|
The mistake almost everyone posting so far, and the person in the documentary itself makes is viewing addiction/compulsion as an effect of the THING addicted to, rather than as an internal psychological process. Addictions are more about the subject than the object of addiction.
The reason people are having trouble drawing the line on what is addictive and what isn't is because there is no line. Sure games can be more or less addictive, but people with an addiction, or an underlying psychological susceptibility to addictions will find whatever it is that suits their underlying psychological complex to serve the addiction.
The whole notion that games are addictive is missing the point entirely. There is a reason some people can play games/take drugs/drink/gamble/have sex with strangers/go shopping without becoming addicted whereas others become addicted, and it has almost nothing to do with the inherent qualities of these things, and everything to do with the individual, their past experiences, and the way society structures ideas about addictions and contributing factors.
@ below post: Granted, you can design a game to cater to these impulses all you like, but the term addiction as I understand it, is an irrational compulsion to engage in something despite real world consequences or costs that more than override any potential positive utility that engaging in it supposedly yields, and game design itself is not directly related to this.
|
I've participated in minor game development and have family that I've worked with that are game developers and we do discuss how games like Farmville are built with every addictive trick in the book. From a development perspective, I can say that at least some developers definitely agree that game addiction exists.
Given that, I would agree that game addiction does not at all exist in the conventional sense of the word "addiction." However do take in mind that, much like drug/food/etc addiction, certain games are built around the principle of that craving for additional playtime or interaction, not unlike the craving for more of whatever substance. After all, they're both different release mechanisms for the same dopamine. For example games like Farmville (it's the easiest one to use as an example) are constructed so that the individual, meaningless tasks you are given have a length of time assigned to them- lengths that aren't too long (which would lose players) but aren't too short (which doesn't foster any meaning in the length of time). Time is more or less a currency in itself due to this, and from its length and combined with other addictive techniques, end with players spending money, a real world commodity with real word value, for virtual currency and goods, which have, for all intents and purposes, no intrinsic real world value. Just so they can skip that period of time without gameplay.
Basically what it boils down to is this: Get them hooked one way or another, give them enough of a cooldown period that they crave it, then offer it to them for a price. Within the industry, companies and developers that do these kind of things are generally looked upon as the bane of the industry, those that make the rest of the developers look bad and hold the industry back. Games have always been developed for money, but also because people have had a vision and wanted to build something that they truly care about. Development practices like this have done nothing but made the industry more about the former than the latter.
I'm truly sorry if any of this made no sense but it's really late where I am so I might have made several grammatical errors or have rambled on.
|
I think the video is bang on, and I totally agree that it's, if not unethical, slightly 'twisted'. There's a reason why games like Nexus Wars constantly top the custom maps lists in SC2, and it's because they grant the player satisfaction through aesthetic things like the '+1' (or whatever, haven't played in a while) in Nexus Wars each time you get a kill.
Blizzard has these sorts of things in all of their games. SC2 presents these addictive qualities with much more subtlety than WoW, for example, but they're still there. Overlords popping, marines dying and collosi exploding are all aesthetically pleasing both visually and aurally and they're like that for a reason.
The worst part is that people don't even realise why those death animations sound/look the way they do. People can be addicted to SC2 (or any other game) without even realising it.
I really wish there was more research into this sort of thing. So many gamers and too blind/stubborn to give any thought to anything which derides gaming. Once the evidence starts to mount that will hopefully change though.
|
On December 19 2011 17:10 caradoc wrote: The mistake almost everyone posting so far, and the person in the documentary itself makes is viewing addiction/compulsion as an effect of the THING addicted to, rather than as an internal psychological process. Addictions are more about the subject than the object of addiction.
The reason people are having trouble drawing the line on what is addictive and what isn't is because there is no line. Sure games can be more or less addictive, but people with an addiction, or an underlying psychological susceptibility to addictions will find whatever it is that suits their underlying psychological complex to serve the addiction.
