[MUD-Dev] Geometric content generation

Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no> Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>
Sat Oct 6 23:30:24 New Zealand Daylight Time 2001

rayzam wrote:
> From: "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" <olag at ifi.uio.no>
>> If you make a game for rats (or pigeons!) then maybe what was
>> stated about rats was particularly useful.  Unfortunately the
>> higher-level goals/needs of rats and humans are
>> different. Motivation in humans can not be analysed by a simple
>> stimuli-response experiment.
> Actually, motivation in humans consists of performing an action,
> often without knowing why, and then rationalizing it
> afterwards. Or changing our beliefs based on the action we
> performed. Motivation on the level you're talking about is either
> hindsight, or repetition.

This doesn't really make sense to me, maybe you have a reference.
If I am motivated to apply for school because I want to become a
movie director, how is that related to what you just wrote?  Anyway,
there is no single model of motivation, just like there is no single
model or ontology for emotions...

>> You certainly don't want to electrocute your players when they
>> make mistake, yes that is feedback, but no, IT DOES NOT MAKE THEM
> Neither does dying in a mud. Or losing equipment. Or having to
> spend money on things. But without these things, you lose
> challenge. And as per philosophy: can you truly feel happy if you
> never feel sad?

Yes, I can feel happy/excited if I can feel bored, at least.

I don't agree that you loose challenge. There is challenge to
playing the piano, making a drawing etc. What you might get less of
is drama. Although, you can of course find drama in music.

> in many games. How long can you play a game in invincible/god
> mode?  How quickly does it get boring, and thus makes the player
> 'not happy'?

Depends on how many games you have access to, of course. Or if there
is sufficient building blocks for defining new activities. I (and
several others on this list) prefer not to play games by their
rules, rather we try to break the apparent rules and if that makes
sense (great depth) then playing not-by-the-rules is what makes the
game fun.  I had a lot of fun playing Monstertruck Madness, but I
almost never played according to the rules (to win or any such silly
> 1991 - 2000 was the "Decade of the Brain". Lots of funding for
> understanding how the mind works. And lots of work done on
> it. Many advances. What changes is the label. Behavioral
> psychology was an older term. Physiological psychology came next,
> I think. Then cognitive psychology, neuroscience, cognitive
> neuroscience, judgement decision-making (JDM), social cognition,
> etc. These are the buzzwords to use when checking out how the
> brain works.

Well, maybe I got it all wrong, but I thought behaviourists tended
to only care about observable behaviour, and that they did not
concern themselves with "what the brain looks like".

Ola  -  http://folk.uio.no/olag/

MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list