How to let the gamer have emotions from game? ....More data!

Don't worry. I am still learning how to use Skinner box in game design.

 

I am not making an argument about what is easiest. Only what is correct which is that emotion can come from more than data. Suppose we agree that I'm right. In that case, the discussion is over. I haven't made a case about anything else.

Humans have made a lot of progress. I guess that means that one day we will be able to reverse gravity, move black holes, make a square circle, and teleport. Making progress doesn't mean that eventually you will be able to do everything.
NOTE: I don't know about whether AI will be able to make games better than humans one day as I don't know enough about that subject (although I suspect that they won't be able to). I am just pointing out that the "logic" that you used to get to your conclusion is quite illogical.

 

Before I reorganize my statement about data evoke emotions in game.

What do you think below statements by Murgilod.

 

I'm not sure but my guess would be that what is most important about making a game successful is dependent on the target audience. To be clear, Murgilod was talking about a game being successful, not the game being good.

 

Do you mean bad game can succeed? Examples please.

 

The new simcity riding on past glory turn out to be pure garbage and was over taken by cities skyline.

Point beign it did sell when it first cameout.

 

It is certainly not unheard of for a bad game to succeed... For example, the game Identity received $187,859 in kickstarter backings yet is considered a horrible game. They were able to do this by feeding off of people who wanted a standalone version of RP mods like the Arma 3: Life mods and GTA V RP mods.

 

https://store.steampowered.com/app/...lator_2015_Do_You_Still_Shower_With_Your_Dad/

 

Now I made one prototype based on my thoughts of game design. I designed a lot of data first, no mechanics. Then I will develop mechanics to support these data.
https://forum.unity.com/threads/my-current-prototype-for-a-survival-strategy-game.738950/

 

Right, the exact opposite of what everyone successful does...

 

So, what these successful do? How do you know I am on the opposite side? How do you know the opposite not work?

 

Successful developers always talk about how they created the mechanics first.

You told us.

I'm not completely certain it doesn't work except in the sense that I have never heard of a successful developer doing it.

 

That did not answer the question:
What can we do in this thread to help you accept that your entire premise is incorrect?

Are you saying that nothing will make you accept that your entire premise is incorrect? If so, then what is your purpose even coming here and opening up the discussion? Do you just want people to agree with you? And if they don't what does that mean?

Can you even compromise at all?

 

My topic is data evoke emotions in game. And you said game play evoke emotions instead. I couldn't agree with your opinion. Bad game also has game play, but not evoke good emotions. Boring game also has game play. So on so on. You couldn't convince me that game play evoke emotions.

 

Bad games also have data and do not evoke good emtions? "You couldn't convince me that game play evoke emotions."
Discussion over. We can leave now.

 

Good point. So I will modify my statement. I want to apply Skinner box theory into the data design. I am still thinking it. For instance, incremental game has very boring game play, but many people are addicted to it just because of increasing number.

 

Do they create game design document before they create mechanics? or they do them at the same time?

 

I see the "fail fast" argument didn't really sit well.

 

What are you thinking of when you say "game design document"? Because there is no single definition of a GDD. I've known people who have never made a single GDD, and I've known people who insist that there be one, and out of the people who insist that one exists there are many variations.

 

My GDDs all look like this

 

Emotions in games are driven by accomplishment or failure. Beating a difficult level in Frogger can bring excitement, even out loud cheers. Where's the statistics, the data? No, the emotion came from barely getting ahead of that truck, from getting off that log right at the edge of the screen with milliseconds to spare.

Losing in the final circle of PUBG can bring just as strong of emotions. The game tracks statistics of shots fired, kills, etc, but the emotion didn't come from those. It came from investing the last 30 minutes into a game and almost winning. "No! I shouldn't have peaked the edge of that building!" No statistic tracks that, no data tracks whether trying to look around that corner was going to give away my position or help me spot my opponent's. I peaked, he was already down his scope watching that corner, and that was that - I lose.

Any data and statistics involved are just a means to setting up experiences which can deliver emotions, but they don't themselves deliver emotions.

 

Experience is so abstract, and have no ways to measure. Since data can set up experience and can be measured directly. Why not use data (as experience equivalence) in game design? If we can see data equals experience, then in this case we can say data deliver emotions.

