Cruise writes:
> To get very generalised for a moment: Head or heart.
>
> Head: Make things interesting and mentally engaging - clever mechanics,
> deep, non-repetitve gameplay.
>
> Heart: Make things emotionally appealing, draw the player and make them
> care about the characters.
I certainly wouldn't consider head/heart categorically matched with a Motivation spectrum. Players who are in a game devoted to intellectual rewards can be either motivated or not. The same can be said of players in a game devoted to emotional rewards. The intellectual/emotional approach to seeking entertainment is certainly valid, however. Sometimes we want a mystery movie, sometimes we want a feel-good movie.
Most players seem to want Die Hard over and over again, however.
> Obviously, if my categorisation above is anywhere near true, the
> ultimate gameplay will manage strong hooks both mentally and
> emotionally
Like movies, people have preferences. If a game has both intellectual and emotional entertainment, players will pursue whichever is their preference. The ultimate game may well have both, but there is no ultimate activity within a game that satisfies all players.
> - currently, it's considered too difficult to automate telling an
> engaging story while the player has free reign to wander off and
> generally mess up the story at will.
>
> That problem is only compunded when you have hundreds or thousands of
> players interacting and messing up the story. More so when they fall at
> different places along the spectrum: "Motivated"/"Head"/"Min-maxers" --
> "Unmotivated"/"Heart"/Role-players"
Heh. When I go through design exercises, I don't even consider the emotional angle. I assume that any emotional involvement that players have will be with each other's antics, not that of the game itself. As you say, it's a mess trying to ensure that a given player is presented with just the right experiences to walk him or her to an emotional destination of the designer's choosing.
JB