should games like this be banned?

Redress said:

It is basic gaming theory. Another example of games that uses similar mechanisms are RPGs.

Click to expand...

Lutherf said:

Hogwash! I've never spent three straight weeks farming for some super-mega-uber-elite sword or armor.......or even boots......come on, where the hell is it!!!!!

Click to expand...

Damn right, Lutherf!

Uh, no. Lots of people enjoy playing candy crush. It's none of my (or your) business what they choose to do with their free time.

Summerwind said:

.this idea that any of them actually have a story line is complete bs. The only actual story line is "go here and kill these, get something, go there and kill those, get something, go ...." That's the entire story line, the stuff they all claim is story line, really doesn't change or effect the game at all except to give you a video clip to watch.

Click to expand...

Looks like someone's never played the Mass Effect series.

Jesse Booth said:

Looks like someone's never played the Mass Effect series.

Click to expand...

No, and due to my known addiction to rpg's, I'm willing to bet someone never will. That said, how is it different. Do you do something more than seek and find, and kill baddies?

Summerwind said:

No, and due to my known addiction to rpg's, I'm willing to bet someone never will. That said, how is it different. Do you do something more than seek and find, and kill baddies?

Click to expand...

Of course, combat is important in the game, especially since this one happens to be a shooter/RPG crossover. But the story is, without a doubt, one of the most fascinating I've ever seen in a video game, and by the end of the series, I'd say it rivaled most of the movie plots I'd seen.

This is an accurate explanation of the story arc, but it's also short enough that it won't take up too much of your time. Sorry about the delay, I read through several sites to make sure I got a good explanation.

Is there a good synopsis of the plot of Mass Effect 1 & 2? - Arqade

What's really unique to me about the Mass Effect series is that your decisions in previous games seriously impacts the events of the rest of the series. You can import save files from earlier installations of the game, and I strongly advise people to do so. Things get pretty damn grim if you don't.

Jesse Booth said:

Of course, combat is important in the game, especially since this one happens to be a shooter/RPG crossover. But the story is, without a doubt, one of the most fascinating I've ever seen in a video game, and by the end of the series, I'd say it rivaled most of the movie plots I'd seen.

This is an accurate explanation of the story arc, but it's also short enough that it won't take up too much of your time. Sorry about the delay, I read through several sites to make sure I got a good explanation.

Is there a good synopsis of the plot of Mass Effect 1 & 2? - Arqade

What's really unique to me about the Mass Effect series is that your decisions in previous games seriously impacts the events of the rest of the series. You can import save files from earlier installations of the game, and I strongly advise people to do so. Things get pretty damn grim if you don't.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but it sounds like the same-o same-o. Being able to transfer previous entities, skills, etc, don't change the game really into anything more than shooting and finding. That's it. Shoot 'em up, take their stuff, shoot more up and get the prize and take it to xperson who sends you to find something else where you have to shoot'em up on the way, shoot'em up when you get there, and find something.

Summerwind said:

Sorry, but it sounds like the same-o same-o. Being able to transfer previous entities, skills, etc, don't change the game really into anything more than shooting and finding. That's it. Shoot 'em up, take their stuff, shoot more up and get the prize and take it to xperson who sends you to find something else where you have to shoot'em up on the way, shoot'em up when you get there, and find something.

Click to expand...

Your decisions in the game affects the fate of entire colonies, races, and civilizations. Your argument is invalid.

Jesse Booth said:

Your decisions in the game affects the fate of entire colonies, races, and civilizations. Your argument is invalid.

Click to expand...

Okay, hang on. Your quote didn't indicate that at all. I do recall now that my daughter has mentioned a new game she's playing wherein when you gain a status, like Mayor, you really have to do the mayoral stuff, it's not just a bs title that you carry as you do the shooting and finding. If that's what you're talking about, then that's more of a sim game with rpg overtones. I do think sim games are worthy.

tacomancer said:

I don't addict that easily, except for sweets which I actively avoid but it never got to the point I was motivated to neglect myself or anything.

Click to expand...

I've seen several people fall into the WOW hole.

Never really got it myself. Leveling treadmills annoy me to the point of not finishing games.

And the overall point kinda ties into my hobby horse regarding persuasion science in our political discourse. The simple fact that people are exploiting "holes" in our hardware and software to influence our opinions and our behavior.

Its not "mind control" but it is real.

Does we want to see models like this game in children's programming? Or adult for that matter? "That show isn't even good. But I can't stop watching it..."

tacomancer said:

This is what Candy Crush Saga does to your brain | Dana Smith | Science | theguardian.com

Candy Crush is basically designed to exploit human neurochemical weaknesses.

This is the sort of mechanism which fuels gambling addiction. As science and psychology becomes more sophisticated, more problems with how the human brain processes information will be revealed, opening the door for more ways to exploit that weakness.

I personally view this as extremely unethical at best as it purposefully undermines free will. What is your take?

Click to expand...

Everything that we find pleasurable can be addicting for some people. We will not be able to ban all of it. Parents need to do their job and keep their kids occupied with more constructive activities and we need to teach how to resist the tendency to lose control and beome addicted.

I'm not up on all the research, but my observation is that mentally healthy people with curiosity and the ability to learn and enjoy a variety of activities are less likely to become addicted. It is the people who were not given enough intellectual stimulation in their youth and the depressed who are most susceptible to obsession/addiction.

What if...? said:

I've seen several people fall into the WOW hole.

Never really got it myself. Leveling treadmills annoy me to the point of not finishing games.

And the overall point kinda ties into my hobby horse regarding persuasion science in our political discourse. The simple fact that people are exploiting "holes" in our hardware and software to influence our opinions and our behavior.

Its not "mind control" but it is real.

Does we want to see models like this game in children's programming? Or adult for that matter? "That show isn't even good. But I can't stop watching it..."

Click to expand...

I think we will increasingly be a part of a society which actively develops these techniques and uses them to exploit people. I am hopeful that morality will change once this is recognized and it will increasingly become taboo.

tacomancer said:

I think we will increasingly be a part of a society which actively develops these techniques and uses them to exploit people. I am hopeful that morality will change once this is recognized and it will increasingly become taboo.

Click to expand...

Education of people to the reality of this science would go a long way without running into first amendment issues. Actually provides some resistance.

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.

Luftwaffe said:

Bull****, what I hear is an excuse.

Who came up with that? The American Psychiatric association (those people are moronic)?

Click to expand...

Look up cognitive linguistics and then how much money the public relations industry pulls in a year.

Then get back to us.

What if...? said:

Education of people to the reality of this science would go a long way without running into first amendment issues. Actually provides some resistance.

Click to expand...

Its going to require a significant culture change. The american mythos believes in the idea that the human will is the dominant force when its increasingly becoming evidence that the mental force exerted by the PfC is one signal among many in the brain. Until that culture change happens, people are going to be willing victims of this field.

What if...? said:

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.

Click to expand...

I didn't know that. I am not sure that is an effective long term technique, but I will have to research that.

tacomancer said:

That's where I strongly disagree. People can be strongly controlled by taking advantages in these weakness in brain function essentially resulting I'm the assertion of control, which imposes a level of the requirement you dismiss.

Click to expand...

The usual argument for censorship is that people with weaker brains will be excessively influenced by certain types of media technology and content. The people with the "weaker brains" are never the people who advocate for censorship, it has usually been the young, women and the poor. Apparently the people who do the censoring have a superior ability to withstand exposure to the toxic media or content since they get the most exposure to it, but still have the will power to ban it.

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).

tacomancer said:

Its going to require a significant culture change. The american mythos believes in the idea that the human will is the dominant force when its increasingly becoming evidence that the mental force exerted by the PfC is one signal among many in the brain. Until that culture change happens, people are going to be willing victims of this field.



I didn't know that. I am not sure that is an effective long term technique, but I will have to research that.

Click to expand...

Wendell potter defected from his job as head of communication for a major insurer over the anti ACA propaganda war the industry waged.

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.

Luftwaffe said:

I have just yet to understand why entire companies should be put to death and thousands of people out of jobs just because they know how to make a great video game.

That is entirely the opposite of American, to kill business and with it, opportunity.

Click to expand...

It's consistent with the USA's recreational drug policy, with the same reasoning. If there ever is a ban on such games, it will be as unsuccessful as the drug wars have been, with many of the same unintended, but now predictable, consequences.

Hard Truth said:

The usual argument for censorship is that people with weaker brains will be excessively influenced by certain types of media technology and content. The people with the "weaker brains" are never the people who advocate for censorship, it has usually been the young, women and the poor. Apparently the censors have a superior ability to withstand exposure to the toxic media or content since they get the most exposure to it, but still have the will power to ban it.

Look at the history of censorship and the banning of new media technology 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).

Click to expand...

The old school thought on censorship was based on certain messages being bad messages. This new approach isn't necessarily about the message, but the delivery mechanism of the message. The message could be good or bad, but that's not the point.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Summerwind said:

Okay, hang on. Your quote didn't indicate that at all. I do recall now that my daughter has mentioned a new game she's playing wherein when you gain a status, like Mayor, you really have to do the mayoral stuff, it's not just a bs title that you carry as you do the shooting and finding. If that's what you're talking about, then that's more of a sim game with rpg overtones. I do think sim games are worthy.

Click to expand...

