Great article, and, despite not being a fan of the somewhat gimmicky presentation (IMO while the idea of a "failed test" was quite nice, the faux real-time narration of punishments was unnecessary and just served to distract more than entice), the content is spot on.
If you excise the contextual elements then zombies, as isolated elements, are rather boring... Might as hell have generic thugs for all it matters. This is something some movie and TV directors started to realized, my personal favorite right now being The Walking Dead, but something that seems to elude most game designers. Closest I feel we've gotten to it is the Left4Dead series, that manages to evoke the feeling of extreme isolation and wasteland world. Even then there's still work to be done.
I have some hopes for Dead Island given it's absolute masterpiece of a trailer emphasizing, for once, the human drama and desperation of a zombie outbreak more so than the actual zombies. That said, the developers have made some statements since that left me wondering whether the trailer was more of a fluke, or at the very least Jarhead-syndrome, than an actual representation of good things to come.
Then again, to be completely honest, this is a problem with the horror genre in the games industry in general isn't it? The game (and movie) industry seems to continuously confuse terror and fear with gore and shock. Startling someone, or making them feel sick, is easy. Truly terrifying them requires something else entirely.
Azuaron said:
I'll admit I haven't kept up with the most recent behaviorist developments, but I think he might be referencing to the most commonly known, and probably older, behavior modification theories. Those that I remember only distinguish positive and negative reinforcement, and no reinforcement.
Positive reinforcement would be the administration of any stimulus seen as positive by the target. This could be accomplished by giving them something (e.g.: a back rub, a chocolate bar...etc) or taking something away (e.g.: a very annoying alarm sound, a literal or metaphorical thorn on one's side, etc). The bottom line would be that the individual in question would see it as a positive stimulus.
Negative reinforcement would be the administration of any stimulus seen as negative by the subject. Again, could also be accomplished by giving something (e.g.: an electrical shock, a slap, etc) or taking something (e.g.: a toy, food, etc.). So long as this was seen as negative by the subject, it could be accomplished in any fashion.
While I maintain that I'm not exactly up to par on this specific subject, it does seem that differentiating between how you accomplish the positive and negative stimulus is more of a linguistic concern and, to be completely honest, almost pedantic in nature. I mean, is it honestly relevant if you accomplish a negative stimulus by giving or taking something? Isn't the pragmatic result the exact same? That the subject sees the result as either positive or negative?
Absolutely not relevant to the topic, but this is also my area so I do enjoy discussing it.
/further psychological rambling.