5 ms·

Playing starcraft 2 totally consumed my life from about 18-22. It was very similar to a drug addiction except I convinced myself it was positive because I would

Playing starcraft 2 totally consumed my life from about 18-22. It was very similar to a drug addiction except I convinced myself it was positive because I would eventually be a professional. My addiction prevented my from working on the underlying issues that caused my to seek refuge in the game. It also left me with a host of physical RSI problems that have been a huge negative to my life + career. Although if I hadn't developed them I suspect I'd still be consumed by games. In order to spend vast amounts of time playing video games you have to be at a certain level of privilege. I feel as if video games have cheated myself out of potential as well as those that my privilege obligates to help. As with other addictions there are people who won't be consumed by it like I was, and prohibition isn't the solution, not sure what is tbh.

some-guy 10y ago
Very similar story to me: I played Starcraft 2 throughout college in a competitive fashion and made me feel worse. There was a period of time after that where after quitting I wouldn't touch a video game. I've since picked up a Nintendo 3DS as an experiment now that I take long train rides to work, and it's been an amazing, relaxing experience. I guess what I'm trying to say is, there are many different ways to enjoy video games without being addicted or even playing a lot. Starcraft 2 ladder play may be one of the more stressful ways of going about it from experience.
- VonGuard 10y ago
  I feel like both of your stories could easily be rewritten and replace videogames with sports. Many people spend their high school and college lives completely dedicated to football, basketball, baseball, or hockey with the idea that they'll go pro eventually. These folks can come away with wasted college time, physical injuries, and hideous aversion to the sport they once loved. I guess what I am saying is that I feel like this is an athlete/esports thing, not necesarily a videogame thing. Without the lure of a career behind it, it wouldn't be quite so dangerous a thing. But as with all fun careers, the demands are super high and the number of people who make it is super small. Acting is like this too, without the physical injuries.
  - dwringer 10y ago
    I agree. Also, both with video games and with sports, it is possible to use the challenge as an opportunity for self development. At the very least, learning to play the games without getting repetitive stress injuries would be a mild physical accomplishment for GGPP.
    - ewzimm 10y ago
      I know people who replaced drug addiction with video game addiction. It's impossible to know how things would have gone if they didn't get involved with one or the other, but I wonder if some people are vulnerable to addiction through a combination of biology and life experiences, and it's just a matter of which thing they become addicted to. If that's the case, video games are probably one of the most benign things that a person can get attached to. Not harmless overall, just less harmful than some other options like certain drugs. A little more harmful with micro transactions. But a lot of games offer a social network as well, which might help in development of self-awareness.
      - ddorian43 10y ago
        Yes people really can be prone to be addicted. Look it up.
        ewzimm 10y ago
        I just don't want to say that people are inevitably going to be addicted to justify monetizing addiction, but the fact that relatively harmless addictive products are available might serve a purpose.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  Player Vs Player games are unique. They're designed around making players constantly navigate a shifting metagame, fighting each other to generate content out of the existing field. It's sort of a recipe for unhappiness, as the entire system devolves into, "Who can find the most abusively unfair strategy first, and then exploit it." Since most of these games simply cannot have the time devoted to them to make them "balanced" at the breakneck pace the market demands, they never really achieve equilibrium and reward only the most heavily invested.
  - Cpoll 10y ago
    > "Who can find the most abusively unfair strategy first, and then exploit it." I'm not sure I agree with this. "Finding" the best strategy rewards you for a week at most, until the community absorbs the strategy. Then you're no farther than the people you were beating last week. Most games have co-opted the word "metagame" to describe this phenomenon. Someone discovers an effective strategy, it becomes the metagame, and competitive play revolves around polishing understanding and execution as it pertains to the metagame. Imbalanced games tend to self-balance at higher levels - all the crap that doesn't work just disappears from high-level players' playbooks (except occasionally as surprise gimmicks).
    - KirinDave 10y ago
      > I'm not sure I agree with this. "Finding" the best strategy rewards you for a week at most, until the community absorbs the strategy. Then you're no farther than the people you were beating last week. In most cases I experienced, exploitative strategies are only slightly improved, and require a fair amount of skill (usually games hotpatch outrageous exploits quickly). The people who find it worse train to use it first, and keep their advantage. I mean... You said it yourself: > Most games have co-opted the word "metagame" to describe this phenomenon. Someone discovers an effective strategy, it becomes the metagame, and competitive play revolves around polishing understanding and execution as it pertains to the metagame. The "shifting meta" is exactly what game designers of big competitive games want, because it requires ongoing engagement to maintain mastery. A chess player may be rusty after a year off, but the game doesn't fundamentally change. Someone playing League or Overwatch cannot say the same as balance has substantially changed. > Imbalanced games tend to self-balance at higher levels - all the crap that doesn't work just disappears from high-level players' playbooks (except occasionally as surprise gimmicks). I've been part of the "highest levels" of two competitive gaming communities now, and I can tell you they do NOT self-balance in my experience. And it was incredibly frustrating to watch the rules change deliberately to break up our strategies, even though what we were doing was simply a function of understanding and practice. Very few pvp games ever "balance out." That's why they have "shifting metas." Indeed, many gamers claim prefer this because they claim it makes it easier for new players to enter into the higher brackets against more experienced players. But really what it does is create a treadmill you can reach the front or back of. Maybe some people want that treadmill. I am not sure I do.
CardenB 10y ago
Hey man, live and learn. You came away from your experience with valuable lessons.
r00fus 10y ago
Kids or other all-time-consuming life-changing events. It's why the core of the "idle hands are devil's work" moral - excessive gaming could be considered a vice. How did you manage to extricate yourself, btw?
- matwood 10y ago
  When I played DAoC at a crazy level, I left just by quitting one day (it ruined a great long term relationship which prompted me to quit). I gave my account to someone and that was it. I had weird feelings about what to do at home for awhile, so I started power lifting. Then I went back to grad school. My problem is that I don't do idle well at all, so I need productive things to do.

some-guy 10y ago

Very similar story to me: I played Starcraft 2 throughout college in a competitive fashion and made me feel worse. There was a period of time after that where after quitting I wouldn't touch a video game. I've since picked up a Nintendo 3DS as an experiment now that I take long train rides to work, and it's been an amazing, relaxing experience. I guess what I'm trying to say is, there are many different ways to enjoy video games without being addicted or even playing a lot. Starcraft 2 ladder play may be one of the more stressful ways of going about it from experience.

VonGuard 10y ago
I feel like both of your stories could easily be rewritten and replace videogames with sports. Many people spend their high school and college lives completely dedicated to football, basketball, baseball, or hockey with the idea that they'll go pro eventually. These folks can come away with wasted college time, physical injuries, and hideous aversion to the sport they once loved. I guess what I am saying is that I feel like this is an athlete/esports thing, not necesarily a videogame thing. Without the lure of a career behind it, it wouldn't be quite so dangerous a thing. But as with all fun careers, the demands are super high and the number of people who make it is super small. Acting is like this too, without the physical injuries.
- dwringer 10y ago
  I agree. Also, both with video games and with sports, it is possible to use the challenge as an opportunity for self development. At the very least, learning to play the games without getting repetitive stress injuries would be a mild physical accomplishment for GGPP.
  - ewzimm 10y ago
    I know people who replaced drug addiction with video game addiction. It's impossible to know how things would have gone if they didn't get involved with one or the other, but I wonder if some people are vulnerable to addiction through a combination of biology and life experiences, and it's just a matter of which thing they become addicted to. If that's the case, video games are probably one of the most benign things that a person can get attached to. Not harmless overall, just less harmful than some other options like certain drugs. A little more harmful with micro transactions. But a lot of games offer a social network as well, which might help in development of self-awareness.
    - ddorian43 10y ago
      Yes people really can be prone to be addicted. Look it up.
      - ewzimm 10y ago
        I just don't want to say that people are inevitably going to be addicted to justify monetizing addiction, but the fact that relatively harmless addictive products are available might serve a purpose.
KirinDave 10y ago
Player Vs Player games are unique. They're designed around making players constantly navigate a shifting metagame, fighting each other to generate content out of the existing field. It's sort of a recipe for unhappiness, as the entire system devolves into, "Who can find the most abusively unfair strategy first, and then exploit it." Since most of these games simply cannot have the time devoted to them to make them "balanced" at the breakneck pace the market demands, they never really achieve equilibrium and reward only the most heavily invested.
- Cpoll 10y ago
  > "Who can find the most abusively unfair strategy first, and then exploit it." I'm not sure I agree with this. "Finding" the best strategy rewards you for a week at most, until the community absorbs the strategy. Then you're no farther than the people you were beating last week. Most games have co-opted the word "metagame" to describe this phenomenon. Someone discovers an effective strategy, it becomes the metagame, and competitive play revolves around polishing understanding and execution as it pertains to the metagame. Imbalanced games tend to self-balance at higher levels - all the crap that doesn't work just disappears from high-level players' playbooks (except occasionally as surprise gimmicks).
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    > I'm not sure I agree with this. "Finding" the best strategy rewards you for a week at most, until the community absorbs the strategy. Then you're no farther than the people you were beating last week. In most cases I experienced, exploitative strategies are only slightly improved, and require a fair amount of skill (usually games hotpatch outrageous exploits quickly). The people who find it worse train to use it first, and keep their advantage. I mean... You said it yourself: > Most games have co-opted the word "metagame" to describe this phenomenon. Someone discovers an effective strategy, it becomes the metagame, and competitive play revolves around polishing understanding and execution as it pertains to the metagame. The "shifting meta" is exactly what game designers of big competitive games want, because it requires ongoing engagement to maintain mastery. A chess player may be rusty after a year off, but the game doesn't fundamentally change. Someone playing League or Overwatch cannot say the same as balance has substantially changed. > Imbalanced games tend to self-balance at higher levels - all the crap that doesn't work just disappears from high-level players' playbooks (except occasionally as surprise gimmicks). I've been part of the "highest levels" of two competitive gaming communities now, and I can tell you they do NOT self-balance in my experience. And it was incredibly frustrating to watch the rules change deliberately to break up our strategies, even though what we were doing was simply a function of understanding and practice. Very few pvp games ever "balance out." That's why they have "shifting metas." Indeed, many gamers claim prefer this because they claim it makes it easier for new players to enter into the higher brackets against more experienced players. But really what it does is create a treadmill you can reach the front or back of. Maybe some people want that treadmill. I am not sure I do.

CardenB 10y ago

Hey man, live and learn. You came away from your experience with valuable lessons.

r00fus 10y ago

Kids or other all-time-consuming life-changing events. It's why the core of the "idle hands are devil's work" moral - excessive gaming could be considered a vice. How did you manage to extricate yourself, btw?

matwood 10y ago
When I played DAoC at a crazy level, I left just by quitting one day (it ruined a great long term relationship which prompted me to quit). I gave my account to someone and that was it. I had weird feelings about what to do at home for awhile, so I started power lifting. Then I went back to grad school. My problem is that I don't do idle well at all, so I need productive things to do.