|
|
Anything designed to exploit weak people is wrong. Which is why there's laws against selling crack. Which is why McDonalds was forced to remove additives that addicted people to it's food. Every company looks for that angle to addict people to its product. When people are genetically prone to addiction in the first place, someone exploiting that addiction is guilty of harming another individual directly for money.
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J9BDANo0iM Youtube link for the ones who couldn't load the one on the site 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. Skyrim, DAO , DA2 ,ME , ME2 , TW , TW2 ,TES:O... all of them were to easy and had not "real" difficulty for bosses, same with wow were it gets to suck atm since its to easy -_- This are the kind of guys that want "Mario games" to be every game. Is it truth in what they say with games like farmvile or Wow? maybe it is maybe its not, it has come to the point that no true gamers ( or very few of them ) play mmo's without a salary/sponsorship and farmvile ( and farmvile like game ) was never a real video game. The point is that i will believe it when the documentary is done by a psychologist that doesn't shake her whole body every 2 secs and a guy who is a respected/good gamer that doesn't talk BS and tries to cover it up in shiny words to look like he knows what he talking about... thats all.
|
United Arab Emirates5090 Posts
Where would you draw the line then? By that definition marketing and advertising is unethical because you are selling products that are not essential for survival.
Women and shopping - how the fuck does it work?
I'm sorry but it just seems like more run of the mill "adults vs video games" rubbish. There are no physical addictions involved except for the release of dopamine and serotonin. In that same sense men are addicted to women because men do stupid shit and shell out truckloads of cash to have sex with women.
If you play an mmorpg to the point where your life is severely affected in a negative way then sorry that's just your lack of discipline. Any computer game where a bot could be switched in for the human player to grind gold, levels, armor, weapons etc is a pretty boring game to me.
|
okay so in other words make games that have no kind me reward system people dont get addicted? that's just stupid. what would be the point of it then?
I've been gaming for years, i played morrowwind for days on end, i played wow for a few weeks and tons of other games too. when i wanted to stop i stopped. anyone who gets addicted has no self control, nothing more. Im sorry but i dont agree with half the things said in that video
|
The principle has been there all along. Only specialist are starting to understand it and use it better
|
The documenter has a point. There are games out there which do not benefit you in any shape way or form. And that is fine, except when those same games aren't fun, when they suck you in and leave you with no sense of closure. I really despise fb games and mmos and their creators.
It is also important to remember though, that some games have great capacity to help you in real life. Left4Dead taught me teamwork Halflife2 taught me that doing some simple puzzles involving spatial thinking can help when your stressed out Age of Empires got me interested in Ancient History Medieval Total War got me interested in Medieval history SC and BW taught me resource management.
And SC2 taught me how to make okay-ish decisions even when I have limited information and feel like breaking things.
|
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.
|
|
There are addictive personalities which are prone to be addicted to things. However gaming itself is hardly any more addictive than Lincoln Logs.
|
On December 19 2011 15:21 Aterons_toss wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J9BDANo0iMYoutube link for the ones who couldn't load the one on the site 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. Skyrim, DAO , DA2 ,ME , ME2 , TW , TW2 ,TES:O... all of them were to easy and had not "real" difficulty for bosses, same with wow were it gets to suck atm since its to easy -_- This are the kind of guys that want "Mario games" to be every game. Is it truth in what they say with games like farmvile or Wow? maybe it is maybe its not, it has come to the point that no true gamers ( or very few of them ) play mmo's without a salary/sponsorship and farmvile ( and farmvile like game ) was never a real video game. The point is that i will believe it when the documentary is done by a psychologist that doesn't shake her whole body every 2 secs and a guy who is a respected/good gamer that doesn't talk BS and tries to cover it up in shiny words to look like he knows what he talking about... thats all.
What a way to stick your head in the sand dude. What they say is nothing new, and I agree that some companies do not even think about ethics when designing a game. The problem lies with how games are designed, not on their difficulty level or whether it is for hardcore gamers. Their argument isn't that game designers are manipulating compulsions to stretch out games. This becomes a problem if you don't realize what they are doing and they're income is proportionate to the amount of time you spend playing (like wow subscriptions and farmville ads).
This video explains why I don't want to play MMO's, and everyone that plays those kind of games should at least watch it so they at least realize what the game makers are doing to them
On December 19 2011 15:41 pyrogenetix wrote: Where would you draw the line then? By that definition marketing and advertising is unethical because you are selling products that are not essential for survival.
Women and shopping - how the fuck does it work?
I'm sorry but it just seems like more run of the mill "adults vs video games" rubbish. There are no physical addictions involved except for the release of dopamine and serotonin. In that same sense men are addicted to women because men do stupid shit and shell out truckloads of cash to have sex with women.
If you play an mmorpg to the point where your life is severely affected in a negative way then sorry that's just your lack of discipline. Any computer game where a bot could be switched in for the human player to grind gold, levels, armor, weapons etc is a pretty boring game to me.
If a woman employs techniques solely to get men to do stupid shit and give them money for as long as possible, then that is also unethical, and those kind of women are generally shunned by societies. And as the scandinavian guy in the video already stated, you don't know the situation someone is in, so making blanket statements about their discipline is rather short sighted. Ethics is not some weird concept, basically every discipline you can study in probably has at least a chapter in a book about ethics if not a whole course. The gaming industry is basically doing the same thing as the tobacco industry back in the day: making their product as addictive as possible. Personally, I don't like the way this is going since it results in ultimately boring games. The only fun thing about MMO's are raids due to the teamwork required (it becomes a social interaction thing which is fun to me) but you will first have to grind out 50 levels.
|
On December 19 2011 15:18 Humanfails wrote: Anything designed to exploit weak people is wrong. Which is why there's laws against selling crack. Which is why McDonalds was forced to remove additives that addicted people to it's food. Every company looks for that angle to addict people to its product. When people are genetically prone to addiction in the first place, someone exploiting that addiction is guilty of harming another individual directly for money. I just want you to know that your analogy doesn't work. Crack and the additive McDonalds used are addictive because of the chemicals in them, games don't have that same property. If I were to start using crack for a week, I would most likely become addicted to it regardless of my personality. If I were to start playing a game like WoW for a year, I would likely not become addicted to it unless I have an addictive personality. Also, if a game company were to stop making games that "exploits" addictive personalities, than we wouldn't have any good multiplayer games.
|
On December 19 2011 15:18 Humanfails wrote: Anything designed to exploit weak people is wrong. Which is why there's laws against selling crack. Which is why McDonalds was forced to remove additives that addicted people to it's food. Every company looks for that angle to addict people to its product. When people are genetically prone to addiction in the first place, someone exploiting that addiction is guilty of harming another individual directly for money.
mcdonalds? o.o didn't know
what kind of stuff? like chemicals?
also i said slightly twisted cus ppl are allowed to sell alcohol and drugs which addict u
|
I think this sort of thing is different when it comes to mmos vs other games. Regular games, addictive stuff doesn't really matter... because you can pretty much stop and return where you left off at any time. Competitive multiplayer games, you don't lose anything by not playing for a while (except perhaps your own skill). Single player games, you can pick up where you left off.
With mmo's, though, they seem designed to force you to keep playing, because you'll miss out if you don't. Your raiding guild will make progress without you, and your gear won't be good enough to play with them anymore. Or your pvp gear will be outdated and you'll have to grind your way up from a huge disadvantage, not to mention few will want to play with someone undergeared for long. Of course the one magic solution is an expansion (more money!)
Raiding in particular is a lot worse than the pvp aspect of the game, though. Is it unethical? I don't think so. But there are certain things in WoW that I find unethical, mainly the "daily" quests. I never participated in those, recognizing what they really were, but I still know many that have to login to get those dailies done. It's just the nature of the game that it's addictive, I don't think they could design it any other way without taking away from what led to its success.
|
On December 19 2011 15:41 pyrogenetix wrote: Where would you draw the line then? By that definition marketing and advertising is unethical because you are selling products that are not essential for survival.
Women and shopping - how the fuck does it work?
I'm sorry but it just seems like more run of the mill "adults vs video games" rubbish. There are no physical addictions involved except for the release of dopamine and serotonin. In that same sense men are addicted to women because men do stupid shit and shell out truckloads of cash to have sex with women.
If you play an mmorpg to the point where your life is severely affected in a negative way then sorry that's just your lack of discipline. Any computer game where a bot could be switched in for the human player to grind gold, levels, armor, weapons etc is a pretty boring game to me.
In my opinion advertising and mass-consumption is a problem, our products should be designed to long as possible and be easily recyclable.
We consume too much of the wrong stuff each day. If I was a governor, I would make sure that all junk foods are removed from advertising and the way the stores will be shelved will make it easier to access healthy food. No snacks near the cashouts and cigarettes etc. There is much room for improvement, and please let me say that I am against banning anything, just do not make people see it as something cool. Even packaging for such products might need to change in my opinion.
Anyways, we have known for long that games are made to be addicting, that's the idea of the rewards system in all of them, leveling etc.
Imagine if governments were smart and made addictive games which helped science in some way? Your quests are math puzzles and by unlocking little challenges which help scientist you level up etc. Would be awesome to find a way to include all people on the planet into making some useful. I am not proud of what I do, I am not proud of writting this text, life is precious and short, we should use it to better ourselves, our cultures and the lives of the next generation. I believe that there is so much stagnation right now, the UN should propose a control over population towards ALL governments and find a way to shift food towards poor countries in some way. I don't know why we suck so much and I don't even know why there are so many countries. My native language is not English and my culture is not dominant, however I would be okay if we all speak Chinese or English in a couple of centuries. Humanity and science/art above entertainment/economy.
|
On December 19 2011 15:18 Humanfails wrote: Anything designed to exploit weak people is wrong.
Simple, elegant rule that I wholeheartedly agree with in general.
It is wrong to do this on purpose. Then again, so many things are wrong with the game development industry today and the ethics of people involved in the industry.
On December 19 2011 15:41 pyrogenetix wrote: I'm sorry but it just seems like more run of the mill "adults vs video games" rubbish.
No, this is a completely different issue and a different agenda. Hardcore gamers should be the first to rise against industry trends like this one.
|
This is actually a more subtle problem than it appears. These psychological reward mechanisms are well understood from real research, and most games apply them (without malign intent) to some degree, which is not a problem. They're actually a foundation of good design in most cases. The Diablo series is a prime example of this. Loot lust is a -fun- mechanic, and it enhances an already well designed combat system to make the game lastingly entertaining. This is not a dangerous or 'addictive' experience.
The problem is when a game is designed around these psychological tricks explicitly. Most hardcore gamers which have tried to play FarmVille will have stopped after about 3 minutes. Why? because there is very little game in it. This game was explicitly designed to lure people in through its social aspects and spend money. There is a mmo (the name of it is escaping me right now, will edit if I find it) which actually just is a slot machine in the guise of a loot-based economy. You buy extraction devices, which cost real money, to look for rare materials which you can sell for real money if you strike it rich. These have chance based success and essentially degrade on each use. The veneer of a mmo world is there, but this is the core fiscal design of the game. You can't even actually know this before trying it, because the mechanics are so well hidden by the game.
Why is this bad? Two reasons. Most gamers, that is people that actually consider gaming their main hobby, hate these kinds of games. If they're completely and wildly successful, investment risk goes into making more of them instead of other games. If you can't see this happening to mmos, I don't know what to tell you. The other reason that this type of design is bad is that it becomes attributed to the core principles of video game design. Completely ignorant outsiders look in, see examples of these tricks taken to utterly extreme ends, and start associating the same tricks with games like Diablo. That is how you get sweeping, silly regulations to threaten the whole of gaming. That is how you cheapen the hobby, and make it easier for people to look down on you for being a part of it. I don't think that it will ultimately win out, but it's worth discussing.
tldr; Is 'unethical design' a massive threat to our childrenz?! No. Is it wrong? Yes.
|
On December 19 2011 15:21 Aterons_toss wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J9BDANo0iMYoutube link for the ones who couldn't load the one on the site 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. Skyrim, DAO , DA2 ,ME , ME2 , TW , TW2 ,TES:O... all of them were to easy and had not "real" difficulty for bosses, same with wow were it gets to suck atm since its to easy -_- This are the kind of guys that want "Mario games" to be every game. Is it truth in what they say with games like farmvile or Wow? maybe it is maybe its not, it has come to the point that no true gamers ( or very few of them ) play mmo's without a salary/sponsorship and farmvile ( and farmvile like game ) was never a real video game. The point is that i will believe it when the documentary is done by a psychologist that doesn't shake her whole body every 2 secs and a guy who is a respected/good gamer that doesn't talk BS and tries to cover it up in shiny words to look like he knows what he talking about... thats all.
Your argument of why what he says is incorrect is incredibly weak and mostly irreleveant. His argument is irrelevant because he's "casual"? And the psychologists argument is invalid because she's "moving her whole body every 2 seconds"?
Games are made for money. If playing for longer gives companiesmore money then of course they're going to try and make one play for as long as possible.
|
On December 19 2011 15:18 Humanfails wrote: Anything designed to exploit weak people is wrong. Which is why there's laws against selling crack. Which is why McDonalds was forced to remove additives that addicted people to it's food. Every company looks for that angle to addict people to its product. When people are genetically prone to addiction in the first place, someone exploiting that addiction is guilty of harming another individual directly for money.
Most things aimed to be sold are produced in such a way to exploit people. Food is priced cheap to exploit the poor, food taste yummy to exploit people for their money, the list goes on and on. Your statement is way too wide to be taken seriously, or at least it seems.
|
I'd definetly say my gaming addiction is driven by learning and competition.
In my life i've always paid close attention to new facts, often i'd be enthusiastic about something totally ordinary. Because to me it was a new, and new things drive my brain to create new combinations like a new piece of puzzle. Where can I put it? Where does it go?
When learning stops I grow bored. WoW did a good job keeping me in the loop for a good while. But the same tricks don't work in repetition.
The biggest proof of my gaming addiction was a Browser based game. I would pay attention to this game, even though I felt like I hate it. I played it, just to look and make sure I wasn't going to log in later and be upset over a missed opportunity. The nature of this game, was the something to lose one. Like farmville. Where not checking in, had risk related and often the risk was enough to bother me.
People talk about free will, but I want to share my point of view. I wanted to play this game. I think I have real problems controlling my impulses, it's really something i've been looking into for many years, and have not yet figured out.
I'm a smoker. If I had the choice to to flip the switch off on my impulses I would. Fortunetly as a gamer that kind of act is possible. You can delete your account.
But I can't avoid tabacco. I can't delete that. So there is a deep wound within me that can be exploited. I say this because I was exposed to smoke pre-natal, as a child, had my first puff before I was 13.
I'm 23 now. After years of learning about myself and paying attention to details.
If I could make a choice, white or black. To go back and erase all the damage susbtance abuse has done to my psyche. I would. So I agree that adult behavior and though process is an ethical issue.
Because children can be corrupted. To reverse the damage can take years, and for some it can't be fixed so easily.
We're all one species, one family. I for one pray to man kind. That my children won't endure the pain I have. My father had hoped for the same. But one man can't change the fundamental problem which he was also a victim.
The reason why exploitation of the mind is so mainstream is because that practice is profitable. The problem, is our family tolerates this kind of behavior. We allowed each other to exploit one another, for profit. For self gain, I pray some more to man kind that we can grow out of this.
But that dream is not a reality.
Thank you team liquid. For being a beacon of light on the internet.
@ everyone who posted threads on this forum. Thank you for reaching out.
We are the young brother of a dysfunctional family. I hope we can make a change. For the better of all our children and their children, so that we can learn from our parents to better our planet. For the survival of our species, there is no other purpose.
|
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.
|
On December 19 2011 17:39 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That same person who shoots meth because they "don't want to" also has the choice to check themselves into rehab...you don't need someone else to do that for you. As well as people who eat fast food all the time can seek the help they need themselves (a doctor or a nutritionist). I have no pity for people who desire change yet want to do nothing about it and wait for someone else to do it for them even though it's not that difficult to search on how to change it with the internet available.
I find this is just more of an excuse on why people can't do shit for themselves anymore. Always throw the blame to others instead of yourself or the parents. Most kids get stuff handed to them so easily and don't need to do things for themselves anymore so when they grow up nothing changes and they still can't think for themselves.
Anyways, I just don't see how this works like....It's not my fault I play this game 24/7 it's theirs because they made me addicted to it. Especially for a game since if you really wanted to stop playing it you can instead just find something else to do and if you can't think of anything then just go for a walk. Besides that if the person really wanted to keep playing the game then maybe it's just because they actually like playing it and choose to use their free time that way until they get bored of the game in which they will stop playing it.
|
On December 19 2011 18:26 RANDOMCL wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Stop misquoting the argument. He didn't advocate the banning of certain games, he advocated more inquiry into the design of games. The gaming community and game developers are, for the most part, ignoring the issue of unhealthy addiction, even though there are legitimate concerns about unhealthy game addictions. Addictions are not necessarily voluntary. Anyone who has known someone seriously addicted to alcohol or another drug has seen that an intervention is often the only solution to an addiction. The video is meant to encourage genuine introspection, not the banning of highly addictive games.
|
On December 19 2011 18:28 nakedsurfer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 17:39 Swede wrote: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. That same person who shoots meth because they "don't want to" also has the choice to check themselves into rehab...you don't need someone else to do that for you. As well as people who eat fast food all the time can seek the help they need themselves (a doctor or a nutritionist). I have no pity for people who desire change yet want to do nothing about it and wait for someone else to do it for them even though it's not that difficult to search on how to change it with the internet available. I find this is just more of an excuse on why people can't do shit for themselves anymore. Always throw the blame to others instead of yourself or the parents. Most kids get stuff handed to them so easily and don't need to do things for themselves anymore so when they grow up nothing changes and they still can't think for themselves. Anyways, I just don't see how this works like....It's not my fault I play this game 24/7 it's theirs because they made me addicted to it. Especially for a game since if you really wanted to stop playing it you can instead just find something else to do and if you can't think of anything then just go for a walk. Besides that if the person really wanted to keep playing the game then maybe it's just because they actually like playing it and choose to use their free time that way until they get bored of the game in which they will stop playing it.
You're taking this a bit far-- are you arguing that everyone who has an addiction is completely able to just stop anytime they want to? If that was the case, why do we have a word for 'addiction', and volumes and volumes of literature and accompanying popular discourse surrounding it? I appreciate that you don't think the substance is as important as people make it out to be, but I think you're oversimplifying the issue.
Your point seems to amount to: addicts have as much agency to decide anything for themselves, but they keep choosing to go back to their addiction, therefore they're dumb.
Can you maybe fathom that addictions have, as a core component of the harm they do, an element which by some mechanism reduces agency on the part of the addict in some domain?
|
On December 19 2011 15:18 Humanfails wrote: Anything designed to exploit weak people is wrong. Which is why there's laws against selling crack. Which is why McDonalds was forced to remove additives that addicted people to it's food. Every company looks for that angle to addict people to its product. When people are genetically prone to addiction in the first place, someone exploiting that addiction is guilty of harming another individual directly for money.
Well said which is why Rihanna, Lady Gaga and X factor etc should also be in court
|
On December 19 2011 18:26 RANDOMCL wrote:Show nested quote +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? 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.
If laws are in place to protect individuals then, depending on your definition of protect, you should believe that banning meth is good, banning cigarettes and alcohol is good etc. Banning these things protects individuals. Alcohol is a poison. Cigarettes are fully of carcinogens. Meth creates miserable addicts with health problems.
Like I said, it depends on your definition of protect, but most people's definition of protect would at least include preventing a person's unnecessary death and possibly include preventing a person's suffering too.
I don't see how you could spin your idea that 'laws are in place to protect individuals' so that it doesn't contradict your position that a meth head should be able to shoot as much meth as he wants as long as he doesn't hurt anybody other than himself. He's still an 'individual', so why shouldn't he be protected (even if it's from himself)?
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.
You haven't provided any justification for any of your claims in this paragraph. I could easily respond with: 'Compulsion versus want [b]should[/b[ be a factor. Being compelled to do something that harms me is something I should be protected from, and so is simply wanting to do something that harms me.' but we wouldn't have gotten anywhere, would we? You can't just say things.
|
On December 19 2011 16:53 Saurabhinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 15:21 Aterons_toss wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J9BDANo0iMYoutube link for the ones who couldn't load the one on the site 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. Skyrim, DAO , DA2 ,ME , ME2 , TW , TW2 ,TES:O... all of them were to easy and had not "real" difficulty for bosses, same with wow were it gets to suck atm since its to easy -_- This are the kind of guys that want "Mario games" to be every game. Is it truth in what they say with games like farmvile or Wow? maybe it is maybe its not, it has come to the point that no true gamers ( or very few of them ) play mmo's without a salary/sponsorship and farmvile ( and farmvile like game ) was never a real video game. The point is that i will believe it when the documentary is done by a psychologist that doesn't shake her whole body every 2 secs and a guy who is a respected/good gamer that doesn't talk BS and tries to cover it up in shiny words to look like he knows what he talking about... thats all. Your argument of why what he says is incorrect is incredibly weak and mostly irreleveant. His argument is irrelevant because he's "casual"? And the psychologists argument is invalid because she's "moving her whole body every 2 seconds"? Games are made for money. If playing for longer gives companiesmore money then of course they're going to try and make one play for as long as possible. And my argument is that games are not designed to last longer WOW 5 yars ago... it took a harcore gamer months to clear a raid, and you had to play 7/7 days to be on top of shit WOW nowadyas it takes casuals a few months to clear raids and the required play time for a hardcore gamer is about half as much Same with RPGS, you want to argue RPGs in the last 5 years are HARDER then the one 10 years ago ? really ? Also my argument of him not having a clue about games and the psychologist looking unsure is not an argument at there theory just an insult addressed to the guys that "formulated" it, same as saying a 8 grader is not likely to have formulated a new ( correct )mathematical theorem , its not saying they are not "right" cuz of it but its really hard to trust them judging by there experience/nerves when talking about it.
|
On December 19 2011 19:11 Aterons_toss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 16:53 Saurabhinator wrote:On December 19 2011 15:21 Aterons_toss wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J9BDANo0iMYoutube link for the ones who couldn't load the one on the site 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. Skyrim, DAO , DA2 ,ME , ME2 , TW , TW2 ,TES:O... all of them were to easy and had not "real" difficulty for bosses, same with wow were it gets to suck atm since its to easy -_- This are the kind of guys that want "Mario games" to be every game. Is it truth in what they say with games like farmvile or Wow? maybe it is maybe its not, it has come to the point that no true gamers ( or very few of them ) play mmo's without a salary/sponsorship and farmvile ( and farmvile like game ) was never a real video game. The point is that i will believe it when the documentary is done by a psychologist that doesn't shake her whole body every 2 secs and a guy who is a respected/good gamer that doesn't talk BS and tries to cover it up in shiny words to look like he knows what he talking about... thats all. Your argument of why what he says is incorrect is incredibly weak and mostly irreleveant. His argument is irrelevant because he's "casual"? And the psychologists argument is invalid because she's "moving her whole body every 2 seconds"? Games are made for money. If playing for longer gives companiesmore money then of course they're going to try and make one play for as long as possible. And my argument is that games are not designed to last longer WOW 5 yars ago... it took a harcore gamer months to clear a raid, and you had to play 7/7 days to be on top of shit WOW nowadyas it takes casuals a few months to clear raids and the required play time for a hardcore gamer is about half as much Same with RPGS, you want to argue RPGs in the last 5 years are HARDER then the one 10 years ago ? really ? Also my argument of him not having a clue about games and the psychologist looking unsure is not an argument at there theory just an insult addressed to the guys that "formulated" it, same as saying a 8 grader is not likely to have formulated a new ( correct )mathematical theorem , its not saying they are not "right" cuz of it but its really hard to trust them judging by there experience/nerves when talking about it. Did you even listen to the video? He said that games are being designed to last longer with an even spacing of rewards to encourage continued play.
According to his argument, Blizzard doesn't care how much you play per day, they just want you to continue playing over a long period of time. Making a reward hard to achieve, as you say Blizzard previously did in WoW, would discourage continued play for many players, decreasing revenue.
|
so what?? yeah, companies are unethical if it maximizes their profits. They will design the game to make you more addicted to make more money. Big news. You cant appeal to their morals in order to change something. I wonder if the creators of this vid ever heard about the prisoners dilemma. You have to change the laws if you desire an ethical outcome. Imo its not reasonable to legally regulate how a game can be designed and if its an allowed product. Same goes for cigarettes, alcohol and pot imo. All you can do is force companies to print warning signs on the games boxes that tell you its highly addictive and you may isolate yourself playing the game. I think this is the only possible way of doing anything. The discussion shouldnt be about if smth is unethical or not, because in the end that rarely matters. It should be about what can and should be done about certain MMOs and other games and what cant and shouldnt be done.
|
No-one forces me to play. I choose to. And I wish there was a game that could addict me, but there honestly isn't. And I've played games since Commodore 64.
|
I realized this very quickly and that's why I quit WoW and hated it even while I played it.
|
On December 19 2011 19:33 Greentellon wrote: No-one forces me to play. I choose to. And I wish there was a game that could addict me, but there honestly isn't. And I've played games since Commodore 64. Wtf? Who cares about anecdotes like this. So you dont get addicted to games. I get addicted to games. Where is the point?? And dont you wish there was a game that could addict you. Played WoW Vanilla for 1.5 years (quitted before first exp). Since I was on US server and in a top guild, I raided 6 days a week from 1am - about 7am, sometimes up to 10 am if we were making a dent in a new encounter or smth. And that were just the raid times. Miraculously I still managed to get most of my studies done during the day. Slept in about 3 x 2 hour chunks a day. Needless to say, I was pretty much a shell. Trust me, you dont wish to be addicted to a game and saying so is retarded and insensitive.
|
As a person who has seen several friends lose their job, drop out of school, lose their girlfriends, neglect their kids, neglect their hygiene, etc. over WOW I can understand this mans perspective. That's precisely why I don't play WOW. I think people with addictive personality are screwed if they play WOW.
|
i think i was addicted when i played Magic The Gathering some years ago... i would think about the game\ new strategies\decks all day long..
|
On December 19 2011 16:52 Avarice wrote: This is actually a more subtle problem than it appears. These psychological reward mechanisms are well understood from real research, and most games apply them (without malign intent) to some degree, which is not a problem. They're actually a foundation of good design in most cases. The Diablo series is a prime example of this. Loot lust is a -fun- mechanic, and it enhances an already well designed combat system to make the game lastingly entertaining. This is not a dangerous or 'addictive' experience.
The problem is when a game is designed around these psychological tricks explicitly. Most hardcore gamers which have tried to play FarmVille will have stopped after about 3 minutes. Why? because there is very little game in it. This game was explicitly designed to lure people in through its social aspects and spend money. There is a mmo (the name of it is escaping me right now, will edit if I find it) which actually just is a slot machine in the guise of a loot-based economy. You buy extraction devices, which cost real money, to look for rare materials which you can sell for real money if you strike it rich. These have chance based success and essentially degrade on each use. The veneer of a mmo world is there, but this is the core fiscal design of the game. You can't even actually know this before trying it, because the mechanics are so well hidden by the game.
