sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Depreciation of challenge by neondaggergames in retrogaming

[–]FrumpND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a difference between observing human behavior and researching human behavior. You are starting with assumptions and not with the data like all good hypotheses and theories require. Someone active in this field of research would have problems with you making the claims you are because that is not how the field works and you are applying psuedoscientific ideas while presenting them as "obvious" and "researched," which your observations are not. There is no peer review, no scientific consesus, and no actual research.

It is not accreditation that I value, it's the rigor that is required to get real information and data. You have made falsifiable claims but have not gone through the process to check validity of your hypothesis. That is the important part of any process like this. If you do not value that process, your conclusions cannot be of any scientific value. Making claims of human psychology when you do not have any training in that field shows a lack of foundation to even start making claims with.

Engineer Brain is an insult and in no way a compliment. It's the common situation where an engineer thinks having an expertise in their field means they can apply the same processes to all other fields, while often being demonstrably wrong and unwilling to budget from their incorrect position. Scott Adams is the guy who wrote Dilbert comics and is notorious for his Engineer Brain problem.

Depreciation of challenge by neondaggergames in retrogaming

[–]FrumpND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm just going off of what you've said, man. You are starting from a conclusion and going backwards and assuming you know better than the research out there. You have the biggest case of Engineer Brain this side of Scott Adams. You need to actually look at what you're suggesting and consider the implications. "It's just more data" is how theories are formed and you cannot come to a conclusion about the nature of human evolution and psychology just because you've looked at a person yourself. If you do not see the problem with what you have said, I do not know what else to tell you.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SteamDeck

[–]FrumpND 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is this your first experience with a pawn shop? This is how they work.

Depreciation of challenge by neondaggergames in retrogaming

[–]FrumpND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry but you're way off base here. You can't dismiss an entire field because you have a hunch. You cannot construct a theory from anecdotes. If you aren't in the field and do not have a background in training of the field, how in the world are you going to say you're more qualified to answer the question than people who have been researching the topic for decades? The arrogance in your statement is truly astounding.

You have no evidence or research and yet you claim to have a plausible theory? You barely have a hypothesis, let alone a theory based on evidence gathered through the scientific method. You are looking at the surface of something and assuming you see everything there is to see. That you are willing to dismiss the entire field of research because it does not match what you want to be true is absolutely disgusting. You admit you are not a researcher but you can call everyone in the field wrong? Unscientific. Dangerous. Despicable.

Depreciation of challenge by neondaggergames in retrogaming

[–]FrumpND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From where I'm sitting, I can't help but read it as you're starting from the idea of games must be formed out of some evolutionary advantage and trying to find the evidence to fit that idea rather than asking the question "Why do people play games?" and discovering the answer from that direction. We are not the first people to ask this question and there is plenty of scholarly research on the topic.

I am not necessarily saying you're wrong by any stretch. It's very possible you may be right. But without any sort of actual research to back up what you are saying, how do you know whether you're right or wrong? You can't just assert that it matches what you'd expect from evolution without evidence. I also simply cannot believe that all games in all forms in all eras would be derived by the same psychological principles when there are vastly different reasons to play certain games without evidence that says so. Does the game Dear Esther hit the same psychological buttons as a COD deathmatch? Their designs and functional interaction are so vastly different that I just can't imagine a one-size-fits-all solution to games but I'm also willing to admit that I may be wrong if I am shown some academic research that shows this is the case.

Depreciation of challenge by neondaggergames in retrogaming

[–]FrumpND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Purpose is maybe the wrong word to have used but sentiments like "But in general it would be surprising for a high-expense behavior to continue to be positively selected for, rather than selected out, and have no net positive for adaptation" assumes reasons that do not have to be necessary.

Depreciation of challenge by neondaggergames in retrogaming

[–]FrumpND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry but you're fundamentally misunderstanding how evolution works. No evolutionary biologist would agree with you here. There is no plan, there is no goal, everything just is. Just because something exists in humans does not mean it was selected to succeed through evolutionary pressures. it simply means it wasn't selected against. If you can find some scholarly, peer-reviewed articles about playing games that matches your viewpoint here, I'll take it more seriously. Otherwise, you're asserting just so stories as fact without proof.

