Amygdala

I don't really want to bring up past SG drama, but I feel the need to tell this story from my perspective and confess to something I’ve had bottled up for so long...

...You never think that when you send that SG invite to another player, your base will soon be invaded by a most pink, galloping obsession. Such was the case when I invited Horus to the SG. At first he tried to play it cool, walking in the door saying he rescued this pink pony from [insert natural disaster here]. Noble enough, right? Soon he ran out of natural disasters to blame, and instead went with excuses like "but they were going to use it as a test subject for laser hair removal".

I tried to look the other way, hoping that others in the SG wouldn't notice. The last thing you need as an SG leader is "So about that new guy... yeeeeeaaah." But it got to that point where you couldn't not notice. Pink ponies in the clubhouse playing truth or dare, pink ponies drinking all the Guinness at the SG bar, pink ponies watching Leave It to Beaver in Spanish. Heck, there were as many pink ponies in the SG as there were members. It was time to step in and do something.

At this point, I was still convinced we could resolve the issue like civilized, rational, calm, pink pony collecting... *sigh* do you see my problem? So I found Horus in his room teaching pink ponies how to Shield Charge.

Me: Hey, man. We need to talk.
Horus to the pink ponies: Now if you go with Dark Melee for your primary, you will be just like Bulwark! And you can customize your colours so that they look pink and fluffy, just like you!
Me: I think you have a problem.
Horus: No I don't.
Me: That's what people say when they're in denial.
Horus: Dork.
Me: Nerd.
Horus: 'Kay.
Me: Good talk.

Just as I was walking away, one of his pink ponies Shield Charged the haunted house I built in the base and it crumbled to the ground. At this point I snapped. I was so angry I locked myself in my room for a week plotting and scheming on how to bring this Shield Charging, pink pony loving mother down. I woke up after a long night of drinking red wine and reading How the Grinch Stole Christmas equipped with a plan. The solution was clear: go down to Whoville and banish every last pink pony to Mount Crumpit... or something.

So I ended up killing them. I killed every last one he had. I was frantic trying to decide how to hide all those dead pink ponies, so I stored them in my Port-a-gloo (portable igloo) where I knew no one would look. But I realized getting rid of the ponies wasn’t enough. Horus would still be obsessed, walking the streets alone at night, looking for his fix of pink ponies. I did the only thing I could do. I strapped Horus down on the closest thing to an examining table I could find and performed a procedure known as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). I had read about it once and it seemed kind of cool, so I did what any do-it-yourself experimental scientist would do: read the Wiki article on ECT, skip right past the part about informed consent, and find the word I was looking for… ‘amnesia’. I figured I could grab some electrodes and wing it.

At first I thought I was successful. Days passed and no mention of pink ponies. It was like it never happened. Then one day I was leading a CoP and I asked everyone on Vent if there were any questions. To my shock and dismay, Horus says the unthinkable: “Can I haz a pony?” Well [censored]. You think you run enough electric current through a guy’s brain and this happens. I thought maybe he would stop asking, but he just kept asking over and over. And you know what? I’ll be honest, I felt kind of bad. Maybe I had gone overboard with the ECT. What was wrong with the guy liking pink ponies anyway? (Don’t answer that).

I felt guilty but really didn’t want pink ponies running around the base like last time. That’s when I decided to become a Wiki-certified taxidermist. Every so often I have to take a pink pony out of the Port-a-gloo, ‘spruce’ it up, and give it to Horus. He’s so happy to see a pink pony again it takes him several days to realize that its lack of movement isn’t just because it’s a little frosty…

…So, yeah. Technically, those four ponies weren’t the first four ponies ever. But I’m pretty sure that was my biggest SG meltdown to date.

I have seen that article and there's a lot of ways I could respond to it, but suffice to say I think at best it has pointed out some compelling similarities between MMOs and a Skinner Box. In my opinion, the Skinner Box comparison is not a comprehensive explanation as to why people like to play games because it equates playing to pressing a lever, or 'doing work'. We don't only play to level up or receive random drops. We also have fun creating characters, writing back stories, teaming with people, solving puzzles, etc.

Furthermore, I don't believe the Skinner Box is a true picture of addiction, but more of a method to reinforce a particular behaviour. Performing an action repetitively does not mean you are addicted. It is but one symptom of addiction, and alone does not qualify. My thought is that for those who suffer from problematic gaming, it is more likely that gaming is a symptom of an underlying problem rather than the cause.

I'd also like to point out that just because someone hires a psychologist isn't proof of their intent to create addiction.

This is an excellent point, mostly because it illustrates that even the experts cannot reach a consensus as to whether or not games are addictive. If experts cannot even properly define it, is it likely that they are being hired to create it? At the end of the day, it's one expert's word over another, and you should look at your own life and be the judge. No one has a concrete answer to this, only suggestive theories.

This is precisely why articles that talk about how MMOs are definitively addictive bother me. You started playing an MMO and your father sent you material about MMO addiction.

I haven't had a chance to comb through this, but a poster from another thread made mention of the following:

Link to full post. He goes on a bit further and provides a link at the end that might be worth looking into.

This.

I think it is more accurate to say that anyone who seeks to entertain others wants to make their product pleasurable or enjoyable, rather than addictive. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the word 'addictive' is a word we should use synonymously with 'enjoyable' when we talk about the intent behind games. Sure some people may use 'addictive' to describe how much they enjoyed something and want to keep doing it, but they don't mean it in the true sense of the word. However, it gets thrown around in an article like Angie posted in conjunction with comments like "drugs affect the same brain chemicals" and suddenly a company trying to figure out how to make their product more appealing becomes this underhanded, devious, manipulative act.

Not that you are suggesting that loot as a random reward stimulus is the entirety of a game, but it seems to be what people focus on when they talk about why games potentially could be addictive, or at least the psychology behind why people want to keep playing them. I think this is part of why people continue to play games, but when I think about why I continue to play, drops are at the very bottom of my list. I'll hazard a guess and say that I am not the only one who feels this way.

Just wanted to add that you're right, technically it doesn't matter too much where you start. Some zones just have added convenience or in some cases, depending on your server, more distractions you may want to avoid.

As for the length of the guide, it is quite long and I did expand upon some ideas in more detail. The was done in response to reading about the concerns other players had on the forums. If you don't have time to read the entire thing, glancing over the strategy section ("Trial Part 1: Obelisks" and "Trial Part 2: Inside the Cathedral") would be most useful. If you're really low on time, watch the video posted under "Screenshots and Videos" at the end.

Good luck!

By the same token, perhaps some people enjoy raids because it is neat to see that "soup" overcome a challenge. But yeah, I can see why different people would enjoy different aspects of multi-team content and why it is not for everyone.

I hadn't really thought about it from that angle. I can see why something with an organizational flavoured challenge to it would be more enjoyable if your contribution as an individual was more recognizable.

You bring up a really good point. I think a lot of people forget at times that there are multiple ways to get what you want. All it takes is a little research and a little thought, and there's rarely an instance where you have to do a certain activity that you find not to be fun in order to get your reward.

I know when the Incarnate system first came out, I saw a lot of people in various chats complaining that they'd never get X component because they'd never be able to do Y activity. The reality is, you can always just run what you want and convert the shards you get later. It's just one example, but I think sometimes people forget that they have options.

I think this is a fairly accurate description. For some, attaining the actual 'rewards' isn't fun, but they know the end result of an IOd out toon will be.

Question for you, Samuel. Have you done a CoP before? A Hami raid? I see both of these tasks as requiring the communication and co-ordination that you describe. In fact, the first part of the CoP is remarkably similar to the Abandoned Sewer Trial, IMO. Instead of sending players to generators, you're sending teams to obelisks at different locations and clearing mobs. Then there's that "OK attack now!" factor involved.

However, both the CoP and Hami have been described (by some, not everyone) as requiring 'too much co-ordination' to be worth it, despite requiring similar factors to be successful, such as directing teams to different locations, checking on team/player status, etc. Is it simply because there are more people involved in these tasks? Perhaps it is the perception that more specific ATs are required? If so, at what point is this style of challenge too much?

It's obviously subjective to an extent. I'm just curious as to what people think.

Obviously there are varying degrees of this kind of thinking, but the general idea is the same. The game allows you to make a super powerful character and then build upon their abilities. The game is fun originally, but it becomes a lot more fun when you see your favorite toon wrecking faces that maybe you struggled with previously. A lot of people think that the best way to make their character more powerful is to have expensive sets in their build. Thus, they are always concerned with how to get loot as quickly as possible.

In my personal opinion, this type of thinking is flawed because it bases your performance as a character on what IOs you have. Many others have acknowledged that it's not just your IOs, but your build, and furthermore not just your build, but how you actually play your toon. I've seen posts where people have insanely expensive builds that will do nothing for them according to what their stated goals are for the character. I've also seen players with solid builds that other players made for them, but still don't have a basic idea of what their powers do.

This isn't to say that everyone who wants/has expensive IOs subscribes to this kind of thinking either. However, the people who don't likely don't experience the same kind of urgency for getting drops because they acknowledge there's more to the game than simply having these items. I personally have some pretty expensive builds for some of my characters. For me though, a large part of why the game is fun is that I like to challenge myself on how to use my powers more effectively. Even with years of experience, I find there's always something new I can think of. I very rarely worry about how many merits I'm earning because they are a byproduct of what I'm doing, which is having fun playing with my friends.

True story.

I just can't cope under the weight of your demands!

I don't RP, have no interest in it, and I still don't think it's fair to lump all RPers into a 'more prone to addiction' category just because they perceivably have a greater degree of immersion into the game. There's more to addiction than doing something repeatedly or doing it at a certain level.

As for the article, I find the bias to be overwhelming. After reading it, I'm still not convinced gaming was responsible for certain events in the subject's life. I won't deny the fact he could legitimately have a problem, but I just find the writing to be purposely vague such that certain assumptions are made by the reader. E.g. "He lost a girlfriend, in part, to excessive playing..."

The science aspect of the article is also extremely vague. E.g. "There's a neurochemistry - whether you're gambling, gaming or taking drugs - that is all the same." She then goes on to discuss dopamine. It is true that dopamine is involved in addiction, but that is not all it does in the body. It's not as if dopamine release always ends in addiction and we should be avoiding it. I think it's extreme to say that the neurochemistry between drug addiction and behavioural addiction is "all the same". If addiction really did occur through the exact same mechanism for both drugs and gaming, we should be able to apply the advice for gaming to drugs. E.g. do drugs in moderation to reduce your chance of addiction. Bottom line, there is a lot more to it than what she has described, and I feel her generalizations are misleading.

As for the 'expert' quoted in the article, she is an executive director of an internet addiction recovery program. I have to wonder if she's truly advocating for potential addicts or simply trying to plug her program. The concept of selling illness to people is one that bothers me. Mental health disorders are a lot more subjective than say, diabetes, making them more marketable to people who may not actually have the illness.

I do appreciate that the article promotes balance. As others have said, I also think that a balanced social life for one is not the same for another. I have friends that are constantly on their cell phones trying to make plans with people and it seems they are lost if they don't have a social schedule. Others are content with the occasional get together. I don't think anyone can prescribe the proper amount.

It bothers me when people point to an external factor as the cause for something without taking a look at the people involved and perhaps awarding them some responsibility for how they handled their affairs. People fall in and out of relationships all the time for a multitude of reasons that don't boil down to a neat little package of 'he played online games'. For example, this situation could be described as "they had very little in common, especially with regard to leisure activities" or "she was so high maintenance that she took offense to any time not spent catering to her, including video games".

How do we know that one of those other factors was not at work here? We don't. The person who wrote this article doesn't know either. Even if MMOs had a part to play, they probably weren't the only issue. However, whoever wrote this article framed this small piece of information in this way to set the stage for how online games are evil pillagers of limbic resonance.

The way the question "Are you a gamer addict or gamer hobbier?" reads to me (given the context of the article) is that it presents you with two options: either you game a lot and therefore are an addict, or you are a casual gamer, meaning you game less often.

I'd propose a third option, 'dedicated gamer', someone who plays often but is not 'addicted'. In order to establish true addiction, several factors come into play, including (but not limited to) 1) repeated exposure to X, 2) withdrawal symptoms when X is taken away, and 3) seeking out X despite negative consequences that come with X. I believe a lot of us, including myself, would qualify as dedicated gamers because we play often but do not present with true symptoms of addiction.

I don't think anyone, including the individual quoted above, really has a complete understanding of the science behind social interaction or the significance of it from a health perspective. There are many theories and observations, but rarely a consensus.

Even if we can prove that certain brain stimulation only occurs when face to face with another person, this does not give us any indication of how important it is. It just provides us with the information that it occurs. At this point, more questions should be asked, such as is it necessary? How does it affect us? What happens without it? How much of it do we need before we go tumbling into a death spiral of social suicide? Without answers to these questions, people should not be advising others with any authority, especially presumed medical authority, about what a 'healthy social life' is.

Generally, when people discuss social interaction and MMOs, they tend to focus on what they supposedly take away from us. People less often focus on the fact that although we may sacrifice the ability to have a face to face interaction, we meet and befriend people in demographics so different from our own that we would never have met otherwise. Personally, I feel this has given me a greater awareness and appreciation for different types of people.

It has been reused more than that IIRC.

Happy Birthday, Celestial Lord!

Thank you for your interest. Unfortunately, I will be out of game for a while (weeks, possibly months) due to RL circumstances and unable to schedule CoP runs.

As soon as I am able to run CoPs again I will contact you, if someone has not already done so.

Agreed.