By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Interesting Talk On Future Of Games - We Should Discuss

joeorc on 08 March 2010
libellule said:
joeorc said:
libellule said:
joeorc said:
Rainbird said:
First off, that was a great talk!

Secondly, I'm scared. Now, no doubt will we see positive ramifications from something like this (more effort going into being healthy, studying etc.), but if everyone is "playing" the "game"/real life, wouldn't that desensitize us? Doing all these things will be more of a means to an end, rather than the end it self. I know that obviously soome will still do the things they like because they like them, but isn't all this a way of driving people to do something they might not normally do?

I can see the good part of it, but what about the bad? I do things and support causes because I believe in them, not because I am rewarded for it. And what if the government says "Organic milk is good for you, you get a bonus for buying it", but the milk companies who would rather see you buying their unorganic milk have a bigger pocket, and will seek to make more people buy their milk instead? (This can be applied to anything really).

If people become too stuck in this "game", won't they lose their morals, and play by the rules set by whoever gives you the most points?

Personally, I don't buy organic food because it's "real", I buy it because it's better for me and for nature. I play videogames because I like them and not because I want to earn trophies.

Who would want everything they do measured anyway?

I think that was the underlining tone, the psycholofy is what drive's the game, thus if you provide the Psychology to your problem you can work way's that can overcome your problem, which is greater sale's.

ingeneral, what you are thinking is the underlining problem , because you are feeling like your being pulled toward one direction that you may have less control over than you would like. that mean's it's most likeky you are aware of the problem, but may have a hard time dealing with it.

that's what this is showing, it's like one of those thing's like if a tree fall's down in the forrest and noone is arround does it make a sound?

the key about the psychology of this is many way's to overcome it's resistance is to make it more appealing, in this case more appealing to the gamer's psychology.

each game can be taylored toward the psycology of a certain group of gamer's. getting that avoid's resistance to the stimuli. which in return give's the result your trying to get. now what the % of that result is what matter's to some. if they can get 60 to 80% that's a great number.

 

I think there is something I dont get in all this talk ... what is so amazing ?

I have the impression I m failling to see something in your post and in the video : I m not completely getting the point.

for example I dont get your "it's like one of those thing's like if a tree fall's down in the forrest and noone is arround does it make a sound?"

plz, help me lol

here read this :

"cognitive psychology" in his book Cognitive Psychology, published in 1967

ulric explain's :

wherein Neisser provides a definition of cognitive psychology characterizing people as dynamic information-processing systems whose mental operations might be described in computational terms. Also emphasising that it is a "point of view" which postulates the mind as having a certain conceptual structure. Neisser's point of view endows the discipline with a scope which expands beyond high-level concepts such as "reasoning", often espoused in other works as a definition of cognitive psychology. Neisser's definition of "cognition" illustrates this well:

If you think of game theory

is just a set of problem's focused  not just on the on one's imput's toward a certain problem but also the problem's result's

and  how the output's focused toward the input's problem's than that leaves you with how to avoid resistance to the  input to get the the best and forward great output % that you would need to overcome it's resistance to the imput stimuli of each gamer.

 

most difficult post EVER.

too much big word, too much complicated, what is the point of going into "cognitive science" ?

I thought the video was just "gaming" is life of everyday !

1/ what is game theory ?
2/ what do you mean by output ? input ? what from the exterior vs the interior ?
do you have an example ?

"and  how the output's focused toward the input's problem's than that leaves you with how to avoid resistance to the  input to get the the best and forward great output % that you would need to overcome it's resistance to the imput stimuli of each gamer."

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

don't get it huh?

in somewhat of a short an simple and not as lenthly:

well take the idea that you are another computer: a living breathing chemical based computer you accept input that is stimuli:

but how much you would enjoy that stimuli, = your output.

the problem is figuring out what kind of stimuli overcome's your resistance to a certain type of stimuli and bypasses your resistance to that stimuli.

thus Advertiser's want to be able to ad their stimuli to your game's input without your resistance to it.

that is just one applied application toward this type of psychology, add in TV, social site's, FOOD product's. etc.



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

Around the Network
libellule on 08 March 2010
joeorc said:
libellule said:
joeorc said:
libellule said:
joeorc said:
Rainbird said:
First off, that was a great talk!