Why is this bad? Two reasons. Most gamers, that is people that actually consider gaming their main hobby, hate these kinds of games. If they're completely and wildly successful, investment risk goes into making more of them instead of other games. If you can't see this happening to mmos, I don't know what to tell you. The other reason that this type of design is bad is that it becomes attributed to the core principles of video game design. Completely ignorant outsiders look in, see examples of these tricks taken to utterly extreme ends, and start associating the same tricks with games like Diablo. That is how you get sweeping, silly regulations to threaten the whole of gaming. That is how you cheapen the hobby, and make it easier for people to look down on you for being a part of it. I don't think that it will ultimately win out, but it's worth discussing.
tldr; Is 'unethical design' a massive threat to our childrenz?! No. Is it wrong? Yes.
Totally agree with you!
|
Games are designed to last longer? Please excuse me while I roll about on my floor laughing.
...
Good one.
|
On December 19 2011 16:52 Avarice wrote: This is actually a more subtle problem than it appears. These psychological reward mechanisms are well understood from real research, and most games apply them (without malign intent) to some degree, which is not a problem. They're actually a foundation of good design in most cases. The Diablo series is a prime example of this. Loot lust is a -fun- mechanic, and it enhances an already well designed combat system to make the game lastingly entertaining. This is not a dangerous or 'addictive' experience.
The problem is when a game is designed around these psychological tricks explicitly. Most hardcore gamers which have tried to play FarmVille will have stopped after about 3 minutes. Why? because there is very little game in it. This game was explicitly designed to lure people in through its social aspects and spend money. There is a mmo (the name of it is escaping me right now, will edit if I find it) which actually just is a slot machine in the guise of a loot-based economy. You buy extraction devices, which cost real money, to look for rare materials which you can sell for real money if you strike it rich. These have chance based success and essentially degrade on each use. The veneer of a mmo world is there, but this is the core fiscal design of the game. You can't even actually know this before trying it, because the mechanics are so well hidden by the game.
Why is this bad? Two reasons. Most gamers, that is people that actually consider gaming their main hobby, hate these kinds of games. If they're completely and wildly successful, investment risk goes into making more of them instead of other games. If you can't see this happening to mmos, I don't know what to tell you. The other reason that this type of design is bad is that it becomes attributed to the core principles of video game design. Completely ignorant outsiders look in, see examples of these tricks taken to utterly extreme ends, and start associating the same tricks with games like Diablo. That is how you get sweeping, silly regulations to threaten the whole of gaming. That is how you cheapen the hobby, and make it easier for people to look down on you for being a part of it. I don't think that it will ultimately win out, but it's worth discussing.
tldr; Is 'unethical design' a massive threat to our childrenz?! No. Is it wrong? Yes.
This post needs more love. Wells said.
|
This is hilarious excuse for study. Anyone who gets addicted on a video game has an addictive personality and would get addicted to any 'addictive' substances... what a horrible sentence. Point is, generally, I'd be happier someone was addicted on rpgs than alcohol.
I played wow for around 3 years, one day I woke up like, cba for this anymore and quit. It's not addictive.. Not saying addiction is the same for everyone, but I've been playing games nearly every day (excluding breaks for holidays, trying to mass study for exams etcetc) for 11 years and never had problems stopping.
|
In the Netherlands it's accepted for a long time that video games can be addictive, that's why you can go to rehab here at the same clinics drug addicts get help. Not to say a drug addiction is the same, but a videogame addiction can cause the same problems and thus game addicts need the same help. The same holds for sex addicts, and it's a serious problem.
|
On December 19 2011 19:42 diehilde wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 19:33 Greentellon wrote: No-one forces me to play. I choose to. And I wish there was a game that could addict me, but there honestly isn't. And I've played games since Commodore 64. Wtf? Who cares about anecdotes like this. So you dont get addicted to games. I get addicted to games. Where is the point?? And dont you wish there was a game that could addict you. Played WoW Vanilla for 1.5 years (quitted before first exp). Since I was on US server and in a top guild, I raided 6 days a week from 1am - about 7am, sometimes up to 10 am if we were making a dent in a new encounter or smth. And that were just the raid times. Miraculously I still managed to get most of my studies done during the day. Slept in about 3 x 2 hour chunks a day. Needless to say, I was pretty much a shell. Trust me, you dont wish to be addicted to a game and saying so is retarded and insensitive.
So you can't handle your own life and so games have to be changed? Take some responsibility of your own life. That, or seek help. If help for this kind of addiction isn't provided, it should be provided.
I'm only worried of underaged kids time spending, but it's up to their parents to keep the kids from gaming from 1am to 7am.
|
On December 19 2011 20:48 Greentellon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 19:42 diehilde wrote:On December 19 2011 19:33 Greentellon wrote: No-one forces me to play. I choose to. And I wish there was a game that could addict me, but there honestly isn't. And I've played games since Commodore 64. Wtf? Who cares about anecdotes like this. So you dont get addicted to games. I get addicted to games. Where is the point?? And dont you wish there was a game that could addict you. Played WoW Vanilla for 1.5 years (quitted before first exp). Since I was on US server and in a top guild, I raided 6 days a week from 1am - about 7am, sometimes up to 10 am if we were making a dent in a new encounter or smth. And that were just the raid times. Miraculously I still managed to get most of my studies done during the day. Slept in about 3 x 2 hour chunks a day. Needless to say, I was pretty much a shell. Trust me, you dont wish to be addicted to a game and saying so is retarded and insensitive. So you can't handle your own life and so games have to be changed? Take some responsibility of your own life. That, or seek help. If help for this kind of addiction isn't provided, it should be provided. I'm only worried of underaged kids time spending, but it's up to their parents to keep the kids from gaming from 1am to 7am.
So you don't think a preventive attitude towards this problem should be in place? just like for instance with smoking? I also think that people that play games can be better informed about game creators and their intentions. And aside that, the seriousness of the effects of game addiction should be on the box when purchased.
|
It's funny how people in this conversation don't seem to understand the difference between ethics and the law. Every time somone says what Blizzard did in WoW (or what companies do in MMOs in general) is unethical, or isn't right, there's someone who believes they want them put in jail. But loads of unethical stuff aren't in fact illegal. I think cheating your wife is unethical too, but that doesn't mean it should be forbidden by law. Just like that, while there shouldn't be a law against MMOs that work like WoW, maybe developers should take a bit of responsibility when creating games, so they might leave you with some sense of achievement. They should. That doesn't mean they should be forced to.
|
MMORPGs are so addicting for me :< even if i don't really enjoy it i keep playing.
Want D3 NOWWWW :s
|
On December 19 2011 20:48 Greentellon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 19:42 diehilde wrote:On December 19 2011 19:33 Greentellon wrote: No-one forces me to play. I choose to. And I wish there was a game that could addict me, but there honestly isn't. And I've played games since Commodore 64. Wtf? Who cares about anecdotes like this. So you dont get addicted to games. I get addicted to games. Where is the point?? And dont you wish there was a game that could addict you. Played WoW Vanilla for 1.5 years (quitted before first exp). Since I was on US server and in a top guild, I raided 6 days a week from 1am - about 7am, sometimes up to 10 am if we were making a dent in a new encounter or smth. And that were just the raid times. Miraculously I still managed to get most of my studies done during the day. Slept in about 3 x 2 hour chunks a day. Needless to say, I was pretty much a shell. Trust me, you dont wish to be addicted to a game and saying so is retarded and insensitive. So you can't handle your own life and so games have to be changed? Take some responsibility of your own life. That, or seek help. If help for this kind of addiction isn't provided, it should be provided. I'm only worried of underaged kids time spending, but it's up to their parents to keep the kids from gaming from 1am to 7am. Where did I say games have to be changed? I was just quoting you, saying that merely stating how things are for oneself doesnt contribute to a discussion and wishing there was a game that could addict you is a very insensitive and moronic thing to say. Especially when coupled with random bolding of words.
|
I sometimes try hard to discipline, but you can never deny the itch.
And once you start rolling, hours and hours go by in the blink of the eye.
|
On December 19 2011 21:00 blarkh wrote: It's funny how people in this conversation don't seem to understand the difference between ethics and the law. Every time somone says what Blizzard did in WoW (or what companies do in MMOs in general) is unethical, or isn't right, there's someone who believes they want them put in jail. But loads of unethical stuff aren't in fact illegal. I think cheating your wife is unethical too, but that doesn't mean it should be forbidden by law. Just like that, while there shouldn't be a law against MMOs that work like WoW, maybe developers should take a bit of responsibility when creating games, so they might leave you with some sense of achievement. They should. That doesn't mean they should be forced to.
I think this is another discussion, but the idea of the law is to make sure unethical stuff does not happen. And cheating your wife is for that reason in a lot of countries not legal. (and can cost you a lot of money also in the US I believe, specially when ur married :-)) The problem with ethics is that it's a lot of the time not clear what is unethical and what isn't. In the example you give for cheating your wife for instance. It would be also unethical to take away someone's freedom to force someone not to cheat his wife, thats why in a lot of countries it is not illegal to cheat your wife.
But in a lot of circumstances it is very clear a case is unethical, and thats why it's always illegal.
|
well i don't doubt that blizzard especially put a lot of thought into how to hook people so they can just keep milking them
but in terms of an actual fullblown dependence i'd think that the people who experience this do have an underlying condition to some extent. people can develop dependencies to anything.
|
Lmao, now I remember why I didn't do anything with psychology.
I understand that it's very hard for people to keep themselves in line when they have increased risk of being addicted. But this 'unethical' nonsense (in the video) just gives a 'scientific' justification for a certain moral point of view. It is far too easy to point the finger at someone else in this case.
Personally, i think most of the people appearing on the video are behaving 'unethical', because they indoctrinating young people with quasi-scientific moral code, much like kent hovind, for anyone who knows him.
|
On December 19 2011 21:08 diehilde wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 20:48 Greentellon wrote:On December 19 2011 19:42 diehilde wrote:On December 19 2011 19:33 Greentellon wrote: No-one forces me to play. I choose to. And I wish there was a game that could addict me, but there honestly isn't. And I've played games since Commodore 64. Wtf? Who cares about anecdotes like this. So you dont get addicted to games. I get addicted to games. Where is the point?? And dont you wish there was a game that could addict you. Played WoW Vanilla for 1.5 years (quitted before first exp). Since I was on US server and in a top guild, I raided 6 days a week from 1am - about 7am, sometimes up to 10 am if we were making a dent in a new encounter or smth. And that were just the raid times. Miraculously I still managed to get most of my studies done during the day. Slept in about 3 x 2 hour chunks a day. Needless to say, I was pretty much a shell. Trust me, you dont wish to be addicted to a game and saying so is retarded and insensitive. So you can't handle your own life and so games have to be changed? Take some responsibility of your own life. That, or seek help. If help for this kind of addiction isn't provided, it should be provided. I'm only worried of underaged kids time spending, but it's up to their parents to keep the kids from gaming from 1am to 7am. Where did I say games have to be changed? I was just quoting you, saying that merely stating how things are for oneself doesnt contribute to a discussion and wishing there was a game that could addict you is a very insensitive and moronic thing to say. Especially when coupled with random bolding of words.
Insensitive? Perhaps it's stupid of me to wish getting addicted, but if someone gets ashamed/hurt because someone says something related to an activity they obviously love to do (because they are addicted), then it's just the first step on the road to recovery. You already know it's a problem.
I don't mind being insensitive, as long as I'm not rude.
|
To me conservationists who criticize these new age addictions like videogames and light drugs like marihuana (not really new) are the type of person who wants to pass a law prohibiting something they don't do, "for their own good" of the people who use those attractions, but then go every weekend to a bar to drink whisky and smoke cigarretes thinking it is not "as bad" as the addictions they just prohibited. To me it all sounds like old age not understanding a new age more than anything. All these taboos about videogames that we despise because it sounds like ignorant people talking will hopefully fade away as we get older and our generation TAKE OVER THE WORLD LOL.
|
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.
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.
Unfortunately, truly understanding addiction, understanding the process of neuron reinforcement and pathways, understanding the process of serotonin and the role it has in helping to establish and addiction, and thus being able to understand computer use addiction as an actual existing phenomenon takes some preliminary study of it at least. In the olden days before "entertaining ourselves to death" (google it), people learned more, especially the aristocracy. That's how people make informed decisions before committing to any discussion that they have less understanding of than peers.
computer addiction, and video game addiction specifically, is real. games that don't have any substance and are designed to lead you on forever are typically at the forefront of addicted gamer's lists. The industry is fully aware these people exist, and they create games that are specifically designed at those personalities. Would World Of Warcraft be so successful if there weren't droves of computer addicted people playing 24/7, always looking for that next score in game? SInce it is a subscription based game, it thrives on people who will never ever quit. That doesn't mean it's explicitly designed to be addictive, but it has many properties of an addictive game.
I'm not saying there's some evil mastermind plan, I'm saying that businesses are doing what makes them money, much in the same way drug smugglers from Mexico do what they do to make profits off of other people.
And about doing meth.If you have the self made money to buy it, to use it, and to pay for all the rehab costs afterward so you can be a productive member of society again, go for it. If you don't, don't. You see, if you shoot up or smoke all day and cause other people to pay your way in life as a burden, that becomes causing others inconvenience through an addiction. Not to say addiction is wrong, but to willfully go into it and believe it's not a problem for others if you do it is also wrong.
