BlackShipsFillt
04-08-2010, 02:48 AM
This article raises some interesting ideas: http://chrishecker.com/Achievements_Considered_Harmful
His presentation goes into more detail, and explains the terms better, though it is quite long: http://www.myplick.com/view/91zFLZhKUOn/gdc10-AchievementsConsideredHarmful
The gist of what he says goes like this:
Although there is no research into the psychological effects of achievement systems in games, in other fields handing out achievements for tasks reduces the motivation to perform the actual task (but rather the task is performed to receive the reward).
There is a LOT of research about rewards and non-game behaviour, one example that makes sense to me is that they had a bunch of kids and split them into three groups and gave them puzzles to solve. One group they praised for doing the puzzle, one group they paid to solve the puzzle, one group they left alone. When the researchers said that the experiment was over only the kids who were not encouraged to solve the puzzles continued solving them.
He also provides some REALLY useful insight into using rewards well, I'd strongly recommend taking a look.
My thoughts:
I guess this could happen in games to... once the player has completed all the achievements the player might abruptly stop playing. The player may have learnt to love the achievements, but didn't learn to love the game. Or worse, if they are constantly being rewarded at the beginning, but towards the end, when the achievements are harder, they lose interest.
I also wonder how this applies to unlocking features? I know in single player strategy games I rarely play past the point where I have unlocked all the units, but maybe if the units had always been available and the game had created progress some other way I would have completed the game because I had been focussing on the gameplay more. Unlocking definitely keeps me playing, but does it reduce intrinsic motivation? Some of it depends on how expected and game-centric the reward, or unlock, is. Expected rewards supposedly fair worse, and rewards that don't have to do with the game (like a badge) are really bad.
I do still favour unlocking, it's a reward that takes place within the context of the game, and probably works best when tied to story or something, though I might choose to present the unlock differently (ie without a song and dance which distracts the player from the purpose of the game, ie to play, not earn unlocks).
But this article does make me a quite weary of achievements (which can be used right, but can also be really bad it seems) for which it seems the game developing community has gone bananas. Games always have to reward the player at least a little, by definition games at least have a "win" condition, but when the meta-games come out it can be perilous.
What is really scary about the presentation is that games that do not constantly reward the player, but rather allow the player to play by his/her own motivation, may be at a commercial disadvantage (possibly because achievement based games keep players playing for the achievements even after they are bored, and the longer playtimes translate to more sales)... So while players may love the games that only offer solid gameplay, the games themselves may tank commercially, which only makes achievement systems more powerful.
And then there is the question of whether it is actually bad for a player to be completely extrinsically motivated. If they are playing Diablo2 on Hell difficulty for the third time not because they like killing really really tough enemies but because they want a bigger sword, is that a bad thing? Or at least, who is it a bad thing for?
Any thoughts?
His presentation goes into more detail, and explains the terms better, though it is quite long: http://www.myplick.com/view/91zFLZhKUOn/gdc10-AchievementsConsideredHarmful
The gist of what he says goes like this:
Although there is no research into the psychological effects of achievement systems in games, in other fields handing out achievements for tasks reduces the motivation to perform the actual task (but rather the task is performed to receive the reward).
There is a LOT of research about rewards and non-game behaviour, one example that makes sense to me is that they had a bunch of kids and split them into three groups and gave them puzzles to solve. One group they praised for doing the puzzle, one group they paid to solve the puzzle, one group they left alone. When the researchers said that the experiment was over only the kids who were not encouraged to solve the puzzles continued solving them.
He also provides some REALLY useful insight into using rewards well, I'd strongly recommend taking a look.
My thoughts:
I guess this could happen in games to... once the player has completed all the achievements the player might abruptly stop playing. The player may have learnt to love the achievements, but didn't learn to love the game. Or worse, if they are constantly being rewarded at the beginning, but towards the end, when the achievements are harder, they lose interest.
I also wonder how this applies to unlocking features? I know in single player strategy games I rarely play past the point where I have unlocked all the units, but maybe if the units had always been available and the game had created progress some other way I would have completed the game because I had been focussing on the gameplay more. Unlocking definitely keeps me playing, but does it reduce intrinsic motivation? Some of it depends on how expected and game-centric the reward, or unlock, is. Expected rewards supposedly fair worse, and rewards that don't have to do with the game (like a badge) are really bad.
I do still favour unlocking, it's a reward that takes place within the context of the game, and probably works best when tied to story or something, though I might choose to present the unlock differently (ie without a song and dance which distracts the player from the purpose of the game, ie to play, not earn unlocks).
But this article does make me a quite weary of achievements (which can be used right, but can also be really bad it seems) for which it seems the game developing community has gone bananas. Games always have to reward the player at least a little, by definition games at least have a "win" condition, but when the meta-games come out it can be perilous.
What is really scary about the presentation is that games that do not constantly reward the player, but rather allow the player to play by his/her own motivation, may be at a commercial disadvantage (possibly because achievement based games keep players playing for the achievements even after they are bored, and the longer playtimes translate to more sales)... So while players may love the games that only offer solid gameplay, the games themselves may tank commercially, which only makes achievement systems more powerful.
And then there is the question of whether it is actually bad for a player to be completely extrinsically motivated. If they are playing Diablo2 on Hell difficulty for the third time not because they like killing really really tough enemies but because they want a bigger sword, is that a bad thing? Or at least, who is it a bad thing for?
Any thoughts?