The whole notion that games are addictive is missing the point entirely. There is a reason some people can play games/take drugs/drink/gamble/have sex with strangers/go shopping without becoming addicted whereas others become addicted, and it has almost nothing to do with the inherent qualities of these things, and everything to do with the individual, their past experiences, and the way society structures ideas about addictions and contributing factors.
@ below post: Granted, you can design a game to cater to these impulses all you like, but the term addiction as I understand it, is an irrational compulsion to engage in something despite real world consequences or costs that more than override any potential positive utility that engaging in it supposedly yields, and game design itself is not directly related to this.
Did you even watch the entire video? The person in the documentary recognized that some people are more susceptible than others and it was one of the points they discussed.
|
On December 19 2011 17:20 Saurabhinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 17:10 caradoc wrote: The mistake almost everyone posting so far, and the person in the documentary itself makes is viewing addiction/compulsion as an effect of the THING addicted to, rather than as an internal psychological process. Addictions are more about the subject than the object of addiction.
The reason people are having trouble drawing the line on what is addictive and what isn't is because there is no line. Sure games can be more or less addictive, but people with an addiction, or an underlying psychological susceptibility to addictions will find whatever it is that suits their underlying psychological complex to serve the addiction.
The whole notion that games are addictive is missing the point entirely. There is a reason some people can play games/take drugs/drink/gamble/have sex with strangers/go shopping without becoming addicted whereas others become addicted, and it has almost nothing to do with the inherent qualities of these things, and everything to do with the individual, their past experiences, and the way society structures ideas about addictions and contributing factors.
@ below post: Granted, you can design a game to cater to these impulses all you like, but the term addiction as I understand it, is an irrational compulsion to engage in something despite real world consequences or costs that more than override any potential positive utility that engaging in it supposedly yields, and game design itself is not directly related to this. Did you even watch the entire video? The person in the documentary recognized that some people are more susceptible than others and it was one of the points they discussed.
right, hence my point about there not being a line. I think my point still stands, did you actually read it?
I'll make a certain element of my points a bit more explicit: the discussion on addiction focuses almost exclusively on the object of addiction, and the addictive qualities of the object, rather than the addictive individual. The title of the video is 'unethical game design', they talk about 'carrot on a stick mechanics', etc.
EDIT: they aren't wrong per se, and they make a lot of really good, interesting, relevant points. My point is that this type of analysis completely misses a pretty large portion of the larger issue. The guy asks a question like if you ever end a long raid session feeling tired and unfulfilled-- my point is why do some people continually experience this feeling, whereas it does not appeal in the least to others.
On December 19 2011 17:34 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 17:10 caradoc wrote: The mistake almost everyone posting so far, and the person in the documentary itself makes is viewing addiction/compulsion as an effect of the THING addicted to, rather than as an internal psychological process. Addictions are more about the subject than the object of addiction.
The reason people are having trouble drawing the line on what is addictive and what isn't is because there is no line. Sure games can be more or less addictive, but people with an addiction, or an underlying psychological susceptibility to addictions will find whatever it is that suits their underlying psychological complex to serve the addiction.
The whole notion that games are addictive is missing the point entirely. There is a reason some people can play games/take drugs/drink/gamble/have sex with strangers/go shopping without becoming addicted whereas others become addicted, and it has almost nothing to do with the inherent qualities of these things, and everything to do with the individual, their past experiences, and the way society structures ideas about addictions and contributing factors.
@ below post: Granted, you can design a game to cater to these impulses all you like, but the term addiction as I understand it, is an irrational compulsion to engage in something despite real world consequences or costs that more than override any potential positive utility that engaging in it supposedly yields, and game design itself is not directly related to this. I want to elaborate on this point. There are TONS of addictions out there that people do not want to see because they are, more or less, "beneficial" to the person and those around them. Things like exercise, work, study, and "skillful" hobbies are all nearly ignored in situations which otherwise would cause for intervention if the activity was instead gambling, drugs, games, etc. (behavioral addiction). Of course, there are more obvious life threatening consequences to the latter portion, but the addiction is of the same thread.
