Game Developers Deploy Skinner Reward Loops to Mask Hollow Design

Extra Credits

Studios rely on operant conditioning as a cheap shortcut to induce behavioral compulsion, leaving players with post-play regret instead of genuine engagement through mastery, narrative, and flow.

AI-assisted summary of The Skinner Box - How Games Condition People to Play More - Extra Credits — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2012-03-13

Key ideas

B.F. Skinner demonstrated that operant conditioning can systematically shape voluntary human choices, proving that variable and interval reward schedules generate far higher persistence than rewarding every action. (0:11)
Video games frequently deploy secondary reinforcers like points and virtual currencies because, unlike biological primary reinforcers, they do not encounter a natural satiation ceiling. (1:32)
Compulsion loops create an illusion of engagement, functioning as a lazy design shortcut that induces post-play regret when players realize hours were spent on hollow repetition. (1:32)
Rather than relying on Skinnerian conditioning, designers can build authentic engagement through six proven mechanics: mystery, mastery, mental challenge, narrative, novelty, and flow. (4:27)

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by Extra Credits on March 13, 2012 (originally airing in November 2010), this video explores how game design frequently leans on psychological reward loops. The description highlights that while engaging design is vital, developers too often rely on simple conditioning systems to artificially inflate playtime or drive in-game purchases rather than using deeper, more immersive mechanics.

## TL;DR The episode analyzes B.F. Skinner's discovery of operant conditioning, explaining how variable reward schedules and secondary reinforcers manipulate voluntary human choice in the same way they do pigeons in a Skinner box. The narrator argues that titles ranging from FarmVille and World of Warcraft to Solitaire and progression-bloated shooters exploit these loops as a lazy crutch, generating addictive compulsion rather than authentic enjoyment. Rather than tricking audiences into regretful time sinks, game developers are urged to embrace six genuine avenues of engagement: mystery, mastery, mental challenge, narrative, novelty, and psychological flow.

## Atmosphere & style The presentation carries an energetic, educational, and earnest tone, blending sharp academic history with passionate critique of modern game industry tropes. Driven by rapid-fire delivery and an analytical narrative style, the video builds from an informative breakdown of behavioral psychology into a principled, moral appeal to designers. It feels like an urgent classroom lecture that respects the artistic potential of video games while passionately condemning cheap psychological manipulation.

## Bulletin - [00:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=11s) B.F. Skinner demonstrated that operant conditioning can systematically shape voluntary human choices, proving that variable and interval reward schedules generate far higher persistence than rewarding every action. - [01:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=92s) Video games frequently deploy secondary reinforcers like points and virtual currencies because, unlike biological primary reinforcers, they do not encounter a natural satiation ceiling. - [01:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=92s) Compulsion loops create an illusion of engagement, functioning as a lazy design shortcut that induces post-play regret when players realize hours were spent on hollow repetition. - [04:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=267s) Rather than relying on Skinnerian conditioning, designers can build authentic engagement through six proven mechanics: mystery, mastery, mental challenge, narrative, novelty, and flow.

## Key takeaways - [00:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=11s) B.F. Skinner revolutionized psychology by proving science could condition volition and manipulate how organisms make voluntary choices. - [00:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=11s) Unpredictable variable-ratio or interval reward schedules produce far higher and more persistent rates of repetition than guaranteed rewards. - [01:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=92s) Secondary reinforcers such as money, score tallies, or social praise bypass physical satiation limits, sustaining compulsive behavior indefinitely. - [01:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=92s) Titles like FarmVille and World of Warcraft keep users playing through engineered reward schedules long after genuine fun has evaporated. - [01:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=92s) Behavioral conditioning is technically distinct from chemical addiction, but both result in repetitive, compulsive play patterns. - [01:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=92s) Relying on operant conditioning is a cheap design shortcut that fosters post-play regret once players reflect on their wasted time. - [03:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=194s) Reward schedules are ubiquitous across gaming, appearing in everything from Solitaire wins and Bejeweled score loops to FPS audio praises. - [03:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=194s) Developers frequently shoehorn RPG leveling mechanics into other genres to mask otherwise hollow and uninspired core gameplay. - [04:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=267s) Mystery leverages human curiosity and the compelling desire to find out what happens next. - [04:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=267s) Mastery provides genuine player satisfaction through the learning, refinement, and execution of complex skills. - [04:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=267s) Mental challenges fulfill players' natural desire for active thought through puzzles, tactical planning, and strategic reasoning. - [04:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=267s) Narrative anchors player investment through compelling story arcs or immersive fictional worlds. - [04:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=267s) Novelty satisfies the appetite for unique conceptual and visual experiences, distinguishing memorable games from generic genre tropes. - [04:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=267s) Flow lulls the player into a focused, rhythmic trance where the controller dissolves and actions outpace conscious thought. - [04:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=267s) Compulsion is not equivalent to meaningful engagement, and making an experience addictive does not make it a good game.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=11s) Burrhus Frederic Skinner and Operant Conditioning

In the early 1930s, psychologist Burrhus Frederic Skinner revolutionized the study of human and animal behavior. Prior to his work, psychology focused primarily on conditioning automatic reactions—such as training a subject to develop a phobia of pumpkins or to suddenly feel hungry at the sight of office supplies. Skinner, however, realized science could go a step further: “He theorized that you could condition volition—that you could change the way that people make choices.” This insight is crucial to modern media because an immense number of contemporary video games rely heavily on Skinner's findings, developing an unhealthy reliance on them.

To test his hypothesis, Skinner constructed what is now known as the Skinner box: a simple container equipped with a button or lever into which he placed pigeons. Whenever a pigeon pecked the button, the apparatus dispensed food, while an attached recording device tracked the frequency of their pecks. The breakthrough lay in the nature of the action; pecking was not a passive physiological reflex, but an active decision. By successfully manipulating how often the birds chose to peck, Skinner demonstrated operant conditioning—the ability to systematically shape voluntary choice.

