Video Games Satisfy Basic Human Needs(nautil.us)
nautil.us
Video Games Satisfy Basic Human Needs
http://nautil.us/blog/how-video-games-satisfy-basic-human-needs
144 comments
> Wow, the original "4 types of players" paper is really, really good and also very detailed.
Yeah, it's a classic. It's even called Bartle taxonomy, after the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_type...
Yeah, it's a classic. It's even called Bartle taxonomy, after the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_type...
Extra Credits had two episodes on that exact topic last year:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxpW2ltDNow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1drDuaQXm_U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxpW2ltDNow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1drDuaQXm_U
I didn't think I would, but I seem by those archetypes to land under "Achievers", this despite me never 100%:ing a game (the rare exception being Binding of Isaac, love the item synergy sandbox/breaking of that game), and hating achievements, never looking for collectables, etc.
I do however always accumulate/optimize for maximum ammo/currency/gear/weapons/items, to the point where I believe I completed >80% of Half-Life with the crowbar, to conserve ammo.
I also like you love singleplayer games and a well-written story, but I on the other hand hate open world games (because they're never open nor "worldy" enough), and equally hate too linear games (looking at CoD past 3 and the like).
I grew up loving games like Quake (for the multiplayer/mechanics/general tech side of it), The Longest Journey for the story, Half-Life for both aspects, and a bunch of games struggling with either storytelling/mechanics or other but loveable for their attempt at trying something more than they could achieve (examples being Outcast, Citizen Kabuto, Oni, Advent Rising, Too Human).
When thinking of what the last bigger/sorta AAA games I enjoyed playing was I think it's Half-Life 2 (kind of obvious), but also FarCry (1), Crysis (1, but also Warhead), Just Cause 2.
All of them had a story, most of them were open world and allowed you to approach a problem with undesigned solutions, which is what I really love.
I've bought GTA 4, 5, Far Cry 3, 4, Just Cause 3, and many many others, played them for less than a handful hours, and given up because it just feels like I have to churn this mill just to advance a movie, at which point I may as well watch a movie, or watch someone else play the game (which I now completely understand as a concept).
"Open world" games I've played in recent years - after the original concept of open world once went linear for consoles, and then consoles catching up enough to enable open world games again - don't seem to be so much about designing a world with some rules and a number of tools, but simply providing more than 1 or 2 designed solutions to a problem, which feels completely hollow to me.
I have no doubt that this is why MineCraft (which I haven't played much for lack of story/"game", although having plenty of sandbox/open world) and that genre has sprouted up to much success.
Sorry for hijacking. I don't know how this turned into a longwinded games rant, but it raised questions since I identified with you, while still feeling characterized under "achiever".
I do however always accumulate/optimize for maximum ammo/currency/gear/weapons/items, to the point where I believe I completed >80% of Half-Life with the crowbar, to conserve ammo.
I also like you love singleplayer games and a well-written story, but I on the other hand hate open world games (because they're never open nor "worldy" enough), and equally hate too linear games (looking at CoD past 3 and the like).
I grew up loving games like Quake (for the multiplayer/mechanics/general tech side of it), The Longest Journey for the story, Half-Life for both aspects, and a bunch of games struggling with either storytelling/mechanics or other but loveable for their attempt at trying something more than they could achieve (examples being Outcast, Citizen Kabuto, Oni, Advent Rising, Too Human).
When thinking of what the last bigger/sorta AAA games I enjoyed playing was I think it's Half-Life 2 (kind of obvious), but also FarCry (1), Crysis (1, but also Warhead), Just Cause 2.
All of them had a story, most of them were open world and allowed you to approach a problem with undesigned solutions, which is what I really love.
I've bought GTA 4, 5, Far Cry 3, 4, Just Cause 3, and many many others, played them for less than a handful hours, and given up because it just feels like I have to churn this mill just to advance a movie, at which point I may as well watch a movie, or watch someone else play the game (which I now completely understand as a concept).
"Open world" games I've played in recent years - after the original concept of open world once went linear for consoles, and then consoles catching up enough to enable open world games again - don't seem to be so much about designing a world with some rules and a number of tools, but simply providing more than 1 or 2 designed solutions to a problem, which feels completely hollow to me.
I have no doubt that this is why MineCraft (which I haven't played much for lack of story/"game", although having plenty of sandbox/open world) and that genre has sprouted up to much success.
Sorry for hijacking. I don't know how this turned into a longwinded games rant, but it raised questions since I identified with you, while still feeling characterized under "achiever".
You should really try Rimworld. I am just like you. I usually downloaded (stopped bying them for this reason but I still had hope for one that would justify the money...) one of those AAA games, played it on a weekend and deleted them afterwards. Battlefield was perfect since they had an open Beta. Guess there is a reason why you have to pay for Betas today and Demos are pretty much dead.
Rimworld is now the only game I have and it is the first time I didn't regret a single cent I spend for it. Even when it's 30$.
Rimworld is a Base Building game. Handling may be compared to Prison Architect but with seemingly never ending depth (Prison Architect didn't work for me too...). The learning curve is part of the game and even now with the extended tutorial, you'll find new ways to optimize and new possibilities. The Modding community is very active too.
https://rimworldgame.com/
Also the reddit community is also pretty active: https://www.reddit.com/r/RimWorld
Rimworld is now the only game I have and it is the first time I didn't regret a single cent I spend for it. Even when it's 30$.
Rimworld is a Base Building game. Handling may be compared to Prison Architect but with seemingly never ending depth (Prison Architect didn't work for me too...). The learning curve is part of the game and even now with the extended tutorial, you'll find new ways to optimize and new possibilities. The Modding community is very active too.
https://rimworldgame.com/
Also the reddit community is also pretty active: https://www.reddit.com/r/RimWorld
I must say I was a very avid gamer 5-10 years ago. I enjoyed the likes of World of Warcraft, Starcraft (1 and 2), Battlefield (all of them), and many more. Nowadays, I find it very hard to get myself to sit down and play for more than a couple hours at a time. This all changed with Rimworld, holy cow. Rimworld was a dwarf fortress I could pick up without the ridiculous learning curve. It's a game I can sit and enjoy in my free time without feeling "the grind". The base building genre is one that has barely been touched over the years, with Dwarf Fortress being the "founding father". I must say a truly unique game. The lead developer is always active on reddit and takes direct feedback from his player base. This a game I can easily see my self playing for the next decade.
Me too. The best thing about it is: even if for whatever reason (Tynan seems like a dev from a different planet) the game would go in the wrong direction, we still have all the previous versions. For all major platforms. This is value you get for your money!
I usually buy Battlefield (X), play it exclusively with friends in a squad, repeat that for ~30 hours, then put it down when you've done everything in it. Which I'm content with, but it's nothing more.
Going by yours and your child-comment, I'll have to look into Rimworld. I steered clear from Dwarf Fortress after trying it for an hour, because of the daunting learning curve. And funny enough I've bought and played Prison Architect too, but didn't find it very fun after a couple of hours.
Thanks for the tip!
Going by yours and your child-comment, I'll have to look into Rimworld. I steered clear from Dwarf Fortress after trying it for an hour, because of the daunting learning curve. And funny enough I've bought and played Prison Architect too, but didn't find it very fun after a couple of hours.
Thanks for the tip!
You're welcome and have fun :)
> it raised questions since I identified with you, while still feeling characterized under "achiever".
Interesting, because I identify with a lot of what you wrote, too.
- optimizing for ammo/currency: check; I do that out of the fear that I might need it later, which in case of Fallout 1 and 2 ended up with me finishing the game with more gear and cash than I knew what to do with
- I did play a lot of shooters too - mostly Quake 2 & 3, Unreal Tournament, and currently Overwatch
- I do enjoy achievements in most games a lot, which presumably makes me fall under the "achiever" archetype
As for open world games - they tend to bore me out after a while, when I hit the discovery limit. First time I discovered Minecraft (a friend gave me a pirate copy -> no multiplayer), I spent many hours exploring caves, discovering biomes, and building subway tunnels. But when I reached the point of knowing pretty much all the mobs, blocks and features of the game, I got bored. Similarly with Terraria and Starbound (though I started playing it again now on a server with a group of friends - probably scratching my "social" itch there).
