Original Post
🔒 Locked
Curiosity
Advertisement
quote:
Original post by deClavier
How many ways can you distort the player''s perception that everything is the same?
The syntax of this question is confusing. Are you asking for ideas on how to trick a player into thinking that nothing in an image has changed when in actuality it has?
quote:
Original post by deClavier
How far can you lead a player with only hints to go on?
Far as in distance or as in time? Lead a player where? Direct or indirect hints?
quote:
Original post by deClavier
How does curiosity function?
That''s um, geez, a big question
DeClavier has a policy of making the posts surreal and meaning next to nothing to the average person. Maybe a clarification will be forthcoming for us mere mortals soon.
[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]
[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]
quote:
Original post by Kylotan
DeClavier has a policy of making the posts surreal and meaning next to nothing to the average person. Maybe a clarification will be forthcoming for us mere mortals soon.
Um, well, I''m better versed in surrealism than most Americans. I like the kinds of questions that DeClavier asks. The only trouble is, they are better suited for long talks at an outdoor cafe in Paris than these forums
quote:
Original post by deClavier
How many ways can you distort the player''s perception that everything is the same? How far can you lead a player with only hints to go on?
Make subtle changes to a scene over time. Add some new things, remove a couple of things. Move a couple of other things around. Imagine coming home, to find that all of the furniture has been slightly moved, maybe pulled an extra inch away from the walls.
Show a number of clocks in different locations. Each clock has a slightly different time (maybe 5 minutes off from any other clock).
Show a fairly standard scene, but make a critical omission. Perhaps a catholic church without a confessional.
For Mother GameDev!
quote:
Original post by deClavier
How many ways can you distort the player''s perception that everything is the same?
42.
quote:
How far can you lead a player with only hints to go on?
About as far as the nearest pub.
quote:
Original post by deClavier
How many ways can you distort the player's perception that everything is the same? How far can you lead a player with only hints to go on?
How does curiosity function?
A game functions using a complicated unknown internal mathematic model. The player tests the internal model and gets responses to his experiments. The player can build a higher level model that estimates the laws of the internal model. When the player's high level model can estimate the internal model with enough accuracy, the game does not surprise him anymore. "Everything is the same." He doesn't experiment anymore, he just uses his applied knowledge. All his actions give the results predicted by his high level model.
If however, the internal model is multi-layered, designed so that some inner laws are hard to discover without some advanced experiments, the player will often reach the "everything is the same" state only to find out he missed something and there was something more.
If the player discovers his former high level model of the world he used to trust completely was not complete or was flawed somehow, and if this new discovery was hinted beforehand, he'll enter a new state of mind. It's the belief that there is something more to discover, and that hints could be everywhere around him. It's the jump from the dogmatic mindset to the scientific mindset.
Eventually, the player may incorporate the entire inner model into his high level model, or most of it anyway, but the belief that there may still be something more will carry on.
Curiosity is the reinforced belief that research is likely to produce results.
Two examples: Dark Forces II Jedi Knight and Mulholland Drive.
At the end of each level in DFII the user was let know how many secrets he discovered in the level and how many were not discovered (hint that there is something more to discover). During each level, visible seeming unreachable areas also hinted at something to discover. Discovering each secret wasn't impossible nor random.
Mulholland Drive is a movie that is quite well described by pwd's post. Multiple watching of the film reveal interesting facts, many theories can be attempted, and a quite accurate theory of what 'really' happened can be created. Research gives results. However, David Lynch cheated a bit with this movie. While some hints can lead to fruitful research, some other hints lead nowhere or contradict each other. While this 'cheating' worked well for MH, it may frustrate a player if the belief that research cannot offer any solid results is reinforced too much.
And another example: deClavier's posts. While generally not understanding about every other word he uses, the reinforced belief that his posts do actually make sense (I just got a reinforcement with this thread) makes me curious to read and think about his posts.
[edited by - Diodor on September 13, 2002 11:21:40 AM]
quote:
Original post by Diodor
A game functions using a complicated unknown internal mathematic model. The player tests the internal model and gets responses to his experiments. The player can build a higher level model that estimates the laws of the internal model. When the player''s high level model can estimate the internal model with enough accuracy, the game does not surprise him anymore. "Everything is the same." He doesn''t experiment anymore, he just uses his applied knowledge. All his actions give the results predicted by his high level model.
If however, the internal model is multi-layered, designed so that some inner laws are hard to discover without some advanced experiments, the player will often reach the "everything is the same" state only to find out he missed something and there was something more.
If the player discovers his former high level model of the world he used to trust completely was not complete or was flawed somehow, and if this new discovery was hinted beforehand, he''ll enter a new state of mind. It''s the belief that there is something more to discover, and that hints could be everywhere around him. It''s the jump from the dogmatic mindset to the scientific mindset.
Eventually, the player may incorporate the entire inner model into his high level model, or most of it anyway, but the belief that there may still be something more will carry on.
Curiosity is the reinforced belief that research is likely to produce results.
Diodor, this is BRILLIANT! You express succintly what I''ve been thinking about in a very messy, abstract fashion. I have been thinking that the more you''re able to variate the numerical stats that represent your game entities, and the formulas that govern their interaction, the more you''re able to offer the player new things to discover.
Visual variation (with procedural geometry, or my approach of mix and match geometry) is not enough. Having a bunch of different but changing forms quickly leads to the perception that everything is the same, because everything still functions the same and the player''s experience is status quo.
I think one way to alter the player''s perception is to introduce seemingly similar entities (weapons, creatures, game objects) that occassionally perform different functions or have different behavior. The player should be told as little as possible about the models and the entities, and left to discover as much as possible about how the rules influence them. (Of course, they should know the basic rules of interaction starting off).
I find that alot of games get away with minute variation, btw, in introducing new elements. A weapon will do slightly more damage (+2 versus +5 rifle); an enemy will be slightly faster; or an environment will change slightly (lower gravity, for instance).
These changes, for me and many I know, enhance or even supplant the curiosity bonus that story provides (the "what will happen next?" impulse that keeps us turning pages)
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
quote:
Original post by Wavinator
Diodor, this is BRILLIANT!
Thanks! I forgot to mention that a very simple and effective way to further increase the player''s curiosity is to pack a cake with each discovery, so discovery is not only a goal in itself, but also a game advance bonus. Well, I''m going to eat my large Game Design posting reinforcement caek now
quote:
These changes, for me and many I know, enhance or even supplant the curiosity bonus that story provides (the "what will happen next?" impulse that keeps us turning pages)
Yes. There is no change to the player''s high level model, but there is cake (more or less), and the player is always interested (and curious) about how large his cake is.
Some games however, like Nethack or ADOM have a subtle luck/karma system that influences these small changes.
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.
"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).
(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.
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 Diodor
I vaguely remember believing a certain water pump was animated and didn''t have the best intentions
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.
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]
(This doesn't really answer the question, just an idea of my own.)
[edited by - ohohvi on September 16, 2002 10:14:41 PM]
Topic Locked
This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.
Sign in to reply to this topic.
Advertisement