Copied and pasted from The Tavern:
Quote from: Rorshach FritosSo... he's saying that we feel good about the things that we invest time and (even tedious) effort into, even when the goals don't have any intrinsic value?
... Isn't that why we massacre the orcs that guard the Wizard's Tower that only really exists in our heads?
Essentially yes. The difference being in the strategy, and roleplaying aspects. If we develop a character, we are engaging in a creative and improvised act of dramatic storytelling (with some rules). If we are simply deciding on how best to slaughter the orcs in the tower, we are at least thinking strategically, even if that strategy is just to swing your sword and hope you kill them before they kill you.[/quote]aren't[/i] swinging swords hoping to kill orcs before they kill us. We're rolling dice and talking. Since they only really exist in our heads, killing the orcs has no more real-world value than building Minecraft castles, or even clicking Farmville cows. In the end, all that's left is a repetitive menial task (rolling the dice) and a randomized payout (reporting the result). For the vast majority of us, it doesn't get us any money, the most food we get out of it is a shared bag of Cheetos once a week, and I still have yet to hear of anyone successfully using "I own over a dozen Dungeons and Dragons books" as a pick up line.*
Yet it's an activity that we value, and we keep coming back to it. Why? Well, yeah, because it's fun, but what does that entail? Apparently, it entails grinding (killing orc after orc after...), and a randomized payout (will I roll a 20 or a 1?). Personally, I'd like to add enough of something pleasant-- pretty graphics, an engaging story, the chance to be creative-- to keep you from becoming too aware of the skinner box that you're subjecting yourself to. This, I think, is probably the real failing of games like Farmville.
* If you've seen this happen, please, share details. I'd love to know what could make this work.
QuoteWe aren't swinging swords hoping to kill orcs before they kill us.
In the end, all that's left is a repetitive menial task[/quote]Apparently, it entails grinding (killing orc after orc after...), and a randomized payout (will I roll a 20 or a 1?).[/quote]Who is the nasty person with these ideas? This blasphemer? This heretic?
I don't know what we're talking about because the page won't load for me. The hell is Minecraft?
Quote from: Salacious AngelI don't know what we're talking about because the page won't load for me. The hell is Minecraft?
I've never played it, but here's the description from that page:
QuoteBut enough about all that stuff. You know what we love? Minecraft! Yes, Minecraft, the indie darling of the year. The game comes with my hearty recommendation, by the way. In Minecraft, you dig deep underground, mining for stone and precious metals, and then you use these materials to build whatever your heart desires. Some people build ships, some people build working CPUs. My friends and I dedicated our efforts towards a simple yet gigantic castle. The outer wall alone contains about twenty-four thousand blocks of stone, each harvested one by one.
The article in question, by the way, rehashes popular criticism of Facebook-style casual games-- namely, grinding and randomized "slot machine" payouts-- and then takes Minecraft, a well-received game, only to point out that this has the same grinding and randomized payouts.
Just checked Minecraft out on Youtube.
How anybody would equate this kickass looking product with anything Zynga ever churned out of its abominable netherhole is beyond me.
Melbourne shufflers and geriatrics both use their feet to get about. I imagine the shufflers have more fun.
After reading the article a little closer...all I can say is...
What the hell?
This is a terrible article. All games are nothing more than varying degrees of repetitiveness masked in an illusion. The best games have depth, i.e. layers of illusion that cover the boring stuff. Any shooter game is the same..but take Call of Duties leveling system and boom its a hit. Rolling dice is pretty boring on its own. Add all the trappings of a roleplaying game and its fun for hours,weeks,months,years.
Your right, it is a horrible comparison of Minecraft to Farmville.
The author seems rather unduly concerned about the idea of "wasting time" on games. Unless you're a professional starcraft player or something, isn't all time spent on games is "wasted" in the broad sense the article uses?
To me there's only one ultimate criteria for whether a game is a good game: is it enjoyable to play? If that means mining thousands of bricks to make a scale model of the starship Enterprise in minecraft, that's no less valid than fighting zerg or getting head-shots, or for that matter than grinding orcs or clicking cows. Video game skills are useless skills, and there are no real rewards beyond the enjoyment of the game itself. Personally I find grinding orcs/clicking cows pretty boring, but if someone enjoys that, who am I to say my tastes are superior?
Quote from: SteerpikePersonally I find grinding orcs/clicking cows pretty boring, but if someone enjoys that, who am I to say my tastes are superior?
Certainly not "indy", with that attitude...
