The short description:
I'd like to open up a discussion on the following questions which have been plaguing my mind for ages:
- Is there an ethical problem with aiming to make a too addctive game?
- If so, how can we as designers make great games without them being too addictive?
The long description:
This is more of a philosophical question that I have worried about for a while. It's a general question about game design rather than about a particular game that I am creating, or even tied to a particular genre. But it's something that has bugged me for a while regarding what I should be aiming for in game design.
Many times when I read lists of what makes a game great, I see "addictive" listed as a positive attribute. This has always made me uneasy, because addiction is an association that marks a vice. In this case, an addictive game is one that sucks up too much time. I think the appropirate psychological term is
flow. I know that I have occasionally fired up an addictive game thinking I'd only play for a half hour, and ended up spending the rest of the day playing. Or worse, up to the early hours of the morning when I had classes or work the next day.
As such I feel uncomfortable with deliberately setting out to design an addictive game. It's to a lesser degree than if I were say designing a slot machine, as a "good design" for slots is one that ends up hooking vulnerable people to spend more money they can afford. In the case of an addictive computer game, all the addict is wasting is time, but that still is something I feel uncomfortable about
deliberately setting out to achieve with a game design. Although obviously some responsiblity must lie with the player, from an ethical point of view I think as a designer I should consider methods of making games
less addictive but still remaining great.
The problem, however, is that in my mind there is a significant overlap between the properties that makes a
good game and what makes an
addictive one. Obviously as game designers we wish to create experiences that capture the imaginations and provide entralling experiences to our players. I think this overlap is the reason why I see "addictive" listed so often as a positive trait associated with good games. However, is it true that this overlap is a necessary evil? Is it possible to make a brilliant game that is not addictive?
It might help if I list what I consider to be elements that help create an addictive game (I might add to this list later on):
- Uninterrupted seamless gameplay (limited loading times, smooth gameplay progression between stages etc.)
- Multiple game objectives so there is always something in progress
- Randomised reward elements (example: randomised weapon drops in RPGs)
- Feedback on development level (only 250 XP required for level up!)
- Social elements (such as massively multiplayer)
- Rewards for time invested in the game (again: massively multiplayer)
- High level of polish (nothing to jar the player out of an immersive state)
Unfornunately I think all those things are desirable attributes for a game to have! So how can we design a game that still has these positive qualities but is less addictive?
Probably the weakest one of those attributes is the seamless gameplay. One possibility would be to allow an optional gameplay timer that can save and quit after a set amount of time. Of course, the problem with this method is if the player is at a critical point in time they would be fairly annoyed.
Another approach is to have natural points in the game where players feel comfortable switching the game off. I find that I have no problem playing level based games for a fixed amount of time, as the end of a level is an obvious point to evaluate whether I should keep playing the game. However this is harder to achieve in the more freeform games, such as large scale strategy games; the 4X genre is one that I frequently described as addictive. One possibility would be to insert milestones into such games - possibly reward screens that mark time elapsed or set achievements? - that provide the wake-up call.
My questions then are firstly the fundamental one: in your opinion am I being over-conscious in worrying about the addictiveness of games, or am I worrying too much?
Secondly: is it possible to still make great games that are not as addictive? In particular, can we take a traditionally addictive great game and make it less addictive while still retaining its greatness?