Gaming can make a better world

[ddaanniiellh]

I think she wasnt talking about interaction with other people but with NPCs

I don't think that's what she's speaking about either. If that was so, our "best side" would be pre-predicted based on whatever the interactions are meant to be. I think she speaks about the best versions about ourselves in terms of us trying to achieve goals, and "do what is good" in the quests, and trying very hard to obtain our "dreams" in the game.

~Dan

[Myweponsg00d]

Something I thought of that was interesting:

 

In real life, many people don't try to do things simply cause they are afraid of the failure.

 

In games, people get extremely worked up when people are beating them in a FPS, and they RAGE in determination to try and beat the person. Even if his skill level is unmatchable.

 

Granted though, people's "anger driven" motivation to win is usually unsucessful. The worst players are always the ones who get excited about things, get nervous, get angry.

 

When I play halo with my team, we are like, at work. We keep cool and calm, and just focus on doing the task. Many people say "but this approach takes the FUN out of the game!" To which I simply say that I would have no fun if I was losing. I dont see any fun in running around like a mad man, guns blazing, if it means I will be outscored. I would rather sit back, and do everything that people call "Boring" or "cheap" and rake in the points. I guess its less "exciting" but it wins games.

 

I am not sure what type of gamer this woman is looking for. Is she looking for the un-professional gamer? When you play cards or dice with people, the point is to win. The games are very simple and people dont say "I would rather just have fun rolling the dice REALLY hard! That would be my enjoyment of the game!"

 

In today's crowd there are many people who seem to have their own interpretation of games. "What FUN do you have camping?" "That shotgun is so unfair! How is that fun for you?" So it is hard to determine what "gaming" truly means today, and it is hard to say what type of gamer would be able to save the world. Do we want the gamers who focus on winning? Or do we like the people who get all fuzzy inside about the "epic adventure"?

[elucin8er]

I dont see any fun in running around like a mad man, guns blazing, if it means I will be outscored. I would rather sit back, and do everything that people call "Boring" or "cheap" and rake in the points. I guess its less "exciting" but it wins games.

 

Wow you sound like a camper. Play for score rather than fun. "Omg lets do headshots for stats weeee."

[mario_sunny]

Wow the lady obviously doesn't play many games (or at least, has never touched an MMO).

 

Games nowadays require work to win. The basic training system of the typical MMO nowadays is grind, grind, grind, preforming terribly boring, repetitive tasks that do not give you any feeling remotely close to an "epic win." Even in FPSs, the people who don't take a game seriously, the people who get way too emotional and excited, looking for that "epic win," are usually the ones who end up losing. All games require boring work; whether it be fletching tens of thousands of yew longbows in runescape or learning the map flow of Terminal on modern warfare 2. Oh yea lady, I love to find epic wins stringing virtual bows.

[Myweponsg00d]

I dont see any fun in running around like a mad man, guns blazing, if it means I will be outscored. I would rather sit back, and do everything that people call "Boring" or "cheap" and rake in the points. I guess its less "exciting" but it wins games.

 

Wow you sound like a camper. Play for score rather than fun. "Omg lets do headshots for stats weeee."

 

If I can use "cheaper" strategies to consistently win games, why would I not do that?

 

What is "fun" about playing in a method that would cause you a higher chance of losing?

 

Lets compare today's games to card games. The object of poker (5 card draw) is to get the best hand possible. You have fun when you are succeeding at the objective of the game. You do this by holding onto the cards that give you the highest chance of getting a better hand.

 

Nobody ever says "Red is boring...I am gonna throw away my aces of hearts and diamonds, so I can have cards that look more fun." Nobody says "OMG you held onto your kings? Kings are so OP and cheap..."

 

Today is quite a different story. Camping is "boring". Rocket launchers are "lame". Hiding is "cheap". Winning is everything in a game. I think the problem is that people have too much trouble ACTUALLY winning (by topping the scores), so they pretend the goal of the game is something else. Like "regardless of score, play the most 'skillfully' " Or something like that. I always hear "omg nub, that weapon takes no skill"

 

Why would I want to hinder my killing capabilities by using a method that makes it harder?

[999134]

questing can be a great way to play with other people.

Say you want to get a skiller to do shilo village, that requires someone blocking the boss and vengancing/ healing the skiller.

[tortilliachp]

I don't usually like to comment on research presentations, where the conclusions drawn have nothing to do with the actual research, as these researchers live a double life:

 

1) scientifically viable research of high quality.

2) Completely unrelated personal investment in a related area, leading to sensational claims.

 

This is the life of the typical media scientist, who makes it big.

 

Each piece of individual research presented in the article, is manipulated slightly in the direction wanted, so the conclusions drawn at the end of the presentation are completely unrelated to the viable conclusions from the research itself. here are some examples:

 

 

"epic win face" : Epic wins come with the presented face to those who do not play cynically, and efficiently. Those who play scientifically will not be surprised for an epic win: I would have an "epic win face" if i got a dragon chain from a dust devil. I would never have an "epic win face" through long-time, intelligent, planned gaming. That "takes the fun out of the game", but in real life, we take things more seriously: no one will "game" real life, achieving regular "epic win faces". Professional gamers are evidence of that effect.

 

5.93 million years: first humans stood up. Crucial missing factor: multiple humans lived and died at the same time for evolution to progress. Thus, exponentially more hours of evolution have taken place. The comparison is 100% fallacious in that respect. Even so, humans do not die of "mis-gaming" and so the evolutionary gain of any modern activity is minimal.

 

presented virtiuoso theory: 10 000 hours will make you a virtuoso. Actual theory: 10 000 hours of directed, pedagogical, scientific practice practiced regularly over many years are the minimum requirement for a world class virituoso. Gaming fits none of those criteria.

 

low energy wireless gaming will allow 1 billion more virituoso gamers in Inda, China, Brazil and similar countries in the next decad: This number is ten-fold too high. Cell phones with wireless banking destroyed the same "computer relvoution" all the experts expected. Cell phones have all but replaced the purchase of new calculators in sub-saharan Africa, they are simply more useful than gaming devices. Other priorities prevail.

 

Urgent optimism: Desire to act immediately, reasonable hope of success. Translation to real life situation: statistically, humans are pesimists in real life by definition. Demographic analysis of gamers will not show any deviation of that, because the virtual world is disconnected from the real world. They are not directly comparable.

 

Blissfull productivity theory suggests we game efficiently. Just look at runescape: only a tiny population game efficiently. we play to have fun. Everyone would be merchants, then spend money attaining all their goals that have costs. That is the most efficient way. market theory dictates that production would be the focus of the perfect-information world, where everyone invests where they have the greatest gain, not merchanting or the financial. The prevailance of runescape merchants in itself, rather than everyone partially merchanting, is evidence that we do not game efficiently.

 

 

 

I could rip every part of the infered logic similarly: this is in no way a scientific interpretation, it is unrelated to her research in any way.

 

This type of "science" is rather destructive: . To a tiny degree, marginal effects may be observed; many will believe her presentation as likely and true. it is NOT. People are humans. We have dreams, aspirations, social and cultural needs, preferences, we are greedy, selfish, skeptical and irrational. Gaming solves none of those underlying human qualities, our greatness yet also the reasons why the world is not a better place.

 

to conclude: yes, i can learn from gaming. The world's problems are so serious only more efficient (boring) methods will solve any real problems. She has presented no factual evidence to suggest otherwise, and it is logically fallacious to follow her argument. This is not science.

[elucin8er]

I dont see any fun in running around like a mad man, guns blazing, if it means I will be outscored. I would rather sit back, and do everything that people call "Boring" or "cheap" and rake in the points. I guess its less "exciting" but it wins games.

 

Wow you sound like a camper. Play for score rather than fun. "Omg lets do headshots for stats weeee."

 

If I can use "cheaper" strategies to consistently win games, why would I not do that?

 

What is "fun" about playing in a method that would cause you a higher chance of losing?

 

Lets compare today's games to card games. The object of poker (5 card draw) is to get the best hand possible. You have fun when you are succeeding at the objective of the game. You do this by holding onto the cards that give you the highest chance of getting a better hand.

 

Nobody ever says "Red is boring...I am gonna throw away my aces of hearts and diamonds, so I can have cards that look more fun." Nobody says "OMG you held onto your kings? Kings are so OP and cheap..."

 

Today is quite a different story. Camping is "boring". Rocket launchers are "lame". Hiding is "cheap". Winning is everything in a game. I think the problem is that people have too much trouble ACTUALLY winning (by topping the scores), so they pretend the goal of the game is something else. Like "regardless of score, play the most 'skillfully' " Or something like that. I always hear "omg nub, that weapon takes no skill"

 

Why would I want to hinder my killing capabilities by using a method that makes it harder?

 

Lol are you for real dude? Your reference to card games is abysmal.

 

The goal of the game is to have fun, not to win. Didn't you ever get brought up being taught its about having fun, that winning isn't everything. Those people that camp sit there and wait for however long it takes, just so they can get a kill, aren't having fun like the other kids. If they actually went out there and tried playing the game for real, they'd actually enjoy themselves.

 

There's two groups of gamers within FPS. Those that prefer stats more than the actual game, and those that prefer the enjoyment of the game rather than cool medals. All the time in COD I get people who want to do headshots. Headshots .... This means you take turns shooting each other in the head for higher points instead of actually playing the game.

 

There was also another stage during Halo 2 of head to head that turned ugly. People during head to head would glitch it so their oponent would dc for a brief moment every time they were about to exchange shots, resulting in 10 - 0 matches constantly. The top scores were filled with these such people and they proudly "won" with 0 effort and 0 fun.

 

Now in all FPS' there's always a gun that is cheaper than the rest. In gun spawn games people spend their entire time going after this one gun to "win." When they have it they sit in an untouchable spot and play the waiting game, with the final score ending up very low. The match would become a longg boring wait due to one players sheer determination to get a higher stat, in turn sacrificing fun.

 

I can relate this to Runescape quite easily now, I hope you enjoy this. Runescape bounty hunter worlds has to deal with Jagex's mistakes, and dumb game mechanics at time in order to have fun out there. This resulted in the following player known ethics - no praying and no safing during a fight. Say if your whip can hit a 42, the other player shouldn't each till about 43 hp. This makes the fight much more funner and higher potential for exciting ko's. Both players are happy to sacrifice their in game pixels for a bit of fun. However, with your attitude I can imagine you stepping into the wild would disregard these player ethics in order to WIN. Even though Jagex's system is flawed and the players have bonded together to keep the fun alive, you wouldn't give two hoots about it. You would eat as soon as your hp was affected, resulting in a VERY boring battle in which all your food would be consumed and there would NOT be a winner due to your teleports and ring of life - just incase.

 

Now, I hear you saying so what? That's how the game is, everyone should play like that. I'm here to tell you, if everyone played with your live to win attitude, people would not be dying in the wilderness. No-one would be enjoying themselves in pvp and perhaps they would continue due to their sole drive to win. Perhaps maybe they'll get a kill once a month - gratz.

 

This player resolved solution to removing bad tactics can be related to nearly every game. It's hidden player ethics to liven the game, and it's people like you that will continually get flamed for sacrificing fun for mere stat progression on your gamer card. Imagine if everyone played with your style, all campers, all cheap guns. Score round would be low, fun would be low, it wouldn't be worthwhile playing. These people with ethics who look beyond winning are keeping these games alive. Keep your cheap tactics for tournaments, don't take the fun out of pubs.

 

If you fit into the category of people that play to win no matter the cost ( no fun ) then I think our conversation is over as you and I have different perspectives on life.

[rangeor]

I dont see any fun in running around like a mad man, guns blazing, if it means I will be outscored. I would rather sit back, and do everything that people call "Boring" or "cheap" and rake in the points. I guess its less "exciting" but it wins games.

 

Wow you sound like a camper. Play for score rather than fun. "Omg lets do headshots for stats weeee."

 

If I can use "cheaper" strategies to consistently win games, why would I not do that?

 

What is "fun" about playing in a method that would cause you a higher chance of losing?

 

Lets compare today's games to card games. The object of poker (5 card draw) is to get the best hand possible. You have fun when you are succeeding at the objective of the game. You do this by holding onto the cards that give you the highest chance of getting a better hand.

 

Nobody ever says "Red is boring...I am gonna throw away my aces of hearts and diamonds, so I can have cards that look more fun." Nobody says "OMG you held onto your kings? Kings are so OP and cheap..."

 

Today is quite a different story. Camping is "boring". Rocket launchers are "lame". Hiding is "cheap". Winning is everything in a game. I think the problem is that people have too much trouble ACTUALLY winning (by topping the scores), so they pretend the goal of the game is something else. Like "regardless of score, play the most 'skillfully' " Or something like that. I always hear "omg nub, that weapon takes no skill"

 

Why would I want to hinder my killing capabilities by using a method that makes it harder?

I'm pretty much the obnoxious noob at FPS's. I like to die as much as I can in as funny ways as I can, and I think it's fun to watch people's reactions. I don't do things like this in other games, though, where I might actually ruin something someone spent hours upon hours getting (I'm looking at you, rushers.). I just like to be an annoying [puncture] for 5 minutes. That's what I think is fun in a game. When I'm actually playing seriously (I still suck when I do though), I try to find fun and unique ways to kill people. It's never efficient, but if I can get myself to laugh while also scoring a kill, then I'll be happy. Some people actually like grinding. Granted, most of the people that say they do are lying, but it isn't completely illogical for someone to enjoy repeating mindless tasks for hours, giving them time to let their mind relax/wander. Some people like playing matches where both players are fairly matched, because they think it's fun to try and beat someone who has just as good a chance at winning. Your method of playing is completely fine, and although most people complaining are just sore losers, there are people who legitimately enjoy not using overpowered weapons and such.

 

I actually prefer your style of playing in single-player games. Most people say cheats ruin the fun, but I personally think it's a hell of a lot of fun to get super-awesome-ultra power-ups and completely annihilate enemies I used to have trouble with. Though when I'm playing with other people my ethical side tells me to try to play fairly, and I do.

[Turnpike]

I think it can relate to help you making better decisions in everyday life, but I don't think it can improve overall life.

