Game Theory/Prisoner's Dilemma - Difficulty

#1 Edited by Anomaly1989 (28 posts) -

Please appreciate the humor in this brief lesson for what it is - humor:

Game Theory is all about human cooperation. The Prisoner's Dilemma (part of Game Theory) can be summed up to this in pricing (don't worry, I will get to the part about difficulty in a second):

2 giant evil corporations (muahahaha) decide they want to maximize profits so they cooperate on pricing. In The Prisoner's Dilemma, there is an analogy based on two criminals in an interrogation room. Either one can get a temporary, lesser, and short-term benefit from snitching on the other one. If neither of them snitch, it works out best for both of them.

Well, it is slightly more complicated than that but only slightly and I want to keep this simple. There are also different versions.

In this analogy, dropping the price of a product to gain a competitive edge on your competition is considered snitching.

As you can imagine, the international crime syndicates we call Multinational Corporations have figured out that snitching is bad for money. So they do not betray each other with regards to pricing. This is why all your new games cost $60 no matter who makes them (please don't jump in saying I'm wrong because this or that game happened to be 50. It is a general thing, but sometimes they betray each other - often out of desperation but sometimes as a calculated risk)

On to the difficulty part:

Back in the day, gaming companies recognized the value of a difficult game. They knew they could make the game easier, psychologically manipulate players instead of focusing on game play, crank out more games, and make more money. BUT, back then this would have been considered snitching. Once someone starts snitching - almost everyone starts snitching (shout out to all my real gaming companies that didn't rat, few and far between as you may be). It is the only way to stay in business at that point.

Now, back then snitching in this way (let's call this dry snitching) would have came with a penalty. Bad reviews, bad reputation etc...

Just some thoughts on why games are garbage these days.

Now:

Back to your regularly scheduled checkpoints, abundant health packs, trivial if not non-existent death penalties, cut-scenes every 5 minutes, mind-numbingly depth lacking, permadeathless, strategically mundane, profanity ridden, hollywood games.

If you need me, I will be playing something much cooler than what you are playing albeit in 2d and 10-20 years old.

#2 Edited by Ish_basic (3998 posts) -

just another "back in my day" rant. Nothing to see here.

#3 Posted by Minishdriveby (9738 posts) -

I don't understand how catering to a wider market constitutes "snitching," companies follow profit. I don't think a more user friendly market has deterred growth of the medium. I think it's promoted it. There are still hard games if that's what you're into.

#4 Posted by platinumking320 (666 posts) -

Here's the thing. Noticing difficulty is an afterthought.

The heart of the problem, is people care more about avatar strength assets and influence than unique level design. The level is supposed to give us all the goodies we desire if we use our heads. Thats the whole point. Were gorged for extra DLC character assets that we have to shell out extra for, some that should be a part of the original game, we're given loadouts, that we'd have to have played at least a 4th of the way through earlier games to even obtain.

Yes graphics looked poorer back then, and there were many technological accomplishments of the 7th gen.

But its better off if the level is unique, tense and engaging enough. It should have all the challenges, perks, scares and secrets to bring out the player's full potential.

But if its just a bowling alley, and you have the movement and skill to beat the game from the outset. We're beyond talking about nostalgia at that point. Lukewarm gameplay is lukewarm gameplay no matter how old or young the game is.

Remember the twin uninspiring disasters that were Kane and Lynch. Is all I have to say...

#5 Edited by Anomaly1989 (28 posts) -

@platinumking320:

I liked the first Kane and Lynch but I was completely wasted the whole time I was playing it. Interesting story about Kane and Lynch - I was playing at my friends 3rd story apartment over the lake and a real police helicopter came right up to the balcony and shined a light in for a good amount of time before completely leaving the lake.

Anyways, I don't remember enough of it to comment, but in general you are right, There are nothing but cheap gimmicks and lame game play these days. The level design is boring. The loadouts are overpowered. Death means literally nothing but a 5 second reload. Death should mean something (XCOM Ironman Mode got this right). There must be a huge death penalty or a lot of backtracking to do upon death....or both preferably.

It's like they are saying "Hey America: This is what we think of you idiots. Enjoy. 60 bucks."

Did you know that in the DMC 3 American release - all the difficulty was reduced for us whiney pathetic Americans. Japan's normal was America's easy, Hard (Japan) was normal (America). They even threw us an extra easy mode. This is seriously pathetic.

