> 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 i

> 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"?