[stonewall337]

I dont see any fun in running around like a mad man, guns blazing, if it means I will be outscored. I would rather sit back, and do everything that people call "Boring" or "cheap" and rake in the points. I guess its less "exciting" but it wins games.

 

Wow you sound like a camper. Play for score rather than fun. "Omg lets do headshots for stats weeee."

 

If I can use "cheaper" strategies to consistently win games, why would I not do that?

 

What is "fun" about playing in a method that would cause you a higher chance of losing?

 

Lets compare today's games to card games. The object of poker (5 card draw) is to get the best hand possible. You have fun when you are succeeding at the objective of the game. You do this by holding onto the cards that give you the highest chance of getting a better hand.

 

Nobody ever says "Red is boring...I am gonna throw away my aces of hearts and diamonds, so I can have cards that look more fun." Nobody says "OMG you held onto your kings? Kings are so OP and cheap..."

 

Today is quite a different story. Camping is "boring". Rocket launchers are "lame". Hiding is "cheap". Winning is everything in a game. I think the problem is that people have too much trouble ACTUALLY winning (by topping the scores), so they pretend the goal of the game is something else. Like "regardless of score, play the most 'skillfully' " Or something like that. I always hear "omg nub, that weapon takes no skill"

 

Why would I want to hinder my killing capabilities by using a method that makes it harder?

 

Lol are you for real dude? Your reference to card games is abysmal.

 

The goal of the game is to have fun, not to win. Didn't you ever get brought up being taught its about having fun, that winning isn't everything. Those people that camp sit there and wait for however long it takes, just so they can get a kill, aren't having fun like the other kids. If they actually went out there and tried playing the game for real, they'd actually enjoy themselves.

 

There's two groups of gamers within FPS. Those that prefer stats more than the actual game, and those that prefer the enjoyment of the game rather than cool medals. All the time in COD I get people who want to do headshots. Headshots .... This means you take turns shooting each other in the head for higher points instead of actually playing the game.

 

There was also another stage during Halo 2 of head to head that turned ugly. People during head to head would glitch it so their oponent would dc for a brief moment every time they were about to exchange shots, resulting in 10 - 0 matches constantly. The top scores were filled with these such people and they proudly "won" with 0 effort and 0 fun.

 

Now in all FPS' there's always a gun that is cheaper than the rest. In gun spawn games people spend their entire time going after this one gun to "win." When they have it they sit in an untouchable spot and play the waiting game, with the final score ending up very low. The match would become a longg boring wait due to one players sheer determination to get a higher stat, in turn sacrificing fun.

 

I can relate this to Runescape quite easily now, I hope you enjoy this. Runescape bounty hunter worlds has to deal with Jagex's mistakes, and dumb game mechanics at time in order to have fun out there. This resulted in the following player known ethics - no praying and no safing during a fight. Say if your whip can hit a 42, the other player shouldn't each till about 43 hp. This makes the fight much more funner and higher potential for exciting ko's. Both players are happy to sacrifice their in game pixels for a bit of fun. However, with your attitude I can imagine you stepping into the wild would disregard these player ethics in order to WIN. Even though Jagex's system is flawed and the players have bonded together to keep the fun alive, you wouldn't give two hoots about it. You would eat as soon as your hp was affected, resulting in a VERY boring battle in which all your food would be consumed and there would NOT be a winner due to your teleports and ring of life - just incase.

 

Now, I hear you saying so what? That's how the game is, everyone should play like that. I'm here to tell you, if everyone played with your live to win attitude, people would not be dying in the wilderness. No-one would be enjoying themselves in pvp and perhaps they would continue due to their sole drive to win. Perhaps maybe they'll get a kill once a month - gratz.

 

This player resolved solution to removing bad tactics can be related to nearly every game. It's hidden player ethics to liven the game, and it's people like you that will continually get flamed for sacrificing fun for mere stat progression on your gamer card. Imagine if everyone played with your style, all campers, all cheap guns. Score round would be low, fun would be low, it wouldn't be worthwhile playing. These people with ethics who look beyond winning are keeping these games alive. Keep your cheap tactics for tournaments, don't take the fun out of pubs.

 

If you fit into the category of people that play to win no matter the cost ( no fun ) then I think our conversation is over as you and I have different perspectives on life.

 

Very well written. In fact, the most exciting game of MW2 I had today was when the game was tied, and both of us (The top 2) were fighting hard for kills. It felt awesome when, with 1.2 seconds left in the game, I got the final kill to break the tie with a headshot.

 

However. If camping is "fun" for you, it is a valid way to play, although it is looked down on. I don't find it fun, so I don't use it.

 

Other things are just cheap. Constanly Noobtubing with nothing else, or glitching in RS to get ahead, are cheap.