So the categories are pretty fluid, I guess.
Interesting, because I identify with a lot of what you wrote, too.
- optimizing for ammo/currency: check; I do that out of the fear that I might need it later, which in case of Fallout 1 and 2 ended up with me finishing the game with more gear and cash than I knew what to do with
- I did play a lot of shooters too - mostly Quake 2 & 3, Unreal Tournament, and currently Overwatch
- I do enjoy achievements in most games a lot, which presumably makes me fall under the "achiever" archetype
As for open world games - they tend to bore me out after a while, when I hit the discovery limit. First time I discovered Minecraft (a friend gave me a pirate copy -> no multiplayer), I spent many hours exploring caves, discovering biomes, and building subway tunnels. But when I reached the point of knowing pretty much all the mobs, blocks and features of the game, I got bored. Similarly with Terraria and Starbound (though I started playing it again now on a server with a group of friends - probably scratching my "social" itch there).
So the categories are pretty fluid, I guess.
> As for open world games - they tend to bore me out after a while, when I hit the discovery limit. First time I discovered Minecraft (a friend gave me a pirate copy -> no multiplayer), I spent many hours exploring caves, discovering biomes, and building subway tunnels. But when I reached the point of knowing pretty much all the mobs, blocks and features of the game, I got bored. Similarly with Terraria and Starbound (though I started playing it again now on a server with a group of friends - probably scratching my "social" itch there).
Yeah, I think that's what I was trying to get at. I want both what MineCraft and Terraria (played some of that) gives you as well as a story on top of it, otherwise I don't feel I have a motivation/direction towards which to utilize the world. (I assume psychologists would have a field day with that)
Yes, they do work a lot better in multiplayer, but like you said, then it's much closer to socializing.
I played Dota (2) for a few years (stopped a couple of years back), which is simultaneously the best and worst game. It has depth enough that no one can define the outer bounds of possible strategies, all while only inhabitating a single map. But it also has so many frustrating legacy mechanics that should not be there, as well as a community that is, let's say, mixed.
I also realized how impossible it is to attempt to even grasp it when a youtube video named "7.00 Patch Notes First Impressions" [1] (the latest version of the game) is a non-sarcastic 9h26m long without breaks. It also destroys the myth that people don't have attention spans for videos longer than 10m when the mentioned video has 347k views.
Needless to say I can't go back to it.
I recently picked up the latest Hitman game, and while the story is minimal, and you can still see the seams of a lot of solutions to each hit, there are enough variables at your disposal that you can engineer a lot of your own solutions. It is the Hitman:iest game since the first one I think.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY74eKw0FgI
Yeah, I think that's what I was trying to get at. I want both what MineCraft and Terraria (played some of that) gives you as well as a story on top of it, otherwise I don't feel I have a motivation/direction towards which to utilize the world. (I assume psychologists would have a field day with that)
Yes, they do work a lot better in multiplayer, but like you said, then it's much closer to socializing.
I played Dota (2) for a few years (stopped a couple of years back), which is simultaneously the best and worst game. It has depth enough that no one can define the outer bounds of possible strategies, all while only inhabitating a single map. But it also has so many frustrating legacy mechanics that should not be there, as well as a community that is, let's say, mixed.
I also realized how impossible it is to attempt to even grasp it when a youtube video named "7.00 Patch Notes First Impressions" [1] (the latest version of the game) is a non-sarcastic 9h26m long without breaks. It also destroys the myth that people don't have attention spans for videos longer than 10m when the mentioned video has 347k views.
Needless to say I can't go back to it.
I recently picked up the latest Hitman game, and while the story is minimal, and you can still see the seams of a lot of solutions to each hit, there are enough variables at your disposal that you can engineer a lot of your own solutions. It is the Hitman:iest game since the first one I think.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY74eKw0FgI
Have you tried Dwarf Fortress? You might find some value in Dwarf Fortress, which is to Terraria roughly as Emacs is to Atom.
>I do however always accumulate/optimize for maximum ammo/currency/gear/weapons/items, to the point where I believe I completed >80% of Half-Life with the crowbar, to conserve ammo.
I tend to do that too, but I hate it. Ruins the fun. Though, one time I did tell a friend playing Doom 3 to conserve ammo as much as possible because he'd "need it later". He wasn't too happy with me after his hard work was stripped from him mid-game. :)
It's even worse though when the game itself incentivizes the behavior. Deus Ex: Human Revolution, for example. Melee kills awarded more XP, so it made sense to just melee everything to max your skill progression. Then you finish the game (and its terrible ending, unfortunately) with enough ammo to fight a one-man ground war.
I tend to do that too, but I hate it. Ruins the fun. Though, one time I did tell a friend playing Doom 3 to conserve ammo as much as possible because he'd "need it later". He wasn't too happy with me after his hard work was stripped from him mid-game. :)
It's even worse though when the game itself incentivizes the behavior. Deus Ex: Human Revolution, for example. Melee kills awarded more XP, so it made sense to just melee everything to max your skill progression. Then you finish the game (and its terrible ending, unfortunately) with enough ammo to fight a one-man ground war.
Given your list of games that you like, I suspect you might find that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is right up your alley. To me, it feels like Half-Life or Far Cry with inventory. It's more open than either of those two, but not completely open either (or rather, it sort of is, but you'll likely find yourself naturally following the progression as presented). Depending on your definition, it is or isn't a RPG. Another way to describe it might be a realistic and gritty real-time version of Fallout 3 without Perks or leveling.
I just completed the original (Shadow of Chernobyl, ca 2007), with the bug-fix and enhancement mod from 2009 (Stalker Complete 2009) last week, and it's hands down one of my all time favorite games, such that I immediately started the sequel.
I just completed the original (Shadow of Chernobyl, ca 2007), with the bug-fix and enhancement mod from 2009 (Stalker Complete 2009) last week, and it's hands down one of my all time favorite games, such that I immediately started the sequel.
While I was very aware of them, I actually never tried any of the STALKER games, out of some prejudice about something (honestly can't remember what). I might've made a mistake. I'll check it out when I'm in the market for a new one, thanks!
Wow, you just described my experience 100%.
I'm also a game developer, and I believe you will love the game I'm making:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/539400
It's a roguelike with various weapons and items like The Binding of Isaac, but has 4-player co-op, fantasy theme and different combat styles depend on the starting character you choose.
Anyway, shoot me an e-mail, I'll send you a free Steam key. The address is in my HN profile.
I'm also a game developer, and I believe you will love the game I'm making:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/539400
It's a roguelike with various weapons and items like The Binding of Isaac, but has 4-player co-op, fantasy theme and different combat styles depend on the starting character you choose.
Anyway, shoot me an e-mail, I'll send you a free Steam key. The address is in my HN profile.
I've actually looked for more games like it, with varying results.
Nuclear Throne, while having an avid fan base, is too unpredictive, and leaves no room for strategy and planning. In BoI you can (mostly) see all enemies, and when hit you get a grace period. In Nuclear Throne you can get shot up off screen, and lose any amount of your HP in a second (most often 50% or more of it). I wanted to like it but couldn't.
Neurovoider I haven't tried, but the criticism I've heard mirror that I experienced with Nuclear Throne, which makes me hesitant.
Risk of Rain was fun and worked both in single-player and multi-player, but didn't have as much depth, so it didn't last as long.
The Madness of Little Emma (as the name suggests) is a very blatant try to mimic BoI, but as a sidescroller instead, and mouse aim. I couldn't get into it, but can't articulate why.
You absolutely don't have to, but I'd gladly take a key and try it out, my wife has been asking me for games we could play together, so it could be fun to try. I'll shoot you an email, thanks.
Nuclear Throne, while having an avid fan base, is too unpredictive, and leaves no room for strategy and planning. In BoI you can (mostly) see all enemies, and when hit you get a grace period. In Nuclear Throne you can get shot up off screen, and lose any amount of your HP in a second (most often 50% or more of it). I wanted to like it but couldn't.
Neurovoider I haven't tried, but the criticism I've heard mirror that I experienced with Nuclear Throne, which makes me hesitant.
Risk of Rain was fun and worked both in single-player and multi-player, but didn't have as much depth, so it didn't last as long.
