Computer games and real life

[al8]

Is video gaming the squeal of suffering creature?
I read this (http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted_p1.html) article on video gaming addiction and found it quite interesting. I've often wondered if video games could be harmful in the same way or even more than religion. It' wastes peoples lives and blocks them from dealing with the world.

This excerpt from the article goes into why gaming can be more rewarding than real life, and perhaps also point us in a direction on how to improve peoples lives materially, specifically job wise, so that gaming and other forms of escapism will become unnecessary.



Do you like your job?

Considering half of you are reading this at work, I'm going to guess no. And that brings us to the one thing that makes gaming addiction--and addiction in general--so incredibly hard to beat.

As shocking as this sounds, a whole lot of the "guy who failed all of his classes because he was playing WoW all the time" horror stories are really just about a dude who simply didn't like his classes very much. This was never some dystopian mind control scheme by Blizzard. The games just filled a void.

Why do so many of us have that void? Because according to everything expert Malcolm Gladwell, to be satisfied with your job you need three things, and I bet most of you don't even have two of them:

Autonomy (that is, you have some say in what you do day to day);

Complexity (so it's not mind-numbing repetition);

Connection Between Effort and Reward (i.e. you actually see the awesome results of your hard work).


Notice that pants are not necessary for job satisfaction.

Most people, particularly in the young gamer demographics, don't have this in their jobs or in any aspect of their everyday lives. But the most addictive video games are specifically geared to give us all three... or at least the illusion of all three.

Autonomy:

You pick your quests, or which Farmville crops to plant. Hell, you even pick your own body, species and talents.


Annoying your Facebook friends with updates is a really annoying talent.

Complexity:

Players will do monotonous grinding specifically because it doesn't feel like grinding. Remember the complicated Tier Armor/Frost Emblem dance that kept our gamer clicking earlier.

Connection Between Effort and Reward:

This is the big one. When you level up in WoW a goddamned plume of golden light shoots out of your body.


This is what most of us don't get in everyday life--quick, tangible rewards. It's less about instant gratification and more about a freaking sense of accomplishment. How much harder would we work at the office if we got this, and could measure our progress toward it? And if the light shot from our crotch?

[Dr Mindbender]

oh here we go, another 'video games are evil' thread.

I see no reason why game addiction is more harmful than movie or TV addiction. If you want an example of socially harmful media, you need look no further than the x factor or big brother phenomenon.

At least games engage the audience on multiple levels and inspires their imagination. Furthermore the game industry is one of the driving forces behind jobs in the creative sector as well as cutting edge household and interactive technologies that could have applications in other industries.

In short this article is nonsense.I play games because i genuinely derive pleasure from the overall narrative, design and artistry that has gone into making it in the same capacity i would with a movie or music album, otherwise is it only poor people who are gamers to escape their melancholy existances? What a load of bull. If theres no games after the revolution, it aint my revolution.

[Dr Mindbender]

...also, if people are allowing games to control their time then that is down to their own irresponsible usage, much like with alchohol which doubtlessly destroys far more lives.

Is that an argument against alcohol?

[khad]

oh here we go, another 'video games are evil' thread.

You missed the point completely. The article is about how gaming and escapism is a product of our alienated working lives. It's not saying anything other than escapism being a symptom of the underlying capitalist problem.

[Dr Mindbender]

You missed the point completely. The article is about how gaming and escapism is a product of our alienated working lives. It's not saying anything other than escapism being a symptom of the underlying capitalist problem.

The opening post appears to be comparing videogames to religion which is ridiculous. Its not uncommon for many leftists to regard religion as a problem as large as capitalism itself.

Which I suppose carries some weight when you consider that religion pre-dates capitalism. You missed my point too though. Alcohol, reality TV and drugs are probably worse forms of escapism than games but for some reason, people clamber onto the gravy train to blame games first for society's ills for no other reason that it being the latest form around. Why is that?

[bcbm]

You missed my point too though. Alcohol, reality TV and drugs are probably worse forms of escapism than games but for some reason, people clamber onto the gravy train to blame games first for society's ills for no other reason that it being the latest form around. Why is that?

op is blaming jobs for society's ills (including video game addiction), not video games:


This excerpt from the article goes into why gaming can be more rewarding than real life, and perhaps also point us in a direction on how to improve peoples lives materially, specifically job wise

i'm with you on wanting to keep video games around, but i think the article makes a good point about how video games (and by extension alcohol, etc) are used to fill voids that exist in our lives due to alienation.

[Meridian]

I have put quite a lot of thought into game philosophy, mechanics and the future of interactive online gaming.



Most people, particularly in the young gamer demographics, don't have this in their jobs or in any aspect of their everyday lives. But the most addictive video games are specifically geared to give us all three... or at least the illusion of all three.
What is wrong with the above is the last sentence. There is no illusion. Virtual reality is part of reality, and people playing online games are part of a real community. Unless you come to think in terms of metaphysical gibberish there's no difference.

What is true is that gaming, as a form of entertainment, is so successful and appealing largely because of material conditions. But is this a surprise to historical materialists?

[TheUnknownEntity]

Hi guys,

I'm completely new on-site, and am an avid videogamer. It is a form of escapism i guess, but, as has been posted, it pales in comparison with drugs and alcohol in terms of social problems caused.

The thing is, capitalism is responsible for the unhappiness that is so prevalent in our lives. The corporations are also the ones making profits from alleviating that pain. So it's completely circular. They cause our misery and sell us the means to temporarily alleviate it, all the while farming us for cash and contributing to the weakening and downgrading of our society. Then, the inevitable social problems that result are used to usher in their Draconian legislation, in order for them to have total control over us from the cradle to the grave.

It ain't right, and i look forward to the fight against it with you guys. :thumbup1:

[Dr Mindbender]

Hi guys,

I'm completely new on-site, and am an avid videogamer. It is a form of escapism i guess, but, as has been posted, it pales in comparison with drugs and alcohol in terms of social problems caused.

The thing is, capitalism is responsible for the unhappiness that is so prevalent in our lives. The corporations are also the ones making profits from alleviating that pain. So it's completely circular. They cause our misery and sell us the means to temporarily alleviate it, all the while farming us for cash and contributing to the weakening and downgrading of our society. Then, the inevitable social problems that result are used to usher in their Draconian legislation, in order for them to have total control over us from the cradle to the grave.

It ain't right, and i look forward to the fight against it with you guys. :thumbup1:

thanks for the input, but theres an introductions board for the purpose of the first and last part of your post.

I for one am frustrated at how games are squandered as a potential platform for positive messages - it could be an excellent medium for education and progressive sentiment. That is largely one reason i am trying to break into the industry; to change its face.

Basically the game industry suffers from the same problems that its counterparts in the mainstream media do. It isnt that games are an inherent evil; more the people behind the scenes that are turning the wheel.

[TheUnknownEntity]

thanks for the input, but theres an introductions board for the purpose of the first and last part of your post.

I for one am frustrated at how games are squandered as a potential platform for positive messages - it could be an excellent medium for education and progressive sentiment. That is largely one reason i am trying to break into the industry; to change its face.

Basically the game industry suffers from the same problems that its counterparts in the mainstream media do. It isnt that games are an inherent evil; more the people behind the scenes that are turning the wheel.

Yeah, i saw the Introductions Board. I'll use it later (i kind of rushed into this thread having seen a topic with the word 'videogame' in it!).

Who do you guys suspect are 'behind the scenes', 'turning the wheel'? Who are the capitalist elite comprised of?

[Dr Mindbender]

Who do you guys suspect are 'behind the scenes', 'turning the wheel'? Who are the capitalist elite comprised of?

Being a student of the industry i have some insider knowledge.

Those 'turning the wheel' are those large publishers and development houses that are in a fortunate enough position to be able to afford to publish and/or produce AAA games.

