Throwing Out the Dopamine Shots: Reward Psychology Without the Neurotrash
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ค. 2024
- In this GDC 2017 talk, Epic Games' Ben Lewis-Evans dispels the neuromyths around dopamine to focus on the psychology behind reward systems in game design.
GDC talks cover a range of developmental topics including game design, programming, audio, visual arts, business management, production, online games, and much more. We post a fresh GDC video every weekday. Subscribe to the channel to stay on top of regular updates, and check out GDC Vault for thousands of more in-depth talks from our archives.
Follow us on Twitter
/ official_gdc
Check out our Facebook page for GDC exclusives
/ gamedevelopersconference
Visit our site: ubm.io/2ctNvqZ
what he said at the end. everybody talks about how awesome it feels after you beat a challenging game. but outside of maybe some rage games it doesn't seem like anybody is really thinking about how it feels to be unable to beat the challenge.
2017 heres some cool lootbox ideas > 2019 no one touches lootboxes with a 10 foot pole. Some very interesting insights both in the talk and seeing how quickly things can change in an industry over time.
a deeply appreciated release thankyou.
Great research, big thx!
amazing talk, very insightful
Great talk
You can roll the ball with the arrows in peggle, its mostly skill if you play right.
25:26 - Fallout 4... "A settlement has asked for our help", "We have to retake the castle!".
Sincerely you are a great audience by the way.....where am I again?
Why those questions all about greed in mobal?
When the girl asked about sales I was thinking about Riot's model. He concurred with their model.
But I want to make so addictive game that people playing it will forget to take their crack cocaine fix.
I feel like this dude didn't work on Fortnite or he did and wasn't utilized by the team.
Idea - If you are creating a zero sum game, where one player has to lose for another to win, then give the loser a minor reward like energy drink/bar, to compensate them for being beaten, to encourage them to keep on playing.
I guess an XP system does that, so even if your team gets thrashed you still get something from it. It's also good because you can lose but still get rewarded based on how good a resistance you put up, this can also keep the losing team in the fight even after they can clearly see that they've lost the match.
Yes this is infact how the modern social-market state operates. Those who are losing economically can claim a token power-up from the government to keep them in the game. Nobody can live with being at zero.
The act of playing the game should be engaging enough for the player. If victory is the only way to be engaged it could be easily argued that the game is not a good one. Rewards and feedback shouldn’t need to change wether or not the player is playing against humans, the game systems or the AI. If they player needs rewards for a loss state in simply because they are playing another human that is an issue with their own ego.
@@tensevo Welfare is more analogous to the game playing itself on your behalf. It also disincentivises the player taking the wheel, because as soon as they do the game takes away the easy points they were getting for doing nothing.
Those at zero, those who are losing the game, both in reality and virtual reality are directly incentivized to "flip the table over". It is best for everyone playing the game that those at zero, are kept in the game. I understand the benefit trap (rewarding failure), but that comes down to a poorly designed game. Players should benefit enough to keep on playing, but rewarded more from acting in a way that fair and pleasing to everyone else playing the game. Otherwise, underworlds of chaos and anarchy are created by those losing the main game.
"Over twenty percent of people have more than three reports? Maybe multiplayer games _are_ infested with garbage people."
well yes but also those same garbage people report normal or even good players for garbage reasons, so even more people have reports even if they don't deserve them.
RIP Paragon :(
this man looks like nick frost slightly
I miss Paragon
I expected "neurotrash" to refer to cheap, underhanded tactics to get people to engage with their game without learning anything new or being faced with a meaningful challenge, but this was a pretty uncritical survey of different ways developers of games or apps cause people to feel compelled to interact with those apps. I guess I should've have expected different from someone in the industry.
That was my expectation, too. This was a good survey, but not much more.
Make a good game. :)
Human motivation mechanism: a psychologist (PhD) pov
Most people seem to confuse technology with science.
Which came first technology or science?
as language is technology to comunicate it goes all the way to technology
@@bara-9136 Yes! technology has been around since the beginning but the scientific method wasn't perfected until a few hundred years ago, so it wasn't even possible to do science before that. The transistor was discovered without the scientific method. Medicine is non-scientific (applied science) even though people will swear to you that it is. I wonder sometimes what we actually use science for, or who even does it anymore?
Fire is tech. But you gotta experiment to invent tech.
@@badwolf8112 Experimenting doesn't mean your doing science though, and this is part of the big misconception I think. Anyone can experiment, my niece experiments with her baking recipes, and she is very good at it. But it has nothing to do with science or the scientific method.
"This thing is awesome... just like we did in Paragon!"
"...also this thing works.... just like we did in Paragon!"
"...this is a good thing as well... just like we did in Paragon!"
All those god-awesome science behind it, where is Paragon now? Surely it must be doing great! Oh wait!....
They didn't use dopamine releases to continue working on this game so it fall apart.
Did it fail because of these design choices, or because of other reasons?
@@grudley Fortnite
Paragon´s card system(p2w at low levels) and terrible, terrible matchmaking( unrewarding for all players, good and bad), made me very skeptic to take his advice.
A bad implementation does not necessarily result from a bad advice, although there is never anything wrong with a moderate ammount of skepticism.
I get ya, but in reality he's pretty much picking apart what kind of strategies can lead to effective rewards in video games, if you isolate them it works, but you still have to put a good engaging game on top of it. There's no recipe for success, more of a checklist of what to consider when making a feature and how is gonna affect your consumer, something that he address in the end of the video.
Hugo Fernandes also remember he very much wouldnt have 100% control over these systems and their implementation
I really can't understand people who play clickers.
its not NA2 its NH2, omg get your stuff right
what a dismal view of making something fun...
Why is it every speaker does the "Who has heard of X basic concept? Everyone? Good, now let me restate it for you." Thing. So tedious.
jak's point is that the speaker is going to explain regardless of the audience response, it is a rhetorical question that has become cliche and provides nothing to the overall discussion. Don't get me wrong, rhetorical questions aren't completely irrelevant, but it is easy to use rhetorical questions poorly which I think "Who has heard of X basic concept?" is a prime example of. From my perspective, it's like the speaker is pretending to care. In a round about way, its like a magician asking for a volunteer from the audience only to choose their own pre-picked assistant anyway.
Interaction. If the speaker just talks in a monotone voice for an hour the audience starts to not listen, so you pull them back with a question. Also, if only one guy knew what he was talking about he would have to explain in more detail, since everyone knew he just dedicated 30 seconds to it, instead of say 5 minutes.
Nothing wrong with treading well worn paths.
Couldn't be said better
It’s used to discern how technical and in-depth their explanations need to be. If everyone has a basic knowledge, than he can get more specific relatively quickly. If not, then he may only have time for giving out the basics.
I love this talk but the stuttering is unbearable