Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Sigvatr wrote:
A game cannot "abuse" anyone. People playing WoW for 18 hours per day /choose/ to do so.

Someone playing WoW 18 hours a day didn't just choose to play 18 hours a day. The game use operant conditioning to well condition them play. I don't want to explain a skinner box and I don't have to. The is an extra credits episode on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c

You can argue that there is a element of choice for the player, but there is also a element of choice for the maker. The maker desires if they want to treat their player like a rat in a cage and that choice carries a malevolence to it. That choice made by the maker is kind of the ethical issue. The fact that that choice can cause real problems adds weight to it, but I think it's the choice itself is the problem. People aren't rats, so don't put them in the box.

If people aren't rats, then don't fall for the same stuff rats do. It's part of our psychology, but a human, usually, is able to think on a meta level and reflect upon the own behavior.

If you lose yourself in a video game, then that's your problem, not the game's problem and certainly not the designer's. If it works for millions of people, then, by all means, keep doing it.

nomotog wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
A game cannot "abuse" anyone. People playing WoW for 18 hours per day /choose/ to do so.

Someone playing WoW 18 hours a day didn't just choose to play 18 hours a day. The game use operant conditioning to well condition them play. I don't want to explain a skinner box and I don't have to. The is an extra credits episode on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c

You can argue that there is a element of choice for the player, but there is also a element of choice for the maker. The maker desires if they want to treat their player like a rat in a cage and that choice carries a malevolence to it. That choice made by the maker is kind of the ethical issue. The fact that that choice can cause real problems adds weight to it, but I think it's the choice itself is the problem. People aren't rats, so don't put them in the box.

Except for the fact that not everyone suddenly plays 18 hours a day as a result of playing WoW, if it was a proper skinner box it would be at a 100% ratio due to the learning factor as was the result in fruit flies and rats.

Sure some thoughts into it is a douchey process, but by all measure's its still within a persons measure of consciousness to resist such things.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
A game cannot "abuse" anyone. People playing WoW for 18 hours per day /choose/ to do so.

Someone playing WoW 18 hours a day didn't just choose to play 18 hours a day. The game use operant conditioning to well condition them play. I don't want to explain a skinner box and I don't have to. The is an extra credits episode on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c

You can argue that there is a element of choice for the player, but there is also a element of choice for the maker. The maker desires if they want to treat their player like a rat in a cage and that choice carries a malevolence to it. That choice made by the maker is kind of the ethical issue. The fact that that choice can cause real problems adds weight to it, but I think it's the choice itself is the problem. People aren't rats, so don't put them in the box.

Except for the fact that not everyone suddenly plays 18 hours a day as a result of playing WoW, if it was a proper skinner box it would be at a 100% ratio due to the learning factor as was the result in fruit flies and rats.

Sure some thoughts into it is a douchey process, but by all measure's its still within a persons measure of consciousness to resist such things.

Is it a 100% that conditioning works? I haven't heard that before, I did just kind of assume it works better on some people then others. You know like how some people can take a punch and some people cant. (Still dosen't make it OK to punch people of coarse )

nomotog wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
A game cannot "abuse" anyone. People playing WoW for 18 hours per day /choose/ to do so.

Someone playing WoW 18 hours a day didn't just choose to play 18 hours a day. The game use operant conditioning to well condition them play. I don't want to explain a skinner box and I don't have to. The is an extra credits episode on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c

You can argue that there is a element of choice for the player, but there is also a element of choice for the maker. The maker desires if they want to treat their player like a rat in a cage and that choice carries a malevolence to it. That choice made by the maker is kind of the ethical issue. The fact that that choice can cause real problems adds weight to it, but I think it's the choice itself is the problem. People aren't rats, so don't put them in the box.

Except for the fact that not everyone suddenly plays 18 hours a day as a result of playing WoW, if it was a proper skinner box it would be at a 100% ratio due to the learning factor as was the result in fruit flies and rats.

Sure some thoughts into it is a douchey process, but by all measure's its still within a persons measure of consciousness to resist such things.

Is it a 100% that conditioning works? I haven't heard that before, I did just kind of assume it works better on some people then others. You know like how some people can take a punch and some people cant. (Still dosen't make it OK to punch people of coarse )

For the standard skinner box that was mentioned in the original template, For rats and Fruit flies, temperature and food was used as a given conditioning method

The issue of the matter is that yes it does work on some people better then others, but as I mentioned some people can become addicts through anything. There are addictions for those who over-exercise to the point of terrible health, those that over-eat things that aren't junk food and sugars to the point of problems.

