Are hardcore gamers immature?

[quantumspiral]

@DocWatts You're right- some may be able to handle games better than others. I may be the latter 

[Danioover9000]

@quantumspiral

On 2024-06-20 at 1:53 PM, quantumspiral said:

I'm kind of baffled how some people can sink so many hours into games and remain excited for upcoming releases, year after year.

While I enjoy games, something about sitting there playing them intuitively feels wrong and I end up uninstalling everything. Most likely the feeling I'm wasting my life.

I'm trying to pinpoint the psychological reason that drives people towards hardcore gaming.

If you think they do lack maturity, what exactly about their psychology is it that makes them so?

   Mostly yes, and are victims of addiction and gaslighting by triple A game companies. Sad reality man...

[RightHand]

On 20/06/2024 at 5:29 PM, Leo Gura said:

Of course. It's an eacape, like drugs.

Playing games all day is much more fun than building a life.

 

If you think about it, gaming is a much less efficient way to waste your life compared to watching YouTube shorts or TV series.

You have to buy the game, install it, sit on a chair, and focus to some extent. I would much rather just doom-scroll in my bed for 8 hours if I feel like wasting my day.

There's also a distinction to be made between solo and competitive games. If you have spent 25,000 hours of deliberate practice on a game like League of Legends, there are genuine reasons to keep playing; you have basically instant access to high-level competition. 

[Danioover9000]

@RightHand

5 minutes ago, RightHand said:

 

If you think about it, gaming is a much less efficient way to waste your life compared to watching YouTube shorts or TV series.

You have to buy the game, install it, sit on a chair, and focus to some extent. I would much rather just doom-scroll in my bed for 8 hours if I feel like wasting my day.

There's also a distinction to be made between solo and competitive games. If you have spent 25,000 hours of deliberate practice on a game like League of Legends, there are genuine reasons to keep playing; you have basically instant access to high-level competition. 

   That's fine, but I don't like how they're still immature minded, on average, and are being manipulated by those game companies. It's a slippery slope to me. And I can relate because I am a gamer myself, and love playing games but I don't like what companies do to gamers.

[RightHand]

2 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@RightHand

   That's fine, but I don't like how they're still immature minded, on average, and are being manipulated by those game companies. It's a slippery slope to me. And I can relate because I am a gamer myself, and love playing games but I don't like what companies do to gamers.

There has been a huge backlash against companies that try to exploit the industry. Look at the review bombing of Blizzard and EA games, or even Bethesda with Starfield. It's harder for companies to deceive consumers now. And good games are being celebrated more too, just look at the success of Elden Ring and Baldur's Gate 3.

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, RightHand said:

Look at the review bombing of Blizzard and EA

Review bombing IS peak immaturity.

[RightHand]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Review bombing IS peak immaturity.

I need to contemplate on this. I think that, at least on Steam, you have to buy and play a game for a minimum amount of time before you can review it. So, there is some truth behind those reviews.

[Yimpa]

1 minute ago, RightHand said:

I need to contemplate on this. I think that, at least on Steam, you have to buy and play a game for a minimum amount of time before you can review it. So, there is some truth behind those reviews.

There are people like AVGN who get turned on by playing shitty games

 

[Leo Gura]

There is a big difference between a genuine review and a review bomb.

A mature person would never review bomb a game. Only pissy self-absorbed children do such things.

Edited June 21 by Leo Gura

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

Just now, Leo Gura said:

There is a big differemce between a genuine review and a review bomb.

A mature person would never review bomb a game.

   Yes, that's mostly true! Review bombing is strong sign of immaturity.

[Danioover9000]

@RightHand

4 minutes ago, RightHand said:

I need to contemplate on this. I think that, at least on Steam, you have to buy and play a game for a minimum amount of time before you can review it. So, there is some truth behind those reviews.

   The main problem is is the streaming culture. For example then Switch, kick, even nowadays like YT, Tik Tok and other social media cultures you mostly have immature spoiled brats that follow influencers, and all that para social relationship is toxic, language is toxic, and almost any immature take of an influencer or streamer is cringe AF. Anything streaming should be taken with a truck load of salt...

[RightHand]

I think that if you wanna game in moderation, you should wait for a title that you're really excited about and then degen that mother fucker 12 hours a day for a week. After that, take a break for six months. Playing only 45min a day just isn't it.

[Danioover9000]

   Great example of immaturity, mostly from gamers and some from devs:

 

Edited June 21 by Danioover9000

[numbersinarow]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Review bombing IS peak immaturity.

If a company is responsible of a despicable practice, their ratings on those review sites deserve to be low. Usually, the game isn't good. Maybe someone who would have liked the game will be turned away due to the bad reviews which aren't really genuine but more likely than not that person will hear of the controversy and know that it influenced the reviews.

[Leo Gura]

@numbersinarow Maturity is the ability to not respond to despicable behavior with despicable behavior.

Edited June 22 by Leo Gura

[Danioover9000]

@numbersinarow

On 2024-06-22 at 7:41 AM, numbersinarow said:

If a company is responsible of a despicable practice, their ratings on those review sites deserve to be low. Usually, the game isn't good. Maybe someone who would have liked the game will be turned away due to the bad reviews which aren't really genuine but more likely than not that person will hear of the controversy and know that it influenced the reviews.

   Wait until your game or project gets review bombed, you'll see how immature it is. It's just peak mob mentality being influenced and fanned by influencers and streamers who don't like you for whatever reason, or they just hating on you to hate on you so they encourage their fanbase to review bomb you. Happens a lot nowadays, it's called also targeted harassment and dog piling. 

[numbersinarow]

22 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@numbersinarow

   Wait until your game or project gets review bombed, you'll see how immature it is. It's just peak mob mentality being influenced and fanned by influencers and streamers who don't like you for whatever reason, or they just hating on you to hate on you so they encourage their fanbase to review bomb you. Happens a lot nowadays, it's called also targeted harassment and dog piling. 

Sure, I'll trust you that that kind of thing also happens and I agree that would be bad. But me and the person who brought it up are talking about a scenario where a company is guilty.

I think if someone said "you think this form of punishment is a good thing? wait until it happens to you" wouldn't convince many people in many situations. It's the "mob" doing it in this case but I am not willing to commit a reverse bandwagon fallacy, mobs can collectively realize obviously bad practices and behavior and punish them.

If I was guilty of, let's say, taking away features from players in order to pressure them to buy a cash grab low effort remaster of a game, and I got review-bombed, there are 2 possibilities: either in this scenario I am myself in that situation, in which case I take it like a champ and apologize, thinking that the review-bombers are doing good, or I am someone who would do that kind of thing or encourage others to do it, in which case my consciousness level would probably be such that I would just get offended by the review-bombers and insult them.

[Danioover9000]

@numbersinarow

1 hour ago, numbersinarow said:

Sure, I'll trust you that that kind of thing also happens and I agree that would be bad. But me and the person who brought it up are talking about a scenario where a company is guilty.

I think if someone said "you think this form of punishment is a good thing? wait until it happens to you" wouldn't convince many people in many situations. It's the "mob" doing it in this case but I am not willing to commit a reverse bandwagon fallacy, mobs can collectively realize obviously bad practices and behavior and punish them.

If I was guilty of, let's say, taking away features from players in order to pressure them to buy a cash grab low effort remaster of a game, and I got review-bombed, there are 2 possibilities: either in this scenario I am myself in that situation, in which case I take it like a champ and apologize, thinking that the review-bombers are doing good, or I am someone who would do that kind of thing or encourage others to do it, in which case my consciousness level would probably be such that I would just get offended by the review-bombers and insult them.

   Now you're defending review bombing! Why are you defending the most immature acts online?

[numbersinarow]

3 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@numbersinarow

   Now you're defending review bombing! Why are you defending the most immature acts online?

Is this meant to sound like leo?

[Danioover9000]

@quantumspiral

On 2024-06-21 at 6:14 AM, quantumspiral said:

@DocWatts You're right- some may be able to handle games better than others. I may be the latter 

   Take this video, and series for example:

   Shows IMO the deep epistemic and even metaphysical problems with playing any Civ game, from vanilla, to gods and kings and even in brave new world. Within the context of online play, competitive play in steam online, in the no quitters or lekmod rules of Civ 5, they talk it it really matters having this build order, and deciding which specific tile to settle on, or the first 15 to 50 turns really matters, and other timings. Yet if you zoom out(no pun intended😂) factor in Civilization game series, especially Seig Meiier's first game mainly, not the second one and others as the second one he was overseeing design and left to do other games, another example of problematic marketing, but IMO the second game is when it's the most impactful because that's the first attempt and success of democratizing this game, letting others do open source and use their custom mods for the game. So many variations of the Civ game! And that decision to make it widely public and customizable led to Free Civ and Unciv, my personal favorites besides the originals.

   When I said epistemic problems I meant the following questions:

How do I know which build order is best?

How do I know the right long term strategies going forwards for a culture, science, diplomatic, or domination victoru?

By what standards do I use to assess my failures and successes per turns or say every 10 turns?

   Even smaller scale specific questions like 'Do I settle on a hill or a plains tile?', or 'Do I scout further for a few more turns, or settle right now?' are very interesting questions in the game. It's like a more interesting game about game theory, but with simplified versions of cultures and empires vying for land space and vying for certain victory conditions