You might be interested in reading H.G. Wells' "A Modern Utopia". Basically he posits that if anyone works enough to pay their way though society and be completely self supporting, they can just make the minimum amount required to stay alive and do whatever they want and then not work, and just go nuts with travel or other excursions that do not profit the world. As long as you pay your way... On the other hand if some people want to become millionaires, they are free to pursue that too. And society in this utopia accepts all of these lifestyles.
Back to the company issue. Them creating games that targets a lifestyle which is computer addiction is wrong, and they know that they create these games, and they hide behind the logic that these people "are making their own choice" which, if you know about addiction, in many ways they aren't making their own choice.You know the saying, you have to hit rock bottom before you can overcome it.
To willfully take part in anyone's self destruction is morally wrong, if you believe in morals at all. They are also removed like the nazis were from their job. There's a thing which happens, most notable with the nazis, where the further removed decision makers are from people who get effected, the less they view their actions as inhumane or detrimental and wrong to real living people. There's been plenty of experiements and case studies done on these kinds of things which shows that its a human phenomenon not limited to sociopaths. The further you are from the person in pain, the less you care, and the more willing you are to hurt them a little or a lot, especially on orders from superiors, for some form of gain for yourself or your group. Morality apparently has a limiting radius based on distance.
But honestly, people know what they're doing, especially large corporations that make games. If they didn't, they would go broke from making no money.
|
It's fucking wrong.. Skyrim literally stole 2 weeks of my life. Felt so helpless
|
I feel like this topic should bother me but it doesn't. This is just yet another attempt to demonize games.
|
United States5162 Posts
On December 19 2011 21:41 Humanfails wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Unfortunately, truly understanding addiction, understanding the process of neuron reinforcement and pathways, understanding the process of serotonin and the role it has in helping to establish and addiction, and thus being able to understand computer use addiction as an actual existing phenomenon takes some preliminary study of it at least. In the olden days before "entertaining ourselves to death" (google it), people learned more, especially the aristocracy. That's how people make informed decisions before committing to any discussion that they have less understanding of than peers. computer addiction, and video game addiction specifically, is real. games that don't have any substance and are designed to lead you on forever are typically at the forefront of addicted gamer's lists. The industry is fully aware these people exist, and they create games that are specifically designed at those personalities. Would World Of Warcraft be so successful if there weren't droves of computer addicted people playing 24/7, always looking for that next score in game? SInce it is a subscription based game, it thrives on people who will never ever quit. That doesn't mean it's explicitly designed to be addictive, but it has many properties of an addictive game. I'm not saying there's some evil mastermind plan, I'm saying that businesses are doing what makes them money, much in the same way drug smugglers from Mexico do what they do to make profits off of other people. And about doing meth.If you have the self made money to buy it, to use it, and to pay for all the rehab costs afterward so you can be a productive member of society again, go for it. If you don't, don't. You see, if you shoot up or smoke all day and cause other people to pay your way in life as a burden, that becomes causing others inconvenience through an addiction. Not to say addiction is wrong, but to willfully go into it and believe it's not a problem for others if you do it is also wrong. You might be interested in reading H.G. Wells' "A Modern Utopia". Basically he posits that if anyone works enough to pay their way though society and be completely self supporting, they can just make the minimum amount required to stay alive and do whatever they want and then not work, and just go nuts with travel or other excursions that do not profit the world. As long as you pay your way... On the other hand if some people want to become millionaires, they are free to pursue that too. And society in this utopia accepts all of these lifestyles. Back to the company issue. Them creating games that targets a lifestyle which is computer addiction is wrong, and they know that they create these games, and they hide behind the logic that these people "are making their own choice" which, if you know about addiction, in many ways they aren't making their own choice.You know the saying, you have to hit rock bottom before you can overcome it. To willfully take part in anyone's self destruction is morally wrong, if you believe in morals at all. They are also removed like the nazis were from their job. There's a thing which happens, most notable with the nazis, where the further removed decision makers are from people who get effected, the less they view their actions as inhumane or detrimental and wrong to real living people. There's been plenty of experiements and case studies done on these kinds of things which shows that its a human phenomenon not limited to sociopaths. The further you are from the person in pain, the less you care, and the more willing you are to hurt them a little or a lot, especially on orders from superiors, for some form of gain for yourself or your group. Morality apparently has a limiting radius based on distance. But honestly, people know what they're doing, especially large corporations that make games. If they didn't, they would go broke from making no money. The fact that video game addiction effects an extremely small minority of people, imo, supports the opinion that the person with the addiction is the main cause rather then the game itself. It's the same thing with gambling addiction or food addiction.
|
On December 19 2011 16:36 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 15:18 Humanfails wrote: Anything designed to exploit weak people is wrong. Which is why there's laws against selling crack. Which is why McDonalds was forced to remove additives that addicted people to it's food. Every company looks for that angle to addict people to its product. When people are genetically prone to addiction in the first place, someone exploiting that addiction is guilty of harming another individual directly for money. mcdonalds? o.o didn't know what kind of stuff? like chemicals? also i said slightly twisted cus ppl are allowed to sell alcohol and drugs which addict u
There is nothing in McD's food that make you addicted to it. It's just urban legend. It's no mystery that people like greecy and salty food. The additives banned form McD's food are growth horomones.
Edit: I guess I should put down something on topic as well: MMO are designed to give you easy rewards in the beginning and they become progressively hard to get. For some peopel it is give them big satisfaction to get those achievement. Same thing with the achievement designs in other games, SC2 is not innocent from it either. I dont' think it's unethical for developers to create innovative way to prolong a game's enjoyable life span. Even for subscription based MMOs, yes, they have direct monatory insentive to keep you playing as long as possible, but they have to do it in a way that is also enjoyable for you.
This is definitly different from narcotics, which addictions are chemically induced. Gaming addiction is pychologically induced. On some level, yes you can say they work in similar ways, they produce desirable state and your brain wants more of it. Of course narcotics are much more potent, and create much worse consequenses. It all comes down to what those consequenses are. If you're ignoring your RL responsibilties due to gaming, then it's problem. Same with any other forms of addiction (alchohol, gambling...)
It right way to deal with is definitely education, not banning. I remember when I was a kid in China, there was a public issue that a lot of kds are "addicted" to arcades. And bullies start fights in arcades and take money from other kids. And what was the city's solution? Banning arcades for all under 18. Looking back this is so silly. Band-aid solution ftw.
Anyways, I digress. Compnaies will use any trick in their sleeves to make money. Using addictive drugs is definitely considered un-ethical, but rewards/achievements based game play? I dont' beleive so, but it is important for gamers to recognize the system and not be manipulated.
|
realization stage! lolz why bother making a game if it's not gonna be good and poeple don't wanna play it?
|
Used to play WoW for about a year and a half until i figured this out, felt like what i did was more of a job than fun. Don't think I'll be able to play an MMO again since they all pretty much following the same principles, grind=profit.
|
On December 20 2011 00:15 FADCoUltra wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 16:36 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 19 2011 15:18 Humanfails wrote: Anything designed to exploit weak people is wrong. Which is why there's laws against selling crack. Which is why McDonalds was forced to remove additives that addicted people to it's food. Every company looks for that angle to addict people to its product. When people are genetically prone to addiction in the first place, someone exploiting that addiction is guilty of harming another individual directly for money. mcdonalds? o.o didn't know what kind of stuff? like chemicals? also i said slightly twisted cus ppl are allowed to sell alcohol and drugs which addict u There is nothing in McD's food that make you addicted to it. It's just urban legend. It's no mystery that people like greecy and salty food.
There is nothing in *insert game of choice* that make you addicted to it. It's just urban legend. It's no mystery that people like games using well known behavioral mechanisms to manipulate gamers compulsions for playing.
|
On December 20 2011 00:37 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 00:15 FADCoUltra wrote:On December 19 2011 16:36 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 19 2011 15:18 Humanfails wrote: Anything designed to exploit weak people is wrong. Which is why there's laws against selling crack. Which is why McDonalds was forced to remove additives that addicted people to it's food. Every company looks for that angle to addict people to its product. When people are genetically prone to addiction in the first place, someone exploiting that addiction is guilty of harming another individual directly for money. mcdonalds? o.o didn't know what kind of stuff? like chemicals? also i said slightly twisted cus ppl are allowed to sell alcohol and drugs which addict u There is nothing in McD's food that make you addicted to it. It's just urban legend. It's no mystery that people like greecy and salty food. There is nothing in *insert game of choice* that make you addicted to it. It's just urban legend. It's no mystery that people like games using well known behavioral mechanisms to manipulate gamers compulsions for playing.
You heavily contradict yourself here, first you say games have nothing which makes you addicted to it. Then you say it's no mystery... compulsion for playing (read, makes you addictive to it) I'm also aware that it's no mystery, but alot of people don't. And I think it should be on the box, just like with gambling everybody 'knows' it's addictive, but i believe this is not the case for gaming. So people can make a conscious decision to play a game, and to be vulnerable to these kind of addiction.
|
On December 20 2011 00:37 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 00:15 FADCoUltra wrote:On December 19 2011 16:36 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 19 2011 15:18 Humanfails wrote: Anything designed to exploit weak people is wrong. Which is why there's laws against selling crack. Which is why McDonalds was forced to remove additives that addicted people to it's food. Every company looks for that angle to addict people to its product. When people are genetically prone to addiction in the first place, someone exploiting that addiction is guilty of harming another individual directly for money. mcdonalds? o.o didn't know what kind of stuff? like chemicals? also i said slightly twisted cus ppl are allowed to sell alcohol and drugs which addict u There is nothing in McD's food that make you addicted to it. It's just urban legend. It's no mystery that people like greecy and salty food. There is nothing in *insert game of choice* that make you addicted to it. It's just urban legend. It's no mystery that people like games using well known behavioral mechanisms to manipulate gamers compulsions for playing.
You comparison is flawed. Peopel wasn't saying that the greecy salty food is what addictive, people were saying there are other "narcotic" chemicals in the food that makes you addicted to McDs.
Like I said, it's about recognition. People who eat McD's should know that they like it because they like greecy salty foods, not because big corporation is making them addicted to their food.
Same with gaming, people who can't pull away from their games need to recognize the mechanisms that's keeping them in game.
|
On December 20 2011 00:47 FADCoUltra wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 00:37 gruff wrote:On December 20 2011 00:15 FADCoUltra wrote:On December 19 2011 16:36 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 19 2011 15:18 Humanfails wrote: Anything designed to exploit weak people is wrong. Which is why there's laws against selling crack. Which is why McDonalds was forced to remove additives that addicted people to it's food. Every company looks for that angle to addict people to its product. When people are genetically prone to addiction in the first place, someone exploiting that addiction is guilty of harming another individual directly for money. mcdonalds? o.o didn't know what kind of stuff? like chemicals? also i said slightly twisted cus ppl are allowed to sell alcohol and drugs which addict u There is nothing in McD's food that make you addicted to it. It's just urban legend. It's no mystery that people like greecy and salty food. There is nothing in *insert game of choice* that make you addicted to it. It's just urban legend. It's no mystery that people like games using well known behavioral mechanisms to manipulate gamers compulsions for playing. You comparison is flawed. Peopel wasn't saying that the greecy salty food is what addictive, people were saying there are other "narcotic" chemicals in the food that makes you addicted to McDs. Like I said, it's about recognition. People who eat McD's should know that they like it because they like greecy salty foods, not because big corporation is making them addicted to their food. Same with gaming, people who can't pull away from their games need to recognize the mechanisms that's keeping them in game.
Totally agree with this
|
On December 19 2011 21:44 Vallros wrote:It's fucking wrong.. Skyrim literally stole 2 weeks of my life. Felt so helpless Mee too. All those missed meals. Lessons forgotten. Parties unattended.
But its fucking all worth it!
|
I'd look for problems somewhere else if you feel like games in the last 10 years have been addicting.
|
Speaking from my own experience, I played Runescape and I was quite addicted to the game. The thing is, when you're playing a game for 6 hours a day there is nothing else going on in your life, so eventually it becomes a decision -- do I look at a wall or play the video game instead.
The line can't really be made, so to me it's all video games or none of them, and I think video games should be here to stay.
|
On December 20 2011 00:47 Timmsh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 00:37 gruff wrote:On December 20 2011 00:15 FADCoUltra wrote:On December 19 2011 16:36 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 19 2011 15:18 Humanfails wrote: Anything designed to exploit weak people is wrong. Which is why there's laws against selling crack. Which is why McDonalds was forced to remove additives that addicted people to it's food. Every company looks for that angle to addict people to its product. When people are genetically prone to addiction in the first place, someone exploiting that addiction is guilty of harming another individual directly for money. mcdonalds? o.o didn't know what kind of stuff? like chemicals? also i said slightly twisted cus ppl are allowed to sell alcohol and drugs which addict u There is nothing in McD's food that make you addicted to it. It's just urban legend. It's no mystery that people like greecy and salty food. There is nothing in *insert game of choice* that make you addicted to it. It's just urban legend. It's no mystery that people like games using well known behavioral mechanisms to manipulate gamers compulsions for playing. You heavily contradict yourself here, first you say games have nothing which makes you addicted to it. Then you say it's no mystery... compulsion for playing (read, makes you addictive to it) I'm also aware that it's no mystery, but alot of people don't. And I think it should be on the box, just like with gambling everybody 'knows' it's addictive, but i believe this is not the case for gaming. So people can make a conscious decision to play a game, and to be vulnerable to these kind of addiction.
