holynpoly - Tumblr blog

holynpoly · 3 years

Text

Week 12

Cognitive Psychology

Psychology of reasoning

Psychology of reasoning is a branch of cognitive psychology which studies how people reason and think. There are two main explanation in the field, the first theory by Rips (1995) in The psychology of proof: Deductive reasoning in human thinking revolves around deduction and inference principle. The second one, which I will be focusing on, is from Johnson-Laird and explains reasoning by saying that it bases on mental models’ processes. Cathcart and Johnson-Laird (1972) explain that at the core of reasoning there is negation, and state that: “It is logically primitive, in the sense that ‘not’ is the only simple logical constant which operates upon a single proposition, as opposed to ‘and’ and ‘or’ which connect two propositions”.

Therefore, all the languages, English included, have a variety of negating words because negation is the simplest reason which revolves around the possession or lack of something( Cathcart and Johnson-Laird, 1972). Negation is also seen as part of mental models since it represents an abstract notion which “is impossible to visualize” (Girotto et al., 1998).

Mental Models

Mental models involve the decision-making and the thought process of an individual, trough knowledge and perception, by creating an interpretative simulation in their mind of a problem or situation with visual imagery, and was first theorized and studied in 1943 in the book The nature of explanation by Craik where he states that “the mind constructs "small-scale models" of reality that it uses to anticipate events, to reason, and to underlie explanation” (Girotto et al., 1998).

Johnson-Laird found a similar but different explanation for mental models, he stated that “mental models are analogical representations of reality” (Greca and Moreira, 2000) based on images constructed in our minds for the interpretation and comprehension of a problem. Therefore, a mental model is never set in stone but keeps on evolving and changing based on the acquisition of new knowledge. If we think about “the pen is on the table”, this phrase describes a situation which has and undetermined representation, to understand it and predict the next possible event the individual needs to create an implicit mental model of the situation (Girotto et al., 1998) which will result in the construction of a tridimensional image in their mind. This phenomenon is a concretization of an undetermined propositional representation (Greca and Moreira, 2000). Therefore, Johnson-Laird explains that through the manipulation of mental models, phenomena’s can be understood and explained for the result to be as predicted (Greca and Moreira, 2000).

Figure 1 Diagram showing the mental model process. Source: Wollingen, 2019.

In 1983 Norman argues against the efficiency of mental models, listing various problems found. They are incomplete, limited and unstable because people will eventually forget the specification of a mental model especially after a period of not using them; and they are parsimonious since people might not plan well their interactions in order to save mental energy and instead take the long way out (Gentner and Stevens, 2014).

Just like Johnson-Laird, Norman states that mental models are “constructed through interaction with the target system and constantly modified throughout this interaction” (Melguizo and van der Veer, 2002).

Mental models can be connected to human-computer interaction since if we can understand how the individual reasons, we can create efficient systems tailored to specific mental models (Boyan et al. 2018). Taking video games as an example It is safe to say that mental models reflect the perception of the individual towards a game and applies their knowledge to interpret, visualize and solve the problem they are facing within the system/game.

For us to understand the interaction between an individual and a system we need to have a conceptual model of the targeted system (Gentner and Stevens, 2014). The differences between mental models and conceptual models are that:

mental models are internal, personal, idiosyncratic, incomplete, unstable and essentially functional, conceptual models are external representations that are shared by a given community and have their coherence with the scientific knowledge of that community (Greca and Moreira, 2000).

An example of conceptual models I believe would be stereotypes where the community has a shared mental model of a specific character. Norman (1983) talks about three functional factors: Belief system, Observability and Predictive power.

Belief system, as the term suggest is a mental model based on what an individual believes from the knowledge acquired.

Observability refers to a relation and correspondence between the mental models and the conceptual system, so that the individual can observe the various states of the physical system while having access to the parameters and states of the mental model (Gentner and Stevens, 2014).

Lastly, Predictive power is the ability of an individual to understand and predict an event of the system meaning that the conceptual system/model will be able to be understood by the individual because it holds human information processing and knowledge structures (Gentner and Stevens, 2014).

With all the three factor we could take a game as an example which revolves around them. If we imagine a puzzle game were the goal is to order the numbers in a 4x3 grid with one empty space for the tiles to move, hypothetically we could manipulate the belief system by making the individual observe and anticipate the possible next moves. Going more in depth, if the player needs to place the number two next to one (problem), thanks to observation they can predict how to do that and what path number two needs to take. However, depending on the player’s belief there is the possibility that the path to overcome the problem is longer than it needs to be.

Certain belief could be manipulated by using the Occam’s razor theory which states that if there is a simple explanation, then that is the right one, thus giving a new option/point of view to the player so they can find the best solution.

Therefore, just like with the Occam’s razor if we talk about belief, we can also associate such mental model to Confirmation bias which is the theory I want to focus on and implement in the game we are making for task four.

Confirmation Bias

Mental models revolve around the individual’s perception of the world, based on knowledge, experience and belief, which can be connect to the Confirmation bias theory.

Confirmation Bias is a theory which branches out from mental models and explores the process of an individual to seek for results which confirm or reinforce a preexistent belief, expectation or hypothesis (Nickerson, 1998). Since belief can affect how an individual perceives and interprets data, Confirmation bias can be found at the base of different hypothesis development (Klayman, 1995). The individual might start overconfident on the belief, they might search evidence to confirm their belief, or interpret the evidence bias to their belief, and ultimately the individual might find difficulties when trying to find new and viable options which walk off from their initial belief (Klayman, 1995).

In the case of our game, Escape the Dungeon (temporary title) will have a set of objectives to guide the player, for example “wait five seconds before opening the door”, without knowing that five seconds is the perfect time for the enemy to kill the player.

Moreover, most of the objectives will deceive the player, and should not be followed. If we take this feature and we try to analyze it from the confirmation bias point of view we can predict what the player will do. Most of players are used to the presence of objectives, they follow them because objectives are universally made to help the player understand how to progress in the game.

However, in our case we are trying to change this mental model and consequently change their belief. The player will follow the first objective, will struggle to understand why what is written does not represent the reality of the game, but due to their belief will still try to find a way to accomplish it. As soon as the realization that the objective is wrong, the player will stop follow it but will probably believe that there must be an error in the programming of the game, since it is impossible that the objective was made wrongly on purpose. Subsequently, when a new objective appears the probability of the player following it again are high, even if they already had experienced the mistake before. This aligns perfectly with confirmation bias, where the player will try to find evidence of what they already believe, and instead of finding the simple explanation – the objectives are deceiving- they will probably fault the programming of the game because they cannot accept the new possibility/option due to their belief being ingrained in their mental model.

In conclusion, with this deceiving feature we are trying to manipulate the mental model of a player, by changing their belief on the system. Subsequently we will play-test the game to see if the theory of the player not being able to learn because a belief is ingrained in them is true and how long it takes for the player to modify their belief and thus their mental model.

FIN.

References

· Andy, B. McGloin, R. and Wasserman, J. (2018). Model matching theory: a framework for examining the alignment between game mechanics and mental models. Media and Communication, [online], 6(2), pp. 126-136. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325697893_Model_Matching_Theory_A_Framework_for_Examining_the_Alignment_between_Game_Mechanics_and_Mental_Models [Accessed 16 May 2021]

· Craik, J. (1952). The Nature of Explanation. Reprint. Cambridge: University Press.

· Gentner, D. and Stevens, A. (2014). Mental Models. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 8- 12.

· Girotto, V. Jhonson-Laird and Legrenzi, P. (1998). Mental Models: a gentle guide for the outsiders. [PDF] Available at: https://www.citethisforme.com/harvard-referencing#harvard-in-text-citations [Accessed 15 May 2021]

· Greca, I. and Moreira, M. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal of Science Education, [online] 22(1), pp. 1-11. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/095006900289976 [Accessed 14 may 2021]

· Johnshon-Laird, P. and Wason, P. (1972). Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content. Revisited. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 2.

