255: The Player and the Pusher-Man
- Thread starter Rob Zacny
- Start date
Most "addictive" games are just a grind.
CoD, grind for levels. Puzzle Quest, grind for levels. WoW/Torchlight/Diablo, grind for levels AND loot. Pokemon, grind for levels/Effort Values [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Effort_values].
I'm immune to grinding based addiction. Even Disgaea never sunk it's teeth in for long...
I haven't been truly "addicted" to a game since Saint's Row 2. 300 hours and counting, woo!
CoD, grind for levels. Puzzle Quest, grind for levels. WoW/Torchlight/Diablo, grind for levels AND loot. Pokemon, grind for levels/Effort Values [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Effort_values].
I'm immune to grinding based addiction. Even Disgaea never sunk it's teeth in for long...
I haven't been truly "addicted" to a game since Saint's Row 2. 300 hours and counting, woo!
The game i've been addicted to the most was Sonic the Hedgehog 2. I spent AGES getting to the very last level, and then all of a sudden, Dr Robotnik kills me and I got to start the whole game again from the very beginning. Soon after hitting my head against the desk repeatedly, i'd calm down, and start again. This happened alot but I didn't want to stop until I defeated Robotnik once and for all.
Game makers going to the extent to not make games "fun" but addictive, not "fun", but "rewarding"...
As a gamer I can't say I like the sound of that at all.
ethical... to question if this is ethical is the same to question about neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is it ethical?
"Knowledge it's self is power, and power is nether good nor evil, it is only how it is use and what is done with it that makes it so."
As a gamer I can't say I like the sound of that at all.
ethical... to question if this is ethical is the same to question about neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is it ethical?
"Knowledge it's self is power, and power is nether good nor evil, it is only how it is use and what is done with it that makes it so."
Wow, this is a really interesting article! It's surprising to see just how many games have a "reward system" to keep you playing. For example, I am currently playing Just Cause 2, Team Fortress 2, and Pokemon Heartgold, and all of them have some "reward" that they entice players with. Team Fortress 2 is the most obvious, what with their unlockable weapons and achievements ; as is Pokemon, the reward being high level pokemon and collecting legendaries. Just Cause 2 rewards players with better vehicles and equipment.
Sometimes I get frustrated by the apparent lack of progress I feel when I play. More times than not I feel like everyone else playing Team Fortress 2 unlocks stuff more than me, or else feel frustrated by the insane amounts of exp grinding in pokemon. But I feel that my current interest in these games lies in something other than the "reward system." In Pokemon, I decided play through the game using only an Eevee-evolution team, which proved to be extremely entertaining and challenging, as well as providing comedic relief when I play with friends (common response: Dude! That's pretty awesome!). The better weapons and vehicles are less enticing to me than the exploration offered by the ENORMOUS sandbox environment. The random violence is a bonus. As for Team Fortress 2, I mostly play it with friends for the social aspect.
I won't claim that I am immune to the reward system. For a while, I was obsessed with Modern Warfare 2 because I wanted the obtain equipment and perks that come with leveling up. But I often stop and ask myself whether I am really having fun with a game. Nowadays when I play Modern Warfare 2, I have fun creating strange and wacky classes and playing with friends than trying to unlock weapons.
Sometimes I get frustrated by the apparent lack of progress I feel when I play. More times than not I feel like everyone else playing Team Fortress 2 unlocks stuff more than me, or else feel frustrated by the insane amounts of exp grinding in pokemon. But I feel that my current interest in these games lies in something other than the "reward system." In Pokemon, I decided play through the game using only an Eevee-evolution team, which proved to be extremely entertaining and challenging, as well as providing comedic relief when I play with friends (common response: Dude! That's pretty awesome!). The better weapons and vehicles are less enticing to me than the exploration offered by the ENORMOUS sandbox environment. The random violence is a bonus. As for Team Fortress 2, I mostly play it with friends for the social aspect.
I won't claim that I am immune to the reward system. For a while, I was obsessed with Modern Warfare 2 because I wanted the obtain equipment and perks that come with leveling up. But I often stop and ask myself whether I am really having fun with a game. Nowadays when I play Modern Warfare 2, I have fun creating strange and wacky classes and playing with friends than trying to unlock weapons.
Surprised achievements and trophies weren't mentioned. They represent the 'meta-prizes' intended to get players vested in a particular console, and since the rewards are cumulative across different games there's quite a lot going on here in terms of overt behaviour manipulation.
For me, the issue is that there was actually too much going on there for me to tackle in this piece. Because getting into achievements touches on a lot of other topics, like motivation, and different types of achievements, and why players place so much value on meta-game elements. It's an important discussion, but it wasn't one I was prepared to get into here. I do, however, think that a lot of the things that came up here are also applicable to achievements.
The question "would I still be playing this game if there were no built-in reward system?" is a pertinent one, and one that comes in handy as more and more games are built around addictive features rather than their intrinsic worth. I say intrinsic worth rather than "fun" because, as the author points out, we may actually like being manipulated in this way.