QuoteCertainly not "indy", with that attitude...
Plenty of indy game designers and gamers (myself included) enjoy a good grind. A sense of superiority is in no way intrinsic to or necessary for indy gaming.
Quote from: SteerpikeIf that means mining thousands of bricks to make a scale model of the starship Enterprise in minecraft,
Hmm.. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn2-d5a3r94)
QuoteHmm..
Ohh, I see now. Minecraft has absolutely nothing to do with grinding.
Minecraft is about vision.
GRAND and TERRIBLE VISION!
(mine is an evil laugh)
Sarisa- I thought its point about how Minecraft's two modes interact was a very cogent one.
For example: He commented that if the game is all about creativity-- then building in Creative mode with no enemies is what you would do, since it's more efficient to create in Creative mode.
But the game is also about strategy, about the challenge of avoiding monsters and in finding blocks. Many people find more fulfillment in seeking blocks and then building the same thing they would build in creative mode... Even though this is less efficient.
Ultimately though the strategy of minecraft is an odd one- since it is entirely random... unlike some set games where you always know where things are going to be or can always predict--with minecraft you know that some enemies are going to spawn and that every 10th gravel will drop flint, but you don't know where the diamond will be... so in that there is a lack of skill. Finding the minerals is random--but it's so fulfilling.
Fighting the monsters, however, that takes skill. And building the buildings takes skill. It's an interesting balance.
Games may sometimes be mindless and games may sometimes be grinding and games may sometimes merely exist to be pretty, but at their core, games exist to teach skills. Skills of thinking laterally (strategically)... like Chess, like Go. Perhaps this is the root of why some games are entertaining, because they make people think.
The article really got me thinking about WHY I prefer survival mode to creative mode... and then thinking about what skills I am training in survival mode that makes it intrinsically more fun and fulfilling.
As for Farmville, I've never played it and know nothing about it, so I take his comments and comparison of it at face value.
>>Video game skills are useless skills, and there are no real rewards beyond the enjoyment of the game itself.
I'd disagree with that Steerpike.
1.Sim City teaches basic concepts of urban planning and capitalism. If you tax the businesses too much, then you won't have any businesses for the people who live in homes to work at.
2. Civilization teaches about the rise of civilizations, real technologies, and strategic development.
3. Likewise, EU teaches about geography and renaissance->victorian age kingdoms.
4. Even shooters have something to teach people about spatial reasoning in 3D-responding to multiple stimulii and using heads-up displays while avoiding being shot; Other shooters even teach about small arms types.
5.Memorization of combo-techniques trains cognitive skills.
6. Other games, like Bejeweled, teach pattern-recognition.
7. Still others, like RPGs like Mass Effect and Dragon Age teach less and are as you mention, more like entertainment- since they are interactive stories.
Games seem to fall in a few categories:
1. Teaching
2. Entertainment (Stories)
3. Entertainment (Grinding)
I generally don't like the third group, which includes a lot of the earlier RPGs that lacked strong storylines (from what I understand... Morrowind falls in this group since a lot of it seems to be leveling for the sake of leveling) and which includes some shooters. Leveling is an interesting phenomena. It's rewarding when it gives something new for the player to use and to try- something strategic. But when the difficulty also amps up, it can return a hollow feeling. Games need to be more "human" somehow and directly applicable to daily life (teaching category)... or tell a story... or else the player needs to be very inventive and make up their own story to justify the grinding. (Still, some people get enjoyment from repetitive tasks, like replaying each level of Super Mario until they beat it flawlessly-- I personally see that as work rather than as a game and would rather spend that time at work, but I understand that some people consider that a strategic accomplishment).
QuoteMorrowind falls in this group since a lot of it seems to be leveling for the sake of leveling
Why do we grind?[/i]
As for "teaching", I'd hardly suggest that it is the purpose of most of those games to teach. This puts that category somewhat at odds with the other groups, whose purpose is to entertain. Hell, they're all there to be entertaining. Or not. You know, because designers will latch onto whatever player motives will help the game become popular. Or that harmonise with their personal vision. Or maybe they just want all of your money and they have teams of psychiatrists perfecting the art of habit-formation or whatever and making billions of dollars off you.
Take the video Sarisa posted. You can build the
friggin Enterprise. Why would you do that? Why the hell not?
It bothers the psychologist in me when someone takes a book and concepts from the beginning of a movement and does not apply the decades of thought and theory that have come in the intervening time period.