Attributing things solely this method is pretty much devaluing a few thoughts on the mind in general, people often use rats as the example despite the fact that animals have a different thought process when it comes to food and methodology and the mind along with simpler mental structures. We've cured cancer in rats for example but that doesn't mean that such medical issues could 100% be given to humans either!

Yes it will work on people as said, but as I mentioned there are variables beyond what is given. Extra Credits usually isn't a good topic for me because they often never give thoughts to the average, either Games are X, or they are Y. What's hilarious is that they mentioned League as a non-skinnerbox based game yet people have died to overplaying it, so what message are they sending exactly?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/taiwan-internet-cafe-corpse-gamer-died-dead_n_1252766.html

The video just isn't well-researched. It looks like the author sat down, wrote what was on his mind and then recorded it instead of noting a few points, researching them and then writing on them.

It's just amateur-ish and doesn't go above the "It's my opinion" level.

I think I have narrowed in on my counter. It's simple, just because someone has a weakness, doesn't mean you have the right to exploit it. If you make a game to exploit addicts , then your kind of a drug pusher. (Didn't we have a sout park episode on this.)

Actually that is just looking at this on the most radical spectrum. In the middle of the spectrum, you might just invest too much in a grindy mess of a game, but that is still bad too. It's a waste of time and it encourages lazy design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Yes it will work on people as said, but as I mentioned there are variables beyond what is given. Extra Credits usually isn't a good topic for me because they often never give thoughts to the average, either Games are X, or they are Y. What's hilarious is that they mentioned League as a non-skinnerbox based game yet people have died to overplaying it, so what message are they sending exactly?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/taiwan-internet-cafe-corpse-gamer-died-dead_n_1252766.html

Ya the moba thing was pointed out in the comments that they tend not to be player friendly. I think it was league that put out the letter telling parents not to shut off the game because it's more important that they play it. (I am paraphrasing here.) That was kind of nuts.

One of the big places I disagree with EC is that I think they are much too forgiving of these kind flow ups. They have done videos endorsing microtrandactions as a good thing. (They end had to backtrack on that years latter with a new video as it turned out people were just abusing them.)

Yeah to be fair I have very occasionally cracked a massive 15 hour session on a video game. I used to come home from a tour of duty, embark on 10 weeks paid leave and go "Ok feth it, this Mass Effect 2 game is good, I will sit and play it all day because I have nothing else to do until I fly to Vegas next Tuesday"

I really dont see the issue. As several blokes have said, we are somewhat more intelligent than rats. A game designers job is to make the game fun and enjoyable, if it is fun and enjoyale and I play it for a day solid, good job. Would I have missed work to play Mass Effect 2? No.

gak, I would have happily unclenched the mouse 3 hours in and went to the pub if it wasn't a Wednesday and all of my friends were at work in the morning!

You cant blame people for doing a good job (making good things) all you can do is blame people for being idiotic people.

 mattyrm wrote:
Yeah to be fair I have very occasionally cracked a massive 15 hour session on a video game. I used to come home from a tour of duty, embark on 10 weeks paid leave and go "Ok feth it, this Mass Effect 2 game is good, I will sit and play it all day because I have nothing else to do until I fly to Vegas next Tuesday"

I really dont see the issue. As several blokes have said, we are somewhat more intelligent than rats. A game designers job is to make the game fun and enjoyable, if it is fun and enjoyale and I play it for a day solid, good job. Would I have missed work to play Mass Effect 2? No.

gak, I would have happily unclenched the mouse 3 hours in and went to the pub if it wasn't a Wednesday and all of my friends were at work in the morning!

You cant blame people for doing a good job (making good things) all you can do is blame people for being idiotic people.

Mass effect 2 didn't use a skinner box. At least not a very strong one as far as I know. It tends to be games like mmos, or F2P games that where you get into issues, but it can be others. Like Mass effect 3's multiplayer and it's random reward system that is a carrot on a stick to convince you to keep playing after the game ran out of fun.

 mattyrm wrote:


You cant blame people for doing a good job (making good things) all you can do is blame people for being idiotic people.

Yarrr. Same thing as there seriously being a "DANGER: HOT!" label on coffee-to-go cups. Natural selection please

 Sigvatr wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:


You cant blame people for doing a good job (making good things) all you can do is blame people for being idiotic people.

Yarrr. Same thing as there seriously being a "DANGER: HOT!" label on coffee-to-go cups. Natural selection please

To be fair, the one case that caused those warnings was far hotter then standard coffee should've been and caused third degree burns as a result.

 mattyrm wrote:
You cant say it is "rife" in the gaming industry, otherwise you are saying it is "rife" in life in general

It is.

