14 ms·

When did this opinion start taking such a hold? Out of all places, I didn’t think HN would be so anti-games but I’ve been seeing more and more people saying thi

When did this opinion start taking such a hold? Out of all places, I didn’t think HN would be so anti-games but I’ve been seeing more and more people saying this here. Could someone who feels this way expand on why they have such a negative view on games? Just curious if it’s personal, cultural, or something else? Also, is it directed at complex games with storylines, online multiplayer, or mobile games meant to pull as much value as possible? Cause one is unlike the others.

faitswulff 8y ago
> Out of all places, I didn’t think HN would be so anti-games More time spent videogaming means less time spent leetcoding, raising VC, and crushing it as a 10x engineer! /s
- coldtea 8y ago
  Generally, less time for all kind of other things in life. Game addiction is a thing (as is "tons of hours spent but not clinically addicted"). And unlike e.g. workaholism, it doesn't even result in a career to show for it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
meditate 8y ago
I only speak from personal experiences with the business side of things. It's a combination of despotic upstream vendors, highly addictive products aimed towards children, lack of regulations, abusive working environments, and a general contentedness with profiting directly from the misfortunes of others. I do not believe any corners of the industry are safe from this attitude at the moment, despite the marketing veneer they may put on. And yes, if I sound cynical, it's because I am suffering from burnout at the moment.
Wowfunhappy 8y ago
I for one love video games. When done right, they are my favorite art form. I am "anti" any game that uses psychological tricks to get me to keep playing. And for stuff like Celeste, Gris, and Hellblade and Portal that keep me engaged by providing an inherently fulfilling experience.
- kakarot 8y ago
  Celeste was incredible. Can't wait for the free DLC! Have you played A Hat in Time yet?
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    I was excited for A Hat in Time and backed it on Kickstarter, but it felt kind of weirdly unpolished to me. I got up to the third world. I generally love 3D platformers too.
    - kakarot 8y ago
      I couldn't put it down. I think they unnecessarily skimped on things like animation frames, the amount of badges, maybe one more level... but it still came across as an earnest effort by 7 people working remotely on a budget. It had a fraction of the budget and development man hours of Yooka-Laylee and yet came out better in pretty much every conceivable way. The controls may not be as tight as Celeste's but it's the best 3D platformer I've played in years.
- dkersten 8y ago
  Lately I’ve been finding that I enjoy very story-centric games more and more. I loved Night in the Woods, Detroit: Become Human, Red Dead Redemption, Life is Strange, God of War and others for their story telling ability. I still play other games and am a big fan of FROM SOFT games (although they have incredible storytelling in their own way), but the story-heavy games suck me in like no TV series or movie ever has. I think it’s a mixture of interactivity and simply being longer than a movie that makes it easier to connect with and care about characters. As an aside, I almost hated Celeste. I’d given up on it and uninstalled it, but was prompted to try again by a YouTube comment (of all things) and when I did, a few screens after where I stopped, it got good. Incredibly unbelievably good. I’m glad I gave it another chance!
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    Yeah, it's one of those games that's a lot more than it seems on the surface. Which I really love about it, but also means some players may miss out.
jwagenet 8y ago
I’m not anti-games, but as I went through college and then started working full time I found I first ran out of time for games and later had lost most of my interest. Now a days I feel like I get more value from exercising, socializing (which can include playing games on the same tv!), or need to do other things (chores, projects), so I can see where the sentiment that games are “a waste of time” can come from.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  Indeed. Working out and socializing face-to-face are where it's at. That said, I will find the time for a big AAA game if it's a franchise I already love (DOOM, Deus Ex, Half-Li.. nevermind) My scarce gaming time these days seems to be spent playing stuff from the 80s/90s and arcade games that I can pick up and put down easily. I don't even do mobile games, the grinding and dark patterns annoy the hell out of me.
