Diodor, I think that''s a great explanation.

"Curiosity is the reinforced belief that research is likely to produce results."

What about the pursuit of novelty? or thrill seeking? or transgression? That is - what about the irrational mindset? I suppose you covered that some with the Lynch example - but the off-putting aspects that you present assume a rationally motivated player. Granted, that encompasses the vast majority, but maybe not.

If I may expand on what has been said, if "results" are a function of the state, and the actions a player takes,
(R = results; S = state; f, g, h = different functions)

R(S) = f(S) + g(S)
I suppose it could be * instead of +, but whatever.

In order to make R(S) appear complex, f(S1) > g(S1). For some S2 != S1, g(S1) > f(S1)

Yeah, I know this is pretty abstract, but what I''m trying to suggest is that the most influential aspect of a game''s mechanics change over the course of the game. If, as typically in RPG''s, S(time), f(S) := level, and g(S) := tactics, at some point, tactics should eclipse the importance of level. That''s not to say that tactics should be more important than level. If a game like Fallout implements a S(time, location), f(S) := level and g(S) := tactics, perhaps at Shady Sands the second time the player visits, level would eclipse tactics, but at all other times, tactics eclipses level at that location. But in Necropolis, the first time level eclipses tactics and the second tactics eclipses level. This would, of course, need some connecting factor, like cover exists that makes tactics more valuable, or is absent and level is more valuable.

A fighting game would use S(opponent), f(S) := flying kicks g(S) := foot sweeps. An RTS would use S(level), f(S) := zerglings, g(S) := devourers

I''m pretty sure the good games do this already, but without the recognition of it. Now I can just do it consciously.

Deus Ex used S(location, difficulty level), f(S) := sniping, g(S) := melee, etc.
Scorched Earth used S(terrain, opponent), f(S) := low angle, g(S) := advanced weapons, and a huge number of others.

There''s probably something here I''m missing, such as the inevitable shape of R(S), or the optimal shape of f(S) wrt g(S).

quote:
Original post by LessBread

What about the pursuit of novelty? or thrill seeking? or transgression? That is - what about the irrational mindset? I suppose you covered that some with the Lynch example - but the off-putting aspects that you present assume a rationally motivated player. Granted, that encompasses the vast majority, but maybe not.

At their heart, games are cold rational numeric simulations that offer interesting decisions, so it''s easy to build logical theories around them. How can a game appeal to the irrational? It''s more a matter of game content: story, graphics, sounds, music, atmosphere.

It''s also a matter of lack of game content. Give a child a piece of wood to play with, and he''ll imagine it a person or a car or a weapon or whatever. Give a child the most beautifully crafted train, with lots of detail, and he can only imagine that''s a train (actually, the word isn''t imagine anymore, it''s percieve). So, a game must not give too much detail, and let the player use his own imagination and fill in the blanks with his own feelings and fears and desires. (I think Will Wrigt''s interview is particularly relevant to this

There''s an old chinese proverb: "That which is not revealed is the most curious".

Let me see if I''m getting this right.

Complexity can be hidden superficially. The actual world that we see actually hides many inner characteristics that the player can not be made aware of....until he happens to observe something that no longer fits his model of knowledge. Either the player can then think "the damn game is cheating!!", or he can attempt to figure out what is going on behind the scenes. By going behind the scenes he is exploring more into the world of the game.

Diodor, it''s curious that you use the word belief to describe curiosity. I do not disagree with it, but you also mention that dogma and curiousity can not go hand in hand. How true. Curiosity presupposes that not everything is as it seems, while dogma/faith suppose that things are exactly as it is meant to be. However, curiosity does not necessarily mean that one has to doubt. In other words, my model of the world may work....but there is a gap of knowledge which my model can not yet explain. It is not a doubt that the model is incorrect, merely incomplete.

So if the model works, but is incomplete, how else can you get people to be curious? I think the first step is of course to get the person to realize that their knowledge is incomplete. As Socrates said, "the wise man not only knows what he knows, but knows what he does not know". As a game example, you could throw the player into a level which exposes something they have never seen before. There is a difference between this, and having the player see something that contradicts his current model of knowledge. The trick after this is fitting in what he has just seen into his current knowledge model.

But I think the bottomline to get someone curious is you have to challenge what they expect. Expectations are based upon their current world view and is contained within their knowledge base. If the knowledge base is lacking (i.e. what kind of car is that?) then the player simply has to do some research. World view challenges are more diffucult however (i.e. FTL is not possible, how can aliens be here?). But the bottomline is that both elemets require the player to experience something he has no knowledge to relate to.

quote: Original post by Diodor
At their heart, games are cold rational numeric simulations that offer interesting decisions, so it''s easy to build logical theories around them. How can a game appeal to the irrational? It''s more a matter of game content: story, graphics, sounds, music, atmosphere.