Skinner uncovered two startling principles through these experiments: - Operant conditioning works on human beings just as effectively as it does on animals. - Rewarding a subject every single time they perform an action is actually *not* the optimal way to keep them repeating it; offering rewards after an unpredictable number of repetitions (a variable ratio) or at specific time intervals (interval schedules) produces far higher and more persistent rates of repetition.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Operant Conditioning Reward Architecture accDescr: Diagram contrasting primary biological reinforcers which saturate versus secondary non-biological reinforcers which sustain engagement indefinitely.

subgraph Reinforcers["Types of Reinforcers"] PR["Primary Conditioners (Food, Water, Sex)"] SR["Secondary Reinforcers (Money, Points, Social Praise)"] end

subgraph Outcomes["Behavioral Outcomes"] SAT["Biological Satiation Point (Diminishing returns once full)"] LOOP["Indefinite Conditioning Loop (No satiation point / Compulsive repetition)"] end

PR -->|"Meets physical limits"| SAT SR -->|"Sustained by variable schedule"| LOOP ```

[01:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=92s) The Gambler's Paradox and the Illusion of Engagement

Skinner frequently illustrated operant conditioning by looking at gambling. Most gamblers fully understand that casino games are mathematically rigged against them, yet they persist in pulling the lever rather than undertaking an equally exhausting job that offers a steady paycheck and a higher guaranteed profit. When comparing spending eight hours at a slot machine to end up with $100 versus working eight hours pushing a button in a factory for the exact same $100 paycheck, people consistently judge the gambling experience as far more enjoyable.

This psychological quirk is reinforced by the distinction between reinforcer types. Primary conditioners—biological fundamentals like food, water, and sex—suffer from diminishing returns once an organism reaches physical satiation. Secondary reinforcers, which exist outside biology (such as money, virtual tokens, or social approbation), rarely encounter a natural satiation ceiling.

This mechanism directly explains why millions sink hours into titles like *FarmVille* or *World of Warcraft* long after the novelty has evaporated: - These games construct rigid reward schedules specifically engineered to compel players to perform actions that have turned completely tedious. - As an essential caveat, the narrator clarifies that behavioral conditioning is technically distinct from chemical addiction, though both result in repetitive play. - Designers use operant conditioning because it offers an easy shortcut: “The problem is that it's a lazy and cheap way to get someone to believe they're enjoying your product.” - This tactic creates post-play regret, leaving a player wondering weeks later why they dumped 80 hours of their life into a game that offered no genuine substance.

[03:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=194s) The Crutch of Reward Schedules and RPG Mechanics

The reliance on conditioning is endemic across the medium, extending far beyond poorly made role-playing games where loot drop rates and level-up ding sounds keep tired players awake chasing "just one more level." Almost any mechanic incorporating score tallies leans on this system, explaining why an elderly relative might sit playing *Bejeweled* for hours on end. Even *Solitaire*, historically the most played game worldwide, functions by offering the infrequent win as an intermittent reward. Action games rely on button-mashing reward loops over twelve-hour campaigns, and modern first-person shooters weaponize audio callouts, showering the player with voice lines praising how awesome they are.

This dynamic also drives the modern industry habit of shoehorning RPG leveling systems into every genre. While combining progression with mental and execution challenges works brilliantly in games like *Call of Duty* or *Dungeon Fighter*, too many developers use progression bars as an artistic shield. Bland, uninspired titles tack on reward systems merely to postpone the moment the audience notices the game beneath is hollow. Designers must be pushed to seek higher forms of engagement rather than settling for primitive Skinner box feedback.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Six Alternative Avenues of Player Engagement accDescr: Flowchart displaying the six non-conditioning design methods: Mystery, Mastery, Mental Challenge, Narrative, Novelty, and Flow.

subgraph Cognitive["Intellectual Hooks"] A["1. Mystery (Curiosity & Discovery)"] B["3. Mental Challenge (Logic & Problem-solving)"] end

subgraph Experiential["Aesthetic & Dynamic Hooks"] C["2. Mastery (Execution & Skill)"] D["4. Narrative (Story & World immersion)"] end

subgraph Sensory["Perceptual Hooks"] E["5. Novelty (Fresh aesthetics & Concepts)"] F["6. Flow (Rhythm & Trance-like focus)"] end ```

[04:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=267s) Six Authentic Methods for Fostering Engagement

Rather than relying on compulsion loops, games can achieve meaningful player engagement through six rich alternatives:

1. **Mystery:** Human curiosity possesses tremendous motivational force. Unraveling an enigma—sparking that moment where the player mutters, "What the hell is going on?" followed immediately by "I want to keep going to find out"—propels the audience naturally. 2. **Mastery:** Allowing the player to learn, refine, and execute a difficult skill creates deep satisfaction. This is prevalent in fighting games, rhythm games, and well-tuned action titles. 3. **Mental Challenge:** Daily life rarely satisfies the human appetite for active thought. Puzzles and complex tactical calculations—ranging from the logic brain-teasers of *Professor Layton* and *Myst* to the grand strategic maneuvers of *Civilization*—keep players hooked by flexing their brains. 4. **Narrative:** Storytelling provides a powerful anchor, whether through a compelling linear narrative or simply constructing an immersive fictional world that players actively want to inhabit. 5. **Novelty:** While hard to sustain indefinitely, humans crave unique experiences. This natural appetite for the new is why generic brown shooters feel stale and wear thin quickly, whereas uniquely realized worlds like *Planescape: Torment* endure. 6. **Flow:** Certain experiences—such as *Everyday Shooter*, *N₂O*, or an intense match of the original *Aliens versus Predator*—can lull a player into a zen-like trance. The player's eyes drop into a soft focus, breathing turns rhythmic, blinking slows, and the physical barrier of the controller dissolves until player and screen merge into pure instinct. Designers achieve this difficult state by establishing a play rhythm and accelerating the demanded reaction speed until the player is performing actions faster than conscious thought allows.

