| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Rendelius
Critical Error
Joined: 06 Jul 2001
Posts: 16
Location: Austria |
Highly interseting posts so far, i have to say. I read those about people addicted to EQ with great interest. I have something to say, however: I still think that this isn't the problem of EQ, and that those persons would be addicted to other things if there wasn't EQ. Take my example: I stopped playing DAoC once I noticed that the game has to be played in sessions larger than an hour in order to achieve higher levels. I said to myself: that's just not worth it. And that was it. I could have decided to play, but that is still my decision. If you get addicted to EQ, it's because you have the tendency to get addicted, not becuase of EQ. I know people that are addicted to running, to shopping. They are addicted to it because of them but not becuase of running or shopping.Noone would sue a shopping mall becuase someone goes on a shopping spree.
Poeple playing EQ for 10 or more hours a day, who obey to guild orders because they don't want to lose guild ranks need treatment. It's not the game, it's the people. If EQ was designed to cause physical addiction, the case would be different. But I think you agree with me that this is impossible.
_________________
Rendelius
former Senior Editor RPGDot
now at http://www.theastronomers.com |
Wed Apr 03, 2002 12:40 pm |
|
|
ShadowMage
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 03 Apr 2002
Posts: 44
Location: Denmark |
Well, I don't understand how anything can lead to such a dramatic end, without some mental unbalance.
If you start prioritize something more than your own wellbeing and life - you don't have a completely healthy mind.
It might be grand and glorious - even thrill you when you know you will find a new and better item soon. But it shouldn't consume you so much, that you can't act rationally.
_________________
I am what I want myself to be. |
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002 12:45 pm |
|
|
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
The question of responsibility is key. Let us look at other "addictive" things. Is (for instance) a manufacturer of tobacco products in any way responsible? If the answer is yes, then Sony is responsible as well because EQ IS designed to be addictive and IS addictive. Please don't allow yourselves to simply apply the platitude that "EVERYTHING" can be addictive - this is simply not true - drinking water for instance is NOT addictive in any way. Some things certainly inherently elicit a higher degree of "addiction" - but that is not the point. IF a manufacturer should be held at least partly responsible (at least to provide adequate warnings, attempts to minimize the addiction, etc.), then perhaps Sony should be held accountable - if only to force them to produce the game in the most responsible manner possible.
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002 12:46 pm |
|
|
Doom
Village Dweller
Joined: 03 Apr 2002
Posts: 2
|
Interesting question: Do game developpers try to make games that are highly addictive or do they try to make games that offer an immersive gaming experience over an extended period of time? I think you cannot separate the two aspects and that's the point. You can make a game with a predefined story that ends at a certain point our you can make one that has an open end and keeps developping over time. But does that mean you are actively trying to make people addicted? If so then all MMORPGs are under accuse also most RPGs and many FPS. I personally think that these are only different game concepts. Of course open ended games have the side-effect that you can invest enormous amounts of time without getting to an end, but that's in the nature of the game. How much time you invest is up to you. But you
also decide how many coins you spend at the arcade and if you really wanna spend all afternoon in there...
The funny part is: if developers make games that take only 20 hrs or so to reach the final movie gamers over the planet will get really upset! If the invent games that do last long they'll be accused of making people addicted...oh well....
Labeling things....I really dunno bout that one. Does anyone read the warnings that are shipped with games nowadays? Do you make sure that the light in the room is ok before playing? Do you take 15 min breaks for everey 1hr of gaming? The answer is no. Fact is: if you want to smoke, you smoke, no matter what they print on the packet
Doom
[ This Message was edited by: Doom on 2002-04-03 07:41 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Doom on 2002-04-03 07:42 ] |
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002 1:40 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
ANYTHING WHICH SOMEBODY LIKES IS *ADDICTIVE*. This can be reading, jogging, gardening, playing Everquest, collecting stamps, smoking and thousand other things (in my case it is currenly playing Wizardry 8  ).
It is really crazy to blame a game for suicides. The game has to be attractive - without things which people like nobody would play it. I really hope we will not end up with stupid, boring, unatractive (and therefore completely non-addictive) games.
In one of previous mail some guild practises were mentioned - so do not accept it! Give up on that guild. People must take some responsibility for their own lifes, not to blame always someone else. America, as one of birthplaces of democracy and individualism, should understand it.
Perhaps it is possible to compare the mentioned guild behaviour (if it exists, I do not have so much experience) to the situation in top sport. Nobody forces anybody to take part. And just because there are idiots who die because of using steroids, it should not mean limiting/abolishing sport competitions (or should it?).
As for the mentioned tobacco company cases - it is madness what US legal system does (bilion dollars fines - clearly thinking that they are big nasty capitalistic companies, so let's milk them as much as possible - true communistic thinking). The fact that the smoking is not healthy is known for decades. As for usefullnes of various warnings - some time ago I have read that if tobacco firms think that they get away with argument that there were warnings on a box, they are in error...
I was born in a communistic country (fortunately communists are now history ) and I must say that I am really surprised by some legal cases in America. Contrary to the general view of America, many courtcases are trying to prove that an average person is not an independently thinking person and that he/she is not responsible for his/her own decisions and their consequences (well, if something gets bad in his/her life, it is always possible to claim that it was fault of somebody else and to sue for damages).
Current topic - let's blame Everquest/Sony for a suicide. It can be just a beginning. If it succeeds in this case, many other followers will come to sue for a lot more money (claiming that whatever bad happened in their personal/family life was a consequence of an addictive game sold by greedy inhumane capitalists from . So I pray that the woman fails in the court..
|
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002 1:43 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
Just a correction of previous:
The sentence should be:
.... by greedy inhumane capitalists from *add_name_of_a_wealthy_company_here* . |
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002 1:50 pm |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
I don't think EverQuest was (is) nicknamed EverCrack without reason. Obviously something is there that makes a person want to log in hour after hour after hour day after day. Rendelius mentioned quitting DAoC because he only had an hour and that wasn't worth it. That is correct. I'm the same way with online games. However, for every one of 'us' there are probably thousands of people who log six hours or more.
I have played 12 hour stints of games which catch my attention. Most new RPGs usually get a good Sunday 10 am to 2 am Monday morning workout. But to keep doing it every day?
Yes, the man had an addictive personality perhaps. People like that can get addicted to anything. Knowing that should a company make the playing time=rewards aspect of online RPGs less important?
I think so. I don't see much of a problem with a person who plays one hour being able to keep pace with someone who logs 12 or more. The person playing 12 evidently has more time and perhaps loves the game more... but why encourage it?
Technically speaking... it's more cost efficient for the companies to have people logging in for 1 hour sessions instead of 12. Less network traffic on a whole.
Back to the original point... could EverQuest be the cause of this man's suicide? Absolutely. But I'm willing to bet that more people kill themselves over losing their life fortunes in Las Vegas or at the track... and casinos and horseracing are still around. It's a sad thing, and I understand the mother wanting to blame the most obvious cause.... but I don't see her winning.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002 2:19 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
I wont question whether or not the game in any way had an influence on this man committing suicide. Maybe it did, maybe it did not. There really isnt anything in the article to let us know. We do know that he had other severe problems like epilepsy. Beyond that all we really know is what his mother claims which might be true or might just be her perception of things.
The real question here is at what point do we draw the line. At what point to we allow one person or even a very small number of people determine the world for everyone else?
There are some people who might get into a car and then use it as a weapon mowing down as many others as they can. Do we therefore put warnings on cars or maybe even make them so that the move so slowly that running down people is not a possibility? There are incidents reported where some confused teen shoots up classmates at his school and we attribute it in part to the fact that the teen played video games (and again we discount a lot of other factors uncovered like diaries that indicate probable significant mental disorders). So, do we take this to mean that we should as a preventive measure lock up the several million other teens who have played the identical games because they "might" go on a killing spree, though there has been no indication that any of those millions have or would even be likely to do such a thing.
Just about anything in this world CAN have a bad effect or be used to bad intent by someone. Whether you are talking about cars, video games, online games, even basics like food and drink. However, you have to look at the broad figures not the individual ones. Everquest has around 450,000 subscribers. Add in those who have played the game but by now have gone on to other games and you probably get 1,000,000 that have played the game at some point. Out of that 1,000,000 we have one or two (there have been stories like the current one that have surfaced before) people who MAY have had a bad reaction to playing the game. So at what point do we have to sit back and say "this is tragic, but it really isnt something we can do anything about, we have to take the majority into account in things like this, not make everything safe for the smallest of minorities"?
Do we change things according to the infinitely small numbers of people who might have a bad effect or do bad things with something? Do we immediately lock up all students who have ever played a video game because they are a potential danger to their community, even though we have never seen any signs of anything but completely healthy and normal teens? Do we shut down all TV programs, especially the news because we hear of a report that some confused child MIGHT have injured his sister as a result of something seen on TV, even though the literally millions of others who watched the same telecast injured no one? Do we censor books and restrict reading to "SEE SPOT RUN. SEE JANE RUN" because we have read that someone copied something they had read somewhere?
All these things are tragedies, some of them are actually proven with sufficient evidence, some are questionable. The bottom line though is that while tragic, we cant let them place restrictions on the vast majority of people because of a few who have individual special problems. |
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002 2:21 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
I played DAoC as well and have to say that it was far less addictive than EQ. As Rendelius I told myself that it isn't worth the time and stopped playing with ease compared to EQ.
The problem with EQ was that those people playing from day one or very early drowned slowly into this virtual, exciting new world. Maybe it was because the social part of Everquest was something totally new, different from other MMORPGs before. People are forced to play together without a good group you can hardly advance in this game. So they become friends and come back to the game to meet them again, leaving the game and his friends is very difficult.