This is what I'm talking about. Some people are more susceptible to gaming addiction than others, no news here, same with any other forms of addiction. Education and awareness is the key. To be able to recognize the signs and symptoms. Not changing the games themselves. Just like alcohol and gambling, big brother coming in to force enforce alcohol content limit in liquor and changing the rules of black jack is not the answer.
|
The sad fact of the industry is, these additions to games are needed...nay, DEMANDED... by the consumer. If a game ships these days without any sort of achievement system or unlock tree or collectible whatever, it gets chided in the reviews as a game with "low replayability". Developers, like modern Holywood execs, generally have to create a final product that appeals more to the masses than to the descriminating afficionado, or else they get eaten alive.
Look at Team Bondi... L.A. Noire was a great, unique, and well-crafted game with very limited replayability because it didn't put as many of these elements into the game as it could have, and so Bondi gets shitcanned and subsequent DLC along with it. It's why most releases these days are all sequels -- they've found a formula that works. People cry that MW3 is just MW2.5, but they still play it, based on the multitude of unlocks, achievements, prestige modes, callsigns, etc., and it's since reflected the fact that people demand that sort of stuff by becoming the best selling game ever.
|
On December 20 2011 00:58 Rob28 wrote: The sad fact of the industry is, these additions to games are needed...nay, DEMANDED... by the consumer. If a game ships these days without any sort of achievement system or unlock tree or collectible whatever, it gets chided in the reviews as a game with "low replayability". Developers, like modern Holywood execs, generally have to create a final product that appeals more to the masses than to the descriminating afficionado, or else they get eaten alive.
Look at Team Bondi... L.A. Noire was a great, unique, and well-crafted game with very limited replayability because it didn't put as many of these elements into the game as it could have, and so Bondi gets shitcanned and subsequent DLC along with it. It's why most releases these days are all sequels -- they've found a formula that works. People cry that MW3 is just MW2.5, but they still play it, based on the multitude of unlocks, achievements, prestige modes, callsigns, etc., and it's since reflected the fact that people demand that sort of stuff by becoming the best selling game ever.
Well put Rob28.
Don't hate the player, hate the game...well...in this case, don't hate the game, hate the system...I mean...not the gaming system, the industr...ah forget it...
|
On December 20 2011 00:27 MHT wrote: Used to play WoW for about a year and a half until i figured this out, felt like what i did was more of a job than fun. Don't think I'll be able to play an MMO again since they all pretty much following the same principles, grind=profit. Bro it was all about camping tarren mill yo lol!!!
|
Im addicted to fun, I cant help myself. If its fun I generally want to do it. Game designers that make fun games whether its hardcore strategy like sc2 or light and fluffy silliness like wii bowling have targeted my weakness.
Fun peddling dealers of happiness so unethical!!
|
Funny, with WoW I stopped playing at like level 25 when the leveling up started taking to long. I was not prepared to spend longer to get the same reward. I don't care about achievements at all, I haven't purposefully tried to achieve one in my life (talking game achievements not real life ones). Hell I got bored of skyrim after less than 10 hours of gameplay (I didn't even finish a single quest line). I don't even play starcraft anymore. These game makers don't target the things I get hooked on. I don't even remember the last game which blew me away with awesomeness.That is a lie, it was Final Fantasy 8, sad that that was over 10 years ago and since then and nothing has come close for me (admittedly it was mainly the story, the game play did get repetitive with all the drawing of magic). It is why I have all but given up on games, I pretty much just read now to get my jollys where I discover something which makes my feet tingle every other month.
So I don't get this addictive gaming thing, to me it just looks like they are just making games stupid and forcing me to go find entertainment elsewhere.
|
While it's a little bit on the text-heavy side i'd encourage everyone to read this brilliant little article and look into the makings and heads behind (casual) games. http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story/
Look guys nobody here is trying to take away your candy (games) or secretly change them into vegetables, and as long as we have actual gamedesigners making our games we're fine for the most part. BUT even companies like our dear Blizzard see this kind of practice (pretty much hiring psychologists to extort the maximum amount of money) and start to apply little things that work (Diablo 3, et tu brute).
Addictive videogames designed by learned game professionals = okay Addictive videogames designed by psychologists = yuck
(i'm not trying to be elititst anti-casual games, there are just so many black sheep)
On December 20 2011 01:36 Egyptian_Head wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Funny, with WoW I stopped playing at like level 25 when the leveling up started taking to long. I was not prepared to spend longer to get the same reward. I don't care about achievements at all, I haven't purposefully tried to achieve one in my life (talking game achievements not real life ones). Hell I got bored of skyrim after less than 10 hours of gameplay (I didn't even finish a single quest line). I don't even play starcraft anymore. These game makers don't target the things I get hooked on. I don't even remember the last game which blew me away with awesomeness.That is a lie, it was Final Fantasy 8, sad that that was over 10 years ago and since then and nothing has come close for me (admittedly it was mainly the story, the game play did get repetitive with all the drawing of magic). It is why I have all but given up on games, I pretty much just read now to get my jollys where I discover something which makes my feet tingle every other month.
So I don't get this addictive gaming thing, to me it just looks like they are just making games stupid and forcing me to go find entertainment elsewhere.
So your bottom line is "I'm not addicted so it's not addictive"? So many people here throw around their own anecdotes, but as already mentioned at least in europe (with NL at the forefront) it's pretty much recognized as an actual addiction. Are people just so hard in denial because they have to face the question if they are/were addicted after all?
|
On December 20 2011 00:27 MHT wrote: Used to play WoW for about a year and a half until i figured this out, felt like what i did was more of a job than fun. Don't think I'll be able to play an MMO again since they all pretty much following the same principles, grind=profit. You mean you felt like you had to put forth time and effort to achieve goals set by the game and yourself?! How terrible! You find fun (and happiness) in what you choose. If you choose to see that part of life where you found fun in an MMO as a waste of time, then I truly feel sorry for you.
|
On December 20 2011 01:56 Shurayuki wrote:
So your bottom line is "I'm not addicted so it's not addictive"? So many people here throw around their own anecdotes, but as already mentioned at least in europe (with NL at the forefront) it's pretty much recognized as an actual addiction. Are people just so hard in denial because they have to face the question if they are/were addicted after all?
Fairly certain my bottom line was I am not addicted and current games seem to me to be crap so I am being forced to give up on gaming as entertainment. I don't recall saying that other people were not addicted or that it is impossible to be addicted. One does not equal the other.
|
On December 20 2011 02:10 Egyptian_Head wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 01:56 Shurayuki wrote:
So your bottom line is "I'm not addicted so it's not addictive"? So many people here throw around their own anecdotes, but as already mentioned at least in europe (with NL at the forefront) it's pretty much recognized as an actual addiction. Are people just so hard in denial because they have to face the question if they are/were addicted after all?
Fairly certain my bottom line was I am not addicted and current games seem to me to be crap so I am being forced to give up on gaming as entertainment. I don't recall saying that other people were not addicted or that it is impossible to be addicted. One does not equal the other.
Haha it's just a huge circle of "i'm not addicted so why should i care/he's so stupid" and i honestly only quoted you because you were the last to say smth. like that. Also anything after the first sentence wasn't directed at your post i should have hit enter a few times there...
;D
|
I was definitely addiced to WoW and played it for i don't know how many years. I was a in a tough situation in life and it was a world where i could escape the reality. The game provides almost endless amount of different goals leveling, professions, dungeons, gear, raiding, pvp/arena and the achievement system (LOL) all that with the social aspect of it makes it very addictive.
|
MMO-bashing, IMHO. It's only unethical in my mind when your product is chemically addictive and creates an actual pathological reliance to it. Otherwise, it is terribly difficult to draw the line that separates "ethical" from "unethical." I don't miss playing WoW. I enjoyed it, but it was too much of a time investment for college, so I stopped. There's no such thing as MMO withdrawal; at least not on a level that reflects on the game itself, unlike with nicotine or any other chemical addictant. If you're not having fun playing a game, don't play the game. The reason people play a game like World of Warcraft is that it is this unbelievably immersing, interactive, colossal gameplay experience in which you can fight each other, work with each other, and partake in a fully functional economy with producers, sellers, commodities, goods, services, injections, and leakages. To be perfectly honest, people who get lost in the game usually do so because their real lives are lacking in the catharsis that the game renders. I've found that to have much more influence on the addiction factor than any kind of compulsion manipulation, which has always struck me as rather obvious.
|
On December 20 2011 02:37 Daray wrote: I was definitely addiced to WoW and played it for i don't know how many years. I was a in a tough situation in life and it was a world where i could escape the reality. The game provides almost endless amount of different goals leveling, professions, dungeons, gear, raiding, pvp/arena and the achievement system (LOL) all that with the social aspect of it makes it very addictive.
A very valid point, but consider the following. Your demand was for catharsis, and WoW provided that. So it strikes me that here, your addiction to the game was actually a part of the escape from reality that you paid Blizz for in the first place. I think it's important to be able to remove oneself from RL stresses, but then it is one's own responsibility to bring oneself back to it when enough is enough.
|
Tb would be pissed if he saw this. He did a presentation about how gaming addiction isn't real in 2007 I'll link when I get to my main computer
|
On December 20 2011 02:42 Shantastic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 02:37 Daray wrote: I was definitely addiced to WoW and played it for i don't know how many years. I was a in a tough situation in life and it was a world where i could escape the reality. The game provides almost endless amount of different goals leveling, professions, dungeons, gear, raiding, pvp/arena and the achievement system (LOL) all that with the social aspect of it makes it very addictive. A very valid point, but consider the following. Your demand was for catharsis, and WoW provided that. So it strikes me that here, your addiction to the game was actually a part of the escape from reality that you paid Blizz for in the first place. I think it's important to be able to remove oneself from RL stresses, but then it is one's own responsibility to bring oneself back to it when enough is enough.
Yeah i think you're correct. The artifcial world with simple goals and social interaction is what made me addicted to it when my life at the time was kinda shitty.
|
On December 20 2011 02:42 Shantastic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 02:37 Daray wrote: I was definitely addiced to WoW and played it for i don't know how many years. I was a in a tough situation in life and it was a world where i could escape the reality. The game provides almost endless amount of different goals leveling, professions, dungeons, gear, raiding, pvp/arena and the achievement system (LOL) all that with the social aspect of it makes it very addictive. A very valid point, but consider the following. Your demand was for catharsis, and WoW provided that. So it strikes me that here, your addiction to the game was actually a part of the escape from reality that you paid Blizz for in the first place. I think it's important to be able to remove oneself from RL stresses, but then it is one's own responsibility to bring oneself back to it when enough is enough. Or maybe he was replacing things in real life with an alternative in WoW. Not necessarily an "escape" from reality, but choosing one which was better suited for him. In that case, is he really removing himself from real life stresses, or is he simply finding a place where he can pursue parallels in a more comfortable environment?
|
do ppl get withdrawal symptons in gaming? or how do u define addiction to videogames, just amount played?
|
People can get addicted to anything. For some people it's crack, for others it's cheeseburgers.
The difference is the withdrawls. I want to stress that there is a significant difference between mental withdrawls and physical withdrawls. The mental withdrawls can be overcome with sufficient willpower. I'm firmly of the opinion that people who are "addicted to video games" are addicted because they want to be.
|
Withdrawal symptoms in gaming are purely psychological, and they can usually be linked to some kind of catharsis lacking in your life that was being supplied by the game. Unlike nicotine, which is a chemical addictant, alcohol, to which people can inherit or develop an adverse reaction (much like an allergy), or even cannabis, which has the potential to create a dopamine dependency, gaming has no effect on you when you're not playing it, aside from a good game that makes you think about it. Kinda like SC
|
On December 20 2011 02:53 sopas wrote: do ppl get withdrawal symptons in gaming? or how do u define addiction to videogames, just amount played?
Many drugs never lead to a physical dependency, addiction can be purely psychological. A psychological addiction can in turn have real (bodily) withdrawal symptons. Actually people with gaming addiction do show withdrawal sympoms yes. (i.e. being jumpy, grumpy, hard to concentrate)
On December 20 2011 02:57 HackBenjamin wrote: People can get addicted to anything. For some people it's crack, for others it's cheeseburgers.
The difference is the withdrawls. I want to stress that there is a significant difference between mental withdrawls and physical withdrawls. The mental withdrawls can be overcome with sufficient willpower. I'm firmly of the opinion that people who are "addicted to video games" are addicted because they want to be.
While i do agree with your post overall, that bit is a bit...urg. They might have gotten themselves into it willingly (but most people do with most addictions no?), but the point is that they should be able to see a doctor and have them help, in some cases that's the only way. That's a bit what this is about for me, there has to be institutions to help because this can be hard(impossible to get out of by yourself.
|
Those withdrawals symptoms, however, are purely psychological, and usually point to a problem other than the game itself.
I absolutely agree, though, that there should be institutions to help you get out of these addictions, BUT: those institutions do need to understand that the addiction is likely influenced by other elements of the subject's life.
|
Alright, if no one else is going to defend WoW and Blizzard I guess I will... (shitty job lol)
(wow this became much longer than I thought... It's probably terrible writing but I don't have time to review/edit. TLDR at end)
The WoW team at Blizzard has clearly noticed that the incentive structure of their game can lead people to play it compulsively, and they have changed the game to try to make it LESS of a grind. The problem that they find though, is that many MMO players LIKE the grind (the more hardcore they are, generally, the more they like it).
Here are a few of the changes they made over the time that I played the game:
1) Limited wipes on raid bosses: this backfired horribly. Top guilds started to gear up multiple alternate characters to the levels of their main characters so they could practice fights with the alt raids before using up their attempts with their mains. Players' determination to be at the cutting edge of raiding led them to double or triple their grind (to get the points to gear up all the alts) rather than accept Blizzard-imposed limits on their raid times. After facepalming, the WoW team ditched the limits.
