How to play tricks on the mind (heuristics)

deClavier · 2002-11-28T13:05:03

Knowing basic tricks that can be played on the mind seems crucial to game design. Contributions welcome. eg. A person is generally poor at cutting losses; that is, a person will continue down a particular path, even when a better alternative is later discovered, if that person has made a significant investment in following that particular path.

walkingcarcass

116

November 25, 2002 07:33 AM

it's nice to see out assumptions challenged in puzzles, that number one above is a bit daunting for eg unlocking a door, but the method involved is powerful

it's terrible when the solutions to puzzles are surreal or in some way obscure or subjective. some of the best problems in games have been when the solution is more rational than we expect

take the scythe in Grim Fandango...

Property	Usesharp		cut open a package		stab something with itcurved		hook onto something and pullmetallic	short circuit		sets off a metal detectorthin		jam it in a gap

and so on...

these make great puzzles, ironically, becuase the solution is a kind of double-bluff on normal puzzle logic: we expect some silly "use the monkey on the pump" (monkey island 2) kind of approach.

this is a bit divergant from reward psychology but establishing the rules of the universe and sticking to them is a great resource for "mind tricks" as the player flicks between the rules of the real world and the game world overlap.

********

A Problem Worthy of Attack
Proves It's Worth by Fighting Back

[edited by - walkingcarcass on November 25, 2002 8:35:48 AM]

[edited by - walkingcarcass on November 25, 2002 8:38:29 AM]

spraff.net: don't laugh, I'm still just starting...

Arch@on

100

November 25, 2002 08:50 AM

Assuming that you know nothing about Heuristics and are 14-year-old developing a mmorpg I have to clarify some things.

Heuristics connect with psycholohy. Especially with the congnitive approach.

Heuristics are approach to problem solving as opposed to Algorithms, which are convergent problems. Heuristics on the otherhand are divergent.

Things how to mindfuck the player:

Persistence of set: Sudden change in insight and the way player persieves the world.

Functional Fixedness: Realizing that the object has another use.
Developer must be careful with this since it can lead to situation where the player doesn''t understand that he is supposed to shove the scythe up the elephants ass and produce the waterstream(elephant spits out water in anger) and lift itself up towards the goal using the elephant as an operator.

Creativity(?): What this forum is lacking alots

Conclusion: Ownage.

Bibliography: William E. Glassman "Approaches to Psychology"

SpittingTrashcan

122

November 25, 2002 10:34 AM

What is the source of your bitter vitriol, Captain Goatse?

Thank you for your concise, well-researched and useful definitions of Heuristics, Persistence of Set, and Functional Fixedness.

When deClavier referred to Heuristics in the title of his post, I assumed he was referring to human mental processes, which are more like heuristics (in that they give a good solution in a reasonable amount of time) than algorithms (which give the optimal solution through sometimes lengthy testing of options). So far I fail to see how his usage conflicts with your definition.

Dauntless roughly defined Heuristics as "mental shortcuts that humans use to process information more quickly", which agrees with deClavier''s implied usage as well as your given definition. Again, I do not see the source of your apparent frustration with our mental development.

Who is a fourteen year old MMORPG developer? I''m not, unless time has mysteriously reversed its flow. Who lacks creativity? Show me where this topic has been discussed previously, and where we are repeating ideas already well thought out. I''d hate to find myself less than wholly original. I am confused by your reference to "ownage": who owns who? It is not the game developer''s goal to defeat the player. It may be the game developer''s goal to defeat other game developers. Is this what you refer to - that you feel that by demonstrating your ability to research definitions (which is excellent) you have defeated us? Very well, you are victorious. I am sure that the game you are developing, in between witty banter with the dullards on this forum, will far outsell any of our efforts and be considered a classic far beyond its time. I will be first in line to buy it.

Have a pleasant day and a successful career.
-STC

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

----------------------------------------------------SpittingTrashcanYou can't have "civilization" without "civil".

Arch@on

100

November 25, 2002 12:29 PM

quote:Original post by SpittingTrashcan
What is the source of your bitter vitriol, Captain Goatse?

Thank you for your concise, well-researched and useful definitions of Heuristics, Persistence of Set, and Functional Fixedness.

When deClavier referred to Heuristics in the title of his post, I assumed he was referring to human mental processes, which are more like heuristics (in that they give a good solution in a reasonable amount of time) than algorithms (which give the optimal solution through sometimes lengthy testing of options). So far I fail to see how his usage conflicts with your definition.

Dauntless roughly defined Heuristics as "mental shortcuts that humans use to process information more quickly", which agrees with deClavier''s implied usage as well as your given definition. Again, I do not see the source of your apparent frustration with our mental development.

Who is a fourteen year old MMORPG developer? I''m not, unless time has mysteriously reversed its flow. Who lacks creativity? Show me where this topic has been discussed previously, and where we are repeating ideas already well thought out. I''d hate to find myself less than wholly original. I am confused by your reference to "ownage": who owns who? It is not the game developer''s goal to defeat the player. It may be the game developer''s goal to defeat other game developers. Is this what you refer to - that you feel that by demonstrating your ability to research definitions (which is excellent) you have defeated us? Very well, you are victorious. I am sure that the game you are developing, in between witty banter with the dullards on this forum, will far outsell any of our efforts and be considered a classic far beyond its time. I will be first in line to buy it.