#6 Edited by Anomaly1989 (28 posts) -

@Minishdriveby said:

I don't understand how catering to a wider market constitutes "snitching," companies follow profit. I don't think a more user friendly market has deterred growth of the medium. I think it's promoted it. There are still hard games if that's what you're into.

The market did not grow nor shrink due to easy psychologically manipulative games. Gamers were going to be gamers anyways. Now, with this in mind, understand how the prisoner's dilemma relates. Companies making psychologically manipulative, easy, gimmicky games are snitching.

As for calling games a "medium"

(mē'dē-əm)

n., pl., -di·a (-dē-ə), or -di·ums.

  1. Something, such as an intermediate course of action, that occupies a position or represents a condition midway between extremes.
  2. An intervening substance through which something else is transmitted or carried on.
  3. An agency by which something is accomplished, conveyed, or transferred

Games are not a medium. Games are meant to be GAMES not propaganda. U are one of the rats aren't you?

#NoSnitchZone

#7 Edited by Minishdriveby (9738 posts) -

@Minishdriveby said:

I don't understand how catering to a wider market constitutes "snitching," companies follow profit. I don't think a more user friendly market has deterred growth of the medium. I think it's promoted it. There are still hard games if that's what you're into.

The market did not grow nor shrink due to easy psychologically manipulative games. Gamers were going to be gamers anyways. Now, with this in mind, understand how the prisoner's dilemma relates. Companies making psychologically manipulative, easy, gimmicky games are snitching.

As for calling games a "medium"

(mē'dē-əm)

n., pl., -di·a (-dē-ə), or -di·ums.

  1. Something, such as an intermediate course of action, that occupies a position or represents a condition midway between extremes.
  2. An intervening substance through which something else is transmitted or carried on.
  3. An agency by which something is accomplished, conveyed, or transferred

Games are not a medium. Games are meant to be GAMES not propaganda. U are one of the rats aren't you?

#NoSnitchZone

The market has grown exponentially, partly due to attracting new consumers. Gamers were going to be gamers, but that's like saying Japan will always have a steady supply of workers which is false unless there is a new generation and population growth. I don't think developers got together to scheme about making games easier or more accessible. I think the industry saw that there was untapped wells of money that could be tapped. It's therefore the consumer that changed the industry not the producers.

Have you never heard of an Artistic Medium?



#8 Posted by Anomaly1989 (28 posts) -

@anomaly1989 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

I don't understand how catering to a wider market constitutes "snitching," companies follow profit. I don't think a more user friendly market has deterred growth of the medium. I think it's promoted it. There are still hard games if that's what you're into.

The market did not grow nor shrink due to easy psychologically manipulative games. Gamers were going to be gamers anyways. Now, with this in mind, understand how the prisoner's dilemma relates. Companies making psychologically manipulative, easy, gimmicky games are snitching.

As for calling games a "medium"

(mē'dē-əm)

n., pl., -di·a (-dē-ə), or -di·ums.

  1. Something, such as an intermediate course of action, that occupies a position or represents a condition midway between extremes.
  2. An intervening substance through which something else is transmitted or carried on.
  3. An agency by which something is accomplished, conveyed, or transferred

Games are not a medium. Games are meant to be GAMES not propaganda. U are one of the rats aren't you?

#NoSnitchZone

The market has grown exponentially, partly due to attracting new consumers. Gamers were going to be gamers, but that's like saying Japan will always have a steady supply of workers which is false unless there is a new generation and population growth. I don't think developers got together to scheme about making games easier or more accessible. I think the industry saw that there was untapped wells of money that could be tapped. It's therefore the consumer that changed the industry not the producers.

Have you never heard of an Artistic Medium?

Games are not a medium. They are many things such as tools for enhancing memory, reflexes, hand eye coordination, environment mapping (in the brain), creative problem solving, math skills etc etc. As for the general term of "artistic medium," It differs greatly from the term "medium." I could call a dirt road that I drove on an "artistic medium" if I wanted to. Generally a medium is something that conveys a message, and the message tends to be ideological.

A medium is generally something you use to convey a message. I think games should stay away from this (unless you like the idea of every game ending up with COD-like propaganda. Excuse me while I go throw up at the thought of all those kids being told what to think by a bunch of pretentious rich people. After all, games are not work nor are they cable TV).

