Adapting for Player Satisfaction
The Dating Game (The Escapist)

Why You Play Games

Brain.02.color Whatever reason you enjoy playing videogames, there is one specific part of the brain that lies behind it.

For some time, game designers have known how to apply the work of the behaviourist B.F. Skinner to videogame design, creating reward schedules (such as levelling mechanics in computer RPGs) that will hook players in and keep them addicted while they play, or setting up short and medium term challenges to overcome in order to produce the same kind of pattern. These reward schedules work because when we win or attain something, the pleasure centre in the brain (the nucleus accumbens) releases a neurotransmitter called dopamine, which is chemically similar to cocaine.

But recent research into cognitive functions using functional magnetic resonance imaging has shown that these are not the only ways to trip the pleasure centre – and in fact, it's starting to look suspiciously as if whichever aspect of videogames you enjoy, the pleasure centre lies behind your enjoyment.

Suppose you are one of those players who hates the grinding for reward that cRPGs and MMORPGs expect their players to follow, much like the rats in Skinner's experiments, and you instead enjoy seeing incredible landscapes and finding wondrous things in games. Brain researchers Irving Biederman and Edward Vessel conducted fMRI scans of people viewing various different scenes and discovered a neurological mechanism for interest (or curiosity) involving the visual cortex, a part of the brain where memory is co-ordinated known as the association area (hippocampus) and a neurotransmitter called endomorphin, which is chemically similar to opium. Surprisingly, their research discovered that this interest mechanism also relied upon the pleasure centre for its sense of reward – if you are motivated by exploration and curiosity, your experience of enjoyment comes from the release of dopamine – just as it does with the grinding in cRPGs.

In all, there are at least six different ways in which a player can trip the pleasure centre and derive enjoyment from a game, the first of which is that related to Skinner's research, and which also matches what Richard Bartle has called the Achiever player in his MMO typing system. The reward of achievement is the release of dopamine from the pleasure centre – this is the most basic way to enjoy a game, and many videogame players respond to this pattern strongly, while others can enjoy it provided the game is also meeting their play needs in other ways.

Then there is the interest mechanism studied by Biederman and Vessel, which in videogames relates to why people remain interested in exploration and other expressions of curiosity, something Nicole Lazzaro has termed Easy Fun, and which relates in part to Richard Bartle's Explorers. The ultimate payoff of this kind of play is wonder – the feeling of slack-jawed amazement when you see something unexpected or utterly incredible. Although as yet the experimental evidence doesn't prove it, wonder is likely to be a large hit of endomorphin, which in turn means a large hit from the pleasure centre.

The classic “hardcore” way of playing videogames is to come up against incredibly challenging and difficult challenges and foes, and strive to overcome them. In our earlier studies we have termed players who enjoy this struggle for victory, Conquerors, while Nicole Lazzaro calls this kind of play Hard Fun. Characteristic of this play style is the emotional hit a player gets when they finally achieve victory (which in Italian is known as fiero). You know this feeling well – it's what makes you punch the air, or raise your arms suddenly, or shout out when you finally get the win. This is your body responding to a large hit of dopamine from the pleasure centre, under specific conditions set up by the gruelling battle you have fought to achieve there – the “fight” in the “fight or flight” mechanism, which is driven by frustration and anger. While gamer hobbyists often value this kind of play highly (1 in 5 gamers report anger increases their enjoyment of play) most hate it – 42% of those players surveyed in the last International Hobo player survey reported that they didn't enjoy feeling angry, and avoided games that made them feel that way.

Another traditional way that videogames can bring about enjoyment is by inciting excitement (the release of adrenalin, known these days as epinephrine), which relates to Lazzaro's Serious Fun. I have called games which have this focus rushgames, and identified many different types including those focussed upon high speeds (Burnout, Need for Speed), vertigo (Super Mario and other platform games), time pressure (Tetris, Diner Dash), linking chains (DDR, Guitar Hero), fear and survival (Resident Evil, Silent Hill), and mischief (Grand Theft Auto, Burnout 2's crash mode). These games represent the "flight" in the "fight or flight" mechanism, which is connected with what I call the fear centre (the amygdala). Not only is feeling excited something most people enjoy (8 out of 10 players surveyed gave it high marks), it enhances the feeling of success (winning, escaping or carnage) thus causing the pleasure centre to give a greater sense or reward, although not as strong a hit as that which comes from beating difficult challenges.

Another way to trip the pleasure centre is related to the games of difficult challenge, namely devising strategies and solving puzzles. There is a part of the frontal cortex of the brain which I have termed the decision centre (the orbito-frontal cortex) which transpires to be closely linked to the pleasure centre. Our brains are wired up in a particular way such that making good decisions is especially rewarding, and much as with extremely difficult play, the harder the puzzle, the bigger the reward. It seems that the pleasure centre will give a greater payoff for what is perceived as a bigger achievement, hence games that ask the player to solve difficult puzzles can be intensely rewarding for the players with the skills (and often, the patience!) to overcome them. However, such players are no longer the majority in the videogame audience, hence the decline of the adventure game genre.

Finally, enjoyment can also be derived in games from playing with people we trust – our friends, or even strangers whom we have formed a temporary bond with, as with parties in MMORPGs. These kinds of game activate a part of the brain I have termed the social centre (the hypothalamus), which releases a neurotransmitter called oxytocin. Everyone in principle enjoys the warm feelings this produces, but some introverted (or especially grumpy!) people struggle to overcome their fear or dislike of other people to get to this. A group of researchers at the University of Cagliari have shown that oxytocin (the “trust hormone”) and dopamine (the reward chemical) are closely interlinked. It seems that players who enjoy interacting with other players, such as those MMO players Richard Bartle has described as Socialisers, are also getting their enjoyment ultimately from the pleasure centre.

These six different mechanisms represent essentially all the different ways that players can find enjoyment in videogames – all ultimately triggering the pleasure centre. Three of these patterns – the Achiever-style pursuit of successive rewards, the Conqueror-style triumph over adversity, and the related solving of difficult puzzles – produce very great releases of dopamine from the pleasure centre and are thus highly addictive, but this addiction is tempered by an aspect of the play in question which certain players find off-putting. Achievement is offset by the tedium of grinding, conquering is offset by frustration and anger, and puzzle-solving is offset by bewilderment or boredom. The other three mechanisms all pair dopamine with another brain chemicals and are generally less addictive but equally engaging for the players who enjoy the relevant style of play.

So we can say, with some simplification, that the pleasure centre is the reason why you enjoy videogames, in biological terms at least – but we can't know without asking how you like to play videogames (your play style) nor which videogames you enjoy, which depends upon many other factors such as what kinds of settings, stories and art styles you enjoy. Every player is different – but every player's enjoyment rests, at the neurological level, upon triggering the pleasure centre in the brain.

You can also learn more about the biology and psychology of play in our new book Beyond Game Design: Nine Steps Toward Creating Better Videogames (with Richard Bartle, Noah Falstein, Michelle Hinn, Katherine Isbister, Nicole Lazzaro, Sheri Graner Ray, and Joseph Saulter), which will be published on March 16th but can be pre-ordered now from Amazon and all good book stores.

I would like to extend my grateful thanks to Ben Cowley for alerting me to Biederman and Vessel's work, to Corvus for creating the image of the limbic system of the brain used above, to Becca Lowenhaupt for her statistical number crunching, and to everyone who participated in the Ultimate Game Player Survey and other DGD2 research efforts, without whom this piece could not have been written.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'd just like to say I really enjoyed reading this. A fantastic summary that I expect I'll refer to in future. Thanks Chris. :)

This is fascinating research.. Although in a way, it's not surprising.

Email sent to participate in the BrainHex test! This is the kind of stuff I originally started reading your site for and I find it very interesting.

Chris, thought this would interest you and wanted to make sure you saw it:

In games, brains work differently when playing vs. a human

Thanks for the kind words everyone! And thanks to everyone for their help with DGD2.

Corvus: I did see this mentioned, but I failed to save it to my tags so I'm glad to catch it now. I have a suspicion (that I'm trying to explore) that competitive behaviour relates to social hierarchy. I have casually observed that men are better at forming natural hierarchies than women, who may form better holocracies.

I have some research on testosterone via James Dabbs which may bear on this - it seems as if testosterone may be involved in the competition that helps establish hierarchies. (Worth remembering at this point that both men and women have testosterone in their biology - this isn't a solely male versus female split). I'm still investigating all this though.

Thanks for the link!

Interesting piece -- does neuroscience play a significant role in your new book?

I've actually just grabbed 21st Century Game Design from my roommate, so I'm also hoping it'll be filled with some insightful concepts as well.

Radek: yes, one of my two chapters in the new book digs heavily into neuroscience, and the other brushes over it briefly. But there's lots more in the book besides my rambles! :)

Great article mate. This has been really useful in my research on 'The Debate Over Video Games' article that I'm attempting to get published on website. Cheers and well done.

I really learned a lot on this great piece. I also liked to share this story which is somewhat related on your article. Here is the link: for your reference.

Hi Oli! Glad it was useful.

Honey: I couldn't get the link to work, but glad you enjoyed the post.

Not sure why you had trouble with the link in Oli's comment, but I have edited it to be linkable.

Hello, Chris!

What about 'learning'? Is dopamine respond for learning (as for rewards)? Or has learning own centres of pleasure?

Do you not consider learning in aspects of 'Why People Play Games' because this is an abstract (or very common) concept (which not say us 'Why People Play Games')?

What do you think about putting 'learning' in one row with fiero-exploration-reward-socialization etc? After all, learning of skill (for example) - is part of pleasure.

Is it possible, that all (or some) of above-mentioned types of pleasure we could express through learning? For example:

* Fiero --> Learning of killing this boss
* Exploration --> Learning of game world
I ask these questions because there are two big design methodology:
1. Why people play (or How people play). Method use all knowledge about emotions, play styles, temperaments etc
2. Learning skills. Method based on theory, that fun in the games people get from learning

I see, that in your method (DGD) learning not considered. Why?

Kos: thanks for your question! I've written specifically about Games as Learning previously, so I would advise you to check this.

My view in brief is that all experience is learning, so singling out learning in the context of games strikes me as slightly redundant. You can make this context work, and other researchers get good mileage out of this model, but when I look practically at how real players enjoy their games, learning only seems to be a part of what is going on. However, there is a style of play centred upon problem-solving which is very learning-centred; in BrainHex it's referred to as Mastermind.

Best wishes!

I got your point. But lets look at learning in another angle.

There is dominating among some designers point of view, that gamers enjoy learning new skills. But it seems a bit limited.

There are Emotional model of play (centered on emotions), Temperament model (centered on temperaments). How do you think, maybe it is reasonable to think about some learning model (or typology) of play? With the help of this model we can divide players on
- Are people ready to learn?
- What do players prefer to learn?

For example, in Lazzaro’s Four Keys model category “people fun” seems not willing to learn. Such gamers want start playing as soon, as possible. Players from “hard fun” are ready to learn. And maybe they like to learn new skills. But players from “easy fun”, to my mind, like to investigate world and its variety (and skills as a part of this world and as tools for investigate this world).

By the way, while reading all your DGD and DGD2 typologies, I try to examine each category of players in your models through prism of learning. But I not always can find answers, because I think this topic demands more deep research.

What do you think about all this?

KoS: it's certainly a complex topic, and I agree with your general assessment that the willingness to learn is something that some but not all gamers will pursue. I also agree that in Nicole's model it falls mostly under Hard Fun.

In most of my own models, Hard Fun comes in at least two flavours - the Conqueror style pursuit of challenge, and the Mastermind style problem-solving. I think learning is involved in both these approaches, but it is integral to the Mastermind style (which I link to the orbito-frontal cortex, which not un-coincidentally is tied closely to the nucleus accumbens or pleasure centre).

(The Achiever also includes learning, but here I would say it is secondary: if known methods suffice, most Achiever-style players will use them in preference to learning a new technique.)

The most common mistake that is made in respect of learning and games, perhaps, is to recognise that learning can be rewarding but then to assume that everyone can access that reward. But of course, one has to be good at learning for learning to be fun, and not everyone is in this space. :)

This, perhaps, is why when I talked to RTS players a common theme was that they choose RTS over full strategy because "they knew how to win" i.e. they did not need to learn how to win. Whereas conversely strategy players enjoyed working out how they could win - a very different process from the largely logistical challenge of most RTS games i.e. build infrastructure quickly in order to tank rush the opponent.

I recommend investigating learning styles outside of the context of games, as this is a great way to look at the subject. Sheri Grainer Ray touches upon this recently in the new book, "Beyond Game Design" but there is probably more explicit material out there.

Lastly, I agree with you that more research is needed - I think, perhaps, that this is always the case. :)

Best wishes!

Thank you for so detailed reply. That is just what I want to find out ;)

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)