m463 8y ago
I think some games do have a dark side, crafted by the creators to hook into the psyche of the players. I talked to a developer of a popular free-to-play game, and he told me of many of the psychological hooks they use in their game. Exploitation of hoarding behavior, community fame for specific players, random occurrences that are carefully scripted, etc. Nowadays it's hard to find games free of ulterior motives. Yes, addictive games and personalities have always existed, but now there's money mixed in.
- dymk 8y ago
  Videogames have always had "money mixed in", profitable videogame studios are as old as videogames themselves, and your glasses are just rose tinted. I'm not even sure what kind of "old" game you're picturing that you think didn't have "money mixed in" - tetris? pong? goldeneye?
  - Tarean 8y ago
    There is money in getting players addicted to increase revenue. The oldest example of that might be WoW but that was far less manipulative nor focused kn whales like many mobile games nowadays are.
  - Zeebrommer 8y ago
    I guess the difference is that classic videogames make their money by a single purchase upfront. Modern MMO/F2P games need the player to get hooked and spend their money on loot boxes and outfits.
    - pushpop 8y ago
      Arcades were a thing before home consoles. The entire premise of an arcade is to get people hooked on short tasks of intermediate reward so they keep churning their coins into the machine.
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        Arcades are also a fundamentally social experience, which changes the tenor significantly. No, most online games don’t count as social. They’re anonymous, faceless, and typically populated with the utter dregs of humanity willing to say the most vile thing to get attention. Genuine human interaction this is not.
robdachshund 8y ago
Anti games? Most triple A games are interactive movies with no systems. When video games lack actual gamification, people that enjoy depth, challenge, and systems design are likely to be jaded. I mean look at something like the original deus ex. There is not a single modern game that could even approach the level of immersion and depth that it offered. A lot of people grew up playing real "games" in the truest sense of the word- meaning there are rules, challenges, and twists other that "shoot bad guy". The other thing missing is player choice. Most modern games offer ZERO choice to the player, or faux choice with zero consequence or effect on the game world. Hence people are revisiting game design and exposing the irony that you can make a much deeper game with very little resources compared to the flashy yet vapid "games" being pumped out by the big publishers. It shows, too. Look at how badly EA and co are doing. Turns out alienating actual gamers to appeal to the masses isn't a great long term strategy. On the flipside, look at the mini renaissance we are having with indie games. I've had more enjoyment from no name companies for the past 5 years than from any bloated publisher. Is it really outlandish for people who grew up loving games to be upset with what is happening to the medium?
setr 8y ago
I’ve held a similar opinion for a long time now, but not from an anti-game perspective; enjoyment is simply an overloaded term, and trivial to hack (want to make a nearly any mediocre game enjoyable? Play it with friends.) It often just amounts to “I was content to lose N hours into it”, which on its own is a pretty worthless statement (and if its the only statement, a pretty damning one). Games are often treated as, and judged as, timesinks. A good game is simply a good timesink. A good timesink makes use of addictive/gambling mechanics. And most games rely heavily on them (sometimes unintentionally; this is likely less true the closer you get to today). But in my opinion games can be a lot more interesting than that, and “enjoyable” is a crass description of it. For example, I probably put over 2000 hours into league of legends when I was younger, but those hours were mostly a waste. Back then, I described it as enjoyable. Now I realize I never cared about LoL, I just had my social life there. The game was never actually good, and what little I actually think of it is only about the human components (and a little about how not to design a competitive game). The 15 hours I put into star control 2 were far more valuable (if only because it informed me how little, if not backwards, we progressed from it to mass effect, in terms of game design). I have a negative opinion on games, but its because I like them. Most games are shit, and the industry has mostly been getting worse over time. Also out of your three, I know you were referring to “complex games with storylines” as the “good” type, but taking a random lottery, multiplayer games are the only ones with any reasonable hope of actually being interesting, mostly by accident. Most “complex games” are completely superficial; multiplayer games naturally bring depth by “cheating” — the humans bring 90% of it. But I like games. Theoretically. Sometimes, in practice.
