It is interesting to note that some countries actually license persuasion practitioners and some techniques are actually forbidden.
Not WHAT they say but HOW they say it.
I shudder to think what this technology is doing to kids as it and they mature.
Look at the history of censorship and the banning of new media technology and provocative content and you see a history of excessive fear, panic and arrogance. We no longer fear playing pool, player pianos, pinball machines, arcade games etc, yet all have been banned. The books, movies, songs and artists that have been banned in the past are now considered harmless, and some of their works are now considered classics.
Banning a computer game is just as stupid as banning Lady Chatterly's lover, Lenny Bruce's comedy shows, Allen Ginsburg's Howl, the Kingmen's Louie Louie or the film I am Curious (Blue).
Last edited by Hard Truth; 08-02-14 at 03:42 PM.
He wrote a book about it called "Deadly Spin" where he talks a lot about how the science is applied, how it works, the lack of any formal ethical standards for the industries that practice it. Good read.
The concept of candy crush is emulated in other games that have been around for 30 or so years. Doctor Mario is essentially the same game, but doctor mario isn't manipulative and that is the difference. The content is still there but the mechanism is different.
This is a new game which isn't about "bad ideas" but about communication. Perhaps the answer isn't to ban candy crush, but to regulate it.
As far as your comment about weaker people. Nobody believes they are affected by it as people are proud. This is why we shouldn't use anecdotal evidence for this type of thing.
Here is a good example of manipulative behaviors commonly employed by flash games.
Gamasutra: Ramin Shokrizade's Blog - The Top F2P Monetization Tricks
The counter argument tends to be that if people try hard enough, they can bypass this sort of thing, and that is probably true, if they can effectively do it 100% of the time (but nobody really can do it 100% of the time) and because the onus is on the individual to resist the manipulation instead of a fair and balanced exchange, it goes against principals of a fair and informed market place.A coercive monetization model depends on the ability to “trick” a person into making a purchase with incomplete information, or by hiding that information such that while it is technically available, the brain of the consumer does not access that information. Hiding a purchase can be as simple as disguising the relationship between the action and the cost as I describe in my Systems of Control in F2P paper.
Research has shown that putting even one intermediate currency between the consumer and real money, such as a “game gem” (premium currency), makes the consumer much less adept at assessing the value of the transaction. Additional intermediary objects, what I call “layering”, makes it even harder for the brain to accurately assess the situation, especially if there is some additional stress applied.
The first two clips show Shepard communicating with a downed Reaper, but the third doesn't. Interestingly, all three seem to be from people who chose a "renegade" pathway over "paragon" options, judging by the conversation options they selected.
Clip one is saving the Geth and the Quarians, clip two is saving the Geth, and clip three is saving the Quarians. All the clips are less than ten minutes long.
The second and third clips are from games where someone didn't import a save file. Either that, Legion didn't survive the suicide mission, or they decided to sell the deactivated Geth to Cerberus.
Your choices impact the scene, of course, but also have a serious impact on what war assets you acquire. if the army you assemble isn't large enough, the mission to retake Earth will fail, and you will be unable to stop the Reapers using the Crucible project.
jallman: "It's all good. At least you have a thick skin and can take being poked fun back at without crying. "