So, I’ve proposed the theory on this blog that addictiveness of games is directly related to the amount of perceived agency present in said game. There is, of course, much more that contributes to whether or not a game is addictive or not, but I am of the opinion that perceived agency is a major contributor. Since it’s currently the season for travel, my game selections have been limited, and I’ve found myself confined to games I can get on my phone and on my girlfriend’s new handheld system. I’ve also had a lot of down time, and thus I’ve been thinking about the agency theory in between sessions of solitaire and bubble breaker on my phone, and more recently between sessions of Elite Beat Agents on my (girlfriend’s) DS. I’ve found myself wondering if the theory still applies in games where perceived agency is so subtle that it exists at all (in the case of solitaire), where perceived agency is obvious but heavily related to random factors (in the case of bubble breaker) and where perceived agency is completely related to perceived skill level.

Personally, I can see the perception of agency in each of these games, but is that part of what makes them addictive, or are other, larger factors at work? The simplicity of my phone games is a definite factor to their addictiveness, but certainly not the major contributor. Recently, we’ve actually seen solitaire take a back seat to more complicated Pop-Cap games in terms of office space wastes of time (and phone wastes of time if you’re able to get them) so solitaire’s simplicity is not a major factor to it’s addictiveness, only it’s accessibility. So what makes Pop-Cap games more addictive than games like solitaire? I’ve found a possible answer in my more recent sessions of Elite Beat Agents, but it relates to perceived skill, which, I hypothesize, is directly related to perceived agency, in a sort of round about way.

EBA is addictive for the same reason Guitar Hero is addictive; they do an excellent job of making you believe that great skill is just around the corner, by ramping up the difficulty very slowly and letting you move at your own learning pace. You are (almost) always challenged in these games, figuring that beating this one song is just out of your grasp. In games where difficulty ramps up too quickly, the perception of “I can beat this” or more importantly “I have a chance of beating this” disappears, and the game’s addictiveness and draw are completely lost. In this way, perceived agency and perceived skill level are almost inseparable. This isn’t the perception of ‘being able to edit the game” as most people think of agency, but more the perception of being able to make a difference in the overall outcome, aka winning or loosing.

Here is where difficulty and agency are intertwined. A good game creates the appearance that “winning” is just out of reach at all times, that your skill makes a difference to the outcome. Games that are too easy frequently loose our attention if they do not contain other compelling reasons to play them. Games that are too difficult frequently loose our attention even IF there are other compelling reasons to play them, and games that are completely random frequently loose our attention because there is no feeling that we can beat them since the game works against us. By keeping a consistent level where the player is constantly thinking “I could do that better” (which is actually saying, “I could change the outcome there”) we create a type of perceived agency that keeps the game compelling.

Even more interestingly, from here we can derive things about dynamic difficulty levels (and where they are a good and bad idea) and we can talk about multiple areas of agency, and ways to transparently addict people on multiple levels, through both scaling difficulty and skill as well as through systems of gameplay that promote gamer influence. Unfortunately, these will have to wait for a later post. Until then, I’d appreciate feedback on these thoughts.