The best games do not rely on an isolated trick; they synthesize multiple organic techniques to engage their audience. The episode closes with a direct plea to current and aspiring game creators to abandon exploitative conditioning schedules: “Engagement and compulsion are different things. Just because you can make an experience compelling doesn't make it a good game.”

## Notable quotes > [04:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=267s) Engagement and compulsion are different things. Just because you can make an experience compelling doesn't make it a good game.

## Mentioned Burrhus Frederic Skinner, FarmVille, World of Warcraft, Bejeweled, Solitaire, Call of Duty, Dungeon Fighter, Professor Layton, Myst, Civilization, Planescape: Torment, Everyday Shooter, N₂O, Aliens versus Predator, Extra Credits

## Video description Engaging design is extremely important in games, but too often simple reward systems are used to keep players playing longer or spending more money on in-game purchases. There are far more interesting and immersive mechanics you can choose to put in your games. Subscribe for new episodes every Wednesday! http://bit.ly/SubToEC (---More below)

(Original air date: November 24, 2010) _______

Get your Extra Credits gear at the store! http://bit.ly/ExtraStore Play games with us on Extra Play! http://bit.ly/WatchEXP

Watch more episodes from this season of Extra Credits! http://bit.ly/2nrLiSZ

Contribute community subtitles to Extra Credits: http://www.youtube.com/timedtext_cs_panel?c=UCCODtTcd5M1JavPCOr_Uydg&tab=2

Talk to us on Twitter (@ExtraCreditz): http://bit.ly/ECTweet Follow us on Facebook: http://bit.ly/ECFBPage Get our list of recommended games on Steam: http://bit.ly/ECCurator _________

Would you like James to speak at your school or organization? For info, contact us at: contact@extra-credits.net _________

♪ Intro Music: "Penguin Cap" by CarboHydroM http://bit.ly/1eIHTDS

♪ Outro Music: "Consent (Make Me Dance)" by djpretzel http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01186/

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c)

中文简报

游戏开发者利用斯金纳奖励循环掩盖空洞设计工作室将操作性条件反射作为诱导行为强迫的廉价捷径，给玩家留下游玩后的懊悔，而非通过精通、叙事和心流带来的真正投入。本期节目分析了B·F·斯金纳关于操作性条件反射的发现，解释了可变奖励机制与二级强化物如何像在斯金纳箱中操纵鸽子一样操纵人类的自愿选择。讲述者指出，从《开心农场》、《魔兽世界》到纸牌游戏以及充斥着成长系统的射击游戏，众多作品将这些循环作为偷懒的支柱，催生出成瘾性的强迫行为而非真实的乐趣。游戏开发者被敦促停止诱骗受众陷入令人后悔的时间黑洞，而是应当拥抱六种真正的参与途径：神秘感、精通、脑力挑战、叙事、新颖性以及心理心流。 B·F·斯金纳证明了操作性条件反射可以系统地塑造人类的自愿选择，并证明可变和间隔奖励机制比对每次行为都给予奖励能产生高得多的持久性。 (0:11) 视频游戏频繁运用积分和虚拟货币等二级强化物，因为与生物性的初级强化物不同，它们不会遇到天然的满足饱和上限。 (1:32) 强迫循环营造出一种投入的假象，充当了一种偷懒的设计捷径；当玩家意识到自己把数小时耗费在空洞的重复中时，便会产生游玩后的懊悔。 (1:32) 设计师不必依赖斯金纳式的条件反射，而是可以通过六种行之有效的机制来建立真正的参与感：神秘感、精通、脑力挑战、叙事、新颖性与心流。 (4:27)

Reading summary

Extra Credits argues that modern game designers frequently rely on operant conditioning as a cheap substitute for substantive engagement, creating compulsion loops rather than genuine player enjoyment. Operant Conditioning and Voluntary Behavior (0:11) In the early 1930s, psychologist B.F. Skinner expanded behavioral research beyond automatic reflexes to demonstrate that voluntary choice itself could be conditioned. Using the Skinner box, he discovered that rewarding pigeons on variable schedules or intervals led to more persistent repetitions than continuous rewards. Skinner demonstrated that these conditioning principles apply equally to humans. Secondary Reinforcers and Compulsive Play (1:32) The mechanics behind gambling illustrate why players persist with games long after novelty disappears. Unlike primary biological reinforcers such as food or water, secondary reinforcers like points, virtual currency, and praise face no biological satiation limits. While the source notes behavioral conditioning is distinct from chemical addiction, titles like FarmVille and World of Warcraft leverage variable reward schedules to keep players repeating fundamentally tedious actions, often resulting in post-play regret. Conditioning Mechanics Across Game Genres (3:14) Compulsion loops are not restricted to poorly made role-playing games; they appear across nearly every genre that incorporates scoring, infrequent win states, or audio callouts. Simple mechanics in games like Solitaire and Bejeweled rely on intermittent rewards to sustain extended play sessions. The source contends that developers increasingly graft RPG progression systems onto hollow games merely to stall players from noticing a lack of underlying substance. Six Organic Avenues for Player Engagement (4:27) Rather than engineering compulsion, the source identifies six authentic methods for engaging players: mystery, which sparks curiosity; mastery, the development and execution of physical skill; mental challenge, seen in strategic puzzles; and compelling narrative worldbuilding. Additionally, novelty delivers unique aesthetic concepts, while flow creates an instinctive, trance-like state where demanding reaction rhythms bypass conscious thought, exemplified by titles like Everyday Shooter and Aliens versus Predator. The source urges developers to distinguish between true engagement and compulsive manipulation, arguing that manufacturing a compelling habit loop does not make an experience a genuinely good game.

