Burrhus Frederic "B. F." Skinner (March 20, 1904 – August 18, 1990) was an American psychologist, behaviorist, author, inventor, and social philosopher.[2][3][4][5] He was the Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology at Harvard University from 1958 until his retirement in 1974.[6]
Skinner invented the operant conditioning chamber, also known as the Skinner Box.[7] He was a firm believer of the idea that human free will was actually an illusion and any human action was the result of the consequences of that same action. If the consequences were bad, there was a high chance that the action would not be repeated; however if the consequences were good, the actions that lead to it would be reinforced.[8] He called this the principle of reinforcement.[9]
a Skinner box is a chamber that contains a bar or key that an animal can press or manipulate in order to obtain food or water as a type of reinforcement. The Skinner box also had a device that recorded each response provided by the animal as well as the unique schedule of reinforcement that the animal was assigned.
Thoughts:
Achievements in every game.
Timed games (zero to little skill involved), stuff like fb games/button mashing/clicking games that payout after X times (WoW, Diablo, Farmville, Battletoads, many browser flash games). Random luck games; Casino/gambling games (slots, dice, keno, etc).
Collectible Card games (MTG, Hearthstone, Pokemon [gotta catch em all!]
It's hard to think of any game that doesn't use Skinner's box in some way or part in order to compel people to play it. This even includes in depth puzzle games (Bejeweled, Angry Birds, PvZ, Tetris, Antichamber), story/rpg based games (FFX), even our beloved competitive strategy games (BW, WC3, SC2); we have created our own skinner's box elements and forced them into the games where they may not have as big of an impact, a sort of metagame element (APM). Even though it already contains ladder points and rank systems. Lifetime K/D ratio and other stats in MOBAs.
Questions:
Do you think Skinner's box is a good thing? A bad thing? Can you think of a game that doesn't use Skinner's box at all? What game genre or game have you played that used the least? Think of your favorite games of all time, what percentage of the game was attributed to Skinner's box? Is addiction a real concern for this rising trend?
Misc:
Yesterday I started to play this game called CookieClicker, which is basically this stupid game where you click a cookie and get achievements. That's it. + Show Spoiler +
Actually I am lying, there are upgrades and strategies using math, and other additional meta gaming elements, but it still essentially boils down to nonsense anyways. You are just collecting points for no reason other than to collect them.
Here is an interesting video on the topic regarding current video games.
super mario bros has low levels of Skinner's box imo bust your ass to beat down this dinosaur in the middle of a fiery castle? you get nothin' she ain't here. you get to save!
but one could say the idea of a game is rewarding the player for making the right decision. its drawing the line between rewarding progress and useless rewards i think. what chu talkin bout battletoads?
I think the real skinners box is in our mind's. Starcraft probably was not all about "pwning" when it was in development, but if there was no winner and no loser, it would not be clear how or why to build units, therefore some reward is necessary. Even Diablo 2, perhaps they did not mean for people to kill the same bosses over and over hoping for a good item, maybe we just wanted good items and knew we could get them. I think the real point is that sometimes it becomes too certain that the rewards are possible, with just the right time dedicated. To add to that, the time spent will be at least enjoyable, probably, i f we're not too obsessed by the reward.
All games have it, but the ones that end up being experiences that are "wholesome" or "mentally nutritious" for me are the ones where I was alreay enjoying myself by the controls, the ambiance, and the whole story but then was give these things based on my skill, rather than my dedication.
I think that's the main difference, things that are abusively skinners box-ish are things that make one feel that it is skill he has used when it is more so just chance, but humans do this anyways.
So to end it, I think a game like starfox 64, fzero x 64, or donkey kong 64 are games i look back on as authentic times. I was putting in thoughtful effort and not relying on chance or time spent to do the work for me, but rather on my own resources. These are the games i remember fondly. Animal Crossing, contrastingly, i was looking for social status or as someway of beautifying my avatar mindlessly, I look back on this game with more dislike for my former self because now, i could care less about it and the memory of it isn't even that great.
I think ultimately a game that relies too much on skinners box is like a mconalds burger. It is familiar, its ingredients are plain and generic, but it has its place i guess. The better games are more like a thanksgiving dinner with the family and with all of the decorations, and challenges of making it through the day with relatives.
Any game is going to offer choices of some variety. If there are no choices to make, then it's more of a movie than a game. If you are going to base the existence of a Skinner box on the presence of choices, then you'd have to argue that all agmes have them. However, just because you have a choice or a certain action that you can choose to do or not do, does not necessarily mean one choice is better than another to make someone continue choosing the same thing.
Extra Credits is a pretty cool program, I enjoy their weekly output a lot and try to keep up with them each week. Recently they did a couple episodes on choice, illusion of choice, meaningful choices, etc. that kind of relates to this. I think an argument can be made that not all choice is a derivative of a Skinner box as long as one choice isn't unquestionably better than another choice. For example, a game I played recently, Home, is more of a story than a game (though I'd still say it is a game). There are choices, but I wouldn't really say that there are wrong choices, just different choices based upon one's own interpretation. you don't ever "win" the game, you just finish it and there are different paths/endings.
Another note about that show Extra Credits, when I happened upon that show a ways back it really reinvigorated my joy of video games and I was able to find and enjoy games a lot more than I had in most of the past ten years. it got me thinking about why I enjoy games and got me looking in the direction of games that captured what I enjoyed about gaming when I was younger. Definitely something I would recommend taking a look at a few episodes and seeing what you get from it.
Edit: ...of course I didn't seem to really answer many of your questions
On September 27 2013 06:51 semioldguy wrote: Any game is going to offer choices of some variety. If there are no choices to make, then it's more of a movie than a game. If you are going to base the existence of a Skinner box on the presence of choices, then you'd have to argue that all agmes have them. However, just because you have a choice or a certain action that you can choose to do or not do, does not necessarily mean one choice is better than another to make someone continue choosing the same thing.
Extra Credits is a pretty cool program, I enjoy their weekly output a lot and try to keep up with them each week. Recently they did a couple episodes on choice, illusion of choice, meaningful choices, etc. that kind of relates to this. I think an argument can be made that not all choice is a derivative of a Skinner box as long as one choice isn't unquestionably better than another choice. For example, a game I played recently, Home, is more of a story than a game (though I'd still say it is a game). There are choices, but I wouldn't really say that there are wrong choices, just different choices based upon one's own interpretation. you don't ever "win" the game, you just finish it and there are different paths/endings.
Another note about that show Extra Credits, when I happened upon that show a ways back it really reinvigorated my joy of video games and I was able to find and enjoy games a lot more than I had in most of the past ten years. it got me thinking about why I enjoy games and got me looking in the direction of games that captured what I enjoyed about gaming when I was younger. Definitely something I would recommend taking a look at a few episodes and seeing what you get from it.
Edit: ...of course I didn't seem to really answer many of your questions
i thought the skinner box analogy wasn't really about choices, but about the games being played solely for the reward, and not for the fun playing.
like, if you play a brood war UMS while smurfing, you're as far away from skinner box as you get, because there are no stats and nothing that stays behind after the game is done, you're just playing for the enjoyment you get from playing. any game that's grindy in nature is a skinner box. (which essentially includes every MMORPG) much of the criticism of diablo 3 has basically been that it's an inferior skinner box to diablo 2, not an inferior game. and the fact that people love skinner boxes is examplified by d3 eventually turning into an auction house grindfest (which in turn was actually too boring for it to have longevity), because people preferred the sensation of slightly improving their stats over the sensation of playing the game and killing monsters.
it's definitely a trend that games are becoming more skinnerboxy. everyone wants to have some type of return for their effort. Call of duty has realized how ingrained this is by adding the whole prestige system - and everyone has proven them right by actually resetting their stats just so they can continue playing for some type of reward. In fact, I'm fairly certain that if call of duty just stopped the progress bar at level 50, it wouldn't have even nearly the longevity it does.
I suppose I was looking at it from the point of view of when a choice is obviously the most beneficial choice or clearly offer the most in return, so why make any choice other than that one best choice? I understand that it isn't linked to choice, just being rewarded for an action (though often I'd imagine you can link your action to a choice of some sort). "Choice" encompasses a very broad spectrum of what it can refer to in games.
On September 27 2013 07:39 Liquid`Drone wrote: ah yea I guess that makes sense basically like how people chose to play auction house instead of d3 because the rewards were better
Not sure if you are aware, but recently Blizzard announced the removal of the AH by the time they reach the release of the expansion. This could possibly be for the fact that people actually DO like the SB of grinding monsters and bosses over the sensation of slightly improving stats. In my experience, it's the same thing.
I remember when I first played WoW, I got to 60 and was already bored with the game. I actually had the most fun farming and doing enchant related stuff and then cornering the market on the AH and buying low/selling high and arguing/competing with this other vendor (pretty much the only other person with the high skill level) who hated my philosophy and basically gave his hard earned enchants away for free. I made a fortune and when I quit I just gave away all my items and gold to my friends (who essentially liquidated everything on my character but what he was wearing).