Right now, a person with a non-"Caucasian" name has a noticeably smaller chance of getting a response after submitting a resume than a person with a generic "white" name. This was proven in numerous scientific studies. Similarly, right now, without proper controls (which most companies either don't have or don't practice), women are almost universally rated less than men on performance reviews for the same quality of work-- again, this was proven in scientific studies. And these are just scratching the surface.

By default, we as a society devalue the experiences, desires, and needs of non-whites and non-males. This is a thing that exists. By the way, it's also proven that white men are more likely to dismiss out of hand evidence of gender and racial bias, well-- I linked that study to you in a PM, and you continue to prove its findings every time I talk to you

This is why companies need to be urged to adopt controls necessary to minimize or eliminate the chance for bias to slip in their selection and creative processes. Amongst most of the companies out there, they currently simply do not have said controls. Even Google, which prided itself on its unbiased look on the world, found it had insufficient controls in many areas. The more vagueness and ambiguity, the more likely biases will slip in to your business processes.

Lets just stop arguing about it Mel, we have had this out a hundred times and I think we are both too old and stuck in our ways to change our minds.

I guess its sorta semantic really, I massively disagree if we say sexism is "rife" because I'm a jocular type with optimism for the future. If we say it is "rife" now, then what was 1960? Ultra-rife? And what about 1900? "ultra ultra rife"?

And what about Pakistan, pre- 9/11 Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia? "Rife beyond belief" ?

Lets not argue, suffice to say I don't much have an issue with what you say, we just occupy different positions on a sliding scale. I don't see modern sexism or racism or any other ism as rife because I think its an awesome time to be alive, better than any time in human history, and that's what... 60,000 years at a minimum? You always say "just because it is better doesn't mean it cant get even better" and I say "Hey were not doing bad really"

I think it is great to be LGBTQ, disabled, deformed, any anything else you can imagine in 2015 because all you have to compare it to is what has gone before, not what might be.

gak, go back only a few hundred years and back in Britain they used to leave the babies on windswept crags to die if they had anything wrong with them.

Its all about perspective. I don't think we are doing too badly, you do. I understand its easier for me because I'm a straight white bloke, but I am a glass half-full kinda guy regardless, ten years in the RM and still having all my bits attached has done that to me, but I'm pretty sure Id be optimistic regardless.

If we were both black disabled lesbians I would be sat across from you in a tavern while you bemoaned our fate going "Hey at least we weren't born two centuries earlier"

 Melissia wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
In my understanding, GG is about sexism. Or rather, the claim that sexism is rife in the games industry, and it blatantly isn't.

You're still immune to reality then?

No. The two of you just live in alternate realities.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
In my understanding, GG is about sexism. Or rather, the claim that sexism is rife in the games industry, and it blatantly isn't.

You're still immune to reality then?

No. The two of you just live in alternate realities. :p

A statement that is likely more profound then it looks.

 mattyrm wrote:
Lets just stop arguing about it Mel,

This is probably a REALLY good idea, before someone summons a Moderator, who might notice two posters who should DEFINITELY KNOW BETTER bickering in a thread and dragging it way off-topic....

it. I was just about to go fetch some popcorn.


Anyone else like Extra Credits series on the Japanese Sengoku Jidai?

Yeah, those were great. There extra history series is very interesting, I've always been interested in history, and the art and Dan's weird child voice make it all that mach better.

I rather liked the punic war one. It was something that I honestly had never heard of before.

I wonder what happened to the series, though. I remember it being quite good a few years ago with well-written text and it tackling good points. Did the writers change?

I don't thunk so It's all written by the same group, although they did add two new Dans on top of the old one. The orignal Dan (the guy to does the narration) tend to get a little preachy though.

nomotog wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
In my understanding, GG is about sexism. Or rather, the claim that sexism is rife in the games industry, and it blatantly isn't.

You're still immune to reality then?

No. The two of you just live in alternate realities. :p

A statement that is likely more profound then it looks.

One of the funniest things I've read in the video games forum.

The video in the OP talks about a good and important topic! A lot of games seem to try to maintain "player concurrency" and "engagement" without worrying about the quality of that experience. The player's engagement correlates with the quality of the experience, I hope, but it's not caused solely by it.

It's a tricky issue, because concurrency can be important. It's hard to play a game if you have nobody to play with, and so you can get led that way by good intentions - we need to incentivise players logging on so that they and other players have someone to play with, right? That way they can enjoy playing the game.

(I really want to make a convoluted wargaming analogy here, but I probably shouldn't.)

