i’m just gonna leave this here as a reminder that “hitting bottom” doesn’t mean “staying on bottom for the rest of your life and dying as a piece of crap”
I will never, ever, not reblog this.
*huggles RDJ* Anyone on here who loves him, someone posted an amazing story about him when he was younger. I wish knew where the link was so I could share it. Instead, it’s just cut and pasted below. If I find the link, I’ll replace it with that.
I will also say that I have read this several times now and it still makes me cry.
“True story: His Name is Robert Downey Jr.” by Dana Reinhardt
I’m willing to go out on a limb here and guess that most stories of kindness do not begin with drug addicted celebrity bad boys.
His name is Robert Downey Jr.
You’ve probably heard of him. You may or may not be a fan, but I am, and I was in the early 90’s when this story takes place.
It was at a garden party for the ACLU of Southern California. My stepmother was the executive director, which is why I was in attendance without having to pay the $150 fee. It’s not that I don’t support the ACLU, it’s that I was barely twenty and had no money to speak of.
I was escorting my grandmother. There isn’t enough room in this essay to explain to you everything she was, I would need volumes, so for the sake of brevity I will tell you that she was beautiful even in her eighties, vain as the day is long, and whip smart, though her particular sort of intelligence did not encompass recognizing young celebrities.
I pointed out Robert Downey Jr. to her when he arrived, in a gorgeous cream-colored linen suit, with Sarah Jessica Parker on his arm. My grandmother shrugged, far more interested in piling her paper plate with various unidentifiable cheeses cut into cubes. He wasn’t Carey Grant or Gregory Peck. What did she care?
The afternoon’s main honoree was Ron Kovic, whose story of his time in the Vietnam War that had left him confined to a wheelchair had recently been immortalized in the Oliver Stone film Born on the Fourth of July.
I mention the wheelchair because it played an unwitting role in what happened next.
We made our way to our folding chairs in the garden with our paper plates and cubed cheeses and we watched my stepmother give one of her eloquent speeches and a plea for donations, and there must have been a few other people who spoke but I can’t remember who, and then Ron Kovic took the podium, and he was mesmerizing, and when it was all over we stood up to leave, and my grandmother tripped.
We’d been sitting in the front row (nepotism has its privileges) and when she tripped she fell smack into the wheelchair ramp that provided Ron Kovic with access to the stage. I didn’t know that wheelchair ramps have sharp edges, but they do, at least this one did, and it sliced her shin right open.
The volume of blood was staggering.
I’d like to be able to tell you that I raced into action; that I quickly took control of the situation, tending to my grandmother and calling for the ambulance that was so obviously needed, but I didn’t. I sat down and put my head between my knees because I thought I was going to faint. Did I mention the blood?
Luckily, somebody did take control of the situation, and that person was Robert Downey Jr.
He ordered someone to call an ambulance. Another to bring a glass of water. Another to fetch a blanket. He took off his gorgeous linen jacket and he rolled up his sleeves and he grabbed hold of my grandmother’s leg, and then he took that jacket that I’d assumed he’d taken off only to it keep out of the way, and he tied it around her wound. I watched the cream colored linen turn scarlet with her blood.
He told her not to worry. He told her it would be alright. He knew, instinctively, how to speak to her, how to distract her, how to play to her vanity. He held onto her calf and he whistled. He told her how stunning her legs were.
She said to him, to my humiliation: “My granddaughter tells me you’re a famous actor but I’ve never heard of you.”
He stayed with her until the ambulance came and then he walked alongside the stretcher holding her hand and telling her she was breaking his heart by leaving the party so early, just as they were getting to know each other. He waved to her as they closed the doors. “Don’t forget to call me, Silvia,” he said. “We’ll do lunch.”
He was a movie star, after all.
Believe it or not, I hurried into the ambulance without saying a word. I was too embarrassed and too shy to thank him.
We all have things we wish we’d said. Moments we’d like to return to and do differently. Rarely do we get that chance to make up for those times that words failed us. But I did. Many years later.
I should mention here that when Robert Downey Jr. was in prison for being a drug addict (which strikes me as absurd and cruel, but that’s the topic for a different essay), I thought of writing to him. Of reminding him of that day when he was humanity personified. When he was the best of what we each can be. When he was the kindest of strangers.
But I didn’t.
Some fifteen years after that garden party, ten years after my grandmother had died and five since he’d been released from prison, I saw him in a restaurant.
I grew up in Los Angeles where celebrity sightings are commonplace and where I was raised to respect people’s privacy and never bother someone while they’re out having a meal, but on this day I decided to abandon the code of the native Angeleno, and my own shyness, and I approached his table.
I said to him, “I don’t have any idea if you remember this…” and I told him the story.
“I just wanted to thank you,” I said. “And I wanted to tell you that it was simply the kindest act I’ve ever witnessed.”
He stood up and he took both of my hands in his and he looked into my eyes and he said, “You have absolutely no idea how much I needed to hear that today.”
OH MY GOD………………………..
I love seeing this on my dashboard
That’s ok..I wanted to cry tonight anyway.
Here is “Knot”, a short comic I drew to sell at Mocca and TCAF this year. The printed version is going to be SO PRETTY. I’m in love with the cover (which I will post later).
