Kinda hit home for me.

Read it till the end. I myself have been playing a lot of l4d2 lately and a little more then half of the time im not even enjoying myself.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html

So what about you guys?

---

Reality has become a commodity.

WOW! good article.

I've been meaning to respond to this.

It is quite cunning how game developers have quarried the vast fields of neuroscience and psychology to make games more addictive for the rest of us. I mean, for anyone who's ever mapped for a sp game, you know in order to make something what we call "entertaining" is just the right balance of action and exploration. I think most might agree that good SP mapping is correctly applying "variable ratio rewards" in just the right regulation.

With L4D and multiplayer games in general (excluding MMOs) we find players supporting other players in just the same way. The game developers have already done the leg work to set up a kind of dichotomy between the team (or every-man-for-them self) matches where the core gameplay mechanics reinforce a variable reward ratio situation. Especially in L4D(2) where I think Valve really has struck a chord on the mixing of SP and MP where you can get your rewards from other players AND be able to control it as part of the core gameplay too. With the inclusion of the "Director" Valve still gets the control they need to keep the game interesting. I mean they've talked about it themselves about how the game "watches" your team's stats and adjusts itself to keep you "ENTERTAINED".

Perhaps we should be more weary to this; more-so than I thought initially necessitated. It's like gambling without loosing. In the Skinner box, what does the rat have to lose as it presses that lever? There is no negative reinforcement. With smoking, there's that fear of degrading your lungs to the point of cancer, but with games, other than your time, I don't see the long-term negative reinforcement. I'm not saying there should be one, I never want to stop playing games; but that can be a serious issue for some people.

I don't subscribe for a minute to the thought of developers proactively including impediment mechanisms to limit players access to their bought games, But does being aware, or more aware of this now affect your gaming habits? I think it's nice how Steam can report the number of hours you spend in any (steam registered) game, it kind of helps to regulate myself sometimes, -if you care about those kinds of things.

But after saying all that, I still encourage developers to keep investigating the neurosciences and psychological methods to make their games more addicting. Because for me, more addicting DOES in-fact mean more fun, within the context of video games anyway. We could talk about what fun is, but I think that would warrant an entirely new conversation anyway.

What do you guy's think?

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

A really sad story... Good thing I'm not that addicted.

---

Never think about bad things!
TNKqwe:The New Killer qwe
[img]http://images.quiz.wegame.com/production/personalities/22/badge.jpg[/img]
I am Engineer - Play Free Online Games
[img]http://media.moddb.com/images/global/moddb_88x31_v12.png[/img]
Citizen Arms

Absolutely incredibly well written article. Really! Blows my mind how much depth there is to it, from beginning, to end. The amazing thing is, unlike most other articles I've read, I found myself agreeing with absolutely everything the man said, and thinking to myself, "That is most certainly true". Being a person that doesn't play these "addictive" games, with the exception of having played Diablo 2 for many hours, I see the article from one angle, of complete agreement. On the other hand, I'd love to see the reaction of my brother, in his mid 20s, who is at this very moment playing Modern Warfare 2 rooms next to me, an 'activity' he does every day for hours. Would he disagree? Would he realise what a waste of his own life it is and quit the very minute he read the article? Hmm.. I know that he'll never read it if I tell him to, but I'd love to see his reaction.

Likewise, competitive games like Modern Warfare 2 are just sports for people who lack athleticism.

Could not agree more.

Its interesting to ask people why they play farmville. If you push a bit futher and ask what exactly do you do in it. When they start explaining you will see a slight glint of realization come across their faces... and that glint is "o.m.g. this game is stupid"

This was a comment by someone in response to the article. Might have to try that on numerous family members..

I've been putting off reading this article but it was actually quite interesting.

You know, as much as I like to say I hate Wow and Farmville and other "addictive games" and as much as I avoid them I find it difficult to justify my prejudice hatred towards them. All I can really say is I find skill based games funner than... well I can't think of the right word for them, funner than "addictive games" like Wow.

The truth is that I think the tactics used in these "addictive games" are quite clever and I applaud the brains behind them, even though these tactics are sort of "dishonorable" and perhaps not respectable.

But I think we all know who the true gamers are, gamers that use their brains or reflexes and not just their time. Good article.

---

Aaron's Stuff