Rewards, pacing, and dopamine

Rewards and pacing

There is something mysterious when people read through 1000 pages of Cryptonomicon, a 1999 novel from Stephenson, or through the thousands of pages of Martin's A song of ice and fire. What keeps people reading? Here are some rewards that both authors use throughout their books:

Reward	Pacing	Description
Character progression	Randomly (but fits the story)	The protagonist learns new skills, grows up, meets love, learns a lesson of life, or gets rich. We care about this character's well-being because we empathize.
Action and passion	Every 3-10 pages	When stuck in difficult situations, the reader knows that the hero can not die, so she asks herself: how is the hero going to get out of this alive? (Except sometimes, main characters actually die, leaving us in shock). The same applies for romantic scenes, where we wonder not if, but how it's going to work out between two characters.
Story progression	Every 10-30 pages	Right from the start, the authors put under the reader's nose a bunch of questions: what is happening, why is this guy so mysterious, and so on. The reader wants to know the answers, so she keeps reading until answers are provided, along with new mysteries to figure out.

Looking at blockbuster action movies such as The Bourne Ultimatum, the same kind of pacing emerges: action scenes are followed by the protagonist learning about his past. Then the plot moves on, the character meets new people, finds himself new tasks to do, and back to action scenes.

These rewards and pacing also echo those found in games and mentioned in a class on game balance from Ian Schreiber: gains in character power, discovery of new areas, and progression of the story are rewards to be used at irregular intervals to keep the player engaged. So reading books, watching movies, and playing games seem to provide similar rewards.

Dopamine

Let's dig down to the physiological level of rewards. Most of the articles dealing with the physiological response of gaming revolve around addiction. For instance, a 2012 NY Times article reports that Zynga helps addict millions of people to dopamine, a neurochemical that has been shown to be released by pleasurable activities, including video game playing, but also is understood to play a major role in the cycle of addiction.. To that, the Zynga co-founder replies: Given that we're human, we already want dopamine. And that does not calm things down. So let's look at a less controversial topic: the physiological response of reading. This is not a survey of the field, but rather some picks from a few Google searches - nothing very serious.

First, according to Farland, a current writer, the dramatic structure of stories (exposition - action - climax - denouement) matches the bio-feedback of hormones such as dopamine, adrenaline, and cortisol. He says: As a person "hunts" for clues, or for a way out of a problem, the brain rewards the person by releasing dopamine as a reward. [...] When you reach the climax of the novel, [...] you reach the climax of your emotional exercise. When the story ends [...] your stress is released. The adrenaline and cortisol stop flowing.

As notes from a psychology class on stress can tell us, cortisol is the key hormone of stress. Adrenaline is the hormone that tells our body to be alert. And finally, dopamine is in charge of rewarding our brain.

So what happens when we start reading? Some have guessed that we are having pleasure because reading is a tough task, and our brain rewards us for completing such a hard task. This seems confirmed by a 2001 study who showed that transitioning from rest to reading produces the same increase in dopamine concentration as transitioning from rest to memory-intensive tasks (something cognitively demanding). Although, a 2000 study seems to reject this hypothesis. Something that might be worth investing is whether reading a microwave-oven manual generates as much dopamine as reading an exciting short story where the action starts right from the start.

It may actually be more complicated: the dopamine concentration could actually not indicate our pleasure, but our expectation of pleasure: dopamine motivates us, increasing our energy and drive and compelling us to engage in the pleasurable activity. If everything is as nice as the brain predicted, dopamine levels remain elevated. If things turn out even better than the brain hoped, dopamine levels are increased; we engage in the pleasurable activity even more vigorously. If, on the other hand, the activity is less pleasurable than we thought it would be, dopamine levels plummet.

Back to games

So, what can we conclude about games? First, much like movies and books, reward us by generating dopamine when we succeed at a difficult cognitive tasks such as a head-shot in an FPS, or a successful Chess trap. That is pretty close to fiero, and in fact, Bateman already suggested in 2008 that fiero is a cocktail of epinephrine and dopamine. So, nothing brand new here.

Perhaps more interesting, long-term enjoyment seems to require the dopamine to yo-yo - which is bad. Let us assume that our brain produces dopamine by expecting a nice event. Then when our brain is done with those nice events, the dopamine level will decrease. That would be a horrible yo-yo if there were only one kind of event, but books, movies, and games, have at least three: action, story, and character events. So alternating events and interweaving them in such a way that our brain is always on the lookout may keep dopamine, and pleasure, at high levels instead of making it yo-yo.

There might be a few gotchas, though. First, the magnitude and the lifespan of the dopamine burst depends on a lot factors. Grinding monsters for a drop is only pleasurable so long as the brain is expecting that item to drop. After a couple days, the dopamine is all gone, and it's just boring. Some studies should investigate the average magnitude of an "achievement unlocked!", or the lifespan of a boss kill or a level up.

Second, dopamine bursts may not stack. The brain may be too busy expecting a story progression event that it may ignore, or even worse, be displeased, by a character progression event: it was not expecting it! This limitation does not seem cognitive, but rather emotional, so maybe people with higher EI could stack expectations and dopamine bursts more easily than indifferent people who say "it's just a game"?

Third, and to finish as we started, with books: Stephenson and Martin alternate their character viewpoints chapter after chapter, possibly to keep the reader's attention. By the way, they rarely handle more than 7 characters at the same time, since 7 is a magic cognitive number. These changes in views often cut short the action, so the reader may get frustrated, or even vexed for being tricked to continue reading by the exact same three mechanisms every chapter. It is interesting to know why people keep reading those long books, but that last reason is exactly why I stopped.

Freakonomics - Levitt 2006

Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner, 2006

• Incentives are the cornerstone of modern life
• Conventional wisdon is often wrong
• Experts use their own informational advantage to server their own agenda
• Knowing wht to measure and how simplifies a complicated world

Incentives/deterrents can be economic, moral (I feel good about it) and social (pressure from society, shame). Experiment: The first rule was "Parents must pick up their kids before 5pm". When this rule was in place, only a few parents picked up their kids late. When changing the rule to "Parents who pick up their kids late are charged $3", many more parents picked up their kids late. Parents who used to feel morally responsible could now buy off their guilt. And the low fine signaled that it was no big deal to pick up your kids late. In the same "vein" of examples, paying people $5 to give blood results in less donors. Replacing the moral incentive by an economic one changed the way they saw the situation: while saving lives could justify the hassle/pain, $5 is not enough. People also cheat to abuse the incentive and get more for less. Cheating is more likely to happen for clear outcomes (e.g. sports or politics) than if the benefit or its recipient are not obvious.

Asymmetric information: people with exclusive info can cause fear (e.g. the USA don't know when terrorists are going to attack) and respect/gratitude (e.g. experts such as realtor agents know how much your house is worth on the market, or doctor can tell what disease you have). Internet is decreasing the information asymmetry. Experts need journalists to spread their opinion, but journalists need experts to write about new interesting/provocative topics.

What people say is not what people do. Examples: profiles on dating websites (most people rate their look "above average"), or voting for extreme right (people are ashamed?).

Four factors determine wage: specialized skill, unpleasantness, demand for the job, and supply of workers. That's why prostitutes earn more than architects per hour.

Risk: We suck at assessing risk: we measure it (implicitly) as risk = hazard + fear, while it should only be risk = hazard. When fear > hazard, we over-react. Hence the most hazardous risks are not always the scariest. Risks we don't have control over are scarier, while familiarity decreases fear. [This echoes the class on stress] Examples: heart attacks cause more deaths than terrorist attacks, yet people still eat fast-food. People fear more plane accidents than car accidents, even though they happen as often per hour spent in them.

[Except the first 2 chapters, I found this book focused too much on poor Blacks vs rich Whites.]

Stress: appraisal, coping, and physiology

Notes from the first few weeks of a class on stress by Sally Dickerson taught throughout Spring 2012.

Basics

Eustress = positive/healthy stress. Example: wedding, vacation. As opposed to distress. Three phases of stress: stressor, appraisal, and response.

The stressor is the eliciting event; examples are being stuck in traffic, having an exam, or arguing with your partner. Stressors break homeostasis, our stability with the environment. A stressor can be acute or chronic. Durations of exposure to stressor vs duration of perceived threat vs duration of stress response.

The response happens at all levels: emotional (e.g. fear), physiological (e.g. BP increases), and behavioral (e.g. running away). The response aims at bringing back homeostasis. If it lasts for too long, sickness appears because of the general adaptation syndrome.

Appraisal

Evaluation/interpretation of the harm, threat, and overwhelmingness of the stressor to determine the response. Individual- and context-specific. Individuals who are told beforehand that "pain is going to happen" have stronger physiological response to a stressor than individuals told "it's just a formality, nothing too big". Appraisal consists of the primary appraisal and coping.

Primary appraisal

The individual estimates the importance/meaning of the stressor, and its implications on her well-being. "This is the most important day of my life" vs "No big deal". Three types of primary appraisals:

Type	Description	Emotions generated	Physiological response	Example with stressor = "just got fired"
Harm/loss	The damage has already been done	sadness, anger	damaging	"Everyone looked at me packing my stuff"
Threat	Possibility of future damage	anxiety, fear	damaging	"How am I going to pay the rent?"
Challenge	Potential to overcome and profit.	excitement	positive/healthy, smaller than harm or threat	"Let's find a better job"

Primary appraisal moderators:

• sense of control. If the individual feels (no need to actually be) in control = less stress. But inappropriate sense of control increases stress: individuals blame themselves for an event they actually could not influence, especially if the event is big: "it's my fault if my car's brakes broke and it caused an accident".
• predictability. Know when stressor happens (and/or does not happen) reduces stress. Unless stressor very frequent or very rare, or horrible outcome (e.g. earthquake).
• ambiguity. If information on the stressor is vague, stress increases.
• centrality. If the outcome is important to the individual, stress increases.

-	Optimists	Pessimists
Face problems	actively	passively
Receive positive events	wrt themselves, in general and absolute terms	wrt other people, in specific and relative terms
Receive negative events	wrt other people, in specific and relative terms	wrt themselves, in general and absolute terms
Example: just got fired	"my skills were not a good match for that company" (external)	"i am a failure" (internal), "I can't do anything" (global), "I'll never get another job" (absolute)

Coping

The individual estimates how well she can cope with the stressor. If she estimates she does not have enough resources to cope with the stressor, the stress response will be bigger. Coping can happen before, during, or after a stressor, and it varies in time. When it happens before, it is called proactive coping (e.g. keep water bottle packs and a torch light at hand in case of a disaster). Even when given information, if people feel like they can not change the outcome, or if they underestimate the problem, they may not pro-actively cope.

Avoidance or minimization are effective coping strategies for short-term stressors. Vigilance and confrontation consist of gathering information or take direct action, and are more effective in the long-run, but fail if the information is of poor quality (e.g. individual googles "soar throat" symptoms and finds herself on a page about a deadly disease). Social support from others is a form of coping; the individual reduces her stress response by receiving moral support, information about the stressor, or tangible resources (money, workforce, ...) to overcome the stressor.

Coping can be problem-focused, emotion-focused, or both. Problem-focused coping is constructive (e.g. studying for an exam), and effective when the individual can have an impact on the stressor. Emotion-focused coping does not address the problem, but rather regulates the individual's emotions cognitively (how people think about the stressor, e.g. "it could be worse"), or behaviorally (doing something, e.g. jogging or eating chocolate to feel better). Emotion-focused coping is effective when the individual does not have control on the stressor.

In general, optimists deny less and cope better than pessimists. For instance, Type A individuals are competitive, easily provoked, fast-paced, and impatient. They have more risky behaviors, are less likely to receive social support, and have bigger physiological responses. Hence, they are more sensitive to stress. Moreover, according to a 2006 study (see also the pdf), Big 5's Neuroticism is related to distress and emotion-focused coping, while Conscientiousness is related to task-focused coping.

Methods for assessing stress

• After an unpredictable/random trauma (e.g. a disaster): from groups or individuals. Problem: getting a baseline before the stressor happened. Solution: compare with similar groups or individuals who were not exposed to the trauma.
• Life events: go through individual's recent events to assess her current stress level. Depending on the category of the individual, each event has a standard weight (e.g. for undergrad students, "death of relative" = 100 points, "got a ticket" = 20 points).
• Daily stressors: going over recent events or maintaining daily diary (prompted by researchers every day at the same hour).
• Lab experiments: standardized stressor, influence on appraisal (but appraisal ultimately depends on the individual), can measure physiological response, but not generalizable.

