GameDev for quiz - I brought you a bunch of useless facts and a little vetver

So, introductory: ordinary quizzes are boring .

There are a lot of questions in the topic, so go play, check knowledge, read about another wonderful vulnerability of the human mind and just look at the mechanics of the quiz.

Let's make our quiz that uses the needs of the main types of players:

• “Killers” - those who hunt for difficult questions and enjoy it.
• "Munchkins" - this subtype of players needs to recognize coolness in social ways. Points are more important than questions.
• “Achiverov” - it’s important for these guys to go through all the quests in the game. In the quiz, they want to sort through all the questions and find out the answers to them out of curiosity. For them - a special category of questions.
• "Adventurers" - those who are looking for social interactions, and most likely do not know how to answer questions. We will make a bluff for them.

let's play

The rules are simple. It is necessary to answer questions with numbers, trying to get more accurate. Read the questions, think no more than a minute, open the spoiler to check the answer. Like this:

Thinking questions

Since by the rules it’s enough just to get closest to the answer, many questions should be answered approximately, quickly figuring out options on the fingers. It’s like in project management: you will never have a complete data set, but the ability to quickly figure out an error of 5-10% helps a lot. Give it a try.

Questions on erudition

These are standard quiz questions where you don’t need to count or think a lot - you just need to remember some fact, or at least the order of the answer-number.

Questions to expand the boundaries of knowledge

It is assumed that no ordinary player knows the answer to these questions. This is necessary in so far as the mechanics of the game also place bets on the most correct answer in your opinion - and so that players can bluff a little, such questions have been introduced. They are selected so that the answers are a little surprising - and immediately bring some useful information that broadens the picture of the world. These questions are very popular with achivers and adventurers. The last, for example, the fact that you can discuss the age of Juliet and modern morals.

Closing needs

Let's look at the needs chart:

• “Killer” finds questions on erudition and thinking, getting high from what he knows .
• For “Manchkin” bidding mechanics are not prepared for their answer. Using the basic knowledge of probability theory (associated with expectation), he may well win without even knowing the question.
• "Achiver" drags on questions to expand consciousness.
• "Adventurer" rejoices at the desk and the fact that you can bluff in some matters. For example, the question “What percentage of hockey players lost at least one tooth on ice?” Is clearly difficult to give an exact answer. The adventurer can smile happily and say - “Oh, and I just read the report of the Russian Olympic Committee yesterday” - and write the number from the bulldozer, for example, 98%. And rejoice that everyone will bet on it, and other players will write 99%, 95% and so on. The “killer” who set it at 50% right there will enjoy it - because the correct answer is 68%.

In general, I must say, the game is very interesting precisely with the latter phenomenon. To explain how this works, you need a little distraction and talk about the field. See:



Mechanics:

1. Players get a question.
2. Write the answer options on the cards and put them closed (independent decision-making).
3. Open cards and arrange them in descending order on the field. The farther the card is from the center, the higher the reward for betting on it.
4. Players place bets on the answer that seems right to them (dependent decision-making - bets are open).

Does the bet of other players affect your bet?

Yes, and how. We connect another wonderful algorithm of our vetver, which is important for the survival of society. It seems to us inherited from the time of the apes. Namely, the more people make a decision, the more correct it is.

Example : zamusushennye comments minus further, pluses - pluses further. It is extremely rare for a comment to reverse polarity - perhaps as a result of an unexpected turn of the discussion or in the holivar when reinforcements arrive. The fact is that when considering a comment with a rating of -10, we, on the whole, come up with the presupposition “I wonder what is bad in it” and begin to search for the bad. Agree, where it is easier to find when specifically looking for.

So, in the study “Opinions and social pressure.” Asha in 1955, remarkable results were obtained. The group was given two pieces of paper - with one piece and three. Among the three segments, it was exactly the same in length as the reference, shorter by about 20% and longer by about 20%. The task was to find the source, comparing pieces of paper. A group of 8 people (7 decoys and 1 test) answered correctly in the first N series of experiments. Then, when the test person was convinced that the group gave the same answers as he, the most interesting thing began. In the next experiment, the entire group (7 decoys) clearly indicated a shorter segment, which could not be exactly the same as the reference one. At first, the test subject was a little crazy, then he was more crazy, then he discussed this with the group, then he gave an answer.



Then a series of experiments was carried out (for example, “Sex variable in conforming behavior” in 1971), which showed that:

1. People with a good social graph are more likely to agree with the group. Loners rely on their opinions.
2. People with technical education are, on average, less susceptible to such manipulations (for, I think, understandable reasons).
3. Results depend on the cultural traditions of the test subject.

This is nothing more than social proof, which I already talked about when applied to sales.

So, back to the game. The coolest thing starts at the betting step - you can directly feel for yourself how your opinion changes depending on the group's expectations. Rarely does anyone bet on his answer if he is off the edge of the field (even taking into account the high stakes and the belief that the answer is correct).

Let's try. Here are 5 questions from the quiz. Can you understand which group gives the wrong answers without looking under the spoilers?







Felt how this is happening? You first throw the group's answers to the conditions, quickly checking for realism. If you yourself believe in this realism, you have two opinions - one of yours with your answer, the second - which you agreed as a result of this “fitting”.

How can a first opinion affect a second? They, it seems, are not connected, right? Well, they are not connected in much the same way as checking in one if condition ($ a> 0) || ($ i ++). Depending on the compiler flag, things may not get to i - although, in theory, the parts are independent. So, if you do not make a conscious effort and do not think additionally, the brain will try to “slip through” a difficult moment, using ready-made solutions or close to them.

Let's have one more question. You might think a little longer, try to count. In Moscow, for example, in 2008 there were 1.7 thousand traffic lights.

It turned out to catch the moment?

So what's with the quiz?

Let's look at the questions again. They cover the needs of all players in the goal chart. There was the last moment - removing the discomfort of losing . Here, as you can see, everything is simple. For example, if your answer is knocked out of group versions, you can get better and put on the group average. In case you were right - you answered correctly. If you are wrong - well, you still won the bet. If your answer lay in the middle of the group, and the last one won - “Well, none of us did not wait, amazing!” Social idyll.

This social idyll plus the chip betting interface made Bet Bet one of the most popular and best-selling quizzes in the West (without TV support, as is the case with Trivial Pursuit). Given that the publishers pushed many questions there that inspired patriotism in the spirit: “In what year the American Armstrong became the first person to land on the moon,” the compote turned out to be excellent. Players got up from the table with a sense of deep moral satisfaction - this is another example of the fact that the “high point” often lies outside the boundaries of game mechanics.

I must say that during localization we cut out a lot of questions about the American realities known only to them and added Gagarin, Tolstoy and a little nuclear power plant.