A Theory of Fun for Game Design (2013)

Chapter 6. Different Fun for Different Folks

We all know that people learn at different rates and in different ways. Some of these differences manifest at a very early age.* Some people visualize things when they think of them; others are more verbal. Some people employ logic readily; others rely on leaps of intuition. We still wrestle with how to apply this knowledge to education.* We’re all familiar with the bell curve distribution of IQ,* and we’re also familiar with the fact that IQ tests do not measure all forms of intelligence. Howard Gardner* said there were in fact seven forms:

1. Linguistic

2. Logical-mathematical

3. Bodily-kinesthetic

4. Spatial

5. Musical

6. Interpersonal

7. Intrapersonal (internally directed, self-motivated)

There aren’t really standardized tests for these other types of intelligences (nor is this list authoritative!). Certainly the list suggests right off the bat that different people will be interested in different sorts of games because of their natural talents. People are not likely to tackle patterns and puzzles that appear as noise to them; they’ll tend to select problems that they think they have a chance at solving. Hence the folks with bodily-kinesthetic intelligence might gravitate towards sports, whereas the linguistic folks may end up with crossword puzzles or Scrabble.

In recent years, much study has been centered on gender differences.* It has finally become acceptable to discuss this topic without accusations of sexism. It’s important to realize that in all cases, we’re speaking in generalities, of averages. The variation between individuals of either sex is greater than the difference between the sexes, but the differences are real.* One example: on average, females tend to have greater trouble with certain types of spatial perception—for example visualizing the cross section of an arbitrary three dimensional shape that has been rotated to face a different way.* Conversely, males tend to have greater trouble with language skills. Doctors have long known that it takes longer for boys to become verbally proficient.* Many of these differences are actually disappearing over time, which suggests that they are cultural rather than biological.*

It speaks well of the power of video games that they can contribute to this disappearance. After all, the equation is both nature and nurture. Research has shown that if people who have trouble with spatial rotation tests are given a video game that encourages them to practice rotating objects and matching particular configurations in 3-D, not only will they master the spatial perception necessary, but the results will be permanent.*

One researcher in the U.K., Simon Baron-Cohen,* has concluded that there are “systematizing brains” and “empathizing brains.” He identifies extreme systematizing brains as being autistic and ones just slightly less so as being those diagnosed as having Asperger’s syndrome.* The distribution curve of systematizing brains versus empathizing brains, according to Baron-Cohen, is apparently influenced by gender. Men are somewhat more likely to have systematizing brains, and women more likely to have empathizing brains.

According to Baron-Cohen’s theory, there are people who have high abilities in both systematizing and empathizing. One would surmise that these people tend to go into the arts, which are heavily systematic and also require a high degree of empathy. Baron-Cohen postulates that having high abilities in both is a contraindicated survival trait, since it means that they are almost certainly not as good at either as the “specialists.” This may explain all those consumptive poets dying in garrets.

Another way to look at this is not in terms of intelligence but in terms of learning styles.* Here again, gender shows itself. Men not only navigate space differently, but they tend to learn by trying, whereas women prefer to learn through modeling another’s behavior. Recent research suggests that men and women may even see differently,* which cannot help but lead to different learning styles.

The classic ways of looking at learning styles and personalities are the Keirsey Temperament Sorter* and the Myers-Briggs personality type.* These are the ones with the four letter codes like INTP, ENFJ, and so on. Of course, there’s also astrology, enneagrams,* and lots of others. Virtually all of these lack scientific basis. But there is a model based on widespread surveys of individuals from around the world: the Five Factor Model.* This model finds five big domains of personality: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism.

Anecdotally, players tend to prefer certain types of games in ways that seem to correspond to their personalities. There is an effort now by game designer Jason VandenBerghe to find hard data on correlations between the Five Factor Model and the types of games that people play.*

This may seem obvious, but different people bring different experiences to the table. This implies they will have differing levels of ability in solving specific types of problems. Even things that are more fundamental than that may change over time; for example, the levels of hormones such as estrogen and testosterone fluctuate pretty significantly over the course of a life, and it’s been shown that these fluctuations affect personality.*

What does this all mean for game designers? Not only will a given game be unlikely to appeal to everyone, but it is probably impossible for it to do so. The difficulty ramp is almost certain to be wrong for many people, and the basic premises are likely to be uninteresting or too difficult for large segments of the population.

This may indicate a fundamental limitation of game systems. Since they are formal abstract systems, they are by their very nature biased towards certain types of brains, just as books are biased. (Most book purchases in the U.S. are made by women, and half are made by individuals over the age of 45.*)

For years, the video game industry struggled with the lack of appeal of games to the female audience. Many possible reasons have been advanced for this: the rampant sexism in video games, the lack of a distribution channel that reached the female demographic, the juvenile themes, the fact that there were relatively few female creators in the industry, the fact that the games focused on violence.

Perhaps the answer is simpler. Maybe games appealed to young males because they have the sort of brain that works well with the systems the games had, and they were designed by people with that same bias. If so, you’d expect to see the following:

§ Female players would gravitate toward games with simpler abstract systems, less spatial reasoning, and more emphasis on interpersonal relationships, narrative, and empathy. They would also prefer games with simpler spatial topologies.*

§ There would be clear gender differences in play style between hardcore gamers of different genders.* Males would focus on games emphasizing the projection of power and the control of territory, whereas females would select games that permit modeling behavior (such as multiplayer games) and do not demand strict hierarchies.

§ As males aged, you’d expect them to slowly shift over to play styles similar to those of the women.* Many of them might outright drop out of the gaming hobby. In contrast, older females likely wouldn’t drop out of gaming; if anything, their interest in games might actually sharpen after menopause.

§ There would be fewer female gamers in general, since no matter what, games are still about formal abstract systems at heart.

You would also expect to see this change as the culture shifts towards greater equality in all things, and as games themselves do their work of teaching alternate ways of thinking.

As it happens, we did see all of these in demographic data of game players (along with much more). Games may have been the province of 14-year-old boys because that’s what games have selected for. Over the last ten years, far more kinds of games have been made, and there are now slightly more female players than male players.

As games become more prevalent in society, we’ll likely see more young girls using the amazing brain-rewiring abilities of games to train themselves up and become more comfortable with the kinds of games the boys always liked. There has been research showing that girls who play “boys’ games,” such as sports, tend to break out of traditional gender roles years later, whereas girls who stick to “girls’ games” tend to adhere to the traditional stereotypes more strictly.*

This argues pretty strongly that if people are to achieve their maximum potential, they need to do the hard work of playing the games they don’t get, the games that don’t appeal to their natures. Taking these on may serve as the nurture part of the equation, counterbalancing the brains that they were born with or culturally trained to have. The result would be people who move freely between worldviews, and who bring a wider array of skills to bear on a given problem.

The converse trick, of training boys up, might be harder for single-player games to achieve because it does not play to the strength of game systems as a medium. Nonetheless, games should try—perhaps with designs emphasizing social interaction, such as in Diplomacy or online virtual worlds.* The thought that games could be limited because of their fundamentally mathematical nature is somewhat depressing; but it hasn’t stopped music from being a highly emotional medium, and language manages to convey mathematical thoughts, so there is hope for games yet.