By intrinsic worth I mean playing the game for the sake of its story and/or experience regardless of its reward mechanisms. Playing games solely for unending rewards means you are playing them as a way to pass the time. They are an addiction because they let you escape from your life. If a player is trying to maximize their dollar/time ratio then of course F2P models are the perfect solution, but they aren't admitting that for them games are merely a way to kill time. Quantity, not quality, becomes the only marker of success.
Addictive games threaten the possibility of games being more than diversion and rising to the level of "art" or something meaningful. Sure when something is good - a book, movie, or game - we don't want it to end, but to seek after an experience that doesn't end eliminates the possibility of evaluating that experience as a whole. If games don't do that then they can never match books and films as modes of cultural/artistic expression.
By intrinsic worth I mean playing the game for the sake of its story and/or experience regardless of its reward mechanisms. Playing games solely for unending rewards means you are playing them as a way to pass the time. They are an addiction because they let you escape from your life. If a player is trying to maximize their dollar/time ratio then of course F2P models are the perfect solution, but they aren't admitting that for them games are merely a way to kill time. Quantity, not quality, becomes the only marker of success.
Addictive games threaten the possibility of games being more than diversion and rising to the level of "art" or something meaningful. Sure when something is good - a book, movie, or game - we don't want it to end, but to seek after an experience that doesn't end eliminates the possibility of evaluating that experience as a whole. If games don't do that then they can never match books and films as modes of cultural/artistic expression.
I definitely went through this recently with Lord of Ultima, which I think I checked out after an Escapist article on it a few weeks ago. I went on vacation and got really "behind" since I wasn't able to upgrade my towns during that time. As I built more towns, I realized that the game was getting way too tedious, and wasn't really any fun, and quit cold turkey a few days ago. I was just playing it because I had some much time already "invested".
You know, I both love and hate games with reward systems...I've never thought that Mario could be considered one of those games, but, especially when you're into the harder stages, it is hard to justify why you keep playing. Is repeating the same stage over and over really all that fun? Playing NSMBW with four people, I would say, fixes that problem - it is fun, and when you die (as long as there's someone else still on screen) you get a brief respite from some of the frustration inherent in those patience-testing games. But playing that same game by yourself is MUCH more infuriating, and I do find myself playing just to get more coins, unlock more pathways through the game, etc. - it doesn't take long for me to shut it off and turn away, if I'm on my own.
I like to think I play games purely for the fun factor, but Pokemon is one game that I play purely for the grind; I didn't use to, but ever since finding out about the deep mechanics built into the game, I find it hard to play just to play, focusing instead on maxing stats and building unbeatable teams. I only reached the fourth gym in Heartgold before I regressed into grinding for stats, breeding pokemon for certain natures and moves, and making very little progress for my time spent. I've beat the 5th gym, have almost 90 pokemon in the pokedex, but have spent close to 70hours playing the game...a lot of that was spent breeding pokemon, or catching the same pokemon...not nearly as fun as just assembling a team and playing through the game. I'm considering breeding my level 33 Gengar for the same pokemon with a better nature and stats - WHY?! For the metagame - Pokemon's not the worst game for sapping time (I still avoid WOW and games like it), but it can be an extremely unsatisfying game to play, if all you're doing is making your pkmn level 100, or abusing the game mechanics.
It's an interesting topic, and I'd like to read more about it - I can honestly say that I won't be buying another pokemon game, as I don't like losing my time to so much repetition...I'll gladly play the Megaman games over and over, but because I ENJOY it, not to reach a certain arbitrary level. NO MORE!!! I'm just glad I don't care about trophies as some other people out there...this type of game development needs to go by the wayside, as it really does threaten the industry as a whole. It makes me understand why people still regard videogames with raised eyebrows, due to seeing the effects they can have on people's behaviour.
I like to think I play games purely for the fun factor, but Pokemon is one game that I play purely for the grind; I didn't use to, but ever since finding out about the deep mechanics built into the game, I find it hard to play just to play, focusing instead on maxing stats and building unbeatable teams. I only reached the fourth gym in Heartgold before I regressed into grinding for stats, breeding pokemon for certain natures and moves, and making very little progress for my time spent. I've beat the 5th gym, have almost 90 pokemon in the pokedex, but have spent close to 70hours playing the game...a lot of that was spent breeding pokemon, or catching the same pokemon...not nearly as fun as just assembling a team and playing through the game. I'm considering breeding my level 33 Gengar for the same pokemon with a better nature and stats - WHY?! For the metagame - Pokemon's not the worst game for sapping time (I still avoid WOW and games like it), but it can be an extremely unsatisfying game to play, if all you're doing is making your pkmn level 100, or abusing the game mechanics.
