She doesn't even know the difference between dependence and tolerance.
Gaming Addiction (Unethical Game Design) - Page 8
Forum Index > General Forum |
Honeybadger
United States821 Posts
She doesn't even know the difference between dependence and tolerance. | ||
MidKnight
Lithuania884 Posts
| ||
Honeybadger
United States821 Posts
Incorrect. It's much more complex than that, and in fact has more to do with (in layman's terms) Dopamine and Norepenephrine deficiency. Basically variants of ADD. The risk/reward structure stimulates parts of the emotional brain and prefrontal cortex into spiking the neurotransmitters up to NORMAL levels, giving the user a sense of normality. It's that hunt for NORMALITY in neurotransmitter levels that addicts hunt. While it's possible to create an addiction without a deficiency by CREATING one, it's very, very difficult. It's got nothing to do with "Gratification," in reality, it's normality addicts want (escapism is a form of hunting for normality via different methods) There is no real benefit to bumping neurotransmitter levels above normal, in fact, it becomes detrimental. You get jittery, jumpy, and sick to your stomach. As far as game design is concerned, that risk/reward structure is kind of just how things work in an MMO. You need to create some sort of incentive towards playing, and that incentive can only really be based on two things: time or skill. Skill is very hard to test in RPG's, as it requires ever-increasing levels of complexity (a-la EvE online,) so the alternative, in order to keep things friendly to new players and expand your player (and profit) base. | ||
Honeybadger
United States821 Posts
| ||
ch72105
24 Posts
The trend in the videogame industry is to make games less fun and more compulsive. With all these pointless achievements and levels, and online social environments created where people wear these levels and achievements like badges and get social status because of them, we've got an entire generation of gamers that play stonefaced bored out of their minds. They continue playing not because they're having fun, but because their psychology has been manipulated, and they've been trained by the people selling these games to value things that are inherently worthless: experience points, in-game items, achievements, in-game status. People commonly describe their time playing these games as "work", and after a long session of "grinding" they feel a great sense of accomplishment. People don't play for fun anymore, they play to feel that sense of accomplishment, and that should be very troubling to everybody. You used to actually have to accomplish something to feel the satisfaction of having accomplished something, but now you can experience that satisfaction as a 12-year-old while sitting on your ass playing a videogame. It's basically masturbation, except instead of replacing sex, it's replacing academics and career ambitions. The videogame industry has seen an incredible explosion in the last decade, they appeal mostly to males, and in that same decade females have absolutely surged in high school and college graduation rates as compared to males. In that same decade, the gender gap in the unemployment rate has grown dramatically in favor of women. Because of that gender gap in the unemployment rate, women -- while still earning on average less than a man for doing the same job -- now collectively have more income than men in the United States. Videogames can't be entirely to blame, but there's no question in my mind that they're a major contributing factor. The videogame industry has grown to be even larger than music and movies, and is still the fastest-growing form of mainstream entertainment in the world. They keep reaching out to kids at younger and younger ages, making their games easier and more accessible. The average male becomes a consumer of videogames at something like age 7 now. And nobody is even thinking about the consequences. | ||
Honeybadger
United States821 Posts
Sure, one could argue that they offer "compulsive" purchase models, but at the same time, they do it to help other developers and it's purely in ways that benefit the players (steam sales come to mind) And aside from WoW (which let's face it, did the gaming a favor by making gaming mainstream, and providing an income pool that vivendi and later activision demanded) blizzard has, as well. | ||
ch72105
24 Posts
This isn't just trending in RPGs/MMOs, the most recent development is having these compulsion manipulation systems embedded into the FPS and RTS experience. Think of COD's leveling and prestige system. As you're playing the game you get intermittent fanfares and messages regarding your "progress", and your level and prestige is prominently displayed in the social environments created around that game. Think of Starcraft 2's whole achievement system, and even the structure and reward system of the Starcraft 2 ladder. Ladder rank means nothing really, either you're competitive and you can make Grandmaster, or you aren't competitive and you can't. But they've created a tiered reward system that most anyone can advance through with just a simple time investment like any MMO. These compulsion mechanics are softer than other games, but they're still there even though they totally didn't need to be. World of Warcraft is of course the reigning all-time world champion of compulsion manipulation, and it's also the most profitable videogame in history and accounts for almost all of Blizzard's revenue. And we have Diablo 3 coming out, and that's poised to be maybe even worse than WoW on the compulsion manipulation scale. Because of random properties attached to Legendary drops, the best possible items in D3 are going to be rarer than the best items in any RPG before it, and people will have the ability to freely sell the items for real cash. D3 and RMAH is going to be the most casino-like videogame experience of all time. Valve's gaming titles might not be so bad regarding compulsion mechanics, but all the titles sold on Steam are, and all the Steam-integrated achievement systems did a lot to innovate compulsion manipulation. And I think it's obvious that Blizzard is the gaming company that does it best, has done the most of it, will do the most of it in the future, and that has made the most money off of it. | ||
Szubie
United Kingdom294 Posts
| ||
Phenny
Australia1435 Posts
| ||
Sablar
Sweden880 Posts
On December 21 2011 07:53 Honeybadger wrote: Also, that woman ties "endorphins" to gambling addiction. Incorrect. It's much more complex than that, and in fact has more to do with (in layman's terms) Dopamine and Norepenephrine deficiency. Basically variants of ADD. The risk/reward structure stimulates parts of the emotional brain and prefrontal cortex into spiking the neurotransmitters up to NORMAL levels, giving the user a sense of normality. It's that hunt for NORMALITY in neurotransmitter levels that addicts hunt. While it's possible to create an addiction without a deficiency by CREATING one, it's very, very difficult. It's got nothing to do with "Gratification," in reality, it's normality addicts want (escapism is a form of hunting for normality via different methods) There is no real benefit to bumping neurotransmitter levels above normal, in fact, it becomes detrimental. You get jittery, jumpy, and sick to your stomach. As far as game design is concerned, that risk/reward structure is kind of just how things work in an MMO. You need to create some sort of incentive towards playing, and that incentive can only really be based on two things: time or skill. Skill is very hard to test in RPG's, as it requires ever-increasing levels of complexity (a-la EvE online,) so the alternative, in order to keep things friendly to new players and expand your player (and profit) base. Normal = the mean of the neurotransmitter amount for the whole population? I'm thinking that for a person who is generally low in certain types of transmitters that state is the same thing as the normal state. If anything it seems reasonable that the body strives for the (low) homeostasis and that a normal level (for the population) is high and more rewarding (for an individual) making it strange to call it normal. If there is a difference between individuals in susceptibility to enjoy certain types of stimuli it means the same thing as that there is a biological difference. Any difference in anything between humans should theoretically be able to be measured on a biological level. Such a difference doesn't really mean that it is a disease or that it can't be changed. Not really what you said but since you say that creating a deficiency is hard then I guess you mean it was there all along or at least developed very slowly. I wouldn't rule out the environment as being able to explain a lot of the variance in gambling addiction. Also the education for psychologists is really varied between countries, and in her defense I've seen much worse statements from doctors. I think the explanation that they put forward is pretty good for the kind of show that it is. We would be so crap as a species if we were unable to do repetitive boring stuff and everyone constantly sought after new things to learn. | ||
Swede
New Zealand853 Posts
On December 21 2011 07:39 Honeybadger wrote: Don't think I disagree with video games perpetuating behavioral addiction, but psychologists are shitty people to reference. Psychiatrists are actual doctors. Psychologists are glorified physical therapists or guidance counselors. She doesn't even know the difference between dependence and tolerance. LOL. Glorified guidance counselors? You can become a guidance counselor with a 3 year bachelors and sometimes even less. My sister is in her 7th year of studying psychology, and that's basically the minimum you can do in order to become a psychologist. And she's fucking smart. By the way, fully qualified psychiatrists don't actually know more than fully qualified psychologists in the field of psychology. There is very little psychology in a medicine degree (by comparison to a psych degree). The biggest difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist is one can prescribe medication and one can't. There are also a few extra examinations and tests they can conduct, but in general their understanding is very similar. Depending on how they specialise, one psychiatrist might know more on one topic (e.g. conducting and interpreting brain scans) where a psychologist knows more on another topic. They don't all do clinical and become therapists. TL;DR learn what a psychologist actually is before generalising them so harshly. Psychologists and people with a bachelors in psych are not even close to the same. | ||
nean
Finland4 Posts
www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html | ||
ch72105
24 Posts
On December 21 2011 10:48 Phenny wrote: At the end of the day it's all on the user/consumer, developers shouldnt have to limit their game designs because of the weak. People get into this stuff when they're 10 these days, and it's a complex psychological issue that you can't expect parents to understand. Personally I think it's wildly irresponsible for Blizzard to be marketing a product like World of Warcraft toward the youth demographic. The compulsion manipulation mechanics all throughout WoW are clearly not an accident, the game is built that way by design. It's specifically designed to manipulate player psychology into placing an irrational value on intangible nothings, to become emotionally invested in the arc of their characters and guilds, to give them the spurious sensation of forward progress and the acquisition of wealth, and then to ultimately deny them any sense of closure so they never cancel their subscriptions. That means for the last decade, Blizzard executives have been sitting around tables in meeting rooms discussing in detail how to structure those mechanics to most effectively manipulate player psychology in exactly those ways. And perhaps afterwards they moved on to another meeting where they talked to the level design guys about how to make the 1 to 20 arc more accessible to 10-year-olds. If we could somehow listen in during those discussions I think the world would be appalled. They're setting children up on treadmills, dangling the carrot and tricking them into wasting the most important years of their lives. Most of the arguments against videogames are total rubbish, but personally I think this is one that's absolutely right. My kids will grow up playing videogames because as long as they're the right games, they're fun, harmless, and can improve their spatial intelligence. Games that abuse these kinds of unethical mechanics though, I'll be steering them away from those and I think and hope they'll be better off because of it. | ||
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
Not sure if that's the same sort of thing, but it seems to be anything which makes people do it for reasons other than wanting to do it. I don't really have a problem with videogames making themselves more addictive, but I really need to see some evidence that people aren't having fun while doing that raiding and such. My friend played WoW a lot at high ranks, but it's not like he wasn't having fun raiding with his guild. That's my basic problem with this. It doesn't really seem unethical to me, just to make their games more long-lasting and rewarding. Another one of my friends is an achievement whore on xbox, but he has fun while he's getting the achievements. I do agree that for people with serious problems (not being able to stop playing), institutions should be available to them. But thats it. People with these problems should get help. You shouldn't blame the gaming companies. Look at the WoW example above. When WoW did stuff to reduce the amount of playing for rewards, people were pissed. If they didn't like doing it, they would have been alright with the changes (imo). | ||
Flyingdutchman
Netherlands858 Posts
On December 21 2011 10:44 Szubie wrote: I don't think it's a very serious problem. I, for one, am happy that games sold today have lasting value, that I still play starcraft 2 long beyond the end of the campaign. If you take away reward and things that make you want to keep on playing, you ruin gaming for many people. There is nothing wrong with sprinkling some sort of reward structure or other methods to increase the staying power of a game. It is probably unavoidable, the problem is the intent. If we look at SC2, they added things like achievements to encourage players to play. Another thing SC2 did was remove the losses from being displayed for everyone expect the top leagues. This can directly be linked to discoveries in social sciences on how competition affects the incentives of those that are not competing for top spots. *edit* : I'm not saying SC2 is designed to be addictive, but merely want to relate the topic to a game everyone here plays */edit/ Can I ask you why you still play the game beyond the campaign? Is it because of the achievements or because you like to test your RTS skills against someone else? Personally, I've never played for achievements in any game. I've played basically every genre since the the early 90's when games were devoid of these kind of incentives. Staying power back then was determined by re-playability and the actual game itself. Games were still fun without "reward and things". Why is it different now? Even FPS games have this problem now, every instalment goes a step further in how pronounced the rewards are built into the game. People used to play FPS because it was a fun, exiting, and challenging experience. These days if people can choose between an FPS with and one without such a reward structure they will choose the one with the reward structure, because it falsely gives a sense of more content. A prime example that I've played recently is BF3, where you have to unlock things that used to be a standard part of ones kit or vehicle. I'm not very happy with this development but I guess I just have to suck it up since I'm not part of the demographic they target, which (as someone else already has pointed out) are already conditioned to be fine with being a hamster in a treadmill. | ||
