BlackJack is a common game of chance that involves betting money to beat a dealer. The target audience is adults. I played an online single-player version on The Washington Post, and watched another player play as well.
I argue that through simple yet fast-paced game play, animations and sounds, and game mechanics, this digital version of BlackJack creates an illusion of control. Randomness and probability are core elements of this game, as players are randomly dealt cards and can compute probabilities when picking a strategy. However, this creates a dynamic in which BlackJack is often misinterpreted as more skill-based than luck-based, especially compared to other casino games. Altogether, the illusion of control and the combination of luck and skill feed into potential addiction.
First, the gameplay happens very fast, and on each round players can bet, then either hit or stand. Additionally, when a round is over, another round immediately begins. I noticed that the player once stayed with just 9 points – a completely irrational move – and exclaimed “Shit why did I do that!” This occurred at a point in the gameplay when they had completed many rounds very quickly, and therefore I believe the fast-paced game made them think less about their decision, despite the fact that it would be perfectly reasonable to slow down. Designers could slow down the gameplay to reduce the illusion of control and the irrational quick decisions, but I believe the fast paced play is intentional.
Second, this digital version of BlackJack uses sounds of cards being shuffled and dealt to mimic real BlackJack. They use animations to deal the cards, and they use sound effects when a player wins or loses (ex. on right: ding played after win). However, as mentioned in the reading, shuffling and dealing is handled by a digital entity opaquely, and pressing hit or stay can be thought of as activating the readout.
In the reading, which describes slot machiens, this is described as man being reduced to that of a catalyst – BlackJack is not that extreme, as there is definitely strategy involved. However, the designers of the game carefully included these mechanisms to give the illusion that they have more control over the outcome than they do. This was evident in observing the game play, as when the game shuffled the cards, the player said “Thank god they’re shuffling – I was starting to get too good.” Here, the player actually believes that shuffling will change the outcome of the next hands and that their skill was affecting the outcome of the game.
I also noticed that in this version of online BlackJack – and other online versions I explored – the first few hands always resulted in a many automatic BlackJacks. In reality, this outcome is extremely rare, so it could be that game designers are intentionally allowing players to win at first and get them hooked on that emotional high. In this case, the digital shuffling and dealing mechanics are likely predetermined and rely little on player strategy, contributing to the illusion of control.
The game mechanics themselves contribute to the illusion of control as too. Players always have choices – they can decide how much to bet and when to hold or stay. However, these choices are carefully balanced by BlackJack designers so that the house has an edge. Because the game involves betting money – even though it is fake – the player has a direct measurement to tell how well they are playing. I noticed the player say “I’ll stop once I make enough money,” indicating that they believe they were in control of the amount of money they could make and that the game was bringing out addictive tendencies, despite no real money at stake. Designers could add a timer so that players could instead stop playing once they feel like they had spent enough time playing, reducing risk of addiction.
While BlackJack uses game mechanics and digital effects to generate an illusion of control, other games like slots use visual appeal and levers that display already computed outcomes to generate this same illusion.
In terms of probability, the randomness leads to unpredictable outcomes that keep the player engaged. I found that the probabilities in BlackJack are often misinterpreted – for instance, the player was counting the odds of them being over 21 or under 21 if they hit another card, but failed to factor in the dealer’s hand. Since the goal is to beat the dealer, the dealer’s showing cards are important to consider, but the player often failed to do so. However, the designers of this digital BlackJack game actually designed an “Advice” button to help the player if they were stuck, which may balance the game better. However, if this game had involved real money, I would assume this button or any advice would not be present.
To conclude, the illusion of control and the use of randomness create a fascination with BlackJack, even in digital form. This quote from the reading – “The degree of fascination that a given machine holds for its users is directly to the degree of unpredictability and aliveness that in conveys” – holds true for this game, as it has been carefully designed to deliver unpredictable and lifelike outcomes, leading players to play more.
