You've Got Mind on the Brain

[Steve S]

So many people are pushing to reinforce the wholly material mind. While modern science may suggest that thought itself is caused by a material brain, it doesn't take a brain scientist to observe general human nature. In other words, you don't need a book on the brain to tell you that people react positively to the work-reward system, when the reward is ample that is, and negatively when the reward doesn't meet their expectations.

You're looking too deeply into the science of the issue. The fact of the matter is simply that the action-reward system is mediocre in many people's minds. Yet people (both developers and consumers alike) are unwilling to shift their focus towards something like, say, enjoyment (instead of reward).

Addressing the issue is a lot more fundamental than people make it out to be, though I'll admit it does make a good article. ;)

[MahrinSkel]

The difference is that between correlation and causation. Current psychological theories aren't really worthy of the name, they are generally non-disprovable, non-conclusive, and non-exclusive, incredibly ornate "rules of thumb" at best.

The apparent usefulness of psychology in online game design ends at behaviourism, IMO. So I've been looking to neurology (especially neuro-cognitive studies) and evolutionary anthropology lately. It doesn't take a thorough science of the mind to make the games we've got now, any more than it takes a solid theory of aerodynamics to build a kite.

Shifting from simple compulsive reward systems to something oriented around "fun" requires a *definition* of "fun" that is useful in the engineering sense. Psychology as currently practiced is never going to provide that, and explorations of consciousness *not* related to neural activity are best left to theologians.

--Dave

[Steve S]

Originally posted by MahrinSkel
Shifting from simple compulsive reward systems to something oriented around "fun" requires a *definition* of "fun" that is useful in the engineering sense. Psychology as currently practiced is never going to provide that, and explorations of consciousness *not* related to neural activity are best left to theologians.
Saying you need to define "fun" is making the issue more complicated than it needs to be. Certainly the enjoyment is subjective for each gamer, but estimations and gut feelings seem to me to be more productive than mulling over the definition of "fun."