Have a pleasant day and a successful career.
-STC

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

We seem to have different approaches in Heuristics. I don''t understand how the shortcuts would relate to game design. However, I do understand how problem solving relates to game design.

At this point I have to bring up the point that you people might have been discussing about different things altogether.

As you have fantastically googled up the definition of Heuristics I have to notice that Gestalt theory treats heuristics as a guide to problem solving. As you might google up, guide =! mental shortcut.

At this point I have hijacked the thread and turned it into a troll-fest. My bad I won''t continue.

Please forgive me. I''m just trying to be critical. Sometimes I may turn it into something personal. As I stated above, I''m sorry. No intention in trolling.

Arch@on

100

November 25, 2002 12:30 PM

quote:Original post by SpittingTrashcan
What is the source of your bitter vitriol, Captain Goatse?

Thank you for your concise, well-researched and useful definitions of Heuristics, Persistence of Set, and Functional Fixedness.

When deClavier referred to Heuristics in the title of his post, I assumed he was referring to human mental processes, which are more like heuristics (in that they give a good solution in a reasonable amount of time) than algorithms (which give the optimal solution through sometimes lengthy testing of options). So far I fail to see how his usage conflicts with your definition.

Dauntless roughly defined Heuristics as "mental shortcuts that humans use to process information more quickly", which agrees with deClavier''s implied usage as well as your given definition. Again, I do not see the source of your apparent frustration with our mental development.

Who is a fourteen year old MMORPG developer? I''m not, unless time has mysteriously reversed its flow. Who lacks creativity? Show me where this topic has been discussed previously, and where we are repeating ideas already well thought out. I''d hate to find myself less than wholly original. I am confused by your reference to "ownage": who owns who? It is not the game developer''s goal to defeat the player. It may be the game developer''s goal to defeat other game developers. Is this what you refer to - that you feel that by demonstrating your ability to research definitions (which is excellent) you have defeated us? Very well, you are victorious. I am sure that the game you are developing, in between witty banter with the dullards on this forum, will far outsell any of our efforts and be considered a classic far beyond its time. I will be first in line to buy it.

Have a pleasant day and a successful career.
-STC

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

We seem to have different approaches in Heuristics. I don''t understand how the shortcuts would relate to game design. However, I do understand how problem solving relates to game design.

At this point I have to bring up the point that you people might have been discussing about different things altogether.

As you have fantastically googled up the definition of Heuristics I have to notice that Gestalt theory treats heuristics as a guide to problem solving. As you might google up, guide =! mental shortcut.

At this point I have hijacked the thread and turned it into a troll-fest. My bad I won''t continue.

Please forgive me. I''m just trying to be critical. Sometimes I may turn it into something personal. As I stated above, I''m sorry. No intention in trolling.

Coz

169

November 27, 2002 05:03 PM

I think the relation between shortcuts and game design is simple, if you use mind shortcuts in your puzzles they will be easier than if you just make a logic puzzle. But i think that when you try to make a puzzle that doesn''t use shortcuts at all sometimes players may get frustrated because he can''t figure out the answer and advance(personal experience

), and when he finally finds the solution, he would think "that''s it? is was so easy really but i just couldn''t figure it out".

Neosmyle

144

November 27, 2002 05:26 PM

Hm...part of the problem with logic puzzles is that computers can''t think. For example, if the player is blocked by a tangle of vines, and the developer has only told the computer that a sharp object could cut the vines, a spell that summons fire won''t burn away the plants, even though it would in the real world. How many times have you tried various spells/attacks/items you have in a puzzle but it doesn''t work even though it theoretically *should*. This especially happens with "newbie gamers" (by that, I mean people who don''t play many games/aren''t technically inclined.) They believe that what they are doing has to work but it sadly doesn''t.

This whole situation brings us to a problem: If we make the puzzles "inside the box", where there is only one solution, and it is conventional logic, it can become boring and irritating to the player, since all the puzzles will probably be based on the same thing.

However, if we make the puzzles "outside the box," players can have trouble, because they realize that the puzzles in the game are a little more real-world (not just math/logic puzzles), they try things that should work, but the developer has another solution in mind.

So if you can program every solution to an "outside the box" puzzle, it is a great thing. But the fact that they are outside the box makes it more difficult to predict what hairbrained solutions the players might think of.

deClavier

122

Author

November 28, 2002 01:05 PM

Here''s another example: if you frame something negatively, as in "Don''t do x", the mind strongly reinforces "do x" but weakly refinforces the "don''t"; whereas framed positively, as in "choose y", the mind will reinforce the positive message.

Skinner''s psychology is based on a model of study that might be suitable to games, ie. person in tightly controlled environment, but does his approach account for personality at all?

How to play tricks on the mind (heuristics)

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

How to play tricks on the mind (heuristics)

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines