Addictive game-design is not necessarily good
Addictive game-design. It seems to be what developers are going for these days, especially in the mobile arena. They want users to be addicted so that these users will fork down money for microtransactions, or just keep playing the game. Aren't these good things? Not necessarily. I believe that satisfying game-design is better than addictive game-design.
Addictive game-design is inherently unsatisfying, because why would you keep playing a game if you were satisfied? Addictive game-design has you nearly tasting satisfaction, but never lets you lick it. Instead, the metaphorical carrot is constantly dangling in front of you while you run towards it, arms flailing wildly towards it. Maybe you get to lick it once in a while, or you get a piece of the carrot, but you never get the full carrot. You never get the satisfaction of scarfing that carrot whole.
Satisfying game-design is better because it can also be addictive. Satisfying games, for example, are complete games that can end, but are infinitely replayable. Super Mario World is a satisfying game. The first eight hours of Alien Isolation is a satisfying game.
Sexual intercourse is an activity that ends, but is infinitely replayed because it is satisfying. What if no one ever achieved orgasm? That would be unsatisfying. It might be addictive, though. You might experience one second of orgasm if sexual intercourse was designed like a microtransaction-heavy smartphone-game.
I know that the main reason for addictive game-design is to make money, but there must be a better way to make money and satisfy gamers at the same time.
Addictive game-design is inherently unsatisfying, because why would you keep playing a game if you were satisfied? Addictive game-design has you nearly tasting satisfaction, but never lets you lick it. Instead, the metaphorical carrot is constantly dangling in front of you while you run towards it, arms flailing wildly towards it. Maybe you get to lick it once in a while, or you get a piece of the carrot, but you never get the full carrot. You never get the satisfaction of scarfing that carrot whole.
Satisfying game-design is better because it can also be addictive. Satisfying games, for example, are complete games that can end, but are infinitely replayable. Super Mario World is a satisfying game. The first eight hours of Alien Isolation is a satisfying game.
Sexual intercourse is an activity that ends, but is infinitely replayed because it is satisfying. What if no one ever achieved orgasm? That would be unsatisfying. It might be addictive, though. You might experience one second of orgasm if sexual intercourse was designed like a microtransaction-heavy smartphone-game.
I know that the main reason for addictive game-design is to make money, but there must be a better way to make money and satisfy gamers at the same time.
Comments
Post a Comment