PixlBit

I can't think of a game that doesn't have some addictive thing in it. Silent Hill came to mind, but as I thought about it, I seem to remember that the game let you restart it after finishing it and had  points you could score for finishing it multiple times or in certain ways. I forget exactly how that worked and wiki is no help here.

Yeah, I think a lot of this stuff is intended to extend the game, adding iffy value.

I tend to enjoy games that focus more on mechanics than anything else. If the mechanics are solid and feel good, I can get invested enough to stick around and do pretty much anything the game asks of me. That might mean collecting all of the widgets or fighting all of the bosses (and putting in the time to grind up to be able to fight them).

I totally agree with you that there's some aspect of a Skinner Box in almost all games. But I think that some don't try to even obscure it (mobile is notorious about this). I think with many games, people get invested in some other part of the experience, whether it's the gameplay or the story or the world, and want to be a part of that, even if it means doing stuff that's nonsense padding.

So, it's kind of a fine line. When I think Skinner Box, I think that it more applies to something that literally lays something out that's not fun (or is barely so) and relies very heavily on the reward. With most games, people might say they are striving for the reward, but in reality they're doing it because they enjoy the thing that gets them there so much.

Personally, stuff like trophy/achievement hunting does nothing for me. I've never platinumed a game and the only game I've gotten all the achievements in is Banjo-Kazooie and that's because I have the whole game memorized at this point as it's one of my favs. Those constructs are total Skinner Boxes in my opinion.

Back in the day there was a bit more tangible of a reward for achieving in the game, like a special power or unlocked modes. I find that since the dawn of achievements and trophies, we see less and less of that, in favor of the actual achievement being the reward. As such, there are fewer and fewer games I'll invest in to that extent. If I'm going to go through some amount of effort, I need a reward that's worth that effort.

tldr: I think all games employ Skinner Box techniques, most have more going on and there are other factors at play providing less tangible and unstated rewards while you strive towards the obvious goal. Many games like MMOs, F2P, and mobile games barely try to obscure this. The stuff that's an obvious Skinner Box is not for me. If you don't respect my time, I don't play your game.

Yeah, there's a difference between Skinner box elements and games that are only that. In some trophy hunting cases though, I actually do like the way it extends the game. Some of the physical challenges in City and Knight make me go "I didn't know I could do that. Cool." But then I kinda wish they'd implement in more in the main game.

I replied to your last blog too but unfortunately it was only a mental reply and never made it into writing. :) I prefer games that have a story with an actual ending to ones that go on and on but I have found myself unable to stop playing games like Animal Crossing that are open ended in some respects.

I do not play MMO's at all. I tried a couple but I just can't get into them. 

I have found that when I'm playing an RPG and beat a boss or two I feel a sense of accomplishment that sometimes makes up for no accomplishing anything in the real world but I also realize that my in game successes mean nothing in real life.

Animal Crossing is one of the games mentioned in the article. You ever open it up to make sure you get rid of the cockroaches?

Nope. I never had a single cockroach.

Might actually mean you're REALLY addicted, because you have never even logged out of the game long enough to have that problem. This is an AA meeting, mothman. We need to find a way to cut airline expenses and we need you to put down the game and be present with us. 

That's too complicated for my brain to wrap around.  I just play games because I like them and they're fun.  And that's about all I have to say on that subject.

That's what they want you to think. They is a subsidiary of Halliburton bent on world domination through kitten-powered solar beams and candy. Also games.

. . . meant to distract us from what's really going on and keep us from REVOLUTION!

"I I bet I could find some mechanism in the game you say that has an addictive quality to it without necessarily being enjoyable in its own right."

 Which would be your subjective viewpoint. I could turn around and say that that mechanism is enjoyable in its own right. Or it could be that I do not engage that particular mechanism so that while it may exist in the game, it is not relevant to my enjoyment of the game and therefore may as well not exist which would make it a legitimate entry into my list of games that do not addict in such a way.  Without knowledge of a particular player's motivation, you can't claim that they've fallen victim to doing something unenjoyable because addiction. They could be replaying Silent Hill for points, or just because they liked it so much the first go around that they want to relive it.

 For the record, I loathe things like collecting widgets and whatnots. I think it's one of the most primitive and least rigorous approaches to game design there is, which is why "platformers" like Banjo Kazooie are the nadir of the genre to me.  But Super Mario World is enjoyable in its own right, even taking the most direct path through the game.

 And you have to take into account common usage of terms like "Skinner box" when it comes to video games. These are taken to be tasks that offer little-to-no challenge or mechanical substance/depth/complexity in themselves, where the point for the player is some reward (whether game object, title, ranking, etc.) and the point for the developer is to create the illusions of breadth and longevity.

 So this list, if i were to lay it out completely, could possibly go into the hundreds because it includes games that have these elements but I do not engage them (e.g. GTA4. Did the story, some of the stunt jumps if they were on my path, but did not go after pigeons, master the parlor games, etc.)

Correct on both counts, which is why I admit this is a biased and nonscientific question. People certainly have autonomy not to fall victim to any type of addiction as well as most people are capable of becoming addicted to something. The ubiquity of addictive mechanisms in games is still apparent in video games though, I would say.

And if you lead a normal life and can balance gaming with more important things you're not really "addicted," since that term is used mostly when you're so obsessed with something it deteriorates your normal livelihood. 

I think we are seeing more of this Skinner box mechanism in games as time goes on because of the increase in open world, non-focused games and MMOs, and the expectations of the audience and media for a certain amount of hours/content

Personally, I like open worlds but not all the little chores and diversions that developers pack in them (mostly. I did a ton of the side stuff in Saints Row 2. But most games' diversions aren't as fun as that game's). Just give me a story, major objectives and let me exploit the world structure by tackling them from various directions (e.g.  Crysis.), and I'm satisfied. No need for collecting feathers, or skinning boars, radiant quests, etc.

That's what the Cracked article that got me to write my previous blog was about: the increased use of these mechanisms. 

I'm a bit of a completionist, so I can be driven to get a bunch of doodads if I enjoy the world enough. That's both to your point about whether or not someone enjoys a game being a determinant in how much of a Skinner Box it really is and to mine that there's probably a bit of boring but addictive gameplay elements in most games. Yeah, I liked spending time in the game, but I cetainly wouldn't have done that much in it if I didn't think there was a feeling that I was completing somehting. I wouldn't have done that stuff without an objective. So while I enjoyed reaching the objective because the game was fun, I still was more interested in completing the objective than necessarily just experiencing a good game for longer, though both were a factor.

As with any social or media related question, humans present way too many variables to find a direct answer for everyone. It's always a matter of finding what MOSTLY seems to be happening, despite a respectable number of outiers.

damn right for your last paragraph.  

Something they pounded in my head when I was getting my Master's in Mass Communication is that anything studying the human mind or behavior is not going to be as clear cut as say what temperature water boils at a certain elevation. The research we do can still be applied to the real world effectively and consistently, but it's not a hard science, because while humans can be very similar, especially when studying in the context of a single culture, humans will always be a fairly unpredictable variable.

yeah my brother use to argue that since you could know the temperature iron melts, you can know anything.  ha!

You can tell him that in social sciences like the one I studied, there are people who see themselves as legit scientists while others see themselves more as humanists. Neither of them would say media studies is a hard science though, i don't think.

The Riddler challenges in the Batman Arkham games, I got all of them in Asylum, Arkham City and Origins. It was a little tedious but I found them all in those three games. However Rocksteady went to far in Arkham Knight with 243 riddler challenges and I can't bring myself to find them all this time.

See, I recently got them all in City and actually thought Knight wasn't as bad. There were 400 in that game and 440 if you count Catwoman. I didn't like having to do it for the complete ending in Knight and some of them really made me scratch my head. Had to look up about 4-5 for Knight and only 1 for City. Don't remember for Asylum, but I'm replaying it now. 

Origins is the only Arkham game where I've completed the main game, but not the side missions. I'm hoping my computer can run it better this time around if it's on lowest settings and I put my laptop in Turbo mode where the bkg programs get shut off.

A game I played that I had no enjoyment from is easily Manhunt on the PS2. I didn't like it, and I thought it was disturbing. You have to stealth kill gang members in "scenes" where this guy is watching and grades you. I bought it because of the contraversy but after playing part of the game I had to stop. It hasn't been in my PS2 since. 

Well clearly you weren't addicted to it. lol I remember that game almost got a sequel on Wii. Or maybe it did, but a lot of people were really uncomfortable about it.

Yeah the sequel was released, and I thought about buying it not to play but to complete the little series that was a bit too disturbing for me.