Few of them want to take risks in producing innovative new concepts and so the industry is suffering from a 'cookie cutter' effect of the typical game types that the publishers know will sell well to the general game buying public.

Its a classical example of capitalism causing artistic stagnation, and the reason why game designers hate publishers so much.


As for the capitalist elite outside the industry, that is a much broader question

:lol:

[TheUnknownEntity]

Few of them want to take risks in producing innovative new concepts and so the industry is suffering from a 'cookie cutter' effect of the typical game types that the publishers know will sell well to the general game buying public.


I've definitely noticed the lack of innovation recently. Did you play Final Fantasy XIII? Ouch... Square-Enix have reduced the Japanese RPG to an on-rails action game, just to appease the ADD generation... it's not fair on long-time fans of the series. The Final Fantasy series has always been consistently innovative IMO.

[Buffalo Souljah]

Video games are the devil.

[theblackmask]

I think we need to look beyond video games as escapism, and recognize that addiction and other negative aspects are a result of capitalism. Without the profit motive of capitalism, games could be free to be an artistic medium unlike anything we've ever seen. To say that games are escapism is wrong, but it would be correct to say that peoples' material conditions and the way games are designed leads to them becoming a form of escapism.

Hopefully, as tools to create games become more available and less difficult to use, we will see more games made as art and not for profit. The beginnings of this can be seen in the independent game scene where games are doing things that no mainstream game would risk doing. In my opinion, games made by people outside of the industry are the only hope for any meaningful content in video games.

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

Do you like your job?

Considering half of you are reading this at work, I'm going to guess no. And that brings us to the one thing that makes revolutionary ideas--and revolution in general--so incredibly hard to beat.
fix'd:lol:

[TheUnknownEntity]

Just Cause 2 looks quite good...

[Dr Mindbender]

Just Cause 2 looks quite good...

Red Faction Guerilla was fucking awesome.

[Lynx]

A paying job where you have the time to play video games? Where do I sign up?

[piet11111]

Videogames for me are a form of escapism and because of it i am not an alcoholic as that would be my next choice for my daily dose of escapism.

[Sentinel]

Videogames for me are a form of escapism and because of it i am not an alcoholic as that would be my next choice for my daily dose of escapism.


I'm often thinking the same thing (although I am usually stoned on pot when I play them). I don't see anything dangerous about it, and it's definitely not comparable to the negative effects of religion, which warps a persons entire worldview and sedates on a permanent basis, rather than periodically.

This said, I've found that one of the most important -- if not the most important -- lessons in life is that nothing is good for you if exaggerated beyond a certain point. Moderation in everything is the key to a happier and healthier life.

[theblackmask]

Red Faction Guerilla was fucking awesome.

Just cause 2 and Red Faction: Guerilla are both fun, but let's not pretend they have any real revolutionary value. They are both just GTA clones with a semi-revolutionary gloss.

What does everyone think of the recent laws passed in Venezuela regarding the importing of violent video games?

[Dr Mindbender]

Just cause 2 and Red Faction: Guerilla are both fun, but let's not pretend they have any real revolutionary value. They are both just GTA clones with a semi-revolutionary gloss.


I wouldnt say that, if you play the campaign mode the whole way through theres some very obvious class consciousness.

On one mission you actually get to wipe out a bunch of CEO's arriving for a business meeting. Great times.

[anticap]

...also, if people are allowing games to control their time then that is down to their own irresponsible usage, much like with alchohol which doubtlessly destroys far more lives.

Is that an argument against alcohol?

Maybe.

Meaning: the argument that "X is neutral; it's how you use it" is often nonsense -- or at least, not the whole truth. A gun, for example, is not neutral. While it is true that "guns don't kill people; people kill people," it is also true that guns are designed to kill.

I'm sure you get the point. I don't want to argue the hidden assumptions behind videogames, or alcohol, but only to raise that point.

(I used to be heavily "addicted" -- if you like -- to a certain first-person shooter. It sucked up most of my free time. I made myself give it up after I started having dreams that took place inside its maps. I don't know how this relates, I'm just sharing.)


I for one am frustrated at how games are squandered as a potential platform for positive messages - it could be an excellent medium for education and progressive sentiment.

Many years ago I used to play RuneScape (http://www.runescape.com/), the core of which is its virtual market. There are even websites that track its trends. It's often occurred to me that there are tens of thousands of kids having those market premises drilled into them daily by that game. Not that they need RuneScape for that, but still; wouldn't it be fun to tweak the rules and base the game on socialist premises? It would be an interesting social experiment I think.

[Meridian]

(I used to be heavily "addicted" -- if you like -- to a certain first-person shooter. It sucked up most of my free time. I made myself give it up after I started having dreams that took place inside its maps. I don't know how this relates, I'm just sharing.)
Just remember that most people manage to play games without damaging the other aspects of their lives. Additionally, playing games is something people generally do completely consensually.


Many years ago I used to play RuneScape (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.runescape.com/), the core of which is its virtual market. There are even websites that track its trends. It's often occurred to me that there are tens of thousands of kids having those market premises drilled into them daily by that game. Not that they need RuneScape for that, but still; wouldn't it be fun to tweak the rules and base the game on socialist premises? It would be an interesting social experiment I think.
I think the most interesting trend right now, and maybe of the near future, is and will be "sandbox" style open MMO's. The more open-ended and life-like, the better. I predict the ability of large masses of people to interactively shape the world however they wish, as well as how they wish to organize between themselves. This could easily lead to socialist settings, because in MMO's today, that aren't so open-ended, you basically have fixed currencies, prices, etc. The closest analogy between the proletarian class and the capitalist class here is the division between inexperienced ("noobs" and "farmers") and experienced players ("pros").

With the sort of open arena, sandbox MMO's I foresee coming in the near future, completely realistic in terms of physics and graphics, you have people having to organize in ways most effective in order to survive in the world. Here, monetary systems and economic classes might not be the most applicable option, as there are no set currencies, no set character classes, etc. Well, these are admittedly assumptions, but I have seen trends of MMORPG's (mostly) going in this direction and stepping out of the themepark style.

[khad]

I think the most interesting trend right now, and maybe of the near future, is and will be "sandbox" style open MMO's. The more open-ended and life-like, the better. I predict the ability of large masses of people to interactively shape the world however they wish, as well as how they wish to organize between themselves. This could easily lead to socialist settings, because in MMO's today, that aren't so open-ended, you basically have fixed currencies, prices, etc. The closest analogy between the proletarian class and the capitalist class here is the division between inexperienced ("noobs" and "farmers") and experienced players ("pros").
This is exactly the kind of escapism that this article was criticizing. If you have that much energy to organize virtual socialism (it's more than just entertainment at that point), why don't you try to organize IRL?

[black magick hustla]

I'm often thinking the same thing (although I am usually stoned on pot when I play them). I don't see anything dangerous about it, and it's definitely not comparable to the negative effects of religion, which warps a persons entire worldview and sedates on a permanent basis, rather than periodically.


I think it can be pretty awful. Just take a peek at a lot of internet culture surrounding videogames and cyberspace in general. Internet nerds was the best thing that could happen to the libertarian right and cynical cryptoracist politicians.

[Meridian]

This is exactly the kind of escapism that this article was criticizing. If you have that much energy to organize virtual socialism (it's more than just entertainment at that point), why don't you try to organize IRL?
I think it is far fetched to say the 'article' was criticizing anything, especially considering Cracked.com is a humour site.

And you are wrong, it is entertainment at that point. It may not be "traditional entertainment", I will give you that, but it is still entertainment. It's lot more fruitful than what passes as entertainment in most other cases, since it involves activities affecting large amounts of people.

[danyboy27]

Red Faction Guerilla was fucking awesome.
fallout 3 is really fun.