The market grew because the population grew and internet access grew. Most gamers already wanted easy psychologically manipulative games. Shoot I remember, back when games were hard, everyone wanted cheat codes. That doesn't mean they should be implemented. Just like gamers want cheaper games. That's why in economic theory this is the equivalent of mass dry snitching in the prisoner's dilemma. If there was no or at least relatively little access to these easy psychologically manipulative games, there would still be the same number of gamers out there!

But, this does open up the market for harder games if a few designers would bother focusing on game-play. Hard doesn't mean good, but a game that is well balanced, fun, and extremely difficult is always the best type of game. Just look at Dark Souls. It wasn't even hard (not even remotely, imo) and this generation won't shut up about how cool it is because it is "so hard dude." As long as people are having fun getting decimated by the game, victory is always within reach and is even more stimulating to their brains. The problem is because of mass dry snitching in the industry This Is Simply Less Profitable in the majority of cases.

In great measure, I do blame reviewers for not enforcing a no-snitching policy. Snitches should have gotten bad reviews. But they didn't. Everyone sold out. And in turn our children suffer. What about the children?

#9 Posted by Minishdriveby (9738 posts) -

@Minishdriveby said:

@anomaly1989 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

I don't understand how catering to a wider market constitutes "snitching," companies follow profit. I don't think a more user friendly market has deterred growth of the medium. I think it's promoted it. There are still hard games if that's what you're into.

The market did not grow nor shrink due to easy psychologically manipulative games. Gamers were going to be gamers anyways. Now, with this in mind, understand how the prisoner's dilemma relates. Companies making psychologically manipulative, easy, gimmicky games are snitching.

As for calling games a "medium"

(mē'dē-əm)

n., pl., -di·a (-dē-ə), or -di·ums.

  1. Something, such as an intermediate course of action, that occupies a position or represents a condition midway between extremes.
  2. An intervening substance through which something else is transmitted or carried on.
  3. An agency by which something is accomplished, conveyed, or transferred

Games are not a medium. Games are meant to be GAMES not propaganda. U are one of the rats aren't you?

#NoSnitchZone

The market has grown exponentially, partly due to attracting new consumers. Gamers were going to be gamers, but that's like saying Japan will always have a steady supply of workers which is false unless there is a new generation and population growth. I don't think developers got together to scheme about making games easier or more accessible. I think the industry saw that there was untapped wells of money that could be tapped. It's therefore the consumer that changed the industry not the producers.

Have you never heard of an Artistic Medium?

Games are not a medium. They are many things such as tools for enhancing memory, reflexes, hand eye coordination, environment mapping (in the brain), creative problem solving, math skills etc etc. As for the general term of "artistic medium," It differs greatly from the term "medium." I could call a dirt road that I drove on an "artistic medium" if I wanted to. Generally a medium is something that conveys a message, and the message tends to be ideological.

A medium is generally something you use to convey a message. I think games should stay away from this (unless you like the idea of every game ending up with COD-like propaganda. Excuse me while I go throw up at the thought of all those kids being told what to think by a bunch of pretentious rich people. After all, games are not work nor are they cable TV).

The market grew because the population grew and internet access grew. Most gamers already wanted easy psychologically manipulative games. Shoot I remember, back when games were hard, everyone wanted cheat codes. That doesn't mean they should be implemented. Just like gamers want cheaper games. That's why in economic theory this is the equivalent of mass dry snitching in the prisoner's dilemma. If there was no or at least relatively little access to these easy psychologically manipulative games, there would still be the same number of gamers out there!

But, this does open up the market for harder games if a few designers would bother focusing on game-play. Hard doesn't mean good, but a game that is well balanced, fun, and extremely difficult is always the best type of game. Just look at Dark Souls. It wasn't even hard (not even remotely, imo) and this generation won't shut up about how cool it is because it is "so hard dude." As long as people are having fun getting decimated by the game, victory is always within reach and is even more stimulating to their brains. The problem is because of mass dry snitching in the industry This Is Simply Less Profitable in the majority of cases.

In great measure, I do blame reviewers for not enforcing a no-snitching policy. Snitches should have gotten bad reviews. But they didn't. Everyone sold out. And in turn our children suffer. What about the children?

I think they definitely are a medium. They are a way to convey ideas to an audience, and it's becoming more and more common these days to create games with a more philosophical questioning than it was in the '70s and '80s which even back in those days have interesting philosophical questions if you peel back the superficial layer of shooting aliens and focus more on the design process, something I think many are more interested now that tools to create games are in the hands of many many more people.

