Why Do We Play Video Games That Feel Like Work?(motherboard.vice.com)
motherboard.vice.com
Why Do We Play Video Games That Feel Like Work?
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/why-do-we-play-video-games-that-simulate-work
103 comments
> Maybe it's just me, but I find work to only suck when there is a long commute time and it's 2015 and our stupid company is still running Ruby 1.8 on rails 2.3, there is no automated testing, the javascript is an unreadable pile or .rjs mess, and literally every bug is some variant of "undefined is not a function" happening at run-time (for which I get yelled at).
That's why you come home and program in a perfect world of Haskell (or some other toy), just like the farmer chooses the virtual farm over the real one.
> The article calls this "the realities of work" and that the inherent difficulties and uncertainties are natural to the problems of the "real world" and must be accepted.
In a certain sense, you're correct - the challenges to overcome in a game can have the same magnitude. In other sense, you're not. At the end of the day, game is still a game. Maybe it is the responsibility that you feel that makes the difference. In the real world, the stakes are higher; cannot that be the ultimate reason why the work sucks?
That's why you come home and program in a perfect world of Haskell (or some other toy), just like the farmer chooses the virtual farm over the real one.
> The article calls this "the realities of work" and that the inherent difficulties and uncertainties are natural to the problems of the "real world" and must be accepted.
In a certain sense, you're correct - the challenges to overcome in a game can have the same magnitude. In other sense, you're not. At the end of the day, game is still a game. Maybe it is the responsibility that you feel that makes the difference. In the real world, the stakes are higher; cannot that be the ultimate reason why the work sucks?
> In the real world, the stakes are higher; cannot that be the ultimate reason why the work sucks?
It could be, but I don't think it is. Doing something that's actually important feels awesome.
It could be, but I don't think it is. Doing something that's actually important feels awesome.
When you succeed.
When you drop the ball and it all goes to shit, it can literally drive people to suicide.
When you drop the ball and it all goes to shit, it can literally drive people to suicide.
This is insightful in that games are engineered so everyone wins. The participation trophy effect has become stronger over time... in the 80s you could actually lose computer and video games, but now all you do is grind up a little slower, which is pretty lame. Aside from subcultural experiments like roguelike games which most participation trophy participants don't like.
The real world success rate is extremely low and on a long scale approaches 0 unless you're in the 1% in which case the rate approaches 1 of course, because they rig the rules, and their quislings get REALLY angry when anyone points it out.
The real world success rate is extremely low and on a long scale approaches 0 unless you're in the 1% in which case the rate approaches 1 of course, because they rig the rules, and their quislings get REALLY angry when anyone points it out.
Every time I hear a variant of the "games did X when I was younger, they don't anymore", I have to wonder what do they mean by "games". There is a ridiculous amount and variety of games made today, specially when compared to the eighties. All genres, difficulties and philosophies of design that existed back then still exist today. Most of them in the same amount, even. But when the pie gets very big, as it has, slices that don't grow start looking smaller. Both the "just grind some more" and "you lose you die" games existed in the eighties, and both exist today.
I think there is a real shift though. People talk about "nintendo hard" because most of the games of that era were that hard. Five or ten years ago health was a carefully managed resource in any "AAA" FPS; nowadays regenerating health is very much the norm.
I agree. All you have to do is watch videos of today's kids playing games from the previous era. I've seen some where a handful of kids were unable to finish the first level of Super Mario Bros after several tries. But to be fair, most people never say the third board of Donkey Kong.
Although, I do also agree that there are extremely hard games today. I just think they are aimed at people like me for nostalgia reasons but also the current players that actually want a challenge. Otherwise, the mechanic goes against the current trends best suited for making money in the market.
As for health being a carefully managed resource, there were also the games where you get hit once and you die. In those cases lives were the carefully managed resource. Which that type of game was common. They don't seem as common these days.
But I think most of the hard factor of games of the past was a holdover from arcades where the goal was to kill you within a few minutes so you would insert another quarter. Games at the time tended to mimic that mechanic.
Although, I do also agree that there are extremely hard games today. I just think they are aimed at people like me for nostalgia reasons but also the current players that actually want a challenge. Otherwise, the mechanic goes against the current trends best suited for making money in the market.
As for health being a carefully managed resource, there were also the games where you get hit once and you die. In those cases lives were the carefully managed resource. Which that type of game was common. They don't seem as common these days.
But I think most of the hard factor of games of the past was a holdover from arcades where the goal was to kill you within a few minutes so you would insert another quarter. Games at the time tended to mimic that mechanic.
> the goal was to kill you within a few minutes so you would insert another quarter
This is at the heart of "nintendo hard". Games were limited in content and scope, and ramping up difficulty was the only way to ensure the experience would last long enough to justify the cost.
This is at the heart of "nintendo hard". Games were limited in content and scope, and ramping up difficulty was the only way to ensure the experience would last long enough to justify the cost.
> games are engineered so everyone wins
Not true, they are engineered to be fair, and that is a very key distinction. A gamer can be reasonably certain that with a good deal of persistence they will eventually be able to overcome any hurdle, even if it is made to appear insurmountable at first. Some examples would be the Dark Souls games and the recent Bloodborne.
Not true, they are engineered to be fair, and that is a very key distinction. A gamer can be reasonably certain that with a good deal of persistence they will eventually be able to overcome any hurdle, even if it is made to appear insurmountable at first. Some examples would be the Dark Souls games and the recent Bloodborne.
Fair would be a game like monopoly. Or tic tac toe. Or chess, go. Yet its quite possible to lose a game of tic tac toe.
Its comical to think of a 2015 video game implementation of player v computer chess, where you never get checkmated, just have to move yet another piece, and never run out of pieces, until you finally win.
Its comical to think of a 2015 video game implementation of player v computer chess, where you never get checkmated, just have to move yet another piece, and never run out of pieces, until you finally win.
If you lose a game of chess, you can set up the board again and play another game.
If you lose a boss fight in Dark Souls, you reload your save and fight the boss again.
If you lose a game of Counter-Strike, you wait three minutes in freelook and try not to get AWPed next round.
The only area of video gaming I can think of where your complaint applies is mobile, where you win by paying thousands of dollars for energy crystals or some such.
The only area of video gaming I can think of where your complaint applies is mobile, where you win by paying thousands of dollars for energy crystals or some such.
Fair only means that it is possible to win, not that it is guaranteed.
There's been a lot of talk about games nowadays being "too easy", but they have difficulty selectors for a reason. Gamers choosing an easier difficulty because they would prefer to experience the story with minimal frustration are still valid gamers, they are just tuning their entertainment experience to their preferences.
Disparaging gamers with those preferences by calling them a part of "participation trophy" culture is unfair and uncalled for. Their entertainment preferences are just as valid as your movie or book preferences, regardless of how "difficult" it is for you to experience the media.
There's been a lot of talk about games nowadays being "too easy", but they have difficulty selectors for a reason. Gamers choosing an easier difficulty because they would prefer to experience the story with minimal frustration are still valid gamers, they are just tuning their entertainment experience to their preferences.
Disparaging gamers with those preferences by calling them a part of "participation trophy" culture is unfair and uncalled for. Their entertainment preferences are just as valid as your movie or book preferences, regardless of how "difficult" it is for you to experience the media.
I honestly apologize, in retrospect I think my analysis of the facts is spot on but I was a overly harsh and judgmental in commenting on those specific observations. For example I was absolutely correct in identifying them as part of "participation trophy culture" but I was absolutely incorrect about making fun of them for it. If they're having fun doing their thing and I'm having fun doing my thing thats OK. I'm generally very libertarian (small L) and that was pretty far out of character for me.
The extremely small number of game creators can result in restricted choices and frustration. I guess I've always got the indies, at least, even if dominant AAA style holds little appeal to me.
The extremely small number of game creators can result in restricted choices and frustration. I guess I've always got the indies, at least, even if dominant AAA style holds little appeal to me.
I appreciate your opinion and your apology, however I still don't follow or agree with your reasoning about "participation trophy culture". Certainly there are games out there that are hard to fail at, but ultimately it all boils down to the difficulty setting, doesn't it?
It sounds like you're proposing the Game Over screen come back and boot people back to the title screen to start all over, which doesn't suit many gaming formats, especially those formats developed or popularized in the last decade or two like RPGs and adventure games.
Can you give any examples?
It sounds like you're proposing the Game Over screen come back and boot people back to the title screen to start all over, which doesn't suit many gaming formats, especially those formats developed or popularized in the last decade or two like RPGs and adventure games.
Can you give any examples?
> Its comical to think of a 2015 video game implementation of player v computer chess, where you never get checkmated, just have to move yet another piece, and never run out of pieces, until you finally win.
That might actually be interesting. Most chess games are decided by blunders even at Grandmaster level. I'd love to see people try to work on a "perfect" game, with unlimited retries. Maybe we'd finally see whether White has a winning advantage.
That might actually be interesting. Most chess games are decided by blunders even at Grandmaster level. I'd love to see people try to work on a "perfect" game, with unlimited retries. Maybe we'd finally see whether White has a winning advantage.
1. Old games had to be hard because if they weren't, they would be too short. People would finish them straight away and exclaim "wait... that's it?".
2. The point of playing games isn't always to "win" or "lose". Sometimes the point is just to have an experience. To roleplay, to see a story unfold, etc.. Then a ruthless difficulty can get in the way of that experience. Or it might not - but the point is that difficulty and achievement aren't always the biggest points. At least not to me.
3. A lot of hard games are hard in a lame or lazy way. Or just in a "fake" way[1]. Games should be hard in a way that forces you to be more cunning, agile, faster and smarter. Not just blindly double the HP of all enemies, or make progress depend on an obscure secret which can not be guessed from the game, forcing you to buy some gaming magazine in order to progress further in the game.
[1] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty
2. The point of playing games isn't always to "win" or "lose". Sometimes the point is just to have an experience. To roleplay, to see a story unfold, etc.. Then a ruthless difficulty can get in the way of that experience. Or it might not - but the point is that difficulty and achievement aren't always the biggest points. At least not to me.
3. A lot of hard games are hard in a lame or lazy way. Or just in a "fake" way[1]. Games should be hard in a way that forces you to be more cunning, agile, faster and smarter. Not just blindly double the HP of all enemies, or make progress depend on an obscure secret which can not be guessed from the game, forcing you to buy some gaming magazine in order to progress further in the game.
[1] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty
While I completely agree with your list of things that make work less fun, I think there's one important thing missing: the fact that you have to do it. It's strange but I like to program in my spare time, and I love to learn more about CS in general. But, when it's a job.. it kind of takes the fun out of it, because you have to do even when you no longer feel like it.
Just my opinion though!
Just my opinion though!
100% agree. Just the change from "can" to "have to" instantly damages my motivation, obliterating it completely over longer time scales. This makes it incredibly difficult to be a decent employee even though I'm a quite good developer (having spent over 10 years programming, which was my hobby since childhood). It's soul-sucking and destroys self-confidence.
It's good to hear from others who think in the same way-
I moved to a new job last year where there were no fixed hours (my previous job required that I should be in at 9am). This alone made me feel like I was going into the office because i 'wanted' to, not because I HAD to... Ironically I still end up going in for just after 9am everyday anyway, but that sense of freedom leaves me feeling so much happier on a day to day basis!
I used to work at a company that had no fixed hours... I usually spent at least 10 hours a day on the weekdays and often stopped in on the weekends and there was usually at least a smattering of people there, and collaboration and morale were both high. They really got it right on that one. Then investors started courting the company, and management started telling people they wanted butts in seats at 9:30am. Well as soon as 5:30 rolls around it became a ghost town.
Indeed. You have to do it 40+ hours a week, 50ish weeks a year. I'm not sure there's anything I'd voluntarily spend that much time on with such consistency.
I know some people can lose themselves in video games for whole weeks, my experience from the couple of times my wife and kids have left me home alone for a few days is that I have about 16 total hours of pent-up video game binging in me at any given time, and once that's satisfied I'm totally done with video games for the next several days and would rather fix things around the house or catch up on my reading or get outside. Anything but play video games.
If I had to wake up early to go play video games 40 hours a week every. single. week. (with another 5+ hours lost to commute) I doubt I'd make it through the second week before I started to dread it. And that's if I got to choose the games and didn't have to do anything work-ish related to them, just play, so 100% ideal conditions (not like the notoriously-crappy jobs of video game testers)
I know some people can lose themselves in video games for whole weeks, my experience from the couple of times my wife and kids have left me home alone for a few days is that I have about 16 total hours of pent-up video game binging in me at any given time, and once that's satisfied I'm totally done with video games for the next several days and would rather fix things around the house or catch up on my reading or get outside. Anything but play video games.
If I had to wake up early to go play video games 40 hours a week every. single. week. (with another 5+ hours lost to commute) I doubt I'd make it through the second week before I started to dread it. And that's if I got to choose the games and didn't have to do anything work-ish related to them, just play, so 100% ideal conditions (not like the notoriously-crappy jobs of video game testers)
This is in fact the life of a video game tester, and everyone I know who's done it speaks of how quickly it becomes hell.
As it so happens, I'm thinking about consulting on exactly this. I have plenty of game design experience; last weekend I stumbled into a hackathon where I ended up giving an early-stage founder some ideas to radically improve an experience that everyone agrees sucks right now(consumer medicine). Based on that data point there's plenty of room to make this work, above and beyond the existing gamification tropes of putting badges and rewards on things. (Badges are an easy sell, but in essence, it was already there - recall "employee of the month" or "reward coupons.")
My pitch would be to make play - not just "fun" or compulsion loops, but the whole dynamic of playful activity - an organizational improvement process. The best results, as with most things, would need deep structural commitment, but there would be room even for a limited engagement to make some progress.
My pitch would be to make play - not just "fun" or compulsion loops, but the whole dynamic of playful activity - an organizational improvement process. The best results, as with most things, would need deep structural commitment, but there would be room even for a limited engagement to make some progress.
I too consider working in software to be fun.
But a vast majority of "work" out there is nothing like working in software.
So yes, it is probably just you (or us rather).
But a vast majority of "work" out there is nothing like working in software.
So yes, it is probably just you (or us rather).
Personally, I think corporations can take a page from video game design and analyze their own employees work flows and design it
That would be nice, yes. Most organisations are tremendously bad at this kind of introspection. And like introspection of the individual, it's painful and time-consuming. Especially when a process doesn't work well and you get into the eternal battle of "we need better employees" vs "better training" vs "change the process".
Not to mention that plenty of managers are Calvinist enough to design the fun out of work; employee fun is presumed to be a cost to the company that must be minimised.
That would be nice, yes. Most organisations are tremendously bad at this kind of introspection. And like introspection of the individual, it's painful and time-consuming. Especially when a process doesn't work well and you get into the eternal battle of "we need better employees" vs "better training" vs "change the process".
Not to mention that plenty of managers are Calvinist enough to design the fun out of work; employee fun is presumed to be a cost to the company that must be minimised.
Trying to make work fun is a naive fool's errand. The nature of most work is to be repetitive, and repetition takes the fun out of anything.
> repetition takes the fun out of anything.
Except MMO's, which are probably the pinnacle of repetitive, work-like video games. Kill 10 rats times a billion.
Except MMO's, which are probably the pinnacle of repetitive, work-like video games. Kill 10 rats times a billion.
I'm pretty sure that the repetition in MMOs is not what most people consider the meat of the fun. It's an obstacle to get to the fun, because nobody can create enough real content to satisfy players.
The big assumption here is that people are using their time optimally all the time. I think instead we simply run out of motivation and deal with whatever is going on instead of looking for the 'best' way to have fun/work. We're familiar with it, and dislike the cost associated with finding something new.
The big assumption here is that people are using their time optimally all the time. I think instead we simply run out of motivation and deal with whatever is going on instead of looking for the 'best' way to have fun/work. We're familiar with it, and dislike the cost associated with finding something new.
You should try being a sysadmin. It's very rare that you'll do the same thing on any given two days.
As a programmer I never do the same thing every day. But dear god does it often feel like I'm stuck doing the same class of thing.
Get ticket. Reproduce bug. Fix bug. Close ticket. Repeat.
Get ticket. Reproduce bug. Fix bug. Close ticket. Repeat.
Fair point. The "task diversity" of systems administration is a different world, particularly in non-tech industries (most sysadmins are working in companies that do things other than technology). Low-voltage cabling, basic plumbing (yes, really -- got to get the condensing water out from the air mover somehow...), finding the fault lines between hardware and software. I also really love hiring sysadmins, because it really is entirely about finding people who are good at isolating and solving problems, and surprisingly little specific platform knowledge is needed going in (my first sysadmin job way back in 1999 involved managing a 24-node sendmail cluster sending cough cough totally legitimate email to large numbers of people. My supervisor handed me the Bat Book and said "you'll probably need this. Have fun.").
Ah yes, 1999, when to paraphrase Jason Calahanis in that one documentary "You'd get hired as an engineer for owning a keyboard and knowing how to type".
That's a pretty helpful process though. Otherwise you have customers and account managers screaming at you to fix things through email/voice. I've gotten a few of those and the sense of urgency was a nice break, but I'd die from stress if I couldn't firewall that communication with a ticket system.
But they don't let you work on new features? That sucks :(
But they don't let you work on new features? That sucks :(
> repetition takes the fun out of anything.
I get where you're coming from, but this statement is easily disproven with any example of anybody who enjoys any repetitive task.
I think the difference between painful and tolerable (or even fun!) repetition is context and measurement. You need to know why you're doing what you're doing, how it matters, how it helps.
I remember reading in 'Made To Stick' about this famous cookhouse in Iraq, where the chef felt that him and his crew weren't merely responsible for providing rations, but for the morale of the troops. To them, their repetitive work had meaning.
Repetition can also be fun when you get better at what you're doing. Look up videos on YouTube of folks in India making prata– they add all sorts of styles and flourish to their mundane tasks, and they clearly take a lot of pride in being so good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egltg4kW06Q
I get where you're coming from, but this statement is easily disproven with any example of anybody who enjoys any repetitive task.
I think the difference between painful and tolerable (or even fun!) repetition is context and measurement. You need to know why you're doing what you're doing, how it matters, how it helps.
I remember reading in 'Made To Stick' about this famous cookhouse in Iraq, where the chef felt that him and his crew weren't merely responsible for providing rations, but for the morale of the troops. To them, their repetitive work had meaning.
Repetition can also be fun when you get better at what you're doing. Look up videos on YouTube of folks in India making prata– they add all sorts of styles and flourish to their mundane tasks, and they clearly take a lot of pride in being so good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egltg4kW06Q
Tons of games are repetitive. All that free to play stuff. MMOs. Old arcade games.
Tons of games have super tight "gameplay loops". Super meat boy - try, die, repeat right away until you win. Over and over and over again. Every level is just a variation of something before it.
I don't think people dislike repetition at all. People repeat stuff all the time and like it. So there must be something else going on.
Tons of games have super tight "gameplay loops". Super meat boy - try, die, repeat right away until you win. Over and over and over again. Every level is just a variation of something before it.
I don't think people dislike repetition at all. People repeat stuff all the time and like it. So there must be something else going on.
Attitudes and beliefs seem to have a tendency to be self-fulfilling to a point. So of course making work fun is going to be hopeless if you've made up your mind already that most of it can't be fun.
Your Protestant work ethic is showing.
Jane McGonigal's book on gamification, Reality is Broken, includes quite a bit of detail about this similarity between work and games. The basic idea is that humans enjoy work if certain conditions are met, and games are designed to meet these conditions. She defines a game as having four elements:
On the flip side, the Black Mirror episode "Fifteen Million Credits" features a dystopia in which most people spend their entire lives generating electricity by peddling on stationary bicycles to earn credits they can use to outfit a virtual persona. Let's hope that's not the logical conclusion of Farmville!
* Goals to be achieved that give the player a sense of purpose.
* Rules that limit how the player can achieve said goals.
* Feedback on the player's progress towards the goals the proves them to be attainable and motivates the player.
* Voluntary participation by players aware of the rules and goals.
On the flip side, the Black Mirror episode "Fifteen Million Credits" features a dystopia in which most people spend their entire lives generating electricity by peddling on stationary bicycles to earn credits they can use to outfit a virtual persona. Let's hope that's not the logical conclusion of Farmville!
The point made in that book that stuck with me ever since I first read it is this (I think she was quoting someone else):
The opposite of play is not work; it's depression.
I think the key thing people do wrong through, is to take work and try to make it more like play by adding in superficial 'game mechanics' like achievements.
Visual Studio had this for a while, and it had things like "use the debugger 100 times" or something like that. This is not how you make work into play. Those achievements are meaningless. Worse, they could provide incentive for using visual studio poorly.
For a really deep look at how games can be used to improve real world tasks, I recommend the works of [James Gee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Paul_Gee).
The opposite of play is not work; it's depression.
I think the key thing people do wrong through, is to take work and try to make it more like play by adding in superficial 'game mechanics' like achievements.
Visual Studio had this for a while, and it had things like "use the debugger 100 times" or something like that. This is not how you make work into play. Those achievements are meaningless. Worse, they could provide incentive for using visual studio poorly.
For a really deep look at how games can be used to improve real world tasks, I recommend the works of [James Gee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Paul_Gee).
I'm pretty sure this is a rephrasing of a much older, well known principle in psychology (they cover it in undergrad), that work satisfaction is a function of: autonomy, feedback and variety.
In other words: people want to control how they do work, and feel they have some flexibility. They want to recieve prompt feedback so they understand when they're doing well or badly. And they want to encounter a variety of challenges.
Gamification is just building a tight feedback loop and providing sufficient variety. Autonomy is much harder to automate, because it seems to be the opposite of building an 'on-rails' experience guaranteed to please someone.
In other words: people want to control how they do work, and feel they have some flexibility. They want to recieve prompt feedback so they understand when they're doing well or badly. And they want to encounter a variety of challenges.
Gamification is just building a tight feedback loop and providing sufficient variety. Autonomy is much harder to automate, because it seems to be the opposite of building an 'on-rails' experience guaranteed to please someone.
You say dystopia, I say a solution for obesity, :p
Because in games accomplishment is often easier than in real life, maybe because it's more structured and well defined, maybe just because each accomplishment happens faster. We then probably get some kind of chemical hit from accomplishing things, which doesn't discriminate very well based on the importance of the thing we accomplished.
Exactly - the rewards are relatively assured. When I used to play Eve there was a lot of tedious work in terms of resource management and repetitive tasks like heading off to shoot pirates or whatever, but as you fulfilled your goals you got new toys to play with and more choices became available. In many real jobs you master some task and you *might get a pat on the back or a promotion, but you might just as easily get stuck with more of the same or have a bunch of extra demands laid on you - especially true in low-wage jobs, which tend to be the least rewarding/interesting ones.
Exactly, it is a game version of 'work' and it is designed strictly for your enjoyment and tuned to the psychology that brings those rewards.
Work in a game and real-life can be fun if you are accomplishing things and moving in a general progression direction with some success.
In the real world, you can accomplish things and move sideways or backdrift based on many other factors than what you put in as work or capital, in other words, not as fun all the time and not really specifically tuned as a game design for fun.
Work in a game and real-life can be fun if you are accomplishing things and moving in a general progression direction with some success.
In the real world, you can accomplish things and move sideways or backdrift based on many other factors than what you put in as work or capital, in other words, not as fun all the time and not really specifically tuned as a game design for fun.
Yeah, in work games you can actually get some work done. Without all the administrative overhead and hassle.
And also: No meetings.
And also: No meetings.
The reward you get from a (well designed) game is both nearly immediate and directly related to the work you put into it. Additionally there is just enough randomness to create realism but critically not so much as to create the feeling of unfairness.
Compensation from work is much more distantly related to performance. A salaried or hourly person gets the same pay per time period regardless of being more productive than average or not.
Additionally that compensation is money which as at least one step removed from the actual reward.
And sometimes that reward is using the money to buy time off which is apparently a contradiction and requires complex understanding to justify the whole point of work. Games don't have profound contradictions in this category.
Also work compensation is sometime unfair paying inept or unproductive people who are good at office politics. Games obviously can't be unfair in this way.
Sometimes the rewards are immensely remote such as retirement. Game rewards often occur within seconds or at most hours.
Some rewards are just avoiding improbable miseries such as paying for an illness (if you have the misfortune to live in a society where this is a worry). Disasters in games are always no only unbelievable or impersonal but often humors eg minecraft's creeper or sim city's flood. No popular game has you grinding hard to save money just in case you become unemployable due to depression or cancer.
Compensation from work is much more distantly related to performance. A salaried or hourly person gets the same pay per time period regardless of being more productive than average or not.
Additionally that compensation is money which as at least one step removed from the actual reward.
And sometimes that reward is using the money to buy time off which is apparently a contradiction and requires complex understanding to justify the whole point of work. Games don't have profound contradictions in this category.
Also work compensation is sometime unfair paying inept or unproductive people who are good at office politics. Games obviously can't be unfair in this way.
Sometimes the rewards are immensely remote such as retirement. Game rewards often occur within seconds or at most hours.
Some rewards are just avoiding improbable miseries such as paying for an illness (if you have the misfortune to live in a society where this is a worry). Disasters in games are always no only unbelievable or impersonal but often humors eg minecraft's creeper or sim city's flood. No popular game has you grinding hard to save money just in case you become unemployable due to depression or cancer.
For many, we do what we do for work because it's what we would do anyway for free if we could. We get paid for that work because of all the irritating crap that is a real and largely unavoidable part of doing what we live to do for real. I love programming, and would do it for free if I could; what I get paid for is sitting here past midnight waiting for remote systems to validate an app submission while I try to get three packages to work well together when they inexplicably decide not to because an update to one suddenly has an aversion to seeing "#!" in another's file, and circumstances require I fix it right now regardless of the hour.
We play "labor games" for fun because they are the idealistic of what we really want to do but without that irritating intrusion of reality.
We play "labor games" for fun because they are the idealistic of what we really want to do but without that irritating intrusion of reality.
Is that strange to some people? For me it's not strange at all. I'd love to do my job, after work hours, as a game. The good thing about games is that it is clear who wants something from you (you can name the NPC who gave you the quest), the result is clear, sometimes even the path to the result is clear, and success is rewarded(!!!!).
In contrast in real life it is hard to find out who actually wants the result you are just tasked to do, nobody knows how it should look like in the end and everybody has complains about the result no matter how it looks. That's why work feels like work and the same thing as a game feels good.
In contrast in real life it is hard to find out who actually wants the result you are just tasked to do, nobody knows how it should look like in the end and everybody has complains about the result no matter how it looks. That's why work feels like work and the same thing as a game feels good.
You guys ever heard of desert bus? Actual game. Possibly the most realistic "work" game ever made.
"The goal of Desert Bus was to, quite simply, drive a bus from Tucson, Arizona to Las Vegas, Nevada; a very very boring drive, as those of us who have done it know. There were a couple catches, though: in the game, your bus could not go over 45 miles per hour. Also, it veered to the right, just ever so slightly, so you could not simply tape down the accelerator button on your Genesis pad and leave the game alone; you had to man the wheel at all times. Oh, and did we mention the trip takes eight hours, in real time?"
“You saw nothing. It was just desert stuff going by, And there was a little green tree hanging from the rear-view mirror, one of those things that makes your car smell better? And it would just kind of drift in slowly to one corner of the screen. And you couldn’t take your hands off the controller, and if you did…it didn’t have a spectacular crash, it just slowly went into the sand, and then overheated and stopped, and then the game was you being towed backwards all the way back to Tucson.”
“And when you went from Tucson to Vegas and did the full 8 hours, you had bus stops, and the bus stops…you could stop and open the door, but no one got on. No one’s ever waiting for you. And if you went by them you weren’t punished at all, because nobody was there. It meant nothing. And a bug hit your windshield five times during the eight hours, and that was the only animation. It was just road after road after road. Eight hours of desert bus. And then when you got in - and I love this - when you got into Vegas and pulled in and stopped, the counter - which was five zeros - went to 1. You got 1 point for an eight hour shift, and then a guy came in and said, ‘Do you want to pull a double shift, Mac?’ And then you could drive back to Tucson for another eight hours for another point.”
"The goal of Desert Bus was to, quite simply, drive a bus from Tucson, Arizona to Las Vegas, Nevada; a very very boring drive, as those of us who have done it know. There were a couple catches, though: in the game, your bus could not go over 45 miles per hour. Also, it veered to the right, just ever so slightly, so you could not simply tape down the accelerator button on your Genesis pad and leave the game alone; you had to man the wheel at all times. Oh, and did we mention the trip takes eight hours, in real time?"
“You saw nothing. It was just desert stuff going by, And there was a little green tree hanging from the rear-view mirror, one of those things that makes your car smell better? And it would just kind of drift in slowly to one corner of the screen. And you couldn’t take your hands off the controller, and if you did…it didn’t have a spectacular crash, it just slowly went into the sand, and then overheated and stopped, and then the game was you being towed backwards all the way back to Tucson.”
“And when you went from Tucson to Vegas and did the full 8 hours, you had bus stops, and the bus stops…you could stop and open the door, but no one got on. No one’s ever waiting for you. And if you went by them you weren’t punished at all, because nobody was there. It meant nothing. And a bug hit your windshield five times during the eight hours, and that was the only animation. It was just road after road after road. Eight hours of desert bus. And then when you got in - and I love this - when you got into Vegas and pulled in and stopped, the counter - which was five zeros - went to 1. You got 1 point for an eight hour shift, and then a guy came in and said, ‘Do you want to pull a double shift, Mac?’ And then you could drive back to Tucson for another eight hours for another point.”
Desert Bus is kind of an exception because it was intended as a joke from Penn & Teller, mocking the argument that games need to be realistic.
But if you want to see people suffer through that game for a whole week 24h/24, come watch the yearly "Desert Bus for Hope" charity marathon in November: http://desertbus.org/about/ :-)
But if you want to see people suffer through that game for a whole week 24h/24, come watch the yearly "Desert Bus for Hope" charity marathon in November: http://desertbus.org/about/ :-)
I think it's not that these games simulate work per say. These games mostly try to simulate accomplishment while offering a minimal amount of work.
Desert Bus illustrates what happens when the accomplishment is 1 point, and the work is 8 hours.
Desert Bus illustrates what happens when the accomplishment is 1 point, and the work is 8 hours.
Just for the record, Desert Bus is a joke (mini-)game included in unreleased Penn & Teller "trick" collection
I've recently noticed that roguelikes, more than any other kind of game I play, give me the most satisfaction and pleasure. In particular, games like FTL and Nethack promote decision-making and improvisation - making the most out of what the game throws at you, taking stock of what's available and trying to prepare for future encounters in creative ways.
I find this parallels quite well with my day-to-day software development job, although playing these games remove a lot of the mundane tasks of actual employment (meetings, repetitive tasks, reliance on others, communication issues etc). Both of these involve solving varied problems in different ways, though.
I concluded that I was simply doing what I enjoy, creative problem solving, and that I was just lucky enough to do what I intrinsically enjoyed for a living. I didn't think that my choice of leisure-activity was influenced by society's apparent changing view of free-time as "potential work time".
I find this parallels quite well with my day-to-day software development job, although playing these games remove a lot of the mundane tasks of actual employment (meetings, repetitive tasks, reliance on others, communication issues etc). Both of these involve solving varied problems in different ways, though.
I concluded that I was simply doing what I enjoy, creative problem solving, and that I was just lucky enough to do what I intrinsically enjoyed for a living. I didn't think that my choice of leisure-activity was influenced by society's apparent changing view of free-time as "potential work time".
Also in the randomly-generated area (which i wish they would do a port to current consoles) was "Spelunky" - super challenging and randomly generated levels too.
All being said, I miss the grand era of 80s/90s 2D greatly.
All being said, I miss the grand era of 80s/90s 2D greatly.
You can get that game on Playstation 4 at least https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelunky.
That game looks amazing, but I've been waiting for a linux port. I don't think I'll be holding my breath though. If I get a Playstation 4 I'll instantly buy it.
That game looks amazing, but I've been waiting for a linux port. I don't think I'll be holding my breath though. If I get a Playstation 4 I'll instantly buy it.
I saw a joke who says that the most real life game was tetris because as in real life, no matter how much we work, always comes a new task faster and faster until we die.
"Tetris is a life lesson: your mistakes pile up and your accomplishments disappear."
Wow. I knew the game was Russian, but that is _so_ Russian.
But why? Because of the Dostoevsky leitmotif?
[deleted]
The DFW quote is from the following Harper's article: http://harpers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/HarpersMagazin...
A vacation is a respite from unpleasantness, and since
consciousness of death and decay are unpleasant, it may
seem weird that the ultimate American fantasy vacation
involves being plunked down in an enormous primordial
stew of death and decay. But on a 7NC Luxury Cruise, we
are skillfully enabled in the construction of various
fantasies of triumph over just this death and decay. One
way to 'triumph' is via the rigors of self-improvement
(diet, exercise, cosmetic surgery, Franklin Quest time-
management seminars), to which the crew's amphetaminic
upkeep of the [ship] is an unsubtle analogue. But
there's another way out, too: not titivation but
titillation; not hard work but hard play.Does the author assume everyone's aware of David Graeber Utopia of Rules? Because he didn't seem to cite Graeber, and yet clearly the arguments and style have obvious similarities. (http://boingboing.net/2015/02/02/david-graebers-the-utopia-o...)
He didn't cite http://theoryoffun.com/ either.
Thank you, don't recall seeing that before!
I was talking to my psychiatrist recently. I was making the point that I can't manage to follow the rules I'm being given, that in general the rules of civilization are made up and don't make sense.
She kinda made the argument that if I wanted to progress in life I could follow the rules (work to get this degree), and that it should stimulate me as much as diablo 3. It's true that in both cases, there are rules. Except I thought that life/society/civilization is not really a game. Maybe if you want to improve the economy, you can use bits of game theory to reduce the cost of regulation and corruption, but I doubt that it's sane to imply that all real life is like a game. Maybe I should try to play by the rules, but it would be very tempting to cheat, that's one reason to avoid playing, to avoid the temptation of playing.
In video games the rules make sense, but in society it rarely does. Social stratification, social disintegration, my unemployment, etc.
I don't think video games are much simpler, or that simplicity has something to do with it. But the rules never contradict themselves. There can be games with rules that are pretty complex too, and those games are much more interesting because there is a logic to it.
Maybe an interesting game concept would be to make a game more realistic by introducing more contradictions inside it. Pollute the environment, increase poverty, deal drugs, corrupt politicians, etc, adding a "some people just like to see the world burn" aspect to it. GTA is already a little like that, except I don't see it going all the way through.
She kinda made the argument that if I wanted to progress in life I could follow the rules (work to get this degree), and that it should stimulate me as much as diablo 3. It's true that in both cases, there are rules. Except I thought that life/society/civilization is not really a game. Maybe if you want to improve the economy, you can use bits of game theory to reduce the cost of regulation and corruption, but I doubt that it's sane to imply that all real life is like a game. Maybe I should try to play by the rules, but it would be very tempting to cheat, that's one reason to avoid playing, to avoid the temptation of playing.
In video games the rules make sense, but in society it rarely does. Social stratification, social disintegration, my unemployment, etc.
I don't think video games are much simpler, or that simplicity has something to do with it. But the rules never contradict themselves. There can be games with rules that are pretty complex too, and those games are much more interesting because there is a logic to it.
Maybe an interesting game concept would be to make a game more realistic by introducing more contradictions inside it. Pollute the environment, increase poverty, deal drugs, corrupt politicians, etc, adding a "some people just like to see the world burn" aspect to it. GTA is already a little like that, except I don't see it going all the way through.
asanagi got flag killed, probably for too many "trigger words" but the idea, expressed, phrased somewhat more politely, is people will lie to gain control and power and one thing to lie about is the rules. (edited to add and the most important rule to lie about is that "nobody is taught lies about the rules")
So the bigger and more complicated a culture is (you know, like ours?), the more likely the rules as taught are lies vs the rules as how the world actually works.