2) Caps on gear purchasing points: Players can only grind out so many points over a period of time. While the limits might seem high to people that are not willing to grind out the maximum possible amount, they do give people that would be willing to grind forever an end point. By giving out the same types of points for different activities, such as higher grade pve points for both raiding and running heroic dungeons, players often do not have to grind out points by doing things they would rather not do.
3) Changing daily quests into weekly quests: as far as I know still going. Players do not have to sign on every day to collect maximum points for gear, now they can do all their heroic dungeon runs in one sitting. Perhaps people that play compulsively find themselves locked into a schedule that reinforces that behavior. This might help those people.
The kicker is that most of these changes were widely hated by the players that liked the game the most. Hardcore fans of WoW really liked having better gear than everyone else; it was not so much for ingame achievement as much as the social recognition that came with it. These people LIKED grinds because they provided a barrier for all but the most dedicated player to get the same stuff as them. Perhaps the worst thing that Blizzard has done to WoW gamers is to give them the ability to broadcast their own willingness to do brutally repetitive things through achievements and titles. '<Your Name Here> the Insane' has got to be one of the most boring rewards in the game to get, but also one of the most prestigious because of that fact.
Perversely, the times where I felt I HAD to grind things that I did not want to grind, the pressure is social; I felt the need to have good gear to make sure that I would not be a drag on my friends in our collective efforts both in raiding and arenas. While game companies can be criticized legitimately for trying to trigger addiction-like responses through their gameplay, it is a bit of a stretch to blame them for peer pressure.
The thing about WoW that I thought was most disturbing was how well it creates a social hierarchy in-game. The game allows people that are not successful IRL to gain recognition amongst their in game peers for nothing other than sheer determination and effort. By giving people things they can do together it allows people to make friends, and by giving ANY in-game rewards at all it allows for people to compete with each other in ways that they may not be able to do outside the game. The hook becomes that by leaving the game, one leaves behind not only that society, but also all of the time that one has spent in the game working towards in-game status symbols.
TLDR The ultimate pressure to grind in MMOs comes not from their in-game rewards system alone, but rather the combination of in-game rewards and the society/community that is created by bringing players together in one game world. The problem with MMOs is not their reward structure alone, but that they allow people to compete for status symbols. Blizzard has in fact tried to limit grinding by putting caps on in-game rewards and attempt limits on bosses, but they generally have failed because of the peer pressure that players face to play more.
|
On December 20 2011 03:02 Shantastic wrote: Those withdrawals symptoms, however, are purely psychological, and usually point to a problem other than the game itself.
Analogy time! (damn that never goes well)
People are addicted to coffee, that happens. Caffeine is a substance that may cause addiction. While the reason they have gotten addicted in the first place may be -or rather most likely is- completely unrelated to coffee itself, deniying that coffee can be addictive is silly.
Nobody is calling for coffee to be changed or anything like that, it's just about acknowledging the simple fact that people put caffeine into food products so you buy them more and that may be seen as a bit of a fishy practice.
I absolutely agree, though, that there should be institutions to help you get out of these addictions, BUT: those institutions do need to understand that the addiction is likely influenced by other elements of the subject's life
Heh you ninja editer! ;D Yeah that should be taken for granted, Psychologists dealing with that should absolutely understand that.
|
does this way of gaming include macro in sc2? or only micro/strategy?
|
On December 20 2011 03:00 Shurayuki wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 02:53 sopas wrote: do ppl get withdrawal symptons in gaming? or how do u define addiction to videogames, just amount played? Many drugs never lead to a physical dependency, addiction can be purely psychological. A psychological addiction can in turn have real (bodily) withdrawal symptons. Actually people with gaming addiction do show withdrawal sympoms yes. (i.e. being jumpy, grumpy, hard to concentrate) Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 02:57 HackBenjamin wrote: People can get addicted to anything. For some people it's crack, for others it's cheeseburgers.
The difference is the withdrawls. I want to stress that there is a significant difference between mental withdrawls and physical withdrawls. The mental withdrawls can be overcome with sufficient willpower. I'm firmly of the opinion that people who are "addicted to video games" are addicted because they want to be. While i do agree with your post overall, that bit is a bit...urg. They might have gotten themselves into it willingly (but most people do with most addictions no?), but the point is that they should be able to see a doctor and have them help, in some cases that's the only way. That's a bit what this is about for me, there has to be institutions to help because this can be hard(impossible to get out of by yourself. You assume that people need to get out of it in the first place. While there are circumstances in which people can play at an extreme neglect of their own personal health (like not eating), for the most part, these "addictions" are perfectly fine.
|
Great find, myself I got sick of the never ending grind of playing a mmo and after seeing this I think I learned a little bit more about myself - which of course is a good thing.
|
On December 20 2011 03:15 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 03:00 Shurayuki wrote:On December 20 2011 02:53 sopas wrote: do ppl get withdrawal symptons in gaming? or how do u define addiction to videogames, just amount played? Many drugs never lead to a physical dependency, addiction can be purely psychological. A psychological addiction can in turn have real (bodily) withdrawal symptons. Actually people with gaming addiction do show withdrawal sympoms yes. (i.e. being jumpy, grumpy, hard to concentrate) On December 20 2011 02:57 HackBenjamin wrote: People can get addicted to anything. For some people it's crack, for others it's cheeseburgers.
The difference is the withdrawls. I want to stress that there is a significant difference between mental withdrawls and physical withdrawls. The mental withdrawls can be overcome with sufficient willpower. I'm firmly of the opinion that people who are "addicted to video games" are addicted because they want to be. While i do agree with your post overall, that bit is a bit...urg. They might have gotten themselves into it willingly (but most people do with most addictions no?), but the point is that they should be able to see a doctor and have them help, in some cases that's the only way. That's a bit what this is about for me, there has to be institutions to help because this can be hard(impossible to get out of by yourself. You assume that people need to get out of it in the first place. While there are circumstances in which people can play at an extreme neglect of their own personal health (like not eating), for the most part, these "addictions" are perfectly fine.
I say that because currently there is o place you can really go...zero...none at all. There has to be a place because it can get really bad for some people, as far as leading to the death of themselves or people they are supposed to take care of (many cases in SouthKorea, if you want to make it relevant to this board). For the record i'm not saying everyone who is even mildly addicted should be made to attend a therapy, agree with you.
|
On December 20 2011 03:28 Shurayuki wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 03:15 aksfjh wrote:On December 20 2011 03:00 Shurayuki wrote:On December 20 2011 02:53 sopas wrote: do ppl get withdrawal symptons in gaming? or how do u define addiction to videogames, just amount played? Many drugs never lead to a physical dependency, addiction can be purely psychological. A psychological addiction can in turn have real (bodily) withdrawal symptons. Actually people with gaming addiction do show withdrawal sympoms yes. (i.e. being jumpy, grumpy, hard to concentrate) On December 20 2011 02:57 HackBenjamin wrote: People can get addicted to anything. For some people it's crack, for others it's cheeseburgers.
The difference is the withdrawls. I want to stress that there is a significant difference between mental withdrawls and physical withdrawls. The mental withdrawls can be overcome with sufficient willpower. I'm firmly of the opinion that people who are "addicted to video games" are addicted because they want to be. While i do agree with your post overall, that bit is a bit...urg. They might have gotten themselves into it willingly (but most people do with most addictions no?), but the point is that they should be able to see a doctor and have them help, in some cases that's the only way. That's a bit what this is about for me, there has to be institutions to help because this can be hard(impossible to get out of by yourself. You assume that people need to get out of it in the first place. While there are circumstances in which people can play at an extreme neglect of their own personal health (like not eating), for the most part, these "addictions" are perfectly fine. I say that because currently there is o place you can really go...zero...none at all. There has to be a place because it can get really bad for some people, as far as leading to the death of themselves or people they are supposed to take care of (many cases in SouthKorea, if you want to make it relevant to this board). For the record i'm not saying everyone who is even mildly addicted should be made to attend a therapy, agree with you. Isn't rather the case of manifestation of schizophrenia/borderline rather than gaming addiction that is the problem? A lot of things can trigger this and gaming addiction can cause it but the problem isn't really addiction.
|
On December 20 2011 02:57 HackBenjamin wrote: People can get addicted to anything. For some people it's crack, for others it's cheeseburgers.
The difference is the withdrawls. I want to stress that there is a significant difference between mental withdrawls and physical withdrawls. The mental withdrawls can be overcome with sufficient willpower. I'm firmly of the opinion that people who are "addicted to video games" are addicted because they want to be.
Once you're addicted to something there is no question of 'want'. It's a compulsion. It's needed to feel normal. It begins with them 'wanting' to play the game but after hours and hours of conditioning it becomes something else. WoW is the perfect example of a game which uses classical conditioning to ensnare players. Like they mentioned in the video in the OP, the leveling system starts off fast and easy so that you're experiencing the aesthetic rewards of leveling up a lot. This is classical conditioning. It is associating a neutral stimulus (just playing the game) with an unconditional stimulus (aesthetic reward of leveling up) to create a conditional stimulus, and it's doing it in a way which is perfectly comparable to Pavlov. Starting out with a shit ton of reinforcement and then slowly reducing it until the behavior is virtually ingrained in the subject and the 'unconditional stimulus' (leveling up) is required less and less.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that a lot of people are really underestimating what an addiction actually is. If you think it's as simple as just saying no then your opinion is actually just invalidated. People with addictions will rationalise their choices so that they make total logical sense in their minds. It's possible that you can be addicted without even being aware because you will keep making up 'rational' reasons to continue the addictive behavior.
|
On December 20 2011 04:02 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 02:57 HackBenjamin wrote: People can get addicted to anything. For some people it's crack, for others it's cheeseburgers.
The difference is the withdrawls. I want to stress that there is a significant difference between mental withdrawls and physical withdrawls. The mental withdrawls can be overcome with sufficient willpower. I'm firmly of the opinion that people who are "addicted to video games" are addicted because they want to be. Once you're addicted to something there is no question of 'want'. It's a compulsion. It's needed to feel normal. It begins with them 'wanting' to play the game but after hours and hours of conditioning it becomes something else. WoW is the perfect example of a game which uses classical conditioning to ensnare players. Like they mentioned in the video in the OP, the leveling system starts off fast and easy so that you're experiencing the aesthetic rewards of leveling up a lot. This is classical conditioning. It is associating a neutral stimulus (just playing the game) with an unconditional stimulus (aesthetic reward of leveling up) to create a conditional stimulus, and it's doing it in a way which is perfectly comparable to Pavlov. Starting out with a shit ton of reinforcement and then slowly reducing it until the behavior is virtually ingrained in the subject and the 'unconditional stimulus' (leveling up) is required less and less. Anyway, all I'm saying is that a lot of people are really underestimating what an addiction actually is. If you think it's as simple as just saying no then your opinion is actually just invalidated. People with addictions will rationalise their choices so that they make total logical sense in their minds. It's possible that you can be addicted without even being aware because you will keep making up 'rational' reasons to continue the addictive behavior.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is everyone has the power to make a change in their life when it comes to an addiction like this. Trying to pass it off as a compulsion or something just seems like similar reasoning for feeding hyper kids ritalin. Lack of mental discipline seems to be the underlying problem.
|
On December 20 2011 04:00 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 03:28 Shurayuki wrote:On December 20 2011 03:15 aksfjh wrote:On December 20 2011 03:00 Shurayuki wrote:On December 20 2011 02:53 sopas wrote: do ppl get withdrawal symptons in gaming? or how do u define addiction to videogames, just amount played? Many drugs never lead to a physical dependency, addiction can be purely psychological. A psychological addiction can in turn have real (bodily) withdrawal symptons. Actually people with gaming addiction do show withdrawal sympoms yes. (i.e. being jumpy, grumpy, hard to concentrate) On December 20 2011 02:57 HackBenjamin wrote: People can get addicted to anything. For some people it's crack, for others it's cheeseburgers.
The difference is the withdrawls. I want to stress that there is a significant difference between mental withdrawls and physical withdrawls. The mental withdrawls can be overcome with sufficient willpower. I'm firmly of the opinion that people who are "addicted to video games" are addicted because they want to be. While i do agree with your post overall, that bit is a bit...urg. They might have gotten themselves into it willingly (but most people do with most addictions no?), but the point is that they should be able to see a doctor and have them help, in some cases that's the only way. That's a bit what this is about for me, there has to be institutions to help because this can be hard(impossible to get out of by yourself. You assume that people need to get out of it in the first place. While there are circumstances in which people can play at an extreme neglect of their own personal health (like not eating), for the most part, these "addictions" are perfectly fine. I say that because currently there is o place you can really go...zero...none at all. There has to be a place because it can get really bad for some people, as far as leading to the death of themselves or people they are supposed to take care of (many cases in SouthKorea, if you want to make it relevant to this board). For the record i'm not saying everyone who is even mildly addicted should be made to attend a therapy, agree with you. Isn't rather the case of manifestation of schizophrenia/borderline rather than gaming addiction that is the problem? A lot of things can trigger this and gaming addiction can cause it but the problem isn't really addiction.
Maybe i went a bit overboard with that, in these extreme cases that may very well be true, but a lot of gaming addicts have problems with malnutrition and forget to drink and youknowthedrill, the things newspapers like to report on. I'd mostly like to see a place like that so people could go there without the stigma that usual treatment would bring, that way maybe more people would actually do it.
The american catalogue for mental illnesses has that interesting prerequisite that in order to consider you ill in a sense that it has to be treated, it has to severely impact you in life, i guess i'm always thinking a bit along those line so the one's who think it's not a big deal are probably the one's i'd ignore too.
(i'll have to bail this thread because now, other stuff to do, hf)
On December 20 2011 04:21 HackBenjamin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 04:02 Swede wrote:On December 20 2011 02:57 HackBenjamin wrote: People can get addicted to anything. For some people it's crack, for others it's cheeseburgers.
