Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

(some) Video games are addictive, by design.

1235

Posts

  • PerpetualPerpetual Registered User
    edited March 2010
    Honestly, I've never been able to justify any marketing at children. I can't fathom the moral framework in which it isn't in some way predatory.

    Heh.

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    I'm going to ask again what we're using as a meaningful definition of addiction. I mean, you can't just call anything you do a lot daily addiction. Does it need to be harmful?

    If Bob handles all his obligations and exercises and maintains hygiene and spends time with his loved ones, then plays WoW for six hours at the end of the day*, is he addicted? Or does he just really fucking love WoW?

    *maybe he even plays with his girlfriend or wife. Would that change it?

    I have yet to see a person like this whom also plays WoW.

    That's a pretty insulting generalization.

    I think what he was saying was that, if someone is playing WoW for 6 hours a day, it's kind of hard to imagine that he's also handling the rest of his life just fine with no problems. 6 hours a day basically means that outside of work and sleep you're doing nothing but playing WoW.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    I think what he was saying was that, if someone is playing WoW for 6 hours a day, it's kind of hard to imagine that he's also handling the rest of his life just fine with no problems. 6 hours a day basically means that outside of work and sleep you're doing nothing but playing WoW.

    What do you think the average person who is not playing WoW is doing?

    Also do keep in mind that WoW is an MMO, so there is the opportunity to socialize with random new people, which TV at home does not grant.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    I think what he was saying was that, if someone is playing WoW for 6 hours a day, it's kind of hard to imagine that he's also handling the rest of his life just fine with no problems. 6 hours a day basically means that outside of work and sleep you're doing nothing but playing WoW.

    What do you think the average person who is not playing WoW is doing?

    Also do keep in mind that WoW is an MMO, so there is the opportunity to socialize with random new people, which TV at home does not grant.

    Average TV viewing is ~4 hrs a day, isn't it?

  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Six hours a day, as in, "on Saturday sometimes I'll play six hours" is one thing, but I'm not sure I can really excuse 42 hours a week of WoW if you're adding that on top of an indoor job. That means you're basically entirely shielded from the light of day for every waking minute of every day, which we can probably categorically establish as unhealthy, whether it's to the body or the mind. It'll be another matter once we get those new pixel qi screens in our laptops, though...

    Definitely the most WoW I've ever played at a time in my life, however, was also one of my healthiest moments. I was teaching skiing on a flexible schedule from four to six days out of the week, for the six hours of daylight that the mountain stayed open. I had just gotten my laptop after months with no computer at all, and I just went all out. I can't imagine how those two weeks could be construed as unhealthy, or abusive gaming, even though I probably pushed the 40 hour mark if not actually hitting 42. Afterwards though, I think I was off WoW for a bit, because that was a bit too much too fast.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    i'm sure there are day jobs that could be considered "less healthy" (whatever that means) than WoW. Context is always important

    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • DodgeBlanDodgeBlan Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Paladin wrote: »
    Hold on now, I only said they can't make the distinction using medicine... but they can and do make that distinction every day, on the eminently reasonable basis that a Tony Montana-style pile of coke isn't the product of a great mind, but of a socially undesirable degenerate. And I can't imagine that it's common to find someone who remains quite so enthusiastic about cocaine after detoxing from it for a couple months. But the consequence of this is that social values - for instance, the relative social value of a man obsessed with solar panels to a man obsessed with crack pipes - have always played a major role in the determination of addiction. The pretense that addiction is a purely medical phenomenon is about as accurate as the pretense that our news media is unbiased.

    Perhaps the value of keeping society rolling on well-oiled treads is ultimately even greater than the value of providing internally-consistent mental health care service to individuals, though. I'm not actually decrying this as an usurpation of power by a cabal of cloaked, dagger-wielding mental health professionals; on the contrary, I'm arguing for a shift of focus from addiction as a medical issue to be addressed on an individual basis to addiction as a systemic issue to be addressed on a societal basis. We're already dealing with it as if it were a societal issue, if we take a few moments to really evaluate the medical distinction between a fixation, an obsession, and an addiction. I'm afraid that too often this distinction is made in the same way as the colloquial distinction between insanity and eccentricity: wealth.

    TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read): If an unemployed patient can't pay off his credit cards, but maintains his raid schedule in lieu of a more aggressive job-search, a reasonable doctor would rightly diagnose addiction. Would it still be addiction if the same patient used his generous trust fund to play the same amount of WoW (and with the same degree of compulsion) while maintaining exceptional physical fitness thanks to a rigorous personal training regimen? If he (remember, trust fund, gobs of spare time here) has a vibrant social life that the pursuit of subsistence denied his penniless alter-ego? Distinguish, using only the tools of medicine, the apparently-mad fixation displayed by this guy from that of a WoW addict.

    TM;DR (Too Marxist; Didn't Read): FOAD (Why You Silly Goose), bourgeoisie scum!

    There is a distinction between addiction, fixation, and obsession and it's called a psychiatrist referral, where you get one if you land anywhere between the commas. If you're rich and you spend your money on video games you'll probably get multiple referrals AND tons of test which will get the referring physician lots of nice kickbacks.


    Medicine protects itself from this kind of drama by first stating that if you are unworried about your situation, then treating it's a zero to low grade priority. The individual provides their own framework in that regard. If you do lots of cocaine and you lose 90 lbs in a month, and you're still unwilling to admit that the cocaine is a problem, then the weight loss will be treated and then you're back out on the street. Well, that's actually not what would happen, but that's the protocol for situations of less hyperbole. Drugs making you broke, but you hate money? Super. By the way, you do have insurance, right?


    And yes, in nation-states with less impositions on drugs, their use results in substantially less stress and life impact. As a result, it is reasonable to say that these regions with more lax drug laws also have a higher threshold of substance abuse (how many drugs you can take before you burn out on them). But that's one of many other factors like biology, which is always the same.

    Therefore, addiction is seen not only as biological, but social and cultural as well. Not even medicine overlooks sources of addiction that should have no obvious neurobiological basis or follow general drug addiction/tolerance trends.


    So you're saying the difference between the three states is whether the person cares/has money?

    I think people get bogged down in whether someone is ADDICTED or NOT ADDICTED. Like an addiction is some sort of binary state. For example: I feel a strong compulsion to smoke when I drink. I find it difficult to resist this compulsion. Am I addicted?

    I think that a lot of people who get labelled as WoW addicts really just don't have much compelling stuff going on in their lives so the WoW treadmill is actually a better choice (in their mind) to the real options.

    OooOOOoOoOOOooOOOoOOOoOoOOoOOoOOOOOOOOoooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    I think what he was saying was that, if someone is playing WoW for 6 hours a day, it's kind of hard to imagine that he's also handling the rest of his life just fine with no problems. 6 hours a day basically means that outside of work and sleep you're doing nothing but playing WoW.

    What do you think the average person who is not playing WoW is doing?

    Also do keep in mind that WoW is an MMO, so there is the opportunity to socialize with random new people, which TV at home does not grant.
    everything else besides work and sleep? You know, like eating, paying bills, cleaning, exercising, and maybe socializing with people in real life? That stuff takes up a lot of time. I don't see how you can get it done properly in 1 hour a day.

    If you're only playing WoW like 3 hours a day then I guess that could be OK. Or if you don't have a job and have a lot of spare time.

    Anyway, I decided today that I'm going to try and avoid playing any video games for a while. Because I know that I have a really bad habit of getting sucked into a game and playing it for waaaaaay longer than I intend to, and it's causing me some problems. I never got into MMORPGs though.

  • EchoEcho staring is caring Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited March 2010
    Kagera wrote: »
    EvE. Log-in, reassign your training queue, log off until you complete your training x-days later.

    HAHA!

    I played EVE for six months. This describes my last month of play. Then I was "wait, what?" and didn't renew.

  • JokermanJokerman Love is careless in its choosing. Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    I'm going to ask again what we're using as a meaningful definition of addiction. I mean, you can't just call anything you do a lot daily addiction. Does it need to be harmful?

    If Bob handles all his obligations and exercises and maintains hygiene and spends time with his loved ones, then plays WoW for six hours at the end of the day*, is he addicted? Or does he just really fucking love WoW?

    *maybe he even plays with his girlfriend or wife. Would that change it?

    I have yet to see a person like this whom also plays WoW.

    It's like looking for a Phish fan that doesn't smoke pot.

    I've seen phish twice, once with bruce springsteen, and have GB's of bootlegs.

    I havent smoked weed in over a year.

    Chanus wrote: »
    the best asians are white people
    My blog about Beer!
  • CliffCliff Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Fireflash wrote: »
    I've recently heard of a game that I thought were pushing things a bit too far. It's a Dinsey web browser game aimed at younger kids called Club Penguin. They get the kids hooked up to that thing by letting them make make a little penguin avatar to play and interact with all their friends for free.

    But soon the kids realize that most of the game's content is blocked off and requires a membership. Of course the kids don't want to be second class citizens in the wonderful world of Club Penguin so they harass their parents until they get what they want.

    I guess some people would think this isn't much different than kids begging their parents for the latest cool toy everyone else has but I feel the social aspect makes the kids much more likely to get hooked completely and for a longer period of time.

    No one's going to argue you on this. Disney has always been an evil, evil company.

    Wasn't that movie about David Bowie seducing a 16 year old girl while surrounding himself with monsters and rubbing his balls?

    I don't think it was even a movie, it was just some footage of what Bowie does in his day to day life.
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I think I agree with the OP, though I'd like to look at it less in terms of morals/addiction and more in terms of ... aesthetics.

    I reckon most of us would argue that videogames are an art form. But it's hard for me to accept that a game like WOW, which revolves around what amounts to an exploitative mechanism identical to what casinos use, really counts as "art." Are the garish signs and lights at a casino slot machine room "art"? I don't think so; to the extent that they are art, it's solely window-dressing in service of the fundamental mechanism of extracting money from you vis psychological manipulation.

    There are games that I would unhesitantly say are art. Many games focus on the "experience" of playing—of exploring new worlds and narratives, surpassing challenges, or (in the case of Rock Band) experiencing music viscerally. That is what games should be about.

    When a game is "about" performing mindless, repetitive actions to achieve randomly distributed virtual rewards, I think it makes a mockery of the aesthetic potential of the medium. Call it what it is: virtual gambling. You pay with time and you are rewarded virtual currency.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    I think I agree with the OP, though I'd like to look at it less in terms of morals/addiction and more in terms of ... aesthetics.

    I reckon most of us would argue that videogames are an art form. But it's hard for me to accept that a game like WOW, which revolves around what amounts to an exploitative mechanism identical to what casinos use, really counts as "art." Are the garish signs and lights at a casino slot machine room "art"? I don't think so; to the extent that they are art, it's solely window-dressing in service of the fundamental mechanism of extracting money from you vis psychological manipulation.

    There are games that I would unhesitantly say are art. Many games focus on the "experience" of playing—of exploring new worlds and narratives, surpassing challenges, or (in the case of Rock Band) experiencing music viscerally. That is what games should be about.

    When a game is "about" performing mindless, repetitive actions to achieve randomly distributed virtual rewards, I think it makes a mockery of the aesthetic potential of the medium. Call it what it is: virtual gambling. You pay with time and you are rewarded virtual currency.

    Actually you pay with real money too.

    I would see your point if things were challenge-free. But there are challenges in an MMO. It does take coordination and people being on the ball for some (not all) of the content. Not everyone is necessarily playing for the loot (the gambling aspect, as it were). The loot is important to those, but only in that it helps to conquer the Lich King or whatever other challenges there are.

    Some people actually play for the 'glory.' Yeah, over time those past achievements become child's play as gear gets better, level caps are raised, etc. But the experience in that moment is genuine I think.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Actually you pay with real money too.

    I would see your point if things were challenge-free. But there are challenges in an MMO. It does take coordination and people being on the ball for some (not all) of the content. Not everyone is necessarily playing for the loot (the gambling aspect, as it were). The loot is important to those, but only in that it helps to conquer the Lich King or whatever other challenges there are.

    Some people actually play for the 'glory.' Yeah, over time those past achievements become child's play as gear gets better, level caps are raised, etc. But the experience in that moment is genuine I think.
    This is fair. And I should note I've never played WoW or any MMO.