You created a non sequitur with your argument though. Allowing developers to ask questions and convey messages to the audience doesn't lead every game down the same path as Call of Duty. Call of Duty seems to follow the trend of what's popular anyway, it never asks big questions but only gives forth the popular ideas of media focused events. The fact that more games are being created by one man teams also shoots your argument that you don't want corporations telling you what to think. You seem smart enough though that even if corporations have a message behind their game that you would be able to choose whether or not to agree with that message.

As for the growing market couldn't all three be contributing to the growth in the market: user accessibility, internet, and population growth? Your argument now also points to the consumers being at fault for the lack of difficulties in games, like I said. Yes, consumers wanted easier games. Yes, consumers used cheat codes when available. Developers followed the trend of the market. The consumer gets what he wants. Just like the consumer now gets games cheaper then probably any other time in the history of video games. Of course, there is also still the market for difficult games.



#10 Edited by Anomaly1989 (28 posts) -

@Minishdriveby said:

@anomaly1989 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@anomaly1989 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

I don't understand how catering to a wider market constitutes "snitching," companies follow profit. I don't think a more user friendly market has deterred growth of the medium. I think it's promoted it. There are still hard games if that's what you're into.

The market did not grow nor shrink due to easy psychologically manipulative games. Gamers were going to be gamers anyways. Now, with this in mind, understand how the prisoner's dilemma relates. Companies making psychologically manipulative, easy, gimmicky games are snitching.

As for calling games a "medium"

(mē'dē-əm)

n., pl., -di·a (-dē-ə), or -di·ums.

  1. Something, such as an intermediate course of action, that occupies a position or represents a condition midway between extremes.
  2. An intervening substance through which something else is transmitted or carried on.
  3. An agency by which something is accomplished, conveyed, or transferred

Games are not a medium. Games are meant to be GAMES not propaganda. U are one of the rats aren't you?

#NoSnitchZone

The market has grown exponentially, partly due to attracting new consumers. Gamers were going to be gamers, but that's like saying Japan will always have a steady supply of workers which is false unless there is a new generation and population growth. I don't think developers got together to scheme about making games easier or more accessible. I think the industry saw that there was untapped wells of money that could be tapped. It's therefore the consumer that changed the industry not the producers.

Have you never heard of an Artistic Medium?

Games are not a medium. They are many things such as tools for enhancing memory, reflexes, hand eye coordination, environment mapping (in the brain), creative problem solving, math skills etc etc. As for the general term of "artistic medium," It differs greatly from the term "medium." I could call a dirt road that I drove on an "artistic medium" if I wanted to. Generally a medium is something that conveys a message, and the message tends to be ideological.

A medium is generally something you use to convey a message. I think games should stay away from this (unless you like the idea of every game ending up with COD-like propaganda. Excuse me while I go throw up at the thought of all those kids being told what to think by a bunch of pretentious rich people. After all, games are not work nor are they cable TV).

The market grew because the population grew and internet access grew. Most gamers already wanted easy psychologically manipulative games. Shoot I remember, back when games were hard, everyone wanted cheat codes. That doesn't mean they should be implemented. Just like gamers want cheaper games. That's why in economic theory this is the equivalent of mass dry snitching in the prisoner's dilemma. If there was no or at least relatively little access to these easy psychologically manipulative games, there would still be the same number of gamers out there!

But, this does open up the market for harder games if a few designers would bother focusing on game-play. Hard doesn't mean good, but a game that is well balanced, fun, and extremely difficult is always the best type of game. Just look at Dark Souls. It wasn't even hard (not even remotely, imo) and this generation won't shut up about how cool it is because it is "so hard dude." As long as people are having fun getting decimated by the game, victory is always within reach and is even more stimulating to their brains. The problem is because of mass dry snitching in the industry This Is Simply Less Profitable in the majority of cases.

In great measure, I do blame reviewers for not enforcing a no-snitching policy. Snitches should have gotten bad reviews. But they didn't. Everyone sold out. And in turn our children suffer. What about the children?

I think they definitely are a medium. They are a way to convey ideas to an audience, and it's becoming more and more common these days to create games with a more philosophical questioning than it was in the '70s and '80s which even back in those days have interesting philosophical questions if you peel back the superficial layer of shooting aliens and focus more on the design process, something I think many are more interested now that tools to create games are in the hands of many many more people.