So let's take a topical example. In World of Warcraft they recently added a Garrison, a little base that your character builds. Then it attracts followers, who you can send on missions at a command table in the garrison. The missions take a set amount of time to complete - many of the early ones are 30 minutes to an hour, which fits in the scope of people's playtime, but others are four, six, or ten hours long. The followers get a reward for completing a mission and then you can send them on one again.

What this promoted was people logging on when they didn't intend to play other than to send their followers on missions, and at weird times of day. So for example, many people would log on before they went to work, just to send their followers off on missions. Is that enriching their lives? Get home, don't have time to play? Better log on and send followers on missions. Woke up at 3am? Maybe followers are finished with missions? Better check, I'll go back to sleep after. Is this making people's lives better? Probably not. Are they doing it because it's particularly fun? Probably not. It probably should not be there in its current form.

There are lots of similar mechanics designed to promote concurrency that are probably overall bad for players. Do they have bad effects? Almost unquestionably. How do you do them better, though?

We know by now that people have a drive to progress stuff that will make them carry on doing it long after all fun has faded. How can we keep the fun part without falling prey to the awful part? A practical limit to progress probably helps, a point beyond which doing the unfun, repetitive thing is unnecessary. Being able to graduate from mechanics is a good way to prevent them outstaying their welcome, I think. The worst offenders in this category typically have no way to do that - you can keep on grinding out levels on your battle pets with very little practical limit.

That said, part of this is driven by players! Does your game have 2345079 hours of gameplay, the first ten of which are actually fun? Such value! Buy now! (Though of course that desire in itself is also driven by marketing.) I guess we also need to work towards emphasising conciseness as a positive trait for a game - that it's good it doesn't overstay its welcome. People do seem to have been recognising that more and more.

 Bullockist wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
In my understanding, GG is about sexism. Or rather, the claim that sexism is rife in the games industry, and it blatantly isn't.

You're still immune to reality then?

No. The two of you just live in alternate realities. :p

A statement that is likely more profound then it looks.

One of the funniest things I've read in the video games forum.

Woo! When people start quoting me in their signatures, I'll know I've made it into the Dakka Dakka Hall of Fame.

Please start quoting me in your signatures...

Now you have to put this in your sig:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Please start quoting me in your signatures...

 Melissia wrote:
By the way, it's also proven that white men are more likely to dismiss out of hand evidence of gender and racial bias, well-- I linked that study to you in a PM, and you continue to prove its findings every time I talk to you

Interested in getting the link too, thanks .

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Woo! When people start quoting me in their signatures, I'll know I've made it into the Dakka Dakka Hall of Fame.

I made it multiple time into Dakka Dakka Hall of Fame then.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The video in the OP talks about a good and important topic! A lot of games seem to try to maintain "player concurrency" and "engagement" without worrying about the quality of that experience. The player's engagement correlates with the quality of the experience, I hope, but it's not caused solely by it.

It's a tricky issue, because concurrency can be important. It's hard to play a game if you have nobody to play with, and so you can get led that way by good intentions - we need to incentivise players logging on so that they and other players have someone to play with, right? That way they can enjoy playing the game.

(I really want to make a convoluted wargaming analogy here, but I probably shouldn't.)

So let's take a topical example. In World of Warcraft they recently added a Garrison, a little base that your character builds. Then it attracts followers, who you can send on missions at a command table in the garrison. The missions take a set amount of time to complete - many of the early ones are 30 minutes to an hour, which fits in the scope of people's playtime, but others are four, six, or ten hours long. The followers get a reward for completing a mission and then you can send them on one again.

What this promoted was people logging on when they didn't intend to play other than to send their followers on missions, and at weird times of day. So for example, many people would log on before they went to work, just to send their followers off on missions. Is that enriching their lives? Get home, don't have time to play? Better log on and send followers on missions. Woke up at 3am? Maybe followers are finished with missions? Better check, I'll go back to sleep after. Is this making people's lives better? Probably not. Are they doing it because it's particularly fun? Probably not. It probably should not be there in its current form.

There are lots of similar mechanics designed to promote concurrency that are probably overall bad for players. Do they have bad effects? Almost unquestionably. How do you do them better, though?

We know by now that people have a drive to progress stuff that will make them carry on doing it long after all fun has faded. How can we keep the fun part without falling prey to the awful part? A practical limit to progress probably helps, a point beyond which doing the unfun, repetitive thing is unnecessary. Being able to graduate from mechanics is a good way to prevent them outstaying their welcome, I think. The worst offenders in this category typically have no way to do that - you can keep on grinding out levels on your battle pets with very little practical limit.

