GDC Pre-Mortem: This is Your Brain On Games

I have some good news and some bad news. Every year, I submit multiple sessions to GDC, ranging from lectures, to round tables to panel discussions. Every year, the lectures are rejected, although usually late enough in the process to get the polite "you almost made it" letter. The bad news is that my lecture for GDC 2009, "This is Your Brain On Games", which I rate as the best submission I've made thus far, was rejected in the initial round of winnowing this year. The good news is that I no longer have to wait until after March to publish this material to my blog - so my players here should enjoy some pretty stellar posts on neurobiology of play in the weeks to come.

I expect when I post the most tabloid-style post on this subject later this year, it will pull in between 24,000 and 30,000 visitors (based on previous traffic watermarks), so I shouldn't really care about not getting to lecture about it to an audience of a hundred at GDC. But still, I have to wonder: if the material I'm producing is of great interest to the videogames community at large, why isn't it of interest to the GDC organisers? What really confuses me about this is how it was possible to reject this proposal so rapidly. I'm considered to be one of the more interesting lecturers in the videogames space, and universities and conventions love to invite me to talk. GDC, however, has never accepted one of my lectures (although I've been on the GDC faculty many times thanks to my friends in the IGDA and industry inviting me to host or participate in other kinds of session).

So I'm forced to wonder: was this proposal rejected so rapidly because of a flaw with the proposed lecture (perhaps it seemed too complex, or too academic) or because the GDC organisers don't recognise me as a valuable member of the games community? I accept that my research is not as thorough as Nick Yee's, my player models are not as accessible or popular as Nicole Lazzaro's, and my videogames are not as beloved as Shigeru Miyamoto's, but even so, I'm a long way from being a complete unknown. As is so often the case, it's the uncertainty that troubles me: the early rejection form-letter email gives no clue as to why a proposal has been thrown out - so I'm turning to you, my players, to give me some feedback and speculate as to why this might not have seemed as solid a lecture as it appeared to me.

This is Your Brain On Games

Are games addictive? We all know that there is a sense in which videogames are fiendishly addictive, but this does not mean the same as ‘addiction’ in a medical context. This session looks at the biology of play in order to explore the question “are games addictive?” while simultaneously showing the effects videogames have on people’s brains, and how we can leverage these mechanisms to make better games.

A fairer way to describe the addictive properties of games is perhaps ‘habit forming’ – the reason you keep coming back to a game you enjoy is because playing that game forms a habit for you. Things that form habits in this way needn’t be viewed negatively – in fact, good mental health depends upon forming good habits concerning eating and sleeping (for instance). Furthermore, our lives are full of things that are ‘habit forming’ in this weak sense – television shows of all kinds hope to form habits so that they will build an audience, but there is little outcry about this kind of ‘addiction’.

There is a chemical in the brain known as dopamine which lies behind all habit forming behaviours, and examining how this neurotransmitter functions provides a helpful way of understanding what makes games addictive. Other neurotransmitters have other effects on the brain, and understanding how these work (and how they work in concert with dopamine) provides a valuable picture of the biology of play – something that game developers can use to make better games for their audience.

This session provides an easy-to-follow introduction to the biology of play, featuring examples drawn from real gameplay experiences and showing how they relate to the underlying mechanisms in the human brain. Although some technical terms (like dopamine) are used, the language of the presentations has been simplified slightly to make the central ideas accessible to anyone. Packed full of interesting perspectives on play, the talk draws upon the latest neurobiological research to explain why games are addictive.

For everyone interested in how the brain reacts to videogames, this is the presentation for you – this is your brain on games!

Attendee Takeaway

Attendees to this presentation will take away a whole new perspective on how and why people play videogames, how games can be put together to leverage the various mechanisms in the human brain, as well as a crash course in the neurobiology of play. They will learn about how dopamine reinforces behaviours (and causes both habits and addiction), how the fight-or-flight mechanism lies behind the enjoyment of many (but not all) videogames, why curiosity can be as rewarding as victory, and why successful games leverage not just novelty, but also familiarity.

Please let me know why you think this session was rejected by GDC in the comments. Thanks in advance for your input!

Comments

[raynaa]

What I ask when I read it, is what can I learn from it that I can apply. Understanding something is interesting, but I want to know how I can use that information in my work. While your takeaway section talks about gaining understanding, it'd be better to understand the application of it, maybe by focusing on a few case studies where this has or hasn't worked.

