Two Factors to Our Hearts

When I know I’m playing a great game, I get a corresponding feeling of enjoyment and fulfillment.  I know for sure the game is fantastic and only falling headlong into its world will satisfy me.  The game is good.  I knew it, for example, when I played Braid.  Keenan knew it when he played Trine.  What’s tougher to know is exactly why.

The game has a certain je ne sais quoi, or something grand that takes a lot of effort to pin down.  In this way, a game particularly can reveal its own greatness, not just from its aspects, but also because it challenges me, as a games critic, to explain my feelings and specify its quality.  It’s inspiring.  I feel I must do it justice.

Looking at the other end, I can pinpoint bad game aspects much easier than the good.  When a game frustrates me to bits, sure I’ll bash the keyboard or yell obscenities at the screen like a lunatic, but I damn sure know why.  Bad gameplay.  Glitches.  Whatever.  I hate them all.

I finally found a reason to open these.

From here, when I think about what aspects can make games mesmerizingly memorable or tormentingly terrible, I connect back to something I actually learned from Management classes.  Yeah, I know: it’s hard to believe, but I did learn something useful.  I’ll warn you ahead of time: I’m going into the “wonderful” world of business.  I’ll be mercifully brief.

Please, class, take out your textbooks.  We’ll refer to some small sections from the works of Richard Daft and Gitman & McDaniel for this semester.  You may tear out, burn, or otherwise eat whatever’s left of the texts.  Thank you.

Here, we learn about theorist Frederick Herzberg’s “Two-Factor Theory.”  Its “dissatisfiers” factor covers working conditions, salary, and policies.  If a company poorly implements these, workers will grow dissatisfied, while their presence, at best, will meet workers’ expectations so that they feel neutral.  Not only does the company need to implement these, but they also need to provide the “satisfiers” factor, such as recognition, achievement, and growth opportunity, so that workers can feel satisfied.

If you’ve fallen asleep, you can wake back up now.  I’ll only apply the theory to games going forward.  Based on the Two-Factor Theory, I think that game-related variables can show how games can either satisfy or dissatisfy us gamers.

Dissatisfiers

• Gameplay

• Interface

• Bugs/Glitches

• Value

These generally make up standards all games should have.  We gamers, of course, want to play the game through its gameplay mechanics.  We need its interface to input controls and receive feedback through graphics and sound.  Ideally, we want to play without running into glitches, technical errors, or other obstacles to our fun.  And we want to know the game was worth the money we paid for it.  Furthermore, we usually wouldn’t applaud a game for “having controls” or “not having glitches;” we take them for granted.  But when games don’t implement them correctly, boy, do we notice.

Let me make Chris proud by using Far Cry 2 as an example.  I’m sure he’d agree it had quite a few dissatisfying qualities, right Chris? (No. It’s perfect. -Ed)  The game’s tedious guard posts got in the way of most of my fun and exploration, and the presence of occasional game-stopping glitches definitely didn’t help.  Its first-person shooting, on the other hand, received a full complement of various guns and fun; the first-person interface, moreover, always works quite well on the PC’s mouse-and-keyboard.  As for value, the game does provide dozens of hours of gameplay; though, in this case I’d also argue that the presence of the other dissatisfiers makes those hours less worthwhile.

Dissatisfied? You’re probably looking at something like this guard post.

You know what?  Let me piss off Keenan too:  Far Cry 2 has some disappointing aspects, yet covers enough standards to make way for a potentially satisfying experience.

Satisfiers

• Graphics

• Sound

• Narrative

• Innovation

Satisfiers provide much more noticeable stimuli than the dissatisfiers.  We can plainly see graphics that dazzle our eyes with lush color and meticulous detail.  We hear the euphony of well-designed sound effects combined with tone-setting music.  A combination of graphics and sound can provide us an added feeling of immersion.  Narratives and stories motivate us through games by playing with our hearts and minds.  And we always appreciate innovation that provides necessary change and propels the medium forward.  We feel these with our senses and emotions.  They build on top of the standards to provide a compelling, satisfying experience.

That last bit is highly important, as, by themselves, the satisfiers mean nothing.  Say developers failed on all accounts to implement good gameplay, an effective interface, a bug-free experience, and a fair amount of content; even if their game has the best satisfiers, it’ll still be absolutely terrible.  Developers need to cover some, if not all of the dissatisfiers before they can worry about wowing us with graphics or delving into an intricate narrative.

All aspects of the two factors burst into euphoric visions that explode in my mind. All pictured above.

Conversely, if developers only focus on the dissatisfiers, and fail on the satisfiers, at best, their game achieves mediocrity, as it neither satisfies nor dissatisfies. Games should then foster a mutual interdependence between the two factors to make up a fantastic overall presentation, which also explains why satisfied opinions can be hard to specify and break down.

I’d say Far Cry 2 covers some of the dissatisfiers and some of the satisfiers.  It depicts lush African landscapes with visceral sounds of gunfights.  Its narrative surrounding The Jackal highly intrigued me.  The balance between its application of the two factors implies a good game beyond simply “mediocre.”  Games like Braid, meanwhile, excel in both of the two factors, and are quite fantastic.  Compared to my previously established thoughts and reviews of Far Cry 2 and Braid, the Two-Factor Theory thus seems to follow along my levels of satisfaction very closely.

Remember, the Two-Factor Theory as applied to video games is just a theory.  I don’t feel it’s the definitive theory to explain game satisfaction.  And, of course, I don’t write reviews based on cookie-cutter categorization like the theory would imply.  Gamers’ feelings towards games are subjective.  Therefore, variables change so much depending on both the game and the player that any given theory can’t simply categorize them.  Sometimes, gameplay can lead to satisfaction.  And personally, I want great narrative from most games, so, for me, it acts like a dissatisfier factor.

I wouldn’t suggest using the theory to generate your assessments of games; rather, it can generally explain your sentiments after the fact.  Despite all theories’ inherent fallibilities, I think the two factors make a useful jumping point towards further thought and self-reflection on the ways we judge games.