精炼阅读摘要

节目《Extra Credits》指出，大量现代电子游戏过度依赖心理学家斯金纳（B. F. Skinner）发现的操作性条件反射机制，借助不可预测的奖励日程诱导玩家产生强迫性重复行为。解说者强调，将玩家驯化至停不下来并不等于创造了优质游戏，这种设计捷径容易引发玩家事后的懊悔感，开发者应转而通过心流、技巧精通和谜题等手段构建健康的深度参与感。操作性条件反射与意志选择的塑造 (0:11) 在20世纪30年代初，心理学家斯金纳对行为学研究进行了重大革新。此前的心理学大多聚焦于训练自动反射（例如让受试者对南瓜产生恐惧，或看到办公用品感到饥饿），而斯金纳提出科学可以更进一步操控个体的意志，改变人们做出主动抉择的方式。斯金纳设计了配备按钮与食槽的“斯金纳箱”，将鸽子放入其中记录其啄击频率。与被动生理反射不同，啄击属于鸽子主动做出的行为决定。通过对食槽出食机制的控制，斯金纳成功操纵了鸽子主动啄击的频次，确立了操作性条件反射理论。该实验揭示了两项关键原则：首先，操作性条件反射在人类身上与在动物身上同样有效；其次，每次行动都给予奖励并非维持重复行为的最佳手段，在不可预测的重复次数之后发放奖励（可变比率）或基于特定时间间隔发放奖励（间隔日程），所激发的行为重复率与持久度反而远高于固定奖励。这一机制成为后世大量游戏设计的核心依托。赌徒悖论与次级强化物的虚假愉悦 (1:32) 斯金纳常用赌博现象来阐释操作性条件反射。大多数赌徒虽然清楚赌场规则在数学上对自己极为不利，却依然沉迷于拉动老虎机摇杆。若对比在老虎机前消磨8小时最终获得100美元，与在工厂按压按钮8小时拿走相同的100美元确定薪酬，人们普遍会觉得赌博过程更加愉快。这种行为差异源于初级强化物与次级强化物的属性分歧：食物、水和性等生物性初级强化物在个体生理饱和后会产生边际效用递减；而金钱、虚拟点数或社会赞赏等次级强化物并不存在自然的生理饱和上限，因此能在可变日程刺激下维持无休止的循环。解说者指出，这一心理学机制直接解释了为何数以百万计的玩家会在游戏失去新鲜感后，仍长期驻留于《FarmVille》或《魔兽世界》（World of Warcraft）等作品中。游戏设立的奖励日程迫使玩家重复早已变得极其乏味的动作。尽管解说者澄清行为驯化在病理机制上不同于化学成瘾，但两者导致的重复行为在表现上高度一致。主讲人批评这种做法是一种让玩家误以为自己享受产品的廉价懒惰手段，最终会导致玩家在数周后陷入懊悔，质疑自己为何要在毫无实质内涵的游戏上挥霍80个小时。数值成长机制的泛滥与玩法掩护 (3:14) 对条件反射机制的依赖已在整个游戏行业内蔓延。从劣质角色扮演游戏利用掉落率与升级音效让疲惫玩家硬撑着追求“再升一级”，到计分机制让老年玩家数小时沉浸于《宝石迷阵》（Bejeweled），再到全球最广泛普及的《接龙》（Solitaire）凭借低频胜率充当间歇性奖励，反馈回路几乎无处不在。动作游戏在长达12小时的流程中依靠按键连打循环，第一人称射击游戏则频繁运用夸奖玩家表现的语音播报来强化刺激。这种机制的普及促使业界盲目将RPG升级系统生搬硬套至各个类型。主讲人指出，尽管《使命召唤》（Call of Duty）或《地下城与勇士》（Dungeon Fighter）成功将成长系统与操作或智力挑战深度融合，但许多平庸作品仅将经验值进度条当作掩饰平庸的艺术挡箭牌，借由数值奖励延缓玩家察觉底层设计空洞的时间。业界必须警惕将斯金纳箱式的原始反馈视为理所当然，转而追求更高维度的设计。替代驯化回路的六种真实参与维度 (4:27) 解说者主张，开发者应当摆脱强迫性循环，采用六种更具内涵的设计手段激发玩家真正的参与感：其一是悬念（Mystery），利用人类探求未知的本能，让玩家自发产生探索究竟的动力；其二是精通（Mastery），在格斗、音游或动作游戏中让玩家学习并掌握高难度操作，获得深刻的成就感；其三是脑力挑战（Mental Challenge），在《雷顿教授》（Professor Layton）、《神秘岛》（Myst）或《文明》（Civilization）中提供日常生活中少有的严密逻辑计算与战术推演。其余三种路径则围绕体验与感官展开：其四是叙事（Narrative），通过优质的线性故事或营造令人向往的沉浸式虚拟世界建立情感纽带；其五是新颖性（Novelty），打破千篇一律的写实射击套路，如《异域镇魂曲》（Planescape: Torment）般提供独特概念与美术风格；其六是心流（Flow），在《天天射击》（Everyday Shooter）、《N₂O》或原版《异形大战铁血战士》中，通过精准节奏将反应要求推至极限，使手柄障碍消解，玩家与屏幕融为一体进入极度专注的直觉状态。优秀作品往往综合运用这些手段，而非依赖单一技巧。解说者在结语中警示，让玩家无法自拔的强迫性行为与真正的深度参与有着本质区别；仅仅能让体验变得令人欲罢不能，并不代表其属于优秀的游戏作品。游戏创作者应当自觉摒弃剥削性的斯金纳箱日程，转而在机制深度、审美创新与认知挑战上投入精力，追求更有价值的交互体验。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由游戏评论与设计分析频道 Extra Credits 于 2012 年 3 月 13 日发布在 YouTube 上（原节目首播于 2010 年 11 月 24 日）。视频简介指出，引人入胜的设计对游戏至关重要，但如今有太多作品滥用简单的奖励系统来诱导玩家延长游玩时间或在内购中消费，而开发者本应选择远比这更有趣、更具沉浸感的机制。 ## TL;DR 本期节目深入探讨了心理学中的“斯金纳箱”与操作性条件反射理论，揭示现代游戏如何利用随机奖励时刻表与次级强化物塑造玩家的主动决策，让玩家在乐趣早已消退后依然机械地重复操作。节目尖锐地指出，这种行为条件化往往是平庸游戏用来掩盖自身乏味、制造虚假投入感的偷懒拐杖。最后，主讲人呼吁开发者分清“强迫性冲动”与“真正投入感”的区别，并提出了悬念、技巧掌控、心智挑战、叙事、新颖感以及心流状态这六种能够创造长久价值的高阶设计路径。 ## Atmosphere & style 整期视频节奏明快而充满思辨锐气，标志性且略带变调的高亢语速配以简练生动的卡通插画，将严肃的心理学实验与尖锐的行业批评巧妙熔于一炉。解说语调从最初解析行为主义理论时的抽丝剥茧与冷静科普，逐步转向对滥用数值奖励促成虚假繁荣的痛心疾首与严厉质问；而在后半段描绘极致“心流”的生理体验时，叙述又变得细致入微、极具画面感，最终在对游戏开发者深沉而诚恳的职业呼吁中达到情绪高潮。 ## Bulletin - [00:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=11s) 现代电子游戏大量依赖斯金纳的操作性条件反射理论，通过随机或定时的奖励时刻表诱导玩家持续进行机械重复的主动行为。 - [01:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=92s) 虚拟点数、装备等次级强化物因缺乏生物学上的生理饱腹感，往往导致玩家在丧失游戏乐趣后依然机械投入数十甚至上百小时。 - [02:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=172s) 条件反射设计常被平庸游戏视作延长时长与掩盖内容匮乏的廉价拐杖，必须将真正的投入感（Engagement）与单纯的强迫感（Compulsion）区分开来。 - [04:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=267s) 设计师应采用悬念探索、技能精通、心智挑战、深度叙事、新颖体验以及心流状态等六种高阶机制，构建真正健康的玩家沉浸感。 ## Key takeaways - [00:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=11s) 斯金纳突破了传统被动刺激的局限，证实人类的主动意志与行为决策同样可以通过外部条件化手段进行塑造。 - [00:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=45s) 操作性条件反射实验表明，采用变额（随机）或定时/变时间隔给予奖励，维持目标行为长久持续的效果远高于每次动作都给予奖励。 - [01:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=92s) 赌博心理学揭示，即使数学胜率处于劣势，不可预测的奖励机制依然能让人们产生比常规劳动强烈得多的主观乐趣。 - [01:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=118s) 金钱、装备、积分等次级强化物不会像食物和水等初级强化物那样触发人类的生理饱腹感，因此极易被游戏用于无休止地留存玩家。 - [02:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=139s) 行为条件化机制不同于医学意义上的成瘾，但在《开心农场》或《魔兽世界》等作品中常被用来维持早已失去新意与乐趣的机械重复行为。 - [02:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=172s) 许多玩家通关后产生的空虚感与悔恨，源于游戏依靠奖励时刻表制造出的‘深度投入’虚假幻觉，本质上是一种偷懒的设计手段。 - [03:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=208s) 积分系统、战利品掉落、偶尔获胜的《纸牌》以及射击游戏中的语音夸奖，本质上都沿用了斯金纳箱的强化反射模型。 - [04:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=240s) 行业普遍引入 RPG 元素的潮流常常沦为掩饰游戏乏味的遮羞布，旨在延缓玩家意识到其内容平庸的时刻。 - [04:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=267s) 高阶机制之一是利用人类的本能好奇心，通过悬念与神秘感（Mystery）驱动玩家主动探寻答案。 - [04:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=277s) 精通与掌控力（Mastery）通过给玩家提供磨练并施展操作技能的机会，在格斗与节奏等类型中建立纯粹的游戏乐趣。 - [04:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=286s) 益智解谜或宏观战略等心智挑战（Mental Challenge），能弥补人们日常生活中未被充分利用的脑力活动，维持持久吸引力。 - [04:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=298s) 高水准的叙事与世界构建（Narrative）能够依靠引人入胜的剧情和独特虚构空间，牢牢吸引玩家的情感投入。 - [05:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=307s) 突破千篇一律同质化产品的新颖感（Novelty）能满足玩家天生对新鲜事物的渴求，使经典作品历久弥新。 - [05:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=319s) 心流状态（Flow）通过加快节奏与律动，能让玩家的理性思考退居幕后，进入人机一体且专注无我的冥想般超常体验。 - [06:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=395s) 具备令人无法自拔的强迫性并不等同于是一款优秀作品，游戏设计必须摆脱对斯金纳箱的单纯依赖，追求多维度的健康投入体验。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=11s) 斯金纳箱与操作性条件反射在 20 世纪 30 年代初，伯尔赫斯·弗雷德里克·斯金纳（Burrhus Frederic Skinner）开创了一种全新且激进的心理学研究方式。在此之前，人类已知的心理机制主要局限于对被动刺激的条件反射——例如训练某人一看到南瓜就感到害怕，或者一看到办公用品就产生食欲。然而，斯金纳提出了更进一步的理论假设：“He theorized that you could condition volition—that you could change the way that people make choices.” 他认为人类的意志与决策过程同样可以被条件化训练。如今讨论这项理论，是因为当今有大量游戏正是建立在斯金纳的心理学发现之上，并且这种设计倾向正在演变成一种不良习惯。为了验证这一理论，斯金纳发明了一种简单的实验装置：一个内部设有按钮的特制箱子，里面放有一只鸽子。当鸽子啄击按钮时，机器就会自动掉落食物；箱子还连接了记录仪，用以精确记录鸽子啄击按钮的频率。这项实验的颠覆性在于，“啄击按钮”是一种主动行为而非本能的被动刺激反应，它包含了鸽子的主动决策。斯金纳以此证明，只要持续改变刺激方式，就能改变鸽子啄击按钮的频次，进而训练它们做出特定的选择。这种通过强化手段塑造主动行为的过程，即心理学上的“操作性条件反射”（Operant Conditioning）。