You created a non sequitur with your argument though. Allowing developers to ask questions and convey messages to the audience doesn't lead every game down the same path as Call of Duty. Call of Duty seems to follow the trend of what's popular anyway, it never asks big questions but only gives forth the popular ideas of media focused events. The fact that more games are being created by one man teams also shoots your argument that you don't want corporations telling you what to think. You seem smart enough though that even if corporations have a message behind their game that you would be able to choose whether or not to agree with that message.

As for the growing market couldn't all three be contributing to the growth in the market: user accessibility, internet, and population growth? Your argument now also points to the consumers being at fault for the lack of difficulties in games, like I said. Yes, consumers wanted easier games. Yes, consumers used cheat codes when available. Developers followed the trend of the market. The consumer gets what he wants. Just like the consumer now gets games cheaper then probably any other time in the history of video games. Of course, there is also still the market for difficult games.

Well at least you are no longer arguing that it is just an "artistic medium" that games are turning into. It is an ideological medium. My argument is that THAT is not what they are meant to be, and they should not be turned into one.

Philosophical questioning is great when it strives for objectivity. Still, it is dangerous territory for games. Very dangerous. Just look at TV. It is not even "art." It is simply manipulation. When I brought up COD I was talking about COD's ideological message. This is manipulative psychology being used to subvert logical thought. Whether or not someone is "smart" (that is a vague word - I would say clever instead) enough to see through it is irrelevant, because MOST people are not and Edward Bernays and his pupil Hitler proved this a long time ago. NOTHING follows the trend of what is popular. Some things shape the trend of what is popular, and some things follow the trend of other things that shaped what is popular.

The market does not dictate pricing (Game Theory does - specifically the Prisoner's Dilemma), so why don't game companies start snitching and give us some cheap games? The first one to start snitching would make a killing right? Wrong, the no snitching policy would be strictly enforced because that would mess up everyone else's profits. But snitching on difficulty doesn't hurt anyone's money so they will do it with no repercussions and the gamers get screwed in the end.

Easy games full of thought manipulation, like crack, might feel good at first but the high is short lived and leaves the user craving more. The only way to get another high is to spend more money or try to smoke the little pebbles that fell on the ground (replay the same garbage game they just played with less enjoyment than before). Game companies know this. Game companies need to stop selling drugs and they need to stop snitching.

#11 Edited by Minishdriveby (9738 posts) -

@Minishdriveby said:

@anomaly1989 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@anomaly1989 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

I don't understand how catering to a wider market constitutes "snitching," companies follow profit. I don't think a more user friendly market has deterred growth of the medium. I think it's promoted it. There are still hard games if that's what you're into.

The market did not grow nor shrink due to easy psychologically manipulative games. Gamers were going to be gamers anyways. Now, with this in mind, understand how the prisoner's dilemma relates. Companies making psychologically manipulative, easy, gimmicky games are snitching.

As for calling games a "medium"

(mē'dē-əm)

n., pl., -di·a (-dē-ə), or -di·ums.

  1. Something, such as an intermediate course of action, that occupies a position or represents a condition midway between extremes.
  2. An intervening substance through which something else is transmitted or carried on.
  3. An agency by which something is accomplished, conveyed, or transferred

Games are not a medium. Games are meant to be GAMES not propaganda. U are one of the rats aren't you?

#NoSnitchZone

The market has grown exponentially, partly due to attracting new consumers. Gamers were going to be gamers, but that's like saying Japan will always have a steady supply of workers which is false unless there is a new generation and population growth. I don't think developers got together to scheme about making games easier or more accessible. I think the industry saw that there was untapped wells of money that could be tapped. It's therefore the consumer that changed the industry not the producers.

Have you never heard of an Artistic Medium?

Games are not a medium. They are many things such as tools for enhancing memory, reflexes, hand eye coordination, environment mapping (in the brain), creative problem solving, math skills etc etc. As for the general term of "artistic medium," It differs greatly from the term "medium." I could call a dirt road that I drove on an "artistic medium" if I wanted to. Generally a medium is something that conveys a message, and the message tends to be ideological.

A medium is generally something you use to convey a message. I think games should stay away from this (unless you like the idea of every game ending up with COD-like propaganda. Excuse me while I go throw up at the thought of all those kids being told what to think by a bunch of pretentious rich people. After all, games are not work nor are they cable TV).