It's an interesting topic, and I'd like to read more about it - I can honestly say that I won't be buying another pokemon game, as I don't like losing my time to so much repetition...I'll gladly play the Megaman games over and over, but because I ENJOY it, not to reach a certain arbitrary level. NO MORE!!! I'm just glad I don't care about trophies as some other people out there...this type of game development needs to go by the wayside, as it really does threaten the industry as a whole. It makes me understand why people still regard videogames with raised eyebrows, due to seeing the effects they can have on people's behaviour.
Totally agree, achievements are the pinnacle of addicting manipulation. Most can be obtained with one play through. Most players don't feel the need to play any further signaling the need of a new game. It favors the whole console.Clemenstation said:
That's kinda funny, because NSMBW is the only Mario game I haven't finished since Sunshine. Honestly, I think Mario was a bad example to use, because those games are usually well designed enough that they would still be plenty of fun without coins and 1ups. Plus getting some of the coins and 1ups and such in really tricky places can be fun for reasons other than pushing the reward button. After all, one of the main sources of fun in video games is getting good at a new skill, so when you can pull off an interesting challenge the developers set out for you it means you're getting better, which is actually fun!My1stLuvJak said:
I think I sort of realized all this stuff years ago though. I haven't kept playing a game I wasn't enjoying for more than a couple hours to give it another chance in probably ten years or so. I just stop playing games when they stop being fun. If more people did that, we'd probably have more fun games.
I'm perplexed by the premise of this article. It seems to suggest that many games are not inherently fun, but are just reward systems designed to lock people in.
By this token, many games are quite simply thinly-veiled reward systems.
Firstly, the definition of 'fun' is at best nebulous. One man's psychologically manipulative game is another's Game of the Year.
Secondly, no one is compelling you to play games, reward system or not. What about personal accountability, self-restraint and good ol' common sense?
The article seems to blame game designers for creating addictive products, much like the arguments that healthy-living proponents level against fast food joints, for producing 'addictive' junk food. Or how Jack Thompson blames the ills of the world on violent video games.
Rather than blaming game designers, traumatic childhoods, abusive/absent parents, TV and video games, how about taking responsibility for our own dysfunctional behaviour?
Or do we really need to be told that the coffee is hot?
By this token, many games are quite simply thinly-veiled reward systems.
Firstly, the definition of 'fun' is at best nebulous. One man's psychologically manipulative game is another's Game of the Year.
Secondly, no one is compelling you to play games, reward system or not. What about personal accountability, self-restraint and good ol' common sense?
The article seems to blame game designers for creating addictive products, much like the arguments that healthy-living proponents level against fast food joints, for producing 'addictive' junk food. Or how Jack Thompson blames the ills of the world on violent video games.
Rather than blaming game designers, traumatic childhoods, abusive/absent parents, TV and video games, how about taking responsibility for our own dysfunctional behaviour?
Or do we really need to be told that the coffee is hot?
Figured as much. The scope would be a bit large. Also figured that not everyone is quite as hell-bent on writing about achievements as I am.Rob Zacny said:
You certainly have a point there: People do need to take (more) responsibility for their own actions. Mature people should have enough self-reflection and self-knowledge to quit playing when they find out that they themselves are being 'played'.Spendrik said:
But what about kids, teenagers and young adults who, more often then not, lack this self-knowledge?
I remember times i was raiding in WoW even when i had no fun while doing so, but when i got that shiney new Epic i felt better and justified that it was worth it. Ofcourse when i started to connect the dots between this behavior and the reward system i soon quit playing. It's a classic modern day example of what this article is about.
As an Adult i am responsible for my choices, but when gamecompanies use said tactics to suck in kids, teenagers and young adults who havent developed this understanding of themselves yet? Are they the only ones responsible?
When players mature most will find this out themselves and at some point will adjust their behavior to it and some will fall through the cracks and become the hardcore rage kids we all laugh at when we see a video of them on youtube. I dont think you can deny that it is a problem and that it is growing because more and more people take up gaming everyday. And Games indeed have become more about the rewards they give you (achievements/leveling/gear/etc)
I understand this now and while i still think it is fun, it does get old after a time and then i quit. Youngsters lack this understanding more often then not and once a game has become a timesink it becomes an automated response to click on that desktop shotcut.
Just look at old FPS games: Quake and Unreal never had any of that stuff, they were all about the fun and i never even heard/read of players that where even ragequiting in those games, yet with Modern Warfare the Forums are flooded with people who rage about this stuff.
I think there is a connection there and i would like to see gamecompanies to at least consider that before they make design choices. But since games are big business now i dont think they will, because bigger Businesses will look at the bottomline a lot more then they used to do when they where smaller. They will try to suck you in (gradually) to keep you playing before the hype dies down and make as much money of you as they can before you realize you are being played instead of playing.
That's why parents and schools were invented.Sjakie said:
The next logical solution to this 'protect the children' argument would be greater oversight, control and dare I say it -- censorship -- over the games industry, so that evil corporate giants do not turn our children into raging nerds who never emerge from their mums' basements.
Seriously.
And we haven't even sorted out the role that violent video games played, if there is indeed one, in the school shootings. Remember Columbine?