On Player Motivation and the Appeal of Games: An Exploration of Player Motivation

Abstract

The creation of games and good reception by the public, either through commercial success, good critics or just to cause enjoyment on players. Rarely such a feat is accomplished casually; the iteration of the prototyping and testing stages in the development of a game generates the core around which every aspect of the game design stage will revolve. The concepts regarding the feeling of fun and immersion may help the development of new and captivating experiences in games. In this paper some of the current theories will be explored, focusing on the theories of Flow, the Magic Circle
and the PENS theory among others which address player motivation and the creation of compelling games.

Full text

On Player Motivation and the Appeal of Games: An Exploration of Player
Motivation
Ricardo C´
esar Ribeiro dos Santos1∗Klaus de Geus1,2Sergio Scheer1Awdry Miquelin3
Sebasti˜
ao Ribeiro Jr.4Walmor Cardoso Godoi3
1Universidade Federal do Paran´
a, PPGMNE, Brasil
2COPEL Gerac¸ ˜
ao e Transmiss˜
ao S.A., P&D, Brasil
3Universidade Tecnol´
ogica Federal do Paran´
a, DAFIS, Brasil
4Institutos LACTEC, Departamento de Eletricidade e Materiais, Brasil
ABS TRACT
The creation of games and good reception by the public, either
through commercial success, good critics or just to cause enjoy-
ment on players. Rarely such a feat is accomplished casually; the
iteration of the prototyping and testing stages in the development of
a game generates the core around which every aspect of the game
design stage will revolve. The concepts regarding the feeling of fun
and immersion may help the development of new and captivating
experiences in games. In this paper some of the current theories
will be explored, focusing on the theories of Flow, the Magic Circle
and the PENS theory among others which address player motiva-
tion and the creation of compelling games.
Keywords: Magic Circle, Flow, PENS Theory.
1 INTRODUCTION
The process of designing and developing a game is — commonly
and not surprisingly — extenuating and not without risk. Many
factors must be taken into account during the whole process in order
to assure a smooth and successful implementation and commercial
viability.
One of the main issues at hand when defining game system and
mechanics is the player experience and the game feel. These are
important definitions and essential to captivate the game audience,
as a game without players is, naturally, nothing but a collection of
rules and art assets. To understand why a player should choose
to engage in a given game, it would be useful to know the player
motivation and how to make the most possibly appealing system.
Several authors have already tried to tackle the question and un-
derstand how to make games more compelling, how to captivate
some given audience, how to create a community around games
and how to optimize the way a player approaches the game.
Even though this question looks innocent, the answer demands
a non trivial level of insight of the player motivation, psychology
and group behavior. A unified and comprehensive theory as to why
some audiences tend to prefer some games over others remains elu-
sive. In this paper this question will be addressed using some of
the main theories available in the literature — each one of them
uses a distinct point of view in order to justify why games are so
captivating.
2 HU IZI NG A AND T HE MAG IC CIRCL E
Credited by some authors as the pioneer of the study of the play
activity, Johan Huizinga wrote in his book Homo Ludens [9] about
∗e-mail: ricardo.santos@ufpr.br
how play presents itself as a cultural activity and as a cultural el-
ement in society. Huizinga does not investigate on its origins,
though. He considers that playful behavior exists and it originates
in a deep instinctive level that precedes civilization or even intelli-
gence.
In this context, play is not only a social function; it is a biolog-
ical one as well. This claim is proven by the fact that play is not
exclusive to humans, animals also engage in playful behavior spon-
taneously. Furthermore, in humans play precedes speech and motor
skills — which can be interpreted as further proof of such claims.
The function of such activities is not investigated either,
Huizinga speculates which could be significance based in [2] and
[12]. It reads as follows:
The numerous attempts to define the biological function
of play show a striking variation. By some the origin
and fundamentals of play have been described as a dis-
charge of superabundant vital energy, by others as the
satisfaction of some ”imitative instinct”, or again as sim-
ply a ”need” for relaxation. According to one theory
play constitutes a training of the young creature for the
serious work that life will demand later on. According
to another it serves as an exercise in restraint needful of
the individual. Some find the principle of play in an in-
nate urge to exercise a certain faculty, or in the desire to
dominate or compete. Yet others regard it as an ”abre-
action” — an outlet for harmful impulses, as the neces-
sary restorer of energy wasted by one-sided activity, as
”wish-fulfillment”, as a fiction designed to keep up the
feeling of personal value, etc.[9]
Play is identified as a social construct in the way it creates its own
reality, the so-called Magic Circle by Huizinga. Play must have
clear limits, even though the rules may not be as clearly defined;
given such a a game is nothing more than play activities with a set
of rules added in order to define roles, outcomes, limits, etc.
For Huizinga, the involvement and the attention playful be-
haviour evokes defies explanation as merely the biological realm
is being analyzed at this point of the text, despite previously the
psychological domain being subject of such scrutiny as well.
It is interesting to note that in more recent literature [8, 10, 7] the
same reasons as cited by Huizinga are still present, more specifi-
cally as the intrinsic player motivations, namely, Imitative instinct,
need for relaxation, training for a role, exercise in restraint, urge to
exercise a faculty, desire to dominate or compete, outlet for harm-
ful impulses, restorer of energy ad the ”wish-fulfillment” in all their
forms.
These same objectives can be grouped in what was defined as
games and as serious games; it is possible to notice that elements
like imitative instinct, training for a role and urge to exercise a fac-
ulty all relate intimately to the area that would be defined as serious
SBC – Proceedings of SBGames 2017 | ISSN: 2179-2259
Art & Design Track – Short Papers
XVI SBGames – Curitiba – PR – Brazil, November 2nd - 4th, 2017
331

games by [1] in the future, as the others belong — not exclusively
— to the domains of entertainment.
One other characteristics of play that is defined in [9] is that ”all
play is a voluntary activity”. It is not possible to impose the play
activity to someone, as it would make play lose its meaning.
The most famous part of Huizinga’s theory, however, is the con-
cept of the Magic Circle — a limit imposed to the play either by
its participants or the rules. This limit may be spatial, temporal or
social and it is necessary to note that not all limits may exist simul-
taneously or that the existence of one does not imply that the others
must be present as well.
The main utility of the Magic Circle is to separate play from re-
ality. This notion makes explicit the fact that the conflict in the play
area is artificial, even though some consequences may not be, for
instance, in a wrestling match the conflict is artificial, the fighters
are not having a real fight; it is an staged conflict, a mere compe-
tition of skill. The bruises and wounds experienced, however, are
quite real and some may have impact on the life outside of play —
the real life.
The definition of the Magic Circle has a powerful implication, as
it creates a universe apart from the everyday life, a self contained
micro cosmos in which some rules are added and other rules may
be taken away from the relationship between the players; some oth-
erwise illicit activities may be temporarily accepted and errors have
no or little consequence in life outside the Magic Circle.
The rules and outcomes defined by the rules of play create, fur-
thermore, an order in an otherwise chaotic environment — life it-
self. This order does not imply predictability, the actions of other
players may still be surprising, what the Magic Circle ensures is
that every possible move within the game rules have a deterministic
and predictable outcome. The uncertainty of the next move of an
opposing player create the tension, the predictability of the outcome
ensures order.
In fact, this is an important component for the reward mechanism
present in games, as the player will try to foresee which actions will
be the most beneficial for some given strategy. For games of luck,
this premise still holds true, as the player expects a reward, the only
difference is that there is a probability of receiving it, instead of
being a natural outcome for some given action.
Huizinga, though, does not delve too deeply into the player psy-
chology, he does not try to understand the motivation of the player,
just accepts playing as a need inherent to society and how play in-
fluences society. Seeking a deeper understanding of what drives the
player, Csikszentmihalyi [4] formulated the Flow theory.
3 FL OW
The Flow theory was developed and documented by Csikszentmi-
halyi in 1990 [4] and further explained by the same author in 1997.
The flow state is described as:
First, the experience (of enjoyment) usually occurs
when we confront tasks we have a chance of complet-
ing. Second, we must be able to concentrate on what
we are doing. Third and fourth, the concentration is
usually possible because the task undertaken has clear
goals and provides immediate feedback. Fifth, one acts
with a deep but effortless involvement that removes from
awareness the worries and frustration of everyday life.
