Online Game Design Theory Questioned

hergin writes "In his recent column, Engines of Creation, Dave Rickey reviews Richard Bartle's new book on online game design and questions many of the basic precepts: 'I believe that if [a theory relating to a game mechanic] isn't testable and disprovable, it's not a theory, it's simply an argument.'" The article goes on: "It is possible to create meaningful social theories and test them, through online games... Handwaving in the direction of 'game experience as Hero's Journey' (as Dr. Bartle does extensively) may be an intellectually satisfying exercise, but how can it be tested?"

bah

[chadamir]

How is his idea on theories breakthough? Karl Popper defined a theory as such about 100 years ago. Are computer programmers just catching up to modern scientific philosophy? I doubt it. Sounds like typical book publisher hype.

100 Years Ago?

[GreenKnightPublishin]

Karl Popper must have been quite a man to have, 100 years ago, predicted the World Wide Web and virtual societies like EverQuest and Ultima Online. Richard Bartle's argument that theories have to be disprovable needs to take a step back -- they should at least provide a guidance on how to prove them in the first place. We can disprove theories as well as we can disprove opinions. We can even disprove facts if we refuse to agree to underlying assumptions and axioms and contexts. I believe that game design -- and Internet game community design -- is still far more of a black art than it is a science at this point. While there are tremendous strides being made in game sciences -- mathematical theories, huge studies being made -- the vast majority of the successful games toss the "game science" out the window and go to the heart of it: FUN! That's emotional. That's visceral. That's where the money is. In pure, unadulterated joy. While many game designers believe they can work like pure scientists and "manufacture fun," at best all they can do is incent certain forms of fun. Fun is not testable. Fun is not provable. Until we have calculus that proves "fun", then gaming is an art to me. Some aspects of game science are just now starting to address markets, psychology and desires in players. However, most of what I see is not really science. Or if it is science, it's a nascent science -- ludology. It's not 100 years old, no matter what people might like to believe. Elements of what we might call Internet game sciences can go back millennia, but what we have today is a new field, brought upon us only since 1984 when the Arpanet changed to the Internet, and moreso, when the World Wide Web started to take off in 1994. The question is -- what game theory can we postulate now that will be provable when sciences catch up with it in the next 20-30 years? My prediction is: we shall have Internet game economies, where there will be people who make their living off of servicing Internet game economies like vendors at ballgames. And we will see our first professional online game players -- those who are paid salaries to play games, like actors in Hollywood, or like sports figures on a professional circuit. We are not there yet -- but in the future, there will be professional gamers. And there will be professional scientists -- from psychologists to economists -- who will study game worlds to learn what they can through simulation, and how it effects individual and group social behavior in the real world.

Professional

[GreenKnightPublishin]

Before anyone jumps down my throat "There are people already earning their way playing Counterstrike" and other folks who are minting new online game items, etc., hear me out... This is just the "cottage industry" times. I'm talking more like "player unions" -- Actor's Equity or Major League Baseball. Recognition of this as a profession you go to college for. Something you can even get a scholarship for.

Re:100 Years Ago?

[Godeke]

Richard Bartle's argument that theories have to be disprovable needs to take a step back

Actually, Richard Bartle wrote the book *without* that assumption, and was being taken to task by the articles author.

Re:100 Years Ago?

[kalidasa]

Excellent posting, Godeke.

Karl Popper must have been quite a man to have, 100 years ago, predicted the World Wide Web and virtual societies like EverQuest and Ultima Online. Richard Bartle's argument that theories have to be disprovable needs to take a step back -

Karl Popper set forth the basic intellectual framework for modern scientific inquiry - what distinguishes scientific theory from non-scientific inquiry. Popper argued that a theory is an argument based upon observations that makes predictions

Re:bah

[Zerth]

100 years ago? Unless you're talking about a differ Karl Popper, the guy wasn't born till 1902, so unless he was a real child prodigy, perhaps you are confused?

Are you referring to his preference for negatively verifiable theories, stated around 1934?

wow, someone else who has heard of Popper and

[DrunkClam]

wow, someone else who has heard of Popper and falsifiability. It was actually more like 50 years ago. But its the same theory. Bear in mind that "falsifiability" can't determini if a theory is true or not. Only if it is scientific or not. for those not in the know http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Philosophy /Philosophers/Popper,_Karl/ [google.com]

Speaking of handwaving...?

