Welcome back to my attempt to define how games challenge us by looking at the areas of brain function listed on the Wikipedia entry for Neuropsychology and seeing which ones games test.
Attention
Attention is the science word for focus, the ability to separate an object or sound from other objects or sounds. The clinical model of attention (which is actually used to test for brain damage :P ) makes it a little easier to break things down into gaming tasks. (I'll be paraphrasing the Wikipedia definitions to make this flow a little better, but mostly they're just stolen, er, "homaged".)
Focused Attention: the ability to respond discretely to stimuli
At the simplest level, games like Rock Band and Dance Dance Revolution simply flash instructions on the screen and the player has to perform them to score points and keep the game going. But most games have certain elements like this. When you see X, do Y. It's the most basic level of reactive gameplay.
X = "his head" Y = "hit it with the rock"
Sustained Attention: the ability to consistently respond during a repetitive activity
I think I'd call this mental endurance. In a particularly long song in Rock Band or DDR, I get fatigued. My attention wanders. Boom. My two hundred note streak is history. Stealth games with lots of repetitive sneaking and RPGs with lots of repetitive grinding will also test Sustained Attention. I hate games like that. If I'm having to use Sustained Attention, it better be because I'm doing something climactic. To put it another way, if the main challenge is boredom, the game has failed.
Selective Attention: the ability to maintain "a behavioral or cognitive set" in the face of competing stimuli.
Okay. I admit it. I'm not sure what it means. I believe it means being able to keep focus in the face of distractions. Going with that, I'll say that games really condition the heck out of players this way. We're used to having all sorts of flashing lights and gauges and noises going off. Many times I see someone who doesn't play much get completely lost trying to understand everything a game presents. But experienced gamers have often been trained in the empirical method. Hit buttons until one does what you want. The rest is nonsense. What do I need to do to win?
Game manuals are a perfect example. :)
Alternating Attention: the ability to shift between tasks with different cognitive requirements
I'm having a hard time with examples for this one. Scratch that. I've had a hard time coming up with good examples. Almost all games have changes of pace (even racing games). But few of them feel like they test context shifting specifically. Sure games will require you to fight some guys, then pick a lock, then talk someone into helping you. But none of them will stop you halfway through a conversation to make you suddenly start picking a lock again. I guess what I'm saying is that they test context shifting, but not very purely.
The Wario Ware games (a collection of random microgames where you have to figure out what your expected to do and do it within three seconds) look like they'd test this, but they really don't. They're mostly about figuring out the one motion you need to do to complete the test.
I'm not sure if any game I've played is really about switching context. Since they try to present linear experiences, context switching as a mechanic would probably feel like constant, annoying interruptions. I wonder what a game designed around context switching would look like?
Divided Attention: the ability to respond simultaneously to multiple tasks
Anyone who's learned to simultaneously learned to move, aim, and shoot in a game has learned about divided attention. It's a pain to learn, but provides good feelings of mastery when it's accomplished.
As I reread these, I'm struck by the need to remind you that this is the narrowest slice of gaming, as each of these articles will be. This article is just about attention. Attention is reactive. Gaming is not; it's interactive. Just thought it needed to be said.
No comments:
Post a Comment