I just wanted to do something fairy-tale-like that talked about doubts and frustrations and how to deal with them. I’m really happy with how colorful and adorable the story turned out to be.
If you enjoyed “Knot”, please consider reblogging it and/or checking out my ongoing webcomic Namesake! HUGS TO ALL OF YOU!
Isa’s been showing me wips of this for awhile, look how pretty this is finished, ahhh!!
Remember that time Gandalf convinced the whole party to flee so that he could take out the Balrog and not have to share any of the XP? Shows up the next session with fancy new robes and everything. What a jerk.
Best literary analysis ever.
Balto pops up to give his massive thumbs up to Enrique’s Brigada project! He’s almost there :D pass it on with a link.(it’s in my IG profile) If we get 10shares(show me them) I’ll color this up and post tomorrow (hopefully that’s an incentive?) #brigada #enriquefernandez #battleberzerkerbalto #comics #colerase #copic #fabercastell #markers #art #artist #verkami #kickstarter #crowdfunding #ink #indie #inspire #goals #rocksThe link for your convenience http://www.verkami.com/locale/en/projects/7595-brigada-2
Greetings! Klei Entertainment is working on a game that has been recommended to me by just about everyone who has played it, and when Jamie Cheng offered to write up a post about player rewards and the thought behind them, I thought it was a great idea. Also, I’m traveling and needed the content. I learned some interesting things reading this this post, and I’m happy to share it with you. Enjoy!
Back in 2010, Chris Hecker presented a talk about Intrinsic vs Extrinsic rewards, titled: Achievements Considered Harmful? You could say that this article is about our own, direct experience in the matter. It’s about how we nearly ruined our newest game by adding one of the most common game tropes: the quest system.
In January, we started working on a new game called Don’t Starve. This game is a big departure for us at Klei, considering our recent history with linear, narrative-driven action games. Don’t Starve is a randomly-generated, open-world survival game - the player tries to survive for as long as they can in a complex, hostile environment. It’s a “lost in the woods” simulator featuring cannibalistic pig people and trees that fight back when you try to chop them down. It’s about being alone, and surviving on your wits while growing a magnificent beard.
We were inspired by building games like Minecraft and Terraria, as well as simulation games like Dwarf Fortress. Add in a splash of old-school adventure gaming and a hint of roguelike, and you have an idea of what we were going for. Beyond a playground that Minecraft offers (oh, but WHAT a playground), we wanted to build a rich world that interacts in surprising ways, and challenges the player to explore and understand it.
With that, I’m going to start with some background, and then get into the surprisingly pointed consequences of using external incentives in our game.
Also, because we’re Canadian, we’re going to stick the letter “u” in words all over the place.
At their most basic level, many video games can be reduced to simple behaviourism. The player sees a scenario on the screen, and tries to affect it via some form of input. The game reacts in either a positive or negative way, and that reinforces or inhibits certain behaviours on the part of the player.
You press a button to collect a coin. A bell rings, and a number gets bigger. All of a sudden, you have a powerful urge to press more buttons, and so it turns.
Meanwhile, a well designed game can elicit a much more complex emotional response from the player than simple reinforcement learning. Do you remember the sense of wonder that you felt when you first heard about minus world in Super Mario Brothers? Or the growing sense of unease that took hold about half way through Shadow of the Colossus? How did you spend your first night in Minecraft? Games can be powerful stuff.
So while behaviourism looms large in the physiological landscape of gameplaying, it is possible for designers to reach for something more. The psychological techniques that a game designer chooses to use in a particular game can have far-reaching effects not only upon the way that the game is played and why players choose to play it.
In the large scheme of things, behaviourism in games is a useful tool. The real problem comes when the tool of behaviourism—the extrinsic reward—is either the only reason we’re doing something, or perhaps more tragically, replaces the reason we’re doing something.
Studies about the damage of rewards are well-known, and yet it seems common to hear a design (or business) talk about how effective arbitrary rewards are in motivating players. Take an old, 1987 study of 2 girls drawing for the fun of it:
In this study, the girls who were rewarded actually ended up drawing faster, but worse, than their counterparts who simply enjoyed drawing. Then, once the rewards stopped, so did they. In this instance, we’ve managed to replace the joy of drawing with the expectation for reward. This phenomenon is reproducible and has been repeated by multiple studies; the examples of the negative effects of rewards are abundant, and its clear that rewarding people, even for things you want them to do more of, can have the exact opposite effect.
Let’s put aside the moral implications of behaviourism for now, and make the case for why this approach is problematic for our game design goal: actually getting people to care about our game deeply. Specifically:
1. Rewards can cause players to do less of what you want
Players given rewards will stop doing the thing you’re rewarding them for once you stop the rewards, even if that action was fun in the first place.
2. Rewards can cause players to care less about everything else
Players looking for a reward become so focused on the reward, that any distraction is exactly that—a distraction.
3. Rewards can cause players to perform worse
Players who are trying to optimize for the reward will often stop taking risks, in fear of losing the reward, even if this risk taking behaviour could actually improve their performance.