· Klayman, J. (1995). Varieties of Confirmation Bias. Psychology of learning, [online], 32, pp. 385-418. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079742108603151 [Accessed 16 May 2021]

· Melguizo, M. and van der Veer, G. (2002). Mental Models. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook. 1st edition. [pdf]. Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 56- 58. Available at: http://info.ils.indiana.edu/~katy/L542-F03/vandermeer.pdf [Accessed 14 May 2021]

· Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, [online], 2(2), pp. 175-220. Available at:https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 [Accessed 16 May 2021]

· Rips, J. (1995). The psychology of proof: Deductive reasoning in human thinking. Cambridge: MIT Press.

· Wollingen, J. (2019). How do you know something is a bug? - Using mental models and oracles in testing. [online]. Xebia. Available at: https://xebia.com/blog/how-do-you-know-something-is-a-bug-using-mental-models-and-oracles-in-testing/ [Accessed 15 May 2021] (for the image)

0 notes

holynpoly · 3 years

Text

Week 11

Frog Fractions and Mental models

For this blogpost I am comparing expectations vs. reality, since I believe my expectation of this game is the mental model, whether conscious or subconscious.

This game is pure and absolute mayhem, it managed to break every bit of my mental model, and in the worst way. When I read the title, and saw some of the screenshots, together with the vibrant colors, I was expecting either a point and click hidden object style, or a platformer where the frog has to avoid the obstacles and jump up, similar to doodle jump.

However, I discovered that yes, it’s a point and click where you aim and shoot the frog's tongue to the insects, but you can also move the frog in four directions!! Oh, and later you'll discover that the frog can fly thanks to the dragon (!) you unlock.

I guess my perception and opinion of the game, at least in the beginning, made me dislike it, already from the graphic I was expecting a low-rated and poorly programmed game, which in a way is what the game is, except the more I played and discovered new aspects of it, the more my opinion changed.

First of all, as I mentioned before the mechanics, in the beginning you shoot and roam in your small and cute pond, on top of your Lilypad, later you have to type random words to kill the insects. All of a sudden it turns into a bullet hell, and lastly into an interactive novella, where the answer you give apparently won't change the result but yet you have different optional answers you can pick from.

In terms of story, I did not expect anything, I thought it was mostly an arcade where you kill the insects before they touch the fruits, and luckily enough that is the role you take. Some of the things I did not understand were the red point appearing on the frog's body when you get hit, and the UI. I was expecting a score, and a life system, together with a count of the coins collected and it is partially what the UI has, except for the score system working strangely with decimals and fractions, the life system missing and a weird indignity bar which I still don't understand what its purpose is.

Moreover, upon getting hit the screen shake, which is a common feature, but on top of it the frog has some sort of temporary paralysis where you can't move it or shoot anymore so you can just take more hits. The asset style difference between the background and the insects was helpful to understand where the enemies were. The least movement I expected was from the flies, they kept stopping every few seconds like they were landing on something, but there was nothing. I was also expecting a timer for every wave but there wasn't one, or at least you couldn't see it, in fact I still don't understand with what criteria I kept getting the power up pop-up.

When I finally got used to the game and realized that it was a simple casual defender , the game decided to break my perception of it again by implementing the typing mechanism (which I loved) but that was completely and absolutely unexpected.

Moreover, the game ends up having a story, apparently, you're a bug killer, and after you land into bug mars the "police" arrests you and sends you to court. I think they people who thought about it were probably under some sort of not so legal substance, but I loved the nonsensical casualty of it all. Lastly, the thing I still don't understand is the pile of fruits underwater in which you can spend eternity just collecting them (You get like a billion).

In conclusion, I started this game with a specific mental model which changed completely by the end (yes, I think I "finished" the game, asteroids, bug judge and everything). It was definitely a fascinating experience and experiment, to see how someone’s perception towards a game can change drastically.

