Game Dynamics that Support Snacking, not Feasting
summary
Content analysis of 22 commercial casual games using the MDA framework yields five dynamics and a claim that Instant Rewards, Novelty, and Waiting can be added modularly to promote daily short play. A custom Angry-Birds–style physics puzzle is built with 3‑star scoring and power-ups, 28 achievements, five weapon types and 21 avatar heads, regenerating power-ups, and a 30‑minute‑per‑8‑hours blocking mode. Two MTurk studies (first N=99, 15‑minute sessions) measure sessions, durations, and intersession intervals and find no enjoyment differences but show Novelty and Waiting significantly shorten intersession intervals and most participants cluster as “snackers.”
AI-written summary · about
chapters (10)
- 0:00Introduction to snacking games
- 1:10Defining snacking behavior
- 2:15Five game dynamics categories
- 3:52Experimental game design
- 5:21Short-term study results
- 6:43Long-term study findings
- 8:07Key dynamics for snacking
- 9:10Implications for serious games
- 10:17Q&A with Elisa Meckler
- 12:03Q&A with Ted from University
related talks
15mWhat Gamee learned about hyper-casual games from 3 billion gameplays across 70 games
16mMinimal Design, Maximum Impact: Puzzle Game Design in Hypercasual Games
20mInstant Games - The Good, the Bad and the Future
49mMonetisation Design - A Story of Love and Retention
21mPlaying to Wait: A Taxonomy of Idle Games
25mWhat Makes a Game Hypercasual?
22mTop 5 Monetization Events in Casual Games: Maximizing Revenue Pot
23mIs your game's on-ramp better than Facebook's?