斯金纳的研究揭示了两个极具冲击力的结论：第一，操作性条件反射对人类同样有效；第二，每当个体完成目标动作就立即给予奖励，并不是维持该行为长久持续的最佳方法。相反，如果采用“随机发生次数后给予奖励”（变额强化）或“每隔几分钟才给予一次奖励”（定时/变时强化），反而能以极高的效率促使个体不断重复同一种动作。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 斯金纳操作性条件反射机制 accDescr: 展示从被动反应到主动决策，再到变额强化形成重复行为的心理学路径。 subgraph Classical["经典条件反射"] A["被动刺激与生理反应"] end subgraph Operant["操作性条件反射（斯金纳箱）"] B["主体主动行为（啄按钮/按按键）"] C{"强化机制"} D["固定奖励：易生厌倦"] E["随机/间隔奖励强化"] F["行为反复固化并形成循环"] end A -.->|"跨越至主动意志"| B B --> C C -->|"每次都给"| D C -->|"随机概率/时间间隔"| E E --> F F --> B ``` ### [01:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=92s) 赌博心理、强化物分类与现代游戏循环斯金纳经常用赌博的运作模式来解释操作性条件反射。绝大多数赌博游戏在数学概率上都对赌徒不利，而且奇妙的是，大部分赌徒其实心知肚明，但他们依然选择继续沉迷其中，而不是去从事一份付出同样体力劳动、拥有稳定收入且净利润更高的常规工作。不妨对比一下人们的主观感受：在赌场玩八小时老虎机最后带走 100 美元，与在工厂按八小时流水线按钮最后领到 100 美元薪水，绝大多数人都会毫不犹豫地认为前者“好玩得多”。这一现象背后涉及斯金纳关于强化物性质的重要发现：初级强化物（Primary Conditioners）满足的是基本生物学需求，例如食物、水、性等；一旦个体达到“生理饱腹感”（Satiation）或生理承受极限，初级强化物的吸引力就会呈边际递减。然而，次级强化物（Secondary Reinforcers）属于超越生物需求的范畴，例如金钱、社会认可等。这些非生物性奖励几乎永远不会让人产生真正的生理饱足感。这种心理机制直接映射到了现代电子游戏的设计之中。许多玩家在玩《开心农场》（FarmVille）或《魔兽世界》（World of Warcraft）时，往往在游戏乐趣早已消失后依然机械地玩上很久。究其本质，正是因为这些游戏完全围绕“奖励时刻表”（Reward Schedules）来构建。正如节目中所指出的：“The entire design of both of those games is to condition you to continue to repeat an action that has long since lost its novelty—that has long since become tedious.” - **关于成瘾的澄清**：被条件化驱使去重复某种行为，与医学意义上的成瘾（Addiction）属于截然不同的概念；此处讨论的焦点严格限定在游戏如何对玩家进行行为条件化塑造。 - **初级强化物 vs 次级强化物**：食物和水等生理需求容易迅速饱和，而金钱、虚拟点数、装备或社交声誉等次级强化物几乎没有饱和阈值。 ### [02:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=172s) 行为条件化为何是廉价偷懒的设计拐杖利用斯金纳理论做游戏引发的核心问题，暂且撇开其背后的道德伦理争议不谈，关键在于这种做法是开发者诱导玩家误以为自己正在享受产品的廉价懒惰手段。许多玩家都经历过这样的时刻：通关某款游戏数周之后回过神来，内心忍不住质问：“What the hell was I doing putting 80 hours of my life into that?” 这种情况之所以屡见不鲜，就是因为游戏运用了斯金纳的技巧制造出了“深度投入”的虚假幻觉，从而刻意延长游戏时长。各类角色扮演游戏（RPG），尤其是粗制滥造的低劣作品，正是重灾区。从掉落战利品（Loot Drops）到角色升级数值，其底层全套机制都是赤裸裸的奖励时刻表，用来持续强化玩家刷怪推进的行为。不少玩家都有过深夜明明困得不行，却非要说服自己“升完这级就去睡”的熬夜经历。然而，这种现象绝非 RPG 独有，它已经蔓延成了整个行业的流行病： - 任何带有积分系统的游戏都在沿用这套机制，连老奶奶沉迷玩《宝石迷阵》（Bejeweled）也是同理。 - 世界上游玩人数极广的《纸牌》（Solitaire），其核心设计正是将“偶尔出现的不频繁获胜”包装成诱人的即时奖励。 - 动作游戏依靠随机反馈驱使玩家连续 12 小时机械地狂按按键。 - 射击游戏中播报玩家表现有多神勇的语音夸奖，同样被拿来当作条件反射的强化工具。当今各类游戏争相引入 RPG 元素，很大程度上也是为了利用这套强化机制。如果融入 RPG 机制是为了构建具有深度和沉浸感的游戏系统（例如在《使命召唤》或《地下城与勇士》中将心智思考与操作执行相结合），那么这一趋势本身非常优秀。然而现实是，太多平庸乏味的作品把 RPG 元素当成了遮羞布和拐杖：“Bland uninspired games will include reward systems simply to delay your realization of how terrible they are.” 游戏开发者必须认识到，培养玩家的投入度还有更多更好、更健康的方式，而不是单纯诉诸斯金纳箱式的条件反射刺激。 ### [04:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=267s) 替代斯金纳箱的六种高阶游戏投入机制为了摆脱单纯靠数值奖励诱导玩家的恶性循环，节目列举了六种能够真正激发生动沉浸感与真实乐趣的设计方法： 1. **悬念与神秘感（Mystery）**：人类好奇心具有无与伦比的力量，大家都喜欢抽丝剥茧解开谜团。当一款游戏让玩家情不自禁地发出“这到底是怎么回事”的疑问时，玩家自然会因强烈的探究欲而选择主动玩下去。 2. **精通与掌控力（Mastery）**：为玩家提供磨练并掌握某种技巧的机会，再让他们在游戏中实践这种掌控感。这一设计在节奏音乐游戏、格斗游戏以及部分优秀 RPG 中尤为常见。 3. **心智挑战（Mental Challenge）**：普通人在日常生活中大脑往往得不到充分的心智刺激。从《雷顿教授》（Professor Layton）或《神秘岛》（Myst）中的烧脑解谜，到《文明》（Civilization）系列中宏大的策略逻辑推演，让玩家动脑思考是维持长久吸引力的极佳路径。 4. **叙事与世界构建（Narrative）**：无论是沉浸在一个让人流连忘返的虚拟世界中，还是跟随一条扣人心弦的线性故事脉络前行，优质的叙事都能牢牢抓住玩家。 5. **新颖感（Novelty）**：尽管维持新颖体验非常困难，但人类天生热衷于新鲜事物。这也是为什么千篇一律的灰褐色军事射击游戏很快会让人审美疲劳，而设定独特前卫的《异域镇魂曲》（Planescape: Torment）却能历久弥新。 6. **心流状态（Flow）**：类似《每日射击》（Everyday Shooter）、《N₂O》或是经典版《异形大战铁血战士》（Aliens versus Predator）中发挥极佳的对局，能将玩家带入一种类似禅宗冥想的忘我出神状态。关于心流的生理与心理体验，视频给出了细致入微的描摹：玩家的眼睛进入柔焦状态，眨眼变慢，呼吸变得极其规律，整个人纯粹处于“正在行动”的纯粹感知中。此时手柄仿佛消失了，玩家与屏幕融为一体，常规逻辑认知退居幕后，大脑在更深层的心智维度运转。这种设计极具挑战，要求设计师在玩法内构筑律动感，逐步要求玩家加快操作节奏，不断推高势头，直到玩家操作动作的速度甚至超越了理性思考的速度。没有任何优秀游戏只依赖单一维度的机制，绝大多数玩家挚爱的杰作都会融汇上述多种元素。节目的最后向所有现任与未来的游戏设计师发出了呼吁：“Engagement and compulsion are different things. Just because you can make an experience compelling doesn't make it a good game.” 行业必须从对斯金纳箱式强迫循环的依赖中抽离出来，真正聚焦于那些具有长久生命力的优秀设计。 ## Notable quotes > [04:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=267s) Engagement and compulsion are different things. Just because you can make an experience compelling doesn't make it a good game. — Extra Credits > [02:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c&t=172s) Bland uninspired games will include reward systems simply to delay your realization of how terrible they are. — Extra Credits ## Mentioned 斯金纳 (Burrhus Frederic Skinner), Extra Credits, 开心农场 (FarmVille), 魔兽世界 (World of Warcraft), 宝石迷阵 (Bejeweled), 纸牌 (Solitaire), 使命召唤 (Call of Duty), 地下城与勇士 (Dungeon Fighter Online), 雷顿教授 (Professor Layton), 神秘岛 (Myst), 文明 (Civilization), 异域镇魂曲 (Planescape: Torment), 每日射击 (Everyday Shooter), N₂O, 异形大战铁血战士 (Aliens versus Predator) ## Video description Engaging design is extremely important in games, but too often simple reward systems are used to keep players playing longer or spending more money on in-game purchases. There are far more interesting and immersive mechanics you can choose to put in your games. Subscribe for new episodes every Wednesday! http://bit.ly/SubToEC (---More below) (Original air date: November 24, 2010) _______ Get your Extra Credits gear at the store! http://bit.ly/ExtraStore Play games with us on Extra Play! http://bit.ly/WatchEXP Watch more episodes from this season of Extra Credits! http://bit.ly/2nrLiSZ Contribute community subtitles to Extra Credits: http://www.youtube.com/timedtext_cs_panel?c=UCCODtTcd5M1JavPCOr_Uydg&tab=2 Talk to us on Twitter (@ExtraCreditz): http://bit.ly/ECTweet Follow us on Facebook: http://bit.ly/ECFBPage Get our list of recommended games on Steam: http://bit.ly/ECCurator _________ Would you like James to speak at your school or organization? For info, contact us at: contact@extra-credits.net _________ ♪ Intro Music: "Penguin Cap" by CarboHydroM http://bit.ly/1eIHTDS ♪ Outro Music: "Consent (Make Me Dance)" by djpretzel http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01186/ [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c)

