CN: Discussions of Capitalist Exploitation, Health Concerns
Est. Reading time: 17 Minutes
--------------------------------------------
So, coming back around to this conundrum and recognizing it's churning out more and more updates and DLCs, I've realized I can only speak about this issue at its most abstracted, through analyzing the production of 'progression systems' in these games and then go from there. I know for some this will seem obnoxious but bear with me for a bit, I'm hoping this will get interesting.
Assuming you're at least somewhat interested in game design, which is hopefully the case if you're reading this, then I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage you to play a, what for the moment is called a 'survivor-like' like Vampire Survivors here for at least an hour or two (You can play Vampire Survivors or Magical Survival on your phone for free if you'd like, or use Bluestacks). Don't worry, I'm not going to sit here and tell you they're hidden gems or anything but they do illustrate a point about game design in general.
If one were to ask me these bear the most resemblance to the rpg genre, play something like final fantasy or diablo, and a large part of the appeal is finally reaching that next level you've been anticipating. Things tend to be measured in experience points with little bars displaying progress you can grind towards somewhere along the way these elements which used to be exclusive to rpgs began to migrate outwards slowly permeating everything. At this point that assimilation seems more or less complete. Now, many games have something similar: level up to increase your damage or get a new loot box or just so your icon will look a little more fancy.
In some cases these leveling systems don't even affect the gameplay at all, which leads to the question of why they exist in the first place? The answer is pretty obvious: people used to play quake 3 all the time just because they enjoyed it; it didn't need anything else to keep them hooked. Now if we imagine two identical versions of quake happen to release on the same Day, one with a progress system and one without, it's easy to guess which one would win a larger player base. Even if both audiences were still small, while some players won't care about the difference, others will be drawn to the progression system, in which case that version has a greater chance of surviving while the more minimalist one fades into a relevancy.
Economics fuel much of this problem with the progression system comes unlockables, and with unlockables comes micro transactions to acquire them immediately that income can be used to extend development updating the game with more content providing a feedback loop of success. This probably doesn't come as a surprise to you, but there's a more sinister way of thinking about it which you may not have struck upon yet: In a sense, games are evolving to exploit us.
Even if no individual person agrees that progression systems are a good thing, they tap into a simple desire we all have to one degree or another. If you're a fan of the metal gear series then i don't have to explain the true meaning of the word 'meme' to you but for everyone else a quick rundown the basic premise is that ideas are a little like genes successful ones get passed down to future generations while unsuccessful ones disappear. Keep in mind, this doesn't mean the idea is beneficial or detrimental to humanity, just that it perpetuates itself somehow. Progression systems could be seen as a successful 'meme' which will be difficult to eradicate. Ironically, even the metal gear series itself fell prey to this particular trend. Now that most games have something like this, it's hard to envision how another game can compete without it even if you create something enjoyable enough to survive without this meme someone else can come along, create a clone of your game, slap a progression system on it and steal your audience much like click bait. It's a selection pressure that will seemingly never go away anymore. If one were to ask me, that doesn't excuse developers or critics who rely on such tactics, but it's a reality we need to confront sooner or later. On paper wouldn't we all agree that getting better at a game yourself is much more rewarding than pretending you've gotten better by unlocking more upgrades?
It's worth examining whether your behavior aligns with your answer to that question this is why playing an idler can be beneficial, because there's few better ways to break the spell than to confront the absurdity of it all. After you've killed a thousand baddies per minute, killing a skeleton for 25 xp doesn't hold quite as much significance. Despite how it might seem at times games aren't the shit you pick up while you play them the actual game is what happens in between those moments.
When you recognize that just walking in circles and watching the number increment can be enjoyable, you recognize that there's something exploitable about the way many of us are wired. As a species we have these collective weaknesses and now more than ever games are tapping into them so either you make a conscious effort to push back or get rolled over like so much squashed dough.
-------------------------------------------
As some of you have no doubt recognized, I didn't write any of that. With the exception of the first paragraph and switching some words so that its about these 'survivor-likes' instead of about idlers, this is actually just the Full Excerpt of 'Clickerbait' by Matthewmatosis. Perhaps you realized that because you scrolled down here to see what the you were getting into ahead of time, or perhaps you know because you're already a fan of Matthewmatosis and so the disguise didn't work in the first place (I'm hoping that group will be compelled to know 'why' I was deceptive about that in the first place, hopefully you'll be rewarded to).
Regardless, let's assume that I've effectively fooled a reasonable minority of the readership that would come in contact this this piece. I'm sorry for the masquerade, but it was for an important purpose: I really wanted you to confront this. You could call this an intervention, not just for people who like this genre or title in particular, but for every videoplay enthusiast, including myself. Now that you've made it this far you might as well see what else I have to say. There is only an Est. Reading time of 10 minutes left, I believe in you!
--------------
Since the writing of this excerpt, 2 years ago. I would argue the only thing that has changed is that no longer do we all agree that 'on paper' that getting better at a system yourself is much more rewarding than the illusion that we have. Our collective sensitivity to that awareness has shifted into an embrace of these systems. So what? Illusions are fun, all videogames are illusions if you think about it! A classic comeback, I abhorrently disagree. Let's take the phenomenon of 'digital eye strain' (that is to say the pain incurred on your eyes by prolonged digital media use) into account. Games can hurt your eyes:
"The outcome measures were mostly self-reported symptoms and not objectively measured findings. The issues that were reported were related either to with prolonged near-term adaptation (i.e., blurred vision at close range, difficulty in focusing, and copious headache after screen use) and those related to dry eye syndrome (irritation/burning sensation, ocular fatigue, discomfort, photosensitivity), while symptoms due to poor posture and prolonged physical immobilization in front of the screen (such as neck pain, tension headache, and other atypical musculoskeletal pain) are also very common. Pre-existing vision problems (hyperopia / myopia, astigmatism, and adaptive disorders) can contribute to the appearance of the syndrome if they are not adequately addressed or have not yet been diagnosed" - The Impact of Internet and Videogaming Addiction on Adolescent Vision: A Review of the Literature
Or, they can help your eyes:
"Players have presented better results than non-players in a variety of tasks that involve vision but are ultimately controlled by cortical structures in the brain, especially those involved in prediction. These include enhanced contrast sensitivity, shorter saccadic reaction times with better error rates, higher spatial resolution of vision, and a variety of specific improvements on memory function and focused attention. Playing action videogames can alter fundamental characteristics of the visual system, seen as a whole, that is, including the cortical structures that are responsible for image processing, pre-emptive movements of the ophthalmic muscles." - (sic)
"Cognitive gains have been demonstrated in all test designs with relatively few hours of playing videogames, and as with all aspects of brain plasticity, gains are to be expected with frequent execution of a well-designed task that lasts for relatively little time. Hence, playing random videogames to the degree that it may cause temporary harm to the receptor organ does not correlate positively with gains in the vision process as a whole. The increased propensity of eSports during the past decade, i.e., videogaming as a form of sport competition could be a useful source of research data; playing competitively does not equate with playing excessively, yet those competitive players need to regularly exercise their skills, even spending 6 h daily of deliberate practice and various forms of non-deliberate practice that revolves around viewing others play through a digital screen. Unfortunately, published research on this niche population so far is poor." - Digital eye strain: prevalence, measurement and amelioration
Label me as histrionic if you wish, but I'm sick of appeasing that 'Videogames' are a net neutral medium, they are always either assisting or harming to some degree whether intentionally or not. Seems almost impossible to me to argue that this 1 joycon movement system isnt doing more harm than good to your eyes. Especially since play ends up pathing most of it in cyclical loops with your character always centered. This is exactly what I was trying to say when I stated that 'Although one could argue that the destruction of enemies is also a 'jackpot' reward system, I feel it's actually comparable more to just visual encouragement data like the bright candy explosions in Candy Crush, or the neon bright machines and loud sound effects of slot machines, rather those smaller moments are not the real 'jackpot' you are in pursuit of.' It's not about how randomness works, its about sensory overload.
"Although ergonomics and noise exposure are commonly documented in occupational safety research in other industries, no U.S. studies were found that assessed these hazards among U.S, casino workers. Evidence from international research suggests that these hazards are problematic for worker health in the casino environment. Furthermore, gaming workers from other countries have cited exposure to poor ergonomics; chemical hazards (e.g., cleaning products and coin dust); and biological hazards through constant interaction with clients, temperature extremes, noisy environments, flashing lights, and poor air quality. Also, casino workers in other countries have complained of pain in the lower back, shoulder, joint, neck and head, hearing loss; eye strain; respiratory and reproductive issues; and ill-health and injuries" -Occupational exposures and associated risk factors among U.S. casino workers: a narrative review
That 'tradeoff' is a literal one of sensory deterioration to your eyes and ears, that's what you were exchanging as a worth function, it was never merely your leisure time. Of course, right upon my realizing this, a close confidante I told this to stated and I quote 'I don't think that's a bad claim to make but good luck convincing gamers to care about health issues'. That led me to realize one of the most damning passages I've ever come across in my time alive on this earth:
"But, you will say, it gives rise to power and domination, to exploitation and even extermination. Quite true; but also to masochism; but the strange bodily arrangement of the skilled worker with his job and his machine, which is so often reminiscent of the dispositif of hysteria, can also produce the extermination of a population: look at the English proletariat, at what capital, that is to say their labour has done to their body. You will tell me, however, that it was that or die. But it is always that or die, this is the law of libidinal economy, no, not the law: this is its provisional, very provisional, definition in the form of the cry, of intensities of desire; 'that or die', i.e. that and dying from it, death always in it, as its internal bark, its thin nut's skin, not yet as its price, on the contrary as that which renders it unpayable. And perhaps you believe that 'that or die' is an altenative?! And that if they choose that, if they become the slave of the machine, the machine of the machine, fucker fucked by it, eight hours, twelve hours, a day, year after year, it is because they are forced into it, constrained, because they cling to life? Death is not an alternative to it, it is a part of it, it attests to the fact that there is jouissance in it, the English unemployed did not become workers to survive, they - hang on tight and spit on me enjoyed [ifs ont joui de] the hysterical, masochistic, whatever exhaustion it was of hanging on in the mines, in the foundries, in the factories, in hell, they enjoyed it, enjoyed the mad destruction of their organic body which was indeed imposed upon them, they enjoyed the decomposition of their personal identity, the identity that the peasant tradition had constructed for them , enjoyed the dissolution of their families and villages, and enjoyed the new monstrous anonymity of the suburbs and the pubs in the morning and evening." - Libidinal Economy, Lyotard, p. 111
I'm serious if you're playing this and enjoying it, you are a pervert, and thats cool! But sweetheart, this is not sustainable for you. So: Join a BDSM community or go do some E-RP to help, at the very least do some research into sadomachocism, or find more reasonable action based systems (for example I recommend Devil Daggers). Because, in this mother's opinion, Vampire Survivors is an overly cruel virtual Dom for you, and it's possible a lot of other visually excessive progression loop systems like it are to. After all, we were never meant to stare at the sun either which im sure we all remember being 'dared' to do as a kid. At least some of us anyway, all the binoclards at least. It's vital here to make it clear this is not a moral critique, exploitation simply 'is', you're free to be exploited and until the world massively changes these systems are free to exploit you. This is a health critique, if you are viewing a health critique as moral than I'm afraid that's on you to unwind.
I've left the comments open to the public on this one. For those with a bone to pick, Bon Appetit. Throw as many tomatoes at me as you wish. If you insist on still doing this, at least try this eye fitness trick while playing:
Follow the 20-20-20 rule: every 20 minutes, look at an object at least 20 feet away for at least 20 seconds.
Take care of yourself dear reader! Remember to blink!
Est. Reading time: 17 Minutes
--------------------------------------------
So, coming back around to this conundrum and recognizing it's churning out more and more updates and DLCs, I've realized I can only speak about this issue at its most abstracted, through analyzing the production of 'progression systems' in these games and then go from there. I know for some this will seem obnoxious but bear with me for a bit, I'm hoping this will get interesting.
Assuming you're at least somewhat interested in game design, which is hopefully the case if you're reading this, then I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage you to play a, what for the moment is called a 'survivor-like' like Vampire Survivors here for at least an hour or two (You can play Vampire Survivors or Magical Survival on your phone for free if you'd like, or use Bluestacks). Don't worry, I'm not going to sit here and tell you they're hidden gems or anything but they do illustrate a point about game design in general.
If one were to ask me these bear the most resemblance to the rpg genre, play something like final fantasy or diablo, and a large part of the appeal is finally reaching that next level you've been anticipating. Things tend to be measured in experience points with little bars displaying progress you can grind towards somewhere along the way these elements which used to be exclusive to rpgs began to migrate outwards slowly permeating everything. At this point that assimilation seems more or less complete. Now, many games have something similar: level up to increase your damage or get a new loot box or just so your icon will look a little more fancy.
In some cases these leveling systems don't even affect the gameplay at all, which leads to the question of why they exist in the first place? The answer is pretty obvious: people used to play quake 3 all the time just because they enjoyed it; it didn't need anything else to keep them hooked. Now if we imagine two identical versions of quake happen to release on the same Day, one with a progress system and one without, it's easy to guess which one would win a larger player base. Even if both audiences were still small, while some players won't care about the difference, others will be drawn to the progression system, in which case that version has a greater chance of surviving while the more minimalist one fades into a relevancy.
Economics fuel much of this problem with the progression system comes unlockables, and with unlockables comes micro transactions to acquire them immediately that income can be used to extend development updating the game with more content providing a feedback loop of success. This probably doesn't come as a surprise to you, but there's a more sinister way of thinking about it which you may not have struck upon yet: In a sense, games are evolving to exploit us.
Even if no individual person agrees that progression systems are a good thing, they tap into a simple desire we all have to one degree or another. If you're a fan of the metal gear series then i don't have to explain the true meaning of the word 'meme' to you but for everyone else a quick rundown the basic premise is that ideas are a little like genes successful ones get passed down to future generations while unsuccessful ones disappear. Keep in mind, this doesn't mean the idea is beneficial or detrimental to humanity, just that it perpetuates itself somehow. Progression systems could be seen as a successful 'meme' which will be difficult to eradicate. Ironically, even the metal gear series itself fell prey to this particular trend. Now that most games have something like this, it's hard to envision how another game can compete without it even if you create something enjoyable enough to survive without this meme someone else can come along, create a clone of your game, slap a progression system on it and steal your audience much like click bait. It's a selection pressure that will seemingly never go away anymore. If one were to ask me, that doesn't excuse developers or critics who rely on such tactics, but it's a reality we need to confront sooner or later. On paper wouldn't we all agree that getting better at a game yourself is much more rewarding than pretending you've gotten better by unlocking more upgrades?
It's worth examining whether your behavior aligns with your answer to that question this is why playing an idler can be beneficial, because there's few better ways to break the spell than to confront the absurdity of it all. After you've killed a thousand baddies per minute, killing a skeleton for 25 xp doesn't hold quite as much significance. Despite how it might seem at times games aren't the shit you pick up while you play them the actual game is what happens in between those moments.
When you recognize that just walking in circles and watching the number increment can be enjoyable, you recognize that there's something exploitable about the way many of us are wired. As a species we have these collective weaknesses and now more than ever games are tapping into them so either you make a conscious effort to push back or get rolled over like so much squashed dough.
-------------------------------------------
As some of you have no doubt recognized, I didn't write any of that. With the exception of the first paragraph and switching some words so that its about these 'survivor-likes' instead of about idlers, this is actually just the Full Excerpt of 'Clickerbait' by Matthewmatosis. Perhaps you realized that because you scrolled down here to see what the you were getting into ahead of time, or perhaps you know because you're already a fan of Matthewmatosis and so the disguise didn't work in the first place (I'm hoping that group will be compelled to know 'why' I was deceptive about that in the first place, hopefully you'll be rewarded to).
Regardless, let's assume that I've effectively fooled a reasonable minority of the readership that would come in contact this this piece. I'm sorry for the masquerade, but it was for an important purpose: I really wanted you to confront this. You could call this an intervention, not just for people who like this genre or title in particular, but for every videoplay enthusiast, including myself. Now that you've made it this far you might as well see what else I have to say. There is only an Est. Reading time of 10 minutes left, I believe in you!
--------------
Since the writing of this excerpt, 2 years ago. I would argue the only thing that has changed is that no longer do we all agree that 'on paper' that getting better at a system yourself is much more rewarding than the illusion that we have. Our collective sensitivity to that awareness has shifted into an embrace of these systems. So what? Illusions are fun, all videogames are illusions if you think about it! A classic comeback, I abhorrently disagree. Let's take the phenomenon of 'digital eye strain' (that is to say the pain incurred on your eyes by prolonged digital media use) into account. Games can hurt your eyes:
"The outcome measures were mostly self-reported symptoms and not objectively measured findings. The issues that were reported were related either to with prolonged near-term adaptation (i.e., blurred vision at close range, difficulty in focusing, and copious headache after screen use) and those related to dry eye syndrome (irritation/burning sensation, ocular fatigue, discomfort, photosensitivity), while symptoms due to poor posture and prolonged physical immobilization in front of the screen (such as neck pain, tension headache, and other atypical musculoskeletal pain) are also very common. Pre-existing vision problems (hyperopia / myopia, astigmatism, and adaptive disorders) can contribute to the appearance of the syndrome if they are not adequately addressed or have not yet been diagnosed" - The Impact of Internet and Videogaming Addiction on Adolescent Vision: A Review of the Literature
Or, they can help your eyes:
"Players have presented better results than non-players in a variety of tasks that involve vision but are ultimately controlled by cortical structures in the brain, especially those involved in prediction. These include enhanced contrast sensitivity, shorter saccadic reaction times with better error rates, higher spatial resolution of vision, and a variety of specific improvements on memory function and focused attention. Playing action videogames can alter fundamental characteristics of the visual system, seen as a whole, that is, including the cortical structures that are responsible for image processing, pre-emptive movements of the ophthalmic muscles." - (sic)
"Cognitive gains have been demonstrated in all test designs with relatively few hours of playing videogames, and as with all aspects of brain plasticity, gains are to be expected with frequent execution of a well-designed task that lasts for relatively little time. Hence, playing random videogames to the degree that it may cause temporary harm to the receptor organ does not correlate positively with gains in the vision process as a whole. The increased propensity of eSports during the past decade, i.e., videogaming as a form of sport competition could be a useful source of research data; playing competitively does not equate with playing excessively, yet those competitive players need to regularly exercise their skills, even spending 6 h daily of deliberate practice and various forms of non-deliberate practice that revolves around viewing others play through a digital screen. Unfortunately, published research on this niche population so far is poor." - Digital eye strain: prevalence, measurement and amelioration
Label me as histrionic if you wish, but I'm sick of appeasing that 'Videogames' are a net neutral medium, they are always either assisting or harming to some degree whether intentionally or not. Seems almost impossible to me to argue that this 1 joycon movement system isnt doing more harm than good to your eyes. Especially since play ends up pathing most of it in cyclical loops with your character always centered. This is exactly what I was trying to say when I stated that 'Although one could argue that the destruction of enemies is also a 'jackpot' reward system, I feel it's actually comparable more to just visual encouragement data like the bright candy explosions in Candy Crush, or the neon bright machines and loud sound effects of slot machines, rather those smaller moments are not the real 'jackpot' you are in pursuit of.' It's not about how randomness works, its about sensory overload.
"Although ergonomics and noise exposure are commonly documented in occupational safety research in other industries, no U.S. studies were found that assessed these hazards among U.S, casino workers. Evidence from international research suggests that these hazards are problematic for worker health in the casino environment. Furthermore, gaming workers from other countries have cited exposure to poor ergonomics; chemical hazards (e.g., cleaning products and coin dust); and biological hazards through constant interaction with clients, temperature extremes, noisy environments, flashing lights, and poor air quality. Also, casino workers in other countries have complained of pain in the lower back, shoulder, joint, neck and head, hearing loss; eye strain; respiratory and reproductive issues; and ill-health and injuries" -Occupational exposures and associated risk factors among U.S. casino workers: a narrative review
That 'tradeoff' is a literal one of sensory deterioration to your eyes and ears, that's what you were exchanging as a worth function, it was never merely your leisure time. Of course, right upon my realizing this, a close confidante I told this to stated and I quote 'I don't think that's a bad claim to make but good luck convincing gamers to care about health issues'. That led me to realize one of the most damning passages I've ever come across in my time alive on this earth:
"But, you will say, it gives rise to power and domination, to exploitation and even extermination. Quite true; but also to masochism; but the strange bodily arrangement of the skilled worker with his job and his machine, which is so often reminiscent of the dispositif of hysteria, can also produce the extermination of a population: look at the English proletariat, at what capital, that is to say their labour has done to their body. You will tell me, however, that it was that or die. But it is always that or die, this is the law of libidinal economy, no, not the law: this is its provisional, very provisional, definition in the form of the cry, of intensities of desire; 'that or die', i.e. that and dying from it, death always in it, as its internal bark, its thin nut's skin, not yet as its price, on the contrary as that which renders it unpayable. And perhaps you believe that 'that or die' is an altenative?! And that if they choose that, if they become the slave of the machine, the machine of the machine, fucker fucked by it, eight hours, twelve hours, a day, year after year, it is because they are forced into it, constrained, because they cling to life? Death is not an alternative to it, it is a part of it, it attests to the fact that there is jouissance in it, the English unemployed did not become workers to survive, they - hang on tight and spit on me enjoyed [ifs ont joui de] the hysterical, masochistic, whatever exhaustion it was of hanging on in the mines, in the foundries, in the factories, in hell, they enjoyed it, enjoyed the mad destruction of their organic body which was indeed imposed upon them, they enjoyed the decomposition of their personal identity, the identity that the peasant tradition had constructed for them , enjoyed the dissolution of their families and villages, and enjoyed the new monstrous anonymity of the suburbs and the pubs in the morning and evening." - Libidinal Economy, Lyotard, p. 111
I'm serious if you're playing this and enjoying it, you are a pervert, and thats cool! But sweetheart, this is not sustainable for you. So: Join a BDSM community or go do some E-RP to help, at the very least do some research into sadomachocism, or find more reasonable action based systems (for example I recommend Devil Daggers). Because, in this mother's opinion, Vampire Survivors is an overly cruel virtual Dom for you, and it's possible a lot of other visually excessive progression loop systems like it are to. After all, we were never meant to stare at the sun either which im sure we all remember being 'dared' to do as a kid. At least some of us anyway, all the binoclards at least. It's vital here to make it clear this is not a moral critique, exploitation simply 'is', you're free to be exploited and until the world massively changes these systems are free to exploit you. This is a health critique, if you are viewing a health critique as moral than I'm afraid that's on you to unwind.
I've left the comments open to the public on this one. For those with a bone to pick, Bon Appetit. Throw as many tomatoes at me as you wish. If you insist on still doing this, at least try this eye fitness trick while playing:
Follow the 20-20-20 rule: every 20 minutes, look at an object at least 20 feet away for at least 20 seconds.
Take care of yourself dear reader! Remember to blink!
22 Comments
This reads, to me, like a critique of a chocolate chip cookie that rejects it for its lack of nutritional value. That is, it's making an argument that does not actually address the appeal of the cookie and asserts what is already obvious to those who enjoy it: it isn't good for them and the pleasure they receive is not a particularly complex or "earned" kind of reward. They know that, and having that reinforced doesn't add much of anything.
Most of us agree that to a certain extent, simple sensory pleasure at the price of health and time is a worthwhile tradeoff and an essential part of living a full life. That's not to say that there isn't something of an exploitative relationship there, but it isn't a unique one. It's the same as anyone else selling products that produce pleasure, and is more or less unavoidable under capitalism, at least at any notable scale. When we look at a casino or a particularly exploitative mobile game, we criticize them because they take advantage of pleasure to repeatedly squeeze what they can from their victims. For VS? I paid 3 dollars and was later, long after it stopped providing anything for me to do and gave me a natural stopping point, asked to pay another 2 dollars for additional game. The problem with the casino is not that it flashes pretty lights and satisfying sounds, but that it leverages that pleasure (and a number of other exploitable elements of human psychology) to take everything you have and more. VS is more akin to paying a few bucks to hang out in a casino which won't take additional money and won't pay anything out but monopoly money. It lets you pull the levers, hear the sounds, take in the atmosphere without actually doing anything with the control that gives it over you. I can see how that would be unappealing and uncompelling to many, but I have a hard time seeing anything exploitative happening there that does not apply to any other exchange of money for pleasure.
There is perhaps a case to be made that something like this preps the mind for the actually exploitative alternatives, but it seems equally likely to me that it could act as the toothpick for the recovering smoker. This worry makes a little more sense to me than other critiques, but is likely impossible to provide much meaningful evidence one way or the other. It's just so indirect and nebulous of an effect, if there is one.
I enjoy your writing and I'm certainly not throwing any tomatoes, but I do think this one was a bit of a miss. Regardless, yes, take care of your eyes!
Most of us agree that to a certain extent, simple sensory pleasure at the price of health and time is a worthwhile tradeoff and an essential part of living a full life. That's not to say that there isn't something of an exploitative relationship there, but it isn't a unique one. It's the same as anyone else selling products that produce pleasure, and is more or less unavoidable under capitalism, at least at any notable scale. When we look at a casino or a particularly exploitative mobile game, we criticize them because they take advantage of pleasure to repeatedly squeeze what they can from their victims. For VS? I paid 3 dollars and was later, long after it stopped providing anything for me to do and gave me a natural stopping point, asked to pay another 2 dollars for additional game. The problem with the casino is not that it flashes pretty lights and satisfying sounds, but that it leverages that pleasure (and a number of other exploitable elements of human psychology) to take everything you have and more. VS is more akin to paying a few bucks to hang out in a casino which won't take additional money and won't pay anything out but monopoly money. It lets you pull the levers, hear the sounds, take in the atmosphere without actually doing anything with the control that gives it over you. I can see how that would be unappealing and uncompelling to many, but I have a hard time seeing anything exploitative happening there that does not apply to any other exchange of money for pleasure.
There is perhaps a case to be made that something like this preps the mind for the actually exploitative alternatives, but it seems equally likely to me that it could act as the toothpick for the recovering smoker. This worry makes a little more sense to me than other critiques, but is likely impossible to provide much meaningful evidence one way or the other. It's just so indirect and nebulous of an effect, if there is one.
I enjoy your writing and I'm certainly not throwing any tomatoes, but I do think this one was a bit of a miss. Regardless, yes, take care of your eyes!