It isn't like that either. I think. I'll give you an example of what the game is like. One of the races, the Quarians, created a type of VI called the Geth. Eventually, the Geth's adaptive consciousness developed to the point of self-awareness, and the Quarians tried to exterminate them. They failed, and were forced to evacuate their homeworld, Rannoch. After centuries of living on ships, their immune systems are practically nonexistent (no disease to develope an immunity to), so they have to wear environmental suits outside of their own ships. The Reaper invasion begins about the same time as the Quarians decide to retake their homeworld. Unfortunately, the Geth decided to ally themselves with the Reapers right after they were attacked, and of course Shepard has to save their asses. Depending on your decisions throughout the last two games, there might be an option to save both the Quarians and the Geth, but it's very difficult to get this lucky combination, unless you look up how to do it ahead of time. If you didn't import your save, or if you made some bad calls, you will have to decide which race will be wiped off the face of the Earth, er... universe.

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.

Jesse Booth said:

It isn't like that either. I'll give you an example of what the game is like. One of the races, the Quarians, created a type of VI called the Geth. Eventually, the Geth's adaptive consciousness developed to the point of self-awareness, and the Quarians tried to exterminate them. They failed, and were forced to evacuate their homeworld, Rannoch. The Reaper invasion begins about the same time as the Quarians decide to retake their homeworld. Unfortunately, the Geth decided to ally themselves with the Reapers right after they were attacked, and of course Shepard has to save their asses. Depending on your decisions throughout the last two games, there might be an option to save both the Quarians and the Geth, but it's very difficult to get this lucky combination, unless you look up how to do it ahead of time. If you didn't import your save, or if you made some bad calls, you will have to decide which race will be wiped off the face of the Earth, er... universe.

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 third clip is from a game 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.

Click to expand...

I'm not watching those youtubes, I'll go by what you've typed and what I know about rpgs. In the end, even if the stream of the story is effected by your choices, the fact remains that your only interaction with the game is to kill baddies or find trinkets. The vids that imply a story line could easily be removed and one sentence inserted indicating your next thing to find which will undoubtedly have baddies to kill along the way and once you get wherever the trinket is.

tacomancer said:

The old school thought on censorship was based on certain messages being bad messages. This new approach isn't necessarily about the message, but the delivery mechanism of the message. The message could be good or bad, but that's not the point......

Click to expand...

That same argument has also been used for film and television because of their pervasiveness and alledgedly unique power to influence. Its still a bad argument. The rest of us shouldn't be prevented from enjoying something because some people can't enjoy it moderately and responsibility. The argument that we should ban pleasurable activities to protect the weak from addiction could also be applied to food since so many people eat excessively.

If you think a video game is dangerous, get ready for technology that can directly tap into parts of people's brains, which is not far off. Few people know that marketers, PR people and advertisers are already using functional MRIs to test the effectiveness of their messges.

Hard Truth said:

That same argument has been used for film and television also because of their unique power to influence and pervasiveness. Its still a bad argument. The rest of us shouldn't be prevented from enjoying something because some people can't enjoy it moderately and responsibility. That argument could be applied to food since so many people eat excessively.

If you think a video game is dangerous, get ready for technology that can directly tap into parts of people's brains, which is not far off. Few people know that marketers, PR people and advertisers are already using functional MRIs to test the effectiveness of their messges.

Click to expand...

The argument is just fine. Film and TV may influence but does not burden people. Consider that certain sales techniques are illegal and for good reason.

Summerwind said:

I'm not watching those youtubes, I'll go by what you've typed and what I know about rpgs. In the end, even if the stream of the story is effected by your choices, the fact remains that your only interaction with the game is to kill baddies or find trinkets. The vids that imply a story line could easily be removed and one sentence inserted indicating your next thing to find which will undoubtedly have baddies to kill along the way and once you get wherever the trinket is.

Click to expand...

They would have to edit out several hours of in-mission conversation, remove all the non-combat zones on the game (Tuchanka, the Citadel, etc.), overhaul the conversation system, and redesign half of the combat levels for any of what you just said to be true. The story line is an ever-present element to the game. You hear about the ramifications of past decisions over newscasts in cities, you see the effects on civilizations of decisions you made, you talk about it in your many interactions with NPCs.

tacomancer said:

In playing pacman I can turn off the console whenever I want to. I am not being exploited.

For the record though. Five minutes into candy crush, I noticed it was designed for weak willed people and lost interest in disgust almost immediately.

So its not a personal crusade out of harm or anything. I just don't like it when people are taken advantage of out of moral concern.

Click to expand...

People allow themselves to be taken advantage of. The weak-willed have always been exploited.. probably always will be. I also believe it is unethical for people to remain weak-willed. It demonstrates, imo, that these people don't care enough about themselves or their own families to make an effort to improve.

Rhiannon said:

People allow themselves to be taken advantage of. The weak-willed have always been exploited.. probably always will be. I also believe it is unethical for people to remain weak-willed. It demonstrates, imo, that these people don't care enough about themselves or their own families to make an effort to improve.

Click to expand...

The subject is more complicated than the strength I of Ines will. If one cannot make an accurate value assessment which these techniques seen to bypass. One could, in a very determined manner, make an uninformed and manipulated choice.