Physiologically

Cortisol is a hormone released by the adrenal gland in response to stress. Its function is to have the body generate energy by breaking body fat into glucose. In the circadian rhythm, it naturally peaks at wake up, and falls at sleep time.

Cognitive tasks such as mental arithmetic increase the concentration of cortisol in the blood. Public speaking increases it even more. The two combined generate more than the sum of each. Public speaking exposes our differences with other people, and invites criticism: it is a social evaluative threat. This threat is increased if we are captured on permanent record, in front of a critical audience, or compared to others negatively. On the other hand, emotion induction (such as watching a scary movie) or exposure to noise do not influence the cortisol level.

Uncontrollability increases the cortisol level. Hence, false feedback to a stressful task will increase the cortisol level. Changing the task difficulty on the fly, harassing the individual under stress, or adding noise and distractions increases stress. An uncontrollable social-evaluative threat generates the biggest cortisol response, and a slow stress recovery: the cortisol level remains high longer.

Novelty and diversity also seem to increase the cortisol response. Facing many stressors at a time seems to increase the cortisol level logarithmically with the number of stressors. On the other hand, facing a stressor as a group reduces the individuals' cortisol response. Similarly, in a 1991 study, women's stress response was found to be smaller if their pet rather than their friend was with them: as opposed to the friend, the pet provides support without judging.

Influence - Cialdini, 1993

Weapons of influence

Fixed-action patterns: the response behavior always happens in the same way. We're interested in the trigger of that response. Most of the time, the trigger is valid, but sometimes it's misleading. This response is triggered because the load of information in our society is too big for our lazy brains, and we need shortcuts.

Give a reason/explanation when asking a favor; it increases its chances of being accepted. "Let me pass you because I'm in a hurry."

Expensive = good. Make the customer think "it's a bargain!". Pretend to discount an item from $100 to $50 while the actual price really is $40.

Contrast principle: When buying a $30k car, a $1k radio does not seem like much. Show a $500 suit first, then a $50 shirt to make the shirt look cheap. Also works the other way: clients won't buy if you first show the cheap item and then the expensive item.

Reciprocation

Reciprocity rule: We feel obliged to return favors because society looks down on ingrates. You can increase compliance by providing ... a small favor prior to a request. Benefactor-before-beggar strategy.

Why it works: The reciprocity rule promotes the initiation of trade without fear of loss. It is too socially beneficial for us to want to violate it. It's also hard to reject gifts, even unwanted ones. Since society looks down on ingrates, feeling obliged is disagreeable, and that makes us ready to give a lot to get out of such a disagreeable situation. Examples: political favors, "you don't bite the hand that feeds you".

Concessions: the basis of trade and negotiations. Example: Boy scout in the street sells expensive lottery tickets for $10 apiece. When we tell him no, he asks "what about a $1 lemonade then?". We're likely to say yes because we think he did a concession to us. Add the effect of the contrast principle: $1 is nothing compared to $10.

Commitment and consistency

Once we make a choice (e.g. bet on a horse, or pick one of two lovers), we stubbornly stick to it and back it up ("despite all his flaws, he has lots of qualities").

Why it works: Lazy brains use consistency so that they don't have to re-evaluate a decision all the time. We are under pressure to bring our self-image into line with our past actions. Hence, any request that goes in that direction will be accepted. Example: Phone call and ask people how they're doing. They answer "Great!". They just made a commitment. Continue with "Glad to hear it, because I'm calling in support of a charity for Orphans in Hospitals during Christmas ...".

Foot-in-the-door strategy: sell an undervalued item to transform prospects into customers. When they realize that they are customers of yours, they will come back to buy any item, even overpriced ones, by self-commitment.

Active, public, and effortful commitment is the most effective at changing the self-image. We accept responsibility for a behavior when we think we've chosen to perform it in the absence of strong outside pressures (ie rewards or threats did not justify the participation, yet you participated). Examples: Customers who write the sales contract down themselves are less likely to cancel orders or ask for refunds. Undergrads who choose to endure a fraternity hazing convince themselves it was worth it.

Low-balling: Promise people a reward (e.g. money or fame) if they do something repeatedly (e.g. save energy, take out the trash), and cancel that reward after a while. They are likely to keep doing it because in the meantime, they have built other reasons to support their new image (e.g. "I am the kind of person who saves the planet or helps someone").

Social proof

We find correct what people similar to us find correct (social evidence). Example: canned laughter in TV shows to signal that it's funny, or herd behavior.

Pluralistic ignorance: Lots of people, none of them knowing what's going on, are all looking at each other for clues of what to do. Since they can't find any, nobody does anything because everyone wants to stay poised in public. Even more efficient when people are in unfamiliar contexts (e.g. abroad or in fancy receptions).

Liking

Tupperware parties and obligation of friendship: people twice more likely to buy because from a friend than because the item is useful. Door-to-door marketing: simply mentioning "your friend X recommended you to us" is enough: turning the sales person away ... is almost like rejecting the friend.

We like and are more likely to favor good-looking people and people similar to us. We generally believe compliments and those who give them.

Cooperation: when cooperation is required to achieve common goals, and each party has a part of the solution, it can turn enemies into collaborators, and then friends. For example, Bad Cop puts pressure on the interviewee, so that Good Cop looks like he's cooperating with the interviewee, and makes him comply with his requests.

Association: we hate people who bring bad news, and we tend to prefer products who are advertised by good-looking people. The association does not have to be logical, just positive. See also Pavlov's dog. Similarly, when our national team the soccer world cup, we feel associated with their success: "we won!". But when the team loses, "they lost!". We are particularly eager to bask in reflected glory when our image has been recently diminished.

Authority

Milgram experiment and its addition: instead of a single authority figure asking to give shocks, have two authority figures giving conflicting orders (shock vs don't shock). The subject tries to see who is the boss of who.

Clothes and titles: an actor disguised as a doctor in a TV ad gives more credibility to the medicine. Security guard uniform doubles the rate of people who give a dime to another person for parking. When jaywalker in business suit, people are more likely to mimic him.

Important things and people are seen as taller. Yet the more a category of people is concerned by a mark of authority (e.g. students by teachers, or males by cars), the more that category underestimates the authority's impact on them.

Scarcity

We are more motivated by not loosing something, than by gaining something of equal value.

Reactance: as we're losing opportunities, we feel like we're losing freedoms. Since we hate losing freedoms, especially those most recently acquired, we'll fight to keep them. We'll also give those freedoms more importance or qualities than before. Example: 2-year-old kids discover they have a body of their own (a form of freedom newly acquired). They'll say no to everything to check their new boundaries. Same with teens realizing they can be independent of their parents: they fight parental authority.

Scarcity works on objects: ban phosphate use and people start finding it more useful. It also works on persons: cf the Romeo and Juliet effect: because their parents forbid it, their love is bigger. It also works on information: tell supermarkets that beef is scarce and that it's rare to know that beef is scarce increases sales by 6x. It also works on rights and ideas: forbid a book to minors and 1) they want to read it more, and 2) more of them think they're going to like it.

Temporal scarcity: examples include "available only this week" or pausing a face-to-face conversation to take a phone call because "he may not call again!". Being put in competition with other people (e.g. auctions) is even more efficient.

Scarcity creates a desire that has little to do with the merit of the commodity. The joy is not in experiencing a scarce commodity, but in possessing it.

[Literature] Game Balance ch5 - The human-side of probabilities

My notes from course 5 of the Game Balance class of Summer 2010, by Ian Schreiber.

The more randomness in a game, the more casual it is: there are fewer strategic choices. Less randomness means more of the fate of the game lies in the player’s choices. That’s not always the case, though. Ex: TicTacToe has no randomness, but is not about skill. Other counter-example: a Poker hand is random, but there are skilled Poker players.
Skill dominates (over luck) if the player is rewarded for predicting and/or responding to the randomness. Ex: one can base his decision on probabilities in Poker, but not in Black Jack.
There is no skill in executing a difficult pattern that you’ve practiced (eg counting your hand or memorizing cards in BlackJack). Skill appears in planned, successful and unexpected decisions.
Luck can be carefully increased to even the playing field. Ex: headshots make it possible for weaker players to sometimes luckily kill better players. Head shooting is also a high-level skill. How much luck or skill a game should have depends on the target population: social games and kid games = luck, hardcore games = skill.
How to transform skill into luck:

• replace player choices by dice rolls
• throw less dices (so that there is no law of large numbers, hence less prediction)
• increase the impact of random events on the game state
• increase the range of randomness (like changing a d6 roll to a d20 roll)

Human biases

Humans tend to remember things that happen the least often, or forget those who are unpleasant (eg match loss), hence they tend to overestimate their level. Humans have a flawed understanding of probabilities, hence showing the actual probabilities will actually make them feel like something is wrong/broken. Here are a bunch of biases humans are subject to:

selection bias	improbable but memorable events are seen as more likely than they really are
self-serving bias	"unlikely" (5%) is interpreted as "nearly impossible" (0.01%) when the odds are in your favor. However, "unlikely" (5%) is interpreted as "possible" (30%) when the odds are not in your favor.
attribution bias	positive random result is assumed to be because of a player’s skill, negative random result is assumed to be bad luck/cheating
anchoring	over-evaluation of the first/biggest number seen. Ex: losing 2/3 of the trials is not as bad as losing 20/10 of the trials. Consequence: small base dmg but high bonus dmg = player likely to underestimate.
gambler's fallacy	assumption that a string of identical results reduces the chance the string will continue
hot-hand fallacy	assumption that a string of identical results increases the chance the string will continue

Ethics

Dishonest game design = make the players believe they are very likely to win. It increases excitement and anticipation of hitting a jackpot. Hence it keeps them engaged. Ex: dishonest car dealership: show VERY big prices first to anchor the customer, then show "normal" big prices: they look like small prices.
Honest game design = tell the player one thing, but actually do something else. Examples:

• If the player has 75% chance of winning, under the hood roll the number as if it were 95%.
• If the player gets a failure, make the next failure less likely, and the one after that even less likely (= avoid long streaks)
• Hot-hand streaks should happen in a positive feedback loop, to counteract the greater chance of a miss after a string of hits (ie give bonuses when series of wins)

But also, stay ethical as much as possible. Display wins, losses and various stats to enable players to grasp their actual skill and to "prove" the game is not unfair/imbalanced or that the AI is not cheating.

Saving

In a game where the player can save anywhere at any time, players are likely to save just before an important roll, and keep reloading until their roll succeeds.

• Naive solution: do not re-generate the random number each time they reload => new problem: players can now anticipate future rolls (the seed has not changed).
• Alternate solution: the player can save anywhere, but the total number of saves is limited (cf the original Tomb Raider) => new problem: players need to know how far apart they should save on average so that in the end of the game, they still can save.

[Literature] A theory of Fun for Game Design

Raph Koster. 2004. A Theory of Fun for Game Design. Paraglyph Press.

Quotes taken from Koster's book. I did not try to put them together in a meaningful way, I just copy-pasted those I found most interesting.

ch3: What games are

The only real difference between games and reality is that the stakes are lower with games.
The more formally constructed your game is, the more limited it will be. Long-lasting games integrate variables from outside the magic circle.
Fun from games arises out of mastery.
With games, learning is the drug. Fun is just another word for learning.

ch4: What games teach us

Most of the game designers working professionally today are self-taught.
Games are viewed as frivolity.
Games almost always teach us tools for being the top monkey.
Most games encourage demonizing the opponent. Can we create games that instead offer us greater insight into how the modern world works?
There has not been a topologically different 2d shooter since [the first 2d shooter to have power ups and bosses and scrolling]. Unsurprisingly, the shooter genre has stagnated and lost market share.
Algorithm for innovation: find a new dimension to add to the gameplay

ch5: What games are not

One of the most self-defeating rallying cry in history: "it's just a game"
The part of games that is least understood is the formal abstract system portion of it, the mathematical part of it. Games need to develop this formal aspect of themselves in order to improve.
This is why gamers are dismissive of the ethical implications of games. They do not see "get a blowjob from a hooker then run her over", they see a power up.
Since games are generally about power, control, and those other primitive things, the stories tend to be so as well.
When games and stories are good, you can come back to them repeatedly and keep learning something new.
Getting emotional effects out of games may be the wrong approach. Perhaps a better question is whether stories can be fun in the way games can.
Different kinds of enjoyment:

• fun is the act of mastering a problem mentally
• aesthetic appreciation
• visceral reactions are generally physical and relate to the physical mastery of a problem
• social status maneuvers, intrinsic to our self-image and our standing in a community

Aesthetics is about recognizing patterns, not learning new ones.
Delight does not last. Recognition is not an extended process.
Fun is the feedback the brain gives us when we are absorbing patterns for learning purposes. Real fun comes from challenges that are always at the margin of our ability.
Fun is contextual. The reason why we are engaging in an activity matter a lot.

ch6: Different fun for different folks

Since brains have different strengths and weaknesses, different people will have different ideal games.
People will usually choose to play the games they are good at, that reflect their strength.

ch7: The problem with learning

Players try to find the optimal path to getting to the ultimate goal.
Exploiters are often the most expert players of a game.
Since we dislike tedium, we'll allow unpredictability, but only in the confines of predictable boxes, like games or TV shows. Unpredictability means new patterns to learn, therefore unpredictability is fun.
Those of us who want games to be fun are fighting a losing battle against the human brain because fun is a process and routine is its destination.
If there is not a quantifiable advantage to doing something [reward], the brain will discard it.
Successful games incorporate:

• preparation [choices made before a given challenge], otherwise it's chance. Can the player prepare in different ways and still succeed?
• a sense of space, otherwise it's trivial. Does the environment affect the challenge?
• core mechanics
• challenges [= content] otherwise it's too short. Can the rule set support multiple types of challenges?
• a range of abilities (otherwise it's simplistic). Can the player bring multiple abilities to bear on the challenge? At high levels of difficulty, does the player have to bring multiple abilities?
• abilities should require skill. Not requiring skill from a player should be considered a cardinal sin in game design.

A learning experience require:

• variable feedback (a greater skill should lead to better reward). Are there multiple success states (ie no guaranteed result)?
• high-level players can not get benefits from easy encounters or they will bottom feed.
• failure must have a cost. Player should have the ability to try again (with another preparation round).

ch8: The problem with people

Particular problems and solutions appeal to particular brain types.
Games are not there to fulfill power fantasies.
[The increasing complexity of games within a genre] has led to a priesthood of those who can master the intricacies. Newcomers can not get into them - the barrier for entry is too high.
Designeritis [= being] hypersensitive to patterns in games.
Given the lack of codification and critique of what games are, game designers have instead operated under the more guild-like model of apprenticeship. They do what they have seen work.

ch9: Games in context

The following chart can be applied to any medium.

User goal	Collaborative	Competitive	Solo
Constructive	Community Team game design	Job Commercial game development	Hobby Modding
Experiential	Performance PVE	Sport PVP	Audience Single player games
Deconstructive	Teaching Strategy guide writing	Criticism Hack and cheats	Analysis Writing this book

It's a lot easier to fail to respond to a painting than to fail to respond to a game.
The closer we get to understand the basic building blocks of games (...) the more likely we are to achieve the height of art.

ch10: The ethics of entertainment

For games to really develop as a medium, they need to further develop the ludemes, not just the dressing. By and large, however, the industry has spent its time improving the dressing [...] It's just easy relative to the true challenge.
The best test of a game's fun [is] playing the game with no graphics, no music, no sound, no story, no nothing.
Ethical questions [in games] are aimed at the dressing.
The ludemes themselves can have social values.
As a medium, we have to earn the right to be taken seriously.

ch11: Where games should go

For games to really step up to the plate, they need to provide us with insights into ourselves.
When you feed a player [with a game], right now, we only know "fun" and "boring". Mastery of the medium of games will have to imply authorial intent. The formal systems must be capable of invoking desired learning patterns.

ch12: Taking their rightful place

Games need to develop a critical vocabulary so that understanding of our field can be shared.
Games will never be mature so long as designers create them with complete answers to their own puzzles in mind.

Epilogue

The challenge game designers face is "how do we create games that do not have one right answer?"
[Game designers] are not geeks in the basement rolling funny-shaped dice. Games deserve respect.