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 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 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 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.
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.
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 15:21 Aterons_toss wrote: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 19:33 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 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.