Could someone who feels this way expand on why they have such a negative view on games? Just curious if it’s personal, cultural, or something else?
Also, is it directed at complex games with storylines, online multiplayer, or mobile games meant to pull as much value as possible? Cause one is unlike the others.
I wasted a large chunk of my life on Counterstrike, Arma 3, DayZ Mod, PUBG, and countless console games. _Thousands_ of hours in total. For me, games were more than an escape or simply a way to unwind. For me, they were a well-hidden addiction. They were an obstacle to reaching my potential. I can't see myself going back to games again and still being as happy as I am now.
I miss games sometimes -- I still occasionally watch them on Twitch or YouTube -- but quitting cold turkey over a year ago has been one of the best decisions I ever made. That I didn't give them up 10 years earlier is a source of great regret.
I'm probably not going to ban my children from playing games they buy with their own money, but I'll definitely have plenty of long talks with them about the dangers of gaming.
Substitute "football" or "drinking with friends" or other outdoor activities for the videogames here. Or "reading a book". It's all the same thing. It's natural for young people today (at least those in more well-off places) to spend absurd amounts of time in a way they later on may consider waste. It's natural for adults to spend some time like this too. We call this entertainment - stuff you do for fun.
Grass is always greener, but you'd probably burn out if you tried to spend those thousand of hours working in your economical self-interest instead. If you were doing something else for fun instead, you could be regretting that today, wishing you played some videogames a bit more. And even if you wouldn't, you would be a different person. The time you spent on videogames - the experiences, the stories, the people - are a part of you right now. And it's not like videogames are unique in enabling escapism; if you look around, plenty of people are escaping from their lives into books, or sports.
It is not like games would be special in impact when you do it too much. What is special is that most people cant play football that much due to physical limitations.
So when book reading has the same addictive quality that makes one play till night regularly or that makes you yell at kids because they interrupted your play, people complain all the same. It just happen less often with books and movies, because of their shorter length and easier way to space out sessions.
I have yet to see anyone seeking treatment because they read too many books or spend too much time with their friends.
- Equating games to watching football is disingenuous at best. Games tire you out mentally. I liked games because it gave me a thousand things to track at once and optimize (big fan of cataclysm DDA/Aurora/factorio/rimworld). But that came at a cost - am a zombie at the end of the session, fully drained. (Definitely happy). This is a big reason why I switched to watching videos instead. I definitely don't have the mental bandwidth for this.
- equating videogames to outdoor activities is again disingenuous. Outdoor activities have a definite social component to them (NO - eve didn't replicate this to even a small extent). Not to mention the health benefits. I know the general world is going towards more of a 'controlled experience', but I am still a strong believer in outdoors and semi-controlled experiences.
- Video games and books are definitely escapism. But fiction just doesn't engage your mind in the same way. Most non-fiction books either I will have to dedicate study time for it OR just fall asleep 30 pages in. All the motor function engagement and quick dopamine hits are just not the same in books.
I am not against video games, my thousands of steam / youtube hours should make that clear. BUT diluting the effect of them just makes the argument muddled.
IMO Video games are essentially alcohol without the liver-effects. Yeah it's a lot of fun in moderation if you are in control (OR if it doesn't pull you in like it does to addictive personalities) but they can pull you down a rabbit hole too deep to climb out of.
One of these is not like the others.
As graphics keep improving I would argue that it might even replace cinema in the future, to some degree.
Also, gaming is just a vast area that it's hard to generalize the whole thing as "scourge". Some games improve critical thinking and can actually be great educational tools. Would you just read a boring history book or activelly engage in the political situation of medieval Europe by playing something like Europa Universalis.
The mechanism is strongly dependent on the person. I have much more of a problem with TV shows and fiction books than with videogames, because I'm a sucker for stories. A TV show or a book series can offer couple dozen hours of engaging storyline; most story-based video games are either much shorter, or the story is crap; the book-series-quality videogame storylines are few and far between. That's probably why I never got addicted to multiplayer games. By their nature they have no quality stories, so they bore me out quickly.
(I'm aware that there are people for whom the "active engagement" part is a core ingredient in addiction. I'm just saying that it's not the only mechanism, and different people are susceptible to different things.)
More time spent videogaming means less time spent leetcoding, raising VC, and crushing it as a 10x engineer! /s
Game addiction is a thing (as is "tons of hours spent but not clinically addicted"). And unlike e.g. workaholism, it doesn't even result in a career to show for it.
I talked to a developer of a popular free-to-play game, and he told me of many of the psychological hooks they use in their game.
Exploitation of hoarding behavior, community fame for specific players, random occurrences that are carefully scripted, etc.
Nowadays it's hard to find games free of ulterior motives.
Yes, addictive games and personalities have always existed, but now there's money mixed in.
I'm not even sure what kind of "old" game you're picturing that you think didn't have "money mixed in" - tetris? pong? goldeneye?
How about an old adventure game, where you were expected to pay once, enjoy the story and quizzes, and complete in X time (no "dark patterns" etc)?
And of which the creators were as passionate about the their creation and genre as you, as opposed to cynical 'let's make another addictive MMOG' or 'let's make another FarmVille' or 'let's make Angry Birds 335' studios?
Food also has "money mixed in" but you can have a honest local food joint, and you can also have a global "give them crap" chain like McDonalds. Sometimes with identical prices too.
The real exception is gambling games.
And I did think along the same lines (in a very minor way) with arcade games. Pinball - where skill let you prolong a game gave way to video games (like pacman or tetris you mentioned), which quickly got too hard to keep going. And it went further when games like gauntlet kept you feeding quarters in a pay to play way.
But at that time, we got atari and nintendo and so forth. Pay once, play for a long time. Kids grew up with this, and parents worried about the cost of a cartridge.
But the current crop of games is free, yet blatantly money oriented. Plants vs Zombies pre-EA vs post-EA comes to mind. Add grinding and then pay to not grind.
Yes, a little rose colored. But in vegas you can actually register as a compulsive gambler and the casinos will not serve you.
I am "anti" any game that uses psychological tricks to get me to keep playing. And for stuff like Celeste, Gris, and Hellblade and Portal that keep me engaged by providing an inherently fulfilling experience.
As an aside, I almost hated Celeste. I’d given up on it and uninstalled it, but was prompted to try again by a YouTube comment (of all things) and when I did, a few screens after where I stopped, it got good. Incredibly unbelievably good. I’m glad I gave it another chance!
My scarce gaming time these days seems to be spent playing stuff from the 80s/90s and arcade games that I can pick up and put down easily. I don't even do mobile games, the grinding and dark patterns annoy the hell out of me.
Games are often treated as, and judged as, timesinks. A good game is simply a good timesink. A good timesink makes use of addictive/gambling mechanics. And most games rely heavily on them (sometimes unintentionally; this is likely less true the closer you get to today).
But in my opinion games can be a lot more interesting than that, and “enjoyable” is a crass description of it. For example, I probably put over 2000 hours into league of legends when I was younger, but those hours were mostly a waste. Back then, I described it as enjoyable. Now I realize I never cared about LoL, I just had my social life there. The game was never actually good, and what little I actually think of it is only about the human components (and a little about how not to design a competitive game). The 15 hours I put into star control 2 were far more valuable (if only because it informed me how little, if not backwards, we progressed from it to mass effect, in terms of game design).
I have a negative opinion on games, but its because I like them. Most games are shit, and the industry has mostly been getting worse over time.
Also out of your three, I know you were referring to “complex games with storylines” as the “good” type, but taking a random lottery, multiplayer games are the only ones with any reasonable hope of actually being interesting, mostly by accident. Most “complex games” are completely superficial; multiplayer games naturally bring depth by “cheating” — the humans bring 90% of it.
But I like games. Theoretically. Sometimes, in practice.
I’d love to hear more about this, although I guess it’s a bit off topic... I played LoL for a while, but never too obsessively or heavily. It was mainly an activity to share with some coworkers so I suppose, like you say, it wasn’t so much about the game itself. I certainly didn’t play it competitively, so maybe that’s why I don’t see it as bad as you make it sound. (I also hear it’s got worse and more lootbox greedy. I last played it circa 2014).
One set of “complex” non-multiplayer (at least, 90% of the time I played single player) games that I do, personally, find incredibly interesting on a multitude of levels are the FROM SOFTWARE games. Even ignoring the difficulty (although I really do enjoy the challenge — or more accurately, when I eventually overcome it), I love the world building, the characters, the intricate level design, the deep but vague and mostly environmental storytelling, the rich implied but often left open to interpretation lore, the aesthetics and the voice acting of Demons’ Souls, Dark Souls, Bloodborne and in the past two weeks, Sekiro. I could (and have done) play nothing but one of these games for months and still find them interesting. Few they games manage this, for me, though.
I'm not sure HN is the place to discuss such things, and I'm not sure even that interesting – the major gripes are mostly obvious, but fundamental; eg reliance on champion-global external systems like summoner spells, runes and whatever they call their current system, which all make it extremely difficult to balance things locally. They've been consistently getting better at it. Lootboxes that is, not game design.