Anyway, I think the point the video and I am making is that people will do SB things that have shittier/no payoffs instead of doing things logically or for more fun. Sort of like a brainwashed/feeble minded thing. I don't mean to sound elitist, but I've always sort of understood this and it explains why the most popular games are always the simplest SB type of games that anyone can 'play'. This is why there are many 'girl gamers' who are actually not considered gamers because they primarily just play SB. It would be interesting to see the stats of gamer demographics m/f, age ranges, and casual/hardcore with how much of the gaming they play being mostly SB versus strategy, fun, story, or whatever else is more acceptable form of a good game.
yea, the AH grinding essentially showed itself as TOO boring, even for a skinner box. so there was no longevity - because people grew bored and essentially felt that there wasn't anything all that entertaining they could even use their awesomely grinded gear for. but like, if you compare d2 to d3, the essense of d2's superiority stems from the loot system. (not just drop rate of good items, but also how sooo many items are just immediately completely useless.) this because you could actually play the game, which was kinda fun, AND be rewarded at the same time, AND reaching level 99 just took forever anyway. Looking at my own experience with d3, I really enjoyed it - but I stopped like, 20 minutes after I reached level 60, cause I felt there wasn't really anything more for me to gain, other than buffing my character but I didn't care about that.
However, quite frankly, I could picture myself having played all the way up to 99 if the levels actually went all the way to 99 and if my character continued getting new skills or perks all the way up there. same with call of duty - the game is fun to play on its own. but it's significantly more fun when every kill you make actually pushes you further towards your goal, not when it's immediately forgotten once the next game starts. In brood war, the game I have by far enjoyed and played the most out of all games ever, I much preferred playing when there was a competitive ladder - which is essentially a way of adding a skinner box to a game which doesn't have one.
games need to strike a balance between the two. but very few games today manage to stay interesting once someone has managed to do everything. I've played shitloads of peggle - but once I had actually completed every challenge and cleared every level, I stopped. It's a bit saddening to me that we - me included- are less willing to just, do stuff for its own sake, and that we always want a reward, but it seems to ring true with few exceptions.
it's an interesting concept, it does correlate to my experience. Some games have been so compelling but when I turn back on them they are just full of bullshit and all about advancing to next levels but not actually having any fun. Dark Souls is a recent game that is really impressively bold and refreshingly absent the skinner box elements outlined here.
Also, Deus Ex is such a perfect example of blending RPG with another genre (ie fps) in order to create customisation which leads to completely different playthroughs and vastly changes the atmosphere of the game, while minimising the cheaper skinner box elements.
The entire concept of achievements just makes my blood boil - can't believe some people enjoy earning them.
Skinner's Box games are like a crowd cheering you on or an approving authority figure. Something like Groupthink meets positive reinforcement.
Having a little pop-up message show up every 5 minutes or at the end of every game telling you "You're doing great! Keep doing what you're doing!" - is an obvious skinner box. Ratings are not. They don't tell you that you're awesome pointlessly, they tell you exactly How awesome you are. This is a facet of sports*, not of a skinner box. It's competitive, and has possibility of failure. You always WANT to win games, but it's not possible. In a skinner box, victory should always be possible, not skill based, and have outside rewards. Being A- in iccup is its own reward.
OP, you pointed out Battletoads as being a skinner box game, and i completely disagree with that. That game is 100% self contained skill-based gratification. So, to answer your first question: Yes, there can be games with 0 skinner box elements. Castlevania, Mega-man, Battletoads, being the most obvious examples. Their rewards (the sense of accomplishment after defeating such an arduous game) are completely self contained.
I'm not sure collectables games (pokemon) can be called "skinner box" games. You don't have to collect all the pokemon to enjoy it. In fact, i'll bet most people don't. That's why they include both Charizard and Jigglypuff in the game; different people will prefer different things, and the game can be beaten either way. Sure the entire "gotta catch em all!" ad campaign was 100% reward reinforcement, collecting pokemon isn't. Same with TCGs. The game provides options. One can simply play 1 deck for eternity if you want.
As for RPGs and Leveling, I'm not sure if it's a skinner box. The game itself is focused around leveling and grinding. That IS the game. That is how you achieve the goal of the game. Then again, how does one differentiate between rewards built into the game and outside rewards...
The real shocker here is that it took a Harvard professor to prove that people are less inclined to do things that end poorly, and more inclined to repeat things that end well. I'm pretty sure that's just common sense, and has been since long before the 1900s.
With that said, applying "skinner's box" to video games (or anything really) is a waste of time for countless reasons, but here's a few big ones.
1. People have very different preferences about what actions and what consequences they actually enjoy. Farmville may prove wildly rewarding and addicting to some, and a colossal waste of time to others.
2. The idea of "skinner's box" is so absolutely vague that it can be applied to anything and everything. Here's an example: If I stop breathing I pass out and possibly die. If I breath I take in oxygen and everything is great. Skinner's box strikes again!
3. What is the alternative? Would you play a game that punishes you no matter what you do? Only a masochist would say yes. Oh wait, let's check out the definition of masochist:
someone who obtains pleasure from receiving punishment
So you're just doing it to get some sick reward after all. Way to give in to Skinner bro. Also note how this ties into both of my prior points.
Skinner's box isn't ruining the gaming industry any more than it's ruining the very existence of life, which by the way only exists because life, from the first single cell organisms to us, has had the common sense not to repeat actions that ended poorly and repeat the ones that resulted in survival. Maybe sweet baby jesus was a big subscriber to Skinner's studies and we can thank him for natural selection.
I often see these kinds of Image macro games on FB and they kind of piss me off tbh. They are usually really easy and EVERYONE reposts them. Are they a type of SB?
On September 27 2013 08:20 Liquid`Drone wrote: yea, the AH grinding essentially showed itself as TOO boring, even for a skinner box. so there was no longevity - because people grew bored and essentially felt that there wasn't anything all that entertaining they could even use their awesomely grinded gear for. but like, if you compare d2 to d3, the essence of d2's superiority stems from the loot system. (not just drop rate of good items, but also how sooo many items are just immediately completely useless.) this because you could actually play the game, which was kinda fun, AND be rewarded at the same time, AND reaching level 99 just took forever anyway. Looking at my own experience with d3, I really enjoyed it - but I stopped like, 20 minutes after I reached level 60, cause I felt there wasn't really anything more for me to gain, other than buffing my character but I didn't care about that.
However, quite frankly, I could picture myself having played all the way up to 99 if the levels actually went all the way to 99 and if my character continued getting new skills or perks all the way up there. same with call of duty - the game is fun to play on its own. but it's significantly more fun when every kill you make actually pushes you further towards your goal, not when it's immediately forgotten once the next game starts. In brood war, the game I have by far enjoyed and played the most out of all games ever, I much preferred playing when there was a competitive ladder - which is essentially a way of adding a skinner box to a game which doesn't have one.
games need to strike a balance between the two. but very few games today manage to stay interesting once someone has managed to do everything. I've played shitloads of peggle - but once I had actually completed every challenge and cleared every level, I stopped. It's a bit saddening to me that we - me included- are less willing to just, do stuff for its own sake, and that we always want a reward, but it seems to ring true with few exceptions.
D3 created the paragon system which essentially allows you gain 100 more levels with other added perks for each level up as well. It's still the same game though. I think D3 failed for other less pointed out reasons. (such as lack of skill attributes points customization, lack of a more important tech path, lack of PvP and PK threats, lack of easy multiplayer and chat rooms, etc) Blizzard games have just been going down hill since wc3 because of all these minor overlooked things that they think they are improving upon, but were already perfect. A lot of tech related things suffer from this problem, phones, programs, websites, etc.
I actually didn't play much ladder in bw, The reward for me was that rare game that is actually a good match and even/close, or a big comeback, or some crazy strat/micro that you pull off, one that satiates that feeling of accomplishment and conquering imho.
On September 27 2013 08:59 sc4k wrote:
The entire concept of achievements just makes my blood boil - can't believe some people enjoy earning them.
I actually do like achievements. Only when they are actually good though. Like some other aspect challenge of a level or game, or a minigame. For example, Beating 3 computers or Beating 3 computers in X time. Of course you could create your own challenges, and people do. D3 Lvl 1 Solo SK run , The entire Speed running community, and of course Athene 4v1 Insane challenge . They can keep the game interesting, give it some replay-ability, or just provide more fun and challenges not setup for the core game when used correctly; eg Ambulance Mission GTA3 . So it's nice when the game gives you a few achievements badges to earn sometimes. I think the problem is just the oversaturation of it done badly and worthless achievements that you basically can't even avoid.
Fishgle, while I mostly agree Battletoads is not that much of a skinner's box example, it is however, like most/all side scroller beat em ups, a lot of grinding and doing the same thing over and over until you get to a boss or some other challenge.
It's just basic psychology, humans like rewards and we tend to do stuff that gives rewards. It's not something special to games. I mean sure, some games really live off rewards in a somewhat bad way. Take Diablo. You do something ridiculously repetitive and easy over and over. You gain levels, which is a reward. But it's a fake reward since the only thing it allows you to do, is keep repeating what you did before slightly faster. Same with getting an awesome item. It's a reward, but it only lets you keep doing what you've been doing. Outside of the fake rewards, there's very little reason to play because the basic gameplay is downright boring. The only part of Diablo which can give you meaning outside of these fake rewards, is making builds.
Other games however, give you rewards as a response to challenge. Take Völgarr The Viking. You beat a really hard level, and your reward is to get to the next level. It doesn't reward you for doing something mundane to keep you playing, it rewards you for progression. The real reward is your own satisfaction that you were able to rise to a challenge.
Just like in a job. You do a good job, your colleges let you know that your work is appreciated, so you keep doing it and you do it better.
EPT