The market grew because the population grew and internet access grew. Most gamers already wanted easy psychologically manipulative games. Shoot I remember, back when games were hard, everyone wanted cheat codes. That doesn't mean they should be implemented. Just like gamers want cheaper games. That's why in economic theory this is the equivalent of mass dry snitching in the prisoner's dilemma. If there was no or at least relatively little access to these easy psychologically manipulative games, there would still be the same number of gamers out there!

But, this does open up the market for harder games if a few designers would bother focusing on game-play. Hard doesn't mean good, but a game that is well balanced, fun, and extremely difficult is always the best type of game. Just look at Dark Souls. It wasn't even hard (not even remotely, imo) and this generation won't shut up about how cool it is because it is "so hard dude." As long as people are having fun getting decimated by the game, victory is always within reach and is even more stimulating to their brains. The problem is because of mass dry snitching in the industry This Is Simply Less Profitable in the majority of cases.

In great measure, I do blame reviewers for not enforcing a no-snitching policy. Snitches should have gotten bad reviews. But they didn't. Everyone sold out. And in turn our children suffer. What about the children?

I think they definitely are a medium. They are a way to convey ideas to an audience, and it's becoming more and more common these days to create games with a more philosophical questioning than it was in the '70s and '80s which even back in those days have interesting philosophical questions if you peel back the superficial layer of shooting aliens and focus more on the design process, something I think many are more interested now that tools to create games are in the hands of many many more people.

You created a non sequitur with your argument though. Allowing developers to ask questions and convey messages to the audience doesn't lead every game down the same path as Call of Duty. Call of Duty seems to follow the trend of what's popular anyway, it never asks big questions but only gives forth the popular ideas of media focused events. The fact that more games are being created by one man teams also shoots your argument that you don't want corporations telling you what to think. You seem smart enough though that even if corporations have a message behind their game that you would be able to choose whether or not to agree with that message.

As for the growing market couldn't all three be contributing to the growth in the market: user accessibility, internet, and population growth? Your argument now also points to the consumers being at fault for the lack of difficulties in games, like I said. Yes, consumers wanted easier games. Yes, consumers used cheat codes when available. Developers followed the trend of the market. The consumer gets what he wants. Just like the consumer now gets games cheaper then probably any other time in the history of video games. Of course, there is also still the market for difficult games.

Well at least you are no longer arguing that it is just an "artistic medium" that games are turning into. It is an ideological medium. My argument is that THAT is not what they are meant to be, and they should not be turned into one.

Philosophical questioning is great when it strives for objectivity. Still, it is dangerous territory for games. Very dangerous. Just look at TV. It is not even "art." It is simply manipulation. When I brought up COD I was talking about COD's ideological message. This is manipulative psychology being used to subvert logical thought. Whether or not someone is "smart" (that is a vague word - I would say clever instead) enough to see through it is irrelevant, because MOST people are not and Edward Bernays and his pupil Hitler proved this a long time ago. NOTHING follows the trend of what is popular. Some things shape the trend of what is popular, and some things follow the trend of other things that shaped what is popular.

The market does not dictate pricing (Game Theory does - specifically the Prisoner's Dilemma), so why don't game companies start snitching and give us some cheap games? The first one to start snitching would make a killing right? Wrong, the no snitching policy would be strictly enforced because that would mess up everyone else's profits. But snitching on difficulty doesn't hurt anyone's money so they will do it with no repercussions and the gamers get screwed in the end.

Easy games full of thought manipulation, like crack, might feel good at first but the high is short lived and leaves the user craving more. The only way to get another high is to spend more money or try to smoke the little pebbles that fell on the ground (replay the same garbage game they just played with less enjoyment than before). Game companies know this. Game companies need to stop selling drugs and they need to stop snitching.

Paintings/Films/Novels are ideological mediums as well. Who are you to say what games should and should not be? If you want to play space invaders and pacman, play space invaders and pacman. Enjoy them for what they are. You're shouting into a void that doesn't listen; you still have your toys, go play with them.

NOTHING follows the trend of what is popular, yet somethings follow the trend of things that shaped popularity? I'm guessing all the flappy bird clones weren't following the success of flappy bird? I'm guessing the Playstation Move wasn't following the popularity of the Wii?

I think various digital sales and the competitive used market blow the high pricing accusations out of the water. Game Publishers are not afraid to lower prices 2 months after release. The used market place isn't afraid to drop prices to half of what the game sells at new. Digital sales aren't afraid to slash games by 75%.