Secondly, I'm scared. Now, no doubt will we see positive ramifications from something like this (more effort going into being healthy, studying etc.), but if everyone is "playing" the "game"/real life, wouldn't that desensitize us? Doing all these things will be more of a means to an end, rather than the end it self. I know that obviously soome will still do the things they like because they like them, but isn't all this a way of driving people to do something they might not normally do?

I can see the good part of it, but what about the bad? I do things and support causes because I believe in them, not because I am rewarded for it. And what if the government says "Organic milk is good for you, you get a bonus for buying it", but the milk companies who would rather see you buying their unorganic milk have a bigger pocket, and will seek to make more people buy their milk instead? (This can be applied to anything really).

If people become too stuck in this "game", won't they lose their morals, and play by the rules set by whoever gives you the most points?

Personally, I don't buy organic food because it's "real", I buy it because it's better for me and for nature. I play videogames because I like them and not because I want to earn trophies.

Who would want everything they do measured anyway?

I think that was the underlining tone, the psycholofy is what drive's the game, thus if you provide the Psychology to your problem you can work way's that can overcome your problem, which is greater sale's.

ingeneral, what you are thinking is the underlining problem , because you are feeling like your being pulled toward one direction that you may have less control over than you would like. that mean's it's most likeky you are aware of the problem, but may have a hard time dealing with it.

that's what this is showing, it's like one of those thing's like if a tree fall's down in the forrest and noone is arround does it make a sound?

the key about the psychology of this is many way's to overcome it's resistance is to make it more appealing, in this case more appealing to the gamer's psychology.

each game can be taylored toward the psycology of a certain group of gamer's. getting that avoid's resistance to the stimuli. which in return give's the result your trying to get. now what the % of that result is what matter's to some. if they can get 60 to 80% that's a great number.

 

I think there is something I dont get in all this talk ... what is so amazing ?

I have the impression I m failling to see something in your post and in the video : I m not completely getting the point.

for example I dont get your "it's like one of those thing's like if a tree fall's down in the forrest and noone is arround does it make a sound?"

plz, help me lol

here read this :

"cognitive psychology" in his book Cognitive Psychology, published in 1967

ulric explain's :

wherein Neisser provides a definition of cognitive psychology characterizing people as dynamic information-processing systems whose mental operations might be described in computational terms. Also emphasising that it is a "point of view" which postulates the mind as having a certain conceptual structure. Neisser's point of view endows the discipline with a scope which expands beyond high-level concepts such as "reasoning", often espoused in other works as a definition of cognitive psychology. Neisser's definition of "cognition" illustrates this well:

If you think of game theory

is just a set of problem's focused  not just on the on one's imput's toward a certain problem but also the problem's result's

and  how the output's focused toward the input's problem's than that leaves you with how to avoid resistance to the  input to get the the best and forward great output % that you would need to overcome it's resistance to the imput stimuli of each gamer.

 

most difficult post EVER.

too much big word, too much complicated, what is the point of going into "cognitive science" ?

I thought the video was just "gaming" is life of everyday !

1/ what is game theory ?
2/ what do you mean by output ? input ? what from the exterior vs the interior ?
do you have an example ?

"and  how the output's focused toward the input's problem's than that leaves you with how to avoid resistance to the  input to get the the best and forward great output % that you would need to overcome it's resistance to the imput stimuli of each gamer."

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

don't get it huh?

in somewhat of a short an simple and not as lenthly:

well take the idea that you are another computer: a living breathing chemical based computer you accept input that is stimuli:

but how much you would enjoy that stimuli, = your output.

the problem is figuring out what kind of stimuli overcome's your resistance to a certain type of stimuli and bypasses your resistance to that stimuli.

thus Advertiser's want to be able to ad their stimul to your game's input without your resistance to it.

OK OK OK

I would have said : "positive stimuli can make you accept a negative stimuli if they are linked" is it ok ?

BUT dont you think this is pretty old and simple ?
It is just about :
giving more money to people that are not late at work
giving a little cookie if someone give a good answer at school

I have the impression you are REdiscovering the wheel ...



Time to Work !