Source quotes

[4:27] Extra Credits: Engagement and compulsion are different things. Just because you can make an experience compelling doesn't make it a good game. [2:52] Extra Credits: Bland uninspired games will include reward systems simply to delay your realization of how terrible they are.

Source quotes

[4:27] Engagement and compulsion are different things. Just because you can make an experience compelling doesn't make it a good game.

Original transcript

[0:11] In the early 1930s a man named Burrhus Frederic Skinner [0:14] began to study psychology in a radical new way. [0:17] See, before him we only knew how to condition reactions; [0:19] we could condition a person to be terrified of pumpkins or hungry at the sight of office supplies. [0:23] But Skinner theorized that you could go one further. [0:26] He theorized that you could condition volition—that you could change the way that people make choices [0:31] So why are we talking about it? Because a vast number of today's games are [0:34] built upon Skinner's discoveries, and it's starting to become a bad habit. [0:37] But, before I get ahead of myself, let's take a closer look at what Skinner did. [0:41] Skinner created a machine: a simple box with a button in it that he would put pigeons in. [0:45] When the pigeons pecked at the button the machine would give them food. [0:48] He then hooked the box up to a recording device so he could tell how often the pigeons pecked the button. [0:53] Seems simple enough, so: why was this so groundbreaking? [0:55] Because pecking the button is active. [0:57] This wasn't just an automatic reaction to stimuli, it involved making a decision. [1:01] So if Skinner could show that he could consistently change how often the pigeons peck the button, [1:05] he could show that he could condition them to make a specific choice. [1:08] This is called operant conditioning. [1:10] Now there were two amazing parts to his findings. [1:12] One, operant conditioning works on humans. [1:15] Two, simply rewarding someone every time they do an action [1:18] isn't the best way to keep them continually doing that action. [1:21] Rather, if you provide a reward to a person after they perform the action a random number of times, [1:26] or only give a reward once every so many minutes, [1:28] these methods are far more effective at conditioning someone to repeat an action. [1:32] Skinner often talked about operant conditioning in terms of gambling. [1:35] Most gambling games are not rigged in the gambler's favor and, oddly enough, most gamblers are well aware of this, [1:40] and yet they continue to gamble rather than perform an [1:42] equally strenuous job that has a regular pay out with a higher net profit. [1:46] Consider which activity people will tell you is more fun: [1:49] spending eight hours in a casino playing the slots and ending up with a hundred bucks, [1:52] or pushing a button in a factory for eight hours and getting a paycheck for a hundred bucks at the end. [1:56] This is all compounded by another discovery of Skinner's research: [1:59] he demonstrated that primary conditioners, or rewards that are fundamental biological needs— [2:04] you know: food water sex etc.—have a diminishing effect once a person reaches "satiation," [2:08] or the biological limit of their needs. [2:11] But then there are secondary reinforcers: things outside the biological realm, [2:15] like money or social approbation. These things generally don't hit a satiation point. [2:19] You can probably see where we're going with this. [2:21] Many of you have played Farmville or World of Warcraft well past the point where it was fun. [2:26] Why? [2:27] Because those games are very clearly built around reward schedules. [2:31] The entire design of both of those games is to condition you to continue to repeat [2:34] an action that has long since lost its novelty— [2:36] that has long since become tedious. [2:39] Actually, before we continue: quick disclaimer. [2:41] Being conditioned to do an action and being addicted to something are very different. [2:45] We're not gonna go into the addiction thing today but I just wanted to acknowledge the difference. [2:48] All we're going to talk about today is how games can condition us. [2:51] Okay, disclaimer over. [2:52] So why is it a problem if games do this? [2:54] For now let's ignore the questionable morality of using Skinner's theories to create games. [2:58] The problem is that it's a lazy and cheap way to get someone to believe they're enjoying your product. [3:02] Have you ever finished a game and then looked back a few weeks later and thought, [3:05] "What the hell was I doing putting 80 hours of my life into that? [3:09] That usually happens because the game used Skinner's techniques [3:11] to create the illusion of engagement and extend playtime. [3:14] RPGs, especially poorly-made ones, are a great example of this. [3:18] Everything from loot drops to leveling is a very clear reward schedule that [3:21] reinforces the behavior that gets you the reward. [3:24] ever been playing late and getting sleepy but then decide that you're going to get just one more level before you go to bed [3:29] Yep. [3:29] But this isn't just an RPG problem, it's endemic. [3:32] Almost anything with points uses this system. [3:34] Ask your grandmother sometime why she plays so much Bejeweled. [3:37] But it goes beyond points, too. It works with anything that has a clear and manifest reward. [3:41] Solitaire the most played game in the world sets up the infrequent win as a clear reward [3:46] Many action games use the same system to convince players to mash the same buttons for 12 hours straight. [3:50] Even elements like the voiceovers in shooters that tell the player how awesome they are can be used as conditioning tools. [3:56] It's also one of the main reasons every game is getting RPG elements these days. [3:59] Now don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with adding RPG elements if it's [4:02] being used to create deep immersive systems for the game. [4:05] I'm actually a huge fan of this trend when it's used to combine [4:07] mental challenges and execution challenges like in Call of Duty or Dungeon Fighter. [4:11] But too many games are using RPG elements as a crutch. [4:14] Bland uninspired games will include reward systems simply to delay your realization of how terrible they are. [4:19] My point is there are other better ways of fostering engagement, [4:22] and those are the methods we should be demanding from our games, not simple Skinner box satisfaction. [4:27] Here are a few examples. [4:28] 1. Mystery. [4:30] Human curiosity is a powerful thing. [4:32] We like unraveling mysteries. [4:34] We've all played a game that made us ask "what the hell's going on?" [4:37] immediately followed by "I want to keep going to find out." [4:39] 2. Mastery. [4:41] The player can be engaged by giving him the opportunity to master a skill, [4:44] and then utilize that mastery. [4:46] You see this sort of thing in rhythm games fighting games sometimes even RPGs. [4:49] This one's a little tougher to execute in traditional games but [4:52] we already kind of talked about this in our easy games episode, so: moving on! [4:55] 3. Mental Challenge. [4:58] Oddly enough most of us don't actually get enough mental stimulation in a day. [5:01] From the thought problems in Professor Layton or Myst to the logic stomping of a Civ game. [5:06] Giving players a way to work their brains is a great way to keep people interested. [5:09] 4. Narrative. [5:11] You ever get lost in a world? Continued playing a game just because it was a place you wanted to be? [5:15] This, as well as linear story narrative, is a great way to engage players. [5:20] 5. Novelty. [5:21] This one's hard to maintain but: human beings like new things. We're engaged by novelty. [5:26] This is why brown shooters may wear thin but Planescape doesn't. [5:30] 6. Flow. [5:31] Games like "everyday shooter," N₂O or even a really good session of [5:35] the original Alien vs Predator can bring a player to a sort of Zen trance. [5:39] We've all been there at one point or another. [5:41] Your eyes enter soft focus, your blinking slows, [5:44] your breathing becomes incredibly regular, and you're just doing. [5:48] There is no controller; you and the screen are one. [5:50] You've stopped thinking in the ordinary sense of cognition and instead are working on some much deeper level. [5:55] This is very hard to design for. [5:57] It basically involves creating rhythm within play, [5:59] and then slowly demanding the player to start performing actions faster, [6:02] and faster, building momentum until they're performing the actions [6:05] faster than they could possibly think through them. [6:07] It's hard to pull this off as a designer but achieving this experience is deeply compelling in a game. [6:12] Now this is just a small set of non-conditioning ways to make games fun, [6:15] and no good game relies strictly on one; most of your favorites combine many of these elements. [6:20] So to all designers and future designers out there: [6:22] we have to get away from this increased reliance on Skinner box methods of compelling gamers to play our games. [6:27] Engagement and compulsion are different things. [6:30] Just because you can make an experience compelling doesn't make it a good game. [6:33] Well, thanks for watching! See you next week.