All of these behaviours are backed by studies. To see many more examples, I direct you to further reading.
What we unintentionally found is, Don’t Starve became a poster child for what can go wrong. As we learned recently in our studio, you have to be careful when you’re making these decisions. If you choose poorly, you might end up subverting the whole point of your game in the first place.
When we as designers give an arbitrary reward, what we are saying is “what you are doing is not intrinsically interesting, so we’re giving you this carrot instead.”
Our initial playable prototype of Don’t Starve took a couple of months to build. It opened with Wilson, the main character, waking up inside a clearing. He would play a little getting up animation, and then the user interface would appear and the player was given control. That’s it. We wanted to see if players would grok the system we created for them, and start exploring.
Instead, players would watch the introduction (such as it was), and then turn to us and ask “What am I supposed to do next?” and “I don’t know what to do.” And then they’d simply be stuck.
Ouch. All of our work was going to waste, because people didn’t know what to do! With a bit of verbal coaching, they were able to start playing, but as a guided experience the game lacked the sense of discovery and accomplishment that we were trying to impart.
But all was not lost. Once we had taught players enough about the game’s basic mechanics, they would start experimenting on their own and would start to have a lot of fun. The problem was getting them to that point without coaching or prompting.
A couple of brainstorming sessions later, we decided that best solution was to provide more structure to the experience. The players didn’t know what they could do in the game, so we were going to tell them! If you’ve played any triple-A game on the current generation of consoles, you can probably guess where this was going: Quests!
Now, when players woke up, they were confronted by an evil-looking man in a pinstripe suit who challenged them to complete a laundry list of goals, like “survive for 5 days” or “find all of the phonograph pieces”. Completing the tasks would knock them off the list, and they would be replaced by more complex tasks. We figured that we could teach all of the core systems in the game this way, from exploration, to crafting, to combat. By the time they were done all of the challenges, players would be ready to take on the world on their own terms!
The actual result was exactly what I described previously. First, players would optimize for the goal—in this case, it was surviving for four nights. Except, they now did this to the exclusion of all else! Players simply cowered in a corner, hoarding some food, and waited for the time to run out. This was:
a) very boring,
b) actually ineffective and
c) once they reached the goal, if we didn’t write another goal, they would stop playing.
Our solution had taken a confusing - yet fun - game and made it feel like a list of chores. There was also the problem that players would eventually run out of quests, and then stop playing entirely because the game was ‘over’. It was an incredibly eye-opening experience of how just a simple UI change (the objectives didn’t actually give you anything) could so effectively destroy player motivation.
What we had initially thought was a failure of instruction was actually a failure in how we presented the game’s goals. In structuring the game as a series of explicit tasks to be completed, we taught the player to depend upon those tasks to create meaning in the game. At the highest level, the game that they were playing was “complete the task list”, and the actual game play became an obstacle to be overcome.
This was a clear example of not us as designers not understanding the underlying motivations for players, and allowing the rewards to overshadow the game itself. It was poisonous to Don’t Starve because as a systems-exploration game, its charm lies in letting players figure things out for themselves. Our itemized lists and rewards made the game seems as about as charming as a couple pages of math homework.
Once we realized what the underlying issue was, we doubled-down on focusing on the one thing that mattered: allowing players to have fun exploring and experimenting.
First we removed all of the explicit quests. This brought us back to where we started. Our goal as developers then became to find a way to teach players about the early game in such a way as to allow them to figure it out for themselves.
Designing this way is a lot harder. We could no longer simply tell people what to do, but instead, after dozens of playtests and many UI passes, created an interface which gently and neutrally showed them what they could do created an environment where players could enjoy the game exactly as they felt was correct.
In Don’t Starve, the player’s progression in the world closely follows their progress through the crafting menu. You collect stuff so that you can build things that let you collect more exotic stuff that leads to even better things. We don’t explicitly tell you that you should collect the ingredients build an axe so that you can chop down trees so that you can build a fire so that you can survive the night. We just present you with a prominent, navigable list of crafting recipes, and we kill you if you get caught outside for too long without a light source. Oh, and we also delete your saved game, because we’re kinda mean.
After a player experiences this loss first-hand a couple of times, they catch on. By the time they’ve figured out how to survive the first in-game night, they have a pretty good mental model of how the game works, and are busy coming up with their own goals for the next day. They have learned how to learn about the game, and hopefully their curiosity about its underlying systems has been piqued enough that they want to continue playing.
Our game is currently in Early Beta, and it has been incredibly rewarding watching waves of players go through this learning process and teach themselves how to play. Since the game is not yet complete, players tend to hit the content wall around day 50 or so, where they have seen most of what is currently in the game.
It was thus really amazing to see the power of internal motivation, finding groups of self-motivated players creating their own ‘challenge runs’ on our forums once they got to that point. They were coming up with new sets of self-imposed goals that changed the nature of the game, such as trying to play without eating any meat, or by starting fights with every creature that they find. They weren’t doing this to get achievements or even to get a high score.
They were doing it because they were having fun.
Don’t Starve is currently in Early-Access Beta. You can try a demo via the Chrome Webstore at the official site. Don’t Starve will be released on Steam in the next few months.