3 ms·

> Having worked in GameDev, one of the most flooring things I have faced is people asking me for me to introduce said addictive inducing systems and mechanisms.

> Having worked in GameDev, one of the most flooring things I have faced is people asking me for me to introduce said addictive inducing systems and mechanisms.... They want the enjoyment, they want to be "addicted", they want a game "so good" that they can't put it down. This is what I'm talking about though. Back when games were bought on a disk or cartridge and didn't feature any sort of micro-transactions there was no point in making a game addictive. It didn't matter if players played the game for 2 hours or 200 hours. All that mattered is that the game was good so that people enjoyed it, became popular, and sold well. In some sense, getting players addicted to any one game might actually be undesirable as it would reduce willingness to pay for subsequent games. Nowadays, so many games are trying to be "lifestyle games" that are meant to be continuously consumed instead of played through once or twice.

taneq 7y ago
Not only were games addictive back then, but they were explicitly advertised as such and it was considered a good thing. Being addictive was the mark of a good game!
- DougN7 7y ago
  Sid Meier’s Civilization (from almost 30 years ago!) was built this way. (Fantastic game! :)
leetcrew 7y ago
> Back when games were bought on a disk or cartridge and didn't feature any sort of micro-transactions there was no point in making a game addictive. is this really true? when I was a kid (long enough ago that there were no skins or loot boxes), the most effective way to make me want a game was to see my friends playing it and having fun. there were probably tons of short single-player games that I was never aware of because people would just finish them quickly and not play while friends were over. but I still have vivid memories of watching people play smash and desperately wanting my own N64. maybe the industry wasn't so ruthlessly capitalistic back then, but there had to be some execs that realized how much free marketing you get out of addictive console games.
CyanBird 7y ago
> there was no point in making a game addictive. This is what you are missing, they were already addictive, it was only not a wide spread thing because games in general didn't had mass appeal back then, it was a niche thing that could be ignored by the broader population. There's a quasi-infinite amount of stories of people becoming addicted to playing StarCraft Broodwar, and that game came in 1998, same with Quake, Counter Strike, Age of Empires. Yes, it is true that said games have become multiplied, but said games are simply filling what people ask for.... As I stated in my previous comment, people want this, they want the addictive parts of said games, and Capitalism will always be happy to provide... Also, what you mention of "games that can be played once or twice", I think that you are seriously misunderstanding the situation, Go has been played for thousands of years, same with Chess, compact self contained games with campaigns are actually something quite modern, the standard has been for games to be multiplayer. The games that usually destroy people's lives are those that have social or competitive roots, and it is because we as humans are intrinsically tied to our relations, ego, personal achievement, etc. "Addictive games" are not something external to the individual, but they use the individual itself. Lastly, the very reason why StarCraft, Age of Empires, Counter Strike/Half Life, Quake all sold so well early on is exactly because they were addictive/enjoyable. Had they not been then they wouldnt have ________ Quick question to all HN's; Is Dark Souls "Addictive"?
- munchbunny 7y ago
  Like any other video game, there's a blurry line between just enjoying Dark Souls a lot and being addicted to it. Is a speedrunner addicted? Maybe? Maybe not? I would bet that a speedrunner who isn't addicted to the specific game might still play more than someone who is. I think the important question is whether playing is impairing the person's ability to function normally.
- manfredo 7y ago
  > Quick question to all HN's; Is Dark Souls "Addictive"? I don't think so. I'm a heavy dark souls fan plus Bloodborne and Sekiro. I've been playing since Demon's Souls. Probably one of my top 5 favorite franchises of all time, aggregate playtime probably in the high hundreds maybe thousands of hours. Personally, I can play the game more than maybe a couple hours at a time because they require a level of attention so great that I'm exhausted after a couple hours. I have to put it down after some time.

taneq 7y ago

Not only were games addictive back then, but they were explicitly advertised as such and it was considered a good thing. Being addictive was the mark of a good game!

DougN7 7y ago
Sid Meier’s Civilization (from almost 30 years ago!) was built this way. (Fantastic game! :)

leetcrew 7y ago

> Back when games were bought on a disk or cartridge and didn't feature any sort of micro-transactions there was no point in making a game addictive. is this really true? when I was a kid (long enough ago that there were no skins or loot boxes), the most effective way to make me want a game was to see my friends playing it and having fun. there were probably tons of short single-player games that I was never aware of because people would just finish them quickly and not play while friends were over. but I still have vivid memories of watching people play smash and desperately wanting my own N64. maybe the industry wasn't so ruthlessly capitalistic back then, but there had to be some execs that realized how much free marketing you get out of addictive console games.

CyanBird 7y ago

> there was no point in making a game addictive. This is what you are missing, they were already addictive, it was only not a wide spread thing because games in general didn't had mass appeal back then, it was a niche thing that could be ignored by the broader population. There's a quasi-infinite amount of stories of people becoming addicted to playing StarCraft Broodwar, and that game came in 1998, same with Quake, Counter Strike, Age of Empires. Yes, it is true that said games have become multiplied, but said games are simply filling what people ask for.... As I stated in my previous comment, people want this, they want the addictive parts of said games, and Capitalism will always be happy to provide... Also, what you mention of "games that can be played once or twice", I think that you are seriously misunderstanding the situation, Go has been played for thousands of years, same with Chess, compact self contained games with campaigns are actually something quite modern, the standard has been for games to be multiplayer. The games that usually destroy people's lives are those that have social or competitive roots, and it is because we as humans are intrinsically tied to our relations, ego, personal achievement, etc. "Addictive games" are not something external to the individual, but they use the individual itself. Lastly, the very reason why StarCraft, Age of Empires, Counter Strike/Half Life, Quake all sold so well early on is exactly because they were addictive/enjoyable. Had they not been then they wouldnt have ________ Quick question to all HN's; Is Dark Souls "Addictive"?

munchbunny 7y ago
Like any other video game, there's a blurry line between just enjoying Dark Souls a lot and being addicted to it. Is a speedrunner addicted? Maybe? Maybe not? I would bet that a speedrunner who isn't addicted to the specific game might still play more than someone who is. I think the important question is whether playing is impairing the person's ability to function normally.
manfredo 7y ago
> Quick question to all HN's; Is Dark Souls "Addictive"? I don't think so. I'm a heavy dark souls fan plus Bloodborne and Sekiro. I've been playing since Demon's Souls. Probably one of my top 5 favorite franchises of all time, aggregate playtime probably in the high hundreds maybe thousands of hours. Personally, I can play the game more than maybe a couple hours at a time because they require a level of attention so great that I'm exhausted after a couple hours. I have to put it down after some time.