Don't Starve: Giant Edition is one of a number of high quality games on the Wii U eShop, and its randomised survival gameplay has been put to an interesting academic test, indicating that the placebo effect is perfectly applicable in games.
The placebo effect is when a falsely perceived advantage or benefit changes someone's behaviour or performance, as an example - in one case an athlete may take a sugar pill thinking it's a more powerful drug and record improved performance. A study at the University of York (in the UK) has now tested out the effect using unknowing gamers and a copy of the game.
It's a title with randomly generated worlds, and this was explained to a group of players. They then placed another round but were told that the game would - on that occasion - have 'adaptive AI' that would adjust the difficulty to suit their abilities. This wasn't true, but the perception of the game being catered to their abilities changed the player's reaction to the game, in different cases referring to it being easier or harder to play. Some quotes from the feedback are below.
The adaptive AI put me in a safer environment and seemed to present me with resources as needed.
...It reduces the time of exploring the map, which makes the game more enjoyable.
This was repeated with another group of 40 players, with half told the game was random and the other half told it was adaptive AI - this reinforced the results.
The study draws parallels between this and the way a person reacts if they're told a product they've bought is the latest version - they're more positive towards it.
Let us know your thoughts, as always, in the comments.
[source newscientist.com]
Comments 16
Just how hard is it, though? Are these random people pulled off the street or actual people who have had playing (or making) games as a hobby for at least half a decade?
Then the trick is in the game description, but the game is the same for all.
Just shows that the subject-object relation goes both ways. The object informs the subject and the subject determines what to call 'object.'
While I'm sure the placebo operates in gaming, cos it operates everywhere, there are some flaws in this.
The main one being that 40 isn't really a big enough sample size to remove random chance as an explanation (e.g if you've only got 20 people trying out each "version", it's entirely possible you just ended up with more people who're good at games on one side)
To combat that you'd need either a much larger sample size or you'd need to test every person on both to get a reliable control.
I'd like to see a followup study analyzing how calling something "Game of the Year Edition" influences people's perceptions of quality and/or value.
Studies involving video games are notorious for using small sample sizes to come up with seemingly profound results, so I'd take this with a pretty big grain of salt.
An interesting study but the fact the game's levels are randomly generated makes the results a bit dubious. Players either found it both harder or easier but never the same the second time when they thought there was an AI in place. But how do you separate it from the fact the game would randomly easier/harder anyway?
To break it down:
1. A player would play a World of Don't Starve
2. They would be told that an AI would be in play during the next round
3. They play a newly created World of Don't Starve thinking an adaptive AI will be in play,
4. They comment on whether they thought the "AI" made the game harder or easier for them
The problem is that there wouldn't be a placebo effect, if a player found the game harder its likely because it generated a harder level. The players would just misattribute this to the AI which doesn't exist but the change in difficulty would be real and not just in the player's head. Though the immersive comments that had nothing to do with difficulty would be.
I think they could have improved the stufy if they had a game where they could have fixed levels for the test so that every player would play the same two levels(though still tell them its randomly generated) and have the levels be of identical difficulty(like have the levels contain all the same objects and enemies but have the 2nd level be a rotated or mirrored version of original and big enough that its not easy to tell) and ask similar questions at the end.
@Dezzy @Dr_Lugae I wish this were a published study, so we could look at the methodology. I suspect they used player opinion (self-ratings), which reduces some of the concern about unequal distribution of players--they probably also screened for this, but we don't know that. And we would know how many levels they played before giving their opinion; a high number of levels should control for the chance that harder/ easier levels were created randomly.
@KTT Great! I should learn how to use the Googles I guess. (I saw it was from a conference presentation and assumed it wasn't published yet; didn't even consider conference proceedings).
The first experiment was within-subjects, and they only played "with adaptive AI" for two sessions. (So @Dr_Lugae, I think you're right on this one). The second experiment was between subjects and participants played 20 minutes--but there's no mention of how many levels that is. 4 maybe? They say they played a first practice level that took about 5 minutes, so that's all I can guess.
Looks like the results are based on questionnaire data and so it's more concerned with how players feel. They say in the abstract that the placebo effect "lead[s] to a higher level of perceived immersion". It would be interesting to see if it actually leads to better play though (i.e., fewer deaths, higher scores, etc.)
@SMEXIZELDAMAN You should change your icon to something less dangerous.
This applies with computer sales, and certain placebo medications as well. It's becoming well known that being in a good psychological state of mind improves your overall health. That being said, one must be careful not to sink into a false sense of "positive psychology". Happiness and self-actualization must be natural to be genuine, it cannot be forced.
#PsychologyLife
I do suspect the placebo effect is pretty strong even in gaming. It's why I refuse to study matchups in Super Smash Bros. despite being a competitive player; If so-and-so is utterly hopeless against this specific opponent, I don't want to know, because that'll lead to me basically giving up.
The best test for the placebo effect would be to tell people that all the games on the next gen consoles run at 60fps and 1080p and see if they score them higher because of it.
This is a new twist compared to the many many many years scientists have been trying to convince people that video games make people more likely to be aggressive. I'm with @Dezzy they really need a bigger sample size of just 40 people.
@MrGawain
Many people could tell if a game was not in fact meeting those measures.
Further study required. The goal is clear enough, but if this is all they planned for results, I am not convinced.
Tap here to load 16 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...