The typical image of the videogame player in the public imagination is the basement dweller who endlessly plays World of Warcraft. He has no social life (unless, of course, you count his favorite conventions) and most people avoid him like the plague.

Of course, this is a stereotype, but I thought it helpful to begin with this stereotype because it reflects most people's attitude toward "hardcore" gaming. "Hardcore" gaming is seen as a hobby for the recluses. And while Nintendo has largely challenged the idea of the "hardcore" gamer being the ideal gamer with the Nintendo DS and the Wii (thus building a larger "casual" market), I think there are things we can learn from both "casual" and "hardcore" gaming that can benefit both types of gamers equally.

Videogames as tools for teaching motivation
I think that many of the "hardcore" games teach a style of motivation that the "casual" games particularly lack. All the same, I think that "casual" games (as defined by Nintendo) teach a different type of motivation that "hardcore" games lack.

For the "hardcore" player, there are a series of complex goals and challenges they must overcome in order to "beat" the game. These goals and challenges may not always be clearly defined and sometimes, the difficulty might be too high for the "newbie" that approaches these games. This requires a skillset that takes considerable time to learn, usually through trial-and-error, and prior experience with previous games of the same genre. These games are typically made to appeal to a specific audience who already has some familiarity with similar products.

The "casual" player may not care so much about meeting complex goals as much as making progress. By casual, I mean people who see videogames as simple, fun experiences at best and over-expensive toys at worst. These are the people who are more likely to pick up titles such as Brain Age, Wii Fit and others, as they value their time and desire to get the most out of their "gaming". Gradual improvements over time are enough for them.

There is nothing wrong with either market, but I do think there tend to be weaknesses.

On the one hand, while the "hardcore" market might tend to specialize in a specific skillset, namely the game they specialize in, these games become unapproachable to those outside of their market. The "hardcore" player has taken days, months, even years to master his game or genre and that might be his primary focus. He could care probably care less about his weight or whether or not he's getting "smarter". He has put a lot of time into his gaming and has become a better player because of it.

On the other hand, the "casual" might be turned off from "hardcore" games typically because they know how much time these games can take. Many of them would rather devote their lives to something outside of gaming. As such, they might be turned off to complex challenges because they know they can improve in strides. Why devote that much time to gaming when you can better yourself in the long haul by making short, gradual improvements?

In some ways, "hardcore" games are closer to real life than casual ones
I think in some ways, however, the "hardcore" games are closer to real life than casual ones. This is an idea I have borrowed from Brice Morrison, designer at EA Games, which he explains in his essay "How Megaman 9 Resembles . . . Real Life?". It is a brilliant read if you have the time.

In his essay, Mr. Morrison argues that the gameplay model in Megaman 9 is closer to real life because rewards are more internal instead of external. For example, one reward the game offers you is an improved skillset. As you constantly die (this game is very hard), you learn more from the game. You learn what kills you and how and why you died. You start to improve based upon what you do learn without any outside agent telling you how you're improving. And your improvement does finally show when you finally do beat the game's bosses and eventually finish it, if you persevere.

However close to real life this model is, though, many "casual" players will be turned off by it. These are the people who like to make slow progress in areas they find difficult and like to see visible results immediately. Just a little bit is better than none, as long as they can see that they are improving. But at times, I feel like "casual" gaming can make a "casual" gamer wimpy. Not so much because they're not so good at "hardcore" games, but because I believe it can build a mindset that balks at challenges that can't be met with slow, visible progress.

My own story
I have been playing videogames ever since the early 80's. My first system was an Atari 2600. As such, I grew up with "hardcore" games. Because I didn't take my school work as seriously at a young age, I had plenty of time to commit to these titles. It didn't matter to me that they were difficult, as the formula for success required a little time, a little effort.

This mindset changed as I got older and, around the age of 16, quit gaming for about 6 years. I no longer really had the time and my interests were going in many divergent directions. When I started approaching games again, about two years ago, I was turned off by the difficulty. I had things I wanted to do and didn't have time to specialize in them as other "hardcore" players did.

