Over the last month, i’ve been driving Mimi’s Hybrid on and off. One of my favorite things about the Hybrid is that it tells you how many MPG you’re averaging over time. I find myself driving around town trying to maximize that number, getting uber excited when it goes up and super sad when it goes down. It reminds me of when i used to try to maximize my miles per hour when going from Boston to New York only this is more environmental. Yet, it’s not the environment that i’m concerning myself with - it’s all about number games in the same way that people obsess over every pound on the scale or the calories in every bite.
Then i was thinking about Tantek and Jason raving about Consumating. I love the fact that it’s a lot of cool geeky people but i can never get over the lameness that i feel when i log in and look at my score. And yet, i can’t be bothered to answer the questions that make me feel all uncomfortable in the hopes that someone will like my answers and rate me higher. It’s a catch-22 for me. Yet, i totally understand why Tantek and Jason and others absolutely love it and why they go back for more.
And then i was thinking about the people on Yahoo! Answers who spend hours every day answering questions to get high ranks. It’s very similar to Consumating only it’s not all embarassing because it’s not really about you - it’s about the answers. There’s no real gain from getting points but still, it’s like a mouse in a cage determined to do well just cuz they can.
This all reminds me of a scene in some movie. I can’t recall what movie it was but it was about how you just want to be the best at something, anything… to have something to point at and say look, i’m #1! The validation, the proof of greatness! Even if that something is problematic attention getting like being the #1 serial killer. (Was it Bowling for Columbine?)
I started wondering about these number games… They’re all over social software - Neopets, friends on social network sites, blog visitors, etc. Who is motivated by what number games? Who is demotivated? Does it make a difference if the number game is about the group vs. the individual, about one’s self directly vs. about some abstract capability?
Are there some number games that work better than others in attracting a broader audience? I’m thinking about Orkut here… if the game is to get as many Brazillians on the site as possible, you only need a few obsessives to be the rallying forces; everyone else is part of the number game simply by signing up. So there are tons competing in the number games but only a few invested.
Does anyone know anything about how these number games work as incentives?
[Also posted at Apophenia]
1. Anonymous on August 7, 2006 2:06 PM writes...
studies on mmorpgs?
Permalink to Comment2. Anonymous on August 7, 2006 2:10 PM writes...
http://terranova.blogs.com/
look up "grinding" and "leveling"?
i am sure you know all this soc sci games stuff already?
Permalink to Comment3. Christopher Allen on August 8, 2006 1:22 AM writes...
The online game industry knows a lot about this -- they people with a significant amount of this behavior an "Achiever".
The theory, originated by Richard Bartle 16+ years ago, is that all players of online games fall into four types: Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers.
There has been a lot of good academic work on this topic in recent years, though like a lot of good ideas has been overly popularlized and thus simplified too much.
How it applies to your thoughts is that a large percentage of the population (some say 50%+) have as their primary motivation to sustain a feeling of achievement. It can be lifting weights, doing the New York Sunday crossword puzzle, and of course, gaining experience and levels in an online game.
Not the entire population has this as their primary motivation, but when you add it to people who have it as a secondary motivation it is such a large population that the online games primarily cater to this Bartle type. In recent years as game designers we've been perfecting the our appeal to this type of player -- knowing how long to wait before giving feedback that an achievement is in progress, how often someone needs a break so they don't burn out, etc. A lot of it feels like Pavlovian research.
Thus more recently designed games like Worlds of Warcraft have learned from previous generations of game design to make an almost perfect game for the achiever dominant Bartle type. It isn't just marketing or better graphics -- they've really learned how to addict people to the feeling achievers get when they achieve.
However, not all the population is achievers, and there does appears to be some sexual dimorphism -- there are still more women who are achiever dominant then other types, but a lower percentage then there is for men.
As I said, there is quite a bit of academic research on this topic in the last few years -- people have been investigating if the Bartle types are real, if there are more then the 4 types, how much crossover is there between the types, and trying to figure out the observer biases caused by limiting the sample of people to those that are comfortable with computers or games.
The original paper is "Players who Suit MUDs" by Richard Bartle, if you search for others papers that refer to that paper you'll find quite a few interesting ones.
It is disapointing to me that a lot of social science people automatically discount this type of research since it originated in the game industry, but I think its lessons apply to many different disciplines, ranging from industrial design (how to make a car that people care about keeping the MPG high), software engineering (how do keep people interested in the information we are delivering without burning out) to marketing and adversing.
Permalink to Comment4. Eric Wahlforss on August 8, 2006 2:48 AM writes...
The numbers are interesting indeed. This heavily reminds me of the 'surrogate games' in jyri engeström's brilliant post on the subject a while back.
Permalink to Comment5. Scott T. on August 8, 2006 8:29 AM writes...
"Was it Bowling for Columbine?"
There was a scene of a Michigan kid talking about how he was number two on the bomb threat list at his high school ... is it that scene you're thinking about?
Permalink to Comment6. Anonymous on August 12, 2006 2:30 PM writes...
I wrote a little piece about modern day computing and mini computer here:
http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/18646-article-computing.html#post129895
I noticed while reading Negroponte, an early architect of matter and bits, his book 'Being Digital', predicted the demise of the gaming console. The PC would be 'the' gaming platform.
Which is strange, when you compare how reality turned out. I mean, Negroponte got some many things right, in his book back then. I found it strange how that prediction, about the gaming console, was so incorrect.
Brian O' Hanlon.
Permalink to Comment7. Anonymous on August 12, 2006 2:41 PM writes...
Since I wrote that piece on mini-computers though, I have read a little more of Kevin Kelly's book, where I think he described the invention of the spreadsheet. He described a spreadsheet as a visualisation tool for chaotic, un-predictable, high inter-connected systems.
Reading over at
adaptivepath.com/blog/
today, I came across a similar point, by one of the contributors there, about Excel just being another way of modelling.
In my experience of designing within architectural practices, the best seem to be, the ones who recognise a certain amount of un-predictability in their work. They generally allow people who are good at some specific task, to get along with it, rather than control them, or manage them too much.
John Thackara, I think, in his chapter called 'Flow' in his book, In the Bubble describes gaming as a skill, which teaches us about orchestration. That namely in a game, you cannot dictate every little aspect. A lot of things happen in real time, and all you can hope to do, is broadly help it in the right direction.
Of course, Will Wrights ideas on this are well known. Steven Johnson has also argued about the beneficial impact of games, on teaching us to be 'smarter', in a book of his recently.
But I think, if you talk about games, you are never very far away from discussing complexity too. Some of us are scared by systems we cannot control. More of us thrive on it. It was a watershed in my own lifetime, when I finally discovered, I could not control my designs with a stranglehold - and may not want to.
Brian O' Hanlon.
Permalink to Comment8. Paul B. Hartzog on August 13, 2006 12:19 PM writes...
I have 2 colleagues who study these things and who also game themselves.
Below is a list of things we have all collected over the years re: gaming research. Some of it might be useful.
http://ubbforums.ubi.com/
Permalink to Commenthttp://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/
http://www.parksassociates.com/research/reports/tocs/gaming.htm
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/Aug/1065678.htm
http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=6944
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/
http://www.videogamestudies.com/
http://del.icio.us/hrheingold/gaming2learn
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/arts/23thom.html
9. Anonymous on August 21, 2006 11:05 AM writes...
Alfie Kohn has generated a complete literature on his own, with multiple books about external measures in relation to reward and incentive. Here's one from 15 years ago. He has written another 10 as well.
"Punished By Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes" by Alfie Kohn.
A visit to a web bookseller could give you a complete listing.
Permalink to Comment10. Anonymous on August 21, 2006 12:44 PM writes...
Couple of talks here, transcripts of.
http://flow.doorsofperception.com/content/herz_trans.html
B.
Permalink to Comment11. anonymous on February 19, 2007 7:11 AM writes...
hello, !!!!!!!!!
Permalink to Commentyoiu arer funy!
wile youe tel mi youur name????? /
w/angew
bi?bi?
12. KATHY FORD on March 2, 2007 5:43 PM writes...
DO HAVE A PHONE NMUBER FOR SOFTWARE GAME
Permalink to CommentFROM KATHY FORD
WRITE BACK TO ME