So unsurprisingly following the rules as taught isn't going to work very well for everyone. The folks who want to maintain control can fight that little problem by all manner of social engineering. Let people vote, but only between irrelevant decisions never the important stuff. Guilt trips. Threats (see religion and eternal damnation for all heretics). Anecdotal examples in the place of actual societal trends (the token xyz in a group, etc). Good ole fashioned bread and circuses, ya see the baseball game last night and how bout that game of thrones episode?
So the bigger and more complicated a culture is (you know, like ours?), the more likely the rules as taught are lies vs the rules as how the world actually works.
So unsurprisingly following the rules as taught isn't going to work very well for everyone. The folks who want to maintain control can fight that little problem by all manner of social engineering. Let people vote, but only between irrelevant decisions never the important stuff. Guilt trips. Threats (see religion and eternal damnation for all heretics). Anecdotal examples in the place of actual societal trends (the token xyz in a group, etc). Good ole fashioned bread and circuses, ya see the baseball game last night and how bout that game of thrones episode?
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/may/05/is-bein... Maybe somewhat related.
Video games offer a certainty of outcome you can't get in the real world. If you do X and Y, you'll get reward Z. X and Y might be difficult or tedious to do, but you know that Z is there around the corner.
Work often has situations where the outcome is much less certain. We have a problem we don't know how to solve so we need to try various possibilities. This can be fun if there is room for experimentation and we can try some things that fail without failing overall, but in situations with tight deadlines and uncertain outcomes, where you have a limited chance to attempt something and you don't know whether it will work, this is a recipe for stress.
Work often has situations where the outcome is much less certain. We have a problem we don't know how to solve so we need to try various possibilities. This can be fun if there is room for experimentation and we can try some things that fail without failing overall, but in situations with tight deadlines and uncertain outcomes, where you have a limited chance to attempt something and you don't know whether it will work, this is a recipe for stress.
- You can stop playing any time you want, but at work you're bound by standard hours.
- You need to work to make money to buy food to eat. That introduces unavoidable stress into your work in the form that you know, if you don't work well enough, you'll get fired and then you'll starve. Or get your power cut. Or be kicked out of your house.
- You can always start again, no matter how badly you mess up. In a lot of workplaces, if you mess up a couple of times, you're fired and you can't try again.
In short, real work is less like Farming Simulator 2013 and more like nethack, but you only have one life.
- You need to work to make money to buy food to eat. That introduces unavoidable stress into your work in the form that you know, if you don't work well enough, you'll get fired and then you'll starve. Or get your power cut. Or be kicked out of your house.
- You can always start again, no matter how badly you mess up. In a lot of workplaces, if you mess up a couple of times, you're fired and you can't try again.
In short, real work is less like Farming Simulator 2013 and more like nethack, but you only have one life.
I'm gonna make a game where you are an unemployed single mother, doing job interviews and cutting coupons. I'm gonna be rich!
>a game where you are an unemployed single mother, doing job interviews and cutting coupons
Sounds a bit like Melanie Emberly from the indie game "Cart Life" (2013).
>A recent divorcee who had to quit her job at her office as a result. Now, Melanie runs a Coffee Hut. Her goal is to amass a sum of one thousand dollars in sales by custody hearing on Monday whilst taking care of her daughter, Laura.
Sounds a bit like Melanie Emberly from the indie game "Cart Life" (2013).
>A recent divorcee who had to quit her job at her office as a result. Now, Melanie runs a Coffee Hut. Her goal is to amass a sum of one thousand dollars in sales by custody hearing on Monday whilst taking care of her daughter, Laura.
I see two obvious reasons - freedom of choice and having a stake in the outcome. Video games give the player total control over the outcome within the rules of the system. In my experience, workplaces typically define too many constraints and give the player very limited power over the process and next to zero share in the outcome.
Dovetails with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9492110
Why do backbreaking labor outside when one can sit comfortably in a cool office staring at a screen? Because meaningful labor is invigorating, even in simulation.
Why do backbreaking labor outside when one can sit comfortably in a cool office staring at a screen? Because meaningful labor is invigorating, even in simulation.
Yes. I have often surprised myself with how much I enjoy seemingly menial things like cleaning my windows and restringing my guitars, once I get over the initial pain of starting. Making a real difference to yourself, your living environment, your context, your peers, etc– can be incredibly rewarding.
The equivalent at work would be when you can see a very clear relationship between your actions and the benefit your actions have on your customers and the rest of your team.
The equivalent at work would be when you can see a very clear relationship between your actions and the benefit your actions have on your customers and the rest of your team.
[deleted]
Implicit in all of this is a belief that true happiness is found in some kind of luxurious aristocratic passivity of nothing but rest, relaxation and comfort. That's great, if it suits you, but some of us need a bit more stimulation in life.
The author also twists Adorno. Immediately before the quoted sentence ("the contraband of modes of behaviour proper in the domain of work… is being smuggled into the realm of free time"), Adorno says "free time must not resemble work in any way whatsoever, in order, presumably that one can work all the more effectively afterwards." Obviously work simulators try to very closely resemble work, and they don't try to hide this fact at all—no contraband smuggling here! That was written 50 years ago, maybe things have changed.
The author also twists Adorno. Immediately before the quoted sentence ("the contraband of modes of behaviour proper in the domain of work… is being smuggled into the realm of free time"), Adorno says "free time must not resemble work in any way whatsoever, in order, presumably that one can work all the more effectively afterwards." Obviously work simulators try to very closely resemble work, and they don't try to hide this fact at all—no contraband smuggling here! That was written 50 years ago, maybe things have changed.
I love programming. I find it to be a fun and enjoyable activity. However, when I have to do something, sometimes its not fun, but then if, later, I do the exact same thing when I want to, its fun again.
I think its the same thing with games - some games I play do feel like work, but I still enjoy them and I think the reason is because I choose to play when I want to. If I were told "you have to play this game now", then I'd probably hate it, but if I can decide for myself, then I enjoy it. Which games I would choose to play in a given moment depends on the mood I'm in.
I think its the same thing with games - some games I play do feel like work, but I still enjoy them and I think the reason is because I choose to play when I want to. If I were told "you have to play this game now", then I'd probably hate it, but if I can decide for myself, then I enjoy it. Which games I would choose to play in a given moment depends on the mood I'm in.
[deleted]
My room mate plays DoTA for 6 - 7 hours a day AFTER work. Now that has to be tiring but he does it everyday.
I'm amazed at this level of obsession and dedication. If we could figure out how to turn this on or off for learning to code or figuring out math then everyone could do wonders.
I'm amazed at this level of obsession and dedication. If we could figure out how to turn this on or off for learning to code or figuring out math then everyone could do wonders.
I think I have some degree of autism but I thought one of the most enjoyable parts of Shenmue was when you work as a forklift driver at the docks. Driving around moving crates was pretty zen and it got me thinking a lot. Very soothing.
There are all sorts of real life "arrange things" tasks that can be really soothing, too. You may enjoy http://thingsorganizedneatly.tumblr.com/
The reward were the after-work forklift races. Lol, spending that 15 minutes moving those crates from one place to another was torture. Good game though
You want work in a game? Try 7 days To Die. Clear a newly found town of 50 to 100 zombies so you can maybe find a can of dog food in one of the cupboards. That's work and it's fun and I have no idea why.
Killing zombies is always its own reward. :-) I guess they represent the perfect "Other", you can completely hate them and enjoy killing them without feeling any remorse or doubt.
Searched for "Eve Online" on the article page... was disappointed.
I agree. Anyone that wants to peer into the equivalence of work with video games that does not peer into the culture Eve Online has developed is missing a core part of the research, in my opinion.
There is the literal "spreadsheets online" part of the "gameplay". I used to be one of them. I literally spent hours pouring over resource numbers and timing, and that's not even touching the in-game market that has complexities of the same magnitude as the real-world market.
Then there is the "millionaire-turned-retired" myth persistent throughout the in-game culture. It was cited as a ha-ha-only-serious joke for whoever seemed to dump a ton of money-for-ISK into the game, but if there is a kernel of truth in humor then that is something that could always be more fleshed out.
Then, of course, the entire premise of the game is built on top of the simple mechanic "when you get blown up, you lose everything with you". Loss is very real and requires real work to keep and maintain your in-game status quo. Whether it is having good allies or finding a less-crowded corner of the universe.
Very many missed opportunities indeed.
There is the literal "spreadsheets online" part of the "gameplay". I used to be one of them. I literally spent hours pouring over resource numbers and timing, and that's not even touching the in-game market that has complexities of the same magnitude as the real-world market.
Then there is the "millionaire-turned-retired" myth persistent throughout the in-game culture. It was cited as a ha-ha-only-serious joke for whoever seemed to dump a ton of money-for-ISK into the game, but if there is a kernel of truth in humor then that is something that could always be more fleshed out.
Then, of course, the entire premise of the game is built on top of the simple mechanic "when you get blown up, you lose everything with you". Loss is very real and requires real work to keep and maintain your in-game status quo. Whether it is having good allies or finding a less-crowded corner of the universe.
Very many missed opportunities indeed.
accomplishment.
plus in many cases it simply gives many something to do. never underestimate the number of people who have nothing to do and need an outlet
its not much work if your not bored anymore
plus in many cases it simply gives many something to do. never underestimate the number of people who have nothing to do and need an outlet
its not much work if your not bored anymore
> never underestimate the number of people who have nothing to do and need an outlet
The interesting thing is that people always have an endless amount of things to do.
The problem is that we're usually really VAGUE about what we need to do. And vague todos don't get done a little bit less, or a little bit slower– they don't get done at all! This is pretty counterintuitive.
I have a bookshelf of unread books, and an endless list of work, but it's easier to play a game (or reply to a HN comment!) because the task at hand is much more straightforward. Type, hit reply, get the dopamine.
With the books, or with work, I have to pick something, decide what I want to do, decisions, decisions, decisions. Great video games lay out the decisions for you in a very clear "jump this gap", "pick up that weapon", "shoot that guy" sorta way.
Real life is messier, and so we procrastinate more. The feedback is less immediate and clear (unless we deliberately design it to be so.)
The interesting thing is that people always have an endless amount of things to do.
The problem is that we're usually really VAGUE about what we need to do. And vague todos don't get done a little bit less, or a little bit slower– they don't get done at all! This is pretty counterintuitive.
I have a bookshelf of unread books, and an endless list of work, but it's easier to play a game (or reply to a HN comment!) because the task at hand is much more straightforward. Type, hit reply, get the dopamine.
With the books, or with work, I have to pick something, decide what I want to do, decisions, decisions, decisions. Great video games lay out the decisions for you in a very clear "jump this gap", "pick up that weapon", "shoot that guy" sorta way.
Real life is messier, and so we procrastinate more. The feedback is less immediate and clear (unless we deliberately design it to be so.)
[deleted]
Games are based on simplified models and train us to do useful work.
So we like to play, because it improves our skills.
So we like to play, because it improves our skills.
The beauty of psychology, behavior and game-mechanics!
goat simulator.
I'm several paragraphs in and there is no sign of deep insight. "In simulators, work is efficient, productive, and fun; it is goal oriented, quantifiable, and successful; the player can always win." No kidding. We're on the second page the story already. Time to tell me something I don't already know.
In other words, work sucks primarily because it has been made to suck by a combination of extremely expensive real-estate in a down-town office and inattention toward the subject of how to make work fun.
The article calls this "the realities of work" and that the inherent difficulties and uncertainties are natural to the problems of the "real world" and must be accepted. But I beg to differ, there are tons of games that are extremely hard to play well (e.g. Sim City, Devil May Cry, etc.), yet still incredibly fun and addictive. And if you consider online games where interacting with other player can produce just as much uncertainty as real life, games are no less "real" than reality... yet they are fun while real work isn't.
Personally, I think corporations can take a page from video game design and analyze their own employees work flows and design it to be a more fun process.