Rainbird on 08 March 2010

Oh, and the guy really needs some credit for his iPad joke



joeorc on 08 March 2010
libellule said:
joeorc said:
libellule said:
joeorc said:
libellule said:
joeorc said:
Rainbird said:
First off, that was a great talk!

Secondly, I'm scared. Now, no doubt will we see positive ramifications from something like this (more effort going into being healthy, studying etc.), but if everyone is "playing" the "game"/real life, wouldn't that desensitize us? Doing all these things will be more of a means to an end, rather than the end it self. I know that obviously soome will still do the things they like because they like them, but isn't all this a way of driving people to do something they might not normally do?

I can see the good part of it, but what about the bad? I do things and support causes because I believe in them, not because I am rewarded for it. And what if the government says "Organic milk is good for you, you get a bonus for buying it", but the milk companies who would rather see you buying their unorganic milk have a bigger pocket, and will seek to make more people buy their milk instead? (This can be applied to anything really).

If people become too stuck in this "game", won't they lose their morals, and play by the rules set by whoever gives you the most points?

Personally, I don't buy organic food because it's "real", I buy it because it's better for me and for nature. I play videogames because I like them and not because I want to earn trophies.

Who would want everything they do measured anyway?

I think that was the underlining tone, the psycholofy is what drive's the game, thus if you provide the Psychology to your problem you can work way's that can overcome your problem, which is greater sale's.

ingeneral, what you are thinking is the underlining problem , because you are feeling like your being pulled toward one direction that you may have less control over than you would like. that mean's it's most likeky you are aware of the problem, but may have a hard time dealing with it.

that's what this is showing, it's like one of those thing's like if a tree fall's down in the forrest and noone is arround does it make a sound?

the key about the psychology of this is many way's to overcome it's resistance is to make it more appealing, in this case more appealing to the gamer's psychology.

each game can be taylored toward the psycology of a certain group of gamer's. getting that avoid's resistance to the stimuli. which in return give's the result your trying to get. now what the % of that result is what matter's to some. if they can get 60 to 80% that's a great number.

 

I think there is something I dont get in all this talk ... what is so amazing ?

I have the impression I m failling to see something in your post and in the video : I m not completely getting the point.

for example I dont get your "it's like one of those thing's like if a tree fall's down in the forrest and noone is arround does it make a sound?"

plz, help me lol

here read this :

"cognitive psychology" in his book Cognitive Psychology, published in 1967

ulric explain's :

wherein Neisser provides a definition of cognitive psychology characterizing people as dynamic information-processing systems whose mental operations might be described in computational terms. Also emphasising that it is a "point of view" which postulates the mind as having a certain conceptual structure. Neisser's point of view endows the discipline with a scope which expands beyond high-level concepts such as "reasoning", often espoused in other works as a definition of cognitive psychology. Neisser's definition of "cognition" illustrates this well:

If you think of game theory

is just a set of problem's focused  not just on the on one's imput's toward a certain problem but also the problem's result's

and  how the output's focused toward the input's problem's than that leaves you with how to avoid resistance to the  input to get the the best and forward great output % that you would need to overcome it's resistance to the imput stimuli of each gamer.

 

most difficult post EVER.

too much big word, too much complicated, what is the point of going into "cognitive science" ?

I thought the video was just "gaming" is life of everyday !

1/ what is game theory ?
2/ what do you mean by output ? input ? what from the exterior vs the interior ?
do you have an example ?

"and  how the output's focused toward the input's problem's than that leaves you with how to avoid resistance to the  input to get the the best and forward great output % that you would need to overcome it's resistance to the imput stimuli of each gamer."

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

don't get it huh?

in somewhat of a short an simple and not as lenthly:

well take the idea that you are another computer: a living breathing chemical based computer you accept input that is stimuli:

but how much you would enjoy that stimuli, = your output.

the problem is figuring out what kind of stimuli overcome's your resistance to a certain type of stimuli and bypasses your resistance to that stimuli.

thus Advertiser's want to be able to ad their stimul to your game's input without your resistance to it.

OK OK OK

I would have said : "positive stimuli can make you accept a negative stimuli if they are linked" is it ok ?

