarded, mocked, stirred up, etc.).

Mastery at the Social level: Everything that empowers or hinders skill acquisition and skill use at the social level. Exploiting the metagame. Learning to bluff. Shaping one's image in the community. Being invested with and performing a role. Competing for ranking. Group play (Guild raids). Being a mentor.

Data at the Action level: Information that takes form in the game, that can be interacted with (Health pack, FFVII's materias). Persistent information at this level can take the form of a collection (Pokémon's Pokédex). Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman in Rules of Play define the operational rules as what we usually call the "rules of the game", the ones you have to know to be able to play (The ranking of hands in poker, Press A to jump, No credit in RTSs or RPGs).

Data at the System level: Information about the game state. Player preparation (Setting-up the Tetris board so as to clear four lines with an I piece, Equipping a dragon-slaying sword before fighting a dragon). The constitutive rules that, according to Salem & Zimmerman, describe the inner workings of the game (AI, Physics, Catch-up behaviors). The player doesn't know them at first but he can learn or guess some of them. It's the mechanics in the MDA framework.

Data at the Self level: Information relative to the relationship between the player and the game, to the act of playing. Trophies, traces left by the experience or created by the player.

Data at the Social level: Information governing the relationships between the player and other people (not necessarily players themselves), as it pertains to the game. Metagame information (Strategy guides, Forum discussions about the game, Fan fiction). Badges and honors linked to reputation and achievements. Salen & Zimmerman's implicit rules, the rules of etiquette, of the magic circle, that should be respected without having to mention them. They include social rules (Don't be a jerk) and game-specific taboos (Don't spy on someone else's monitor in a competitive multiplayer game).

Second caveat: These are not our variables but the categories they belong to. A given game can thus have an influence on several variables in the same category, linked to different processes or systems. For instance, Freedom at the Action level in GTA handles both the choice of paths and of vehicles. This means that this model is still incomplete, each cell being its own dimension. However, I believe this is the most detailed generic model using these variables. A more detailed model would require specific sub-categories for each cell, a work that is well beyond the scope of this article.

Although this table went through many revisions, I cannot affirm that it spans the whole of game design space. After all, I have only experienced a limited subset of the currently known games. However, I seem to be able to describe the effect of any game interaction I can think of as variations in one or several variables belonging to these categories. Whether I'm on to something or have thoroughly blinded myself is for you to judge.

 
Article Start Previous Page 3 of 6 Next
 
Comments

Tim Carter
profile image
"Video game design is evolving from a barely understood activity done by genius designers driven by their gut feelings, to a craft with shared techniques and methodologies."

Yes... This is the very reason why we are in the midst of a creative crisis in games - why games are rehashed, commoditized and "deadly" (qv. "deadly theater": http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,902526,00.html). Because of this drive to exclude the individual and at times irrational creative genius element in favor of something systematized, "scientific" and rational but also ultimately lifeless.

Anonymous
profile image
Why do I see this growing disparity between the artsy, "postmodern" mentality of today's game designer, and the business-oriented, pragmatic mindset of virtually everyone else in the games industry?

Not that I'm trying to say that this kind of higher-level thinking isn't welcome, but it seems to overshadow everything else in game design discussions these days. First and foremost, game designers need to be educated about how to work with the technical, visually artistic, and pragmatic people on their teams, instead of trying to develop their own esoteric code language to describe their craft.

Anonymous
profile image
This not the reason we're in a "creative crisis" at all. We're in that so-called crisis because of the fundamental publisher business model, which thankfully will go through some changes now that digital models are more viable.

I think this sort of deconstruction of games is beneficial and insightful, but it has to be married with creativity (which the author does not deny). In the same way that great designers of other industries (buildings, cars, you name it) almost always understand the rules before they bend them to achieve something interesting, I think video game designers can only improve their craft by understanding theories like this as part of the fundamental building blocks of interactive experiences, and then setting out with the intent of exploiting them.