Work, study, exercise could also conceivably be other examples where one does something for 4 hours and leaves feeling unfulfilled, though of course it depends on the individual, the context of the activity itself, and the meaning he/she derives from it. A discussion on the THINGS people are addicted to is shallow, uninteresting, and leads to the wrong types of conclusions imo. It's like drawing a conclusion about the causes of wars through a discussion focused solely on types of bullets and their specifications or whatever.
|
Games should be hard so they are challenging and they exhaust you mentally, so eventually you stop and take a break for a while. Also makes streams more entertaining to watch (like who would watch a person grind in WoW?).
|
On December 19 2011 16:24 RANDOMCL wrote: People should have the right to do what they want to themselves as long as it doesn't bring direct harm to others. Protecting people from themselves will never work. Banning drug usage, forcing restaurants to serve healthier food, and restricting game design because some people get addicted... it is a never-ending cycle that will never work. People will do what they want to themselves. The government should not be responsible for protecting me from myself. They should protect me other from others. If I wanted to shoot meth that I make in my bedroom all day, I should be allowed to.
that is a very good post in my opinion. being addicted to something can be a very bad thing and attempting to inform the person who is addicted to whatever he/she is addicted to is a good thing. however attempting to control people to make decisions for them, whatever your reasoning, whatever the "goodness" of your cause, is unethical. you cannot protect people from themselves, and you SHOULDN'T.
on that note, i believe the video was attempting to inform, not control, so it was a definitely a positive thing for anyone who plays video games to view.
I don't mean to put politics into this, but it just came to me as i finished this post. If you plan to vote in the 2012 USA presidential election (or even if you dont plan to vote) and you also believe in this then you should vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul's belief system is based upon being responsible for yourself.. that there will always be people to help you, should you need it, but there should be nothing that confines you from what you wish to do unto yourself, as long as it doesn't interfere with others' rights to life, liberty, and their own pursuit of happiness.
|
On December 19 2011 17:10 caradoc wrote: The mistake almost everyone posting so far, and the person in the documentary itself makes is viewing addiction/compulsion as an effect of the THING addicted to, rather than as an internal psychological process. Addictions are more about the subject than the object of addiction.
The reason people are having trouble drawing the line on what is addictive and what isn't is because there is no line. Sure games can be more or less addictive, but people with an addiction, or an underlying psychological susceptibility to addictions will find whatever it is that suits their underlying psychological complex to serve the addiction.
The whole notion that games are addictive is missing the point entirely. There is a reason some people can play games/take drugs/drink/gamble/have sex with strangers/go shopping without becoming addicted whereas others become addicted, and it has almost nothing to do with the inherent qualities of these things, and everything to do with the individual, their past experiences, and the way society structures ideas about addictions and contributing factors.
@ below post: Granted, you can design a game to cater to these impulses all you like, but the term addiction as I understand it, is an irrational compulsion to engage in something despite real world consequences or costs that more than override any potential positive utility that engaging in it supposedly yields, and game design itself is not directly related to this. I want to elaborate on this point. There are TONS of addictions out there that people do not want to see because they are, more or less, "beneficial" to the person and those around them. Things like exercise, work, study, and "skillful" hobbies are all nearly ignored in situations which otherwise would cause for intervention if the activity was instead gambling, drugs, games, etc. (behavioral addiction). Of course, there are more obvious life threatening consequences to the latter portion, but the addiction is of the same thread.
Also, on the topic of addictive game mechanics (i.e. "carrot on a stick"), that's how life itself is designed. You are implored to participate in an economic system which offers differed rewards, which are largely both effort and luck based. Most likely, you will work a job which you will probably not find enjoyment in even half of the working hours, in return for a promise of an easier life where you can do what you want, except much later.
|
solution, make shitty games, they won't be addictive and no one will care about them....wait that's fucking stupid
Entertaining things will always be addictive regardless of the form they come in because people like to be entertaining so much so that the brain has it's own reactions to it by releasing chemicals to give you pleasure.
|
On December 19 2011 16:24 RANDOMCL wrote: People should have the right to do what they want to themselves as long as it doesn't bring direct harm to others. Protecting people from themselves will never work. Banning drug usage, forcing restaurants to serve healthier food, and restricting game design because some people get addicted... it is a never-ending cycle that will never work. People will do what they want to themselves. The government should not be responsible for protecting me from myself. They should protect me other from others. If I wanted to shoot meth that I make in my bedroom all day, I should be allowed to.
