[MUD-Dev] Finding What a Gamer Lacks in Their Day

[John Buehler]

Sasha Hart writes:
> John Buehler <johnbue at msn.com> wrote:

> For starters, you might qualify your statement somewhat: I think
> you are probably talking about "motivated" or "voluntary"
> behavior, rather than all behavior (e.g. sneezing.)  You might
> even be talking about a subset of this behavior, rather than all
> of it; that would certainly reduce the needs of your theory to
> some loose observation, rather than perfect accounting for every
> datum.

Hmmm.  Well, this is the original point as I stated it:

  Entertainment is chosen because it provides a stimulus that is
  otherwise missing or lacking in the person's life.

The statmeent is geared towards entertainment.

>> To postulate that our behaviors are a result of a desire for
>> stimulus is a perfectly valuable working theory, despite the fact
>> that we cannot perfectly observe behaviors.

> If I am wrong about what this working theory predicts, (e.g. one
> factor determines behavior - scarcity of something - and thereby
> we expect to see no noise and no variation as a function of
> anything else), then it would help if you spelled out what it does
> predict.  Even if this takes the form of more elaborate rules
> about what needs exist, and how they interact to produce
> mind-bogglingly complex behavior.

Interestingly, I don't find human behavior all that complex.

> Otherwise, I don't have any reason (as I would love to) to think
> that this theory is anything but a post hoc "explanatory" device,
> which makes behavior seem simple, even though the wielder of the
> theory doesn't have any better ability to predict than the next
> guy.

If I were giving odds, I'd definitely bet in your favor, despite my
firm believe that my view of human cognition and behavior is
essentially accurate.

>> I'm supplying a working theory, not a proof.  I leave it to
>> others to look at the world around them to see if their
>> observations match this theory.

> That's fine, but to be a practical theory it needs to be testable
> *in principle*. This boils down to making at least somewhat
> definite predictions that could at least approximately be tested
> against the real world (nothing about perfect observation here;
> rough-and-ready backyard experimentation will qualify, as long as
> it is experimentation and not after the fact explanation.)

So I need to find somebody who doesn't play computer games, get to
know them really well and then predict what games they will play
when exposed to a broad range of them?  That seems to be the
requirement for you to begin to believe my assertion.  I don't see
that happening anytime soon.

Perhaps all I'm really after is the goal of game designers paying
more attention to the psychological profile of their target market.
At a deeper level than just 'they like to blow things up'.

JB

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev