Well,dude,glad you landed back on your feet,i will NEVER play WoW,i smoke,and im 15,but i would rather die of lung cancer,and be dead...
Than play WoW and be the ,,living'' dead!
World of Warcraft... a virtual drug. Yes, I will get flamed.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="WindedSailor"]Requiring Proof isn't a red herring, it's just how we kind of do things around here, or at least while I'm around. If one is going to make relatively bold claims, like that Blizzard uses psychologists to design it's game to be as additive as possible, then one should either be able to back it up with some sort of substantiated evidence of any sort, or simply not make the claim in the first place.requiring proof is kind of a red herring, isn't it? of course the average person isn't going to have any proof. that's why anything that's going on is an internal business practice. if every consumer needed proof of a company's shady practices before making allegations, nothing would ever get uncovered because that kind of proof is impossible to get without a pretty thorough investigation.
Skylock00
Honestly, I don't think it requires any sort of psychologist input is needed in the case of games like World of Warcraft, as there has been numerous games in the past that incorporate similar reward systems to make them addictive, from older MMORPGs to MUDs, which all can act as case studies for devs.
I'm not saying that Blizzard isn't trying to make the game as addictive as they can, but I really, really doubt that they've employed psychologists to achieve that goal.
Okay, what we have here appears to be a niggle regarding wording and terminology. Okay, let's agree that the word fact is relatively unprofessional and could be re-worded. I'm happy to retract that and replace it with 'I believe'. Excellent. Now to the next issue. Your entire response appears to be an emotionally charged defence of Blizzard. I believe that careful analysis of my wording will reveal that I referred to 'their (game developers) growing presence in the development of video games'. I didn't attack any particular game developer. If psychologists were consulted, they would most likely be casually employed, not on the payroll. Also, basic human psychology is now part of every legitimate business course... I consider this to be evidence that psychological affects are frequently considered in all manner of business endeavours. It appears to be yourself that is making 'relatively bold claims' in what could almost be considered as an attack on my personal credibility... If you are going to make statements about 'how things are done around here', perhaps you should attempt to lead by example. ;)
Let me correct myself again. I referred to 'their (psychologists) growing presence in the development of video games', not 'their (game developers) growing presence'. I don't think we're going to have a debate on whether 'game developers' are involved. lol
i also find it silly that you have to clarify yourself like that just to get your point across on a gaming message board. totally agree with you on blizzard as well.
A few points:Okay, what we have here appears to be a niggle regarding wording and terminology. Okay, let's agree that the word fact is relatively unprofessional and could be re-worded. I'm happy to retract that and replace it with 'I believe'. Excellent. Now to the next issue. Your entire response appears to be an emotionally charged defence of Blizzard. I believe that careful analysis of my wording will reveal that I referred to 'their (game developers) growing presence in the development of video games'. I didn't attack any particular game developer. If psychologists were consulted, they would most likely be casually employed, not on the payroll. Also, basic human psychology is now part of every legitimate business course... I consider this to be evidence that psychological affects are frequently considered in all manner of business endeavours. It appears to be yourself that is making 'relatively bold claims' in what could almost be considered as an attack on my personal credibility... If you are going to make statements about 'how things are done around here', perhaps you should attempt to lead by example. ;)
RaZoR_RaiN
1. My post is hardly an emotionally charged defense of Blizzard, as there's really no emotional basis for my post. It's merely a reaction to you stating from the onset that 'the truth is..." and "I know for a fact." Usually in these cases, especially in cases where it's information that most posters here would probably not know, it is best to follow up such a claim with some form of substantiated evidence.
2. Your wording was hardly careful, especially in the onset of things, when your first post has, very clearly:
Given that your statement of 'they work...with psychologists' immediately follows referring to WoW specifically, it is easy to draw the conclusion that you are, in fact, making a direct comment regarding Blizzard (even given that you are talking about 'these games'). Such an exact statement/claim of fact is what was being called into question, at which point you did make a more broad based, and probably more accurate assessment of the matter (saying that psychologists have been developing a growing presence in the game industry).It's amazing how powerful some games have become. Particularly WoW. The truth is that they work on these games with psychologists, working out exactly what degree of reward is required to create the most addictive experience possible.
3. One point that can be made, though, is that even if an individual is individually contracted for work on a video game, they still typically get credited on the project in some degree, despite not being on payroll, so it could very likely be possible to find the name of such a person in the credits of a game, although some may be listed as a 'consultant' or even have taken the project without being credited.
As for the claim of 'psychology being part of every legitimate business course,' even if employees of a developer have attended a course or two in psychology in their education...that's still different than working on a game with psychologists, right? ;) I mean, I've independently studied Psychology during my high school career, and took a few courses in psychology, philosophy, and ethics when I was in college, but even if I apply meaningful psychological principles to developing something for a client, I wouldn't be called a 'psychologist' in that case.
4. Bolding and putting points of a sentence in quotes, which I'm only assuming is being done primarily for sarcasm in response to my completely valid response to your previous posts, comes off as highly disrespectful, and somewhat insulting to my intelligence that you feel it needed to resort to such a tactic to get your point across...but that's your problem really, not mine.
I try not to make strong/factual claims if I can't prove them. That's how I lead by example.
It appears to be yourself that is making 'relatively bold claims' in what could almost be considered as an attack on my personal credibility... If you are going to make statements about 'how things are done around here', perhaps you should attempt to lead by example. ;)RaZoR_RaiN
Nothing Skylock said in his statement was an attack on your personal credibility. It was directly on the credibility of your assertion. On these forums, posting false information as facts (even if they happen to be strongly held beliefs or opinions) isn't acceptible (see Terms of Use), so this particular challenge for a source is not out of the ordinary.
You on the other hand have attacked his credibility directly, not just his assertion on the veracity of your statement.
So, you have my warning. Cut it out, or someone will have to cut it out for you.
[QUOTE="RaZoR_RaiN"]It appears to be yourself that is making 'relatively bold claims' in what could almost be considered as an attack on my personal credibility... If you are going to make statements about 'how things are done around here', perhaps you should attempt to lead by example. ;)m0zart
Nothing Skylock said in his statement was an attack on your personal credibility. It was directly on the credibility of your assertion. On these forums, posting false information as facts (even if they happen to be strongly held beliefs or opinions) isn't acceptible (see Terms of Use), so this particular challenge for a source is not out of the ordinary.
You on the other hand have attacked his credibility directly, not just his assertion on the veracity of your statement.
So, you have my warning. Cut it out, or someone will have to cut it out for you.
Yes, clearly I am taking the judge to court...
Initially, It was my intention to alert people to the reality (yes, reality) that addictive qualities are considered when developing some games. Particularly games where there are ongoing charges to continue playing... This is something that appears obvious to myself, though it is clearly not beyond contestation. A quick search will reveal plenty of evidence regarding psychological contributions to the development of modern gambling machines. It is however, extremely difficult to provide proof of links between this type of research and computer games without wasting more time than I care to spend on the matter.
I obviously made a large error assuming that not everything here had to be written with the surgical accuracy of a thesis... Any well educated person knows that there are extremely few things in life that can be proven as FACT, and it is easier to cast a doubt than prove a truth.
If you are going to make threats, then cancel my account entirely. I came here to have fun, not defend my credibility and be dragged into fruitless conflicts.
i also find it silly that you have to clarify yourself like that just to get your point across on a gaming message board. totally agree with you on blizzard as well.
WindedSailor
Cheers mate.
If you are going to make threats, then cancel my account entirely.RaZoR_RaiN
It's not a threat. It's a warning -- the same sort of warning given to you in the Terms of Use, which you agreed to when you signed up. The fact is, besides making an assertion of false information as fact (a form of trolling), you also trolled Skylock by responding to his response to your assertion with an ad hominem attack. Getting a verbal warning is a favor to you -- in lieu of just going straight to moderation.
If you are going to make threats, then cancel my account entirely. I came here to have fun, not defend my credibility and be dragged into fruitless conflicts.RaZoR_RaiN
Nobody attacked your credibility. They attacked the veracity of your statement. You are the one who attacked Skylock's credibilty in response.
If you move into a forum, any forum, and make an assertion of fact like this, you should expect to have to defend that assertion. Nobody has "dragged [you] into a fruitless conflict." You volunteered for one when you made said assertion.
For those that require evidence...
Here is an advertisement for a Design Director position at Blizzard. You may find the requirements quite interesting...
http://www.blizzard.com/us/jobopp/battlenet-design-director.html
-Advanced degree in information science, information design, human-computer interaction, cognitive psychology, human factors, etc
-Deep understanding of user objectives, user scenarios, key product strategy, point of differentation, usability principles, etc
"Cognitive Psychologists use psychophysical and experimental approaches to understand, diagnose and solve problems, concerning themselves with the mental processes which mediate between stimulus and response" - Wikipedia
That's as much proof as I consider necessary by any rational standards. Any further conflict will be assumed personal.
For those that require evidence...
Here is an advertisement for a Design Director position at Blizzard. You may find the requirements quite interesting...
http://www.blizzard.com/us/jobopp/battlenet-design-director.html
-Advanced degree in information science, information design, human-computer interaction, cognitive psychology, human factors, etc
-Deep understanding of user objectives, user scenarios, key product strategy, point of differentation, usability principles, etc
"Cognitive Psychologists use psychophysical and experimental approaches to understand, diagnose and solve problems, concerning themselves with the mental processes which mediate between stimulus and response" - Wikipedia
That's as much proof as I consider necessary by any rational standards. Any further conflict will be assumed personal.
RaZoR_RaiN
nice.
For those that require evidence...
Here is an advertisement for a Design Director position at Blizzard. You may find the requirements quite interesting...
http://www.blizzard.com/us/jobopp/battlenet-design-director.html
-Advanced degree in information science, information design, human-computer interaction, cognitive psychology, human factors, etc
-Deep understanding of user objectives, user scenarios, key product strategy, point of differentation, usability principles, etc
"Cognitive Psychologists use psychophysical and experimental approaches to understand, diagnose and solve problems, concerning themselves with the mental processes which mediate between stimulus and response" - Wikipedia
That's as much proof as I consider necessary by any rational standards. Any further conflict will be assumed personal.
Cognitive Psychologists, one would think that they were attempting to keep people playing this game through subliminal ways?That's as much proof as I consider necessary by any rational standards. Any further conflict will be assumed personal.RaZoR_RaiN
You can assume whatever you like, but that doesn't make it so. You're a level three user with a low posting history. We don't know who you are enough for any reaction to be personal. It is your responsibility to provide adequate evidence with those types of assertions. When you do not, you can and should be called out on it. Nothing personal about it. If you then choose to response to that kind of advicein a personal, aggressive manner(as you repeatedly have in your responses), then you should probably re-evaluate your approach to forum etiquette in general.
[QUOTE="RaZoR_RaiN"]That's as much proof as I consider necessary by any rational standards. Any further conflict will be assumed personal.m0zart
You can assume whatever you like, but that doesn't make it so. You're a level three user with a low posting history. We don't know who you are enough for any reaction to be personal. It is your responsibility to provide adequate evidence with those types of assertions. When you do not, you can and should be called out on it. Nothing personal about it. If you then choose to response to that kind of advicein a personal, aggressive manner(as you repeatedly have in your responses), then you should probably re-evaluate your approach to forum etiquette in general.
Yet now, after providing evidence, you are making an 'ad hominem' attack on my rank at this site rather than accepting the evidence I provided. This IS a personal attack on my credibility. It is fair to consider your current course of action 'trolling'.
I understand that you would currently be motivated to defend your ego. However, now that I have gone to the trouble of providing the evidence you required within the boundaries of 'how things are done around here', you would have shown more class by accepting it. Or, after having pressured me for evidence, provided your own evidence to the contrary...
Or is evidence no longer required once you reach certain levels?
Thanks for providing some level of information, but none of the conflict up to this point really was personal from the standpoint of me making personal attacks on you, but simply calling the validity of your argument into question on the onset of things. This at least gives some level of credence, which is appreciated.Any further conflict will be assumed personal.
RaZoR_RaiN
[QUOTE="RaZoR_RaiN"]Thanks for providing some level of information, but none of the conflict up to this point really was personal from the standpoint of me making personal attacks on you, but simply calling the validity of your argument into question on the onset of things. This at least gives some level of credence, which is appreciated.Any further conflict will be assumed personal.
Skylock00
I appreciate that you have validated my efforts to support my initial statement.
In future, I will word my comments more carefully, or come packing evidence ;)
Yet now, after providing evidence, you are making an 'ad hominem' attack on my rank at this site rather than accepting the evidence I provided. This IS a personal attack on my credibility. It is fair to consider your current course of action 'trolling'.
RaZoR_RaiN
It was not an ad hominem attack on your rank. It was a recognition that you are a relatively new user (which is neither bad nor good), and that as a result, we don't know you well enough to get "personal". I think I made that clear enough.
I understand that you would currently be motivated to defend your ego. However, now that I have gone to the trouble of providing the evidence you required within the boundaries of 'how things are done around here', you would have shown more class by accepting it. Or, after having pressured me for evidence, provided your own evidence to the contrary...Or is evidence no longer required once you reach certain levels?RaZoR_RaiN
I never argued against your statement to begin with. I suggested that you need to provide evidence. That's it. The discussion about your need to do so could have ended there once you provided it if you hadn't yet againattempted to annoy by including that last line. You are the one who has made it personal.
[QUOTE="RaZoR_RaiN"]
Yet now, after providing evidence, you are making an 'ad hominem' attack on my rank at this site rather than accepting the evidence I provided. This IS a personal attack on my credibility. It is fair to consider your current course of action 'trolling'.
m0zart
It was not an ad hominem attack on your rank. It was a recognition that you are a relatively new user (which is neither bad nor good), and that as a result, we don't know you well enough to get "personal". I think I made that clear enough.
I understand that you would currently be motivated to defend your ego. However, now that I have gone to the trouble of providing the evidence you required within the boundaries of 'how things are done around here', you would have shown more class by accepting it. Or, after having pressured me for evidence, provided your own evidence to the contrary...Or is evidence no longer required once you reach certain levels?RaZoR_RaiN
I never argued against your statement to begin with. I suggested that you need to provide evidence. That's it. The discussion about your need to do so could have ended there once you provided it if you hadn't yet againattempted to annoy by including that last line. You are the one who has made it personal.
It is very easy for things to be mis-interpreted on a forum due to the amount of communication barriers. It is my feeling that there has been a large amount of fuel poured on a relatively small fire by all parties. I suggest we let sleeping dogs lie and act like mature adults...
Apologies to the writer of the original thread for our hijacking of the conversation.
I can't stand World of Warcraft, or all of the people who play World of Warcraft and not Warcraft 1-3.
I've never played World or Warcraft, and I don't plan to. I hate games were time invested = skill.
world ofwarcraft is evil glad you escaped its life consuming grasp.
Top 5 Reasons Why Video Games Can Be Bad For You
Video games can be bad for you, but not for the reasons you might think. They're not bad for you because they'll make you violent - because they won't. However they can be bad for you for other reasons.
Here's a look at the top 5 reasons why video games can be bad for you.
1. Video Games Can Be Addictive
Addiction is defined as "The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or involved in something." Anyone who has really been into video games has experienced this. Kids and adults alike think about getting home and playing games. They also spend a great deal of time reading gaming magazines, participating in online gaming forums, looking for future game releases, and of course, spending countless hours playing games. When they aren't doing any of these things, they're wishing they were.
2. Video Games Can Be Expensive
It cost a lot of money to stay current with the latest video games and hardware (console and/or computer). Many gamers spend all of their money on gaming. For example, it's not uncommon for a gamer to have 50-100 games that cost $40-$50 each. They also often have at least 2 different game consoles and 1 high-end PC. This can easily add up to thousands of dollars a year to maintain a typical gamer's habits.