[Obtaurian]

I don't think that Elucin8er's example really applies to Runescape, as the warriors and hybrids who look for "honor" fights and expect their opponents not to safe are tier 3 and tier 2 PKers, respectively. Tier 1 PKers (tribrids/switchers) make safing a moot point, as they can dish out way more than 990 damage in just a few seconds (ice barrage > handcannon > AGS spec), and their style of PKing actually requires some skill and tactics. If there were no tribrids, I would totally agree with the comparison.

 

A better comparison to Runescape PKing would be rushers. Rushers sit there with protection prayers waiting for some hapless warrior/hybrid with decent gear to run by. That, to me, is a better comparison to the campers in MW2.

 

For the record, I don't like campers in MW2 either, and I do feel that they legitimately ruin the fun for everyone else.

[MerchantInTheDark]

Interesting point. I agree, to some extent - it's a great thing, but like everything else in moderation.

[Myweponsg00d]

Lol are you for real dude? Your reference to card games is abysmal.

 

The goal of the game is to have fun, not to win. Didn't you ever get brought up being taught its about having fun, that winning isn't everything. Those people that camp sit there and wait for however long it takes, just so they can get a kill, aren't having fun like the other kids. If they actually went out there and tried playing the game for real, they'd actually enjoy themselves.

 

.....*snip*...

 

This player resolved solution to removing bad tactics can be related to nearly every game. It's hidden player ethics to liven the game, and it's people like you that will continually get flamed for sacrificing fun for mere stat progression on your gamer card. Imagine if everyone played with your style, all campers, all cheap guns. Score round would be low, fun would be low, it wouldn't be worthwhile playing. These people with ethics who look beyond winning are keeping these games alive. Keep your cheap tactics for tournaments, don't take the fun out of pubs.

 

If you fit into the category of people that play to win no matter the cost ( no fun ) then I think our conversation is over as you and I have different perspectives on life.

 

Most of your post doesn't make any sense. You seem to be talking about something completely different. And I don't understand fully.

 

What I am talking about, is how in a game like Halo, the truly good people, the people who win consistently, will constantly be yelled at for being "cheap". This includes, but is not limited to, camping power ups, camping spawns, always using the same gun, etc. The people I am talking about do this to win the game, and they consistently win the game with their tactic.

 

The people you are talking about seem to be scrubs. They dont camp effectively, and they will do stupid things like consistently run for the rocket launcher and get themselves killed over and over. This isn't a winning gamer.

 

What I am saying is that there are two types of gamers, those who achieve the inherent object of the game, and those who achieve their own objectives. Both can have fun, I suppose, but I can only identify with the former of the two.

 

The first type are the "professional" gamers. They play for winning, and have fun doing whatever wins the game. The other type are the "fun havers" who would likely say something like "omg that weapon takes no SKILL." or "Camping takes no SKILL!!" when they are getting their [wagon] handed to them. They don't make the game about who wins, they make the game about "who plays most like a man" or something.

 

But honestly. If you say "its not fun to camp" I ask you: how is it fun to lose?

 

I also don't think my analogy to cards is ridiculous at all. You play the game to win, and you only do things that enhance your chances of winning the game. While playing poker, people don't just start building a house of cards and say "But I'm doing what is fun to me!"

 

I used the analogy to cards because it is a simplified version of what a "game" is. Todays FPS games might be a little more visually exciting than playing card games, but the basic structure is the same: an objective to achieve, and a "win" or "lose" outcome. If you aren't trying to win the game at all costs, then are you truly even playing the game? Or are you playing your own game, where you just make up some objective to play in a "non cowardly" way?

[elucin8er]

Lol are you for real dude? Your reference to card games is abysmal.

 

The goal of the game is to have fun, not to win. Didn't you ever get brought up being taught its about having fun, that winning isn't everything. Those people that camp sit there and wait for however long it takes, just so they can get a kill, aren't having fun like the other kids. If they actually went out there and tried playing the game for real, they'd actually enjoy themselves.

 

.....*snip*...

 

This player resolved solution to removing bad tactics can be related to nearly every game. It's hidden player ethics to liven the game, and it's people like you that will continually get flamed for sacrificing fun for mere stat progression on your gamer card. Imagine if everyone played with your style, all campers, all cheap guns. Score round would be low, fun would be low, it wouldn't be worthwhile playing. These people with ethics who look beyond winning are keeping these games alive. Keep your cheap tactics for tournaments, don't take the fun out of pubs.

 

If you fit into the category of people that play to win no matter the cost ( no fun ) then I think our conversation is over as you and I have different perspectives on life.

 

Most of your post doesn't make any sense. You seem to be talking about something completely different. And I don't understand fully.

 

What I am talking about, is how in a game like Halo, the truly good people, the people who win consistently, will constantly be yelled at for being "cheap". This includes, but is not limited to, camping power ups, camping spawns, always using the same gun, etc. The people I am talking about do this to win the game, and they consistently win the game with their tactic.

 

The people you are talking about seem to be scrubs. They dont camp effectively, and they will do stupid things like consistently run for the rocket launcher and get themselves killed over and over. This isn't a winning gamer.

 

What I am saying is that there are two types of gamers, those who achieve the inherent object of the game, and those who achieve their own objectives. Both can have fun, I suppose, but I can only identify with the former of the two.

 

The first type are the "professional" gamers. They play for winning, and have fun doing whatever wins the game. The other type are the "fun havers" who would likely say something like "omg that weapon takes no SKILL." or "Camping takes no SKILL!!" when they are getting their [wagon] handed to them. They don't make the game about who wins, they make the game about "who plays most like a man" or something.

 

But honestly. If you say "its not fun to camp" I ask you: how is it fun to lose?

 

I also don't think my analogy to cards is ridiculous at all. You play the game to win, and you only do things that enhance your chances of winning the game. While playing poker, people don't just start building a house of cards and say "But I'm doing what is fun to me!"

 

I used the analogy to cards because it is a simplified version of what a "game" is. Todays FPS games might be a little more visually exciting than playing card games, but the basic structure is the same: an objective to achieve, and a "win" or "lose" outcome. If you aren't trying to win the game at all costs, then are you truly even playing the game? Or are you playing your own game, where you just make up some objective to play in a "non cowardly" way?

 

Ugh, you need to actually spend the time to read my post. We have gone way too far off topic so I'd like to finish this here before we hijack the post. Other people have seen the links in the post, and even in this post I'm quoting now I've answered the questions you've posed - again. You obviously have a far different frame of mind and no amount of arguing will get through to explaining to you the typical fun gamers views. Re-read my post, I'm done here.

[Lydiian]

I have not yet watched the video because my PC is running super slow because I am converting some videos from my phone to .AVIs at the moment. However my comments are focused towards the view of so many of you posting here about your fellow gamers. I'm actually a little shocked. What I have seen from the vast majority of you is nothing but how you believe gamers (all except for you of course, because you're that one exception) are complete idiots. You follow that up with some poorly worded, grammatically incorrect, and extremely cliche insult.

 

Studies have shown gamers to actually be more intelligent on average and to have problem solving skills. Most gamers I talk to are actually pretty intelligent people. I have to think the problem is most likely that most of you observe young kids in games and how many of them act immature. Then take that observation and stereotype all gamers with it. I believe the issue is more age related, since obviously younger kids have more free time to play games. Heck, when I was 13 I would play runescape for hours on end. However now that I work 10-12 hours a day and can be called in at any time on weekends, I don't get to play nearly as much.

 

More than anything, stop assuming everyone around you are idiots. If there is one thing I have learned. It's that if you think everyone around you is dumb except for you, then in all truth, you're probably the dumb one.

[Myweponsg00d]

Ugh, you need to actually spend the time to read my post. We have gone way too far off topic so I'd like to finish this here before we hijack the post. Other people have seen the links in the post, and even in this post I'm quoting now I've answered the questions you've posed - again. You obviously have a far different frame of mind and no amount of arguing will get through to explaining to you the typical fun gamers views. Re-read my post, I'm done here.

 

Classic. "Your point of view threatens me, so as a defense mechanism I will walk away. Making me the victor, right?"

 

I don't know what youre so fed up with. You started the conflict. You quote my post, and then reply to it in an un-necessarily hostile tone.

 

Then after one reply, you can't take it and walk away.

 

"I'm done here" Lol. You sound like a woman fighting with her boyfriend. "IM DONE TALKING TO YOU!" Thinking that attitude is going to do anything.

 

Thanks for further proving that the gamers who play by these "player made" honor system are idiots. I tried to pose a discussion, and you flame me, then I reply and you can't dignify a response. Maturity at its finest.

[Central_Keeper]

I have not yet watched the video because my PC is running super slow because I am converting some videos from my phone to .AVIs at the moment. However my comments are focused towards the view of so many of you posting here about your fellow gamers. I'm actually a little shocked. What I have seen from the vast majority of you is nothing but how you believe gamers (all except for you of course, because you're that one exception) are complete idiots. You follow that up with some poorly worded, grammatically incorrect, and extremely cliche insult.

 

Studies have shown gamers to actually be more intelligent on average and to have problem solving skills. Most gamers I talk to are actually pretty intelligent people. I have to think the problem is most likely that most of you observe young kids in games and how many of them act immature. Then take that observation and stereotype all gamers with it. I believe the issue is more age related, since obviously younger kids have more free time to play games. Heck, when I was 13 I would play runescape for hours on end. However now that I work 10-12 hours a day and can be called in at any time on weekends, I don't get to play nearly as much.

 

More than anything, stop assuming everyone around you are idiots. If there is one thing I have learned. It's that if you think everyone around you is dumb except for you, then in all truth, you're probably the dumb one.