Sixth, enjoyable experiences allow people to exercise a
sense of control over their actions. Seventh, concern for
the self disappears, yet paradoxically the sense of self
emerges stronger after the flow experience is over. Fi-
nally, the sense of the duration of time is altered; hours
pass by in minutes, and minutes can stretch out to seem
like hours. The combination of all these elements causes
a sense of deep enjoyment that is so rewarding people
feel like expending a great deal of energy is worthwhile
simply to be able to feel it.[4]
This describes the ideal situation, in which the person is fully
invested in a given activity, such as climbing, running, playing mu-
sic or playing a game (the study case wich will be focused). The
concept of flow is tightly connected to the matter of attention, con-
centration and effort; it is a model to try and explain how to create
an experience in which the player gets engaged for the sake of get-
ting engaged in such activity.
Hereto, it will only be considered the activity of playing games.
It is important to notice the conditions for the flow state to be
achieved:
It is a task that is possible to be achieved; should the players feel
that they have no possibility to be successful, the whole activity
feels pointless. Furthermore, as depicted in figure 1, if this feeling
of impossible task is due to a high challenge, the player gets frus-
trated or anxious — if the players feel that they must beat that given
challenge, they becomes anxious, otherwise, frustrated.
The player must be able to concentrate on the activity at hand;
Without the ability to concentrate, the player cannot merge action
and awareness. During flow, the player experiences a loss of self-
consciousness so intense that other objects and thought fail to enter
awareness.
Interestingly enough, the distractions from the task at hand must
be avoided. Hence, the game may provide the distraction from itself
(such as Navi in The Ocarina of Time that kept screaming ”Hey!
Listen!” while the player tried to perform some action).
The task must have clear goals and provide immediate feedback;
if the players do not know what they are supposed to do, the whole
game feels pointless. On the other hand, if the players do not know
if they are doing well or not, they do not know if there is a chance
of achieving any given goal — or if they are moving towards the
desired goal.
The player has a sense of control — ”or, more precisely, a lack
of anxiety about losing control that is typical of many situations
in normal life [5]”; in everyday life a sense of psychic entropy is
experienced as one feels exposed to causalities in activities such
as crossing a busy street, in relationships or even when performing
one’s job.
However, when feeling in control it creates an environment
where the players feels that they can foresee the consequences of
any given action or can handle any given setback that should even-
tually appear. This is complementary to the feeling of compatibility
between skill and challenge.
The player experience a distorted sense of time; during the flow
experience, the attention is so much invested in the game that little
is left from cognition to devote to the mental processes that con-
tributes to the experience of duration [3][6].
The flow state is intimately connected to challenge, which must
be compatible to the proficiency of the player; a task too easy is
boring, a task too difficult makes the subject anxious or frustrated,
depending on how satisfactory the performance must necessarily
be.
When applied to games, this concept offers a good framework to
track the progression of challenges based on the player proficiency.
It must be noted that this is about the perceived challenge compared
to the perceived skill rather than the actual skill and challenge. To
keep a player interested and committed to the system, the challenge
must progress along with the skill, in order to keep the payer in the
flow zone depicted in figure 1.
The characteristics of the flow state are intrinsic to the player, as
the main focus of the theory is towards what the players feel — how
they perceive their skills, how they perceive difficulty, how they feel
in control. It is not a objective assessment nor the theory aims to
explain how to induce the flow state on the player.
SBC – Proceedings of SBGames 2017 | ISSN: 2179-2259
Art & Design Track – Short Papers
XVI SBGames – Curitiba – PR – Brazil, November 2nd - 4th, 2017
332

Frustration/
anxiety
Boredom
Flow
Challenge
Skill
Figure 1: Flow state, frustration/anxiety zone and boredom zone. Re-
produced from [8]
Up to this point, the concepts rely heavily in intangible concepts,
just like fun,challenge or entertainment. To use these terms to
describe games feels natural, but some problems arise when they
become too important, as the abstraction is still too abstract.
In the Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS) model
[11], the authors try and replace these concepts with a more con-
crete set of needs that the player expects to satisfy when playing a
game. This takes away the ethereal characteristics used previously
and replaces with more concrete ideas.
4 TH E PENS MODE L
For the creation of engaging experiences, fun and the creation of
an experience is often enough considered, but not much attention
is given to what makes a compelling experience, and with good
reason, as these intangible concepts are not readily within grasp.