3. Video Games Can Hurt Relationships
There's often a direct correlation with the amount of time spent playing video games, and the amount of time spent engaging in a quality relationship. In the most extreme example I could find, there was a couple that was so consumed with playing video games that they ended up neglecting their 3 children - to the point that they were malnourished, naked, and covered in their own feces. Although that's an extreme case, I still think there's something to be said about people who spend the majority of their free time playing video games. My guess is that they're probably not dating or pursuing a meaningful relationship in their free time.
A reader brought to my attention an online group dedicated to loved ones who have been affected by their partner's addiction to World of WarCraft (WoW). Their description includes the following
Do you have a loved one that plays World of Warcraft so much that you feel like you are a widow? This group isn't just for wives, but for anyone, husbands, girl or boyfriends, mothers, fathers, sons or daughters, or anyone that has had a relationship effected by this addictive game.
4. Video Games Can Be Distracting
Avid gamers are similar to people who smoke a lot of marijuana - in that they don't get much done. Reading a good book, taking care of bills, writing an article, inventing something, mowing the lawn, etc... are simply not a priority when it comes to getting to the next level or finishing a game. Many gamers have things they would like to do in life, but they never get around to it, because they spend so much of their time playing games. Then, when they do have time to work on one of their projects, they're too tired to do it, because they stayed up till 3am playing a game.
5. Video Games Can Rob You Of Real Life Experiences
Instead of taking a trip, mountain biking, or hanging out with friends at a cafe, gamer's spend their time in a virtual reality. Whereas real life experiences bear long lasting friendships and memories, videos games do not. The only pictures that come from video games are screenshots, and the memories that are created from playing those games are ultimately meaningless. Living means interacting, growing, learning, teaching, and loving - none of which can be accomplished in the virtual wasteland of video games.
Well, it has been over a year of being clean from WoW. I can say that I'm back in Baseball/Basketball shape and playing on recreation teams. I also have a full-time job and a great wife (just got married). I know it's been quite a long time since I've posted, and its a fake avatar. I still have my account which is the only bad thing (every once in a while I'll be tempted to renew). If anyone is interested in multiple 80's and 70's let me know. The account is free, you just have to pay your 15$ a month and the characters on Nesingwary. I don't want to give it away and have someone else become addicted. I need to just get rid of it. I'm posting this today because the itch bit on my day off. I still love to game, but I just need something different to get my head off of it.
The worst thing is that when the Old Republic comes out I'm going to have a really hard time resisting (gotta love the Wars and the lore of the Xbox hits). As for all the contradictions on whether or not WoW is an addiction, I think its a personal matter for certain people. Some people play the trial and quit and that is very understandable. My history was Everquest, Final Fantasy XIl, and Star Wars Galaxies. I played EQ2 right before WoW came out. I read the previous posts and it's like CoD (whomever made that reference) you hear a noise and it's something that instills in your brain. It's like the achievement system they implemented in World of Warcraft. It was still fairly new from the time that I quit, but people went nuts over it trying to rack up points, mounts, and pets. There is always something to do. The only problem is that you are sitting in a chair the entire time. I plan on making a documentary out of this debate when I receive my Canon Vixia HF S10 in the mail soon. I think I'll have it done by the time Catacalysm launches.
As for Blizzard, I guess you can either boo them or commend them. They have made a highly addictive product that people pay to play. If I'm a software developer and I can make $15 a month on your average Joe, I'm going to find something to make that addictive as possible. So the anti-argument made for the game not being addictive can be conversed over. Its whether they succeed at it or not. For me Warcraft was my syringe. For that, they are rolling in billions (don't even get me started on the cash cow scheme known as Starcraft II).
I guess I'm just looking for a non linear game that is beatable if that makes sense. I've already done the Elder Scrolls and Fallout games. I think I just may go back to my Super Nintendo.
Thanks everyone!
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment