Now, I know this has been copied all over the place, and will probably become the new Dunbar's Number meme, but I'm coming to it late and this is my own take on it in games.
Dr. Daniel Levitin a cognitive psychologist, neurologist, music producer and no doubt all round good sport, has collated a lot of the current research on music therapy and effects of music on neural development in his book, Your Brain on Music. Amidst other things he proposes democratically that what's most important is not perhaps an innate talent, but a disciplined and regimented practice routine.
There you have it. Maybe regardless of domain, if you want to "master" something it takes a dedication lasting no less than 10,000 hours. That's sort of comforting. Inasmuch as it lets me know if I am truly serious about accomplishing something, I ought to spend more time on it. It gives me a limit, but no guarantee.
But turn to games and the old usability chestnut: How long should a level or zone take to master? How long should someone -- particularly with consoles -- be given to complete and "win" the game. I know I never got far into God of War, mostly because I gave up looking for cheats (yes, for that ridiculous first crates puzzle). Should I have got in-game assistance? Should there have been a number of turns the game monitors I've tried this challenge and then offers me a break, for a lesser reward, or a harder penalty later? Otherwise the game becomes a coaster for me.
And similarly, how about MMORPG's? How long should designers give users to reach the cap? There's lots of evidence for how people pace themselves, but sometimes I sense it gets lost. For example, we hear more about racers in the Burning Crusade reaching level 70 within 28 hours and some wag finishing all of DDO in the same time, but dismiss the lone whiner who may still be stuck at the start (on some crates...). Reaching a level cap is not a mastery, but it does respond to the same desire. And maybe the same built-in bio-cognitive need. Dedicating time, often alone, to reach a limit for self-reward and public acclaim may be a real human drive. But likewise when the challenge does not meet the realistic effort required, then most people who can't succeed turn to other things to help their advancement. In MMO's, the obvious ones are RMT, cheats, hacks, powerlevelling services. In music or athletics, it might just be a better coach. Or drugs.
David Seah on Levitin has a nice break down, and so a critique, on how mastery could be reasonably seen. The point, as every game designer knows, is to offer a carrot and an encouragement (ding!) through ones' advancement. It's not about 10,000 hours or bust -- it's about maybe 100 hours and a pat on the back.
Dr. Daniel Levitin a cognitive psychologist, neurologist, music producer and no doubt all round good sport, has collated a lot of the current research on music therapy and effects of music on neural development in his book, Your Brain on Music. Amidst other things he proposes democratically that what's most important is not perhaps an innate talent, but a disciplined and regimented practice routine.
... ten thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert -- in anything. In study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction writers, ice skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals, and what have you, this number comes up again and again. Ten thousand hours is the equivalent to roughly three hours per day, or twenty hours per week, of practice over ten years. Of course, this doesn't address why some people don't seem to get anywhere when they practice, and why some people get more out of their practice sessions than others. But no one has yet found a case in which true world-class expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems that it takes the brain this long to assimilate all that it needs to know to achieve true mastery. (courtesy of Tertiary Education)
There you have it. Maybe regardless of domain, if you want to "master" something it takes a dedication lasting no less than 10,000 hours. That's sort of comforting. Inasmuch as it lets me know if I am truly serious about accomplishing something, I ought to spend more time on it. It gives me a limit, but no guarantee.
But turn to games and the old usability chestnut: How long should a level or zone take to master? How long should someone -- particularly with consoles -- be given to complete and "win" the game. I know I never got far into God of War, mostly because I gave up looking for cheats (yes, for that ridiculous first crates puzzle). Should I have got in-game assistance? Should there have been a number of turns the game monitors I've tried this challenge and then offers me a break, for a lesser reward, or a harder penalty later? Otherwise the game becomes a coaster for me.
And similarly, how about MMORPG's? How long should designers give users to reach the cap? There's lots of evidence for how people pace themselves, but sometimes I sense it gets lost. For example, we hear more about racers in the Burning Crusade reaching level 70 within 28 hours and some wag finishing all of DDO in the same time, but dismiss the lone whiner who may still be stuck at the start (on some crates...). Reaching a level cap is not a mastery, but it does respond to the same desire. And maybe the same built-in bio-cognitive need. Dedicating time, often alone, to reach a limit for self-reward and public acclaim may be a real human drive. But likewise when the challenge does not meet the realistic effort required, then most people who can't succeed turn to other things to help their advancement. In MMO's, the obvious ones are RMT, cheats, hacks, powerlevelling services. In music or athletics, it might just be a better coach. Or drugs.
David Seah on Levitin has a nice break down, and so a critique, on how mastery could be reasonably seen. The point, as every game designer knows, is to offer a carrot and an encouragement (ding!) through ones' advancement. It's not about 10,000 hours or bust -- it's about maybe 100 hours and a pat on the back.
If you know your limit -- in this case, the almost mythical 10k of investment -- you can offer a realizable training program for people. And that circuit of gradual achievement and self-esteem reinforcement is maybe vital for someone to continue.at 1 hour … you know some basics at 10 hours … you have a pretty good grasp of the basics at 100 hours … you are fairly expert at 1000 hours … you are an experienced expert at 10000 hours … you are a master
While 10,000 hours over 10 years is a daunting proposition, consider this:
1000 hours is pretty doable. That’s a little less than a year of full-time work. 100 hours is even more achievable…you could do that over a few months on the side, or just slam through it in a very intense couple of weeks. Even spending 10 hours practicing something is going to make you significantly better at it. If you spent 10 hours practicing one song, or learning how to juggle, or learning how to bowl strikes…you’re going to learn something. One hour? That’s worthwhile too. You could spend an hour writing your signature over and over again to make it cooler. I’ve done that at least a couple of times in my life.
I bet understanding and planning the least and mean time for a user to finish your game (or a part of it) is actually in the back of every designer's mind. After all, it's how we got "levels" and intro tutorials in the first place. And it affects how they introduce new content as well. I remember, for instance, very clearly in the first few months of SWG a poll on the forums asking how much time people spent playing. It came out near the same week as official survey results on the number and types of classes people were picking. Why that was important is that SOE was trying to see how to shoehorn in the Jedi class. Once they could show users where they were spending their time already, they might have a better sense of how long the class might take to unlock and then master. And then reconcile players to that required grind. Needless to say, it wasn't 10,000 hours, but after 28 professions for me it felt bloody close.
So much of play testing is functional tire kicking. However, the tuning which happens with character stats and abilities and their mean-time-to-success, whatever the genre or platform, I bet is also carefully scrutinized. Or it should be. We don't need 10,000 hours on any game, and certainly my time on Jedi I know now was not healthy. I knew there was a carrot, but I didn't know how long the stick was to reach it. If I knew then what I know now... I would not have tried. I think it would be healthier (and would help overall retention) if players had a better sense of the kind of investment they're going to be required to make. The kicker is if they know, they probably won't bother. But conversely when I play Scrabble online with my girlfriend, I know there's a limited number of tiles that gradually get used, and part of the key to that game is knowing how much time is left via their diminishing number. If users knew what might be required of them hypothetically, the grind might have more appeal. Ultimately though, I really wish designers would just give us more of an opportunity for challenges that scale. Gameplay that didn't assume infinite time and didn't reward the racers. That's ultimately why people hate the DIKU MUD model. And there ought to be by now some opportunity for improving play in a game the more you learn, other than just leveling to cap or finishing off some crates.
NYT article on Your Brain on Music
Almost there... just need a chestplate to finish the set...
No comments:
Post a Comment