[blacklite001]

What the hell is this claptrap and what does it actually have to do with the real art of putting together good, successful games that people actually want to play?

I have a very difficult time with the idea that game designers sit down and plan a game around the modification of social dynamics and provable theory. Maybe a few niche games are like that, but I can't imagine that is part of the ingredients for an entertaining game.

Maybe, in the future, it will be like the movie industry, and we'll have Art Games (that no one will actually play) and Experimental Games, and then the things that people actually enjoy.

Beyond that, I wouldn't be surprised if we get enjoyable, artistic masterpieces, but those are a long way off. At this point we have a new technology, a new sector in the game industry, and we're having fun with it.

Because they're games. Really. Just games.

Re:Speaking of handwaving...?

[alphaseven]

Maybe, in the future, it will be like the movie industry, and we'll have Art Games (that no one will actually play) ...

They already do have a game like that, ICO. Critics loved it, widely considered the best example of art in a video game, and nearly no one bought it.

Re:Speaking of handwaving...?

[pommiekiwifruit]

Hey, I bought it. It's OK. The framerate's a bit slow :-)

ICO

[xenocide2]

Two things plagued ICO. First, a lack of promotion. The only reason I heard about it was Penny Arcade. Although they were talking about the ICO version on a demo disk, so there wasn't a total failure of advertising.

This wouldn't nessecarily doom a game. If a game is compelling and robust enough, word of mouth might be able to carry it along. The problem is that the game is too short. The action is somewhat clunky compared to Zelda. And those damn birds haul Yorda off so fast if you're not near the portal t

Re:Speaking of handwaving...?

[pythorlh]

Not to tell you to RTFA, but Rickey makes his point. In short, awhile back, nobody thought PVP games were worth making, because PVP servers for existing games were poorly populated. They assumed that only a small number of players wanted PVP. Rickey's theory was that the 'population pressure' on PVP servers was higher, so people went to non-PVP servers. He predicted that more content would mean a lower pressure, and more players would join the PVP servers. Release an expansion pack, and voila... PVP se

Re:Speaking of handwaving...?

[ksquire]

For what it's worth, a number of commercial game designers (i.e. Raph Koster, of Ultima Online / Star Wars Galaxies) use Bartle's ideas in developing commercial games. At the very least, it provides a language for thinking about different player types. I know that Richard is active in the MUD dev community [kanga.nu], where his ideas are taken very seriously and held in generally high regard as well.

As for games as art, I'd also cite Rez, Ico, Frequency, GTA3... but why not go back to some oldies like guns n butte

Social Design of Games

[GreenKnightPublishin]

Game designers can indeed give reasonable, logical forethought to the type of behavior they are trying to incent, and build rewards into their game to steer players towards game and community goals.

If they incent cut-throat destruction and murder, ruthless efficiency and theft, that is what they will get more often than not.

If they incent community building, cooperation, relaxation, and generosity, they might get that more often than not.

However, just because you incent something does not mean you wil

Asking the right questions

[DanielCSilverstein]

Disclosure: I work for Skotos [skotos.net] where Rickey's column is published.

As someone from a hard science background, I sympathize with Rickey's desire for testable hypotheses, but I also wonder if this will prohibitively limit the scope of inquiry. It is one thing to know that there is a natural limit on the population density of a PvP server. It is quite another thing to combine that fact, perhaps with numerous other facts gleaned from testable hypotheses, into a cohesive theory of game design that allows you to answer the one million user question: "Is it fun?"

Re:Asking the right questions

[leitz]

But is giving theory in a way that sounds authoritative proper? Or is it a way to write a book? I think game designers are a fairly intelligent lot (exceptions may abound) who are at least aware of many social dynamics. Whether or not they code around them purposfully or by guess is another matter. They may also *not* code around dynamics that may hinder the game either technically or in the user experience. Perhaps the theory of games could be better studied and the level of game increased. This does lin

mechanic?

[floydigus]

[a theory relating to a game mechanic]
mechanism, shurely?

Re:mechanic?

[Palshife]

mechanism, shurely?

Surely, surely?

Re:mechanic?

[floydigus]

How troo, how trew.

Also of Note

[Bruha]

Dr Bartle works for the Themis Group a company that has a unique specialty of promoting online games. You can find his company bio here. [themis-group.com]