The difference is the withdrawls. I want to stress that there is a significant difference between mental withdrawls and physical withdrawls. The mental withdrawls can be overcome with sufficient willpower. I'm firmly of the opinion that people who are "addicted to video games" are addicted because they want to be. Once you're addicted to something there is no question of 'want'. It's a compulsion. It's needed to feel normal. It begins with them 'wanting' to play the game but after hours and hours of conditioning it becomes something else. WoW is the perfect example of a game which uses classical conditioning to ensnare players. Like they mentioned in the video in the OP, the leveling system starts off fast and easy so that you're experiencing the aesthetic rewards of leveling up a lot. This is classical conditioning. It is associating a neutral stimulus (just playing the game) with an unconditional stimulus (aesthetic reward of leveling up) to create a conditional stimulus, and it's doing it in a way which is perfectly comparable to Pavlov. Starting out with a shit ton of reinforcement and then slowly reducing it until the behavior is virtually ingrained in the subject and the 'unconditional stimulus' (leveling up) is required less and less. Anyway, all I'm saying is that a lot of people are really underestimating what an addiction actually is. If you think it's as simple as just saying no then your opinion is actually just invalidated. People with addictions will rationalise their choices so that they make total logical sense in their minds. It's possible that you can be addicted without even being aware because you will keep making up 'rational' reasons to continue the addictive behavior. I guess what I'm trying to get at is everyone has the power to make a change in their life when it comes to an addiction like this. Trying to pass it off as a compulsion or something just seems like similar reasoning for feeding hyper kids ritalin. Lack of mental discipline seems to be the underlying problem.
That's a bit cynical don't you think? Doctors might be a bit proactive in prescribing drugs like Ritalin but i wouldn't think there are no cases where that is the only way to treat them. I guess people cure their psychological issues through 'willpower', but sometimes they need a studied person to give it to them, that's what therapy is for...and then sometimes it's very bad and then you need to help with drugs.
|
I think people should invent new definition of addiction, addiction to drugs/alcohol/tobacco are chemical addiction, your body is addicted to chemicals, and effect of chemical addiction are not even close to the effects that so called addiction to gaming can cause...
If you say gaming is addiction then practically you can say every form of hobby/spending free time/ any other activity is also an addiction. So our world is full of addictions, if you sleep more than average people then your addicted to sleep, if you shop to much your addicted to shopping, you exercise your addicted to sport, if you like bungee jumping or parachute jumping your an adrenaline junkie, you sit in front of TV for 6h a day your an addict. So we end up with 7 billion addicts on this planet, and now psychologist that say everything is an addiction got a lot of work (and money from patients). If people are stupid enough to watch tv for 10h, they are not addicted they are lazy. If you spend 1k$ in shops every day your not addicted to shopping your rich and you dont care, if you like to gamble then your dumb not addicted, if you play video games 10h/day your not addicted, your DUMB (if your not pro ofc)
Seriously I played wow for 4 years, one day I said that I dont want to play more, I sold account for 350$ (server 3rd 70lvl paladin on horde side after BC release, with imba gear from karazan and gruul in high end guild). I stoped, finished school, now I work got a gf, I play Sc2 like 2-3h a day and I dont feel the need to play more or return to wow, and with saying that gaming is an addiction this would not be possible without special care/support from specialist and family.
|
Okay, I literally did a search over each page to see if anybody mentioned this article, but apparently it didn't come up.
http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/content/cultivated-play-farmville
This was written by Public Historian Howard Zinn, about why Games are necessary to creating responsible citizens. And to everyone that has mentioned Farmville, it lays out a nice argument for why Farmville ought not be considered a game based solely on its obligatorily-based mechanics (you MUST come back and pick your crops OR THEY WILL DIE!!!!) Definitely worth a read considering the topic of this discussion.
While I don't think I could say much that hasn't been said already, I would agree that gaming tends to prey upon those with addictive personalities, and that using designs that purposefully reinforce addictive behaviors might be considered unethical. I, as an individual, must consider my opinion regarding gambling (as suggested in the video) when making a judgment. If I think gambling is [stupid] or [wrong] or [unethical], then I must likewise think the same thing of games like World of Warcraft that employ similar action-reward mechanisms.
Does that mean I think that of all gaming? No. Just like I don't think that of all forms of gambling. Poker, for instance, is a far cry from slot machines, in the same way that a game like StarCraft 2 is a far cry from World of Warcraft. They have different mechanics and reward mechanisms. If you play WoW for 200 hours, you might get better at your spell rotations (but not likely, considering you can learn/memorize them in a few minutes), and your effectiveness is largely reliant upon the gear you spent those 200 hours acquiring. In a game like StarCraft if I play for 200 hours (as I'm sure many of us have already) I won't be rewarded with more "phat lewt." There is no immediate reward for playing SC in the way that there is for playing WoW. Yes there are achievements, but if you're playing SC to achievement whore then I think your priorities are a bit messed to begin with.
However, through playing and practicing I will acquire skills over time. I will (hopefully) be rewarded with improved hand-eye coordination, which translates in to macro and unit control, and minimap awareness, etc. There are skills involved in playing a game like Poker (like in poker, knowing when to bluff, and how to feign a weak hand to make your opponent bet more confidently) which can translate well in to a game like StarCraft. The only skill you get from slot machines is learning how to pull levers.
|
Thanks for the share It was worth reading, indeed.
If Howard Zinn had but one lesson to teach us, it is that cultivated citizens must constantly look around and examine what they’re doing, because there is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else’s crop.
Why do you play games? To have fun, of course... The real question is not wheter the game became an addiction or not... or whether you feel withdrawl symptoms or not...
The real question you should ask yourself is why are you doing this. Is the motivation behind the action intrinsic or extrinsic?
Do you do the activity for the pleasure it brings you.. or do you do it for the reward you obtain from it?
Obviously, if the reward is extrinsic, the game is more like a job to you. You might not be addicted to it (as far as im concern, I dont get withdrawl symptoms from day off) but you're actualy doing something for completly differents reasons than the pleasure gained from the action it self.
Edit: Sorry for bad synthax
|
I think the person also has a big effect. Companies may exploit weaknesses in some individuals and thats the peoples fault.
|
On December 20 2011 05:57 Lebzetu wrote: I think the person also has a big effect. Companies may exploit weaknesses in some individuals and thats the peoples fault.
seriously? So you would be fine with practices like subliminal messaging during movies so you buy the advertised products during the break? Because what some gaming companies are doing is not that much different, it is playing tricks with the subconscious of their customers.
Social sciences have uncovered a lot of interesting facts about people, their behavior, and how you trigger those behaviors. A lot of these things they discover are harmless, but can be abused. For the gaming industry, the main driving throught behind development is what scientists have learned from doing experiments on rats. I can't imagine so many people in this thread being ok with this development, it is not going to bring you better games and new content, but less content dragged out as long as possible. That is what the video in the OP is about, that we have to realize some games are just screwing with your conscious decision-making, not that all games are made to be addictive (and should therefore be banned) and people falling for it are weak minded simpletons. Stick to games that do not abuse these skinner box mechanics, and support the companies that make 'good' games.
|
TundrA, I dunno where you're getting that noone's defending Blizz. Plenty of people are defending Blizz, myself included, lolololol...
|
On December 20 2011 04:21 HackBenjamin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 04:02 Swede wrote:On December 20 2011 02:57 HackBenjamin wrote: People can get addicted to anything. For some people it's crack, for others it's cheeseburgers.
The difference is the withdrawls. I want to stress that there is a significant difference between mental withdrawls and physical withdrawls. The mental withdrawls can be overcome with sufficient willpower. I'm firmly of the opinion that people who are "addicted to video games" are addicted because they want to be. Once you're addicted to something there is no question of 'want'. It's a compulsion. It's needed to feel normal. It begins with them 'wanting' to play the game but after hours and hours of conditioning it becomes something else. WoW is the perfect example of a game which uses classical conditioning to ensnare players. Like they mentioned in the video in the OP, the leveling system starts off fast and easy so that you're experiencing the aesthetic rewards of leveling up a lot. This is classical conditioning. It is associating a neutral stimulus (just playing the game) with an unconditional stimulus (aesthetic reward of leveling up) to create a conditional stimulus, and it's doing it in a way which is perfectly comparable to Pavlov. Starting out with a shit ton of reinforcement and then slowly reducing it until the behavior is virtually ingrained in the subject and the 'unconditional stimulus' (leveling up) is required less and less. Anyway, all I'm saying is that a lot of people are really underestimating what an addiction actually is. If you think it's as simple as just saying no then your opinion is actually just invalidated. People with addictions will rationalise their choices so that they make total logical sense in their minds. It's possible that you can be addicted without even being aware because you will keep making up 'rational' reasons to continue the addictive behavior. I guess what I'm trying to get at is everyone has the power to make a change in their life when it comes to an addiction like this. Trying to pass it off as a compulsion or something just seems like similar reasoning for feeding hyper kids ritalin. Lack of mental discipline seems to be the underlying problem.
Sigh. I'm not trying to 'pass it off' as a compulsion. If you are addicted then it IS a compulsion. Compulsion is part of the definition of addiction. If you are addicted you will feel a compulsion towards the activity you're addicted to.
The number of people who don't understand the power of addiction is astounding. Seriously, half the people in this thread need to start smoking to get some perspective on things.
|
On December 20 2011 08:08 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 04:21 HackBenjamin wrote:On December 20 2011 04:02 Swede wrote:On December 20 2011 02:57 HackBenjamin wrote: People can get addicted to anything. For some people it's crack, for others it's cheeseburgers.
The difference is the withdrawls. I want to stress that there is a significant difference between mental withdrawls and physical withdrawls. The mental withdrawls can be overcome with sufficient willpower. I'm firmly of the opinion that people who are "addicted to video games" are addicted because they want to be. Once you're addicted to something there is no question of 'want'. It's a compulsion. It's needed to feel normal. It begins with them 'wanting' to play the game but after hours and hours of conditioning it becomes something else. WoW is the perfect example of a game which uses classical conditioning to ensnare players. Like they mentioned in the video in the OP, the leveling system starts off fast and easy so that you're experiencing the aesthetic rewards of leveling up a lot. This is classical conditioning. It is associating a neutral stimulus (just playing the game) with an unconditional stimulus (aesthetic reward of leveling up) to create a conditional stimulus, and it's doing it in a way which is perfectly comparable to Pavlov. Starting out with a shit ton of reinforcement and then slowly reducing it until the behavior is virtually ingrained in the subject and the 'unconditional stimulus' (leveling up) is required less and less. Anyway, all I'm saying is that a lot of people are really underestimating what an addiction actually is. If you think it's as simple as just saying no then your opinion is actually just invalidated. People with addictions will rationalise their choices so that they make total logical sense in their minds. It's possible that you can be addicted without even being aware because you will keep making up 'rational' reasons to continue the addictive behavior. I guess what I'm trying to get at is everyone has the power to make a change in their life when it comes to an addiction like this. Trying to pass it off as a compulsion or something just seems like similar reasoning for feeding hyper kids ritalin. Lack of mental discipline seems to be the underlying problem. Sigh. I'm not trying to 'pass it off' as a compulsion. If you are addicted then it IS a compulsion. Compulsion is part of the definition of addiction. If you are addicted you will feel a compulsion towards the activity you're addicted to. The number of people who don't understand the power of addiction is astounding. Seriously, half the people in this thread need to start smoking to get some perspective on things. But isnt it all in the mind, even addiction?
|
Unethical is a strong word, I don't consider there is much ethics in video game industry quite yet (other than following the laws, respecting the ratings and the basic stuff).
Bad and lazy design would be a better formulation.
|
what? since when did facebook applications like farmville become games? and for anyone that says they always have been, a game constitutes some sort of puzzle and reward system. farmville has a reward system but wheres the puzzle?
|
Unethical game design? Are you fucking kidding me? How is that actually a thing?
|
I kinda buy games with the expectation that they'll be addicting.
|
So good product is unethical now, really?
|
In all seriousness: Is that a troll video? I really cant tell
EDIT: Ive watched the whole video now. Orginaly I only watched the first 30 seconds and went -_- inb4ban. It certainly brings up and interesting point.
|
Best way to overcome gaming addiction: Stream viewing. I would play so much more sc2 if I wasn't too busy watching...
|
This 5 inch floppy guy is pretty lame. His arguments are weak and his understanding of the concepts he's talking about is minimal. His guests at least know what they're talking about. The psychologist outlining the difference between addictions and compulsions was pretty informative.
The Extra Credits episode that deals with Skinner box techniques explains addictive elements in gaming far better than the OP's video. I'd suggest not watching it if you enjoy WoW or Farmville or any other game that frequently employs this type of bullshit, it's hard to not see Skinner box techniques afterward.
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-skinner-box
|
On December 20 2011 09:11 Offhand wrote:This 5 inch floppy guy is pretty lame. His arguments are weak and his understanding of the concepts he's talking about is minimal. His guests at least know what they're talking about. The psychologist outlining the difference between addictions and compulsions was pretty informative. The Extra Credits episode that deals with Skinner box techniques explains addictive elements in gaming far better than the OP's video. I'd suggest not watching it if you enjoy WoW or Farmville or any other game that frequently employs this type of bullshit, it's hard to not see Skinner box techniques afterward. http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-skinner-box Yeah agreed. One of the reasons I think the show is not as awesome as it could have been
|
I guess I should also be upset when people serve me food that tastes really good. After all, they are unethically exploiting the fact that evolution has instilled a desire for good tasting food. I'm gonna demand bad food from now on, I don't want to feed my compulsion any further.
|
On December 20 2011 18:19 liberal wrote: I guess I should also be upset when people serve me food that tastes really good. After all, they are unethically exploiting the fact that evolution has instilled a desire for good tasting food. I'm gonna demand bad food from now on, I don't want to feed my compulsion any further.