Hm, well, I agree that the "clockwork" behind computer games reduces to cold rational numerical simulations built on logical theories. But I find it difficult to remove the notion of the irrational from discussions regarding what appeals to human beings. Is killing "orcs" rational? What is the rationality behind the suspension of belief? (rather the suspension of disbelief). Story, image, sound, music, atmosphere - those are subjectively experienced items forming a gestalt (when well crafted). Game content is art too.

quote: Original post by Diodor
It''s also a matter of lack of game content. Give a child a piece of wood to play with, and he''ll imagine it a person or a car or a weapon or whatever. Give a child the most beautifully crafted train, with lots of detail, and he can only imagine that''s a train (actually, the word isn''t imagine anymore, it''s percieve). So, a game must not give too much detail, and let the player use his own imagination and fill in the blanks with his own feelings and fears and desires. (I think Will Wrigt''s interview is particularly relevant to this

Imagination has a large element of irrationality - especially in the mind of a child. As a child, did you ever think there were "boogeymen" under your bed? (or have similar fears). Feelings and fears and desires - ach! Very irrational. I''ll have to check out that interview.

quote:
Original post by LessBread

As a child, did you ever think there were "boogeymen" under your bed?

I vaguely remember believing a certain water pump was animated and didn''t have the best intentions

quote: Original post by Diodor
I vaguely remember believing a certain water pump was animated and didn''t have the best intentions

Ah, what strange stuff of fairy tales! For me it was monsters under the bed.

I''ve been reading the Will Wright interview. Interesting stuff. A lot of what he describes in regard to human interaction involves irrationality - people not having a problem shifting from character to character, maintaining consistent level of abstraction to provide blank spaces for the player to fill in, the cognitive dissonance that results from inconsistent topography - even down to his comment about "Being There" - and Anime - "... much more twisted than the Matrix" - and the limitations of linear plot devices - and zooming time and space. His focus isn''t "irrationality" and it''s defintely not irrational - but there is a lot of "irrationality" filling in the gaps of it all - so to speak.

I don''t want to go so far as to say that "irrationality" explains everything - but I think it can provide an element of "spice" to the mix - that "blue note" that might sound sour at first but later sounds oh so sweet if dropped in the right place at the right time. To tie that into Flarelock''s formulas - perhaps exploring a formulation based on musical relations might yield new insights. I''m getting a little ot though

I''ve been thinking about how to shake a player''s complacency for some time, and as a result have some ideas and observations tangential to these.

In many fictional settings (my favored genre of games are those which create a fictional world), there is only one "true" explanation of phenomena. Other explanations may arise, but in the course of the story these explanations are revealed to be incorrect, and the protagonist succeeds due in part to his knowledge of the true nature of the world.

In an attempt to step away from this model, I consider a world where the forces behind phenomena are ambiguous and there are several equally valid models for describing the world, each with different motivations and methods but each providing explanations for observed events. Taking this further, what if the state of mind of the observer - his chosen axioms - altered the outcome of events? That is, what if the models of the universe do not agree - but each correctly predicts results for its followers only?

What if powers such as "magic" arose from a particular understanding of the world which included the possibility of "magic"?

I apologize for this post being off-topic, meandering, and ambiguous... I''m thinking as I type, usually a bad idea.

quote:
Original post by SpittingTrashcan

Taking this further, what if the state of mind of the observer - his chosen axioms - altered the outcome of events? That is, what if the models of the universe do not agree - but each correctly predicts results for its followers only?

I like this idea, and I like deClavier's (now deleted) suggestion that the game should conduct it's own experiments about the player. If the player's beliefs change the way the game world works, we have a feedback loop, with both the model and the beliefs constantly changing, like a dog chasing it's tail.

The most trivial (yet very interesting and funny) example of this I've seen was a Rayman level, where an unfriendly duplicate of the player's avatar followed through the level, replicating all the player's moves with a couple of seconds delay. This created a different kind of gameplay. At each point the player needed to remember his past actions to predict the duplicate's actions, and needed to think in the future, because his present actions would eventually be carried out by the clone.


[edited by - Diodor on September 16, 2002 9:57:14 PM]

What about creating a universe, or world, in which the story takes place that is alike and different than our world in many ways. Players would not know what to expect, but rather would have to constantly poke around at the inner workings of the world, consciously or unconsciouly. The phenomena in this world would work like clockwork, but the inner working would seen closed to the player, and only reveal themselves through constant interaction. Combined with good game design, a players success would depend on how well they interact with their surroundings, which would all be based on his curiousity.

(This doesn't really answer the question, just an idea of my own.)

[edited by - ohohvi on September 16, 2002 10:14:41 PM]