 

 

Yeah, I agree on that part. Whenever I play CS or other FPS games, the leet one that got killed by the average players tend to grunt in frustration and something like I can't believe I just let a newb killed me that sort of mentality. When you get killed, u died, well, u died because due to sequences of events. Sure, you skill will make you consistent winner MOST of the time, but they simply think that they are better than rest of the players. To be honest, without those "newbs" there is no one to play with. I talked to gamers who focus more on strategies to compensate for their weakness.

 

Everyone has a strong and weak point, but just categorize that everyone who does not perform as good as you are inferior than you is a misunderstanding to being with. Granted, I can see why some players have animosity toward those so called dumb players, because they do act dumb or for whatever reasons to disrupt the game.

 

Back then I used to consider that RS isn't so much as skill but just grinding because it was so xp and rank oriented, but thinking skills can be developed mentally by how to train faster, efficient and cost effective in all the aspect. In terms of FPS like CS, yes skill does play a huge factor, but teamwork and co operation performs even bigger factor. You will always complete your objective if everyone helped each other, and if you think you are elite and don't need help and start disrespecting people, then you end up being the "odd" one out because you think highly of yourself. I always judge a pro's overall performance by how he treat his team mates not just his skill, I seen pros help out less experienced player and out glass a group of experienced player. It's a win win for both parties instead of stand alone I will mow down everyone on my own and I dont need newbs in my way mentality. Of course, just my 2 cents on the subject.

 

Actually, back to the "original" topic, I honestly think that players do get benefited from a game. Some got inspired by the game directly or indirectly and succeed in life. However I seen alot of player got "epic" failed in their real life because of their addiction the game itself. Not to mentioned the ones that got helped by the game did well in real life, is significantly way less compare to the ones that were hampered by it. I ought to know since I used to train a lot, but ever since I start working and understand the workings of the real world, its good to put game aside and reset your priorities. Still, I don't quit the game because I just to leave it completely, I want to prove that with enough balance in life, you can make the cake and eat it too.

 

As a joke to my other RS friend during my real camping trip a few years back. NO, WC and FM lvl 80 does not make you chop real tree faster, in fact, you can probably make a slight splinters in the tree trunk after 10 minutes or swinging, and actually start a fire in 3 minutes or more with help of starter fuel. Man those rune axe and tinderboxes are so misleading, lol

[iDr]

Off topic, but to touch upon Eluc/Myweap, there are in fact, two general paradigms and plenty of space inbetween for a variation of both.

 

Some people do have more fun having a "good" battle than winning in itself, whereas some might have more fun simply winning. The play styles of the wilderness is evident of this, as we have players abiding by the player-made rules of no safing no praying etc. and then we have the rushers. It's just different people are fulfilled differently. The skills of the player may/may not be a variable in choosing the said play styte as well.

 

Another example in RS pking dates back to the RSC era. I was a pure. Why? Well, it allowed me to rack up easy kills on impures around my levels as impures back then were EXTREMELY weak.. But boy, when I killed another pure with comparable skills, one that was higher, or a main with better stats because of my skills, it was extremely gratuitous and turned out to be a much better story on the forums than killing a nobody impure than never pked.

 

Personally, I'd rather have a great fight with someone challenging than slaughtering a noob. Although both can be fun, if you actually win against a challenging opponent, there is something you feel words can only touch upon.

 

Just my 2 cents / opinion.

[ChickyBee32]

Lets compare today's games to card games. The object of poker (5 card draw) is to get the best hand possible. You have fun when you are succeeding at the objective of the game. You do this by holding onto the cards that give you the highest chance of getting a better hand.

 

Nobody ever says "Red is boring...I am gonna throw away my aces of hearts and diamonds, so I can have cards that look more fun." Nobody says "OMG you held onto your kings? Kings are so OP and cheap..."

 

Speaking as someone who plays Texas Hold 'Em (basically the same game, just different rules) regularly I've often seen people play their hole cards for odd reasons. The day I got engaged, I played every hand that had diamonds in it. My fiancee plays 2-7 (one of the worst hands) because it's our son's birthdate. And I've rarely played against anyone that folds 6-9 (because we're all immature like that).

 

 

I also don't think my analogy to cards is ridiculous at all. You play the game to win, and you only do things that enhance your chances of winning the game. While playing poker, people don't just start building a house of cards and say "But I'm doing what is fun to me!"

 

The analogy isn't ridiculous. The 'only play to win' attitude is. People play a game in whatever way makes it fun for them. If it's going in guns blazing with a death wish or playing bad hands, if it amuses them, why not? It's all about what someone finds fun or rewarding. When I play a game - of any kind, my main priority is to have fun. Winning is just an added bonus. And if something is for free, then why not do whatever is fun, even if it is completely ridiculous and means you have no chance of winning?