Learning these theories does not result in the same games over and over, because it addresses the deeper motivators for how players typically react; they do not necessarily define how they manifest themselves in the experience.

Sam Anderson
profile image
I'm not sure this is either as nebulous or as calcified as the commenters above seem to think. On one hand, the author provides lots of specific, practical examples of what he's talking about, (notably how they interact). On the other, the second-to-last paragraph points out the "master the rules to break the rules" mentality that I see from most well-regarded artists. I could see printing out some of these charts and keeping them next to my desk, not as any kind of "directions" for how to make an emotionally engaging game, but as a useful mental model; another tool for the toolbox. I also appreciate him building on some of the notable literature that came before him (MDA, Koster, Lazzaro, etc.) and not have it come out as a huge, shapeless mess. Looking forward to more from you, Stéphane.

Anonymous
profile image
"it seems to overshadow everything else in game design discussions these days"

There's certainly a lot of high level discussion, which is important because game design lacks the years or centuries of theory behind other disciplines (programming, art, sound, management). But you can still find lots of very practical articles. Ernest Adams and Dan Cook are two very good sources for this kind of material.

The notion that this kind of formalizations are the cause of a "creative crisis" in games is laughable. We still need a lot more work in the direction that this article goes; we can't afford 100-man teams flying by instinct. If anything, better understanding and professionalization of the design process may improve our ability to deliver what and when we say we will, and open up the opportunities for more risk taking in large projects.

Justin Keverne
profile image
Grassroots Gamesmaster:
You've brought up this issue of standardization being a terrible thing, several times before. Without a common language it doesn't matter how creative an individual is they will never get their creation made as those required to actually implement it will not be able to communicate effectively with each other.

David Lynch might make films unlike anybody else but when he tells his crew he wants a Wide Shot, or a POV or whatever they know exact what he means, even if they have never worked with him before. They know because there is a common vocabulary for cinema that they all have to understand. If they didn’t his creation will never be what he intended, and everybody would have to relearn everything from the ground up each time.

Standardization of techniques and tools is a prerequisite for a common vocabulary. Once that vocabulary is in place how people use it is up to them, the language their develop is their own.

Stephane Bura
profile image
To Grassroots Gamemaster:
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear on this subject: I love genius, I'm a fan of genius and I have no desire of excluding geniuses from the industry. I'm just trying to understand how they make great games.

Mike Rozak
profile image
My thought experiments have come up with an important loop between immersion and emotion: http://www.mxac.com.au/drt/ImmersionEmotionFeedbackLoop.htm

Basically, gameplay (challenges and whatnot) is a way to generate emotions and immersion. Gamplay is a tool used to "keep the player interested". It's not necessary. Theoretically, you can have an interesting interactive experience on a computer without the actual game. To do this, however, "game" designers need to get better at their craft.

Some thoughts on choices, which you touched on: http://www.mxac.com.au/drt/Choices3.htm

Carl Trett
profile image
I found this study very helpful and nothing to be afraid of.

I hear the distant cry of ego when I see people say that these metrics, tools and thought experiments are pushing us away from a creative Mecca and instead lead us towards a future of desaturated fun. Truly it is fear of failure on the part of designers that polishes this angle.

A standard language of game design is ultimately what we should be striving for. The English language and its varied usage has not stopped evolving just because it has become familiar to many. Movies haven't stopped getting better because the whole crew understands that a grip isn't just for handles.

We should however as stated above, teach designers how to better communicate with their team members, but the onus shouldn't lie squarely on the designers alone (what are we, the guy that came late to the party and has to apologize and bend over backwards just because his usefulness has most recently been discovered?). Everyone working in the industry should respect its vernacular and immerse themselves in the language of each field if they are to be able to act more than just as a springboard for designers and producers. Artists need to learn to talk to programmers and vice versa.

Thanks to Stephane Bura, my cubicle now has nice new charts to study.

John Mawhorter
profile image
The real question is how to achieve certain emotions, through mechanics, that are difficult to create. We can do fear, surprise, pride, competition, anger, frustration (perhaps the easiest emotion to create), but can we inspire pity, sadness, love, and pure aesthetic emotions? Mechanics, it seems to me, have limits in this regard. Without heavy aid from aesthetics many of these emotions fall to the wayside. It is the choices the player makes (and what aesthetic elements they contain) that create emotion, assisted by the mechanical elements which reinforce. Mechanics can create certain emotions, but for others mostly acts to assist (by pairing the game elements emotions with the aesthetic elements emotions). Ultimately, if you think of real life as a complex game of course mechanics can create these complex emotions, but I don't think we're there yet.

Nick Halme
profile image
To quote Notes on the Synthesis of Form:

"The use of logical structures to represent design problems has an important consequence. It brings with it the loss of innocence. A logical picture is easier to criticize that a vague picture since the assumptions it is based on are brought out into the open. Its increased precision gives us the chance to sharpen our conception of what the design process involves. But once what we do intuitively can be described and compared with non-intuitive ways of doing the same things, we cannot go on accepting the intuitive model innocently. Whether we decide to stand for or against pure intuition as a method, we must do so for reasons which can be discussed.

I wish to state my belief in this loss of innocence very clearly, because there are many designers who are apparently not willing to accept the loss. They insist that design must be a purely intuitive process: that it is hopeless to try and understand it sensibly because the problems are too deep."

Stephane Bura
profile image
Nick,

Great quote. Christopher Alexander is a huge influence of mine. Near the end of the article I mention the concept of elegance which I believe is the path to game "wholeness", the concept he develops in The Nature of Order. I'm still struggling to find an intelligible way to describe it, though.

Daniel Silber
profile image
What I think is interesting about this article is that the ways of generating emotions are tied to gameplay elements rather than viseral components of a game.

People can comfortably talk about generating emotion through character and story elements, or through a graphic aesthetic - but examining how emotions are tied specifically to gameplay is fairly unique.

I will be interested to see how this discussion continues.

Stone Bytes
profile image
Interesting article, many pros and cons to think about. I'm still stuck on a particular analogy though.

"But Mendel had an advantage over us: being a botanist, he had a fairly good idea of what to observe and measure: colors, shapes, textures, size, growth rates, etc. (Furthermore, he didn't care if his peas looked or tasted great, while game designers are trying to understand what make games good while making good games.)"

A game designer cares if his peas look or/and taste great.


Bart Stewart
profile image
I'm a sucker for systematization, for trying to find the hidden order in apparently chaotic systems, so an essay like this one is fascinating.

Some experienced designers will no doubt insist that game design is an artistic act that can't be reduced to picking boxes from a chart, but saying that doesn't make it so. (Nor do I think the author was suggesting any such reductionistic thing.) Let's see some games designed using, among other tools, the concepts described here. Then we can decide whether the concepts are sound, bogus, or basically accurate but would benefit from some tweaking.

Not incidentally, the four "levels" that Stéphane Bura describes sound very much to me like Richard Bartle's original four player types:

Action = Killer (tool-use, tactical flexibility, sensation/experience-orientation)
System = Explorer (experimentation, exploration of the underlying rules of a system)
Self = Achiever (acquisition of skills and trophies, operational control-seeking)
Social = Socializer (personal relationships, community, role-playing that respects the magic circle)

In this light, the three modes -- Freedom, Mastery, and Data -- appear as different gameplay contexts in which the four fundamental player motivations can be expressed.

I'm currently exploring a theory that these four player motivations are game-contextual subsets of the four "temperaments" described by David Keirsey, and that the general temperament model offers some useful knowledge about the play features that different kinds of gamers enjoy (or not) and why. If anyone else is interested in this line of study, I've put together a couple of essays (http://flatfingers-theory.blogspot.com/2005/01/styles-of-play-full-chart.html and http://flatfingers-theory.blogspot.com/2005/01/bartles-player-types-and-keirseys
.html) that try to explore the possible congruences among the various theories of styles of play.

Andre Canivet
profile image
Wow--a really intriguing and ambitious article. The categories are interesting, but the permutations are a little too complex contain all at once (although Bart Stewart's insightful comments clarified things a lot). What we need now is a heuristic method of narrowing the possibilities... maybe that's where the artistic side of things comes in.

This article tells us about the "notes" (emotions) in the music of gaming; but we can't make a good song by just assembling these notes for the sake of manipulating the player. The player may be in it for more complex reasons than just raw emotions; such as insight about him/herself, the world, or life--at least in story-based games. The aesthetic experience comes from the sympathy generated between the creator and the audience, and the audiences' willingness to explore a new perspective.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Great article!


L.B. Jeffries
profile image
Very well done. I've gone through a lot of those essays, but you did an excellent job of combining their ideas and codifying them into a unified whole.

One suggestion: be leery of the Meier quote's implications as a be-all solution to what makes a good game design. It is an excellent summary of a good game, but it does so because the word "interesting" is one that each person adapts to themselves. Both Koster and Cook did great work trying to nail that concept down, but personally I think it's better left to the realm of plot or visuals. Any person trying to explain the interesting part is going to get sucked into bias. I'd yammer about complex moral dilemmas, other people talk about strategic challenges, you get the idea. What makes it a good quote to throw out is that its implications are vast and customizable.

Again though, excellent break down of numerous theories into a coherent whole.

Tadhg Kelly
profile image
Perhaps it is just me, but I have become very sceptical of scientific theories of game design, principally on the basis that having worked as a professional designer and had professional designers working for me, it seems to be two things:

1. It's actually pretty simple. Most if not all games revolve around a balance of some simple activities in a manner that players can understand and it isn't - despite appearances - a complex subject to understand.

2. It requires a genuine creative talent. Although simple, game design is one of those things - like music - which you either have a knack for or you don't. Like musicians, good game designers just have a sense of game rhythm and they tend to apply that sense of rhythm without references to text books.

In short, I don't think game design is really a science. The article above, while certainly very long, isn't really telling me anything other than yet another set of theories based on a series of assumptions. It won't make anyone a better designer, sorry.

Federico Sauro
profile image
I think this kind of research is totally useless.
Game art already has got its common set of building rules: they are called programming, software engineering, level design, etc.
There are a lot of absolute rules on making a movie or a painting, but none about how to create really good ones.
Once you have developed the basic tools to build a work of art, you have no more theory to learn; there is only experience, inspiration, creativity.

Nick Halme
profile image
@Federico Sauro

"Game art" itself is a misnomer. You could say that game development, rather than game art, is the parent class for game design, programming, sound design and art. Each of those are the parent classes for another subset of skills; game design is the parent of level design for instance.

Speaking to the game design part, as a method of design comparable to architectural or industrial design, it does not yet have established methods and procedures that can guide creation.

Having those rules obviously helps. Miyamoto has a background in traditional product design, and it shows in the way he works.

Establishing methods that can be reproduced allow teaching. you always have theory to learn, and game design and development is young enough that we can say it still has a long way to go.

Ray Beez
profile image
Sorry, but this scientifically analyzing game design still isn't "the answer". Let me ask this: Can you teach someone, anyone, to be a great athlete? Can you teach someone, anyone, to be a great pianist? The answer to both is no. You can teach them all the "how", the theory, the techniques, the best practices, etc, etc and in the end it boils down to aptitude + practice.

If the game industry weren't so intent on preying on the young, and inexperienced, burning them out and spitting them out of the industry 5 years later, there might be more EXPERIENCED designers around who have refined their craft, knowledge and instincts. (Even then though, just as anyone can practice the piano and still never be good at it, same applies to game design, but it's much harder to figure out someone is mediocre at it, huh?)


none
 
Comment:
 


Submit Comment