BUT dont you think this is pretty old and simple ?
It is just about :
giving more money to people that are not late at work
giving a little cookie if someone give a good answer at school

I have the impression you are REdiscovering the wheel ...

that's not the only thing

it's like changing the mindset of the gamer over time, without the Gamer being aware of it. and that is just one thing , not to mention with all the advancement's of technology, not just TV or Computer but also Bio medicine.

rediscovering the Wheel is not the point, it's applied use of that wheel.

for instance:

political Add's were added inside game's for the previous usa president election, even though you may not have stopped an read the ad

does not mean your brain did not . you brain records over 80% of what you see or hear, or taste of feel.

to them: IE what every company employ's such techniques :

it's getting you to access that information is what they want you to do, even better if they can get you to do it without you even being aware of it.

yes in that sense , it is rediscovering the wheel, but the main medium was TV in order for you to get that stimui, now it's not only PC, but ecerything in life pretty much.

since your a game'er .being able to apply game theory to certain area's of Life, that may not have been thought of to be used in itsef can expand how you design release software.



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

Lord Flashheart on 08 March 2010

I'm worried that being a gamer could make you more suceptible to this.
Anything that could make me watch ads on tv again disturbs me.



Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

Around the Network
Reasonable on 09 March 2010
Rainbird said:
First off, that was a great talk!

Secondly, I'm scared. Now, no doubt will we see positive ramifications from something like this (more effort going into being healthy, studying etc.), but if everyone is "playing" the "game"/real life, wouldn't that desensitize us? Doing all these things will be more of a means to an end, rather than the end it self. I know that obviously soome will still do the things they like because they like them, but isn't all this a way of driving people to do something they might not normally do?

I can see the good part of it, but what about the bad? I do things and support causes because I believe in them, not because I am rewarded for it. And what if the government says "Organic milk is good for you, you get a bonus for buying it", but the milk companies who would rather see you buying their unorganic milk have a bigger pocket, and will seek to make more people buy their milk instead? (This can be applied to anything really).

If people become too stuck in this "game", won't they lose their morals, and play by the rules set by whoever gives you the most points?

Personally, I don't buy organic food because it's "real", I buy it because it's better for me and for nature. I play videogames because I like them and not because I want to earn trophies.

Who would want everything they do measured anyway?

Yes, that's a concern of mine.  I found the talk interesting because his points were good and seemed very credible, however elements certainly didn't appeal to me in terms of what it might mean going forward (which ain't his fault, he's the messanger).

Clearly he was focusing more on certain areas than others, but some of the ideas around virtual points, micro-transactions and the like weren't all sweet music to my ears as a parent!

But clearly there's a whole generation of kids now growing up with the idea of Trophies/Achievements, virtual points, etc. and that's going to have impact on the industry as a whole.

I'm sure current models will endure too, for example simply buying a game and popping it in the drive, but with DLC, microtransactions, etc. already popular, plus new models for leveraging these and linking them to marketing emerging there's going to be changes too.

 



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Sharky54 on 09 March 2010

This would never happen... At least not on the scale he says.



mirgro on 10 March 2010

This was a very interesting talk indeed. It will be interesting to see how much of this comes true.

The worrisome part is the psychological aspects. I have always tried to be very self-aware of things and to not get hooked into stuff like that.

Taking some of my psychological classes, there is a counter to every psychological process. For instance the Diffusion of Responsibility's counter is just knowing that it exists. I wonder what this one's will be, hopefully the same.



mirgro on 10 March 2010

After thinking about it a little more, and while I absolutely hate saying this, I really hope the governments restrict this in every way possible. It's one thing to go with "free market" and it's another when the free market starts blatantly exploiting psychological elements of humans.



joeorc on 11 March 2010
mirgro said:
After thinking about it a little more, and while I absolutely hate saying this, I really hope the governments restrict this in every way possible. It's one thing to go with "free market" and it's another when the free market starts blatantly exploiting psychological elements of humans.

that's also going to be a problem like an example:

sugar

an

High-fructose corn syrup

their both sugar, where as one is being removed out of food's right now because many think that High-fructose corn syrup is worse than natural sugar.

but the truth is they are both just as bad, but you hear ad's on the TV talking about how bad one is over the other.

Media manipulation since TV an Internet and radio cellphone's are tool's of instant communication it become's more an more problematic to overcome these type's of psychological manipulation's. Not to say people cannot resist this type though..



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.