0 notes

holynpoly · 3 years

Text

Week 10

After doing the 16 personalities test apparently I am a turbulent mediator which means that I work a lot with emotions, this is the second time I do the test, the first time it was months ago and the result hasn’t changed, only the percentages.

The game genre which I enjoy the most is definitively dungeon crawler but I also enjoy role-playing games or simulations, I recently got into shooters and I still don’t know how I feel about it. I am sure I dislike adventure games even if they have a great story to follow, my only exception might be “Before your eyes” because of the innovative mechanics.

The games I prefer I think are minecraft even if it’s been a while since I last played it; The binding of isaac because of the mechanics; and Viscera Clean up, because I don’t have to think much while playing (plus I play it for the achievements, I want them all).

---

Now that I gave some insights of what I like to play, let’s analyze it based on: https://www.16personalities.com/articles/might-or-magic-a-study-of-gamers-personality-types.

Looking at the table above,I hate strategy games, I think I played EarthStone and legends of Runeterra but gave up quickly since I wasn’t a fan of having to create my own deck which does reflect what the table shows about Card games if we consider only that aspect.

Additionally, I tend to ignore the story or get bored quickly, unless it’s a game I picked specifically for that aspect. I do Love the rpg open-world genre mostly because of the infinite exploration, in fact I did enjoy Genshin Impact a lot. A game I would love to play is red dead redemption, but my computer can’t handle it.

However, speaking of games I constantly play, The Binding of Isaac is not a rpg but a dungeon crawler, the only rpg aspect would be the random trinkets and upgrades making me always curious to discover what the next dungeon holds for me; the game requires focus and patience which I don’t have (I killed mum once yay) in fact I’m pretty bad at it but it is a good distraction.

Minecraft would be the best example, even if it is a sandbox, I think it has some role-playing elements, for example the upgrade of the armour, or the collection of resources are what make me play the game the most, I would stay hours mining because it was relaxing.

Viscera clean up I guess it’s the game with the least correlation with my personality since it's a simulation game and I only play it to relax and for the achievements, even though it does reflect what the article says about seeking games that are calm and don’t hold much confrontation.

I hate adventure games, unless they have some puzzle elements. I tend to ignore the story or get bored quickly if it’s not a game I picked specifically for that.

A game which I do play and enjoy even if the mechanics aren't the best is Valheim, it doesn't have a great story but it is a combination of sandbox and rpg with a huge open world to explore, I consider it to be a Viking version of Minecraft.

Overall, I think my taste does partially reflect my personality but I wouldn't say I fully fit in, since for example I hate strategy games, and I am not a huge fan of shooters, the article got right the fact that I don't like confrontation, but only in 3D games, since The Binding of Isaac is all about confrontation and defeating enemies,

0 notes

holynpoly · 3 years

Text

Week 9

The Stanley Parable and presence in game.

Stanley parable is an interesting game to play, because while you think you're playing the game, the game is also playing you by asking to obey its orders but leaving you the freedom to disobey them.

I've never felt self-present in a game to the point that I was the character, I did lose track of time while playing it but that is connected more to immersion than presence.

In Stanley Parable, I felt like I was guiding Stanley through their journey, I was some sort of angel/devil on their shoulder. It wasn't like I was watching the story unfold from their eye, but more like I was accompanying them hand in hand, which is connected to spatial presence more than self-presence. I did feel present during the first gameplay, curiosity and tension was driving me throughout the game, in the beginning I followed the instructions since I wanted to understand what the path was meant to be but later I started wandering and disobeying to understand what other possibilities I could unfold.

Overall, I was immersed in the story and in the environment, and the only possible moment of self-presence was when I was walking in the office, having such a liminar space was unsettling because while I was playing I imagined myself there too and I understood the possible disquiet felt by Stanley (which was mostly me portraying my emotions onto the character than the character actually feeling anything, especially in the way I checked every details in the room, or how cautiously I was moving). Moreover, I see what the game was trying to do by creating a silent character so the player could portray their emotions and decisions into them.