The Madness of Little Emma (as the name suggests) is a very blatant try to mimic BoI, but as a sidescroller instead, and mouse aim. I couldn't get into it, but can't articulate why.
You absolutely don't have to, but I'd gladly take a key and try it out, my wife has been asking me for games we could play together, so it could be fun to try. I'll shoot you an email, thanks.
> In Nuclear Throne you can get shot up off screen, and lose any amount of your HP in a second
I have the same problem with it. I mostly play local co-op and it's even worse because you often at the edge of the screen.
From similar games I can recommend Rampage Knights, although there aren't many weapon/item synergies it's got pretty fair and fun combat.
I have the same problem with it. I mostly play local co-op and it's even worse because you often at the edge of the screen.
From similar games I can recommend Rampage Knights, although there aren't many weapon/item synergies it's got pretty fair and fun combat.
The newer updates of MineCraft have gotten more RPG-y in that a semblance of a story has been included, alongside some other features like potions and experience/levels and a hunger bar.
I've been out of the community for a while, but the updates have been somewhat controversial due to people missing/enjoying the sandboxy simplicity of the game; the new systems have added complexity that some believe doesn't really enhance the game.
Minecraft was more of a social game for me anyways -shrugs-
I've been out of the community for a while, but the updates have been somewhat controversial due to people missing/enjoying the sandboxy simplicity of the game; the new systems have added complexity that some believe doesn't really enhance the game.
Minecraft was more of a social game for me anyways -shrugs-
You can be some of box A, some of box B, it's definitely not an "only one" thing.
Also, some of what you describe can be counted as explorer. Particularly exploring the game mechanics to see whether they'd allow you to do certain things.
Also, some of what you describe can be counted as explorer. Particularly exploring the game mechanics to see whether they'd allow you to do certain things.
Another good "types of player" article applied to Magic: the Gathering: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/ti....
That was very interesting and entertaining to read. The Social v. Killeres reminds me of that video of WoW players raiding an in game funeral.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TSGUf1xbF8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TSGUf1xbF8
I find this model to make more sense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg2GndSat1E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZwiQd-0xqQ [0] is Nick Yee's talk that he mentions in the first couple of minutes (that he says "destroyed his entire presentation").
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1023242/The-Gamer-Motivation-Pr... is the GDC version, though I imagine they're exactly the same, with the slides at http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1022959/The-Gamer-Motivation-Pr...
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1023242/The-Gamer-Motivation-Pr... is the GDC version, though I imagine they're exactly the same, with the slides at http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1022959/The-Gamer-Motivation-Pr...
Yeah, explorer here too.
This kind of reminds me of enneagram in the sense that it seeks to uncover intrinsic motivations and drives. I'm 7w6.
This kind of reminds me of enneagram in the sense that it seeks to uncover intrinsic motivations and drives. I'm 7w6.
An oldie but goodie indeed. This is an equally good guide to how people behave in the real world.
[deleted]
Would love a Quake 3 revival. That game consumed me.
Sadly video games seem to be the only source of agency for a great number of people. Our lives seem to be more and more constrained without any authentic choice available to us and in response we retreat to artificial environments.
This. This whole article made me realize many things about why some of my friends made the choice to sit home, play games, and live on welfare benefits, instead of pursuing education and career. I guess this "strategy" allows them to reach all the human needs with minimal effort. Why would they do anything else, if that makes them happy? Even if it only makes them just enough happy to keep on going, its still an easier choice for them than a traditiotal career. The effort one needs to put on satisfying the needs through working are on a totally different scale. Very interesting.
What country and how? I'm just asking for a friend...
Finland. You can get a cheap flat from the municipality(at least in the city of Espoo), then rent assistance from the state, and then you visit the welfare office (Kela) sometimes and tell that you are out of money, and they'll give you some. Id guess you have like 300e to spend per month for food, and you live in the outskirts of the city in a 20square meter flat, but hey, at least you can play your games as much as you want. Not the life id want, but some of my old friends with whom I still occasionally play games online have chosen that path. I've read that the number of young adults (mainly males) who are living outside the normal society is already as high as 30,000 in Finland, but I don't know for fact if they are all as extreme as some of the people I know.
Sound like 30,000 ticking time bombs...eventually they'll want more out of life.
[deleted]
I'd have to disagree. More and more constrained as compared to what time in history?
Video games, and all the media choices available we have are a direct result of not being constrained.
And supposing that we are playing more and more video games why is that sad?
Video games, and all the media choices available we have are a direct result of not being constrained.
And supposing that we are playing more and more video games why is that sad?
I think when he referred to "authentic choice", to be about the choice of being normal and boring.
Right now we have lots of choice, but not meaningful ones.
For example: a medieval peasant was "fated" to die peasant, and do peasant things...
Yet, that medieval peasant, had a great probability of being able to complete life cycle, of being born, be someone's apprentice, date, have fun and mess around, sometimes with lots of free time, work hard, marry, have kids, and eventually die.
Right now there are millions of millenials, even ones already old enough to be grandparents if they were in medieval era, that can't have kids, can't have jobs that sustain themselves, and are forced to live with their parents.
Is life more confortable, with TV, games, modern medicine, and truckloads of information?
Sure yes, from that perspective life never been better, we are the apex of civilization.
But is that truly important? When people have even a instinct that drives them to want to marry and have kids, what is the point of the future when all you can do is stay unemployed in your parents home and have only fleeting relationships?
Is the modern amount of boatloads of sex with random stranger pleasurable?
Yes, a lot.
But... is it useful? Is it a choice that most of the population actually wants, even if they don't know in their 18s?
We have now lots of choices, except the choice that was the default for most of human history: have a boring job, marry, have kids, see the kids have boring jobs themselves, and die.
It wouldn't surprise me if the future got rid even of the "die" part, maybe when someone discover immortality they might make it mandatory, people would of course agree that being immortal is awesome and great... but that doesn't mean it would be actually better.
Right now we have lots of choice, but not meaningful ones.
For example: a medieval peasant was "fated" to die peasant, and do peasant things...
Yet, that medieval peasant, had a great probability of being able to complete life cycle, of being born, be someone's apprentice, date, have fun and mess around, sometimes with lots of free time, work hard, marry, have kids, and eventually die.
Right now there are millions of millenials, even ones already old enough to be grandparents if they were in medieval era, that can't have kids, can't have jobs that sustain themselves, and are forced to live with their parents.
Is life more confortable, with TV, games, modern medicine, and truckloads of information?
Sure yes, from that perspective life never been better, we are the apex of civilization.
But is that truly important? When people have even a instinct that drives them to want to marry and have kids, what is the point of the future when all you can do is stay unemployed in your parents home and have only fleeting relationships?
Is the modern amount of boatloads of sex with random stranger pleasurable?
Yes, a lot.
But... is it useful? Is it a choice that most of the population actually wants, even if they don't know in their 18s?
We have now lots of choices, except the choice that was the default for most of human history: have a boring job, marry, have kids, see the kids have boring jobs themselves, and die.
It wouldn't surprise me if the future got rid even of the "die" part, maybe when someone discover immortality they might make it mandatory, people would of course agree that being immortal is awesome and great... but that doesn't mean it would be actually better.
"We have now lots of choices, except the choice that was the default for most of human history: have a boring job, marry, have kids, see the kids have boring jobs themselves, and die."
Really? I'd say we have an easier time accomplishing this than a medieval peasant - if we wanted. I'd buy it if you told me people chose not to live this way - but i don't think it is any more difficult to live this way.
Really? I'd say we have an easier time accomplishing this than a medieval peasant - if we wanted. I'd buy it if you told me people chose not to live this way - but i don't think it is any more difficult to live this way.
How you are supposed to have a boring job, if you can't find a job?
In many countries youth unemployment (not occupation, but actual unemployment) is 10%+ sometimes it reaches 50%.
How you can marry, if you have no money to do that, and the law is against you? (with harsh penalties for divorce, but at the same time divorce is easy and encouraged, making marriage inherently overly risky).
How you can have kids, without money even to feed yourself?
I know plenty, plenty, plenty people with 25+ of age, that don't own anything, no car, no house, not even a bike, how these people can even consider having kids? Who will take care of them? Orphanages? The state somehow?