[Dr Mindbender]

fallout 3 is really fun.

well yes, on a political level it carries a pretty stern anti-war message if nothing else.

Plus the brotherhood of steel are blatantly technocrats so siding with them was a no-brainer really.

:lol:

[Meridian]

A quite interesting video relating to the subject of this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIZVCCJxIQ4

[piet11111]

well yes, on a political level it carries a pretty stern anti-war message if nothing else.

Plus the brotherhood of steel are blatantly technocrats so siding with them was a no-brainer really.

:lol:

but the brotherhood are elitist jerks that hoarded technology for their own purpose instead of utilising it to benefit the other wastelanders.

[Dr Mindbender]

but the brotherhood are elitist jerks that hoarded technology for their own purpose instead of utilising it to benefit the other wastelanders.

their argument was that their research would benefit the whole world, not just the confines of the DC wasteland.

If you play broken steel after they get project eden working they start distributing drinkable water bottles to the wastelands.

Besides they were fighting the Enclave fascists (who wanted to wipe out all non humans) so how could you not side with them?

[piet11111]

their argument was that their research would benefit the whole world, not just the confines of the DC wasteland.

i am skeptical of what organizations claim to work for especially when their actions are contrary.


If you play broken steel after they get project eden working they start distributing drinkable water bottles to the wastelands.

yeah they did that but i was not convinced of any good intentions they had.


Besides they were fighting the Enclave fascists (who wanted to wipe out all non humans) so how could you not side with them?

i worked with the brotherhood but only because i considered them the lesser evil.
their elitist attitude and their lack of compassion for the wastelanders to me had all the signs of a forming ruling class.

[Dr Mindbender]

I think you've overanalysed it too much. I don't think the BOS is elitist. As far as i know, membership is open to anyone who wants in.

Besides its the closest that the game comes to 'the heroes'.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Maybe.

Meaning: the argument that "X is neutral; it's how you use it" is often nonsense -- or at least, not the whole truth. A gun, for example, is not neutral. While it is true that "guns don't kill people; people kill people," it is also true that guns are designed to kill.

But even the act of killing is in itself neutral, since it is not universally evil. For example, killing in self-defence (or in the defence of others unable to defend themselves) is generally considered excusable (at least I would hope so), even if it's not encouraged, but in some circumstances, like when innocent life is threatened, there may not be a whole lot of choice.


I'm sure you get the point. I don't want to argue the hidden assumptions behind videogames, or alcohol, but only to raise that point.

If the assumptions are hidden, how can we possibly know about them, apart from subjecting them to kind of scrutiny that most gamers don't give them?

Besides, the "assumptions" behind things are usually pretty obvious. Alcoholic drinks can be made for their taste, or simply to intoxicate. Videogames are usually made for entertainment, high-brow or low-brow, but they are also made for other purposes such as education. The works of propaganda are even more obvious, since the format doesn't lend itself well to remonstration or the dictation of a particular worldview - gamers tend to see these as chafing restrictions. What do you mean I can't set taxes at that level?!


Many years ago I used to play RuneScape (http://www.runescape.com/), the core of which is its virtual market. There are even websites that track its trends. It's often occurred to me that there are tens of thousands of kids having those market premises drilled into them daily by that game. Not that they need RuneScape for that, but still; wouldn't it be fun to tweak the rules and base the game on socialist premises? It would be an interesting social experiment I think.

It would be an interesting social experiment, but I think it would make for a very dull game. Games are (usually) competitive. So are markets, so the marriage of the two is entirely natural.

Imagine a strategy game with infinite resources and all upgrades and units available to every player. I think in such a situation the artificial constraints of in-game resources would be replaced by the constraints of software and hardware - how many units can the game render and keep track of, how fast the hardware can run while it's doing all of this heavy lifting, and so on and so forth.

[Meridian]

It would be an interesting social experiment, but I think it would make for a very dull game. Games are (usually) competitive. So are markets, so the marriage of the two is entirely natural.

Imagine a strategy game with infinite resources and all upgrades and units available to every player. I think in such a situation the artificial constraints of in-game resources would be replaced by the constraints of software and hardware - how many units can the game render and keep track of, how fast the hardware can run while it's doing all of this heavy lifting, and so on and so forth
I think you present an uncreative way of looking at games here. Games don't need to be competitive, even though they often are. Even so, it doesn't necessitate that the competition is between people or players, it could be competitive in some other way. It doesn't need to be about a market, or analogous to it -- it could, for example, be about humanity's (players) survival versus natural elements (AI, environment).

I would consider games where it is up to the players to create societies how they wish (like it is in most strategy and online roleplaying games) without implemented currency, and pre-implemented 'classes' (in one form or another) to be revolutionary. Here, players would be able to form 'societies' according to their needs, be it communist-like or otherwise, and they would have to actually create a monetary system and class system if they had need of it.

Most games of those genres today take the reactionary position that classes and monetary systems are 'inherent' or 'natural'.

[anticap]

But even the act of killing is in itself neutral, since it is not universally evil.

No, it isn't: e.g., killing carries the assumption (among a myriad of others) that life is not inviolable.

I'm skeptical as the possibility of neutrality. I've yet to find a statement or proposition that didn't carry hidden cargo. Neutrality is like "unbiased": it's bullshit.


For example, killing in self-defence (or in the defence of others unable to defend themselves) is generally considered excusable (at least I would hope so), even if it's not encouraged, but in some circumstances, like when innocent life is threatened, there may not be a whole lot of choice.

Sure, but "excusable" is not the same as "neutral." It's more like "inter-subjectively acceptable."

But more importantly, your example doesn't work as intended. The criteria for determining neutrality (assuming it weren't bullshit) would not be to counter a negative instance with a positive one. A wife-beater who is tender toward his children is not "neutral" as to abuse. A wage-slave who generates profits for her boss while simultaneously plotting to overthrow capitalism is not "neutral" as to exploitation. A person who kills in self-defense but would never do so otherwise is not "neutral" as to killing.

Anyway this digression doesn't advance my point about guns being non-neutral: even if it were true that killing is neutral, it would still be true that guns are designed for that purpose.


It would be an interesting social experiment, but I think it would make for a very dull game. Games are (usually) competitive. So are markets, so the marriage of the two is entirely natural.

Sure, but this isn't graven in stone. I've enjoyed many hours of cooperative creativity in Garry's Mod (http://store.steampowered.com/app/4000/), to site just one example.


Imagine a strategy game with infinite resources and all upgrades and units available to every player. I think in such a situation the artificial constraints of in-game resources would be replaced by the constraints of software and hardware - how many units can the game render and keep track of, how fast the hardware can run while it's doing all of this heavy lifting, and so on and so forth.

But this isn't what I was alluding to.

Sticking with the RuneScape example: the rules underlying the game steer players in a certain direction. These could just as easily be made to steer them in another direction. So instead of competing (often tooth and nail) to gather resources to sell (often dishonestly, in search of profit) on the marketplace, they might cooperate to gather them in coordinated fashion for collection to a different sort of central location where everyone can deposit what they've gathered and withdraw what they need. This is just a simple and obvious example off the top of my head; it's been a while since I played the game. I do remember guilds developing in an attempt to play the game this way, where members would coordinate who would gather what, and where and when, so as not to compete with fellow guild-members. Collected resources were then shared according to who needed what in order to advance their character so that all could participate in XP-leveling activities (i.e., to have the equipment necessary to battle certain AI monsters). This reveals a natural inclination to cooperation and mutual aid, but such players must take the initiative to resist being steered in the other direction by the game; and it doesn't alleviate the problem of dealing with the great majority of players who are blind to those underlying premises and simply play along as expected, kicking and scratching to gather the same resources needed by the guild, rather than joining the guild and benefiting from that solidarity.

(Incidentally, I'm more than a bit troubled by the automatic defense of competition that I've encountered several times on this forum. It seems that not a lot of members have given much thought to the issue, but simply accept competition as inevitable, or, worse, consider it virtuous for human beings to live in competition with one another.)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think you present an uncreative way of looking at games here. Games don't need to be competitive, even though they often are.

Yes, but competitive games are more fun because they push our evolutionary hot-buttons. Given the choice between solitaire and chess, I reckon most people would pick chess.


Even so, it doesn't necessitate that the competition is between people or players, it could be competitive in some other way. It doesn't need to be about a market, or analogous to it -- it could, for example, be about humanity's (players) survival versus natural elements (AI, environment).

Well, that just goes to show that competition isn't necessarily incompatible with cooperation - human players cooperate in a competition against the AI environment. Like in the online Co-op shooting games I used to play obsessively.


I would consider games where it is up to the players to create societies how they wish (like it is in most strategy and online roleplaying games) without implemented currency, and pre-implemented 'classes' (in one form or another) to be revolutionary. Here, players would be able to form 'societies' according to their needs, be it communist-like or otherwise, and they would have to actually create a monetary system and class system if they had need of it.

That would be interesting, but hugely more complicated to code and to play than most strategy games. I don't think current software technology is up to the task, but I could be wrong.


Most games of those genres today take the reactionary position that classes and monetary systems are 'inherent' or 'natural'.

Well, they are. But that doesn't mean they are the optimal solution.


No, it isn't: e.g., killing carries the assumption (among a myriad of others) that life is not inviolable.

Life isn't inviolable.


I'm skeptical as the possibility of neutrality. I've yet to find a statement or proposition that didn't carry hidden cargo. Neutrality is like "unbiased": it's bullshit.

If something is almost universally accepted, then there's a good chance that, for all reasons that matter, it's neutral.


Sure, but "excusable" is not the same as "neutral." It's more like "inter-subjectively acceptable."

Meaningless word chopping, and unnecessary and fussily pedantic word chopping at that. You see, I'm a pragmatist rather than an idealist.


But more importantly, your example doesn't work as intended. The criteria for determining neutrality (assuming it weren't bullshit) would not be to counter a negative instance with a positive one. A wife-beater who is tender toward his children is not "neutral" as to abuse. A wage-slave who generates profits for her boss while simultaneously plotting to overthrow capitalism is not "neutral" as to exploitation. A person who kills in self-defense but would never do so otherwise is not "neutral" as to killing.

Killing is context-dependant - what matters is the circumstances around the killing, not the actual killing itself.


Anyway this digression doesn't advance my point about guns being non-neutral: even if it were true that killing is neutral, it would still be true that guns are designed for that purpose.

Well strictly speaking, guns are actually designed to fire a slug at a target. Whether that target is a tin can or a human being is up to the operator.


Sure, but this isn't graven in stone. I've enjoyed many hours of cooperative creativity in Garry's Mod (http://store.steampowered.com/app/4000/), to site just one example.

Garry's Mod seems to be more a form of collective artistry than any kind of "game".


But this isn't what I was alluding to.

Sticking with the RuneScape example: the rules underlying the game steer players in a certain direction. These could just as easily be made to steer them in another direction. So instead of competing (often tooth and nail) to gather resources to sell (often dishonestly, in search of profit) on the marketplace, they might cooperate to gather them in coordinated fashion for collection to a different sort of central location where everyone can deposit what they've gathered and withdraw what they need. This is just a simple and obvious example off the top of my head; it's been a while since I played the game.

OK, so where's the fun? Resource-collecting is boring, and combat against monsters can wear a little thin due to the limitations of AI.