    Though, repetitive grinding is my least favorite part of Final Fantasy games. In the FF13 thread there are all these people talking about the best places to grind to get loot to presumably defeat enemies after you finish the game ... I don't understand this. A lot of FF games, which I otherwise love, fill the field with endless, easy monsters that can be mindlessly slayed over and over again—why? To extend the playtime for marketing purposes? I simply refuse to believe that people actually enjoy pressing X five times every 20 seconds for 3 hours. A means to an end, maybe, but I wouldn't shed a tear if that kind of gameplay was outlawed by Barack Maobama in a government takeover of videogames.

  • NamrokNamrok Herndon, VARegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I think a lot of people are missing the point.

    The argument isn't whether video games are addictive. Or whether they are as addictive as other things. Or even the nature of how they are addictive, if they are.

    The argument, is that game designers are specifically designing their game to attempt to induce a psychological addiction in the customer. Whether you believe such a feat is possible or not, they do, and are trying to succeed in it.

    And they aren't doing a half bad job of it if you ask me. Personally I do believe this sort of game design is exploitative. And I think any company that as a business plan tries to get its customers as addicted to its product as possible is amoral. At least with cigarettes there are warning labels and people are aware. With exploitative games, there is no such warning. And it doesn't help that its only a minority of games which operate in this way. With legions of fans, with so much time sunk into them that they will viciously defend their favorite "game".

  • Orochi_RockmanOrochi_Rockman __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    Yeah but those labels dont warn you of nicotine addiction, they warn you of the possibility of cancer.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    I think I agree with the OP, though I'd like to look at it less in terms of morals/addiction and more in terms of ... aesthetics.

    I reckon most of us would argue that videogames are an art form. But it's hard for me to accept that a game like WOW, which revolves around what amounts to an exploitative mechanism identical to what casinos use, really counts as "art." Are the garish signs and lights at a casino slot machine room "art"? I don't think so; to the extent that they are art, it's solely window-dressing in service of the fundamental mechanism of extracting money from you vis psychological manipulation.

    There are games that I would unhesitantly say are art. Many games focus on the "experience" of playing—of exploring new worlds and narratives, surpassing challenges, or (in the case of Rock Band) experiencing music viscerally. That is what games should be about.

    When a game is "about" performing mindless, repetitive actions to achieve randomly distributed virtual rewards, I think it makes a mockery of the aesthetic potential of the medium. Call it what it is: virtual gambling. You pay with time and you are rewarded virtual currency.

    I don't really enjoy discussions of "are video games art?" because they always come down to wankery about the definition of "art." But if your argument is that a game can be "art" when it focuses on - in your words - "exploring new worlds and narratives, surpassing challenges" then there is definitely this element to WoW. There is also the casino element, I do not deny that, but in terms of exploring new worlds I would point to images like this or this to show how much atmosphere there really is in the WoW game world.

    And regarding "surpassing challenges,' contrary to a lot of naysayers, clearing a heroic or 10-man dungeon is challenging. It definitely requires coordination and leadership. Yes, there are a lot of aspects of the game that aren't, but that element is still there and becomes the forefront of the game at the highest levels.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • DodgeBlanDodgeBlan Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    While I agree that lots of things in WoW are awesome (particularly the amazing art design) and their are lots of challenges, its pretty hard to argue that the gooey centre of the game is anything but the New Gear Fill Bar psychological mechanism.

    OooOOOoOoOOOooOOOoOOOoOoOOoOOoOOOOOOOOoooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Actually you pay with real money too.

    I would see your point if things were challenge-free. But there are challenges in an MMO. It does take coordination and people being on the ball for some (not all) of the content. Not everyone is necessarily playing for the loot (the gambling aspect, as it were). The loot is important to those, but only in that it helps to conquer the Lich King or whatever other challenges there are.

    Some people actually play for the 'glory.' Yeah, over time those past achievements become child's play as gear gets better, level caps are raised, etc. But the experience in that moment is genuine I think.
    This is fair. And I should note I've never played WoW or any MMO.

    Though, repetitive grinding is my least favorite part of Final Fantasy games. In the FF13 thread there are all these people talking about the best places to grind to get loot to presumably defeat enemies after you finish the game ... I don't understand this. A lot of FF games, which I otherwise love, fill the field with endless, easy monsters that can be mindlessly slayed over and over again—why? To extend the playtime for marketing purposes? I simply refuse to believe that people actually enjoy pressing X five times every 20 seconds for 3 hours. A means to an end, maybe, but I wouldn't shed a tear if that kind of gameplay was outlawed by Barack Maobama in a government takeover of videogames.

    I think the repetitive nature in single player games is frowned upon a lot, for the most part. If you notice, RPGs have toned down the level grinding requirement that used to exist in the late 80's and the first half of the 90's. RPGs are generally easier to level up in I think. There's an emphasis on narrative too, rather than challenge (I'm speaking strictly on jRPGs - the hybrid games that utilize RPG mechanics are a different beast).

    Though, there are games that cater to the oldschool harshness of RPGs of old (Etrian Odyssey, the Final Fantasy 3 remake). So I guess the point that developers cater to that compulsive behavior is true.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Maybe the point I should have made is that filling your game with repetitive mindless gameplay—whether to extend its playtime or to mooch money off of addictive personalities—is sort of cheating. It's hollow and unfulfilling.

    Even in FF13, which has a fantastic combat system. I'd like the game better if it were about 2/3 as long. I really don't need to fight through 30 different variations and combinations of the same 4 enemies in each level. Populating your game with these kind of encounters seems like a shortcut more than anything.

  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Maybe the point I should have made is that filling your game with repetitive mindless gameplay—whether to extend its playtime or to mooch money off of addictive personalities—is sort of cheating. It's hollow and unfulfilling.

    Even in FF13, which has a fantastic combat system. I'd like the game better if it were about 2/3 as long. I really don't need to fight through 30 different variations and combinations of the same 4 enemies in each level. Populating your game with these kind of encounters seems like a shortcut more than anything.

    It feels the same way to me (well, not FF13 as I haven't played it yet, but other games of its ilk). And I don't understand the mentality. Why bother populating levels with the same fight over and over again if your game is 90 hours long? Cut 2/3rds of the fights that are identical and make the game a 30 hour roller-coaster of novelty and awesomeness.

    Edit: (For single player games; the reasoning for subscription-based games is obvious)

    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Jesus, people. This thread is like a running gunbattle with stupid bullets.
  • Orochi_RockmanOrochi_Rockman __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    Unless some people might enjoy the combat aspect of the game.

  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Unless some people might enjoy the combat aspect of the game.

    Are there actually people who enjoy grinding the same fight over and over again not for the eventual reward? I mean, if WoW (or FF13, or whatever) had a Grindometer setting where you could choose to fight 30 battles per bar-filling/game area or 10 battles, where the 30 battles were the same as the 10 but repeated 3 times each, would there be people who picked the 30?

    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Jesus, people. This thread is like a running gunbattle with stupid bullets.
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited March 2010
    Unless some people might enjoy the combat aspect of the game.
    Presumably there is combat in the non-filler parts. If those people like it so much, couldn't they just play the game again?

  • Orochi_RockmanOrochi_Rockman __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    Non Filler? A Final Fantasy game with no combat outside of bosses?

  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited March 2010
    Is that supposed to sound ridiculous? I've never played a Final Fantasy game, so I don't have much of a frame of reference.

  • Orochi_RockmanOrochi_Rockman __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    Imagine a Mario Brothers game where you only jumped once per level.

  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Non Filler? A Final Fantasy game with no combat outside of bosses?

    Not so much no combat outside of bosses, but not the same fight over and over. Wandering around and getting into fights with new and different badguys, or at least new combinations of badguys (where the mix actually makes the fight different in some way) is fine by me. Fighting 3 guards and 2 guard dogs, taking 3 steps, fighting 3 guards and 2 guard dogs, taking 3 steps, etc. not so much fun.

    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Jesus, people. This thread is like a running gunbattle with stupid bullets.
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Non Filler? A Final Fantasy game with no combat outside of bosses?
    That would be wonderful.

    Perhaps a better compromise would be somewhere between that and what FF13 has going, where most of the encounters you have with enemies are challenging and require thought. (Partly because the game heals you after every fight so each one can "count")

    So, in a typical FF13 level, there are like four kinds of enemies. You have a pudding monster, a flying robot, a soldier, and a mecha. Why do I need to spend 2-3 hours fighting every single permutation of these enemies, sometimes twice or three times over, often without putting any effort into it whatsoever? What does that add to the game, except playtime and the gambling-illusion of 'grinding"?

    I would like to see less enemies in video game levels in general. If an enemy isn't interesting or challenging to fight, why the hell is it in the game?

  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Non Filler? A Final Fantasy game with no combat outside of bosses?
    That would be wonderful.

    Perhaps a better compromise would be somewhere between that and what FF13 has going, where most of the encounters you have with enemies are challenging and require thought. (Partly because the game heals you after every fight so each one can "count")

    So, in a typical FF13 level, there are like four kinds of enemies. You have a pudding monster, a flying robot, a soldier, and a mecha. Why do I need to spend 2-3 hours fighting every single permutation of these enemies, sometimes twice or three times over, often without putting any effort into it whatsoever? What does that add to the game, except playtime and the gambling-illusion of 'grinding"?

    I would like to see less enemies in video game levels in general. If an enemy isn't interesting or challenging to fight, why the hell is it in the game?

    I agree with you wholeheartedly in general, but swarms can work in certain types of games. If the enemies are individually wusses and you just kill one after another after another then I see it as a failing. If the challenge comes because you have to kill 50 wuss enemies simultaneously in a variety of set pieces then I'm okay with it.

    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Jesus, people. This thread is like a running gunbattle with stupid bullets.
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Hold on now, I only said they can't make the distinction using medicine... but they can and do make that distinction every day, on the eminently reasonable basis that a Tony Montana-style pile of coke isn't the product of a great mind, but of a socially undesirable degenerate. And I can't imagine that it's common to find someone who remains quite so enthusiastic about cocaine after detoxing from it for a couple months. But the consequence of this is that social values - for instance, the relative social value of a man obsessed with solar panels to a man obsessed with crack pipes - have always played a major role in the determination of addiction. The pretense that addiction is a purely medical phenomenon is about as accurate as the pretense that our news media is unbiased.
    See, now I can't get the image of Al Pachino sticking his face into a pile of Mass Effect boxes out of my head.

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2010
    Oh, to be inside the mind of robman, where hfcs is just like every other hydrocarbon and WoW is just like crack.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    I would like to see less enemies in video game levels in general. If an enemy isn't interesting or challenging to fight, why the hell is it in the game?

    Just out of curiosity, have you played Shadow of the Colossus?

    The only enemies are boss fights, and the boss fights themselves are epic. There's some basic Tomb Raider-style platforming and exploration between fights, which is a little tedious, but in general that title demonstrates that you don't need to fill up a game with lots of weak minions to make it compelling.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    [I agree with you wholeheartedly in general, but swarms can work in certain types of games. If the enemies are individually wusses and you just kill one after another after another then I see it as a failing. If the challenge comes because you have to kill 50 wuss enemies simultaneously in a variety of set pieces then I'm okay with it.

    I totally agree. There is something compelling about nuking a horde.
    Are there actually people who enjoy grinding the same fight over and over again not for the eventual reward? I mean, if WoW (or FF13, or whatever) had a Grindometer setting where you could choose to fight 30 battles per bar-filling/game area or 10 battles, where the 30 battles were the same as the 10 but repeated 3 times each, would there be people who picked the 30?

    City of Heroes had something like that. It was a simple difficulty setting - the higher the difficulty, the harder each mission was, but the more reward you got from it.

    I fucking loved it. I kept it cranked as high as I could reasonably keep it.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    SoTC is one of my favorite games.

    And i loved wandering around the world between fights. It was so beautiful and I don't think it would have been improved at all by the presence of Octoroks or sand demons or what have you.

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    City of Heroes had something like that. It was a simple difficulty setting - the higher the difficulty, the harder each mission was, but the more reward you got from it.

    I fucking loved it. I kept it cranked as high as I could reasonably keep it.
    I think he is asking, if you could choose between (A) 10 fights and (b) 30 fights consisting of 3 each of the original ten—with the same rewards—would you ever choose (B)?

    i..e not anymore difficult, not anymore experience or loot ... just 3x as much repetition.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    SoTC is one of my favorite games.

    And i loved wandering around the world between fights. It was so beautiful and I don't think it would have been improved at all by the presence of Octoroks or sand demons or what have you.

    I enjoyed the exploration, and I also appreciated the lack of octoroks. The presence of benign critters (like lizards) kept it from feeling totally lifeless to me.

    I probably would have enjoyed it more had the visuals been more varied, but I understand that they were already pushing the limitations of the PS2 without adding a ton more textures.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    City of Heroes had something like that. It was a simple difficulty setting - the higher the difficulty, the harder each mission was, but the more reward you got from it.

    I fucking loved it. I kept it cranked as high as I could reasonably keep it.
    I think he is asking, if you could choose between (A) 10 fights and (b) 30 fights consisting of 3 each of the original ten—with the same rewards—would you ever choose (B)?

    i..e not anymore difficult, not anymore experience or loot ... just 3x as much repetition.

    Oh, I see. Right.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    [I agree with you wholeheartedly in general, but swarms can work in certain types of games. If the enemies are individually wusses and you just kill one after another after another then I see it as a failing. If the challenge comes because you have to kill 50 wuss enemies simultaneously in a variety of set pieces then I'm okay with it.

    I totally agree. There is something compelling about nuking a horde.
    Are there actually people who enjoy grinding the same fight over and over again not for the eventual reward? I mean, if WoW (or FF13, or whatever) had a Grindometer setting where you could choose to fight 30 battles per bar-filling/game area or 10 battles, where the 30 battles were the same as the 10 but repeated 3 times each, would there be people who picked the 30?

    City of Heroes had something like that. It was a simple difficulty setting - the higher the difficulty, the harder each mission was, but the more reward you got from it.

    I fucking loved it. I kept it cranked as high as I could reasonably keep it.

    That's a bit different from what he's asking though. Hard modes are often enjoyable by themselves.

    It's more like if there was a COH option where it allowed you to choose forgo xp at all and just run the same missions over and over.

    Edit: Beaten

  • Chaotic DescentChaotic Descent Registered User
    edited March 2010
    Most wow players have never reached maximum level. I don't think you can call someone addicted if they can't reach max level, I've done that in a single winter break in a hotel (I hate skiing)
    Unless you're addicted to leveling alts. (I know people who are.)
    Daily quests were actually introduced as a method of curbing abusive gaming by spacing rewards, just like instance timers, but they had the end result of creating a periodic obligation that I for one am repelled by.
    Yup. I was there. I decided to focus almost exclusively on dailies, because I decided getting that blue dragonhawk and violet protodrake were more important than powerful equipment. It made dailies a MISERABLE experience, and I quit.
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    I don't know what conclusions to draw from that. I certainly don't think video games should be illegal, or that video game companies are evil.
    I don't know if you can measure evil, but no one does things that cause harm and remains ignorant. Those causing harm will make excuses and try to twist the truth, but they're really responsible for their role in it.
    I do the same thing. Heck, one year I reported that I had more than the duty-free limit to import, because I figured I owed them for all those other years where I bent the truth, and that bastard at customs still wouldn't tax me. It was like $100 in taxes, I think.
    Maybe kids need to be educated more about video game addiction.
    We all need to be educated, but most of us don't know, or can't really tell the story in a convincing way, or not enough people accept the story as truth. (the same way lots of people still dismiss mental illness.)
    There are a LOT of really vital things that are just not taught in public schools...
    If I keep going with that train of thought... I start to seriously question the idea that humans have free will.
    Many people still don't believe the mind is any more than their will, or it's indirect steering wheel for the will (and even those who do understand it don't know exactly how it all works, and they can't explain it to those that don't understand), I'm not sure how far we can go with talking about the interconnection of addiction and our control over it as individuals or as society.
    Our tools for evaluating these problems and combating them are still primitive.

Sign In or Register to comment.