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
| ||
Zombo Joe
Canada850 Posts
On December 21 2011 17:52 seppolevne wrote: Does it really matter whether you're happy because you beat something challenging or because you finally got some silly achievement? What is this "false sense"? If it makes you happy, do it. The problem is when its used for exploitation, which is usually the case nowdays. | ||
Bswhunter
Australia954 Posts
On December 21 2011 17:35 Flyingdutchman wrote:There is nothing wrong with sprinkling some sort of reward structure or other methods to increase the staying power of a game. It is probably unavoidable, the problem is the intent. If we look at SC2, they added things like achievements to encourage players to play. Another thing SC2 did was remove the losses from being displayed for everyone expect the top leagues. This can directly be linked to discoveries in social sciences on how competition affects the incentives of those that are not competing for top spots. Honestly don't even mind the "reward" aspect of SC2, even if it is enginered to make me keep playing. Anyway, W/L ratio is pretty stupid, due to the MMR trying to give each player a 50% winrate. If you consider an imaginary "causal" player who plays with friends, I think that leagues/divison are a better ranking system then W/L, simply because of how close the W/L ratios of causal players will be to one another after extended lengths of play. Also, I think there is some incentive towards playing to get the mass game achivements. I would probally play more if I was closer to getting a new portrait. | ||
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On December 21 2011 16:11 Dark_Chill wrote: Isn't making sports competitive the same thing as this? Instead of playing to just get better and have fun, you're playing to win. Not sure if that's the same sort of thing, but it seems to be anything which makes people do it for reasons other than wanting to do it. I don't really have a problem with videogames making themselves more addictive, but I really need to see some evidence that people aren't having fun while doing that raiding and such. My friend played WoW a lot at high ranks, but it's not like he wasn't having fun raiding with his guild. That's my basic problem with this. It doesn't really seem unethical to me, just to make their games more long-lasting and rewarding. Another one of my friends is an achievement whore on xbox, but he has fun while he's getting the achievements. I do agree that for people with serious problems (not being able to stop playing), institutions should be available to them. But thats it. People with these problems should get help. You shouldn't blame the gaming companies. Look at the WoW example above. When WoW did stuff to reduce the amount of playing for rewards, people were pissed. If they didn't like doing it, they would have been alright with the changes (imo). Is it really about fun? Or is it about red and blue pills? | ||
wUndertUnge
United States1125 Posts
On December 19 2011 16:28 sirachman wrote: There are addictive personalities which are prone to be addicted to things. However gaming itself is hardly any more addictive than Lincoln Logs. I beg to differ. Games - culturally, societally - are much more compelling than Lincoln Logs. Lincoln Logs are an innocuous object. Games and gaming have the power to shape people and the internet denizens. How many streams do we have of people eating Lincoln Logs? How many $50 lincoln Logs have you paid for lately? Now, as far as SC2 and their own compulsive mechanic, if it can even be called that, I think they just made a really awesome game. Does the laddering system make it more likely that someone will press the "Find Match" button like a gambler at a slot machine? I'm not so sure. With that said, I'm not sure what motivation the developers might have in creating a skinner box scenario for SC2, which doesn't garner them any immediate revenue. Future revenue is a possibility, though. By creating a compulsive (but quality) game, it feeds the habit for any future games released by Blizz. I've actually been thinking about restricting my game time by having a 3rd party set up my parental controls. It's that bad. At the end of the day, I've had a good time, but I've also stayed up until 4AM playing a game that ultimately means nothing to me. I haven't written my plays, done my homework, etc. etc. Now I'm not blaming Blizz, but I do think gaming addiction as a concept should be written off. Like any other object or substance, like Lincoln Logs for example, we can get addicted. | ||
| ||