Hunting grounds were very limited in early EQ days. In order to level up you had to know people to group with. If you didn't have friends it was hard to get into a dungeon. On our server we had lists for the dungeons since the server(like all others) was overcrowded. If you wanted to join a group you got on the list and sometimes it took 6 hours until you got in.
Once the first players started reaching level 50 they built up first communities, if you wanted to raid a dragon you had to be part of it. If you came to a raid once to get loot and don't show up again, you were counted as leecher. Those communities grew, they became better organized and at the end calling members at mobile phones to make sure that they are able to attend to a dragonraid when needed in example wasn't unusual. Guilds were competiting to race for dragons. Just the best organized ones were able to get the dragons when they spawned and have the fun.
I think that once it get's that far that you get called on your phone to log into the game it is already very diffcult to stop. There is an enormous pressure and after all those people are friends in a way.
I somehow agree to Rendelius that "Poeple playing EQ for 10 or more hours a day, who obey to guild orders because they don't want to lose guild ranks need treatment"
But we aren't talking about a few hundreds of people but many thousend.
For many EQ addicts though all of this came very slowly over months and years. It didn't exist when they started playing the game and from experience I can tell that just few which are caught so deep into the game are able to get away from it, mainly because of the strong community and friends there.
Those aren't dumb people, top managers and directors of companies get addicted with Everquest as well and have a hard time to get out of it. They for sure know about responsibilities.
Since so many want to compare it with smoking. How many people want but actually do stop smoking? It's a hard task, but at least there is help available. Gamers are often still being laughed at, if someone tells that he needs treatment because of his gaming addiction many would look low at him. They'd think that he's dumb or an idiot maybe.
Just read what many people post but I know that all of this has to sound very weird to them.
Armagh |
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002 2:34 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
"Out of that 1,000,000 we have one or two people who MAY have had a bad reaction to playing the game"
No, we are talking about thousends of people. Play the game, open your eyes and you will see. Most don't see it though, they are too fixed on leveling, earning the "phat lewt" and becoming "ubber" to see what's happening around them.
People loose job, money, sell their car, wife and family because their addiction went too far.
Those playing the game and thinking that it's a single case and not a serious one are the easy marketing targets and victims, they don't get the whole picture. |
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002 2:46 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
I'd like to note again that the addiction might not affect new players as much but especially those which built up the EQ community. I can just tell it from the viewpoint of an old EQ gamer. If you spent several years building up a community which works, meet the same people and friends nearly everyday and have fun together it's damn hard to leave them and get out of it.
Armagh |
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002 2:51 pm |
|
|
Shrapnel
Rocket Scientist
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 1325
Location: Newark, NJ |
Sucks for that kid, but thats not Sony's fault. Every company's dream is to make a product that their customers cant get enough of. Now if this kid has based his whole life around EQ to the point where the events within this game affect him so seriously that it would force him to take his own life...thats his problem. You cant sue a company because of your or your loved ones' inability to put their priorities in place. Since I left here I started playing AC again for almost 2 mos straight. But about 2 weeks ago I met up with my ex. Needless to say, she has taken me off that game 100%. The only time I play the game now is at work because as soon as I get home, Im either with her or just out enjoying the warm weather and getting ready for spring. If that lady sues Sony and wins, then essentially Sony will be getting punished for making a successful product? Never gonna happen. If this guy had mental problems, maybe he shouldnt have been left alone in his own place to play this game 12 hrs a day... |
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002 2:55 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
"Sucks for that kid, but thats not Sony's fault"
A very typical manner of an ignorant blind person. Its of course not entirely Sonys fault but they share a part of it. If you would know the game, played it and actually recognized what they were doing to get people more and more addicted you might think different. The game became a pain for many old players, its boring and they want to stop but keep logging back.
Well, I just spoke with old Everquest friends about it and the general opinion there is "he was epileptical, it got nothing to do with the game".
In my opinion a dangerous point of view if you gave up your social life for a game already.
Armagh |
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002 3:59 pm |
|
|
TreeTrunk
Village Dweller
Joined: 03 Apr 2002
Posts: 10
Location: Virginia, USA |
I agree that it is not Sony's fault. However, it is interesting that the game community, in particular its review community, has latched on to the term 'addictive' as an adjective positively meriting a game. Do we desire compulsive game-playing? ANd if so, why? |
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002 4:00 pm |
|
|
Max Killen
Exalted Potentate
Joined: 04 Dec 2001
Posts: 1112
Location: Why not Minot? |
Sony is as much to fault for someone's suicide as Playboy is to someone's masterbating problem. Everyone is quick to blame someone else for their own problems. I think the longest that I ever played any game was 90 minutes, and that was way too long. I'm addicted, but my addictions are life and my family. I getting better enjoyment being with someone than sitting behind a computer and playing an imaginary game. Face it, that's all it is, a game, no more, no less. There are underlying reasons for someone to take their own life other than playing a game. But, I can see where blaming a game is better than blaming yourself.
|
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002 4:25 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:14 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