 

How small or how big the accomplishment or failure are?

 

I'm lost, what is the point of this thread?

 

Why I can't say, the experiences are involved are just a means to help data and statistics which can deliver emotions.

 

Who deliver emotions in game? My point is : ff emotions are not strong , then adding more data.

 

There is no evidence you have GDDs, because you let your designer polish the game.

 

What does data even mean? You mention attributes in your first post. How does this apply to non-rpg games? What data should I add to a platform to elicit an emotional response?

 

Data mean anything that can be measured in game. For instance, how many life, how many golds, how many accomplishments, how many enemies killed.

But for platform, even I am not family with this genre, I know rougelike is popular. Then how many rougelike

 

So data -> stuff in a game. So your point is to elicit emotion add more stuff?

What?

 

What's the relationship of data and stuff? Do stuff means experience or just artwork and game play that build experience?

 

I don't know, but when you say "anything that can be measured in game", I understand "stuff".

I am trying to make you become more specific, or to bring up specific examples, something so I can understand what you're saying.

What's an example where data made you have an emotional response?

 

Experience delivering emotions isn't helpful for game design. Because Apple can say that, Starbucks can say that, and McDonald can say that.

 

Extreme examples
You can search Skinner box in game design, and gamers are addicted to power or weapons in game( power and weapons are data, and can be traded by money to very detailed number)

 

I AM the designer, you clown.

 

But you said you are a consultant for firing.

 

Yes. I don't know if you get this, but I can do several things. It's called having a side gig.

 

Yeah, you mentioned that before. And... No.

Thing is, I hate B. F. Skinner. He took the worst elements from behaviourism and somehow made them even worse.

As I said, from what you're saying, it seems you are on your way to make a game that I will absolutely despise, so I guess I have nothing to contribute in this thread.

 

Actually, since you're intent on showing your ass to the whole damn forum, here's a rundown of what I do:

• I do hiring consultation work, usually for graphic artists, but sometimes for various design roles, from systems designer to game designer
• I'm the designer on my own projects, along with taking on the artist and programming roles. I tend to focus on non-photorealistic rendering
• I'm also a writer, both for a book I'm working on about design, and for my own projects
• I dabble in music, but I'm not any good at it
• I also do some activist work, including but not limited to union issues in games and periodically contributing time to homeless outreach programs
• For a while, I operated the only real convenience store in a small town in the Arctic Circle
• I also had some boring retail jobs that don't matter much
• On top of all this, I studied anthropology and archaeology in university
• Before all that though? I was still doing things related to games. I was making Doom WADs probably well before you were even born.

 

What can I say?

 

If you don't know your enemy, how do you fight them?

 

Of course you can say that. People say incorrect things all the time. The people listening to what you say can determine on their own how valuable your opinion is on the topic.

 

The point is the same as every hongwaixuexi Game Design thread. Every one of his threads are a simple formula.

1) hongwaixuexi makes a nonsensical claim in the OP based on a quick reading of some book or website, never from a position of experience
2) Forum users dispute the claim from step 1, providing their own counter arguments
3) hongwaixuexi defends claim from step 1 no matter what, and mischaracterizes or ignores all counter arguments, never actually listening to anything anyone else says

 

Emotions are abstract, with no way to measure.

 

Do you have a feeling that making a successful game is like hitting a jackpot? Most of us follow routine procedure to learn game design theory, watch tutorials or go into classes. But only a few can make successful games. There exists
survivor bias when we watched one indie game made a big success, but behind that 100 games are failures. Do the 100 games take wrong way to make? They all take the same way to make the game like the success one does.

Take make-sense procedure, take make-sense theory, then get make-sense results peacefully, only 7% indies can survive.

Do you see the problem? Only 7% indies can survive because they follow current make sense claims.

 

In everyone of these threads you attack anyone giving you advice. Is that the behavior that gets you into that 7%? Does ignoring the real world experience of others improve or hurt your own chances of success?

 

I think it's a discussion. I don't mean to attack anyone.

 

Discussions involve both parties listening to each other. None of your Game Design threads are a discussion.

 

My point is: make sense theory lead to 7% survival rate, and why not doubt make sense?

 

Listening to each other doesn't mean you can't exchange ideas freely.