I think my experience was also affected by the fact that I never searched anything about it before playing it, I wanted the confusion of not knowing what was happening and what was going to happy because it caused me to be more immersed in the game, to the point that I didn’t want to go to the wrong direction in fear of killing the character.

However, I don't think I felt present all the time, I did feel the most spatial-present during the first two gameplays mostly because they were opposite to each other, in one I obeyed and in the other I disobeyed completely, and after I reached the two endings and I replayed it, it was more of a speed run to unlock all the other endings, which broke completely both the immersion and the presence since I wasn't paying attention at anything anymore, except those small changes in the scenario.

0 notes

holynpoly · 3 years

Text

Week 8

Among us and player involvement model (Gordon Calleja)

While playing (a lot of) Among us with my friends I tried to analyze the game and write down every detail I noticed to then see in what category of involvement they fit in.

Shared involvement is the main feature of this game since the player must interact with each other constantly, from killing them to talking to them, and many times I played with my friends on a call which makes this involvement stronger. I do feel the tension when I am impostor which makes me more aware of the people around me and the environment.

There is no narrative or spatial involvement since the game doesn't have a story and it being 2d makes it hard for me to feel any sort of immersion, the only time I might feel immerse in the environment, like I am present in the game is when I am an impostor and I have to try and sneakily kill someone, since I need to focus on where the vents are to escape and if any player is around me.

Ludic involvement, just like shared involvement, is at the base of the game, since we have rules and achievements/tasks, the rule is to either do the task or kill, if I’m a crew mate and I do the task I will receive a feedback saying that I completed the task, the bar will fill a bit showing my progress, if I'm the impostor then the only feedback I will receive is the animation of me killing,. Moreover, technically interacting to find the impostor is also a rule, because if we speak in terms of feedback, receiving them from other player is also sort of ludic involvement, because it’s still within the game.

Tactical Involvement, based on my perception it’s part of the game because as a player you constantly take decisions of where to go and what task to do first, and if you're an impostor then it's up to you to decide who to kill and when, both are interaction withing the game rules, the environment and the other players.

Lastly, affective involvement, it’s not something the game means to deliver, but more something that appears while playing with other people, since I found myself enjoying playing with someone without even knowing them. However, if we think affective in terms of feeling anything towards the game and/or the other players than we can consider the friendship involved when playing with your friends as some sort of affect, but if we think in terms of the game being able to sprout a sense of affection towards its mechanics or graphic then I don’t think there is any, since I perceive the game to be all about the other players than the mechanics themselves.

0 notes

holynpoly · 3 years

Text

Week 7

I do not exist.. sorry.

0 notes

holynpoly · 3 years

Text

Week 6

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:

Well, I think minecraft is the most appropiate game to talk about since I played it for a very (emphasis on the very) long time.

Psychological needs: This is probably the one aspect the game implemented the most. There is a bar for food which gets deplenished constantly, faster or slower depending on what the player eats or does; air is simulated when the player goes underwater since a set of bubble would appear showing how much oxigen left they have; sleep is an interesting aspect, in the past versions it was more optional, many people slept because they did not want the world filled with monsters in the beginning, but later they wouldn't mind it and kept staying awake for days on end. However, a special mob was implemented which can be seen as a punishment for not sleeping, the phantom (lovely being…. Notice the sarcasm, thanks) would appear for each night the player stayed awake, so in the hypothesis that the player stayed awake for 5 nights, there would be 3 or 4 phantoms just wandering around and constantly attacking the player. The mob would burn during the day and spawn again during the night. This is to show that now the sleep need has more reason to exist (even if the need was already there even before the mob). Clothing, shelter and reproduction, there is armours which can be associated to clothing. The shelter, well you gotta make one pal or explore until finding a village; and reproduction, not for the player, but for everything else around them, except the mobs, for example all the animals together with the villagers.

Safety Needs: The only ones that are in game are health, resources and property. Health is kind of self explanatory, resources are everything the player can collect to craft and survive, and property I see it in tems of the constructions built in game.