Heck, no one seems to call language acquisition bad, although it is clearly learned and one of the clearest examples of the behavioral viewpoint.
Nor is there any doubt that the grand theme of awareness; to see how our mind relates and learns and plays; trumps the negative viewpoints here.
But I am especially disinclined to the false duality at the end of the article, as if these 2 outcomes are the only 2 outcomes, as if being part of a story, as if immersion, as if unconsiously relating a game experience to book read or games played, is invalid.
It seems that I read the article in a very different way than most of the people here read it.
Unlike Angel or some others I didn't see it as an attack on games but as something to provoke thought. And I seem to have completely missed the value judgment part of the discussion. (When did grinding necessarily become == bad?)
====
>>As for "teaching", I'd hardly suggest that it is the purpose of most of those games to teach. This puts that category somewhat at odds with the other groups, whose purpose is to entertain.
The sales of Civilization II vs. Alpha Centauri would lead to a conclusion that there is something intrinsically more valuable about teaching real life concepts rather than memorizing alien technologies... or maybe people just find Civ II more "familiar" because they know the technologies. There could be many reasons why one sold better than the other--but at its most basic, Civ II is rewarding and entertaining because it's useful and familiar, and it's useful and familiar because it can help people review real-life historical concepts...without the historical concepts, it's AC, which didn't sell as well.
====---
I personally find grinding as ultimately boring and unrewarding, but I think the article made an excellent point that games like Minecraft are fun to some degree because survival mode for example permits a type of grinding (I suppose a definition of grinding should have been given-- is grinding doing something for the sake of making oneself better at doing that thing [Leveling up in most older RPGs]; or is it doing something repetitive in order to unlock new things that can be applied to a new goal? [Minecraft])
, whereas creative can accomplish the same goals, but in a quicker, more efficient manner.
Maybe this is because of the wonder of discovery in survival mode- you never know exactly what you will find.
Maybe because this is of the skill in building while being threatened by monsters?
Maybe this is because of the adrenaline rush experienced due to fright that a monster may attack?
Maybe because of the above questions, it is easier to imagine and create a story in minecraft--and that story appeals to people.
These are the questions that interested me; why would I prefer Survival mode over Creative when I can create in both--is it the balance of experiences (expand, explore, exterminate, exploit, create) that doesn't exist in Creative?
What bothered me about the article was that the two possible conclusions both scared the writer to death, to use his/her own words. The writer's anxiety seemed to hinge on the idea that games should generate a feeling of pride in the player, that players are always striving to "prove" something (presumably their superiority) by playing, and games that require skill rather than devotion are intrinsically superior to click-fests because the sense of pride they generate is somehow more genuine. As I read the article, I get the sense that the author believes that the point of games is to make the player feel justifiably superior to others, or at least to hypothetical others in the case of a single player game.
I disagree. While I completely concede that competition is an integral part of many games (such as Halo, or Starcraft), I find the author's anxiety about the reason behind the good feeling he/she gets when completing a castle in miecraft somewhat absurd.
I think that the best bit of the article comes at the end:
[blockquote=E McNeill]Now we've dug deep enough to reach the really valuable questions. Can there be true meaning in gaming, or is it 'just for fun'? Where does the meaning come from? What do hardcore gamers get out of their hobby that slots players don't? Does Farmville require 'dedication'? Is this dedication something we should value?[/blockquote]
My answers would be:
Can there be true meaning in gaming, or is it 'just for fun'?
Just for fun.
Where does the meaning come from?
From the fun.
What do hardcore gamers get out of their hobby that slots players don't?
Possibly more fun, possibly nothing; it probably depends on the player as an individual more than anything else. Sometimes (very rarely) money. Bragging rights.
Does Farmville require 'dedication'?
Yes.
Is this dedication something we should value?
Not on a societal level - but we shouldn't value skill at Halo any more or less on that level, either. The question is looking for value in the wrong place: in the gamer rather than the game, in results, statistics, and some hypothetical hierarchy of skill/dedication rather than in the experience of playing the game itself.
I will agree that games like Civ are partly educational, and I concede that some games may help someone develop skills applicable outside of gaming, so I'll admit that my comment that all gaming skills are useless skills was partially untrue. However, I will contend that in my opinion when judging the value of a game as a game, as opposed to as an educational tool or a skill-building simulator, enjoyment should be the chief factor under consideration, not didactic merit.
I do think the article was somewhat interesting even if I disagreed with it - it's spawned a very interesting conversation, if nothing else!