When I received a Wii as a gift, I purchased many of the "hardcore" titles I played as a kid to relive those memories. But because of my new mindset, I would turn them off because they were suddenly too challenging. Some of the "casual" titles were appealing, because of their ease, but having grown up a "hardcore" gamer, these were not "games" to me. So I was turned off in another sense, as I found them particularly insulting. I felt the problem was in me.

But I eventually persevered. Wii Fit was the factor for me. Through steady progression, encouragement and guilt trips (when I didn't work out every day, etc.), I became interested in my weight and my body. I started to "transcend" Wii Fit and study other areas of fitness. As I did so, I started finding I disagreed with many of the things Wii Fit taught (for example, weighing myself daily).

Wii Fit eventually helped me overcome years' long depression as I was able to learn to approach tasks that I found difficult and break them into manageable steps. And as part of this, surprisingly, I was able to overcome my fear of hardcore games. Wii Fit taught me I could learn gradually and become better at something I wasn't previously good at it.

But the weakness in Wii Fit is that, to the "hardcore" gamer, it is alien to their way of thinking. The "hardcore" gamer spent considerable time developing their skills with little to no outside help and doesn't want to waste their time on a product that they consider "casual".

So how do developers make games that appeal to both mindsets?

It's all about the pacing
The important thing in building an "addicting" game is to pace it correctly. That means that challenges should be distributed in a way so as not to frustrate the player. Likewise, they shouldn't bore the player. Regardless of the genre, a good game design should constantly evaluate a gamer's skillset to determine which challenges might be appropriate for their skill level. Easy challenges (breaks) should be offered as a reward for a job well done, interspersed with increasingly harder challenges. This pacing keeps the adrenaline rushing, forcing the player to push on to obtain their reward.

This doesn't always have to be explicit either. Sometimes implicit is better than explicit. In other cases, the opposite might be the case.

For example, let's say that you are developing a game named The Legend of Bob. The ultimate goal is to obtain all four pieces of the Legendary Square. That goal must be broken down into several, smaller clearly defined goals (to appeal to the "casuals", who like to know what they are aiming at).

For example, after being presented with your quest, you must first learn to use your weapons (available via a simple mini-game). Progress isn't available until you show at least a small level of mastery (let's say 5 targets). After you meet the 5 target quota, you are then able to move on. You might have to do some small, clearly defined tasks around town, in order to get used to the basic mechanics of the game. After that, you can begin your quest.

The first part of your quest might mean obtaining the Square of Fortitude. An NPC (Non-Playable Character) tells you that you must pass the Marsh of Never-ending Darkness in order to make it to the first dungeon where this sacred object is. What isn't so clear, however, are the dangers that are in this marsh. You are told when you approach the marsh that if you don't make it across, there is no way you can finish your quest ("guilt trip" a la Wii Fit style). The player then realizes the responsibility that lies on their shoulders as they are then reminded that if they don't obtain the item, then their world will fall to ruin (or some other disastrous result, the consequences of a "guilt trip").

This first dungeon, ideally, will be easier than the other three. In no way will the player be tested for what they do not know, although they are expected to have some basic mastery over that which they do know. Completing the quests in town should have prepared them for this . . . dying in the dungeon should reinforce what was forgotten, thus further laying the blame on the player when they do mess up. Shigeru Miyamoto also illustrated this principle when he said, concerning Super Mario Galaxy:

I think I was able to eliminate elements in [Super Mario Galaxy] that made players think "This is not my fault that I’m not able to do this". This game is worth the challenge. However, you don’t have to clear every single thing in this game, so you’re still able to beat Bowser by playing normally, and it would be best if players could play this game at their own pace where they would set their own goals like "One star, every time I go home." [source]

In other words, game designers want to try to remove those moments from their games where the player blames the game for "cheating". By basing poor decisions solely on the player for not completing a task, the player is then guilt tripped and forced to relearn something that they should have already known. When the game further reinforces that it is their fault (such as a character saying, "I thought you mastered jumping. Did you not practice in town?"), they realize the deficiency lies in themselves. By allowing them to improve at their pace, they can then go back to the dungeon and try again. Their progress is tracked via mini-game scores until the time comes where they can transcend them.