Love and Belonging: However, going up to love and belongings, the game doesn't have any form of friendship, unless you play it in multiplayer with your friends. There could be a sense of connection, since many people, myself included, tend to get attached to the animals or some of the villagers, naming them even, which can be seen as a way to fulfill the need for friendship and family in a game which doesn't have it.

Esteem: This aspect is not strictly a part of the game, if not for the freedom and strenght, since the player has a whole world to explore and destroy (why not) and the strenght can be increased by the enchantements and different minerals. Everything else is more a matter of the player, for example the self-esteem or the respect are more sentiments you can feels after building a majestic dragon, for example, or unlocking some of the achievements in game (I always forget about their existence).

Self-Actualization: Just like the previous aspect, self-actualization can't be found in game (except again for the unlockable achievements, maybe) but it’s something the player might feel while playing, maybe after they've accomplished something important like defeating the wither (uhm.. did anyone ever managed?).

Ultimately, I feel confident in saying that the game stops roughly around safety needs, since everything else is not something which can be found in game but something the player adds/feels if they want to.

The game could implement the possibility of a love story with a NPC to fulfill the need for connection and family or friendship, even if I don’t see it as necessary as it would change the game too much, plus cmon we already got cats, and zombies we can... befriend.

0 notes

holynpoly · 3 years

Text

Week 5

Cookie clicker:

Let's start by saying that i don't like clicker games, I like idle (and let me suggest The legend of idleon) but not clicking. I played the game for 30 minutes and never opened it again, with the grand total of 48 kidnapped grandmas. It's also fair to mention that I dislike playing on the phone, i know there was a version for the computer but I do not think it would have affected my opinion in the end. However, I tried to experience the game without thinking if I liked the genre or not.

At the beginning I was caught up in the game, probably because I never played it and I was curious to discover how it worked and what the possibilities were, so I kept clicking and clicking wanting more cookies, but as soon as the first automatization happened i stopped and just waited for the cookie count to go up to buy more factories or grandmas. In terms of achievements, I think I felt a loss of it actually because I wanted more and more automatizations, it's like I never reached the goal, the more I had the more I wanted.

I did not even pay attention at the actual achievements in game since I think it was more of a personal matter, I needed to achieve more for myself, which is weird since I would usually play a game for the fun of it or for the unlockable steam achievements. For example bioshock, in the beginning I followed the story but later I just wanted to explore and see what was ahead for me, I did not care about the story anymore, I was just killing and progressing out of curiosity. While in Viscera clean up, for example, I am all for relaxing and unlocking steam achievements.

Therefore, cookie clicker was somewhat of a new thing for me, I wasn't playing to beat the others, Im not a competitive person and I don’t care to be first, but I was playing for a sense of internal accomplishment, which in the end shifted to boredom since I stopped clicking because my finger was dying and the automatizations weren't happening fast enough. I think what striked the most was dopamine, at least in the beginning, never got to experience serotonin because in a way I never achieved the goal I wanted to achieve (which was maxing out everything in 30 mins, I know it’s impossible but yes, I would never spend more time in the game, probably due to my short patience span).

To conclude, I still don't like the genre in fact I never opened the game after those 30 mins, but also It was interesting to analyze the reasons why I played (except because I had to) and why I could have continued.

1 note · View note

holynpoly · 3 years

Text

Week 4

Hyper casual game

I was thinking to create a minigame where the player would be able to move left or right, having to collect various objects falling from the sky while avoiding others. The game would have some tasks like collect this amount of this object etc, which if accomplished would make the player win that level. Of course, the would be a limited amount of mistakes permitted, as soon as the player fails three times they will have to restart the level.

The main aspect that I wanted to focus on is visual task search since the player would need to find the right object and then make sure they collect it. For this aspect to be increased, the amount of collectable object would be in minority compared to the objects to avoid so that the player would need to actively search for it instead of having the game submerged by collectables.