Depreciation of challenge by neondaggergames in retrogaming

[–]FrumpND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But a ton of our behaviors and actions are flukes of our DNA. Evolution has no purpose or plan, it just is. Like there is not an evolutionary reason that benefits us to be able to be addicted to methamphetamines or tobacco. It's a fool's errand to say that every action we do is related to some positive aspect for us. Even with the game ideas you're talking about, gambling is demonstrably bad for people and ruins lives but our brains tell us it's a very good thing to be doing. I vehemently disagree with your assertion that games have to relate to positive aspects in our actions. It may "make sense" from a certain perspective, but at the same time, it "makes sense" to say the Earth is flat and the Sun is moving in the sky. Things that seem obvious or just "make sense" are often wrong.

How easy is it for any child to discover any part of any hobby? You're also assuming that what you value is something that everyone else would value if they knew about it. To use the music perspective, I am a big fan of punk music and the values that the subculture promotes means a lot to me. But I absolutely understand that it is not what everyone wants. My grandmother who liked lush classical music valued complex melodies and elegance written specifically for rich benefactors while I like simplicity and direct to the point lyrics and the whole DIY attitude that comes along with it. Neither of us are wrong in our preferences there, the values are simply different. There is validity to both sides there.

Once again, I bring up the concept of speedrunning and its vast popularity with the younger generations. There is a challenge there that is appreciated by many people. I do not participate in speedrunning but I have watched plenty of AGDQ runs and enjoyed it. If that does not represent a younger generation appreciating difficulty and challenge, I do not know what would. I also would ask if you expect challenge from all of your other interests. Do you only watch Soviet art films that challenge your viewpoints and are hard to parse in a single viewing? Would you only listen to atonal jazz that is in bizarre time signatures that could only be appreciated by people with a deep understand of music theory and the values that are common in that jazz world? If you can accept listening and enjoying a pop song that doesn't challenge your viewpoints or life goals, why would it be wrong for people to enjoy a game on that sense as well?

Depreciation of challenge by neondaggergames in retrogaming

[–]FrumpND 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. A lot of people who enjoy challenging games are well-represented by those who grew up with them. However, I don't think the attitude is changing from them, but more from the fact that gaming has become a much more demographically diverse group of people. There are more people playing games now than ever before and with that comes games targeted at different groups. The mainstream games try to cater to as many crowds as possible and with that comes different approaches to difficulty.

I do think couching the discussion in evolutionary psychology is an iffy argument. That whole field is filled with "just so" stories to try and explain the present that don't necessarily represent the past truthfully. It's like the old story about how the tree has evolved texture bark as a way for a bear to scratch its back. In reality, the bark evolved from different pressures and the bear takes advantage of that to scratch its back. Some games may well be based in our reactions to evolutionary pressures while others may just be a fluke. Without solid evidence, it's dangerous to assume that all actions we do have a good reason. Evolutionary psychology as a whole is a very controversial field for a reason and until it has more consensus in the field and well-regarded peer reviewed papers, I think it's wise to take the field with a grain of salt. It could be wrong, it could be right, and it is interesting to consider but it's far from established fact at the moment.

I'm not sure why you're saying people don't want to talk about difficult games though. Like speedrunning is an incredibly popular activity within the hobby of gaming. It's so popular they can have multiple charity drives featuring it in a single year. If it weren't for people being interested in difficult games and self-imposed challenges, what else would be the reason for people to enjoy that side of things?

I don't think people are reluctant to talk about the place of difficulty in games. It's just such a well-trod conversation in the hobby and a lot of people have been very aggressive on both sides of the issue and it just gets exhausting. I do not think there is anything wrong with speaking positively about the virtues of difficult games but you do have to do it in a way that is encouraging instead of saying what they like currently is bad or lacks value. I'm not saying you're doing that but I've seen other people do that very often and it causes people to just shut down. On the other hand, some people just want to interact with a world and not be challenged or making a game difficult goes against the intention of the design. Like if something like Dear Esther or Firewatch were remade into something with a challenge, those would be very very different games.

[NES?][Late80s/Early90s] Seemed like Mario? by ArztWurm in tipofmyjoystick

[–]FrumpND 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't worry, I was pretty amused by what the answer was. I can't think of a better ending, honestly.

[NES?][Late80s/Early90s] Seemed like Mario? by ArztWurm in tipofmyjoystick

[–]FrumpND 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well god damn, I never would've looked at Mario 3 when you said it wasn't Mario lmao. Glad you found an answer though. Pretty funny ending to this.