Socrates would be proud of you.
|
On December 20 2011 18:19 liberal wrote: I guess I should also be upset when people serve me food that tastes really good. After all, they are unethically exploiting the fact that evolution has instilled a desire for good tasting food. I'm gonna demand bad food from now on, I don't want to feed my compulsion any further.
You either DID NOT COMPREHEND what was explained in the Skinner Box video by Extra Credits or you're trolling. Survival behaviors conditionning is not what they call ''unethical''. They're part of our evolution and survival. Obviously, when you eat.. you generate pleasure from the act it self.
So I'm going to ask you this simple question... Do you gain pleasure from the act of playing or from the rewards given afterward?
Conditionning is based upon rewards given AFTER the act; this way the person giving you rewards have full control on your extrinsic motivations of this behavior.This behavior will last until you figure out your motivations behind the actions and/or find something else to do.
The twisted thing about ''reward based actions'' is that they take away the pleasure from the act itself. You're now doing the actions for the rewards given, and not from pleasure gained from the action.
If you enjoy the game because of the rewards given such as ''virtual achivements or equipment'', then you should know that you've been conditionned to do so. It's unethical in the way that if you are misinformed or not concious of your motivations, your behavior could last forever.
If you play soccer (or football), you play it because you like running, controlling the ball, kicking the ball, competing with others, etc. Now if I was to give you a salary for playing, I can assure you that after a while, you will play only because of the money and not because of the pleasure you previously gained from the actions. This phenomenom is well known in relation to behavioral conditioning and intrinsic & extrinsic motivations.
Dont get me wrong, It's not because theres contionning factors in a game that its automaticly wrong to play. It's not because you do certain behaviors for the rewards that you're a terrible human beeing. But you should at least be concious of why you're driven to do a certain behavior. Extrinsic motivations are socially accepted to a certain extent.
|
On December 20 2011 18:19 liberal wrote: I guess I should also be upset when people serve me food that tastes really good. After all, they are unethically exploiting the fact that evolution has instilled a desire for good tasting food. I'm gonna demand bad food from now on, I don't want to feed my compulsion any further.
It's more like adding nicotine to your food than making it taste good
|
On December 20 2011 23:39 ezk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 18:19 liberal wrote: I guess I should also be upset when people serve me food that tastes really good. After all, they are unethically exploiting the fact that evolution has instilled a desire for good tasting food. I'm gonna demand bad food from now on, I don't want to feed my compulsion any further. You either DID NOT COMPREHEND what was explained in the Skinner Box video by Extra Credits or you're trolling. Survival behaviors conditionning is not what they call ''unethical''. They're part of our evolution and survival. Obviously, when you eat.. you generate pleasure from the act it self. So I'm going to ask you this simple question... Do you gain pleasure from the act of playing or from the rewards given afterward?Conditionning is based upon rewards given AFTER the act; this way the person giving you rewards have full control on your extrinsic motivations of this behavior.This behavior will last until you figure out your motivations behind the actions and/or find something else to do. The twisted thing about ''reward based actions'' is that they take away the pleasure from the act itself. You're now doing the actions for the rewards given, and not from pleasure gained from the action. If you enjoy the game because of the rewards given such as ''virtual achivements or equipment'', then you should know that you've been conditionned to do so. It's unethical in the way that if you are misinformed or not concious of your motivations, your behavior could last forever. If you play soccer (or football), you play it because you like running, controlling the ball, kicking the ball, competing with others, etc. Now if I was to give you a salary for playing, I can assure you that after a while, you will play only because of the money and not because of the pleasure you previously gained from the actions. This phenomenom is well known in relation to behavioral conditioning and intrinsic & extrinsic motivations. Dont get me wrong, It's not because theres contionning factors in a game that its automaticly wrong to play. It's not because you do certain behaviors for the rewards that you're a terrible human beeing. But you should at least be concious of why you're driven to do a certain behavior. Extrinsic motivations are socially accepted to a certain extent. I must be missing something. Is there a problem with feeling accomplished by gathering some form of virtual wealth in these games?
|
On December 20 2011 23:39 ezk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 18:19 liberal wrote: I guess I should also be upset when people serve me food that tastes really good. After all, they are unethically exploiting the fact that evolution has instilled a desire for good tasting food. I'm gonna demand bad food from now on, I don't want to feed my compulsion any further. You either DID NOT COMPREHEND what was explained in the Skinner Box video by Extra Credits or you're trolling. Survival behaviors conditionning is not what they call ''unethical''. They're part of our evolution and survival. Obviously, when you eat.. you generate pleasure from the act it self. So I'm going to ask you this simple question... Do you gain pleasure from the act of playing or from the rewards given afterward?Conditionning is based upon rewards given AFTER the act; this way the person giving you rewards have full control on your extrinsic motivations of this behavior.This behavior will last until you figure out your motivations behind the actions and/or find something else to do. The twisted thing about ''reward based actions'' is that they take away the pleasure from the act itself. You're now doing the actions for the rewards given, and not from pleasure gained from the action. If you enjoy the game because of the rewards given such as ''virtual achivements or equipment'', then you should know that you've been conditionned to do so. It's unethical in the way that if you are misinformed or not concious of your motivations, your behavior could last forever. If you play soccer (or football), you play it because you like running, controlling the ball, kicking the ball, competing with others, etc. Now if I was to give you a salary for playing, I can assure you that after a while, you will play only because of the money and not because of the pleasure you previously gained from the actions. This phenomenom is well known in relation to behavioral conditioning and intrinsic & extrinsic motivations. Dont get me wrong, It's not because theres contionning factors in a game that its automaticly wrong to play. It's not because you do certain behaviors for the rewards that you're a terrible human beeing. But you should at least be concious of why you're driven to do a certain behavior. Extrinsic motivations are socially accepted to a certain extent.
I don't like you mixing different theories for learning and motivation. Operant conditioning is all about consequence and the type of reward or punisment it entails. It isn't about if the reward was internal or external, and differentiating between these two types of motivators is pretty irrelevant. If you want to look more into the subject look at RFT which is based on conditioning and not just some application of two different theories that don't really fit together. RFT makes a difference between how language and thoughts can be motivators which are sort of internal, but not in the way you think about it.
Something like delivering a school paper on time and getting a good grade is explained by the reward and consequence. Enjoying the act of writing it would be more of a bonus and that is in itself a consequence of writing a certain piece. Enjoying soccer because you like it and doing it because you get paid are just two different rewards. The consequence of moving and playing would be reinforcing just like the money can reinforce the behavior.
t's unethical in the way that if you are misinformed or not concious of your motivations, your behavior could last forever.
You are pretty much never aware of your motivations. All behavior is conditioned and you can try to be aware of what it is but you can never really answer it or come up with an answer that can be falsified. Operant conditioning gives a simple explanatory model for how consequence is the basis for all types of learning, and other theories about for example intrinsic and extrinsic motivation doesn't get close to it regarding explanatory value and simplicity which are some of the criteria that these kinds of theories can to be judged upon. Mixing the two theories together just makes it even worse.
Regarding the main subject I think games can be somewhat unethical for using the knowledge at hand. It just has nothing to do with being conscious about it or having an internal motivation or not. Whatever the thin line is between learning and manipulation I think it is crossed when too many people start feeling like shit because of a product.
|
On December 21 2011 02:27 Sablar wrote: It isn't about if the reward was internal or external, and differentiating between these two types of motivators is pretty irrelevant.
Intrinsic motivation refers to motivation that is driven by an interest or enjoyment in the task itself, and exists within the individual rather than relying on any external pressure. Intrinsic Motivation is based on taking pleasure in an activity rather working towards an external reward. Students who are intrinsically motivated are more likely to engage in the task willingly as well as work to improve their skills, which will increase their capabilities. Students are likely to be intrinsically motivated if they:
* attribute their educational results to factors under their own control, also known as autonomy, * believe they have the skill that will allow them to be effective agents in reaching desired goals * are interested in mastering a topic, rather than just rote-learning to achieve good grades.
Extrinsic motivation refers to the performance of an activity in order to attain an outcome, which then contradicts intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation comes from outside of the individual. Common extrinsic motivations are rewards like money and grades, coercion and threat of punishment. Competition is in general extrinsic because it encourages the performer to win and beat others, not to enjoy the intrinsic rewards of the activity. A crowd cheering on the individual and trophies are also extrinsic incentives. Social psychological research has indicated that extrinsic rewards can lead to over justification and a subsequent reduction in intrinsic motivation.
Source: Wikipedia
You still think its irrelevant? Let me put it this way then...
When you play World of Warcraft, the first time you encounter a raid boss, you get different intrinsic motivators. First of all, you are actively learning which is a intrinsic motivation. You get thrilled by the coordination challenge (skills required) and you are interested in mastering this encounter. You actually had fun playing because of the intrinsic factors.The "boss" finally dies and the loots are pretty much a "bonus" for you and your raid.
After doing this encounter numerous times, you aren't actively learning anymore because you already mastered this content. You aren't thrilled by the encounter because its trivial. Although, you feel driven to keep doing the encounter again, not because you're still having fun doing it but because you're seeking the extrinsic reward, also known as loots which leads to social recognition among the community. This is what KEEPS you playing.
Can you still say you're doing this for fun?
This is what a lot of players are confronted to with the "reward" type of games. It's okay to seek rewards but at least be conscious of it, and understand the real value of those rewards.
On December 21 2011 02:27 Sablar wrote: You are pretty much never aware of your motivations.
Maybe you meant to say that a significant portion of human behavior is energized and directed by unconscious motives for some individuals? You might not be aware of the direct stimulus or motives such as game mechanics, but you are aware of your behaviors and with a little introspection, you can have an vague idea of what drives you to perform these behaviors.
|
On December 20 2011 18:06 Keyboard Warrior wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 09:11 Offhand wrote:This 5 inch floppy guy is pretty lame. His arguments are weak and his understanding of the concepts he's talking about is minimal. His guests at least know what they're talking about. The psychologist outlining the difference between addictions and compulsions was pretty informative. The Extra Credits episode that deals with Skinner box techniques explains addictive elements in gaming far better than the OP's video. I'd suggest not watching it if you enjoy WoW or Farmville or any other game that frequently employs this type of bullshit, it's hard to not see Skinner box techniques afterward. http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-skinner-box Yeah agreed. One of the reasons I think the show is not as awesome as it could have been
so i guess according to this video... a the defining feature that makes starcraft interesting is flow.
|
I'm not saying that there is no such thing as a theory about intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. I said it was a poor theory and that mixing it with behaviorism made it even worse.
Anyway, I can understand your viewpoint if trying to explain the quality of behaviour, as in questions such as "what is stimulating?" or "what is the most fun?".
But I'm talking about motivation and as such I think the theory doesn't really explain anything. There is a huge difficulty in calling one thing intrinsic and another extrinsic. You find something 'new and challenging' based on previous consequences, rewards or punishment, and subsequent learning. Many people would just find that wow-boss boring even the first time. Everyone has a reward system that is somewhat similar but it isn't triggered by the same factors apart from some basic needs. It's based on a history of learning associations in life. So we learn to want money just like we learn to enjoy an activity. A theory like what I am writing tries to explain "why do we do things" (= motivation) instead of "what are the consequences of different concepts of motivation". The whole "intrinsically motivated" concept is a combination of different aspects of thinking that has shown to be common in successful individuals. There is no innate "motivation ability" but rather it is learned and based upon history and genes.
You seem to want to say that there is a better way to spend your time than MMORPGs, and base it on some mish-mash of psychological theories. We aren't talking about the same thing because I am or was comparing theories based on their scientific value and you are talking about what has 'real value' and what is 'fun'. Whatever that is it isn't about science but about your point of view.
Intrinsic Motivation is based on taking pleasure in an activity rather working towards an external reward
I wish the world was more extrinsically motivated according to the way you describe it. A lot of problems are based on immediate rewards being better reinforcers than long term goals and rewards. Like smoking instead of quitting. Or playing WoW instead of going to school. Or eating compared to barely exercising.
Anyway, I understand the meaning of the concepts and I do think that it is better to be motivated by mastery instead of money, or having a belief that I can succeed than not having it. It's just that this a pretty superficial account of motivation and the question of why we are motivated to do something isn't the same thing as a population mean of self-reported attitudes towards life.
So again, WoW can be bad, and intrinsic or extrinsic motivational factors is a poor way of explaining why. If anything the exploitation of psychological knowledge with for example intermittent rewards and it's effect on motivation / learning can be considered problematic but in general wow employs the same mechanisms as any other type of learning and activity that we enjoy doing and come back to.
|
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.
|
Personally I hate any kind of manipulation of the masses, be it religion/sexual appeal + generic catchy beat driven music/advertisements exploiting inherent psychological flaws or this.
|
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.
|
I like the video in the sense that it raises the potential awareness in people who might have addictive properties. But as far as becoming activists... I don't think it's as serious as he makes it out to be.
|
I've been saying this for years.
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.
|
Let's all agree that Valve has remained a pillar of morality in this. Their games are rewarded by skill, not compulsory time, ALL of their microtransaction-available items are attainable in reasonable periods of gametime for free, they made TF2 flat out free to play, no strings attached, and they repeatedly release games that focus on narrative, storytelling, and innovation.
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.
|
Most of the games sold through Steam are guilty of some form of compulsion manipulation.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
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).
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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
|
|
|
|