Also in the takeaways you mention curiosity and familiarity which, while having to do with neurobiology, don't seem to have a connection to addiction. At least one that's not obvious in what's written there. I think that's the biggest part, most of what's written there is about understanding how the brain reacts to play, whereas the selling point is focusing on if games are addicting.

And I think that it's also a missed opportunity to not discuss the implications of making games intentionally addictive in a biological way that can't be resisted.

Really, this proposal could be split in two, one on how the brain reacts to play and another on how games can be addictive and if that's a good or bad thing.

When it comes to biology, the panel may also prefer having a biologist speak on this kind of topic. They may not perceive you as being an expert in that particular field.

[Peter Crowther]

Given the popular press' fascination with Games Being Bad, the panel *might* be politically sensitive to a presentation demonstrating (to a baying and hysterical popular press) that Games Are Bad In A Whole New Way?

[zenBen]

Given that I've been researching this area, its not surprising that I didn't realise under I read raynaa's comment: there's no guarantee that a typical reader will have any idea why curiosity, victory, novelty and familiarity all tie in to the habit-forming properties of games. And that might have confused the issue when the panel were looking at the take-away value of this.
Also, you move gracefully away from the term 'addictive' (by using 'habit-forming')...but then bounce right back to it. It is a loaded and sensitive term, I just wonder why you didn't stick to your terminological guns.

[ShimmerGeek]

I thought it sounded really awesome (in fact, I wish I could see it; because I need to write a paper for University on a Games Controversy; and was thinking of doing addiction)

The only thing I could think of is perhaps it's one of those overly-discussed topics? (Like "Girl Gamers" or "Games Violence")

I'm really not sure, because *I'm* very interested in it...

[Incorrectness]

I would have to agree with Mr. Crowther. It wouldn't surprise me if the moderators, decision makers, whatever, didn't even get past the title. The implication that a metaphor could be drawn between drugs and games and gaming, and that one could take advantage of such a thing, probably sent them running without a second glance.

L.Inc.

[Incorrectness]

Hugs and love to you and your dear sweet wife right back.

[Peter Crowther]

I would have to agree with Mr. Crowther

Oh $deity... I always get worried when I get an honorific like "Mr." as it tends to be used by coppers and hoteliers... and I don't like either of them :-).

[dj i/o]

dj i/o here..

I feel the same as ShimmerGeek. I am interested in this topic.
You could always post it in a youtube video, to gain additional audience. Better yet, you could post just a suspenseful teaser trailer (with lots of pictures of drug paraphernalia) with a link to the eventual posts on your blog. Haha, just kidding :)

[Chris]

Thanks for the input everyone!

I think those of you who suggest that the dismissed it on political grounds may have a point.

Raynaa: "Also in the takeaways you mention curiosity and familiarity which, while having to do with neurobiology, don't seem to have a connection to addiction."

As zenBen notes later, that's because you need to know the domain to appreciate this. The connection, however, is there.

"And I think that it's also a missed opportunity to not discuss the implications of making games intentionally addictive in a biological way that can't be resisted."

I would have talked about this, but I didn't mention it because I was certain that if I *did* it wouldn't have been accepted. So I guess I was aware of the political risks even when drafting this.

"Really, this proposal could be split in two, one on how the brain reacts to play and another on how games can be addictive and if that's a good or bad thing."

Astutely observed - that's how the presentation would have been structured.

"When it comes to biology, the panel may also prefer having a biologist speak on this kind of topic. They may not perceive you as being an expert in that particular field."

I have a Masters degree in Cognitive Science/Artificial Intelligence - what more do they want? There's only a PhD and a Professorship beyond that! :)

zenBen: "I just wonder why you didn't stick to your terminological guns."

Carelessness, probably. ;)

ShimmerGeek: "I'm really not sure, because *I'm* very interested in it..."

I will still present the material, but not I'll do it here on my blog. Perhaps, on the whole, it will even be better that way as I can split it up and spend more time on each point.

dj i/o: "You could always post it in a youtube video, to gain additional audience."

Why would I post to accursed YouTube when I could post to my own blog? I might get more attention on YouTube, but I'd rather share my ideas with my community of players.

---

I doubt I'll have time to start writing this up in October, and November I'll be taking my annual break for the Wheel of Fortune so I expect come December we'll have a sequence of Neurobiology of Play posts.

Many thanks for the perspective everyone!