10 ms·

Real life under capitalism is overrated. It is somewhat hard to find an engaging game after 35, since you have already played everything there was and know all

by mordae 3y ago

Real life under capitalism is overrated. It is somewhat hard to find an engaging game after 35, since you have already played everything there was and know all the tropes. Maybe if we did not have a school system that completely kills any innate curiosity in people, they might do something real instead of virtual. Well, one can dream.

nottorp 3y ago
> It is somewhat hard to find an engaging game after 35, since you have already played everything there was and know all the tropes. Same for TV but i don't think people stop watching those indistinguishable series. So you can still play different games with similar mechanics because of the different setting.
1827163 3y ago
I think once you escape the system you don't find games or other distractions enjoyable anymore. When you're fully actualized and are capable of "going your own path", satisfaction then comes from making things and trying to improve the world. That is if you don't want to have children, as is the case with me. I think we've been conditioned from childhood to get a job, work for the corporate world and chase material goods. All of those further the interests of those in power. Update: Wild foraging, living with nature, moving to another country, or doing what hunter gatherers did. Running your own business. Camping out in the wild, while still making money from something. There are so many other options, you need to be creative about it... Anyway @NoMoreNicks I've flagged your post and I'm closing this HN account down (by deleting the password)....
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  > I think we've been conditioned from childhood to get a job, This is a hilariously millennial take on how life works. For the past million years or longer, humans learned (and quickly) that if you didn't want to starve you'd need to work to avoid that. The means to avoid starvation have changed. We're no longer hunter gatherers, and few of us are subsistence farmers--and I can have some sympathy for those who would prefer those occupations--but the truth of the matter is that nothing more than the details have changed in all that time. People weren't "conditioning" you to get a job. They were gently introducing you to reality. It seems a little too gently, by the looks of it. > All of those further the interests of those in power. Huh? It furthers the interests of those who don't want to starve. But you've never even been hungry, not really, and so it's all still highly theoretical for you.
  - mnl 3y ago
    Yes, but the thing is we have increased productivity tremendously because that's what our species does. So first we didn't need everyone working in the fields, after that we didn't need everyone working in the factories, and we're at this point in which we have to make up more and more absurd necessities and regulations so people have jobs, but we aren't going to need everyone doing that either. The clear socioethical paradigm that made sense after we realized that growing food was easier than hunting and foraging is heading a wall.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      > So first we didn't need everyone working in the fields, after that we didn't need everyone working in the factories, Do you own any fields? Do you own any factories? If you owned those, then you might be able to work in them and produce what you need to live, or at least something to trade for the things you need. You seem to think there's a "we" here. There isn't. No one else is much in the mood to support you.
      - mnl 3y ago
        Yes, I own fields. No, the ROI isn't there so parishioners keep them for sentimental value mostly. It isn't worth it, it was but it's been decades that it's not. Of course there's a "we". We depend on supply chains and working societies to even be writing anything here now. No one is willing to support anyone but we're a social species with division of roles, that's the "we".
        NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        > Of course there's a "we". No, there isn't. You use the word, and deep in your lizard brain you hear yourself say "myself and all these other people who care about me and love me and are on my team". There's no "we". No one wants to be part of that "we" with you, and those who lie and say they do want to be part of it with you are hoping they get more out of the deal than they give to be part of it. I'm probably the closest thing to being your friend that you have when I'm at least honest and tell you that's horseshit. If people like yourself spent more time trying to solve the much smaller problem of "how do I make my way in this world" instead of "how do we make it so everyone gets what they want", then quite simply more of you would get what you want. > but we're a social species with division of roles, Your role's about to be eliminated. Might take 20 years, the timeline's hard to pin down. But the guys who get to keep their roles are perfecting autonomous war drones. Your odds don't look good. Where's your "we" in that?
imbnwa 3y ago
Well they eradicated vocational and technical schools in major cities, I was one of the last class of students to attend one in my major metropolian area.
account42 3y ago
> It is somewhat hard to find an engaging game after 35, since you have already played everything there was and know all the tropes. That is only true if you limit yourself to modern games or have very limited tastes.
ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
That could be a reason behind the resurgence of board gaming as a leisure pursuit - an engaging game combined with a rewarding social group.
- mbg721 3y ago
  Board games also reward the kinds of abstract thinking that American schools have been trying to promote. Taking standardized math tests all day may not make you better at real life, but it will make you better at complex Euro-games.
- antisthenes 3y ago
  Board games have exactly the same tropes and design patterns as computer games. Once you've played enough games, you begin to recognize the pattern and can tell if it's going to be a new and engaging game or just another trope. But they are a nice stimulus to get together in person, that part is right on.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    > Board games have exactly the same tropes and design patterns as computer games. To an extent, but board games can also highlight ambiguous interpretations of the rules. Just last night, I was playing Cosmic Encounter with some friends and a good proportion of the fun was banter and arguments about some of the specific rules. I think board games can get away with a lot more randomness and chaos than computer games as they have a big social aspect to them. If you go from a successful, winning strategy to losing in a computer game because of someone having a specific card, then you'd probably stop enjoying the game, but with a board game it tends to spur a round of laughter instead.
    - antisthenes 3y ago
      > I think board games can get away with a lot more randomness and chaos than computer games as they have a big social aspect to them. If you go from a successful, winning strategy to losing in a computer game because of someone having a specific card, then you'd probably stop enjoying the game, but with a board game it tends to spur a round of laughter instead. I'm not sure why you think there's any difference. RNG is RNG. At least that's how we treat it in our group.

by mordae 3y ago

nottorp 3y ago

> It is somewhat hard to find an engaging game after 35, since you have already played everything there was and know all the tropes. Same for TV but i don't think people stop watching those indistinguishable series. So you can still play different games with similar mechanics because of the different setting.

1827163 3y ago

I think once you escape the system you don't find games or other distractions enjoyable anymore. When you're fully actualized and are capable of "going your own path", satisfaction then comes from making things and trying to improve the world. That is if you don't want to have children, as is the case with me. I think we've been conditioned from childhood to get a job, work for the corporate world and chase material goods. All of those further the interests of those in power. Update: Wild foraging, living with nature, moving to another country, or doing what hunter gatherers did. Running your own business. Camping out in the wild, while still making money from something. There are so many other options, you need to be creative about it... Anyway @NoMoreNicks I've flagged your post and I'm closing this HN account down (by deleting the password)....

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> I think we've been conditioned from childhood to get a job, This is a hilariously millennial take on how life works. For the past million years or longer, humans learned (and quickly) that if you didn't want to starve you'd need to work to avoid that. The means to avoid starvation have changed. We're no longer hunter gatherers, and few of us are subsistence farmers--and I can have some sympathy for those who would prefer those occupations--but the truth of the matter is that nothing more than the details have changed in all that time. People weren't "conditioning" you to get a job. They were gently introducing you to reality. It seems a little too gently, by the looks of it. > All of those further the interests of those in power. Huh? It furthers the interests of those who don't want to starve. But you've never even been hungry, not really, and so it's all still highly theoretical for you.
- mnl 3y ago
  Yes, but the thing is we have increased productivity tremendously because that's what our species does. So first we didn't need everyone working in the fields, after that we didn't need everyone working in the factories, and we're at this point in which we have to make up more and more absurd necessities and regulations so people have jobs, but we aren't going to need everyone doing that either. The clear socioethical paradigm that made sense after we realized that growing food was easier than hunting and foraging is heading a wall.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    > So first we didn't need everyone working in the fields, after that we didn't need everyone working in the factories, Do you own any fields? Do you own any factories? If you owned those, then you might be able to work in them and produce what you need to live, or at least something to trade for the things you need. You seem to think there's a "we" here. There isn't. No one else is much in the mood to support you.
    - mnl 3y ago
      Yes, I own fields. No, the ROI isn't there so parishioners keep them for sentimental value mostly. It isn't worth it, it was but it's been decades that it's not. Of course there's a "we". We depend on supply chains and working societies to even be writing anything here now. No one is willing to support anyone but we're a social species with division of roles, that's the "we".
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        > Of course there's a "we". No, there isn't. You use the word, and deep in your lizard brain you hear yourself say "myself and all these other people who care about me and love me and are on my team". There's no "we". No one wants to be part of that "we" with you, and those who lie and say they do want to be part of it with you are hoping they get more out of the deal than they give to be part of it. I'm probably the closest thing to being your friend that you have when I'm at least honest and tell you that's horseshit. If people like yourself spent more time trying to solve the much smaller problem of "how do I make my way in this world" instead of "how do we make it so everyone gets what they want", then quite simply more of you would get what you want. > but we're a social species with division of roles, Your role's about to be eliminated. Might take 20 years, the timeline's hard to pin down. But the guys who get to keep their roles are perfecting autonomous war drones. Your odds don't look good. Where's your "we" in that?

imbnwa 3y ago

Well they eradicated vocational and technical schools in major cities, I was one of the last class of students to attend one in my major metropolian area.

account42 3y ago

> It is somewhat hard to find an engaging game after 35, since you have already played everything there was and know all the tropes. That is only true if you limit yourself to modern games or have very limited tastes.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

That could be a reason behind the resurgence of board gaming as a leisure pursuit - an engaging game combined with a rewarding social group.

mbg721 3y ago
Board games also reward the kinds of abstract thinking that American schools have been trying to promote. Taking standardized math tests all day may not make you better at real life, but it will make you better at complex Euro-games.
antisthenes 3y ago
Board games have exactly the same tropes and design patterns as computer games. Once you've played enough games, you begin to recognize the pattern and can tell if it's going to be a new and engaging game or just another trope. But they are a nice stimulus to get together in person, that part is right on.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  > Board games have exactly the same tropes and design patterns as computer games. To an extent, but board games can also highlight ambiguous interpretations of the rules. Just last night, I was playing Cosmic Encounter with some friends and a good proportion of the fun was banter and arguments about some of the specific rules. I think board games can get away with a lot more randomness and chaos than computer games as they have a big social aspect to them. If you go from a successful, winning strategy to losing in a computer game because of someone having a specific card, then you'd probably stop enjoying the game, but with a board game it tends to spur a round of laughter instead.
  - antisthenes 3y ago
    > I think board games can get away with a lot more randomness and chaos than computer games as they have a big social aspect to them. If you go from a successful, winning strategy to losing in a computer game because of someone having a specific card, then you'd probably stop enjoying the game, but with a board game it tends to spur a round of laughter instead. I'm not sure why you think there's any difference. RNG is RNG. At least that's how we treat it in our group.