Or, as Rigby and Ryan [11] state:
And that’s the problem: Broad concepts like ”fun” have
multiple meanings and typically aren’t easy to nail down
when you are trying to understand things clearly. [...]
it’s the context of the situation that helps us understand
what ”fun” means. Therefore, we need to understand the
underlying experiences that bring about ”fun” specifi-
cally within the context of video games because they
have a particular strong power.[11]
As pointed out, the term ”fun” must be understood in a given
context; a book may be considered fun, a dinner may be considered
fun, a voyage may be considered fun and a game may be considered
fun. However, these are different kinds of fun — different experi-
ences that are described using the same word.
The object of analysis hereto is the experience of playing games,
and a powerful experience it is as some players invest a great
amount of money and effort in it. The main motivation is to under-
stand the reason why this experience evokes the feelings it evokes.
The PENS model addresses these issues mapping three needs
that the player gets satisfied when playing games: competence, au-
tonomy and relatedness. The ability to satisfy these three compe-
tences, according to this model, is what make a given game more
or less engaging and fun.
The need for competence is the desire to grow one’s abilities
and to gain mastery of new situations and challenges. This need is
intrinsic in human behavior — early infants begin to try and suc-
ceed in new tasks, children get the motivation to excel at sports and
school, adults feel this drive during work.
This is true for a task which the challenge level does not change,
a task that mastery has been achieved and which the difficulty does
not increase. However, it is not uncommon to find professionals in
this situation that try to gamify their jobs setting personal goals and
trying to overcome them.
In this area both the PENS model and the Flow theory overlap.
The authors of the model admit that a large part of the engagement
of video games is due to the satisfaction of the need for competence
[11].
For this need to be satisfied, there must be a clear set of goals,
the player must not perceive the challenge as overwhelming and
there must be clear feedback on whether or not the player has been
successful.
The feedback must not only be clear, it must be helpful. It must
be a safe space for mistakes and if the players were not success-
ful, on the next try they must feel that the failed experience helped
them to gain more mastery over the task at hand. Should the player
feel judged or discouraged in any manner to try again, frustration is
bound to set in and make the experience a sour one.
Autonomy, the second need of the model studied, is often enough
mistaken for freedom, when it is merely a way of denominating the
feeling the players gets when they are presented with interesting
choices that may be freely explored, even if one choice implicates
that another must be renounced — would you rather have your char-
acter transformed in a werewolf or a vampire, will you side with the
Imperials or with the Stormcloack rebels, etc.
This need is met when the player is freed from the control of
the circumstances and others, the player gets a sense of choice and
opportunity to follow her wishes that is not always present in every-
day life. In this manner, autonomy is more than freedom, it is the
possibility to see real opportunities for oneself in the environment.
It is not uncommon for the routine to leave little to no possibility
of choice, at all social levels individuals take orders that are im-
posed to them for any given reason. While the roles in a healthy
society demand expectations that must be met by whoever is per-
forming them the lack of autonomy takes its toll on the psycholog-
ical health.
The escapism provided by television or books relegates the au-
dience to a spectator, a mere witness to a hero who empowers her-
self during a quest, which is quite different to becoming the hero;
the players can create a persona and get feedback while honing the
skills they choose and in the process influencing the story. For this
model, this is the main point of the activity of game playing, not
only the escapism provided by other, passive media.
The need for relatedness is the need to establish a meaningful
connection to others that creates the sensation of belonging, and
that one matters to others is a basis of a mutually supportive rela-
tionship.
While this may be an optional factor for the motivation of play-
ers to engage in games, the fulfillment of this need is decisive in a
positive reaction from the player community. Not only that, but it
reflects a deeply intrinsic and fundamental motivational f actor, as
humans constantly seek to be a part of a community and receive
peer recognition.
While community is often related to a group of humans, in video
games Non-Player Characters (NPC) may perform a significant role
in fulfilling the need for relatedness — even if at a shallower level
— with a supportive attitude of acknowledgment for the player.
For an experience of relatedness, one must feel acknowledged
by another person. When people interact, the facial expression or
words being used will tell how much the other party acknowledges
them.
The feeling of acknowledgment must relate to a feeling of sup-
SBC – Proceedings of SBGames 2017 | ISSN: 2179-2259
Art & Design Track – Short Papers
XVI SBGames – Curitiba – PR – Brazil, November 2nd - 4th, 2017
333

port, where one feels that the other person to connect with oneself
and one’s feeling both cognitively and empathically. This is impor-
tant for it would not only generate understanding, but would also
enable the satisfaction of the needs of autonomy and competence
through the creation of a safe environment where there is space for
mistakes and evolving.
Finally, it is expected that some impact is created from an in-
teraction, which may be some laughter, a head nod or, in a more
complex level, a deep emotional connection between two partners.
Otherwise, the interaction is remarked as shallow and, therefore, of
no significance.
The satisfaction of this need is what drove the creation of mul-
tiplayer games, specially the Massive Multiplayer Online Games.
The potential for generating relatedness in these games is due to the
availability of partners and the mechanisms for finding new part-
ners. The main focus of these games is to create camaraderie, of
belonging among the players in order to forge a healthy environ-
ment.
5 CO NCL US ION
The creation of engaging games and significant experiences aim-
ing player satisfaction is not trivial. This is due not only for the
wide variety of players, each with particular preferences, expecta-
tions and wishes but also to the complexity of human behavior and
psychological factors.
To make a player feel a bond with a game world or a particu-
lar NPC may be even more complex than establishing a bond with
someone, as it is not a relationship between individuals, it is the cre-
ation of a community around an artifact designed to deliver some
given experience to a (hopefully) large group of people.
As a means to facilitate this task — that sometimes may feel
daunting and inglorious — some insight of the player mind is of
great value as it would shine some light in how to captivate the
audience and communicate in a more personal level.
In this paper, three concepts were presented, the Magic Circle
from Huizinga, the Flow Theory from Csikszentmihalyi and the
PENS Model from Rigby and Ryan. All of these concepts were
conceived as a form of explaining the phenomena of games and the
play activity.
While Huizinga merely accepts play as one of the needs of so-
cial beings and an activity that is separated from the world outside
the play area, Csikszentmihalyi tries to explain what motivates the
player to move forward in a game and Rigby and Ryan aim to pin
down what lures the player towards any given game.
Despite the differences among the theories and models pre-
sented, it is possible to notice that all of them state that games are
a safe space for trial and error, in which players can practice skills,
socialize and exercise a deeper level of freedom than outside the
game area.
Interestingly, no theory connects experience and content, possi-
bly meaning that for a compelling game experience other factors
are more important than technical specifications, contents, themes
or characters.
ACK NOWLED GME NT S
This work has been developed by the OneReal Research Group
within the R&D project PD-6491-0299/2013 proposed by Copel
Gerao e Transmisso S.A., under the auspices of the R&D Pro-
gramme of Agłncia Nacional de Energia Eltrica (ANEEL).
REF ERE NC ES
[1] C. C. Abt. Serious games. University press of America, 1987.
[2] F. Buytendijk. Het spel van mensch en dier als openbaring van lev-
ensdriften, 1932.
[3] R. Conti. Time flies: Investigating the connection between intrin-
sic motivation and the experience of time. Journal of personality,
69(1):1–26, 2001.
[4] M. Csikszentmihalyi. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experiences.
Harper & Row Publishers, 1990.
[5] M. Csikszentmihalyi, S. Abuhamdeh, and J. Nakamura. Flow. In
Handbook of competence and motivation, pages 598–608. Guilford
Publications, 2013.
[6] W. Friedman. About time: Inventing the fourth dimension. The MIT
press, 1990.
[7] T. Fullerton. Game Design Workshop: a Playcentric Approach to
Creating Innovative Games. Elsevier, 2 edition, 2008.
[8] J. Gibson. Introduction to Game Design, Prototyping and Develop-
ment. Addison-Wesley, 1 edition, Fevereiro 2015.
[9] J. Huizinga. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture.
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1949.
[10] J. Schell. The Art of Game Design; a Book of Lenses. Morgan Kauf-
mann, 1 edition, 2008.
[11] R. R. Scott Rigby. Glued to Games: How Video Games Draw Us in
and Hold Us Spellbound. PRAEGER FREDERICK A, 2011.
[12] H. Zondervan. Het spel bij dieren, kinderen en volwassen mens chen,
1928.
SBC – Proceedings of SBGames 2017 | ISSN: 2179-2259
Art & Design Track – Short Papers
XVI SBGames – Curitiba – PR – Brazil, November 2nd - 4th, 2017
334