The first "Game Design Theory" public account
introduction
In recent months, I have found that one of my fatal problems is that I always want to study some abstract models and frameworks, build a system, and guide the future design of games once and for all.
There is nothing wrong with this goal in itself, but what is wrong is to focus only on the abstract and ignore the concrete.
My observation of the player's real behavior and emotions is so lacking that abstract logic is likely to be a castle in the air that simply doesn't land or is grounded.
The specific logical relationship is not fully grasped,The abstract concept is likely to be a castle in the air,It's just a law found through one-sided observation,It's no different from a bunch of summer insects trying to find the law at the door of the lottery station。
A truly complete model must be based on a lot of data, not on your own imagination, and although I think the game is more sensitive, it is still one-sided, which is likely to be wishful thinking.
So I'm going to start by just looking at the logical relationship between specific behaviors and emotions, and the science behind them. Let's not try to abstract it into "laws and models".
Concrete facts
I'm sure everyone has had an idea, including me, that is: only consider the experience of the target user, and the experience of the non-target user is not considered.
It must be correct, but who is the "target user"? That's the key question.
How should the target audience be divided, by game type, by world view, or by difficulty?
Are you making numerical cards, and you only think about players who like numerical development?
Are you a casual game, and you only think about players who like to use simple controls?
In fact, even if it is a game, the players are complex, and there are all kinds of players, so unless you are a player who is very disgusted with the core experience, you need to take proper care, after all, the game is a product that needs quantity, and you should try to maintain it for a long time.
And to take care of the experience of different players, it is necessary to understand the needs and emotional points of different users, otherwise it will be difficult to retain.
In this article, I will talk about the specific needs and emotions of several users that I know.
Of course, because it's concrete, it must be one-sided, so don't think it's wrong because you haven't seen it, or that most of the time it's not.
Experience preference for "measuring strength".
I have a relative who doesn't play games, and he knows that I like to play games, and when I talk about a game, he asks me, "How good have you got?" He doesn't care whether the game has a "level" or not, which shows how closely the concept of "level" has to do with the game.
The reason behind his asking "level" was to know how "strong" I was in the game, even though I told him that he couldn't measure any number because he didn't know if "level 50" was strong or weak in the game. But as long as that number sounds "big", it's certainly not too bad.
This proves that some players like to simply measure strength by the size of the number, and although I haven't counted it, judging from experience, the vast majority of players will simply use the size of the number to judge the strength and weakness when they are completely unaware of the situation.
It is also for this reason that in order to reduce the cost of thinking for players, current games generally have designs such as "combat power and rating", so that players can have a rough judgment, and players who are particularly unwilling to think can really do it without considering strength or weakness.
By extension, the quality of the equipment, the grade of the cards, etc., is also to reduce the pressure of thinking.
Preference for "research".
Anyone who has played Diablo 2 knows that it will be very exciting to drop a valuable piece of dark gold equipment, such as Glie's Eye of the Wind, Dimensional Shards, and the like.
However, not everyone has such a strong feeling about equipment attributes, some players just hate complex equipment systems, and they like to compare the size of combat power without brains, and only need to wear it with high challenge power.
In fact, there are very few players who really like to study complex builds, even in games like "Dark Series" and "Path of Exile", there are not many people who are really willing to spend time researching and understanding the build collocation, and most players are making do with it, or looking at the big guy's strategy to match.
So in fact, the reason for the popularity of this kind of game is probably not build, but the experience of brushing equipment.
This may be the reason for the explosion of the game "Knights of Madness".
Preference for "sense of accomplishment".
Cosmetics with counters in CSGO (weapon skins are called cosmetics in CSGO) are more than twice as expensive as those without counters.
Just because the cosmetic with a counter can record the number of kills of this weapon, it can also record the player's own kills. It's very attractive to most people, and it's a testament to my "battle-hardened" credentials, and the more kills I have, the better I am, at least that's what I thought when I bought a gun.
Therefore, just by adding a counting function, the price of the jewelry will be much higher than if it is not brought.
Preference one for "perfection".
Is there a noticeable difference between these two AWP skins? I'm sure most people won't see the difference at first glance.
"Fresh factory" is in perfect condition, and "slightly worn" is slightly worn. The price of the former is 3.5 million, and the latter is 1.35 million, a difference of almost 3 times.
It can be seen from the real money trading that the players are looking for a "perfect" state. This is still a jewelry with a very high unit price, and if it is an ornament with a slightly lower unit price, the multiplier is higher.
For example, this butterfly knife has a 10-fold difference.
This example can be used as a reference when the quality of your own design is poor, and the perfect state can be many times more expensive than the slightly flawed one.
Preference for "perfection" two
Everyone should have seen the "dominoes", and a large amount of accumulation in the early stage is a refreshing last.
Players who have played "Wisdom Dragon Maze" and "Candy Crush" have also had a similar experience, and they could have eliminated 3 consecutive matches, but they just don't disappear, and they must accumulate until they have the opportunity to eliminate many in a row before they start.
This type of game is to take advantage of the player's pursuit of "perfection" to create the ultimate experience.
Preference for "value".
The measure of value varies greatly between different types of players.
For example, how did the million-dollar mount of "Against the Cold" sell at this price without adding value?
It is resonated by the basic price, scarcity, competition, expressiveness, show-off, and consensus, so that a mount can be sold for a price of 1 million yuan.
Which of these factors has the greatest impact on the price, or what is the reason why players who are willing to spend 1 million for it feel worth buying?
Personally, I think it's the consensus. The consensus is 1, the other factors are the following 0, and the underlying price is the least important.
Consensus refers to the general perception that "these kinds of things are valuable", such as in-game skins and real-world antiques. Then "scarce skins" and "scarce antiques" will have a high value.
While each factor is a premium factor, it has different appeals to different players, with some skins not looking good and being extremely expensive just because of their rarity.
For example, the "surface quenching" series of skins in "CSGO" is average in the public aesthetic, but some of the numbers are expensive, and ordinary people really can't understand it.
Preference one for "security".
Borderlands has an "energy shield" design, which automatically heals quickly after being attacked for a while. In order for this shield regeneration mechanic to be useful, the boss of the level is usually designed with a long attack interval or cover to avoid damage.
Therefore, when the shield is close to full, the player's behavior is relatively brave, and he does not panic, and he can recover anyway, which can prove that the shield that can be restored can improve the player's sense of security.
This sense of security experience makes the whole battle not thrilling all the time, but a period of relatively stable mentality.
Preference two for "security".
There should be many people who have the experience of always suspecting that the door is unlocked after going out, and can't help but look back. Similarly, when buying tickets and air tickets, I can't help but check several times to see if I have bought the wrong date.
There should be many people who have this experience when playing games, and when creating some extremely expensive equipment and pets, they will repeatedly confirm whether they have misplaced the wrong materials and chosen the wrong formula.
It's all a sign of insecurity, it's a negative emotion, but I don't think the game should be eliminated by design, and it's because of these negative emotions that the end result is exciting.
Preference for "hassle-free".
There should be many people who have had similar behaviors: if a little calculation can greatly improve efficiency, but if you are too lazy to calculate, you have to try it once, and the result takes several times the time.
This shows that most people are inert and willing to spend more physical strength and time in order not to think.
But they just don't bother to count, it's not that they don't want to save time. Therefore, in order to meet this need, some games have made designs that simplify thinking, such as "one-click enhancement", "one-click dress-up", "one-click manufacturing" and other designs.
This design appeals to most people, after all, it's just a game, and there's no need to use your brain too much.
Preference for "exploration".
It's human instinct to want to see a special scene, especially in a virtual environment like "games" that doesn't cause harm to people, so there's less pressure to explore. If you can't go for a while, you will cultivate it and use the desire to explore to drive it.
Personally, I think this is the reason why open-world games are fun, because you can often see different scenery and experience different plots, and then connect them a little bit through the development line and the plot line, and the experience is great.
summary
Observe more specific facts, and then summarize the law, or refer to other principles, so that it is not considered a castle in the air. Each individual is an observation "angle", and observing more individuals is conducive to enhancing the perception of the whole, and it is also easier to truly be "grounded".
The Player Behavior Observation series will continue to be updated, and we hope that you will share more examples of what you have encountered.