3 ms·

The latest Animal Crossing is one of the clearest examples of this trend (and it doesn’t even have micro-transactions, much less NFTs!) Previous games in the s

The latest Animal Crossing is one of the clearest examples of this trend (and it doesn’t even have micro-transactions, much less NFTs!) Previous games in the series were famously “there’s nothing to do” games. You could make money, but there were limited things you could spend it on. You could collect items and furniture, but there were limited options each day. You could pick weeds, but there wasn’t much in the way of “rewards” for that; it just made your town more pleasant. Instead of grinding, you spent most of your time just dwelling, hanging out with your neighbors, walking along the river. And then after a little while… you stopped playing the game, and did something else. In many ways, the game wouldn’t let you turn it into work. Contrast that with the latest entry, where you now have a smartphone. On it is a bottomless todo-list of arbitrary, menial tasks. It has a little notification light whenever you get a new task. Completing a task gets you a reward, and then a new task takes its place on the list. There’s crafting in the game; you no longer have to wait for the store to refresh its items, you can grind for resources and then build whatever you want. And then because you can terraform the entire island, there’s a massive source of goals to set and then grind for. And the thing is… most people like this game. It’s brought the most mainstream success the series has ever had, by far. And because it doesn’t have any financial aspects, we can’t call the developers exploitive, really. It’s just this (imo) toxic, demeaning direction the whole industry seems to be taking. Even series like Assassin’s Creed are now stuffed full of resources to collect, loot to hoard, “rewards” for the hundreds of grueling hours you put into mindlessly wading through wave after wave of enemies. More and more games are trading genuine play and affective experience for finely-tuned, dopamine-peddling, addiction. Because that’s what sells. The only saving grace is that the industry is growing so fast, there’s so much diversity, that there are also lots of games that don’t do this. But I worry about how the trend is affecting/will affect people’s mental health, not even getting into the financial side.

wolpoli 5y ago
> The only saving grace is that the industry is growing so fast, there’s so much diversity, that there are also lots of games that don’t do this. This brings up a very good point. There are alternate options now. We won't after the industry inevitably consolidates.
- brundolf 5y ago
  I don’t think that’s true at all. Indie studios abound, empowered by common frameworks like Unity and Unreal that put cutting-edge tech in the hands of individuals. For free, in many cases. I don’t see that trend ever reversing direction.
  - wolpoli 5y ago
    Yes the tools are getting more and more accessible to the public. But profitability will be sucked dry for these studios when they need to compete with the more addictive, more profitable games for app store/social media/youtube ads and influencer sponsorships.
    - brundolf 5y ago
      People didn't stop making creative movies or music when the markets matured and the profit-centers consolidated around the least-common-denominator. Artful art still exists, especially if you include the people who aren't even trying to make money. The same is/will be true for games.
CactusOnFire 5y ago
I agree with your thesis, and I dislike the direction the gaming industry at large is taking. At the same time, it's hard to see where lines are drawn. The only thing that really separates 'Engagement' from 'grinding' is whether or not you enjoy doing it. While I take a lot of time in considering what games are worth my time, and have a positive "feedback loop" that will leave me feeling satisfied rather than burnt out, I also have to ask myself what "genuine play" really does mean. We can point out the behavioural strategies devs use for reinforcing more play-time, but outside of the question of perverse incentives like NFT's, paid lootboxes and pay2win microtransactions, a game needs to feel rewarding in order to be played. Some just have this reward cycle more ouvert than others.
- brundolf 5y ago
  It’s definitely a sliding-scale, not a binary. But I still think there’s such thing as enjoyment that ultimately leaves you unhappy or worse-off emotionally than you were before, even though it’s hard to define when it doesn’t manifest in something concrete like finances. I personally tend to feel empty and stressed-out when I spend too much time on an artificially dopamine-driven grindfest. Where for contrast, the original Animal Crossing actively relaxed me and improved my outlook.
  - CactusOnFire 5y ago
    I agree entirely- and I try to do an "emotional audit" on how I'm feeling while playing a game. I know exactly what you mean by that dopamine grind sensation, and when I sense that being present (and no joy), I will either uninstall and stop playing the game, or take a step back and reassess my relationship with the game.
    - brundolf 5y ago
      Having had more time to think about this, I think one distinguishing factor is to what degree the dopamine is based in superficial signifiers, vs actual accomplishment. Of course not all games have to be about accomplishment at all, but I think the ones that are are more fulfilling when it’s rooted in substance and not just fanfare (noises, animations, numbers going up).
low_tech_love 5y ago
IMHO games are slowly becoming simply colorful Skinner boxes. I think we've always kinda walked the thin line between fun and exploitation, it was always a fragile balance, which now has tipped over to the exploitation side. If people accept it (and actually enjoy it) then there is basically no reason for companies not to do it. I guess an indie dev creates games for fun and art, especially in the beginning, but a job is a job and if it pays better, then why not? I wish gamers would move away from this and value more the subjective characteristics of fun and beauty, etc. but the truth is that we can't really control that.
greggman3 5y ago
It seems to be pretty harsh to call Animal Crossing toxic. Do you also call Minecraft toxic? I call Micecraft animated legos. I wouldn't call Legos toxic. Not sure why these games are considered toxic. For me the games that push my "this game is too addictive" button are like simple solitaire (https://www.google.com/search?q=solitaire https://www.google.com/search?q=solitaire). For whatever reason I feel compelled to clear all the cards. If I can't I'll start another round. More than once I stay up 90 minutes past my bedtime playing. And even when I do clear all the cards I'll tell myself "just once more" and then it's another 45 minutes until I get lucky into to clear every card. There's other similar games like Fun Towers (not sure it's real name) but they create the same itch. In the one I played recently you have a time limit to clear all the cards, plus the added challenge of what order your draw pile and stacks are. Every time I play I want to clear the stacks but doing so both in getting lucky about the cards, and doing it before my time runs out, don't know what it is but again I can easily lose 1-2 hrs Basically I just don't play those games. But there's nothing really special the developer has done. Solitaire is the same with a deck of cards and has been for 200+ years.
jayd16 5y ago
I think this is just looking back with rose tinted glasses and assuming things have changed. The game was always a rat race. As soon as you dug out of debt, your landlord would upgrade your house and you had an even bigger mortgage. That was in the original. That said, the game is fun. Humans like feeling accomplished.
- brundolf 5y ago
  I’ve gone back and played the original, it was different. You could put off paying your “debt” indefinitely; it was really just a way of buying a bigger house, if you felt like it. At a certain point I usually stopped
- brnt 5y ago
  > That said, the game is fun. Humans like feeling accomplished. The question is, who's setting the expectations? I abhor 'accomplishment' tokens/scores. Even in de 90ies, my favourite game was Simcity with unlimited money. Screw the budget and the missions, let me build the city I want; let /me/ decide what the accomplishment is.

wolpoli 5y ago

> The only saving grace is that the industry is growing so fast, there’s so much diversity, that there are also lots of games that don’t do this. This brings up a very good point. There are alternate options now. We won't after the industry inevitably consolidates.

brundolf 5y ago
I don’t think that’s true at all. Indie studios abound, empowered by common frameworks like Unity and Unreal that put cutting-edge tech in the hands of individuals. For free, in many cases. I don’t see that trend ever reversing direction.
- wolpoli 5y ago
  Yes the tools are getting more and more accessible to the public. But profitability will be sucked dry for these studios when they need to compete with the more addictive, more profitable games for app store/social media/youtube ads and influencer sponsorships.
  - brundolf 5y ago
    People didn't stop making creative movies or music when the markets matured and the profit-centers consolidated around the least-common-denominator. Artful art still exists, especially if you include the people who aren't even trying to make money. The same is/will be true for games.

CactusOnFire 5y ago

I agree with your thesis, and I dislike the direction the gaming industry at large is taking. At the same time, it's hard to see where lines are drawn. The only thing that really separates 'Engagement' from 'grinding' is whether or not you enjoy doing it. While I take a lot of time in considering what games are worth my time, and have a positive "feedback loop" that will leave me feeling satisfied rather than burnt out, I also have to ask myself what "genuine play" really does mean. We can point out the behavioural strategies devs use for reinforcing more play-time, but outside of the question of perverse incentives like NFT's, paid lootboxes and pay2win microtransactions, a game needs to feel rewarding in order to be played. Some just have this reward cycle more ouvert than others.

brundolf 5y ago
It’s definitely a sliding-scale, not a binary. But I still think there’s such thing as enjoyment that ultimately leaves you unhappy or worse-off emotionally than you were before, even though it’s hard to define when it doesn’t manifest in something concrete like finances. I personally tend to feel empty and stressed-out when I spend too much time on an artificially dopamine-driven grindfest. Where for contrast, the original Animal Crossing actively relaxed me and improved my outlook.
- CactusOnFire 5y ago
  I agree entirely- and I try to do an "emotional audit" on how I'm feeling while playing a game. I know exactly what you mean by that dopamine grind sensation, and when I sense that being present (and no joy), I will either uninstall and stop playing the game, or take a step back and reassess my relationship with the game.
  - brundolf 5y ago
    Having had more time to think about this, I think one distinguishing factor is to what degree the dopamine is based in superficial signifiers, vs actual accomplishment. Of course not all games have to be about accomplishment at all, but I think the ones that are are more fulfilling when it’s rooted in substance and not just fanfare (noises, animations, numbers going up).

low_tech_love 5y ago

IMHO games are slowly becoming simply colorful Skinner boxes. I think we've always kinda walked the thin line between fun and exploitation, it was always a fragile balance, which now has tipped over to the exploitation side. If people accept it (and actually enjoy it) then there is basically no reason for companies not to do it. I guess an indie dev creates games for fun and art, especially in the beginning, but a job is a job and if it pays better, then why not? I wish gamers would move away from this and value more the subjective characteristics of fun and beauty, etc. but the truth is that we can't really control that.

greggman3 5y ago

It seems to be pretty harsh to call Animal Crossing toxic. Do you also call Minecraft toxic? I call Micecraft animated legos. I wouldn't call Legos toxic. Not sure why these games are considered toxic. For me the games that push my "this game is too addictive" button are like simple solitaire (https://www.google.com/search?q=solitaire https://www.google.com/search?q=solitaire). For whatever reason I feel compelled to clear all the cards. If I can't I'll start another round. More than once I stay up 90 minutes past my bedtime playing. And even when I do clear all the cards I'll tell myself "just once more" and then it's another 45 minutes until I get lucky into to clear every card. There's other similar games like Fun Towers (not sure it's real name) but they create the same itch. In the one I played recently you have a time limit to clear all the cards, plus the added challenge of what order your draw pile and stacks are. Every time I play I want to clear the stacks but doing so both in getting lucky about the cards, and doing it before my time runs out, don't know what it is but again I can easily lose 1-2 hrs Basically I just don't play those games. But there's nothing really special the developer has done. Solitaire is the same with a deck of cards and has been for 200+ years.

jayd16 5y ago

I think this is just looking back with rose tinted glasses and assuming things have changed. The game was always a rat race. As soon as you dug out of debt, your landlord would upgrade your house and you had an even bigger mortgage. That was in the original. That said, the game is fun. Humans like feeling accomplished.

brundolf 5y ago
I’ve gone back and played the original, it was different. You could put off paying your “debt” indefinitely; it was really just a way of buying a bigger house, if you felt like it. At a certain point I usually stopped
brnt 5y ago
> That said, the game is fun. Humans like feeling accomplished. The question is, who's setting the expectations? I abhor 'accomplishment' tokens/scores. Even in de 90ies, my favourite game was Simcity with unlimited money. Screw the budget and the missions, let me build the city I want; let /me/ decide what the accomplishment is.