Your line of reasoning only works if you place compulsion and want under the same banner. Most people who are addicted to meth don't want to shoot meth all day. They're compelled to by an addiction. Addictions don't create rational choices, and it's hard to call a choice that isn't rational a choice at all. The line is harder to draw with less extreme examples than meth, but it exists with things as simple as fast food.
|
So, the idea is that, in the beginning, people would play a game for fun but then, as time went on, even though the players would eventually stop having fun, they would continue to play the game anyways because they were addicted to it. The interesting part is that the developers consciously design their games in that way so they can keep on exploiting their players. Hint: Bobby Kotick
I don't know, it feels as if they're stealing money from the weak-minded. Not a big fan of it.
|
I think parents and schools should be more informed, basically. Gaming is a great hobby and most people can bear it without becoming completly addicted... without being "unable to stop" even when they do want to stop. I think that the main point of the debate is that only a little percentage of "gamers" are really addicted. And they are probably addicted NOT because of the game, but because of who they are.
Why aiming the spear at the game developer? Can't we educate people? Can't we become more aware and offer help to those that need it, instead of trying to stop developers from developing game that will probably cause absolutly no harm to most peoples?
But it's true that some games are actually going too far. All those Free MMORPG that are actually seriously not that free (100 us for cash shop items, seriously?) and all those new MMORPG aiming directly at children (LEGO MMORPG, Hello Kitty MMORPG, Club Penguin, Neopets, etc...) are seriously questionnable.
|
I disagree with the author on the issue of unethical game design, because I think that he does not understand, that the same compulsions that make us do incredible stupid stuff in the gaming area , are responsible for the truly great games.
Let's take WoW, because it brings so many compulsions to the table. I am someone who played the game very long and on a relative time consuming level so everything I say is only experience. I have no clue of the psychology. Raiding in WoW (which is one of the two things you can really do long term in WoW) is only interesting because it mixes the compulsions. You've got a social aspect, you got the achieving aspect, you got the mechanics that need to be figured out and you've got the progression aspect. Every aspect on it's own is inferior to other games, where you find a form which is more “pure”. But the combination is what made the whole thing good.
Another example that fits better in this forum is starcraft. It offers different compulsions, but it uses them just as well. Very few of us would play this game if it wasn't for all the stuff surrounding it. The Ladder that offers the achiever aspects, the killer aspect when you beat that stupid terran, the exploring aspect for those who favor another custom game every week and the sense of progression when you get better. Starcraft wouldn't be starcraft if blizzard hadn't tried to make a game that really pushes the button of competitive players (Honestly I’m not sure if they intended (to young in the scene)from the very beginning or if it just “happened” but BW was definitely focused on that).
Also what is often overlooked when one is discussing gaming addiction is that the brain learns stuff on it's own and if you follow pattern x the n'th time than it's just gets boring. That is somehow a self defense mechanism against gaming addiction. If you do stuff to often it gets boring. A person can flew into a game, but there needs to be something outside the game where he is running from. There's just no game that offers enough content for that even if you go to the very extreme. It may be fulfilling for some time but it never lasts.
|
On December 19 2011 17:23 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 17:20 Saurabhinator wrote:On December 19 2011 17:10 caradoc wrote: The mistake almost everyone posting so far, and the person in the documentary itself makes is viewing addiction/compulsion as an effect of the THING addicted to, rather than as an internal psychological process. Addictions are more about the subject than the object of addiction.
The reason people are having trouble drawing the line on what is addictive and what isn't is because there is no line. Sure games can be more or less addictive, but people with an addiction, or an underlying psychological susceptibility to addictions will find whatever it is that suits their underlying psychological complex to serve the addiction.
The whole notion that games are addictive is missing the point entirely. There is a reason some people can play games/take drugs/drink/gamble/have sex with strangers/go shopping without becoming addicted whereas others become addicted, and it has almost nothing to do with the inherent qualities of these things, and everything to do with the individual, their past experiences, and the way society structures ideas about addictions and contributing factors.
@ below post: Granted, you can design a game to cater to these impulses all you like, but the term addiction as I understand it, is an irrational compulsion to engage in something despite real world consequences or costs that more than override any potential positive utility that engaging in it supposedly yields, and game design itself is not directly related to this. Did you even watch the entire video? The person in the documentary recognized that some people are more susceptible than others and it was one of the points they discussed. right, hence my point about there not being a line. I think my point still stands, did you actually read it? I'll make a certain element of my points a bit more explicit: the discussion on addiction focuses almost exclusively on the object of addiction, and the addictive qualities of the object, rather than the addictive individual. The title of the video is 'unethical game design', they talk about 'carrot on a stick mechanics', etc. EDIT: they aren't wrong per se, and they make a lot of really good, interesting, relevant points. My point is that this type of analysis completely misses a pretty large portion of the larger issue. The guy asks a question like if you ever end a long raid session feeling tired and unfulfilled-- my point is why do some people continually experience this feeling, whereas it does not appeal in the least to others. Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 17:34 aksfjh wrote:On December 19 2011 17:10 caradoc wrote: The mistake almost everyone posting so far, and the person in the documentary itself makes is viewing addiction/compulsion as an effect of the THING addicted to, rather than as an internal psychological process. Addictions are more about the subject than the object of addiction.
The reason people are having trouble drawing the line on what is addictive and what isn't is because there is no line. Sure games can be more or less addictive, but people with an addiction, or an underlying psychological susceptibility to addictions will find whatever it is that suits their underlying psychological complex to serve the addiction.
The whole notion that games are addictive is missing the point entirely. There is a reason some people can play games/take drugs/drink/gamble/have sex with strangers/go shopping without becoming addicted whereas others become addicted, and it has almost nothing to do with the inherent qualities of these things, and everything to do with the individual, their past experiences, and the way society structures ideas about addictions and contributing factors.
@ below post: Granted, you can design a game to cater to these impulses all you like, but the term addiction as I understand it, is an irrational compulsion to engage in something despite real world consequences or costs that more than override any potential positive utility that engaging in it supposedly yields, and game design itself is not directly related to this. I want to elaborate on this point. There are TONS of addictions out there that people do not want to see because they are, more or less, "beneficial" to the person and those around them. Things like exercise, work, study, and "skillful" hobbies are all nearly ignored in situations which otherwise would cause for intervention if the activity was instead gambling, drugs, games, etc. (behavioral addiction). Of course, there are more obvious life threatening consequences to the latter portion, but the addiction is of the same thread. Work, study, exercise could also conceivably be other examples where one does something for 4 hours and leaves feeling unfulfilled, though of course it depends on the individual, the context of the activity itself, and the meaning he/she derives from it. A discussion on the THINGS people are addicted to is shallow, uninteresting, and leads to the wrong types of conclusions imo. It's like drawing a conclusion about the causes of wars through a discussion focused solely on types of bullets and their specifications or whatever.
You confused me. I thought I posted before this post because you quoted me. You only have to edit in quotes if you're afraid of double posting.
My main point is that many people derive pleasure from things people largely feel are "destructive" behavioral addictions. For example, People who play WoW and then have family and friends "intervene" because they don't like the person that finds satisfaction in what a fantasy world has to offer. They literally go through these huge steps to poison the minds of the people who once found great joy in something others couldn't see, to the point where those people look back on their time spent in the game in great distaste. For somebody who works too much, they don't force them to quit their job and load them with BS about how evil the workplace is. At worst, people look back at their time spent at work wishing they hadn't spend quite as much time there.