 

(NB: I don't play any other video/computer games except Runescape, which I why I'm focusing on the poker comparisons)

[strilmus]

[spoiler=Actual Post]The two main problems with approaching games as a method of teaching any type of concept is that:

 

1. Games are mainly for fun, and if it is even possible, there's no way you're going to get them to think of games seriously as the main vehicle for any other kind of thought. Most games that have tried to accomplish a higher purpose either come off as too preachy because they forgot to actually make a game, or the idea simply turned off potential players because of the preconception that these types of games come off as too preachy and therefore unplayable.

 

2. With that in mind, nobody has ever tried to make a game that works to your benefit other than some games that are trying to catch onto a fad (Wii) or "edutainment" which is aimed at kids more than anything. And we all know what those games are like. :D At the end of the day, well made games need to satisfy the bottom line, so unless they have some sort of death wish, most developers choose to work on the appeal of the game rather than the intellectual impact in order to maximize the chances of success in the market.

 

I have been researching for a few years to see if it is actually possible to create a socially responsible game (as in, adding more to human culture than taking away) that won't get crushed by either the potential player base or the market. These are my conclusions:

 

1. The game must successfully disguise its true purpose. Nobody except the developers must know about the intent to accomplish an enriching environment for the human spirit. (This sounds extremely corny and ridiculous but it's pretty much what you are trying to do.) This is like poison to people looking for fun. Avoid all lengthy dialogue by characters that would give this away or unrealistic situations that paint everything with ultra positive or negative hues, or really obvious metaphors that do nothing except destroy your credibility. The message must come through by your actions, not your words. Everything you do (and DON'T do) will affect the outcome.

 

2. The game must be good. This is really obvious but frankly sometimes I wonder if we forget in the middle of the job. This thing must play well and by extension, sell well in order to make any kind of impact on culture. The main difference here between this and normal games is that it has to work with the other goal and sacrifices can't be made either way.

 

3. This part is the hardest. The game will have to make enough money in order to survive all the way to the completion of the goal, but at the same time, it must not damage society. You do not want people ditching work or school for this game. You do not want people to spend hours or days or weeks or months doing this at the expense of doing other real life things that they would be better off doing at that time. Nobody must die or be killed as a result of this game. There shouldn't be sweatshops trying to play your game for money, or people scamming other people out of their personal information using this game as a means to do so. In short, people should want to play this game, but they shouldn't feel the NEED to play this game. Granted, this will probably happen a bit, depending on what your game is, but since you choose what you are going to do with this game, keeping these issues in mind when you are making these decisions is better than blindly forging ahead. Searching for the deeper cause rather than treating the problem superficially works well.

 

All this being said, Runescape is definitely the wrong place to start. The players are very much unwilling to change, so the game is also unwilling to change much in order to avoid incidents like PvP removal, to the point that if anything actually becomes less painful to do, it is considered a menace to the game and should be destroyed, despite the fact that it is just trying to help. In its current state the atmosphere is almost designed to crush any kind of actual development of the mind save for what you gain from social interaction. In other words, the game itself is pretty much useless for learning. Most strategy comes down to rock/paper/scissors with varying degrees of complexity depending on the situation, and nothing changes at higher levels except for where you can do the almost exact same thing you were doing earlier but look cooler doing it. The whole balance of the cycle of work and output has been turned on its head, where it is more important that you can do something than the things you actually do with that ability.

 

Now, there's nothing wrong with Runescape as a game (granted, an extremely simple game without much thinking needed), but it won't fulfill any deeper need than to waste your time with distractions and watching grass grow.

 

 

TL;DR

 

Post is about making games that help society as a whole rather than some kind of distraction from life's problems.

 

Main obstacles:

 

1. Games ARE distractions by nature. Trying to do something other than that is, by our current preconceptions, pretty much the opposite of what a game is in the first place.

2. Most games these days are made to turn a profit. They NEED to do this in order to survive or get enough exposure. Anything that doesn't serve this purpose is secondary and therefore barely explored, or just turned into another selling point.

 

Blah blah blah did some research. Making such a game perhaps possible. Conclusions:

 

1. Nobody must know that the game is trying to be helpful or else nobody will play it. Do not do anything that could be observed as a direct result of having a "Disney" philosophy.

2. Game must not forget it is a game. The game must be FUN. But the other objective must not be forgotten. Fun and learning must survive together.

3. Do not be evil. Be wary of possible outcomes that encourage harm against other beings (REAL harm, not fake harm). Problems are best handled head on rather than avoided.

 

Runescape is too set in its ways to be of any use for learning except in situations involving more than one player. Game is too simplistic to offer any real education.

 

If anybody wishes to discuss what I wrote to the extent of debating certain points, you must suffer through the gauntlet of text in the spoilered part before I consider your opinion valid.

[Pirate_Felix]

My fiancee plays 2-7 (one of the worst hands) because it's our son's birthdate.

Its the worst actually

Random facts gogogo