|
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.
I think this is a really good point. I was left to my own devices from the age of 6. My Nintendo was more fun than homework any day of the week, so my mom bought a lock to put on it while she was at work (the Plott brothers were on the honor system, and honored the curfew even with their mom away from home. I did not have the will power).
After the Nintendo cam the computer, which my mom couldn't get her head around. So not only is it a psychological issue; it's also a technological issue. I do think parents, intuitively and in general, know the ramifications of sitting in front of a screen for 8 hours a day.
|
Its the players responsibility to know when to stop. If the player is unable to control himself then there is another issue involved.
|
On December 23 2011 04:29 TheLOLas wrote: Its the players responsibility to know when to stop. If the player is unable to control himself then there is another issue involved.
Most players don't realize, when they're really addicted.
|
I got kinda addicted to RO when I was a kid (and a little grown up too...) and I feel most MMORPGs are designed to create addiction.
|
I don't really understand what do you mean by gaming addiction (i've read most of the thread).
Are really good chess players who spend majority of their life chess addicts? Was Newton a physics/math addict? Are monks religin addicts? Commited/passioned gamer != gaming addict. (or if you don't agree at least you have to admit that it's not a 100% bad thing to be addicted)
You play because you are a part of a social group and want to stay that way? Every person does that (although maybe not on a computer). People who don't play games prolly spent as much time irl with social groups and a lot of times their college/other goes to shit too because they are drinking and fucking around with their friends.
You play even though you "don't want to play"? Sounds really paradoxal if you put it that way. I've never in my life done something volunterily what i don't want. Of course sometimes i want multiple things and one want overwhelms the other (good grades vs fun, health vs fast food). I genuinely want to eat hamburgers and pizza. I drink 2l of coke every day and i really want to do that because i think coke is really good (and believe it or not, i'm not even that fat). I guess if your short term "wants" like fun completely overwhelm your long term goals like gratuating/job it counts as an addiction? (is this kinda what you mean or something?)
It's your choice if you want to spend all your free time playing games or not. If you genuinely prefer games over most "real life" stuff and still have a decent job and pay taxes, society should accept that. That is just how you chose to live your life (it's your own business).
EDIT: typo
|
I wonder why people don't understand the problem when the video in the opening post is very clear. As a game designer, there are certain mechanics that you choose to include in your game for a certain purpose. Some mechanics can be problematic. While making the game less fun, it will keep the player playing longer.
It's the difference between a pot dealer, a heroin lord, and a maker of fine wine.
|
On December 23 2011 07:09 0x64 wrote: I wonder why people don't understand the problem when the video in the opening post is very clear. As a game designer, there are certain mechanics that you choose to include in your game for a certain purpose. Some mechanics can be problematic. While making the game less fun, it will keep the player playing longer.
It's the difference between a pot dealer, a heroin lord, and a maker of fine wine.
I'm sorry, but which mechanics are you referring to which make the game less fun but longer? The ones mentioned in the thread certainly made the game longer and longer, but not make the whole game less fun. Keep in mind that addicting does not mean it gets less fun. The mechanics put into games are usually there so that people want to play and enjoy the game more, and taking that away would indeed take away enjoyment from many people. It's kind of hard to say "Ok Timmy, instead of helping you get off drugs, we're going to just get rid of the drugs around you". It was said by many people in the thread, people who get addicted and can't stop playing because of the design of certain games shouldn't really blame the games, but realize that they should get help (no, I'm not saying that's easy, I'm just saying that blaming it on a source which doesn't really deserve it won't help).
|
I honestly wish people making this argument would stop using the word "addiction;" it simply doesn't fit as there are no physical/chemical side effects of playing games as there are with substances such as alcohol and narcotics. The problem with these types of games is a psychological compulsion to play them because they are designed from the ground up with barriers that can ONLY be overcome with a huge time investment. No matter how good you are, you cannot participate in any of the fun content without jumping through many repetitive hurdles first. On the other hand, non-compulsive games offer 100% of the content to players and their skill affects only their own level of enjoyment. I can log on and ladder once a month if I want and reap the same reward as a GM player who spends every minute playing.
Psychologically, MMOs benefit strongly from the sunk cost fallacy and the omission bias, whereby past costs/investments irrationally influence future decision-making, and judging harmful actions as more damaging than equally harmful non-actions respectively. The up-front cost, monthly fee, and time spent in the game all help influence you to continue playing so as not to "lose" your investment (sunk costs fallacy), and by subscribing for months at a time with automatic recurrence, people see the subscription process as less harmful than if they had to manually enter their credit card information every month (omission bias). These are just a few ways that MMOs manipulate people, and it's a shame so many people continue to be deluded into playing non-fun games because they can't see past these and other tricks.
|
On December 23 2011 07:23 Alacast wrote: Psychologically, MMOs benefit strongly from the sunk cost fallacy and the omission bias, whereby past costs/investments irrationally influence future decision-making, and judging harmful actions as more damaging than equally harmful non-actions respectively. The up-front cost, monthly fee, and time spent in the game all help influence you to continue playing so as not to "lose" your investment (sunk costs fallacy), and by subscribing for months at a time with automatic recurrence, people see the subscription process as less harmful than if they had to manually enter their credit card information every month (omission bias). These are just a few ways that MMOs manipulate people, and it's a shame so many people continue to be deluded into playing non-fun games because they can't see past these and other tricks.
Interesting way to put it. I wouldn't say that omission bias is part of ''game mechanics'', but its definitely part the problems dynamic (and their business plan).
TL community is pretty smart. <3
|
|
|
|