I have subscribed to PysOrg.com's RSS feed to dig up interesting science tid bits to be used in A4H. Today, however, an article turned up that related to a meeting at work.
The department I'm in, Branded Entertainment, is studying what makes games fun. One of the things that we discussed was the difficulty of the objective - what makes it fun.
We had a good discussion. Then I read this article about a simulation where a computer plays ping pong against a human wearing lenticular goggles.
http://www.physorg.com/news87121098.html"The avatar itself played quite human-like. It could adjust its level in response to its human opponent, in a sense mimicking the human—although the scientists programmed the computer to perform slightly superior to the human for greater enjoyment. By restricting the area of the table where the avatar hits the ball on the human’s side, as well as restricting the height and speed of the ball, the scientists could program different degrees of difficulty. Further, they could allow the avatar to make occasional mistakes by adding random noise, and even make the avatar fatigued by increasing noise over the game. "This is exactly what we were talking about. The computer is an opponent who can be flawless. The computer actually has to be programmed to lose. In this simulation, the user is giving a problem, a computer opponent who can to play perfectly, and a slight edge. As long as the user has more stamina and accurracy than the computer is programmed to have, the user will get a workout and a win.
When you exercise, muscle mass gets built from the resistence of the weights. It tears down your body a bit, your body builds itself back up, and you feel better.
Playing a one player game, like Solitaire, Tetris, a crossword puzzle, etc. generally means being given a puzzle, a rule, and a chance to break the rule. This rule provides resistance that provides a challenge. The rule breaker helps make it slightly more achievable, and create an environment that fosters strategy.
In solitaire, the puzzle is in how you arrange the cards. The rule is that you can't place cards on blank spaces. The rule breaker is you can put Kings down in blank spaces. Without the rule breaker you would have to recieve a deal in which all four kings were at the bottom of separate piles, a pretty unlikely occurrance.
In Tetris, the challenge is to keep the playing area from filling up with blocks. The rule is that the blocks do not go away. The rule breaker is that if you fill up one line with no gaps, that line dissappears.
In a crossword puzzle, you are given one hint and must come up with the word with the same number of letters. Because the words cross, answering one question correctly gives a hint at the other words. Answering it wrong keeps you from getting all the clues right.
Ok, maybe that's a bad example. I was trying to avoid using video games. The idea is a bit of a work in progress, but it's interesting.
Labels: A4H, design, directors, Feed on This, games, interactivity, internet, life, links, projects, ramblings, the buddy group, theory, work