The goal, however, is to eventually wean the player off of reinforcement. As time goes on and the player has mastered jumping (as evidenced by successful completion of several levels), he shouldn't need as much motivation. Much like a child learns basic life skills through their parents, when they reach adulthood, a wise parent will eventually withdraw their support unless it is truly needed. Gaming should do the same.

Part of this weaning is gradual. For example, let's say Bob, the protagonist of our story, is initially challenged to jump over two cliffs without stopping (as the middle step contains a sinking platform). The player slowly learns to build their reflexes. Next, it might be three cliffs. And then it might be three cliffs with a fire breathing dragon chasing you. Each challenge gets progressively harder. And each challenge has its own award appropriate to the challenge.

For example, for the first few challenges, it might be a short amount of time to prep oneself before making the next set of jumps. For the last challenge, it might be in the form of a save point. The player has been pushed to their limits and deserves the break. So that no matter what happens beyond that, they have met a small goal and are able to rest if they can't accomplish anything else that day.

Of course, as the game progresses, there need to be insanely easy challenges mixed in with the progressively harder challenges. This builds confidence and later reinforces to the player that any mistakes they make after that are solely their fault. This pushes them to persevere, at a pace that is comfortable to them and challenging.

Those who have played Nintendo games for years know that I just described a classic Nintendo formula. Although I also feel that Nintendo is distancing themselves away from this, at a lamentable rate.

The Marriage of the "Casual" and "Hardcore" Gamer
In a lot of ways, "casual" gaming seems too easy and is thus a turn off for many "hardcore" players. They feel that Nintendo has abandoned them and, in many cases, perhaps they are justified in thinking this.

Nintendo has had the success, however, of tapping into a source of gamers that the other two consoles haven't and that is the "casual" gamer. Now if they could somehow "marry" the two groups into one "balanced gamer", then they can embrace the one without alienating the other.

The perfect marriage, in my eyes, is the marriage of the two play styles. "Casual" gamers like to see progress and improvement. Give them progress and improvement. Present it to them in such a way that they can see the game as rewarding. Perhaps including in-game charts of their "jumping" abilities, followed by a quip about how their reflexes are improving or declining, might be enough. This can be presented in such a way so as not to influence the "tone" of a game.

As for "hardcore" gamers, if you can give them the action and excitement they love, they might not think twice about some of the more "casual" elements. The point is to make a game that also appeals to their play style without alienating them. Progressive challenge shouldn't scare them away too much, as they also have areas they lack in and will more than likely die occasionally.

I do not want people, however, to think I'm saying that all games should fall into "hardcore" genres, such as action-adventure in the case of our fictional Legend of Bob. I think even an exercise game, such as Wii Fit, can borrow from the suggestions presented here.

The key is to come up with a game design that appeals to both play styles without alienating the other.

My Final Point
How does this relate to motivation, though?

The point is that the issue is subconscious. I found that by learning to break things down into smaller, definable tasks, I was able to accomplish more. Wii Fit taught me this. And it was only when I had the appropriate skillset that I felt able to handle harder challenges.

Games can subconsciously influence the minds of those who play them. If we can motivate the "casual" players to approach really difficult challenges in a mature way, they might not be so turned off when they approach something they find "hard" as they will have the skillset to handle them. Likewise, if we can then present hard challenges in such a game, we can make games for both audiences without alienating the "hardcore" players. The "hardcore" players, once presented with these precise instructions, will learn how to motivate themselves to overcome their own personal challenges. By presenting games to them in such a manner, they will hopefully acquire the logic to break their own challenges down until they can overcome them with ease.

A few keys to remember when applying this: 1) learn to pace the game appropriately, 2) break the game up into smaller challenges to begin with and give less guidance as the player "matures", 3) alternate between hard and easy challenges, throwing off the balance occasionally to build confidence or demonstrate where the player needs to practice more and 4) slowly track progress externally until the player has the confidence in his own internal progress. I think, as game designers follow this model, they will present better games that appeal to both audiences.

"Girl playing Wii Fit" image by spcummings and used freely under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Derek Rumpler is a game design student at Game Institute. You can read this entry and others on his blog at DerekRumpler.com.