- dkersten 8y ago
  > little about how not to design a competitive game I’d love to hear more about this, although I guess it’s a bit off topic... I played LoL for a while, but never too obsessively or heavily. It was mainly an activity to share with some coworkers so I suppose, like you say, it wasn’t so much about the game itself. I certainly didn’t play it competitively, so maybe that’s why I don’t see it as bad as you make it sound. (I also hear it’s got worse and more lootbox greedy. I last played it circa 2014). One set of “complex” non-multiplayer (at least, 90% of the time I played single player) games that I do, personally, find incredibly interesting on a multitude of levels are the FROM SOFTWARE games. Even ignoring the difficulty (although I really do enjoy the challenge — or more accurately, when I eventually overcome it), I love the world building, the characters, the intricate level design, the deep but vague and mostly environmental storytelling, the rich implied but often left open to interpretation lore, the aesthetics and the voice acting of Demons’ Souls, Dark Souls, Bloodborne and in the past two weeks, Sekiro. I could (and have done) play nothing but one of these games for months and still find them interesting. Few they games manage this, for me, though.
ubadair 8y ago
My grandfather believes that video games are a "scourge" for young men today. I used to think he was old-fashioned for believing this, but I have come around to agreeing with him. I wasted a large chunk of my life on Counterstrike, Arma 3, DayZ Mod, PUBG, and countless console games. _Thousands_ of hours in total. For me, games were more than an escape or simply a way to unwind. For me, they were a well-hidden addiction. They were an obstacle to reaching my potential. I can't see myself going back to games again and still being as happy as I am now. I miss games sometimes -- I still occasionally watch them on Twitch or YouTube -- but quitting cold turkey over a year ago has been one of the best decisions I ever made. That I didn't give them up 10 years earlier is a source of great regret. I'm probably not going to ban my children from playing games they buy with their own money, but I'll definitely have plenty of long talks with them about the dangers of gaming.
- mihaifm 8y ago
  Addicting behaviour is dangerous, but you can get addicted to TV shows just as well. Gaming tends to be more addictive because it actively engages your brain, compared with traditional entertainment (movies, theatre, concerts) which are static, you just sit and watch. As graphics keep improving I would argue that it might even replace cinema in the future, to some degree. Also, gaming is just a vast area that it's hard to generalize the whole thing as "scourge". Some games improve critical thinking and can actually be great educational tools. Would you just read a boring history book or activelly engage in the political situation of medieval Europe by playing something like Europa Universalis.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > Addicting behaviour is dangerous, but you can get addicted to TV shows just as well. Gaming tends to be more addictive because it actively engages your brain, compared with traditional entertainment (movies, theatre, concerts) which are static, you just sit and watch. The mechanism is strongly dependent on the person. I have much more of a problem with TV shows and fiction books than with videogames, because I'm a sucker for stories. A TV show or a book series can offer couple dozen hours of engaging storyline; most story-based video games are either much shorter, or the story is crap; the book-series-quality videogame storylines are few and far between. That's probably why I never got addicted to multiplayer games. By their nature they have no quality stories, so they bore me out quickly. (I'm aware that there are people for whom the "active engagement" part is a core ingredient in addiction. I'm just saying that it's not the only mechanism, and different people are susceptible to different things.)
Accacin 8y ago
Personally I've become disillusioned with most online multiplayer games (I've played WoW, Dota 2, etc. for thousands of hours) and I've been a lot happier now I pretty much only play single player offline games. Offline games can be played when I want (mostly in the evening for an hour or so) and there's no pressure to improve like in Dota 2 and WoW. One of my favourite purchases recently was a PSP Vita, I can emulate most GB, GBC, GBA, PS, PSP, PS Vita, and many others and I'm having a whole lot of fun going back to play many games that I'd missed in the past.
coldtea 8y ago
>When did this opinion start taking such a hold? Out of all places, I didn’t think HN would be so anti-games but I’ve been seeing more and more people saying this here. HN has many grown-ups, which might skew it a little from the "games all the time are great / custom game rig" demographic. >Also, is it directed at complex games with storylines, online multiplayer, or mobile games meant to pull as much value as possible? Cause one is unlike the others. In the end, their value is time wasted translated into money. It's not like even the more evolved ones make some big artistic statement with deep meaning. Even the best are at the level of a Hollywood movie (and usually closer to Michael Bay than Kubrick).
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  It's an old and tired adage by this point but it seems it falls to me to be the "time spent doing something you enjoy is never wasted" guy this time around.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Old and tired is OK, but this one to me looks invalid too. I can't say of anybody's personal goals, but "time spent doing something [one] enjoys" is often wasted. First, because every time you spent has an opportunity cost. Second, because empirically peoples' future self often doesn't have the same priorities, and occasionally finds "time spend doing something they enjoyed" wasted and a bad choice. How many regret e.g. wasting too much time gaming when they should have been e.g. studying or practicing, when they turn 25 and have nothing to show for it?
Grue3 8y ago
I used to spend a lot of time on games, then I realised what a waste of time it is, when you can spend that time learning or creating stuff.
watwut 8y ago
For me, it was close contact with addicted gamers and watching how their interactions with other people changed over time. Addicted gamer is not the same as gamer. I used to like games, going to through this and realizing that those games are specifically build to cause such affection and community specifically praises it made me unwilling to play again ever. Even when I still played and did not yet seen addiction in practice up close yet, I realized that complex game with storylines and online multiplayer games are build for people who have the kind of free time that is incompatible with full time job, family and additional learning.
michaelt 8y ago
The opinion that "hours of enjoyment" is a poor metric isn't an anti-game opinion; it's just a response to grind-heavy games. After all, I could double the length of Game X by adding twice as many handmade maps, well written and acted cut scenes, and carefully designed encounters - or I could double the length by adding extra grind. The former would be something to be celebrated; the latter wouldn't.
moate 8y ago
Hello, I'm a gamer/game-maker (table top, not digital) with some opinions. Gamers are getting older. As in, the median age of people who identify as "gamers" is higher now than ever before. Part of this is because people who grew up with video games as children are now adults. People have always played games (chess is a great example) it's just what role gaming has played in the culture changes. Since you now have a larger demographic of older gamers, you're going to start hearing more voices echoing this. When I was in college, I could spend 20+ hours a week playing video games until 3 AM. Now that I'm older and married I'm lucky if I get 5 hours a week for non-mobile games. I'm going to have a different evaluation of a title. The last thing I want is to buy a shiny new FPS just to get pwnd repeatedly by some 14 year old who keeps tbagging me and screaming racist taunts. Loot crates and pay-to-win feels gross because I don't want to dump money that I could be using for home repairs on add-ons for my toys. I'm not anti-games. I love games. But I can hate tons of aspects of the games (like I mentioned above) or call out the toxicity of gamer culture and still be a part of it. This is a stark contrast to 15 years ago when we all needed to band together to explain that games can be art and that FPSs to lead to school shootings.

faitswulff 8y ago

> Out of all places, I didn’t think HN would be so anti-games More time spent videogaming means less time spent leetcoding, raising VC, and crushing it as a 10x engineer! /s

coldtea 8y ago
Generally, less time for all kind of other things in life. Game addiction is a thing (as is "tons of hours spent but not clinically addicted"). And unlike e.g. workaholism, it doesn't even result in a career to show for it.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

meditate 8y ago

I only speak from personal experiences with the business side of things. It's a combination of despotic upstream vendors, highly addictive products aimed towards children, lack of regulations, abusive working environments, and a general contentedness with profiting directly from the misfortunes of others. I do not believe any corners of the industry are safe from this attitude at the moment, despite the marketing veneer they may put on. And yes, if I sound cynical, it's because I am suffering from burnout at the moment.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago

I for one love video games. When done right, they are my favorite art form. I am "anti" any game that uses psychological tricks to get me to keep playing. And for stuff like Celeste, Gris, and Hellblade and Portal that keep me engaged by providing an inherently fulfilling experience.

kakarot 8y ago
Celeste was incredible. Can't wait for the free DLC! Have you played A Hat in Time yet?
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  I was excited for A Hat in Time and backed it on Kickstarter, but it felt kind of weirdly unpolished to me. I got up to the third world. I generally love 3D platformers too.
  - kakarot 8y ago
    I couldn't put it down. I think they unnecessarily skimped on things like animation frames, the amount of badges, maybe one more level... but it still came across as an earnest effort by 7 people working remotely on a budget. It had a fraction of the budget and development man hours of Yooka-Laylee and yet came out better in pretty much every conceivable way. The controls may not be as tight as Celeste's but it's the best 3D platformer I've played in years.
dkersten 8y ago
Lately I’ve been finding that I enjoy very story-centric games more and more. I loved Night in the Woods, Detroit: Become Human, Red Dead Redemption, Life is Strange, God of War and others for their story telling ability. I still play other games and am a big fan of FROM SOFT games (although they have incredible storytelling in their own way), but the story-heavy games suck me in like no TV series or movie ever has. I think it’s a mixture of interactivity and simply being longer than a movie that makes it easier to connect with and care about characters. As an aside, I almost hated Celeste. I’d given up on it and uninstalled it, but was prompted to try again by a YouTube comment (of all things) and when I did, a few screens after where I stopped, it got good. Incredibly unbelievably good. I’m glad I gave it another chance!
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  Yeah, it's one of those games that's a lot more than it seems on the surface. Which I really love about it, but also means some players may miss out.

jwagenet 8y ago

I’m not anti-games, but as I went through college and then started working full time I found I first ran out of time for games and later had lost most of my interest. Now a days I feel like I get more value from exercising, socializing (which can include playing games on the same tv!), or need to do other things (chores, projects), so I can see where the sentiment that games are “a waste of time” can come from.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
Indeed. Working out and socializing face-to-face are where it's at. That said, I will find the time for a big AAA game if it's a franchise I already love (DOOM, Deus Ex, Half-Li.. nevermind) My scarce gaming time these days seems to be spent playing stuff from the 80s/90s and arcade games that I can pick up and put down easily. I don't even do mobile games, the grinding and dark patterns annoy the hell out of me.

m463 8y ago

I think some games do have a dark side, crafted by the creators to hook into the psyche of the players. I talked to a developer of a popular free-to-play game, and he told me of many of the psychological hooks they use in their game. Exploitation of hoarding behavior, community fame for specific players, random occurrences that are carefully scripted, etc. Nowadays it's hard to find games free of ulterior motives. Yes, addictive games and personalities have always existed, but now there's money mixed in.

dymk 8y ago
Videogames have always had "money mixed in", profitable videogame studios are as old as videogames themselves, and your glasses are just rose tinted. I'm not even sure what kind of "old" game you're picturing that you think didn't have "money mixed in" - tetris? pong? goldeneye?
- Tarean 8y ago
  There is money in getting players addicted to increase revenue. The oldest example of that might be WoW but that was far less manipulative nor focused kn whales like many mobile games nowadays are.
- Zeebrommer 8y ago
  I guess the difference is that classic videogames make their money by a single purchase upfront. Modern MMO/F2P games need the player to get hooked and spend their money on loot boxes and outfits.
  - pushpop 8y ago
    Arcades were a thing before home consoles. The entire premise of an arcade is to get people hooked on short tasks of intermediate reward so they keep churning their coins into the machine.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      Arcades are also a fundamentally social experience, which changes the tenor significantly. No, most online games don’t count as social. They’re anonymous, faceless, and typically populated with the utter dregs of humanity willing to say the most vile thing to get attention. Genuine human interaction this is not.

robdachshund 8y ago

Anti games? Most triple A games are interactive movies with no systems. When video games lack actual gamification, people that enjoy depth, challenge, and systems design are likely to be jaded. I mean look at something like the original deus ex. There is not a single modern game that could even approach the level of immersion and depth that it offered. A lot of people grew up playing real "games" in the truest sense of the word- meaning there are rules, challenges, and twists other that "shoot bad guy". The other thing missing is player choice. Most modern games offer ZERO choice to the player, or faux choice with zero consequence or effect on the game world. Hence people are revisiting game design and exposing the irony that you can make a much deeper game with very little resources compared to the flashy yet vapid "games" being pumped out by the big publishers. It shows, too. Look at how badly EA and co are doing. Turns out alienating actual gamers to appeal to the masses isn't a great long term strategy. On the flipside, look at the mini renaissance we are having with indie games. I've had more enjoyment from no name companies for the past 5 years than from any bloated publisher. Is it really outlandish for people who grew up loving games to be upset with what is happening to the medium?

setr 8y ago

I’ve held a similar opinion for a long time now, but not from an anti-game perspective; enjoyment is simply an overloaded term, and trivial to hack (want to make a nearly any mediocre game enjoyable? Play it with friends.) It often just amounts to “I was content to lose N hours into it”, which on its own is a pretty worthless statement (and if its the only statement, a pretty damning one). Games are often treated as, and judged as, timesinks. A good game is simply a good timesink. A good timesink makes use of addictive/gambling mechanics. And most games rely heavily on them (sometimes unintentionally; this is likely less true the closer you get to today). But in my opinion games can be a lot more interesting than that, and “enjoyable” is a crass description of it. For example, I probably put over 2000 hours into league of legends when I was younger, but those hours were mostly a waste. Back then, I described it as enjoyable. Now I realize I never cared about LoL, I just had my social life there. The game was never actually good, and what little I actually think of it is only about the human components (and a little about how not to design a competitive game). The 15 hours I put into star control 2 were far more valuable (if only because it informed me how little, if not backwards, we progressed from it to mass effect, in terms of game design). I have a negative opinion on games, but its because I like them. Most games are shit, and the industry has mostly been getting worse over time. Also out of your three, I know you were referring to “complex games with storylines” as the “good” type, but taking a random lottery, multiplayer games are the only ones with any reasonable hope of actually being interesting, mostly by accident. Most “complex games” are completely superficial; multiplayer games naturally bring depth by “cheating” — the humans bring 90% of it. But I like games. Theoretically. Sometimes, in practice.

dkersten 8y ago
> little about how not to design a competitive game I’d love to hear more about this, although I guess it’s a bit off topic... I played LoL for a while, but never too obsessively or heavily. It was mainly an activity to share with some coworkers so I suppose, like you say, it wasn’t so much about the game itself. I certainly didn’t play it competitively, so maybe that’s why I don’t see it as bad as you make it sound. (I also hear it’s got worse and more lootbox greedy. I last played it circa 2014). One set of “complex” non-multiplayer (at least, 90% of the time I played single player) games that I do, personally, find incredibly interesting on a multitude of levels are the FROM SOFTWARE games. Even ignoring the difficulty (although I really do enjoy the challenge — or more accurately, when I eventually overcome it), I love the world building, the characters, the intricate level design, the deep but vague and mostly environmental storytelling, the rich implied but often left open to interpretation lore, the aesthetics and the voice acting of Demons’ Souls, Dark Souls, Bloodborne and in the past two weeks, Sekiro. I could (and have done) play nothing but one of these games for months and still find them interesting. Few they games manage this, for me, though.

ubadair 8y ago

My grandfather believes that video games are a "scourge" for young men today. I used to think he was old-fashioned for believing this, but I have come around to agreeing with him. I wasted a large chunk of my life on Counterstrike, Arma 3, DayZ Mod, PUBG, and countless console games. _Thousands_ of hours in total. For me, games were more than an escape or simply a way to unwind. For me, they were a well-hidden addiction. They were an obstacle to reaching my potential. I can't see myself going back to games again and still being as happy as I am now. I miss games sometimes -- I still occasionally watch them on Twitch or YouTube -- but quitting cold turkey over a year ago has been one of the best decisions I ever made. That I didn't give them up 10 years earlier is a source of great regret. I'm probably not going to ban my children from playing games they buy with their own money, but I'll definitely have plenty of long talks with them about the dangers of gaming.

mihaifm 8y ago
Addicting behaviour is dangerous, but you can get addicted to TV shows just as well. Gaming tends to be more addictive because it actively engages your brain, compared with traditional entertainment (movies, theatre, concerts) which are static, you just sit and watch. As graphics keep improving I would argue that it might even replace cinema in the future, to some degree. Also, gaming is just a vast area that it's hard to generalize the whole thing as "scourge". Some games improve critical thinking and can actually be great educational tools. Would you just read a boring history book or activelly engage in the political situation of medieval Europe by playing something like Europa Universalis.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > Addicting behaviour is dangerous, but you can get addicted to TV shows just as well. Gaming tends to be more addictive because it actively engages your brain, compared with traditional entertainment (movies, theatre, concerts) which are static, you just sit and watch. The mechanism is strongly dependent on the person. I have much more of a problem with TV shows and fiction books than with videogames, because I'm a sucker for stories. A TV show or a book series can offer couple dozen hours of engaging storyline; most story-based video games are either much shorter, or the story is crap; the book-series-quality videogame storylines are few and far between. That's probably why I never got addicted to multiplayer games. By their nature they have no quality stories, so they bore me out quickly. (I'm aware that there are people for whom the "active engagement" part is a core ingredient in addiction. I'm just saying that it's not the only mechanism, and different people are susceptible to different things.)

Accacin 8y ago

Personally I've become disillusioned with most online multiplayer games (I've played WoW, Dota 2, etc. for thousands of hours) and I've been a lot happier now I pretty much only play single player offline games. Offline games can be played when I want (mostly in the evening for an hour or so) and there's no pressure to improve like in Dota 2 and WoW. One of my favourite purchases recently was a PSP Vita, I can emulate most GB, GBC, GBA, PS, PSP, PS Vita, and many others and I'm having a whole lot of fun going back to play many games that I'd missed in the past.

coldtea 8y ago

>When did this opinion start taking such a hold? Out of all places, I didn’t think HN would be so anti-games but I’ve been seeing more and more people saying this here. HN has many grown-ups, which might skew it a little from the "games all the time are great / custom game rig" demographic. >Also, is it directed at complex games with storylines, online multiplayer, or mobile games meant to pull as much value as possible? Cause one is unlike the others. In the end, their value is time wasted translated into money. It's not like even the more evolved ones make some big artistic statement with deep meaning. Even the best are at the level of a Hollywood movie (and usually closer to Michael Bay than Kubrick).

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
It's an old and tired adage by this point but it seems it falls to me to be the "time spent doing something you enjoy is never wasted" guy this time around.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Old and tired is OK, but this one to me looks invalid too. I can't say of anybody's personal goals, but "time spent doing something [one] enjoys" is often wasted. First, because every time you spent has an opportunity cost. Second, because empirically peoples' future self often doesn't have the same priorities, and occasionally finds "time spend doing something they enjoyed" wasted and a bad choice. How many regret e.g. wasting too much time gaming when they should have been e.g. studying or practicing, when they turn 25 and have nothing to show for it?

Grue3 8y ago

I used to spend a lot of time on games, then I realised what a waste of time it is, when you can spend that time learning or creating stuff.

watwut 8y ago

For me, it was close contact with addicted gamers and watching how their interactions with other people changed over time. Addicted gamer is not the same as gamer. I used to like games, going to through this and realizing that those games are specifically build to cause such affection and community specifically praises it made me unwilling to play again ever. Even when I still played and did not yet seen addiction in practice up close yet, I realized that complex game with storylines and online multiplayer games are build for people who have the kind of free time that is incompatible with full time job, family and additional learning.

michaelt 8y ago

The opinion that "hours of enjoyment" is a poor metric isn't an anti-game opinion; it's just a response to grind-heavy games. After all, I could double the length of Game X by adding twice as many handmade maps, well written and acted cut scenes, and carefully designed encounters - or I could double the length by adding extra grind. The former would be something to be celebrated; the latter wouldn't.

moate 8y ago

Hello, I'm a gamer/game-maker (table top, not digital) with some opinions. Gamers are getting older. As in, the median age of people who identify as "gamers" is higher now than ever before. Part of this is because people who grew up with video games as children are now adults. People have always played games (chess is a great example) it's just what role gaming has played in the culture changes. Since you now have a larger demographic of older gamers, you're going to start hearing more voices echoing this. When I was in college, I could spend 20+ hours a week playing video games until 3 AM. Now that I'm older and married I'm lucky if I get 5 hours a week for non-mobile games. I'm going to have a different evaluation of a title. The last thing I want is to buy a shiny new FPS just to get pwnd repeatedly by some 14 year old who keeps tbagging me and screaming racist taunts. Loot crates and pay-to-win feels gross because I don't want to dump money that I could be using for home repairs on add-ons for my toys. I'm not anti-games. I love games. But I can hate tons of aspects of the games (like I mentioned above) or call out the toxicity of gamer culture and still be a part of it. This is a stark contrast to 15 years ago when we all needed to band together to explain that games can be art and that FPSs to lead to school shootings.