Honestly, I find this whole "games can be dangerously addictive!" argument as stupid as the whole introvert vs extrovert treatment.
On December 19 2011 16:24 RANDOMCL wrote: People should have the right to do what they want to themselves as long as it doesn't bring direct harm to others. Protecting people from themselves will never work. Banning drug usage, forcing restaurants to serve healthier food, and restricting game design because some people get addicted... it is a never-ending cycle that will never work. People will do what they want to themselves. The government should not be responsible for protecting me from myself. They should protect me other from others. If I wanted to shoot meth that I make in my bedroom all day, I should be allowed to. Except making meth in your bedroom is quite dangerous to people around you as well. You know, with the chance of explosions and whatnot.
|
step in the right direction: Put warnings on mmo's/ games that are 'infinite' "Warning: This game can be addictive"
simple, yet warns parents of consequences
|
On December 19 2011 17:55 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 17:23 caradoc wrote:On December 19 2011 17:20 Saurabhinator wrote:On December 19 2011 17:10 caradoc wrote: The mistake almost everyone posting so far, and the person in the documentary itself makes is viewing addiction/compulsion as an effect of the THING addicted to, rather than as an internal psychological process. Addictions are more about the subject than the object of addiction.
The reason people are having trouble drawing the line on what is addictive and what isn't is because there is no line. Sure games can be more or less addictive, but people with an addiction, or an underlying psychological susceptibility to addictions will find whatever it is that suits their underlying psychological complex to serve the addiction.
The whole notion that games are addictive is missing the point entirely. There is a reason some people can play games/take drugs/drink/gamble/have sex with strangers/go shopping without becoming addicted whereas others become addicted, and it has almost nothing to do with the inherent qualities of these things, and everything to do with the individual, their past experiences, and the way society structures ideas about addictions and contributing factors.
@ below post: Granted, you can design a game to cater to these impulses all you like, but the term addiction as I understand it, is an irrational compulsion to engage in something despite real world consequences or costs that more than override any potential positive utility that engaging in it supposedly yields, and game design itself is not directly related to this. Did you even watch the entire video? The person in the documentary recognized that some people are more susceptible than others and it was one of the points they discussed. right, hence my point about there not being a line. I think my point still stands, did you actually read it? I'll make a certain element of my points a bit more explicit: the discussion on addiction focuses almost exclusively on the object of addiction, and the addictive qualities of the object, rather than the addictive individual. The title of the video is 'unethical game design', they talk about 'carrot on a stick mechanics', etc. EDIT: they aren't wrong per se, and they make a lot of really good, interesting, relevant points. My point is that this type of analysis completely misses a pretty large portion of the larger issue. The guy asks a question like if you ever end a long raid session feeling tired and unfulfilled-- my point is why do some people continually experience this feeling, whereas it does not appeal in the least to others. On December 19 2011 17:34 aksfjh wrote:On December 19 2011 17:10 caradoc wrote: The mistake almost everyone posting so far, and the person in the documentary itself makes is viewing addiction/compulsion as an effect of the THING addicted to, rather than as an internal psychological process. Addictions are more about the subject than the object of addiction.
The reason people are having trouble drawing the line on what is addictive and what isn't is because there is no line. Sure games can be more or less addictive, but people with an addiction, or an underlying psychological susceptibility to addictions will find whatever it is that suits their underlying psychological complex to serve the addiction.
The whole notion that games are addictive is missing the point entirely. There is a reason some people can play games/take drugs/drink/gamble/have sex with strangers/go shopping without becoming addicted whereas others become addicted, and it has almost nothing to do with the inherent qualities of these things, and everything to do with the individual, their past experiences, and the way society structures ideas about addictions and contributing factors.
@ below post: Granted, you can design a game to cater to these impulses all you like, but the term addiction as I understand it, is an irrational compulsion to engage in something despite real world consequences or costs that more than override any potential positive utility that engaging in it supposedly yields, and game design itself is not directly related to this. I want to elaborate on this point. There are TONS of addictions out there that people do not want to see because they are, more or less, "beneficial" to the person and those around them. Things like exercise, work, study, and "skillful" hobbies are all nearly ignored in situations which otherwise would cause for intervention if the activity was instead gambling, drugs, games, etc. (behavioral addiction). Of course, there are more obvious life threatening consequences to the latter portion, but the addiction is of the same thread. Work, study, exercise could also conceivably be other examples where one does something for 4 hours and leaves feeling unfulfilled, though of course it depends on the individual, the context of the activity itself, and the meaning he/she derives from it. A discussion on the THINGS people are addicted to is shallow, uninteresting, and leads to the wrong types of conclusions imo. It's like drawing a conclusion about the causes of wars through a discussion focused solely on types of bullets and their specifications or whatever. You confused me. I thought I posted before this post because you quoted me. You only have to edit in quotes if you're afraid of double posting.
haha, sorry! just wanted to keep my thoughts in one spot to make it easier to understand, and avoid shitting up the thread with half-thoughts.
On December 19 2011 17:57 Bloodash wrote: step in the right direction: Put warnings on mmo's/ games that are 'infinite' "Warning: This game can be addictive"
simple, yet warns parents of consequences
WoW has this. something like ESRB warning: game experience may change during online play. Not much of a warning as far as warnings go though... maybe they should do like on cigarette packets and show pictures of piss in bottles, and unkempt figures sitting in dark basements with larvae-white skin in front of glowing screens...
On December 19 2011 18:02 Fontong wrote: I accuse Teamliquid of unethical forum design!
How dare they allow my weak mind to be ensnared by making interesting posts and content easily available.
lolololol
speaking of addictions though, GSL up and downs are on in 12 minutes, so I'm out of this thread for now. XD
|
I accuse Teamliquid of unethical forum design!
How dare they allow my weak mind to be ensnared by making interesting posts and content easily available.
|
The guy doing the documentary is a noob... thats all i can say His argument is that companies are trying to make game last longer... the fuck !? he shouldn't be talking about video games if he plays on casual... simple and easy.
Nice ad homs there.
FYI I was talking to Jung for a bit at barcraft on Saturday, he said he hasn't played SC2 much lately because he's been playing Dark Souls.
In effect he was fired from his old gig on a TV show for not being casual.
It's not about him, listen to the content.
|
On December 19 2011 18:02 Fontong wrote: I accuse Teamliquid of unethical forum design!
How dare they allow my weak mind to be ensnared by making interesting posts and content easily available. Not to mention the post count rewards which get further apart with more posts! They're playing us for FOOLS!
|
On December 19 2011 17:55 aksfjh wrote: Except making meth in your bedroom is quite dangerous to people around you as well. You know, with the chance of explosions and whatnot.
You can't just add in variables to alter what I posted. I never stated it was in a house with other people or even around other people. My point still stands. Growing marijuana in my closet shouldn't get me arrested, but it would. Acquire seeds through whatever means (seed banks, bag seeds, etc.), grow them in a closet, smoke my own plant, repeat. If I were to do this in my own home, what damage does it bring to others?
Compulsion versus want shouldn't be a factor. Being compelled to do something that harms me isn't something anyone should protect me from, and neither is simply WANTING to do something that harms me. My decisions are my own.
Laws are in place to protect individuals. If you view the law objectively, you'll quickly realize how flawed a large portion are. How is preventing me from creating meth out in a barn away from society dangerous to anyone but myself? Because of what it will drive me to do? If I remove myself from others, how does it harm them?
Caffeine and nicotine are extremely addictive and harmful to my body, but I can buy them and consume at any rate I desire. However, the notion that I can do both of these things (as well as consume alcohol, medicine prescribed to me, etc.) and not be able to make the decision for myself as to whether or not I want to play a certain type of video-game... that's disgusting.
|
|
|
|