>find incredibly interesting on a multitude of levels are the FROM SOFTWARE games.
FROM is an interesting company, because they were never meant to be popular. They were happy wiling away in their obscurity, constantly iterating on the same niche games (King's Field, Armored Core, etc), until DeS became an accidental hit; I'm not sure the popularity was good for them – the games are misunderstood as simply "difficult" (typically compared to "arcade difficult", but they're not; they're punishing, they trick you, and require a minimal degree of patience that can be found in almost no other modern game, but they eventually push you towards success. Arcade difficult is a vastly different beast, asking for pixel-perfect input, few if any alternative strategies, repetitive play and exceptional punishment to wring those juicy quarters out of you), and that moniker apparently confused From's weaker teams, leading to the mess of DaS 2/3. Annoyingly, their Souls success seems to eaten Armored Core's lunch too.
Probably the most amazing thing about FROM is that they actually learn from their previous work. You can look at King's Field -> DaS lineage and see actual, consistent improvement. Even when they sidestep into Bloodborne and Sekiro, they manage to take lessons with them (and make new mistakes).
But yeah, the industry has its companies and its auteurs. Platinum, Grasshopper Studio, From Software, Clover, iD, Blizzard North, Sid Meier, Kojima, Carmack, Ford & Reichie, Tarn/Zach Adams, (From & Nintendo's) Miyazaki, Mikami, etc. And you'll consistently find interesting output from them, and games worth their salt (Carmack is a bit funny because he doesn't really give a shit about games, his stuff is always technically interesting, and sometimes game-interesting).
But the annoying thing is that that you can take probably 90% of games today, and find something that did the same thing better 20 years ago. Hell, I'm beginning to doubt most game designers are even aware games existed before 2000.
The only thing we're making any real progress on is graphics.. and thats just towards realism. We've lost a lot in style. I mean hell, it's difficult to find games where player interaction is even a base concept of its design, and thats the primary thing games introduce as a medium!
After all, I could double the length of Game X by adding twice as many handmade maps, well written and acted cut scenes, and carefully designed encounters - or I could double the length by adding extra grind.
The former would be something to be celebrated; the latter wouldn't.
HN has many grown-ups, which might skew it a little from the "games all the time are great / custom game rig" demographic.
>Also, is it directed at complex games with storylines, online multiplayer, or mobile games meant to pull as much value as possible? Cause one is unlike the others.
In the end, their value is time wasted translated into money. It's not like even the more evolved ones make some big artistic statement with deep meaning. Even the best are at the level of a Hollywood movie (and usually closer to Michael Bay than Kubrick).
I can't say of anybody's personal goals, but "time spent doing something [one] enjoys" is often wasted.
First, because every time you spent has an opportunity cost.
Second, because empirically peoples' future self often doesn't have the same priorities, and occasionally finds "time spend doing something they enjoyed" wasted and a bad choice.
How many regret e.g. wasting too much time gaming when they should have been e.g. studying or practicing, when they turn 25 and have nothing to show for it?
Offline games can be played when I want (mostly in the evening for an hour or so) and there's no pressure to improve like in Dota 2 and WoW.
One of my favourite purchases recently was a PSP Vita, I can emulate most GB, GBC, GBA, PS, PSP, PS Vita, and many others and I'm having a whole lot of fun going back to play many games that I'd missed in the past.
Gamers are getting older. As in, the median age of people who identify as "gamers" is higher now than ever before. Part of this is because people who grew up with video games as children are now adults. People have always played games (chess is a great example) it's just what role gaming has played in the culture changes.
Since you now have a larger demographic of older gamers, you're going to start hearing more voices echoing this. When I was in college, I could spend 20+ hours a week playing video games until 3 AM. Now that I'm older and married I'm lucky if I get 5 hours a week for non-mobile games. I'm going to have a different evaluation of a title. The last thing I want is to buy a shiny new FPS just to get pwnd repeatedly by some 14 year old who keeps tbagging me and screaming racist taunts. Loot crates and pay-to-win feels gross because I don't want to dump money that I could be using for home repairs on add-ons for my toys.
I'm not anti-games. I love games. But I can hate tons of aspects of the games (like I mentioned above) or call out the toxicity of gamer culture and still be a part of it. This is a stark contrast to 15 years ago when we all needed to band together to explain that games can be art and that FPSs to lead to school shootings.
Even when I still played and did not yet seen addiction in practice up close yet, I realized that complex game with storylines and online multiplayer games are build for people who have the kind of free time that is incompatible with full time job, family and additional learning.