Hello Whom, nice to hear from you of course. Well I do agree on a certain level that the problem of psychological manipulation is at play for the machines but exactly what I am trying to get across with the casino workers point is that, no actually the abundance of sights and sounds themselves distress people as well. Noise and sound pollution are also real phenomenon. In a breakdown of America's most sleepless cities Las Vegas, the city of neon, ranks 7th. Furthermore this article here has a structural biologist state that
"Late-night gamblers are fighting more than just the unfavorable odds of gambling machines; they are fighting a sleep-deprived brain's tendency to implicitly seek gains while discounting the impact of potential losses. Countermeasures that combat fatigue and improve alertness may be inadequate for overcoming these decision biases."
You've been doing a great job of avoiding the albeit irritating discussion around these titles. This would have sufficed as a fine criticism of the original article I wrote, this one is in actual fact about the concept of visual deterioration from the expectations of the progression loop and average playtime.
My argument is that there is an absence of positive feedback and a percievable real and negative feedback of eye strain.
Heres another excerpt from science we can chew on
"To unambiguously establish the causal effect of action gaming, we conducted an intensive training study (50 h over 9 weeks) on a small sample of NVGPs. Training consisted of one of two conditions: each trainee played either experimental, action video games (action group played Unreal Tournament 2004 by Atari and Call of Duty 2 by Infinity Ward) or a control, non–action video game (control group played The Sims 2 by Electronic Arts). Like the experimental games, the control game was chosen to be visually complex and engaging, but it differed by having a slower pace and by not requiring precise, visually guided aiming actions (Supplementary Note 2 online). A few days before and after the training period, participants’ CSFs were assessed as described above. Action-trained participants improved significantly more than the control-trained participants (P = 0.04), establishing the causal effect of game playing and ruling out any interpretation of these results in terms of a simple test-retest improvement." - Enhancing the contrast sensitivity function through action video game training
Thanks to Pangburn for spotting this one.
So we know that other action games have beneficial effects of play, and V Surv is not an action game. Indeed one retort here may be that 'SHMUPs also strain your eyes' but it has at least these included beneficial effects from play. We also know that V Surv causes eye strain and does not provide clear beneficial effects. Then in my view it's giving no benefits and actual negatives for the player thus making it less reccomendable than other games. Not to mention that you and I both know there's thousands of games that cost less and are free! Paying 5 dollars for 1 cookie (supposedly) is a raw deal in an 'economy' that has a serious overabundance of easily accessible free food. The memetic system of people 'wanting' this progression loop that incites this play is why they want to play it.
So is that comparable to a cookie? Sure! As far as I know at least (unless its dark chocolate that actually does have health benefits but I'm assuming its milk). The issue is with the amount that V Surv expect of you its a digital version of not getting 1, 5 dollar cookie, but actually a bulk box of 1000 cookies with a progression loop that says ah if you eat this cookie and come back the next one will be tastier.
I know it's hard to believe that I'm not just being a petty here but I've thought about this quite a bit. I am able to get my mind changed but this old crowbar I'm prepared for. It's nice to see you around tho. I dont plan to respond to anybody that isn't a mutual.
"Late-night gamblers are fighting more than just the unfavorable odds of gambling machines; they are fighting a sleep-deprived brain's tendency to implicitly seek gains while discounting the impact of potential losses. Countermeasures that combat fatigue and improve alertness may be inadequate for overcoming these decision biases."
You've been doing a great job of avoiding the albeit irritating discussion around these titles. This would have sufficed as a fine criticism of the original article I wrote, this one is in actual fact about the concept of visual deterioration from the expectations of the progression loop and average playtime.
My argument is that there is an absence of positive feedback and a percievable real and negative feedback of eye strain.
Heres another excerpt from science we can chew on
"To unambiguously establish the causal effect of action gaming, we conducted an intensive training study (50 h over 9 weeks) on a small sample of NVGPs. Training consisted of one of two conditions: each trainee played either experimental, action video games (action group played Unreal Tournament 2004 by Atari and Call of Duty 2 by Infinity Ward) or a control, non–action video game (control group played The Sims 2 by Electronic Arts). Like the experimental games, the control game was chosen to be visually complex and engaging, but it differed by having a slower pace and by not requiring precise, visually guided aiming actions (Supplementary Note 2 online). A few days before and after the training period, participants’ CSFs were assessed as described above. Action-trained participants improved significantly more than the control-trained participants (P = 0.04), establishing the causal effect of game playing and ruling out any interpretation of these results in terms of a simple test-retest improvement." - Enhancing the contrast sensitivity function through action video game training
Thanks to Pangburn for spotting this one.
So we know that other action games have beneficial effects of play, and V Surv is not an action game. Indeed one retort here may be that 'SHMUPs also strain your eyes' but it has at least these included beneficial effects from play. We also know that V Surv causes eye strain and does not provide clear beneficial effects. Then in my view it's giving no benefits and actual negatives for the player thus making it less reccomendable than other games. Not to mention that you and I both know there's thousands of games that cost less and are free! Paying 5 dollars for 1 cookie (supposedly) is a raw deal in an 'economy' that has a serious overabundance of easily accessible free food. The memetic system of people 'wanting' this progression loop that incites this play is why they want to play it.
So is that comparable to a cookie? Sure! As far as I know at least (unless its dark chocolate that actually does have health benefits but I'm assuming its milk). The issue is with the amount that V Surv expect of you its a digital version of not getting 1, 5 dollar cookie, but actually a bulk box of 1000 cookies with a progression loop that says ah if you eat this cookie and come back the next one will be tastier.
I know it's hard to believe that I'm not just being a petty here but I've thought about this quite a bit. I am able to get my mind changed but this old crowbar I'm prepared for. It's nice to see you around tho. I dont plan to respond to anybody that isn't a mutual.
This comment was deleted
This comment was deleted
Also I wont go overboard here but I think your Cookie analogy is interesting in that it is functionally correct yes but from my perspective looking and the popularity of this title it assumes that people have the same level of health awareness of impact. As far as my nutritional knowledge goes: You can have 1 cookie a week, not 5. You can have 1 soda every few days, not 1 every day. Not everyone knows how empty their calories are and a frequency of consumption of unhealthy product shows that.
So for V Surv theres a huge difference between playing 45 minutes to an hour every day with eye breaks, or 3-6 hour binges a day with no eye breaks (what a lot of streamers literally did when this initially released). I do think from a designer side capitalizing on these base desires with no public knowledge of its defects is a problem thats the point of the 'memetic' thing I was saying. Videogames can actually improve vision to just not this one, so they are not 'all the same'. I'm sad that that was your takeaway but nonetheless I hope this clarification helps. If you have any more to say feel free, if not see ya around!
Other deleted comments are me trying to prevent myself from going overboard >.<
So for V Surv theres a huge difference between playing 45 minutes to an hour every day with eye breaks, or 3-6 hour binges a day with no eye breaks (what a lot of streamers literally did when this initially released). I do think from a designer side capitalizing on these base desires with no public knowledge of its defects is a problem thats the point of the 'memetic' thing I was saying. Videogames can actually improve vision to just not this one, so they are not 'all the same'. I'm sad that that was your takeaway but nonetheless I hope this clarification helps. If you have any more to say feel free, if not see ya around!
Other deleted comments are me trying to prevent myself from going overboard >.<
made an account mostly to say your reviews are super. i don't really play videogames (or game videoplays for that matter) and your writing has articulated a lot of stuff that's fascinated me and frustrated me about games and gaming in general, both video games and tabletop rpgs (and how allergic most seem to be to actual rp; your eco review was illuminating).
vampire survivors is a game i briefly played while femboygenius was staying at my place. we slammed it listening to mars volta and metallica bc it seemed appropriately silly. and i legitimately lost sleep because when i closed my eyes the afterimages of the flashing swords and spells and hordes of ghouls and goblins were still fizzling in my brain circuits and the volta tunes were pounding in my ears. dangerous fucking stuff. cookies are small and moreish and should NOT be binge-eaten.
also thanks for bringing the study of casino worker health risks to my attention. i'm developing a character who among other things has worked on the strip in various casinos for a decade and she already wasn't exactly a vision of health... the only time she experimented with videogames was attempting to write a text-based adventure in college called "always already" (you can tell by the title that it was written by an undergrad. also the unfinished program is lost to time bc she was more or less ejected from campus).
rock on
vampire survivors is a game i briefly played while femboygenius was staying at my place. we slammed it listening to mars volta and metallica bc it seemed appropriately silly. and i legitimately lost sleep because when i closed my eyes the afterimages of the flashing swords and spells and hordes of ghouls and goblins were still fizzling in my brain circuits and the volta tunes were pounding in my ears. dangerous fucking stuff. cookies are small and moreish and should NOT be binge-eaten.
also thanks for bringing the study of casino worker health risks to my attention. i'm developing a character who among other things has worked on the strip in various casinos for a decade and she already wasn't exactly a vision of health... the only time she experimented with videogames was attempting to write a text-based adventure in college called "always already" (you can tell by the title that it was written by an undergrad. also the unfinished program is lost to time bc she was more or less ejected from campus).
rock on
hey thanks TZ man thats awesome, I really appreciate that.
hope you play some eventually some are pretty neat and neat. your friend Femboy's got funk. good luck about your character writing thing to sounds like a sick story concept.
rock on!
hope you play some eventually some are pretty neat and neat. your friend Femboy's got funk. good luck about your character writing thing to sounds like a sick story concept.
rock on!
o i've played games, mostly when i was a youngun, just a few as an adult, but never finished many if they had an ending...
femboy is more than just a friend ;> but ya she's got funk for real, funk for days. n ty re character writing! she's been a process for over three years now in various iterations (11yo > 12yo > 28yo > 39yo: her age in successive contexts ranging from arctic norway to vegas) so she is very real to me and has grown with me. you probably understand that to get into it all would be fairly monumental and self-indulgent.. this aint the place for it! oo im rockin
femboy is more than just a friend ;> but ya she's got funk for real, funk for days. n ty re character writing! she's been a process for over three years now in various iterations (11yo > 12yo > 28yo > 39yo: her age in successive contexts ranging from arctic norway to vegas) so she is very real to me and has grown with me. you probably understand that to get into it all would be fairly monumental and self-indulgent.. this aint the place for it! oo im rockin
shit, i meant to ask, if you care to answer (and this is a question you and other game-theorist types have almost certainly pondered before): to you, is there a threshold at which a booklike experience ends and play begins? considering things like text-adventures and visual novels etc. i ask bc you seem super equipped to answer in terms of experience and i'd like to know your thoughts. maybe you've even previously answered it in a review i haven't read!
Thanks for queuing me in on Femboy's pronouns, I would have botched that. Thanks for the continuing kind words you've definitely got ahead of the mean girls by doing that even if its completely out of self absorption.
Thanks a great question. Hopefully I'm not to late in answering, but I'm afraid I have to essaypost here across to get my thoughts through clearly.
I've actually been thinking about this to a really intense degree recently and what your question 'is there a threshold at which a booklike experience ends and play begins?' is something that there is no consensus on but tends to rest on an incredibly tedious macro question of what the definitions of a 'videogame' should be. If you haven't already noticed I've been switching terms to Videoplay, Simulation, and Entertainment system because I find the definitions so tedious. Play for me is now about the relationship between the induvidual and the system, one of generally low stakes leisure experimentation and 'toying' with various inputs.
In my Quest for Moomoo write up I go into my phobia of the term 'game' itself, once we (softly) abandon I feel we can better relate to that system in useful ways. Peep the 1st footnote for the full rundown but the short version is it trivializing that strengths and risks of a medium.
In a sense you could actually say there is no difference between a book and play since you often highlight, reread, and engage with text in deeply frivolous ways (though having to make actively choose your own adventures make the system 'more playful') however I have actually tried to establish this in concrete experiential expectation in my discussions of 'kinetic visual novels' aka visual novels without choice but I haven't talked about it directly yet so thanks for reminding me.
I'll put it simple: For me the only thing that makes a 'videogame' a game is not death systems or action challenge, its continuous input locomotion on the part of the player. So for visual novels that 'locomotion' is pressing the action button to locomote the set of words on screen. Hitting play and pause on a movie on VLC is not a 'videogame' because the movie automates itself for the whole run time without player locomoted input, this is why a 'game' like the netflix episode Bandersnatch is on the website. You need several actions of input data in order to finish the experience in full. Put that way what a 'game' is become quite stupid obvious I think. I would refer to most videoplay coding softwares as videoplays because you're solving a number of input puzzles in order to locomote an 'open world' experience see Pico 8 being on this site. This is much easier to confine when thinking about it in digital software environments (for example a 'player piano' with its 1 input, and rube goldberg machines are both automated to the point of being quite a snag) but if you were to ask me I think its literally that simple.
I'm definitely not an authority I'm just an internet weirdo but I do think there are a lot of benefits of this approach to opening the floodgates like this that I've already stated. On more well read person who sort of agrees with my line of abstraction is Ian Bogost in his bold book Unit Operations though namely for the sake of better analysis of videoplay systems. Thats the real geek shit but if you want a layman's explanation my girlfriend Heather has a couple paragraphs on it here. The field of game design is still small tho for sure tho but that's my resting 'hot take'. I'm probably a radical among my peers on this point tho and I think the only real negative consequence of a different definition of play is that it trivilizes and even disparages experience that go 'outside' the bounds as not a real game or not real art etc. leaving those experiences estranged from critical thinking on the part of the participant (or more crucially, the bare minimum: Respect).
Anyway I hope you're 'more than friends' relationship with FemboyGenius upkeeps well you both seem like great company for each other UwU
Thanks a great question. Hopefully I'm not to late in answering, but I'm afraid I have to essaypost here across to get my thoughts through clearly.
I've actually been thinking about this to a really intense degree recently and what your question 'is there a threshold at which a booklike experience ends and play begins?' is something that there is no consensus on but tends to rest on an incredibly tedious macro question of what the definitions of a 'videogame' should be. If you haven't already noticed I've been switching terms to Videoplay, Simulation, and Entertainment system because I find the definitions so tedious. Play for me is now about the relationship between the induvidual and the system, one of generally low stakes leisure experimentation and 'toying' with various inputs.
In my Quest for Moomoo write up I go into my phobia of the term 'game' itself, once we (softly) abandon I feel we can better relate to that system in useful ways. Peep the 1st footnote for the full rundown but the short version is it trivializing that strengths and risks of a medium.
In a sense you could actually say there is no difference between a book and play since you often highlight, reread, and engage with text in deeply frivolous ways (though having to make actively choose your own adventures make the system 'more playful') however I have actually tried to establish this in concrete experiential expectation in my discussions of 'kinetic visual novels' aka visual novels without choice but I haven't talked about it directly yet so thanks for reminding me.
I'll put it simple: For me the only thing that makes a 'videogame' a game is not death systems or action challenge, its continuous input locomotion on the part of the player. So for visual novels that 'locomotion' is pressing the action button to locomote the set of words on screen. Hitting play and pause on a movie on VLC is not a 'videogame' because the movie automates itself for the whole run time without player locomoted input, this is why a 'game' like the netflix episode Bandersnatch is on the website. You need several actions of input data in order to finish the experience in full. Put that way what a 'game' is become quite stupid obvious I think. I would refer to most videoplay coding softwares as videoplays because you're solving a number of input puzzles in order to locomote an 'open world' experience see Pico 8 being on this site. This is much easier to confine when thinking about it in digital software environments (for example a 'player piano' with its 1 input, and rube goldberg machines are both automated to the point of being quite a snag) but if you were to ask me I think its literally that simple.
I'm definitely not an authority I'm just an internet weirdo but I do think there are a lot of benefits of this approach to opening the floodgates like this that I've already stated. On more well read person who sort of agrees with my line of abstraction is Ian Bogost in his bold book Unit Operations though namely for the sake of better analysis of videoplay systems. Thats the real geek shit but if you want a layman's explanation my girlfriend Heather has a couple paragraphs on it here. The field of game design is still small tho for sure tho but that's my resting 'hot take'. I'm probably a radical among my peers on this point tho and I think the only real negative consequence of a different definition of play is that it trivilizes and even disparages experience that go 'outside' the bounds as not a real game or not real art etc. leaving those experiences estranged from critical thinking on the part of the participant (or more crucially, the bare minimum: Respect).
Anyway I hope you're 'more than friends' relationship with FemboyGenius upkeeps well you both seem like great company for each other UwU
Though I do think I talked around your question a bit. A booklike experience ends into 'play' only in the form the book takes. If a book is digital and has integrated highlight functionality and hyperlinks then it would be a play experience. Now you could think of software like Ice Cream Reader as taking 'books' and turning them into interactive 'overhaul mods' because you have to click to locomote the text in a specific not scroll wheel compiled fashion. That said you could even argue that scrolling itself is 'on rails locomotion' but I think some of the point of locomotion is an abstraction of how much exact locomotion you need to do. Scroll wheels become measuring devices instead of input locomotion in that sense but again that's a very technical distinction I suppose.
thanks for your thoughtful reply!! it's late for me and i need to sleep soon bc i gotta gig tomorrow but i can offer some quick thoughts in response:
your definition of play with qualities of "low-stakes" with "toying" definitely captures the PLAYFUL very well. i wouldn't really say reading is playful however, though reading for pleasure is an act of exuberant leisure. i think if you make the distinction - as you do - between free play and instrumental play, reading wouldn't really come under either category unless you explicitly turn it into a game/play: if you read a book in an unconventional way, like trying to read the first word of every line or making blackout poetry, that could be seen as free play; if you challenge a friend to see who can finish a book first, you've turned it into an instrumental game. does that sound about right?
to me, user input of just turning a page or scrolling or pressing enter to advance a story isn't play because you're neither being freely "playful" nor instrumentally "optimising". adding choice like in choose-your-own-adventure does make it play though, i totally agree.
well i'm gonna sleep. i hope i interpreted your ideas ok.. i know i haven't really engaged with them to the depth i would have wanted (i need a rested brain for that) but i would value your input v much.
n thanks again !! FG n i've been together for 3+ years now going strong. we challenge n encourage n bounce off each other creatively so good. also i'll leave it up to them to say what pronouns are cool for this site. we're both genderweirdos lol
your definition of play with qualities of "low-stakes" with "toying" definitely captures the PLAYFUL very well. i wouldn't really say reading is playful however, though reading for pleasure is an act of exuberant leisure. i think if you make the distinction - as you do - between free play and instrumental play, reading wouldn't really come under either category unless you explicitly turn it into a game/play: if you read a book in an unconventional way, like trying to read the first word of every line or making blackout poetry, that could be seen as free play; if you challenge a friend to see who can finish a book first, you've turned it into an instrumental game. does that sound about right?
to me, user input of just turning a page or scrolling or pressing enter to advance a story isn't play because you're neither being freely "playful" nor instrumentally "optimising". adding choice like in choose-your-own-adventure does make it play though, i totally agree.
well i'm gonna sleep. i hope i interpreted your ideas ok.. i know i haven't really engaged with them to the depth i would have wanted (i need a rested brain for that) but i would value your input v much.
n thanks again !! FG n i've been together for 3+ years now going strong. we challenge n encourage n bounce off each other creatively so good. also i'll leave it up to them to say what pronouns are cool for this site. we're both genderweirdos lol
ah just refreshed and saw your follow-up comment lol it seems like we're more or less on the same page after all? maybe? damn i gotta hit the HAY
last thought: i'm toying with whether i'd even call free play a game... to me gaming feels inherently instrumental, as in "to make a game out of something" by setting rules and objectives for yourself or others. i teach piano so i would say that asking a student to play back a phrase you've played from memory is an instrumental game, asking them to improvise is not a game but still extremely playful. how does that strike you? okie goodniiiiiiight
Yeah you've launched an entire meta discussion about the limits of 'gaming' to me. Your thoughts on how a book could be categories of play are neat and useful. So is the piano example. Thanks sweetie expect a post down the chute about this soon.
I mean, I'll make it its own post and then we can pick it up again :3
ty!!! i look forward to whatever u cook up.. :>
FG's already provided some context for our shared thoughts+feelings towards games+play in their comment on your eco review (i can't comment on that review so i'll expound here).. we were frustrated by the inherent assumption of instrumental play in systems like dnd so we've exited that ttrpg realm and focus more on personal stories with minimal dice-rolling. while dnd and lancer are often more instrumental play with some free play features, what we do is the other way round, free play with some instrumental features. it's often more like improvising a radio play with each other but with occasional dice rolls when we want to throw in some aleatorics. though never d20. fuck the d20 and its swinginess and the nerd culture it's become the symbol for (though it undeniably rolls good). but yeah, while we consider dnd and lancer totally gamey, what we do ain't a game, but it's totally exuberant play!! but yea i've written tens of thousands of words about my poker dealer, her evolving thoughts and feelings and life, written extracts of stories she herself has written (and her complete bibliography), even written a song from her perspective. but it's not like i want to write a novel; i relish the opportunity to play out interactions between my characters and my friends' characters, whether in relaxing no-stakes or dangerous high-stakes contexts. it's joyful and fulfilling to share that with loved ones and allows us to explore ideas and emotions so richly.
i'm aware of a certain kind of tabletop system which is more of a guided experience, often intended for players and gms with less interest and/or time to put in their own work but who still want a creative social experience. choosing (or rolling for) archetypes, a loosely guided structure of play focused on improvisation when given prompts, letting a simple story come together with minimal preparation. they seem to be popular with plenty of online gays my age (20s), distributed through platforms like good old itch.io. while i can see why people will have fun with it, and i like how it encourages playful improv as a respite from dnd, that sort of thing isn't really to my taste... the "guided experience" of it feels a bit too hand-holdy (ugh, gross thing to say, i know, ironically smacks of a gamer-like elitism perhaps). i prefer improvising from the perspective of a firmly established character psychology that i've thoroughly worked out myself from first principles so to speak, a complete life history, a document of them and their world shaping each other. i want to inhabit that part as fully as i can, feel and think with them because i'm so utterly familiar with their psychic contours. it doesn't feel like improv, or even tabletop (even if it uses the core mechanics of mage 20th or whatever); it's like a becoming. that's what's fun and fulfilling for me, as insane or pretentious as it might sound , idk, i'm fully in it and can't really think myself out of it for an outside perspective if that makes sense...
your experience of rp environments in eco being cisheteronormative and skewing instrumental certainly makes sense. what FG and i have found frustrating is when rp environments are full of younger gays but they still skew instrumental nonetheless. and it's probably because they're tried and true Gamers with their 40k and their league. they are more interested in the endless discussion of the minutiae of mechanics and tactics and lore than telling stories about people. super not my scene.
but as for instrumental play... i have an enduring love and respect for a deck of cards. it's simple, accessible, and you can make SO many games out of it. i look at board gamers with all their boards and their sheets and their tokens and their pieces and i shudder. 52 card deck? that shit's elegant and you can go as simple and/or deep as you like with the games you play, whether it's bridge or texas hold em or mafia or mao or whatever. I feel like if a game (be it a board game or a ttrpg) has so many moving parts that it becomes laborious to run and keep track of, it may as well just have all the mechanics automated by a computer. lancer should be a computer game (and even if it was, i don't think it would be a particularly good one...). chess is sick but i never got into it bc i never had a strong enough desire to become skilled at a game (i imagine a gamer would say something like i hard specced into the creative arts skill tree early in my build).
thx for humouring me as i explain where i'm coming from experientially. i love playing. i enjoy some games (analogue and computer) very much. i don't like what Gaming has become (i personally don't know if it always has been) as a sociocultural and socioeconomic phenomenon. mind you, as a musician, i see people engaging with music in some analogous ways that i think are awful and put down to having their desires and impulses shaped by capitalism. i despise quantitively rating music (or any artistic media really), whether it's out of 10 or a letter grade or whatever. also (and i'm sure you've come across this too with video game reviews) people writing reviews where they're posturing as a detached, professional, objective critic, using the conventions of mainstream journalism, as if they're auditioning for a job, without once mentioning their own personal relationship to the music or having a broader+deeper scope of critical thoughts.
anyway hope you don't mind this length... maybe this reply will help you combat shame of verbosity or "going overboard" lol. rock out!!!!!
FG's already provided some context for our shared thoughts+feelings towards games+play in their comment on your eco review (i can't comment on that review so i'll expound here).. we were frustrated by the inherent assumption of instrumental play in systems like dnd so we've exited that ttrpg realm and focus more on personal stories with minimal dice-rolling. while dnd and lancer are often more instrumental play with some free play features, what we do is the other way round, free play with some instrumental features. it's often more like improvising a radio play with each other but with occasional dice rolls when we want to throw in some aleatorics. though never d20. fuck the d20 and its swinginess and the nerd culture it's become the symbol for (though it undeniably rolls good). but yeah, while we consider dnd and lancer totally gamey, what we do ain't a game, but it's totally exuberant play!! but yea i've written tens of thousands of words about my poker dealer, her evolving thoughts and feelings and life, written extracts of stories she herself has written (and her complete bibliography), even written a song from her perspective. but it's not like i want to write a novel; i relish the opportunity to play out interactions between my characters and my friends' characters, whether in relaxing no-stakes or dangerous high-stakes contexts. it's joyful and fulfilling to share that with loved ones and allows us to explore ideas and emotions so richly.
i'm aware of a certain kind of tabletop system which is more of a guided experience, often intended for players and gms with less interest and/or time to put in their own work but who still want a creative social experience. choosing (or rolling for) archetypes, a loosely guided structure of play focused on improvisation when given prompts, letting a simple story come together with minimal preparation. they seem to be popular with plenty of online gays my age (20s), distributed through platforms like good old itch.io. while i can see why people will have fun with it, and i like how it encourages playful improv as a respite from dnd, that sort of thing isn't really to my taste... the "guided experience" of it feels a bit too hand-holdy (ugh, gross thing to say, i know, ironically smacks of a gamer-like elitism perhaps). i prefer improvising from the perspective of a firmly established character psychology that i've thoroughly worked out myself from first principles so to speak, a complete life history, a document of them and their world shaping each other. i want to inhabit that part as fully as i can, feel and think with them because i'm so utterly familiar with their psychic contours. it doesn't feel like improv, or even tabletop (even if it uses the core mechanics of mage 20th or whatever); it's like a becoming. that's what's fun and fulfilling for me, as insane or pretentious as it might sound , idk, i'm fully in it and can't really think myself out of it for an outside perspective if that makes sense...
your experience of rp environments in eco being cisheteronormative and skewing instrumental certainly makes sense. what FG and i have found frustrating is when rp environments are full of younger gays but they still skew instrumental nonetheless. and it's probably because they're tried and true Gamers with their 40k and their league. they are more interested in the endless discussion of the minutiae of mechanics and tactics and lore than telling stories about people. super not my scene.
but as for instrumental play... i have an enduring love and respect for a deck of cards. it's simple, accessible, and you can make SO many games out of it. i look at board gamers with all their boards and their sheets and their tokens and their pieces and i shudder. 52 card deck? that shit's elegant and you can go as simple and/or deep as you like with the games you play, whether it's bridge or texas hold em or mafia or mao or whatever. I feel like if a game (be it a board game or a ttrpg) has so many moving parts that it becomes laborious to run and keep track of, it may as well just have all the mechanics automated by a computer. lancer should be a computer game (and even if it was, i don't think it would be a particularly good one...). chess is sick but i never got into it bc i never had a strong enough desire to become skilled at a game (i imagine a gamer would say something like i hard specced into the creative arts skill tree early in my build).
thx for humouring me as i explain where i'm coming from experientially. i love playing. i enjoy some games (analogue and computer) very much. i don't like what Gaming has become (i personally don't know if it always has been) as a sociocultural and socioeconomic phenomenon. mind you, as a musician, i see people engaging with music in some analogous ways that i think are awful and put down to having their desires and impulses shaped by capitalism. i despise quantitively rating music (or any artistic media really), whether it's out of 10 or a letter grade or whatever. also (and i'm sure you've come across this too with video game reviews) people writing reviews where they're posturing as a detached, professional, objective critic, using the conventions of mainstream journalism, as if they're auditioning for a job, without once mentioning their own personal relationship to the music or having a broader+deeper scope of critical thoughts.
anyway hope you don't mind this length... maybe this reply will help you combat shame of verbosity or "going overboard" lol. rock out!!!!!
You've given me a lot to gnaw on here. I hadnt realized I wasnt following you yet so you now have the capacity to info dump on whatever post feels appropriate. I hope others stumble upon what youve said here and find something from it.
On one level I'm not immune from certain fixations of what instrumental play can bring forward but they almost never function well as social worlds. For example if you play a 3D mario game you use all of marios moveset with the 'goal' to climb platforms towards a star. 3D Mario worlds would make for boring Free Play RPG worlds because that moveset limits your expression too much and the obstacles are too 'directed' (though you might be able to do something clever with some of the Sunshine levels). What I mean is some mechanical system designs can bring out certain systems of satisfaction. When a deck of 52 cards takes on an instrumental 'game' with a goal you can get a 'bluffing game' like Texas Hold Em which tests your social faculties. OR you Slapjack which tests competative reflex. More vitally is just by tweaking some mechanical systems in either Poker or Slapjack you can have the social affectiveness or reflexes tested in some new way that may take a bit to understand. In this sense the continuous patching of characters strengths, the high variety of builds and interactions, and the various 'runes' etc. in a game like league is a mechanical players personal orgy. It's one thing to scorn it as a puppeteered treadmill its another thing to understand what is going on there and respecting what it can give. This does not make the repression of free play structures where they are clearly intended justified but in a post League world that 'orgiastic' sensation of mechanical analysis looms over them of every play experience they interface with, kind of like a compulsive sexual behaviour but for play. My girlfriend defines it as flow
With that in mind all these complaints are alleviated on connection with Space Station 13, as I mention earlier is the sort of 'ultimate improv game' to combat this. I'll speak on it more at some point.
Now I want to give finally some consideration to your discrepancy of the 'filthy' quality of instrumental posturing in terms of both ratings and that audition quality. Social media sites absolutely fail into our complaints of repressing free play. With that said I think practicing some formalist analysis and detaching from 'personal opinion' can be a good test in trying to abstract what is actually the 'specialness' of a work worth considering to the reader, sharing with them those special qualities regardless of the number of tears personally shed. That's not to say 'personal relationships' don't have a place. At the same time there's an actual lot of analysis to be done on the concept of 'ratings' but as for my own opinion I have shred away a rating from my posts (because I believe they distract from the impact of the words). I also use a 4 point rating scale because if I didnt I would even not remember what I thought of a videoplay. For example last night I told a friend that I thought Stanley Parable had mediocre humor and an obnoxious voice actor until I went to the page and realized at some point I gave it a 4/4. This is my past self that I don't remember keeping my current one accountable so now I have to figure out that discrepancy by going back and playing the game again. If we want to be charitable I believe that all rating scales eventually become test points of memory so it begins to make sense to want to categorize things by what you like and what you don't like, it gives a better memory to those pieces from some holistic framework. The problem becomes when people in the middle of discussions of art from a comparitave framework say in voice something is 'probably an 8' or 'no better than a 6, come on'. If thought of on its most organizational level tho I don't think ratings or formalist analysis is an illness. In actual fact I think without those things we can often be lost at sea in terms of whether we should with our limited time pursue the experience of enjoying the work or not. People giving their own reflections on what they observed and saw can risk treating art like simply a series of interpretive Rorshach paintings which highly irritates me.
No worries if you want to respond at this point its just the intellectual equivalent of being public pen pals. Feel free to take this opportunity to remain at rest but hopefully that helps explain where I'm coming from :3
On one level I'm not immune from certain fixations of what instrumental play can bring forward but they almost never function well as social worlds. For example if you play a 3D mario game you use all of marios moveset with the 'goal' to climb platforms towards a star. 3D Mario worlds would make for boring Free Play RPG worlds because that moveset limits your expression too much and the obstacles are too 'directed' (though you might be able to do something clever with some of the Sunshine levels). What I mean is some mechanical system designs can bring out certain systems of satisfaction. When a deck of 52 cards takes on an instrumental 'game' with a goal you can get a 'bluffing game' like Texas Hold Em which tests your social faculties. OR you Slapjack which tests competative reflex. More vitally is just by tweaking some mechanical systems in either Poker or Slapjack you can have the social affectiveness or reflexes tested in some new way that may take a bit to understand. In this sense the continuous patching of characters strengths, the high variety of builds and interactions, and the various 'runes' etc. in a game like league is a mechanical players personal orgy. It's one thing to scorn it as a puppeteered treadmill its another thing to understand what is going on there and respecting what it can give. This does not make the repression of free play structures where they are clearly intended justified but in a post League world that 'orgiastic' sensation of mechanical analysis looms over them of every play experience they interface with, kind of like a compulsive sexual behaviour but for play. My girlfriend defines it as flow
With that in mind all these complaints are alleviated on connection with Space Station 13, as I mention earlier is the sort of 'ultimate improv game' to combat this. I'll speak on it more at some point.
Now I want to give finally some consideration to your discrepancy of the 'filthy' quality of instrumental posturing in terms of both ratings and that audition quality. Social media sites absolutely fail into our complaints of repressing free play. With that said I think practicing some formalist analysis and detaching from 'personal opinion' can be a good test in trying to abstract what is actually the 'specialness' of a work worth considering to the reader, sharing with them those special qualities regardless of the number of tears personally shed. That's not to say 'personal relationships' don't have a place. At the same time there's an actual lot of analysis to be done on the concept of 'ratings' but as for my own opinion I have shred away a rating from my posts (because I believe they distract from the impact of the words). I also use a 4 point rating scale because if I didnt I would even not remember what I thought of a videoplay. For example last night I told a friend that I thought Stanley Parable had mediocre humor and an obnoxious voice actor until I went to the page and realized at some point I gave it a 4/4. This is my past self that I don't remember keeping my current one accountable so now I have to figure out that discrepancy by going back and playing the game again. If we want to be charitable I believe that all rating scales eventually become test points of memory so it begins to make sense to want to categorize things by what you like and what you don't like, it gives a better memory to those pieces from some holistic framework. The problem becomes when people in the middle of discussions of art from a comparitave framework say in voice something is 'probably an 8' or 'no better than a 6, come on'. If thought of on its most organizational level tho I don't think ratings or formalist analysis is an illness. In actual fact I think without those things we can often be lost at sea in terms of whether we should with our limited time pursue the experience of enjoying the work or not. People giving their own reflections on what they observed and saw can risk treating art like simply a series of interpretive Rorshach paintings which highly irritates me.
