4 ms·

Maybe you are paying the wrong kind of games? I think online competitive games, like esports, only make you better at playing games, but other single player gam

Maybe you are paying the wrong kind of games? I think online competitive games, like esports, only make you better at playing games, but other single player games are comparable artforms and only nominally "pointless wastes if time".

WA 10y ago
I had a few hours of single player games. The advantage is that they're over and get boring after a while. At least in story mode. I played Super Mario on iOS. It's a neat game and indeed, it got boring after I got all green coins and all characters. Games getting boring is a good thing! But the real good ones keep you engaged forever. That's the problem ;)
- brachi 10y ago
  Good ones for you or the publisher? Good games in single player mode are like good movie or tv show: no matter how good you might probably watch it once a year, and maybe inspire you to do other things. E.g. Tomb Raider (the 2013 version) was such a great game that inspired me to travel more.
- ronjouch 10y ago
  I'll pinch my two cents into JetSpiegel's bowl when s/he suggests that "maybe you are paying the wrong kind of games? [...] other single player games are comparable artforms and only nominally 'pointless wastes if time'". Here are some games I enjoyed in 2016: #1. The Witness, The Talos Principle, Her Story, Inside, Firewatch, Near Death, Event[0]. #2. Alien Isolation, SOMA, Grow Up. #3. Furi, Thumper, DOOM 2016. Why do I group them this way? #1 is "story/thinking", #3 is "immersion", #3 is "hard". I like games when they tell me stories (#1), much like a good movie. I enjoy the fact that being active in them contributes to making them sometimes even more immersive than a good movie (#2), and finally (and maybe this one is a bit closer to your feelings) I enjoy when they're so stupidly hard they make your heart pound when you've almost beaten this boss and gaaaaah no, dead again, retry (#3). I'm not in any way trying to make you adhere to these categories (to each his own), just showing that games only have to be brainless dopamine-hit-based time-wasters if your let your choice of games make them so. The Witness is a remarkable adventure in learning and witnessing (gah) your own errors. Alien Isolation is the best Alien I've ever experienced in my body, regardless of medium. Firewatch is a human tale. Etc. Remains the "they waste time" point. True, and so is watching a season of Black Mirror. On my side, I've 1. Come to peace with the fact that I'm not going to be 100% "productive" 100% of the time. All the time I played Witness was not spent learning Rust or taking an art course like yours. Alright. 2. Learned to consider what a game might bring to me and take from me before buying. I remain below a waste threshold (a. Bring/Take ratio too low, or b. Take obscenely high) by fleeing MMOs and CandyCrushes and rogue-likes and loot simulators like plague, and never ever chase coins/characters/achievements. Can you expand on the kind of games you tried and why/how you consider single-player games boring?
  - cableshaft 10y ago
    Seconding the suggestion for The Witness. Going through that now (almost got to the first ending but not quite), and it's really a game about learning how to see things differently in the world around you, and learning how to solve problems, which is primarily what programmers do anyway. It was definitely not a waste of time. The Witness is also having a huge influence on how I approach design, since pretty much everything communicated in the game is nonverbal.
TulliusCicero 10y ago
I'd guess it's the opposite. Competitive games probably have a stronger positive effect on cognition because of the level and variety of challenge involved. Single player games are frequently (although not always) less challenging, and even when they are challenging, they can often be beaten via rote memorization. People have a tendency to apply a Puritan-esque attitude to games, assuming that less 'productive' (read: violent) games must also be less useful, and games that are more artsy, or revolve or around building (Minecraft), or are more abstract/less gamey (brain training games) must be more useful. The reality is that people improve their cognitive abilities more when under more stress, when they're challenging themselves, not because the activity is more of an 'art form'. Repeatedly going to the opera may have other benefits, but it isn't going to make your brain compute any faster.
pmoriarty 10y ago
"Maybe you are paying the wrong kind of games?" Indeed. I'm playing FSX (Microsoft Flight Simulator X). It's teaching me how to fly... and it's actually lots of fun too.

WA 10y ago

I had a few hours of single player games. The advantage is that they're over and get boring after a while. At least in story mode. I played Super Mario on iOS. It's a neat game and indeed, it got boring after I got all green coins and all characters. Games getting boring is a good thing! But the real good ones keep you engaged forever. That's the problem ;)

brachi 10y ago
Good ones for you or the publisher? Good games in single player mode are like good movie or tv show: no matter how good you might probably watch it once a year, and maybe inspire you to do other things. E.g. Tomb Raider (the 2013 version) was such a great game that inspired me to travel more.
ronjouch 10y ago
I'll pinch my two cents into JetSpiegel's bowl when s/he suggests that "maybe you are paying the wrong kind of games? [...] other single player games are comparable artforms and only nominally 'pointless wastes if time'". Here are some games I enjoyed in 2016: #1. The Witness, The Talos Principle, Her Story, Inside, Firewatch, Near Death, Event[0]. #2. Alien Isolation, SOMA, Grow Up. #3. Furi, Thumper, DOOM 2016. Why do I group them this way? #1 is "story/thinking", #3 is "immersion", #3 is "hard". I like games when they tell me stories (#1), much like a good movie. I enjoy the fact that being active in them contributes to making them sometimes even more immersive than a good movie (#2), and finally (and maybe this one is a bit closer to your feelings) I enjoy when they're so stupidly hard they make your heart pound when you've almost beaten this boss and gaaaaah no, dead again, retry (#3). I'm not in any way trying to make you adhere to these categories (to each his own), just showing that games only have to be brainless dopamine-hit-based time-wasters if your let your choice of games make them so. The Witness is a remarkable adventure in learning and witnessing (gah) your own errors. Alien Isolation is the best Alien I've ever experienced in my body, regardless of medium. Firewatch is a human tale. Etc. Remains the "they waste time" point. True, and so is watching a season of Black Mirror. On my side, I've 1. Come to peace with the fact that I'm not going to be 100% "productive" 100% of the time. All the time I played Witness was not spent learning Rust or taking an art course like yours. Alright. 2. Learned to consider what a game might bring to me and take from me before buying. I remain below a waste threshold (a. Bring/Take ratio too low, or b. Take obscenely high) by fleeing MMOs and CandyCrushes and rogue-likes and loot simulators like plague, and never ever chase coins/characters/achievements. Can you expand on the kind of games you tried and why/how you consider single-player games boring?
- cableshaft 10y ago
  Seconding the suggestion for The Witness. Going through that now (almost got to the first ending but not quite), and it's really a game about learning how to see things differently in the world around you, and learning how to solve problems, which is primarily what programmers do anyway. It was definitely not a waste of time. The Witness is also having a huge influence on how I approach design, since pretty much everything communicated in the game is nonverbal.

TulliusCicero 10y ago

I'd guess it's the opposite. Competitive games probably have a stronger positive effect on cognition because of the level and variety of challenge involved. Single player games are frequently (although not always) less challenging, and even when they are challenging, they can often be beaten via rote memorization. People have a tendency to apply a Puritan-esque attitude to games, assuming that less 'productive' (read: violent) games must also be less useful, and games that are more artsy, or revolve or around building (Minecraft), or are more abstract/less gamey (brain training games) must be more useful. The reality is that people improve their cognitive abilities more when under more stress, when they're challenging themselves, not because the activity is more of an 'art form'. Repeatedly going to the opera may have other benefits, but it isn't going to make your brain compute any faster.

pmoriarty 10y ago

"Maybe you are paying the wrong kind of games?" Indeed. I'm playing FSX (Microsoft Flight Simulator X). It's teaching me how to fly... and it's actually lots of fun too.