That said, part of this is driven by players! Does your game have 2345079 hours of gameplay, the first ten of which are actually fun? Such value! Buy now! (Though of course that desire in itself is also driven by marketing.) I guess we also need to work towards emphasising conciseness as a positive trait for a game - that it's good it doesn't overstay its welcome. People do seem to have been recognising that more and more.

Ooo that is a good post. Have a cookie.

One thing that really helps is the ability to brake the game. Like when I played dark room, rather then going along and waiting for my wood to be harvested, I just edited my save file to give me the wood. Ya I cheated. Cheating/moding is a way for the player to basically shape the game so it fits their life rather then shaping their life so it fits the game.

To jump back to the idea of garrisons, What if they didn't have fixed times. Like if you had a follower on a mission, but no time to log in, you could just leave them on their mission and they whould keep gathering supplies. Or maybe you log in and see they have an day left on their mission, but you want them now. You should have the option to pause their mission, put them on something else well you play and then put them back on their mission to pick up where they left off.

Extra credits also did some videos about time management in gaming too. (I could pull out a video on almost any topic. ; P)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQtFo_E_Ea0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyFSbm79uBY

nomotog wrote:
To jump back to the idea of garrisons, What if they didn't have fixed times. Like if you had a follower on a mission, but no time to log in, you could just leave them on their mission and they whould keep gathering supplies. Or maybe you log in and see they have an day left on their mission, but you want them now. You should have the option to pause their mission, put them on something else well you play and then put them back on their mission to pick up where they left off.

What if you just played Progress Quest instead? That way your character can always grind experience and loot without you having to do anything!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
that isn't even what GG is about is it?

GG is about anything and everything and nothing.

 mattyrm wrote:
Or rather, the claim that sexism is rife in the games industry, and it blatantly isn't.

How did you came to the conclusion it blatantly is not? Is it magically immune contrarily to the rest of society, or do you believe society has eradicated sexism?

'

GG is a hashtag movement on twitter. Which has as much credibility as reddit.

Games cannot have a negative contiations on you. Games can disantize to things but they do not cause you to be more violent or more sexist.

There was recently a study on this to find those who said that games cause you to be sexist as factually incorrect.

Sexism is not rife in the games industry. Infact there are more women getting into games more than ever. Infact women get more money than men in the games industry, and have more opportunity than men to get a job in the games industry.

There still is sexism but it is not as bad as many would like you to believe. The whole assumption that women are just victims in this world is a very old way of seeing things.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I don't thunk so It's all written by the same group, although they did add two new Dans on top of the old one. The orignal Dan (the guy to does the narration) tend to get a little preachy though.

That is the effect that happens if you are no longer working with different opinioned people on a variety of subjects. They used to have more dissenting discussions but recently they all agreed on the same types of principles sort of made them lose their intelligence that I liked .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
I wonder what happened to the series, though. I remember it being quite good a few years ago with well-written text and it tackling good points. Did the writers change?

No they just have gotten in the staple of not spending as much time on certain subjects due to their time constraints and also they only have one writer writing for it and they barely cover a single subject now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nomotog wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
A game cannot "abuse" anyone. People playing WoW for 18 hours per day /choose/ to do so.

Someone playing WoW 18 hours a day didn't just choose to play 18 hours a day. The game use operant conditioning to well condition them play. I don't want to explain a skinner box and I don't have to. The is an extra credits episode on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c

You can argue that there is a element of choice for the player, but there is also a element of choice for the maker. The maker desires if they want to treat their player like a rat in a cage and that choice carries a malevolence to it. That choice made by the maker is kind of the ethical issue. The fact that that choice can cause real problems adds weight to it, but I think it's the choice itself is the problem. People aren't rats, so don't put them in the box.

Its called game complusion it is when players are so well attuned to a game that all they want to do is play that game over and over again.

It happened with everquest. IT is more of the players concious choice to do it, as it gives them a high on dopamine and they experience it positively because they lack something in their real life that does not compare equally.

This happens mostly to people who aren't having a good life and games are all there is for them.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

nomotog wrote:
To jump back to the idea of garrisons, What if they didn't have fixed times. Like if you had a follower on a mission, but no time to log in, you could just leave them on their mission and they whould keep gathering supplies. Or maybe you log in and see they have an day left on their mission, but you want them now. You should have the option to pause their mission, put them on something else well you play and then put them back on their mission to pick up where they left off.

What if you just played Progress Quest instead? That way your character can always grind experience and loot without you having to do anything!

I have played progress quest. It is a oddly compelling game you know. It's kind of a good example of how easy it is to fall into a skinner box. It's a game with no gameplay except watching a bar fill up, and a little giggling at some of the funny names.