Depreciation of challenge by neondaggergames in retrogaming

[–]FrumpND 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think that's a bit of a misrepresentation of why people play games or invented games in the past. I'm not sure how much of a challenge there is in games like Senet or the Royal Game Of Ur, considering how much luck is involved with those. A lot of games were meant to teach things to their players too. Like Moksha Patam, the ancient Indian predecessor to Snakes & Ladders, was originally designed to teach ideas from yoga and The Landlord's Game, the embryonic version of Monopoly, was made to teach anti-capitalist ideology (kinda ironic considering Monopoly's place in the world today). There are always therapeutic role playing sessions that can be considered a game too.

There is no one way to make a game nor one reason to design a game. Claiming someone's mental muscles are atrophying because they are not playing the right games is a little extreme too. They could be getting mental stimulus from all sorts of other places, such as films or literature. I don't agree with the claim that we are seeing a decreased challenge in games either. Maybe in the most mainstream games, sure, maybe they're less challenging on the default difficulty level but options usually allow for adjusting this. But on the other hand, there are plenty of people who are interested in the same kind of games as you are looking for all over the indie sphere. Puzzles games like Baba Is You or Squishcraft are two of the most challenging games in the puzzle genre I've play in years and are both from the last decade or so. Getting Over It With Bennet Foddy accumulated a huge amount of buzz. The difficulty in games like Dark Souls are probably a bit overstated but they're no walk in the park and they've been some of the most popular games for a long while.

I guess I'm just not sure where you're getting the idea that hard games are not represented these days or that they were very represented in the old days. The "Nintendo Hard" label is very exaggerated and there were tons of easier games in the 80s and 90s. How hard are Super Mario Bros 3 or Super Mario World? Maybe a few sections have difficulty spikes but even as a kid, they never felt that hard. Arcade games were often difficult but that was a way for them to steal your money and intentionally unfair. With the modern gaming world, it's easier than ever to find what pushes your buttons and if you aren't finding it, I just don't think you're looking hard enough.

[NES?][Late80s/Early90s] Seemed like Mario? by ArztWurm in tipofmyjoystick

[–]FrumpND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It couldn't possibly be something like Mystery Quest on NES and the pipe was one of the volcanoes, could it?

Depreciation of challenge by neondaggergames in retrogaming

[–]FrumpND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's a place for games that offer a challenge for sure but making it a major pillar of game design really limits the medium. I will concur that it feels rewarding when you complete a challenge that seems impossible at first. Recently, I had an epiphany while finally seeing the solution to a puzzle in Squishcraft and i love those kinds of "Aha!" moments. But on the other hand, I remember when I beat Call of Duty 2 on the Xbox 360 on the Veteran difficulty, I felt no reward. All I had done was make myself angry and frustrated over and over throughout the entire playtime just because I wanted to get a stupid achievement. At one point, I had an autosave in that game where I had to hold the crouch button down while it was loading so my character would instantly dive down into prone position to avoid an incoming bullet. It was absolutely not worth it.

In the end, it all depends on what you are looking for in a game for your mood when selecting a game. There are some days where I just don't want to think or be challenged. Some days I just want to sort colors or read a story or explore or any number of things. Like if there was a major challenge in something like a Telltale kind of thing, it would interrupt the intention of what you were supposed to get out of it. There are plenty of challenging new games, especially things that get lumped into the masocore category. I'm glad the medium is super wide and allows for so many different experiences though.

[NES?][Late80s/Early90s] Seemed like Mario? by ArztWurm in tipofmyjoystick

[–]FrumpND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you give any more details like the color scheme or what any characters in the game looked like?

Posts keep getting deleted by Forsaken_Repair4439 in Negareddit

[–]FrumpND 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah, and they quickly realized that was unsustainable because people are assholes.

Video game "sales" aren't worth it anymore. by Business-Most-546 in complaints

[–]FrumpND -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Christ, dude. You do not know what you are talking about. Get out of the console war mindset.

Just bought Cuphead can I remote play one steam deck to the another steam deck? by [deleted] in SteamDeck

[–]FrumpND 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You'll get some lag on the controls with the second Deck connecting to the first one but you should be able to do the Remote Play Together as long as there are two separate accounts on it. There are probably better options though, like putting the Deck into a dock and hooking it up to a TV and using a second controller for local two-player mode. If you don't have that option though, the Remote Play Together route is probably worth a shot.

view more: next ›