GameDev for quizzes - I brought you a bunch of useless facts and a bit of veterinary

So, introductory: ordinary quizzes are boring .

There are a lot of questions in the topic, so come play, test your knowledge, read about another excellent 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 complex issues and gets pleasure from it.
• "Munchkins" - this subtype of players needs recognition of coolness in social ways. Points are more important than questions.
• "Achiverov" - these guys are important to sort through all the quests of the game. In the quiz, they want to sort out 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. For them, we make a bluff.

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:

Questions on thinking

Since, according to the rules, it is enough just to get closest to the answer, many questions should be answered approximately, quickly evaluating options on your fingers. It's like in project management: you will never have a complete set of data, but the ability to quickly figure out with an accuracy of 5-10% helps a lot. Try it.

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 on expanding the boundaries of knowledge

It is assumed that the answer to these questions does not know any of the ordinary players. This is necessary because the game mechanics also bet on the most correct answer in your opinion - and so that players can bluff a bit, such questions are introduced. They are selected so that the answers a bit surprised - and immediately brought some useful information, expanding the picture of the world. These questions are very popular with achivors and adventurers. The latter, for example, is the fact that it is possible to discuss the age of Juliet and contemporary mores.

Closing needs

Let's look at the needs chart:

• "Killer" finds questions on erudition and thinking, getting a buzz from what he knows .
• For the "Munchkin" procured mechanics rates not to your answer. Using the basic knowledge of the theory of probability (associated with the expectation), he may well win without even knowing the question.
• "Achiver" drags on questions of the expansion of 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 the ice?” Is clearly difficult to give an exact answer. An adventurer can happily smile and say - “Oh, and I just read the report of the Olympic Committee of the Russian Federation yesterday” - and write a number from the baldies, for example, 98%. And rejoice that everyone will bet on it, while other players will write 99%, 95% and so on. Immediately enjoy the "killer", put on 50% - because the correct answer is 68%.

In general, I must say, the game is very interesting exactly the latest phenomenon. To explain how this works, you need to get a little distracted and tell about the field. See:



Mechanics:

1. Players get a question.
2. Write the answer options on the cards and put them upside down (independent decision making).
3. Open the cards and arrange them descending on the field. The further the card from the center - the higher the reward for betting on it.
4. Players make bets on the answer that seems right to them (dependent decision making - bets are made openly).

Does the bet of other players on your bet?

Yes, and how. We connect one more fine algorithm of our vetver, important for a society survival. It seems that we have inherited since the time of the monkeys. Namely - the more people make a decision, the more correct it is.

Example : the mined comments are minus and further, the negative comments - plus and further. It is extremely rare for a commentary to change polarity, except as a result of an unexpected turn of discussion or in a holivar when reinforcements arrive. The fact is that considering a comment with a rating of -10, we, on the whole, come up with a presupposition “it is interesting that there is something bad in it” and begin to look for the bad. Agree, it is much easier to find when you specifically search for it.

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 segment 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 the paper. A group of 8 people (7 addicts and 1 test person) correctly answered the first N series of experiments. Then, when the testee was convinced that the group gave the same answers as he, the most interesting part began. In the next experiment, the whole group (7 addicts) clearly pointed to a shorter segment, which could not be exactly the same as the reference one. The test subject first slightly went nuts, then went on more strongly, then discussed this with the group, then gave the answer.



Then a series of experiments were conducted (for example, “Sex variable in conforming behavior” in 1971), showing that:

1. People with a good social graph are more likely to agree with the group. Singles rely on their opinions.
2. People with technical education on average are less prone to such manipulations (for, I think, for obvious reasons).
3. The results depend on the cultural traditions of the people of the subject.

This is nothing more than social proof, which I have already spoken about in relation to sales.

So, back to the game. At the bets step, the coolest begins - you can directly feel how your opinion changes depending on the expectations of the group. Few people bet on their answer if it is at the edge of the field (even with a big bet and the conviction that the answer is correct).

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







Feel the way it goes? You first cast the group's answers to the conditions, quickly checking the realism. If you yourself believe in this realism, you have two opinions - one is yours with your answer, the second is that you agreed upon as a result of this “fitting”.

How can the first opinion affect the second? They, like, are not related, right? Well, they are not related in the same way as checking in one if conditions ($ a> 0) || ($ i ++). Depending on the compiler flag, it may not come to i - although, in theory, parts are independent. So, if you do not make a conscious effort and do not think further, the brain will try to "slip" the 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 the quiz about?

Let's look at the questions again. They cover the needs of all players on the goal chart. There is the last moment - the removal of the discomfort of loss . Here, as you can see, everything is simple. For example, if your answer is out of the group version, you can get better and put on the group average. In case you were right, you answered correctly. If wrong - well, you still won the bet. If your answer lay in the middle of the group, and won the last one - “Well, so none of us waited, surprising!”. Social idyll.

This social idyll plus betting interface with chips made the game “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 publishers crammed in there a lot of questions that inspire patriotism in the spirit of: “In which year 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 beyond the limits of game mechanics.

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