#12 Edited by Anomaly1989 (28 posts) -

@Minishdriveby said:

@anomaly1989 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@anomaly1989 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@anomaly1989 said:

@Minishdriveby said:

I don't understand how catering to a wider market constitutes "snitching," companies follow profit. I don't think a more user friendly market has deterred growth of the medium. I think it's promoted it. There are still hard games if that's what you're into.

The market did not grow nor shrink due to easy psychologically manipulative games. Gamers were going to be gamers anyways. Now, with this in mind, understand how the prisoner's dilemma relates. Companies making psychologically manipulative, easy, gimmicky games are snitching.

As for calling games a "medium"

(mē'dē-əm)

n., pl., -di·a (-dē-ə), or -di·ums.

  1. Something, such as an intermediate course of action, that occupies a position or represents a condition midway between extremes.
  2. An intervening substance through which something else is transmitted or carried on.
  3. An agency by which something is accomplished, conveyed, or transferred

Games are not a medium. Games are meant to be GAMES not propaganda. U are one of the rats aren't you?

#NoSnitchZone

The market has grown exponentially, partly due to attracting new consumers. Gamers were going to be gamers, but that's like saying Japan will always have a steady supply of workers which is false unless there is a new generation and population growth. I don't think developers got together to scheme about making games easier or more accessible. I think the industry saw that there was untapped wells of money that could be tapped. It's therefore the consumer that changed the industry not the producers.

Have you never heard of an Artistic Medium?

Games are not a medium. They are many things such as tools for enhancing memory, reflexes, hand eye coordination, environment mapping (in the brain), creative problem solving, math skills etc etc. As for the general term of "artistic medium," It differs greatly from the term "medium." I could call a dirt road that I drove on an "artistic medium" if I wanted to. Generally a medium is something that conveys a message, and the message tends to be ideological.

A medium is generally something you use to convey a message. I think games should stay away from this (unless you like the idea of every game ending up with COD-like propaganda. Excuse me while I go throw up at the thought of all those kids being told what to think by a bunch of pretentious rich people. After all, games are not work nor are they cable TV).

The market grew because the population grew and internet access grew. Most gamers already wanted easy psychologically manipulative games. Shoot I remember, back when games were hard, everyone wanted cheat codes. That doesn't mean they should be implemented. Just like gamers want cheaper games. That's why in economic theory this is the equivalent of mass dry snitching in the prisoner's dilemma. If there was no or at least relatively little access to these easy psychologically manipulative games, there would still be the same number of gamers out there!

But, this does open up the market for harder games if a few designers would bother focusing on game-play. Hard doesn't mean good, but a game that is well balanced, fun, and extremely difficult is always the best type of game. Just look at Dark Souls. It wasn't even hard (not even remotely, imo) and this generation won't shut up about how cool it is because it is "so hard dude." As long as people are having fun getting decimated by the game, victory is always within reach and is even more stimulating to their brains. The problem is because of mass dry snitching in the industry This Is Simply Less Profitable in the majority of cases.

In great measure, I do blame reviewers for not enforcing a no-snitching policy. Snitches should have gotten bad reviews. But they didn't. Everyone sold out. And in turn our children suffer. What about the children?

I think they definitely are a medium. They are a way to convey ideas to an audience, and it's becoming more and more common these days to create games with a more philosophical questioning than it was in the '70s and '80s which even back in those days have interesting philosophical questions if you peel back the superficial layer of shooting aliens and focus more on the design process, something I think many are more interested now that tools to create games are in the hands of many many more people.

You created a non sequitur with your argument though. Allowing developers to ask questions and convey messages to the audience doesn't lead every game down the same path as Call of Duty. Call of Duty seems to follow the trend of what's popular anyway, it never asks big questions but only gives forth the popular ideas of media focused events. The fact that more games are being created by one man teams also shoots your argument that you don't want corporations telling you what to think. You seem smart enough though that even if corporations have a message behind their game that you would be able to choose whether or not to agree with that message.

As for the growing market couldn't all three be contributing to the growth in the market: user accessibility, internet, and population growth? Your argument now also points to the consumers being at fault for the lack of difficulties in games, like I said. Yes, consumers wanted easier games. Yes, consumers used cheat codes when available. Developers followed the trend of the market. The consumer gets what he wants. Just like the consumer now gets games cheaper then probably any other time in the history of video games. Of course, there is also still the market for difficult games.

Well at least you are no longer arguing that it is just an "artistic medium" that games are turning into. It is an ideological medium. My argument is that THAT is not what they are meant to be, and they should not be turned into one.

Philosophical questioning is great when it strives for objectivity. Still, it is dangerous territory for games. Very dangerous. Just look at TV. It is not even "art." It is simply manipulation. When I brought up COD I was talking about COD's ideological message. This is manipulative psychology being used to subvert logical thought. Whether or not someone is "smart" (that is a vague word - I would say clever instead) enough to see through it is irrelevant, because MOST people are not and Edward Bernays and his pupil Hitler proved this a long time ago. NOTHING follows the trend of what is popular. Some things shape the trend of what is popular, and some things follow the trend of other things that shaped what is popular.

The market does not dictate pricing (Game Theory does - specifically the Prisoner's Dilemma), so why don't game companies start snitching and give us some cheap games? The first one to start snitching would make a killing right? Wrong, the no snitching policy would be strictly enforced because that would mess up everyone else's profits. But snitching on difficulty doesn't hurt anyone's money so they will do it with no repercussions and the gamers get screwed in the end.

Easy games full of thought manipulation, like crack, might feel good at first but the high is short lived and leaves the user craving more. The only way to get another high is to spend more money or try to smoke the little pebbles that fell on the ground (replay the same garbage game they just played with less enjoyment than before). Game companies know this. Game companies need to stop selling drugs and they need to stop snitching.

Paintings/Films/Novels are ideological mediums as well. Who are you to say what games should and should not be? If you want to play space invaders and pacman, play space invaders and pacman. Enjoy them for what they are. You're shouting into a void that doesn't listen; you still have your toys, go play with them.

NOTHING follows the trend of what is popular, yet somethings follow the trend of things that shaped popularity? I'm guessing all the flappy bird clones weren't following the success of flappy bird? I'm guessing the Playstation Move wasn't following the popularity of the Wii?

I think various digital sales and the competitive used market blow the high pricing accusations out of the water. Game Publishers are not afraid to lower prices 2 months after release. The used market place isn't afraid to drop prices to half of what the game sells at new. Digital sales aren't afraid to slash games by 75%.

I don't play space invaders and pacman. I am forced to play games like the OpenXcom because no one cares about game play anymore. The void doesn't listen because it is indeed a void, an abyss, nothing - it will fail. I am just letting it know this ahead of time and inviting you to step out of the void.

"NOTHING follows the trend of what is popular. Some things shape the trend of what is popular, and some things follow the trend of other things that shaped what is popular." Now re read your second paragraph and see if that doesn't make sense. Stop playing word games. I could elaborate but I don't feel like it because you accused me of playing pacman and space invaders. That was an old man reference. I am 25.

"I think various digital sales and the competitive used market blow the high pricing accusations out of the water. Game Publishers are not afraid to lower prices 2 months after release. The used market place isn't afraid to drop prices to half of what the game sells at new. Digital sales aren't afraid to slash games by 75%."

There was no high pricing accusation, just a statement about Game Theory. In fact, I advocate not snitching, making more money off games, and making QUALITY in return. As for the rest, whatever - Game Theory is dictating the market. Game companies as a whole decided to start doing the things you are talking about. The Dons got together and issued a Decree on each of the things you mentioned.

#13 Posted by Minishdriveby (9738 posts) -

@anomaly1989: I wouldn't take offense to the Pacman and Space Invaders comment I was only harkening back to your want for a past generation. The games you want are not gone. I personally am extremely fond of Pacman (although I lean more towards Galaga than Space Invaders).

I've re-read what you wrote and what I wrote. You're basically stating somethings create popularity and other things follow the trends created by the former. I'm not the one using doublespeak here.

The used market wasn't dictated by companies. It was dictated by individual sellers. Steam Sales and Humble Bundles may get the go ahead from higher up, but how is this a defeat for the consumer who gets games for a cheaper price?

#14 Posted by Anomaly1989 (28 posts) -

@Minishdriveby:

I am convinced you are messing with me. Maybe I am being to quick to jump to judgment, but I think it is the case.

#15 Edited by Minishdriveby (9738 posts) -

@Minishdriveby:

I am convinced you are messing with me. Maybe I am being to quick to jump to judgment, but I think it is the case.

The same could be said about my thoughts on your comments.

#16 Edited by illmatic87 (15156 posts) -

There should be a "vent about the old days sticky" in this forum.

There's at least one thread on this board about complaining about modern games/gaming industry every day.