In many countries youth unemployment (not occupation, but actual unemployment) is 10%+ sometimes it reaches 50%.
How you can marry, if you have no money to do that, and the law is against you? (with harsh penalties for divorce, but at the same time divorce is easy and encouraged, making marriage inherently overly risky).
How you can have kids, without money even to feed yourself?
I know plenty, plenty, plenty people with 25+ of age, that don't own anything, no car, no house, not even a bike, how these people can even consider having kids? Who will take care of them? Orphanages? The state somehow?
Youth unemployment is no higher now than it has been historically in most Western countries (eg: [1][2]). Across the whole Euro area youth unemployment is almost exactly what it was during the 1990's[3]. It's true that that rate was higher a few years ago though.
It's pretty easy to be sucked into a "things are bad" narrative, but plenty of people get married at much worse poverty levels (especially historically).
[1] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/youth-unemploy...
[2] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/youth-unemplo...
[3] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/youth-unemployment...
It's pretty easy to be sucked into a "things are bad" narrative, but plenty of people get married at much worse poverty levels (especially historically).
[1] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/youth-unemploy...
[2] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/youth-unemplo...
[3] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/youth-unemployment...
I was comparing "now" with medieval era... 1990 isn't exactly that far back.
Also, if you look at your links and click "max", although things have improved since 2010, they aren't that good, specially when you consider also other factors.
For example, the percentage of youth forced to live with parents keeps increasing:
https://www.census.gov/hhes/families/files/graphics/AD-1.pdf
In many countries, there are large amounts of fatherless children, for example black children in US was about 73% of them being fatherless.
Some countries still have devastating amounts of youth unemployment, Greece for example right now is 46%
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/youth-unemployment-ra...
Also, although now everyone is "wealthier" because random stuff noone needs is cheaper, living costs keep rising, for example health care costs, housing costs, and in many places food costs have been rising faster than both inflation, and income.
Brazil for example is having constant strikes since about 10 years ago, even during economic boom, with people upset with food costs, frequently strikers instead of demanding higher wages, they instead demanded more food-related benefits.
Food prices in Brazil rose 173% in the last 10 years, while inflation was 122% and wages rose 68%.
And yes, it is easy to get sucked into "things are bad", when they are. At least to me, and almost every single friend I know.
edit: removed excessive personal information.
Also, if you look at your links and click "max", although things have improved since 2010, they aren't that good, specially when you consider also other factors.
For example, the percentage of youth forced to live with parents keeps increasing:
https://www.census.gov/hhes/families/files/graphics/AD-1.pdf
In many countries, there are large amounts of fatherless children, for example black children in US was about 73% of them being fatherless.
Some countries still have devastating amounts of youth unemployment, Greece for example right now is 46%
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/youth-unemployment-ra...
Also, although now everyone is "wealthier" because random stuff noone needs is cheaper, living costs keep rising, for example health care costs, housing costs, and in many places food costs have been rising faster than both inflation, and income.
Brazil for example is having constant strikes since about 10 years ago, even during economic boom, with people upset with food costs, frequently strikers instead of demanding higher wages, they instead demanded more food-related benefits.
Food prices in Brazil rose 173% in the last 10 years, while inflation was 122% and wages rose 68%.
And yes, it is easy to get sucked into "things are bad", when they are. At least to me, and almost every single friend I know.
edit: removed excessive personal information.
"I was comparing "now" with medieval era..."
In that case you should compare properly:
English kept their children at home "till the age of seven or nine at the utmost" but then "put them out, both males and females, to hard service in the houses of other people, binding them generally for another seven or nine years"... most parents waved goodbye to them at about 14... Illiterate servants had no means of communicating with their parents, and the difficulties of travel meant that even if children were only sent 20 miles (32 km) away they could feel completely isolated... adolescents were a useful source of cheap labour for their masters. In 1350, the Black Death had reduced Europe's population by roughly half, so hired labour was expensive.[1]
Doesn't sound too awesome to me.
"In many countries, there are large amounts of fatherless children, for example black children in US was about 73% of them being fatherless."
And in Iceland over 70% of children are born to single parents[2]. I'm not sure what your point is - this isn't necessarily bad unless you are making a value judgement here?
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26289459
[2] https://www.fatherly.com/parenting-and-relationships/why-ice...
In that case you should compare properly:
English kept their children at home "till the age of seven or nine at the utmost" but then "put them out, both males and females, to hard service in the houses of other people, binding them generally for another seven or nine years"... most parents waved goodbye to them at about 14... Illiterate servants had no means of communicating with their parents, and the difficulties of travel meant that even if children were only sent 20 miles (32 km) away they could feel completely isolated... adolescents were a useful source of cheap labour for their masters. In 1350, the Black Death had reduced Europe's population by roughly half, so hired labour was expensive.[1]
Doesn't sound too awesome to me.
"In many countries, there are large amounts of fatherless children, for example black children in US was about 73% of them being fatherless."
And in Iceland over 70% of children are born to single parents[2]. I'm not sure what your point is - this isn't necessarily bad unless you are making a value judgement here?
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26289459
[2] https://www.fatherly.com/parenting-and-relationships/why-ice...
Are you arguing that poor people are that way by choice?
This is such a good response, it's something I've thought about so much lately, especially with all this talk of human replacement due to robots etc. I sometimes wonder if modern societies feel superior to others because of technology and scientific studies. Like the more of it we have the happier we will be.
Carl Jung's encounter with American Indians is quite a good read, http://www.cgjungpage.org/learn/articles/analytical-psycholo...
I get the feeling our modern western society has taken a few wrong turns and some feel the only way out is to live in the matrix.
Common sense tells me that video games aren't going satisfy basic humsn needs. Computer games can be addictive.
Carl Jung's encounter with American Indians is quite a good read, http://www.cgjungpage.org/learn/articles/analytical-psycholo...
I get the feeling our modern western society has taken a few wrong turns and some feel the only way out is to live in the matrix.
Common sense tells me that video games aren't going satisfy basic humsn needs. Computer games can be addictive.
> even ones already old enough to be grandparents if they were in medieval era, that can't have kids, can't have jobs that sustain themselves, and are forced to live with their parents.
Putting aside the obvious hit aginst the western preoccupation with living alone (really? what is so terrible about living with your parents, and was this the case culturally in the west 600 years ago?).....
Children are relatively inexpensive. What is difficult is having children, giving them 'the best' as far as your social group is concerned, and also doing all the things you enjoy doing as a single person.
If you make sacrifices you can give your children the best. It's what our parents did. It's what our grandparents did. It may be little talked about, but it is reality... They gave up having bigger houses like we demand today in order to have 3 children.
They gave up having empowering fun jobs in order to have stable ones that provided for their children.
Putting aside the obvious hit aginst the western preoccupation with living alone (really? what is so terrible about living with your parents, and was this the case culturally in the west 600 years ago?).....
Children are relatively inexpensive. What is difficult is having children, giving them 'the best' as far as your social group is concerned, and also doing all the things you enjoy doing as a single person.
If you make sacrifices you can give your children the best. It's what our parents did. It's what our grandparents did. It may be little talked about, but it is reality... They gave up having bigger houses like we demand today in order to have 3 children.
They gave up having empowering fun jobs in order to have stable ones that provided for their children.
I think you don't get it.
I will use myself as example, but 80% of my friends are in the same boat.
I am 29. My income is zero, my net worth is negative (in great part because student loans) and interest is making thr debt deeper.
Some days my family, even with my grandparents here and helping with their money had to eat only potatoes or corn, because we couldn't afford protein.
Mind you, everyone is very educated, even my grandma have a degree, despite it being uncommon for her demographics group, my sister did a 6 month post-graduate stint on MIT.
Yet, sometimes we are forced to skip buying medicine we absolutely need.
How would you raise children in that environment? children is cheap how? How you save money when you are already using clothes with holes because lack of money to buy new ones?
I will use myself as example, but 80% of my friends are in the same boat.
I am 29. My income is zero, my net worth is negative (in great part because student loans) and interest is making thr debt deeper.
Some days my family, even with my grandparents here and helping with their money had to eat only potatoes or corn, because we couldn't afford protein.
Mind you, everyone is very educated, even my grandma have a degree, despite it being uncommon for her demographics group, my sister did a 6 month post-graduate stint on MIT.
Yet, sometimes we are forced to skip buying medicine we absolutely need.
How would you raise children in that environment? children is cheap how? How you save money when you are already using clothes with holes because lack of money to buy new ones?
> And supposing that we are playing more and more video games why is that sad?
No more or less sad that some upperclass Victorian types reading more and more novels. Or even before that, some medieval upper clerics overindulging in rich foods.
Doing it sparingly is good, - the well earned prize after a long day of hard work, perhaps. Doing it more is even better, - meaning you are actually successful at your more productive pursuits and can spare the time/resources to indulge. But doing it "more and more" implies an unhealthy detachment from both your responsibilities and all other goodies the rest of the world has to offer.
No more or less sad that some upperclass Victorian types reading more and more novels. Or even before that, some medieval upper clerics overindulging in rich foods.
Doing it sparingly is good, - the well earned prize after a long day of hard work, perhaps. Doing it more is even better, - meaning you are actually successful at your more productive pursuits and can spare the time/resources to indulge. But doing it "more and more" implies an unhealthy detachment from both your responsibilities and all other goodies the rest of the world has to offer.
what a terrifying yet accurate idea
Video games are like the dreams we have at night. We can explore worlds that are completely foreign to us, but in facing the unknown we face ourselves.
That's a good analogy. Also you can be the person you always wanted to be, or you can be the person you see yourself as, which may not be the person that you are in real life.
>“Basically,” he said, “if you’re a jerk in real life, you’re going to be a jerk in any kind of social setting, and if you’re not, you’re not.”
That somehow undermines the point of roleplaying. Would he also suggest, that actors who play questionable or evil characters are supposed to be evil in real life? That's like some extreme form of Stanislavski's system in reverse.
> They found that video games that allowed players to play out their “ideal selves” (embodying roles that allow them to be, for example, braver, fairer, more generous, or more glorious) were not only the most intrinsically rewarding, but also had the greatest influence on our emotions.
And that's also considered the worst form of roleplaying. A classical Mary Sue is based on reflecting too much of your own image into the character while at the same time idealizing it.
So it's surely not the only reason to play games. Some actually like more elaborate roleplaying than creating Mary Sues.
That somehow undermines the point of roleplaying. Would he also suggest, that actors who play questionable or evil characters are supposed to be evil in real life? That's like some extreme form of Stanislavski's system in reverse.
> They found that video games that allowed players to play out their “ideal selves” (embodying roles that allow them to be, for example, braver, fairer, more generous, or more glorious) were not only the most intrinsically rewarding, but also had the greatest influence on our emotions.
And that's also considered the worst form of roleplaying. A classical Mary Sue is based on reflecting too much of your own image into the character while at the same time idealizing it.
So it's surely not the only reason to play games. Some actually like more elaborate roleplaying than creating Mary Sues.
> “Basically,” he said, “if you’re a jerk in real life, you’re going to be a jerk in any kind of social setting, and if you’re not, you’re not.”
I have anecdotal evidence that this isn't the case.
I can be an extreme jerk in games: textually abusive, team-killing just for fun, etc.
But I can also be super nice: lead clans, go out of my way to be helpful to everyone, etc.
Not sure what triggers my behavior one way or the other. Perhaps it has to do with consistent worlds (MMO) vs team deathmatch (FPS). Once it's manifested itself for a particular game, it stays that way.
In real life I'm a pretty nice guy. But I still go home at night and kill people while simultaneously insulting them.
I have anecdotal evidence that this isn't the case.
I can be an extreme jerk in games: textually abusive, team-killing just for fun, etc.
But I can also be super nice: lead clans, go out of my way to be helpful to everyone, etc.
Not sure what triggers my behavior one way or the other. Perhaps it has to do with consistent worlds (MMO) vs team deathmatch (FPS). Once it's manifested itself for a particular game, it stays that way.
In real life I'm a pretty nice guy. But I still go home at night and kill people while simultaneously insulting them.
So you somehow think that it's okay to be abusive online, but that you're perfectly squeaky clean face-to-face?
I have my doubts. I'm sure you come off as a lot nicer, but I suspect you're doing subtle things constantly that you might not even be aware of, or that you write off as normal and therefore perfectly fine.
My ethics and morals don't stop at my router. I don't attack people online any more than I attack them in person. People's feeling matter, no matter the medium.
I have my doubts. I'm sure you come off as a lot nicer, but I suspect you're doing subtle things constantly that you might not even be aware of, or that you write off as normal and therefore perfectly fine.
My ethics and morals don't stop at my router. I don't attack people online any more than I attack them in person. People's feeling matter, no matter the medium.
I'm a lot snarkier on Slashdot, where I can click the 'post anonymously' button. I comment less on here, because I'm concerned that I won't be considered insightful or informative enough, or that someone will take issue with some principle of mine. Yes, I would probably agree with you in general that personality defects are to some degree inherent, that the change in behavior is typically in degree, not in kind. However, you fail to consider alternatives. Human behavior is pretty complex. My girlfriend picked up a box of offensive greeting cards, and if she sent one to her boss, she would probably be cleaning her desk out on Friday. Sending one of those cards to her sassy girlfriend will be received in an entirely different manner. You have to consider the context of the behavior. So while I do not disagree with the general principle that antisocial or anti-tribal behavior in one context is a strong predictor of a more general misanthropy, I don't think that you have quite enough data to support your moral judgment.
> I'm sure you come off as a lot nicer, but I suspect you're doing subtle things constantly that you might not even be aware of, or that you write off as normal and therefore perfectly fine.
Maybe, but I doubt it. I'm sure I'm not the world's nicest person or anything, but unless everyone is lying to me: I have a fun personality and people prefer to be around me than not.
If your ethics and morals don't allow you to let the other player feel bad, how do you even play games? Usually the point of games is to win, or to at least out-achieve others. How do you spare their feelings while you shoot someone in the face in an FPS?
Maybe, but I doubt it. I'm sure I'm not the world's nicest person or anything, but unless everyone is lying to me: I have a fun personality and people prefer to be around me than not.
If your ethics and morals don't allow you to let the other player feel bad, how do you even play games? Usually the point of games is to win, or to at least out-achieve others. How do you spare their feelings while you shoot someone in the face in an FPS?
It's called good sportsmanship and (some) online games are the only place you can get away without practicing it. Anywhere else (board games, pick up sports games, etc) it's required regardless of whether you win or lose or you'll be ostracized.
Video games aren't the only place that you can get away without practicing it.
Places I've seen bad sportsmanship do fine (or prosper):
- All major sports (NFL, NBA, college, etc.)
- Business: Steve Jobs, (everywhere else)
- Presidential Elections
People in these cases (and more I'm not thinking of) generally don't care about how much of a jerk you are and some even respect you more for it.
Places I've seen bad sportsmanship do fine (or prosper):
- All major sports (NFL, NBA, college, etc.)
- Business: Steve Jobs, (everywhere else)
- Presidential Elections
People in these cases (and more I'm not thinking of) generally don't care about how much of a jerk you are and some even respect you more for it.
You can be competitive without being a dick. It's just like playing any other sport.
I think this also shouldn't conflate IC and OOC behavior. Some are just jerks in OOC fashion, and that's not OK. If IC behavior dictates certain actions story wise, it can be different.
Mixing up IC and OOC behaviors is the first major mistake that should be corrected by any roleplayer.
Mixing up IC and OOC behaviors is the first major mistake that should be corrected by any roleplayer.
I think the key is that any game with "in character" modes almost always has explicit game mechanics about how to be a jerk and what kinds of repercussions may occur.
Edit: To be more explicit, when those mechanics don't exist anybody saying "I'm just role-playing a jerk" is full of crap.
Edit: To be more explicit, when those mechanics don't exist anybody saying "I'm just role-playing a jerk" is full of crap.
Yes, usually there are various rules / guidelines about it. Unacceptable behavior is supposed to be handled by GMs, which is critical for good multiplayer RPGs. Without some moderation things can degrade pretty quickly.
It's also one of the reasons why it's so challenging to make a good RPG of that sort - it's hard to scale. With bigger player base, you need more GMs, and most ignore it in attempt to commercialize the "massive" aspect of things. Quality plummets in result.
It's also one of the reasons why it's so challenging to make a good RPG of that sort - it's hard to scale. With bigger player base, you need more GMs, and most ignore it in attempt to commercialize the "massive" aspect of things. Quality plummets in result.
I think role playing and acting are two different things. Acting is about your audience, role playing is about yourself. So while Mary Sue roles may not be the most enjoyable to watch (though I never had an issue with them myself), that doesn't necessarily apply to games in which you want to play as a better person than you can be in real life.
There are differences, but there are similarities as well.
In single player experience, yes. You roleplay for yourself. Still, it doesn't mean the motivation of that roleplaying is supposed to be self idealization.
In multiplayer roleplaying game, you don't just roleplay for yourself. It's a shared experience of several players (and possibly someone like GM). So, from their perspective, your acting is close to the common role of an actor in other arts. Except it's interactive. And the quality of your acting affects that shared experience.
In single player experience, yes. You roleplay for yourself. Still, it doesn't mean the motivation of that roleplaying is supposed to be self idealization.
In multiplayer roleplaying game, you don't just roleplay for yourself. It's a shared experience of several players (and possibly someone like GM). So, from their perspective, your acting is close to the common role of an actor in other arts. Except it's interactive. And the quality of your acting affects that shared experience.
You can't expect every avenue to be chased down on a short form article (why does it have to be short, lack of disk space?) but WRT killer, achiever, explorer, social, some of the most powerful or memorable moments in games is a mix of them.
There's a GTA series game, I think GTA:SA but maybe wrong, where there are hidden things all over the map, and you have to do crazy non-game plot urban exploring like jump your motorcycle across a river to the roof of a building where you jump a ramp to the next building and hidden up some stairs behind an AC unit there's a treasure chest or whatever. And of course there's about 100 in this game all over the entire map. So it appeals to both the achiever who's gotta get that last one and the explorer who ends up pretty much walking every sq foot of the game and every obscure corner. Pretty cool. And yes I did get addicted and eventually found all 100 and got some kind of reward. This was 10, maybe 15 years ago, and the memory of the details of even which GTA game is weak, but the memory of the experience and how much I enjoyed it is very strong. Other GTA games didn't appeal to me as much because they didn't have a reason (meaningless counters) to explore the map.
Likewise there's some achiever / explorer in games like nethack.
A game like Minecraft (modded, anyway) hits all four categories to some extent or another, and is quite popular.
There's a GTA series game, I think GTA:SA but maybe wrong, where there are hidden things all over the map, and you have to do crazy non-game plot urban exploring like jump your motorcycle across a river to the roof of a building where you jump a ramp to the next building and hidden up some stairs behind an AC unit there's a treasure chest or whatever. And of course there's about 100 in this game all over the entire map. So it appeals to both the achiever who's gotta get that last one and the explorer who ends up pretty much walking every sq foot of the game and every obscure corner. Pretty cool. And yes I did get addicted and eventually found all 100 and got some kind of reward. This was 10, maybe 15 years ago, and the memory of the details of even which GTA game is weak, but the memory of the experience and how much I enjoyed it is very strong. Other GTA games didn't appeal to me as much because they didn't have a reason (meaningless counters) to explore the map.
Likewise there's some achiever / explorer in games like nethack.
A game like Minecraft (modded, anyway) hits all four categories to some extent or another, and is quite popular.
In games that allow "bad behavior", I almost always play the bad guy...but I feel really guilty about it. Then I have to play through again and do everything the "right" way. I wonder what that says about me?
In any game that allows both good and bad behaviour, I always intuitively play the good person. I sometimes try to be bad, but feel so guilty about it (and afraid of dampening my conscience) that I can't enjoy it.
Yes, I've been meaning to replay the whole Mass Effect series as a Renegade character, but I can't get myself to actually do it.
Yes, I've been meaning to replay the whole Mass Effect series as a Renegade character, but I can't get myself to actually do it.
The nice thing about Mass Effect 2 and 3 is that Renegade often means harsh pragmatism and "big picture" thinking, not just being an asshole for no reason. Going all the way renegade is still hard without being a jerk, but it's easy to end up with a balance of renegade and paragon while not making truly bad decisions.
In the first game it does usually mean being an asshole for no reason, so that one's hard to play other than nearly-pure paragon. Except for hanging up on the council every time you talk to them—they give you plenty of reasons, and you should definitely always do that.
[EDIT] typo fix
In the first game it does usually mean being an asshole for no reason, so that one's hard to play other than nearly-pure paragon. Except for hanging up on the council every time you talk to them—they give you plenty of reasons, and you should definitely always do that.
[EDIT] typo fix
I guess so; I found myself doing a few Renegade actions in ME2 and ME3 despite being pretty much pure Paragon player - harsh pragmatism, as you say. But in 1, it's harder (more black/white).
And the Council, yes - they worked hard to make me regret saving them in ME1...
And the Council, yes - they worked hard to make me regret saving them in ME1...
There's a few spots where a Renegade action just seems like the right thing to do. I'm particularly thinking of the helicopter repairs while recruiting Garrus in ME2, and the final response to Kai Leng in ME3.
Bad guy is always more fun, Tie Fighter is better than X-wing, but being annoying griefer guy is not.
Except in WWII games. During the early days of WWIIonline there were a few people who took playing german units a little too seriously and were quietly asked, told, to stop. I was a member of a german squad that rarely participated in mass offensives specifically to avoid confrontations with die-hard "recreationists".
Except in WWII games. During the early days of WWIIonline there were a few people who took playing german units a little too seriously and were quietly asked, told, to stop. I was a member of a german squad that rarely participated in mass offensives specifically to avoid confrontations with die-hard "recreationists".
I've usually found the opposite to be true. But perhaps because I like more of a challenge. In most cases I've seen, playing as the 'bad guy' was easier, because you could basically do whatever you want with minimal consequences. Completing objectives as the bad guy was simple. In contrast, being the 'good guy' often involved playing with your hands tied by certain restrictions, which often forces you to think more about how to complete your objectives without breaking the rules. I even tend to impose rules not explicitly indicated by the game, just because it seems like it would fit the character's ethos and makes for more of a challenging play.
Example: Mirror's Edge. You could get your way out of most (all?) situations without killing anyone. It was pretty challenging but also rewarding. I tried to play this style, managed to get to ~2/3 of the game before my (then pretty weak) computer gave out. Had only to restart a part of a level once, because I accidentally kicked a policeman off the building.
The original Deus Ex game was similar. I remember getting about 2/3 of the way through without killing anyone. I remember being backed into a corner and finally making a kill, then "screw it, I'm killing everyone". That was an awesome game though, so many different ways to accomplish the mission. At one point you become locked into a single path though, which always bothered me - IE, you can't choose to continue helping the bad guys at a certain point, you always end up fighting against them.
Yep, I've been playing Shadow Tactics, which is modeled after the older Commandos series. One difference if the addition of unfriendly civilians, who will report you to the nearest guards if they see you. Nothing in the game indicates that you shouldn't kill them, but they do show up separately in the after-mission report. A couple levels have achievements for not killing civilians, but they have achievements for a lot of obscure restrictions as well. Yet most of the civilians are just innocent people going about their lives who happen to live in the area that has become interesting to the plot. So, I can't help but want to avoid involving them in any way. I started out avoiding them even noticing my presence, and even when I was unable to find a way to avoid a particular civilian, I've used nonlethal methods to temporarily knock them out while I do my business in their sight area. I guess this kind of thing adds to my sense of accomplishment. Of course it doesn't stop me from occasionally murdering a helpless but inconvenient innocent out of frustration, before reloading a quicksave.
Then there's open world games like Fallout that allow you to steal everything not nailed down in entire settlements, gaining more currency and supplies than you can likely ever use. It feels cheap to me and I find it more interesting and challenging to obtain what I need more ethically.
Then there's open world games like Fallout that allow you to steal everything not nailed down in entire settlements, gaining more currency and supplies than you can likely ever use. It feels cheap to me and I find it more interesting and challenging to obtain what I need more ethically.
This is interesting. What was the problem with "recreationists", specifically? Are you saying there were players that styled themselves as actual Nazis?
Yes. Thier out-of-game websites were extreem. They were playing as SS units, something definitly not part of the game. There were no user-created assets in-game, but they would still pose in swastica formations seen by other players. It was all shut down rather quickly.
(Fyi, WWIIOL was probably the first mmorpg in a persistant game space. This was new territory.)
(Fyi, WWIIOL was probably the first mmorpg in a persistant game space. This was new territory.)
There should be more degrees of morality, most games make you choose "kill this person" vs "let them live", but there's more than murder to be a villainous character.
I play the game as if it were actually me in the main role.
I usually end up being some form of neutral character.
I usually end up being some form of neutral character.
I used play Eve-Online, a game renowned for scamming and bad behaviour. In-game and on the forums scammers would often defend their behavior stating Eve was just a game, an outlet to explore the bad side of themselves - to 'be the bad guy'. Then I heard about scamming groups who would invite potential marks into a 'bonus room' on voice chat, where the player was promised treasures and in-game money if they won. After listening to one of these 'bonus rooms' it became patently obvious that some of these scammers were utter vicious bullies and this was more than a game to them. Once the target joined the voice chat a bunch of the scammers friends would join also to goad and laugh; the targets were belittled, manipulated and often became distressed. Sometimes they would be asked to perform humiliating tasks to win back the money they had lost (sometimes you could even hear their own children in the room).
I feel somewhat compelled to defend EVE here. While it's true that those people do exist (as they do in any community), I would say by and large the majority of people who take on a 'cut throat' persona are keeping that persona only within the game. I've heard time and again about people who blow up other people's ships for fun finding out that the person they just blew up was someone who had only just started playing, and would send them some money and a nice note. Or when something awful happens to a person in real life, the community will offer their condolences. There's even a well-known in-game chat channel that is dedicated to helping people who are depressed and having suicidal thoughts.
So yes, the bully scammers exist, but I think that compared to any other MMO, a greater percentage of the community actually cares about others.
Doesn't change the fact that they will blow your ship up given half a chance though :P
So yes, the bully scammers exist, but I think that compared to any other MMO, a greater percentage of the community actually cares about others.
Doesn't change the fact that they will blow your ship up given half a chance though :P
Really? I almost never feel guilty unless the devs put some actual personality into the characters I'm killing (like Undertale).
With things like Skyrim or Deus Ex, the NPCs seem like lifeless robots (shoot them in the foot and they die, for example) and I feel nothing as I turn cities into mountains of skulls and rivers of blood.
With things like Skyrim or Deus Ex, the NPCs seem like lifeless robots (shoot them in the foot and they die, for example) and I feel nothing as I turn cities into mountains of skulls and rivers of blood.
Fun in challenges should certainly be added.
I guess you could bend finishing a super mario level in to "achievements" but it's really more about the challenge.
Games could even be random generated without any level progression, it's just that random generated levels are not as good in creating interesting and non-repetitive challenges.
I guess you could bend finishing a super mario level in to "achievements" but it's really more about the challenge.
Games could even be random generated without any level progression, it's just that random generated levels are not as good in creating interesting and non-repetitive challenges.
> it's just that random generated levels are not as good in creating interesting and non-repetitive challenges.
i see this sentiment and similar echoed a lot and the issue i take with it is that there are degrees to everything. Just like there are good and bad hand designed games, there is the same spectrum of procedural games
there are many games that do this extremely well but they are mostly not very well known indie efforts. Off the top of my head:
* Dungeon of the Endless
* Invisible Inc
* Downwell
* Rogue Legacy
* Spelunky
* Teleglitch
i see this sentiment and similar echoed a lot and the issue i take with it is that there are degrees to everything. Just like there are good and bad hand designed games, there is the same spectrum of procedural games
there are many games that do this extremely well but they are mostly not very well known indie efforts. Off the top of my head:
* Dungeon of the Endless
* Invisible Inc
* Downwell
* Rogue Legacy
* Spelunky
* Teleglitch
Yes, there are certainly quite a few exeptions, some doing a mix like downwell: predefined enemy/block types progressing stage to stage and random level arangement.
I just wanted to make my point that it doesn't need to have progressing levels for the basic thrill. I really like clever human-designed levels though :) Much more surprising and less optimization, more quick grasping and adaption required.
I just wanted to make my point that it doesn't need to have progressing levels for the basic thrill. I really like clever human-designed levels though :) Much more surprising and less optimization, more quick grasping and adaption required.
Excellent list.
There's a very big and important difference between "random" and "procedurally generated". Most great roguelikes (or roguelike-likes?) have strong procedural elements in their level generation, but certainly randomness is an important input.
I'll add brogue since I am a roguelike traditionalist. :)
There's a very big and important difference between "random" and "procedurally generated". Most great roguelikes (or roguelike-likes?) have strong procedural elements in their level generation, but certainly randomness is an important input.
I'll add brogue since I am a roguelike traditionalist. :)
'FTL: Faster Than Light' too.
Completely disagree. In fact I hate Rogue Legacy and all 'rogue types' because they think randomness = interesting.
Anecdotally, I really enjoyed Rogue Legacy and objectively, it was an extremely successful game that has a high rating both from professional reviewers and community reviews [https://www.google.com/search?q=Rogue+legacy&oq=Rogue+legacy]. Unless you were there or know people who were, saying something like, "because they think..." will not go far at ycombinator (from what I've seen).
I don't write my comments to appease people here, if they don't like them then so be it, that isn't a goal of mine.
Rogue-like games plague the Steam store [1], though there will always be games like Legacy that rise to the top of their category. You could say Candy Crush is an objectively successful game too, but I see it as a micro transaction laden piece of trash.
[1] http://store.steampowered.com/search/?term=rogue&tags=1716
Rogue-like games plague the Steam store [1], though there will always be games like Legacy that rise to the top of their category. You could say Candy Crush is an objectively successful game too, but I see it as a micro transaction laden piece of trash.
[1] http://store.steampowered.com/search/?term=rogue&tags=1716
The reasonable statement to make from all this is simply that you don't like rogue-lite or rogue-like games.
The claims you made beyond that are invalid
The claims you made beyond that are invalid
> You could say Candy Crush is an objectively successful game too
Surely... Though, you can't point to community and critical acclaim like you could with Rogue Legacy, which is why they were linked and why the other poster was suggesting you back your statements with evidence. It's less so for people to like you or your comments and more so for people to gauge the veracity of your statements...
Surely... Though, you can't point to community and critical acclaim like you could with Rogue Legacy, which is why they were linked and why the other poster was suggesting you back your statements with evidence. It's less so for people to like you or your comments and more so for people to gauge the veracity of your statements...
That's covered by Achievers. Achievements aren't required, however, they do highlight specific achievements. Still, the challenge of achieving the best score, best time, or whatever else you can think of.
Maybe achiving a level. But i would like to seperate "making some number go up" from the fun of solving a challange. The joy is not only in having solved a challange, but also in trying to jump that one gap 100 times until you nail it.
Same goes for plain action, there are a few endless level games where the score is insignificant, it just gets harder and you try to stay alive and the fun is reacting fast.
Same goes for plain action, there are a few endless level games where the score is insignificant, it just gets harder and you try to stay alive and the fun is reacting fast.
Was there any study on video games and subjective well-being (i.e. does video games bring more happiness)? I'd be interested in that.
I read something by nasa many years ago. They were looking at games to keep people sane in confined spaces. There was also mention of people stuck in hospital beds using games.
Google around and you should find papers on vr games reducing requests for painkillers in children's hospitals.
Google around and you should find papers on vr games reducing requests for painkillers in children's hospitals.
Former co-workers doing exactly that: https://artsandsciences.osu.edu/news/arts-and-sciences-stude...
I do laugh when these researchers creat thier own games. There are already people spending millions to keep kids distracted via games. Give them an x-box.
I was under the impression that this kind of psychology (your subconscious thoughts drive who you are and you're mostly a passenger) was on its way out, academically speaking.
I got this from Invisibilia's "The Secret History of Thoughts", their first podcast from January 8th of last year.
http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510307/invisibilia
I got this from Invisibilia's "The Secret History of Thoughts", their first podcast from January 8th of last year.
http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510307/invisibilia
I understand that here it's not about subconscious thoughts, but about personality in general - that your personality determines the way you approach a game, how you play, and how much enjoyment you get out of it.
Yeah, you should listen to the Invisibilia podcast episode, the way they talk about it, this is the Freudian way of analyzing behavior, and it's not very popular anymore.
[deleted]
He missed my archetype. Not sure what it would be called, but the only thing that would keep me interested in a game is finding ways to combine items, events, effects, etc to create situations where I'd be able to do things the designers never thought about, and that most considered impossible.
In other words, my goal was to defeat the gods. And it's very much the way I live my life in general.
In other words, my goal was to defeat the gods. And it's very much the way I live my life in general.
Sounds like you're a Johnny.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/ti...
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/ti...
I'm also a Johnny. I'd say a more general term is "builder". Players who like making new things in games are builders. Sandbox construction games like Minecraft, Kerbal Space Program, Space Engineers, etc, tend to suit us.
Builders probably best fit under Explorer in the Bartle Taxonomy, with some Achiever elements.
Builders probably best fit under Explorer in the Bartle Taxonomy, with some Achiever elements.
Wouldnt this fall under Explorer?
Emergent gameplay perhaps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_gameplay
What you describe is an explorer.
I'd recommend anyone interested in more of this area check out Designing Virtual Worlds by the Richard Bartle mentioned in the article. It goes into a lot of detail on persona and self and issues that came up in the early days of online gaming. Many great stories and things to make you think. Great read even if you're not planning on making a game.
> he identified four primary types of video game player (the Killers, Achievers, Explorers, and Socializers).
Isn't this completely tautological? What else can you do in a game, and wouldn't you assume that some people would like some of these aspects more or less than others? And while he seems to have found that individual preferences tend to carry across games, is there any reason to assume that they stay consistent over time (either over the time spent playing a single game or over a lifetime across games?)
Isn't this completely tautological? What else can you do in a game, and wouldn't you assume that some people would like some of these aspects more or less than others? And while he seems to have found that individual preferences tend to carry across games, is there any reason to assume that they stay consistent over time (either over the time spent playing a single game or over a lifetime across games?)
I'm surprised there's no mention of Westworld in this article...or what our world might look like if we carried video games through to such a realistic implementation.
This is really reminiscent of Caillois's game theory. These 4 kind of gamers have strong mappings to the 4 types of games as well. There is a sort of 16 types of gaming if you look at it this way (probably less because of all the overlap), all ranging on some level of free play and strict rules.
estrabd(6)
Basic human needs? Food? Water? Shelter?
If video games satisfy me like even a run would, I wouldn't run. If I play a video game for more than 10 minutes, I feel like I'm wasting my life.
Go outside, do something actually incredible. Meet people. Make mistakes.
Stop living in someone else's imagined world. Learn fully how to be your own human self.
Videogames couldn't be more apt for the analogy of shadows on the wall. There's real problems in the world that need to be solved? Checking out and staring at pretty patterns of light is a total cop out.
If video games satisfy me like even a run would, I wouldn't run. If I play a video game for more than 10 minutes, I feel like I'm wasting my life.
Go outside, do something actually incredible. Meet people. Make mistakes.
Stop living in someone else's imagined world. Learn fully how to be your own human self.
Videogames couldn't be more apt for the analogy of shadows on the wall. There's real problems in the world that need to be solved? Checking out and staring at pretty patterns of light is a total cop out.
> Basic human needs? Food? Water? Shelter?
Meaning, accomplishments, social interactions.
> If video games satisfy me like even a run would, I wouldn't run. If I play a video game for more than 10 minutes, I feel like I'm wasting my life.
If I run for more than 10 minutes, I feel like I am wasting my life because cardio won't help me build muscle and it's incredibly boring.
> Go outside, do something actually incredible. Meet people. Make mistakes.
You can do that and play video games. In fact, in various online games, you can do both and still have insightful experiences.
> Stop living in someone else's imagined world. Learn fully how to be your own human self.
While your second sentence is trite garbage, you can learn a lot about yourself by playing video games. Additionally, living in someone else's imagined world can spark your own creativity. Look around for the art and music people have created based off video games, it's incredible. We have orchestras playing the soundtrack to games. We have people who have built businesses from playing video games.
> Videogames couldn't be more apt for the analogy of shadows on the wall. There's real problems in the world that need to be solved? Checking out and staring at pretty patterns of light is a total cop out.
What problems are you solving? World hunger? Human and sex trafficking? Domestic abuse? Drug abuse?
Meaning, accomplishments, social interactions.
> If video games satisfy me like even a run would, I wouldn't run. If I play a video game for more than 10 minutes, I feel like I'm wasting my life.
If I run for more than 10 minutes, I feel like I am wasting my life because cardio won't help me build muscle and it's incredibly boring.
> Go outside, do something actually incredible. Meet people. Make mistakes.
You can do that and play video games. In fact, in various online games, you can do both and still have insightful experiences.
> Stop living in someone else's imagined world. Learn fully how to be your own human self.
While your second sentence is trite garbage, you can learn a lot about yourself by playing video games. Additionally, living in someone else's imagined world can spark your own creativity. Look around for the art and music people have created based off video games, it's incredible. We have orchestras playing the soundtrack to games. We have people who have built businesses from playing video games.
> Videogames couldn't be more apt for the analogy of shadows on the wall. There's real problems in the world that need to be solved? Checking out and staring at pretty patterns of light is a total cop out.
What problems are you solving? World hunger? Human and sex trafficking? Domestic abuse? Drug abuse?
Video games let us be our ideal selves. We call them 'ideals' because they don't exist in this world, only a notional one. Ideals are by definition unattainable, and they can in point of fact be pretty far from reality. Sometimes reality sucks, and again in point of fact, it pretty much sucks most of the time for most people. There's not a lot that can be done to fix all the things that are ugly about reality, but video games and movies can take us to a better place.
It's great that you are healthy and have the ability to run. If we can infer a bit, it seems you are successful enough in your own life that you can consider helping other people. From that perspective, video games are certainly a waste of time and effort. Certainly in an ideal world we would all feel similarly. I am poor and do not enjoy perfect health. I'm doing what I can about those things, but there isn't some magic 'fix my body and career' option I'm afraid; things take time. Until then, escapism helps me stay sane. I could probably pay some therapist $120/hr to equivalent purpose, but video games are cheaper and more fun. I am happy that you do not need video games. I would encourage you to think more fully on circumstances where they might represent a necessity (at the least in the restricted sense of "something is necessary, this is something").
It's great that you are healthy and have the ability to run. If we can infer a bit, it seems you are successful enough in your own life that you can consider helping other people. From that perspective, video games are certainly a waste of time and effort. Certainly in an ideal world we would all feel similarly. I am poor and do not enjoy perfect health. I'm doing what I can about those things, but there isn't some magic 'fix my body and career' option I'm afraid; things take time. Until then, escapism helps me stay sane. I could probably pay some therapist $120/hr to equivalent purpose, but video games are cheaper and more fun. I am happy that you do not need video games. I would encourage you to think more fully on circumstances where they might represent a necessity (at the least in the restricted sense of "something is necessary, this is something").
Running is bad for your knees. You should learn to do better and more substantive things with your life. Eat a vegetable. Watch a pigeon. Cure world hunger.
False. Running is not bad for your knees.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acr.22939/abstrac...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acr.22939/abstrac...
Or do HIIT training instead of running around for hours...
You obviously haven't played a single game. I feel sorry for everyone who haven't played games like Mass Effect or Half-Life or Dwarf Fortress even. Playing the right games is way better than watching a movie or a series. Not to mention the benefits of mental exercises some games present to you (Talos Principle for example). You are also making the mistake of comparing apples to oranges. Running is good (although not so effective) for your health while gaming is good for a wide variety of things: creative thinking (Minecraft), problem solving skills (Talos Principle), interactive movies (Quantic Dream games), etc. Your dismissive blanket statement not only annoys gamers but also makes you look dumb because only someone with zero gaming experience can say something like this.
Video games are a gateway to deep abstraction and a strong imagination, as well as preparing the brain for math and logical problem solving. Einstein loved to use games and puzzles to demonstrate mathematical theorems.
http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Personally, I seem to be closest to the explorer type. I always liked single player games more, and I prefer well-written lore, depth and new things to discover over the mechanics or social aspect.