I do remember guilds developing in an attempt to play the game this way, where members would coordinate who would gather what, and where and when, so as not to compete with fellow guild-members. Collected resources were then shared according to who needed what in order to advance their character so that all could participate in XP-leveling activities (i.e., to have the equipment necessary to battle certain AI monsters). This reveals a natural inclination to cooperation and mutual aid, but such players must take the initiative to resist being steered in the other direction by the game; and it doesn't alleviate the problem of dealing with the great majority of players who are blind to those underlying premises and simply play along as expected, kicking and scratching to gather the same resources needed by the guild, rather than joining the guild and benefiting from that solidarity.

The Guild system simply replaces competition between individuals with competition between Guilds. I don't see the improvement from a "philosophical" point of view, although I will accept that gameplay-wise it's more entertaining.


(Incidentally, I'm more than a bit troubled by the automatic defense of competition that I've encountered several times on this forum. It seems that not a lot of members have given much thought to the issue, but simply accept competition as inevitable, or, worse, consider it virtuous for human beings to live in competition with one another.)

That's because we're talking about competition within the context of computer games, rather than wider society. I'm fully in agreement with the notion that competition-based systems are far from optimal as a means of running society, but how we spend our leisure time is a different matter.

[Revy]

Yes, but competitive games are more fun because they push our evolutionary hot-buttons. Given the choice between solitaire and chess, I reckon most people would pick chess.


I disagree as a long-time fan of Solitaire. The game is very fun and I have played it both on the computer and with real cards. Just my opinion. I know you'll say I don't represent most people tho.:p

[Meridian]

Well, they are. But that doesn't mean they are the optimal solution.
That's funny. Last time I checked our Earth didn't come 'delivered' with its own set of currency. Nor was there written into the 'fragments of reality' that we ought to use it, nor that we should organize work based on obtaining it.

I meant that, with all games today where you create civilizations in some way or other, you have money sort of 'ingrained' into the user interface. Thus, money becomes something 'natural' that one needs/should have, like food/water/sleep.

You have a point about coding being difficult when it comes to creating such open-ended games, however. With the speed of development today I don't think it's too far off.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's funny. Last time I checked our Earth didn't come 'delivered' with its own set of currency. Nor was there written into the 'fragments of reality' that we ought to use it, nor that we should organize work based on obtaining it.

Humans are a part of nature, many people forget that. We developed capitalism on our own, we didn't have it handed to us engraved on a tablet handed to us by aliens or God or whoever. That is what I meant.


I meant that, with all games today where you create civilizations in some way or other, you have money sort of 'ingrained' into the user interface. Thus, money becomes something 'natural' that one needs/should have, like food/water/sleep.

Within the context of the game world, yes. But that doesn't mean that it has to apply in real life. I don't have to carry a sword in case I get attacked by a band of orcs, for example.


You have a point about coding being difficult when it comes to creating such open-ended games, however. With the speed of development today I don't think it's too far off.

Perhaps you're right.

[bcbm]

I don't have to carry a sword in case I get attacked by a band of orcs, for example.


you're just begging for trouble. i never leave home without at least three sets of armor, four swords, an axe and fifty health potions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

People, this isn't Chit-Chat. Please keep the spammy comments to an absolute minimum.

[theblackmask]

I've recently been playing Love, an indie MMORPG/FPS based on settlement building against a hostile AI, by Eskil Steenberg. So far, from what I can tell, keeping a settlement alive and thriving enough to get some of the more advanced tools require a large amount of teamwork in building and raiding the AI. There is really no money. There is power, which is used to power communal settlement upgrades, but it doesn't seem like there are ways to really own anything individually beyond the tools you carry on yourself, which are available to all provided you have built the dispenser for them. It's really interesting, and kinda hard to explain, and I wish I had more time to invest in it right now.

Right now everything is in a stage of primitive communism, where settlements may crumble at any time to invasion, but I have seen some small groups of organized people in this game build some crazy settlements, and I think it's only time before some hardcore payers get together and start forming militias and planning development together, and organizing into a society.

EDIT: I should mention the game isn't free, it's 10 Euros for 30 days of playtime, ACTUAL playtime, not just 30 calendar days.