[f0r]

How is this scientific? All I see is a lot of speculation with no experimentation/testing. Vague similarities to another study don't cut it - we are not monkeys, and the monkeys weren't playing D2/D3. He's just assumed the premise that D3 is less addictive than D2, and the rest is an argument made to fit this assumption. I'm not saying he's wrong, just saying that this is bad science.

[alex_c]

But... but... it has graphs!

The "scientific" part was pretty tongue-in-cheek given all the handwaving I do, I obviously didn't hook up electrodes to anyone's brain while they're playing (although that would be fascinating). I'll edit the blog title to put it in quotes, can't edit the submission title though.

[scott_s]

Give yourself some credit: you have a testable hypothesis. We could conceivably monitor the brain activity of Diablo 2 and 3 players and see if they match your predicted behavior. That we could either confirm or contradict your hypothesis means that we could actually provide support or falsify your theory.

[slurgfest]

OK, so suppose you measure metabolic activity in (say) nucleus accumbens, with pretty sensitive equipment, for a number of different players (experienced or naive? D2 vets or not?) as they somehow play this commercial computer game with their heads stabilized, for not very long periods of time. You aggregate the data across individuals, losing a ton of information.

Now what is the hypothesis - that D2 will drive significantly more metabolic activity than D3, because some blogger thinks that it is a better game?

This would tell us nothing of any scientific interest whatsoever. (Not to say you couldn't make a poster or even get grants for such rubbish, with the right connections)

If there is a testable hypothesis in here, it is so bizarrely specific as to have no practical value nor any value in distinguishing among meaningful theories about how the brain works.

[scott_s]

The theory isn't about the brain itself, but about the enjoyment cycle of Diablo 2 and Diablo 3. The hypothesis is clearly stated in his post: it's the graphs he drew for the brain activity of Diablo 2 and 3. He is predicting a very specific reward-frustration cycle for each game.

No one said science had to be useful.

[slurgfest]

This has nothing to do with science. It has to do with complaining about a matter of taste, and dressing it up with scientism.

[scott_s]

A testable hypothesis whose result will either support or falsify a theory is the very definition of science.

Note that this theory has nothing to do with whether or not one likes the experience. Someone very well may like the experience with more frustration more, for whatever reason. The theory is not "This is why Diablo 2 is better than Diablo 3," but an explanation for why many people may feel less satisfaction playing Diablo 2 than Diablo 3.

[freshhawk]

Translating these kinds of addiction studies (mostly in animals for ethical reasons) to making games more addictive (but always referred to as making them more engaging) is a pretty established industry at this point.

It's not my field, and I don't know if the analysis in the blog post was flawed or not, but there are plenty of people trained in the field who work in the video game industry (and the gambling industry) and they definitely show results with pretty solid metrics under well controlled conditions. Balance the reward cycle and tune the levels of challenge and frustration properly and you get players to spend more time in the game.

I agree that it's a stretch to conclude that D3 is less addictive than D2 but I took it as interesting speculation based on actual science.

[watty]

Agreed. Good loot still drops (look at AH), I'm using 3 pieces found myself. I've also found multiple drops worth 1M+ gold, which is also exciting. Maybe the loop is slightly longer than D2 but that doesn't make it non-existent. Anyone can draw a graph.

[Zarathust]

Game theory and reward system experiments are bogus because some observations have been based on monkeys.