No worries if you want to respond at this point its just the intellectual equivalent of being public pen pals. Feel free to take this opportunity to remain at rest but hopefully that helps explain where I'm coming from :3
ty for your conjectures about the League Effect and for linking that post on flow and how value neutral it is... definitely reminded of bataille here... maybe flow could be seen as a heightened, excessive state that can be channelled towards the poles of expenditure: invigorating creativity or utter wastefulness. maybe that's bullshit though and i've just got my poker dealer on the brain (i won't get into it, it's a lot..) not every thought thought out loud's a winner, but it's good to express it sometimes just to make the process transparent!
anyway.. using ratings as a personal aide memoire i can understand as that's more of a private utility, though if they're logged publicly then they become misinterpreted as something other than that. i mostly just feel (and i feel this most keenly about music as a musician) that it's silly and hugely reductive to try to score how good a song or album is out of ten, or especially RANK shit. for one thing, creating a numerical system implies that media can be judged in comparative ways. but do i love draft 7.30 by autechre for the same reason i love the dreaming by kate bush? could i tell you i prefer one over the other? absolutely not! and yet you have top 50 lists and granular scores that lump together so many different and practically incomparable kinds of music. could the same be said of videogames? i'm genuinely not familiar enough to say.
also, i totally agree that more detached analysis has its place (what i implied by "broader+deeper scope of critical thoughts"). lemme give you an example of what i dislike from rateyourmusic: band called "girl band" renames themselves to "gilla band" and then put out their third album. music listeners on the site then write reviews that include formulations of the phrase "gilla band, formally known as girl band," and it's insane to me. anyone looking at these reviews will already know this information. they are only writing like this because it's what commercial journalists do. when i think of some of my favourite music it feels great to be able to articulate both analytically ("objectively", if it lends itself more easily to analysis) and emotionally ("subjectively") why i think it's fucking sick. mmmm maybe this is where compulsion loops come in. maybe. perhaps part of the problem is the encouragement to compulsively listen to SO MUCH music in order to feel clued up and cool and cultured. it leaves so little time for deeper engagement; you just get surface level impressions. it becomes a job but, unlike model independent critics/superficial take-havers like fantano, they aren't getting paid. your mention of phrases like "probably an 8" stem from fuckers like him. my relationship with music felt so much more natural when i stopped listening to 25 albums a week just for the sake of sharing that i did on social media. in fact, drastically reducing social media use altogether was a good move in general. anyway, i appreciate what you do because it's thoughtful and "deep", regardless of if you say how something made you feel. though of course, feeling as an experience is not at all something to discount from an analysis!! if this reply isn't totally coherent or on the ball, i apologise! i just got back from gigging in a city i hate and it's almost 1am (late for me).
anyway.. using ratings as a personal aide memoire i can understand as that's more of a private utility, though if they're logged publicly then they become misinterpreted as something other than that. i mostly just feel (and i feel this most keenly about music as a musician) that it's silly and hugely reductive to try to score how good a song or album is out of ten, or especially RANK shit. for one thing, creating a numerical system implies that media can be judged in comparative ways. but do i love draft 7.30 by autechre for the same reason i love the dreaming by kate bush? could i tell you i prefer one over the other? absolutely not! and yet you have top 50 lists and granular scores that lump together so many different and practically incomparable kinds of music. could the same be said of videogames? i'm genuinely not familiar enough to say.
also, i totally agree that more detached analysis has its place (what i implied by "broader+deeper scope of critical thoughts"). lemme give you an example of what i dislike from rateyourmusic: band called "girl band" renames themselves to "gilla band" and then put out their third album. music listeners on the site then write reviews that include formulations of the phrase "gilla band, formally known as girl band," and it's insane to me. anyone looking at these reviews will already know this information. they are only writing like this because it's what commercial journalists do. when i think of some of my favourite music it feels great to be able to articulate both analytically ("objectively", if it lends itself more easily to analysis) and emotionally ("subjectively") why i think it's fucking sick. mmmm maybe this is where compulsion loops come in. maybe. perhaps part of the problem is the encouragement to compulsively listen to SO MUCH music in order to feel clued up and cool and cultured. it leaves so little time for deeper engagement; you just get surface level impressions. it becomes a job but, unlike model independent critics/superficial take-havers like fantano, they aren't getting paid. your mention of phrases like "probably an 8" stem from fuckers like him. my relationship with music felt so much more natural when i stopped listening to 25 albums a week just for the sake of sharing that i did on social media. in fact, drastically reducing social media use altogether was a good move in general. anyway, i appreciate what you do because it's thoughtful and "deep", regardless of if you say how something made you feel. though of course, feeling as an experience is not at all something to discount from an analysis!! if this reply isn't totally coherent or on the ball, i apologise! i just got back from gigging in a city i hate and it's almost 1am (late for me).
I should mention that due to its corrosive relationship to seeing labor as 'freeing', neither me nor Heather are fond of flow, in a lot of cases we want to avoid it as best possible and avoid glorifying it and almost anything other than a harmful design practice. Something can be harmful and still enjoyable tho, something Bataille was well aware of, and that I attempted to capture here in this write up. I do have a 'favourite game by year' list I been meaning to stretch out to 5 per year, I do think that these practices in general are an attempt to self identify with ones own practices of repetition. Again I think this is a dialogue between identity and memory, but categorizing our perceptions on a landscape this involved (most videoplays are 10-20 times the length of an average album) also helps us assess our own trends and convey reccomendations to others.
The rest of what you've said is spot on, I'll try to avoid the 'formly known as' commercial journal signaling trap. You may find my very rare attempt at analyzing music a useful footnote here on how a lack of mechanical depth with a medium taints a lot of your relationship with it. My guess is a lot of those writing crutches come out of people being insecure about their lack of technical knowledge in analysis in general. That's all I've got for now :3
The rest of what you've said is spot on, I'll try to avoid the 'formly known as' commercial journal signaling trap. You may find my very rare attempt at analyzing music a useful footnote here on how a lack of mechanical depth with a medium taints a lot of your relationship with it. My guess is a lot of those writing crutches come out of people being insecure about their lack of technical knowledge in analysis in general. That's all I've got for now :3
Oh and sorry your gig tonight was a bummer :<
what the hell
i'm in agreement with the insidious nature of flow when harnessed for work or compulsion, flow as design. i tried to replay pokemon platinum in 2019 and it was baffling to me how i could devote so much time to pokemon as a kid when the grind was so awful. rpg grind where you yourself don't get any more skilled but your character becomes more powerful through repetition alone is mind-numbing shit. it's one of the many reasons i dislike dnd so much. the hold experience points can have on you is slimy.
to me ig the positive channelling of flow is into creative pursuits like writing and painting and playing music, although it's not without its risks that have to be managed (forgetting to eat because you're in the zone). but of course, when you bring work into it either as salaried creativity or freelance commissions, then you're just meeting deadlines and quotas. would you say comparable flow states happen in sports and exercise, or is that a different thing? you do need to adapt your mindset for things like running long distance or keeping sharp during a 90 minute soccer game.
the disparity in length of "completion" between your average album and videogame is significant, you're right, though the experience of either can be lengthened through however many replays. maybe this is just a case of having different mindsets, but i think you can do all the assessment of changing self and have a resource for recommendation without the need for quantitive categorisation. i think the most i'd do is make a list of albums that in some way feel especially significant and incredible to me (which i could draw from to make recommendations to friends + acquaintances), but due to the fact that my relationships with those albums are unique to a point of incomparability, i couldn't conceive of anything as 5-stars or top however many of a particular year. but if an album is very tightly adhering to some genre conventions though, it's easier to potentially say "x is my favourite example of y genre".
aha, yeah, i think you're right about insecurity driving those kinds of engagement practices. i think insecurity (which is of course fostered and heightened by so many aspects of the society we've been born into) is one of the cruellest things in the world, in that it can encourage cruelty towards yourself and also towards others in a poisonous compensatory way. i have to get ready for work now so i'm gonna have to leave this thought hanging...
+++ the gig itself wasn't a bummer at all; i had a good time! i just dislike being in london.
to me ig the positive channelling of flow is into creative pursuits like writing and painting and playing music, although it's not without its risks that have to be managed (forgetting to eat because you're in the zone). but of course, when you bring work into it either as salaried creativity or freelance commissions, then you're just meeting deadlines and quotas. would you say comparable flow states happen in sports and exercise, or is that a different thing? you do need to adapt your mindset for things like running long distance or keeping sharp during a 90 minute soccer game.
the disparity in length of "completion" between your average album and videogame is significant, you're right, though the experience of either can be lengthened through however many replays. maybe this is just a case of having different mindsets, but i think you can do all the assessment of changing self and have a resource for recommendation without the need for quantitive categorisation. i think the most i'd do is make a list of albums that in some way feel especially significant and incredible to me (which i could draw from to make recommendations to friends + acquaintances), but due to the fact that my relationships with those albums are unique to a point of incomparability, i couldn't conceive of anything as 5-stars or top however many of a particular year. but if an album is very tightly adhering to some genre conventions though, it's easier to potentially say "x is my favourite example of y genre".
aha, yeah, i think you're right about insecurity driving those kinds of engagement practices. i think insecurity (which is of course fostered and heightened by so many aspects of the society we've been born into) is one of the cruellest things in the world, in that it can encourage cruelty towards yourself and also towards others in a poisonous compensatory way. i have to get ready for work now so i'm gonna have to leave this thought hanging...
+++ the gig itself wasn't a bummer at all; i had a good time! i just dislike being in london.
Erato_Heti
1 year ago