Additionally, working memory could be improved by implementing a new mechanic such as the screen going black or the objects just disappearing every now and then, it would be interesting to have some fireflyes to collect, which would stop glowing sometimes impeeding the player from seeing where they are turning majority of the screen black. ---

Another game I thought about would be a combination of motor skills and the Stroop effect, where the player would need to type, similar to the previous game, in this one there would be words falling from the sky, or different colors, the game will give a task to the player like find the word blue and type it, or find the red colored word and type it, with a limited amount of time for the played to complete the level, if they don't manage to type in the word before it touches the ground then one life will be detracted, with a max of three trials. Visual search might also be a part of this game since among the falling words it might be hard to find the right one to type in.

0 notes

holynpoly · 3 years

Text

Week 3

Gamificating school:

If i have to be a head master at a school who must find a way to make the student attend class and always be motivated I think I would make a brief similar to what sesame credit wanted to do, where there will be tasks for the students to behave in a certain way, in order to pass the unit together with some rewards.

The people who show more partecipation could win a scholarship or a job placement for a month or so, while the ones who show no interest in the brief might not pass the unit. In a way I see it as balanced since I am giving a reward and a punishment, I also believe that if I were the headmaster and my goal was to make the students partecipate actively during class I could not take in consideration everyone, since in every system there will always be the ones who fail and the ones who succeed.

My first thought, prior to this was to divide the students depending on the grades and the partecipation put in class, but I later realized is something that would not help, but instead might just increase the possibility of one of the group bullying the other. However with the brief idea or any other form of gamification which works on reward and punishment a division and classification is inevitable. I would receive from many students what I want but at the same time there would be weak students who might be crushed by themselves because they might not be able to compete with the tension (many people might not like to socialize or drive attention to themselves in class by actively partecipating during the lessons). Therefore, there is an automatic division where the people with a strong and determined character will manage to pass the unit while the others will have a bigger probability of failure.

0 notes

holynpoly · 3 years

Text

Week 2

Behaviourism and King of Thieves:

Let’s start by saying that I do not enjoy games on the phone, which was already a huge turn down when I had to play King of Thieves. My experience was overall short but intense, since I am not very much skilled at platformers filled with obstacles where I need to make sure I don’t die, in fact I played the bare minimum because it was becoming too frustrating. However, I did enjoy it when I started getting just a tiny bit better at it. I see the potential in it, but if I had a keyboard and not my finger, I am sure I would have enjoyed it more.

Now, let’s dive into behaviorism:

- Classical conditioning: All the notifications, since they are all generally associated to a reward, or important news.

- Operant Conditioning: Tapping because it’s something I need to time in this game and can’t just do subconsciously, I also associate the tapping to the thief jump, so I know that if I tap the thief will jump (could also be considered continuous reinforcement).

- Positive Reinforcer/punishment: If you finish all your keys you can’t play anymore. Depending how long it takes you to win the dungeon, you will collect less reward and stars.

- Negative Reinforcer/punishment: Upon getting hit by the cannon or going headfirst into a rotating saw you lose health.

- Constant Reinforcement: When (if) you complete a dungeon, the next one will be unlocked. Upon opening the chest, you will get gems, experience, and coins. Upon collecting the amount of resources needed you can upgrade your health (optional). Every time you use the vending machine you get a reward.

- Fixed Ratio Reinforcement: When collecting determined amount of xp you level up. Achievements, for example steal 2000 gold in order to unlock a machine. Apparently, after a certain number of dungeons you get special gems for rituals. After determined amount of days that you open the game you get a special daily reward.

- Variable Ratio Reinforcement: The amount of keys used to open a dungeon is always different, it can be usually between 1 and 5. Spinning the wheel is also an incognito since if you want something specific you don’t know how many times you need to spin it. You can use resources at the vending machine and after various trial can get the reward wanted.

- Fixed Interval Reinforcement: Daily rewards. If in the championship you remain top tier for tot amount of time, you’ll get a bigger reward.

- Variable Interval Reinforcement: when an adversary takes over your fort since you do not know how much it will take, but in this case it’s more of a punishment.

0 notes