Positive and negative feedback loops are systems used in some game designs that function to either accelerate or balance the goal of the system that it is apart of.
For example;
1. Call of Duty uses the positive feedback loop of granting tactical abilities to players with killstreaks. This attempts to accelerate victory by rewarding success with advantages.
2. Mario Kart uses the negative feedback loop of granting players in the lead weaker weapons while players that are losing receive better weapons. This attempts to balance performance by rewarding players in last place more than players in first (To be crystal clear about how operant conditioning works, being rewarded less for a behavior does not have the same consequential impact as being punished for that behavior).
The point of all this is that if you've ever played a game where you've begun losing and felt incapable of bouncing back, gave up and let your opponent win, started driving in reverse because you're too far behind, or flat out quit and uninstalled the game then there is a likely chance you've experienced a poor or ineffective feedback loop system.
The obliterated and virtually nonexistent population of MO1 toward the end of it's lifespan can be blamed on many variables but none more impactful (IN MY OPINION) than the failed implementation of feedback loop systems within the game necessary to teach and maintain behavior, including logging into the game.
Finally, neither positive nor negative feedback loops are fundamentally more important than the other. Elements of both are required to encourage fulfilling and engaging gameplay from the most rigidly competitive to the most indifferently casual.
What I'm encouraging is for SV to take a good long look at the intentional feedback loops they're placing in MO2 but more importantly the unintentional ones.
For example;
1. Call of Duty uses the positive feedback loop of granting tactical abilities to players with killstreaks. This attempts to accelerate victory by rewarding success with advantages.
2. Mario Kart uses the negative feedback loop of granting players in the lead weaker weapons while players that are losing receive better weapons. This attempts to balance performance by rewarding players in last place more than players in first (To be crystal clear about how operant conditioning works, being rewarded less for a behavior does not have the same consequential impact as being punished for that behavior).
The point of all this is that if you've ever played a game where you've begun losing and felt incapable of bouncing back, gave up and let your opponent win, started driving in reverse because you're too far behind, or flat out quit and uninstalled the game then there is a likely chance you've experienced a poor or ineffective feedback loop system.
The obliterated and virtually nonexistent population of MO1 toward the end of it's lifespan can be blamed on many variables but none more impactful (IN MY OPINION) than the failed implementation of feedback loop systems within the game necessary to teach and maintain behavior, including logging into the game.
Finally, neither positive nor negative feedback loops are fundamentally more important than the other. Elements of both are required to encourage fulfilling and engaging gameplay from the most rigidly competitive to the most indifferently casual.
What I'm encouraging is for SV to take a good long look at the intentional feedback loops they're placing in MO2 but more importantly the unintentional ones.
Last edited:
