Achievement Porn

"Any achievement in a video game is a fake achievement"

This is a great soundbite to build an essay around but ignores two decades of learning, cognitive, and psychological research. There are too many examples to try to pack into a comments, but among the most obvious:

- 3D games are have been demonstrated to have positive effects on spatial perception and to allow rehearsal-based training for real-world activities (http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~daniela/SeriousGames4thePolice_Ah...)

- Medical education in virtual worlds has also demonstrated the efficacy of training in synthetic worlds (http://www.jmir.org/2010/1/e1/)

- Massively multiplayer games' positive impact on literacy (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.114...)

Easy to go on and on, but the short answer is that it is preposterous to dismiss technologically mediated achievement as somehow fake.

The author's other points about variable-reward based training and the lure of positive feedback are also well researched fields. Since Skinner we've seen evidence that small amounts of positive reinforcement with some randomness -- called variable reinforcement -- generates the largest behavioral changes and longest engagement, so it should come as no surprise that achievement games -- like gambling -- engage a large number of people.

Of course, the 30,000' view of the article -- that variable reward games can consume a large amount of time and may not be making the player's life better -- is true. However, the simple assertions that games are fake and hurt their players are simply not supported by the data. For a very deep analysis of MMO players, you may want to peruse Dmitri William's work on the EQ2 data: http://dmitriwilliams.com/research.html

Trying to define what should be meaningful for other people is pretty arrogant and an insular perspective on life.

My personal take on reality is that the whole shebang is a "meaningless treadmill", but I'm willing to accept that it might not be true for the next guy.

Very interesting. These two articles explain a few things for me:

1. Why I can't ever seem to get into video games (or games in general).

2. Why the hobbies I do enjoy use skills that are difficult to acquire and take a lot of effort to master.

3. Why we have such a hard time motivating our son to practice viola and stick to martial arts. Most of the reward he's heard over the years has come in the form of, "Wow, you're really smart." As a verbally gifted child, he has already acquired an expansive vocabulary that impresses adults. Zero effort for him; big payoff.

4. And, possibly, why our daughter seems to be acquiring skills at a faster clip than the boy does. She seems to have tapped into that other kind of reward, for effort. Makes me wonder if this has anything to do with the remarkably different response people have expressed to her verbal abilities, which is typically criticism.

If you're curious, both of our children play video games, but the boy is a great deal more "into" them than the girl. Where he will use up all of his computer time and beg for more, I've seen her go days without using the computer at all. Video games are a political hot button for parenting; like watching television, the kind of parent you are is open to public scrutiny based on how many hours per day you let your kid engage in the activity, or even at all.

You don't have to be a parent to see the value of achievement in habilitation, but it does help. I've met my share of 30-yr-old gamers who still live in their parents' basements. Personally, I believe that if my kids aren't independent by 20, I'll have failed as a parent. There is a real, deep joy that you get from looking at an object you have formed with your hands or the home you've made with your salary. Even if you just sit in a cubicle. We're wired this way for a reason, right? Otherwise we'd perish.

And it's not a bad idea to consider the concept of types of achievement. The advertising industry surely does. They feed us this tripe and most of us eat it without bothering to sniff it first.

This gem is from the posters resume page:

So this guy dies and goes to Heaven, and when he gets to Heaven, he’s trying to explain to God how he spent his life.

Wait, wait, God says. Let me get this straight I gave you a body able to swim oceans and climb mountains

Yeah, the guys says.

and you sat in a cubicle?

Right.

I gave you creativity, and you made widgets?

Yes, the guy says.

The one thing I withheld from you, the only thing you could never get more of, time, you traded away for?

Money, the guy says.

link: http://www.petermichaud.com/resume/

I got a 360 recently to play an arcade scrolling shooter port. Microsoft requires game publishers to have a certain minimum number of those popup achievements in the game before they approve it for production. Cynically, the publisher (a medium-sized Japanese company) created achievements for it like "Cleared level 1" "Shot an enemy" "Cleared level 2" "Died" "Defeated a boss" "Touched a power-up" "Score was a multiple of 200" "Watched the credits" stuff like that. There are also achievements for picking certain items in the options menus, not touching the controller for a certain amount of time during gameplay, starting the game (yeah, just starting the game), scrolling the selection cursor off the screen, etc. Awesome.

Seneca wrote about this in _De Brevitate Vitae_ about 2,000 years ago, and unlike TFA, actually said it well.

Those who do not study philosophy are condemned to blog mangled versions of it.

I strongly agree with the proposed existence of the Achievment treadmills. However, I think the difference between "fake" and "real" achievement treadmills are completely arbitrary, created by a societal average and either accepted or rejected by the individual. If society as a whole started valuing number of facebook friends over net income, then facebook would no longer be a a "fake" treadmill.

I think it's still a good article because it could be interpreted as advocating narrowing in on what achievment treadmills you feel are "real", and avoiding distracting achievement treadmills you consider are "fake".

Really it all comes down to avoiding cognitive dissonance, when you observe yourself acting in a manner that is contrary to your beliefs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

See here's the thing, ragging on the education system is so overdone, such an easy target, such a bullshit "I wasn't the best so it didn't matter anyway" thing, that as soon as somebody does it in these inevitable articles, I tune out.

Seriously, every time somebody in one of these articles tries to get their pseudo-philosophical think on about education or achievement or whatever, they dive straight for AND OF COURSE WE ALL KNOW SCHOOL IS SO MEANINGLESS FNAR FNAR.

Any achievement has scope and context. What one achieves in any activity may or may not transcend that activity. The meaningfulness of the activity itself may not carry beyond the individual or beyond a select group. So I think, ultimately that the achiever has to make the final judgement as whether achieving the goal really matters to the achiever and whether it matters that the achievement is important to others.

Also, treadmills are not entirely useless, even in the metaphorical sense. I may not visibly being going anywhere, but my mind may be active and going through a process of re-wiring and preparation for other challenges.

I had read the first article already, and this one provided an interesting commentary. What struck me most, however, was the striking parallel it makes to a distant, hazily defined, mmo game that a friend and I talk about creating in our twilight years.

This game would simply be a massive simulation of a fantasy setting, replete with deep and meaningful (in an in-game sense) game-object detail, but which would offer no prefabricated achievement structure. The trick, as we see it, would be to actually get people to play this "game". Without any transparent and crudely imitable notion of "advancement", we doubt that anybody other than space cadets like ourselves would enjoy the game. Essentially, the game would be about being in the world and living there, and not about winning contests and completing quests. It is not as if there would not be things to do - quite the contrary, the player liberty might be overwhelming - too many people would ask: "What do I do in this game?" - translation: "how do I succeed here?"

this is a wonderful article. anytime there is some sort of measure of achievement you have to be careful that it isn't easier to bend the measure than to actually achieve. the comparison to school is great and can be seen in even sharper relief in Japan and Korea's "Cram Schools" the existence of which is predicated on hacking the school system.

Anyone else expect the article to be about an idea for a new porn site where you unlock achievements?

I clicked the link wondering if you made progress by watching stuff, or had to submit videos of doing stuff (which, from the perspective of the site owners, could be a way to encourage users to submit free content).

That's why I literally love capitalism.

The market does not give a heck about your little silly titles. You might be a God of the Universe, but if you cannot bring a profit, you're out.

Rule of thumb: Any organization that allows you to level up is out to fuck you, take your money, or both.

Examples: School, corporations, scientology, military, world of warcraft, etc.

Although I don't disagree that one's achievements in a computer game aren't necessarily meaningful(although this is a personal decision), I disagree entirely with his assertion that all computer games are "treadmills that are impossible to fail at". Anyone who plays any game with a competitive focus will know this is false. It's very possible to fail at Starcraft or Warcraft III. I certainly fail at WC3. I'm not absolutely horrible, but if I played with any remotely good player, I would lose quickly every single time. It's not just possible to fail, it's normal for almost everyone to fail. In fact, if you consider losing a single game to be failing in that game, exactly 50% of all multiplayer SC or WC3 players fail. In free-for-all FPS games, the frequency of failure is even higher.

Pete – Great post! I understand your point that a site like StackOverflow awarding points, rep, badges, whatevers, is pointless and some people pursue them without stepping back to ask why (which is a bullsh*t pursuit on their part).

I would argue that some members that answer programming questions posed to them actually do take passion / interest in what they are doing AND their actions contribute to society (in this case – to the programming community in general and for the person asking the question specifically). It could also be a way for interested developers to initiate conversations, etc.

Where would you draw the line on something like this? When do you think taking part in a service like StackOverflow crosses the line into fake achievement / pointlessness? Interested to hear your thoughts, thanks!

I have always thought that achievement is when one accomplishes his/her goal, be it $1B worth startup or a level-up in a game.

Though, I think the author is talking about useful achievements. This gets a bit tricky: it's all about how you see the world. In my opinion, I would make a useful achievement when I influence people to take some action. This could be: subscribing to my webapp or even making people follow me on twitter, if that was my goal. The key word here for me is - influence. Nevertheless, achievement is all about reaching your goal. At least that's how I see it.

It seems to me that this essay is based on a strained analogy and a whole bunch of convenient equivocation. His whole "achievement" link to video games seems to be a largely rhetorical one. What if those were called (as they are on some systems) trophies? Starts to make the rest of his essay sound a bit strange.

Furthermore, to compare arbitrary accomplishments in games and saying that the only thing which distinguishes them from achievements in life is that the video game ones are too easy or in some way "false" is to ignore that they're fundamentally different kinds of undertakings.

To play a video game is to, as Merlin Mann says, "move your hands a little and make small decisions". The activity is essentially medatative or recreational in nature and the results further that goal. The point of these "achievements" is to relax and have fun. The point of the "achievements" in real life is to better ourselves or our circumstances.

Furthermore, the in-game "achievements" are rigorously structured, those out-of-game are radically open-ended.

Both the structure and purpose of the two kinds of achievements are completely different. To conflate them and then deride video-game achievements for being inferior misses the point. It's like people who say that Guitar Hero doesn't make you a good guitarist.

Well, duh. But no one's making the argument that it will. We don't play Guitar Hero to get good at guitar. We don't play video games to accomplish anything.

I recognize this, it was auto-generated by the Arrogant Crank's Mad-Lib Blog Tool. Seriously, plug in 'work life balance' and this could be the year 2000, 'too much tv' and its 1990... Will this be all we hear for the next decade as social games take over and Jesse Schell is proved correct?

Who decides what's useful and not? Perhaps the future will adapt to exploit the skills of gamers and those who never pursued these "fake" achievements will be useless. I'm not a gamer, but I could think of a number of ways how to make humans solve relevant tasks through games.

I disagree with his statement that learning is not itself an achievement. I enjoy learning on its own, and see it as an achievement in itself. I often learn things without the goal of applying them to anything in life, just the goal to learn them and know about them.

1) People are driven to accumulate achievements. 2) People are a bit confused about which ones lead to their long term happiness and prosperity, and which don't. 3) Owners of a service can increase the stickiness of their service by embedding an achievement system. 4) Are the service owner's goals aligned with yours? Partially, but not in a deep sense.

It all highlights the need for improvements in our psychological defense kit needed for modern society, along with for example, general awareness of how marketing functions to manipulate us (another thing with good and bad).

Most "achievements" are ways to mark time until we die, and make us feel better about what we spent our lives doing up to that point. Whether they are artificial or perceived benchmarks or 'real' accomplishments is not as important as what we do after we think we've accomplished something, no matter how big (starting a company) or small (high score on Minesweeper, because there's always something else to 'achieve.' Achievement porn or success - the definition (and the embodiment) is up to you.

I think the author is talking about the feeling of achievement. And that the only reason people care about (have the goal of) video games is that feeling. Basically, he seems to be arguing against wireheading, while those here arguing that all achievement is fake or that all achievement is real are effectively claiming wireheading, living in a permanent VR simulation, or similar is just as good as the real world.

Marketers and game designers are just catching onto the notion of achievements (fake or otherwise), and are planning on harnessing it.

Take a look at this DICE presentation that follows these lines: http://fury.com/2010/02/jesse-shells-mindblowing-talk-on-the...

> Any achievement in a video game is a “fake achievement.”

(Disclaimer: I'm assuming he's talking about any achievement in a game, whether it was placed there by the creators or naturally occurring).

Life is a game. What's the difference between rules in a game of monopoly and laws governing corporate actions? Controlling a predator drone in real life vs in Call of Duty? A game is usually something with predefined rules of which you'll need to manipulate and work around to do something. A video game is a new type of game, which also provides audio visual stimulation, as well as mental (however little).

It's true that fake achievements that are setup so that anyone who plays the game can achieve them, like leveling up, is pointless. But when a game is skill based and competitive, you can position yourself against others. And as far as I know, every game opens up the potential to compare your performance with other peoples' in a task with predefined rules. What's life if it isn't full of rules? There is really no line between virtual and reality. Everything you do is in reality, even your imagination, because it will carry over where ever you are in this world.

> The easy part to culling the bullshit is to ask yourself: Is this activity making a positive, tangible difference in my life or anyone else’s life? Is it a real, true prerequisite for a tangibly effective activity? Alternatively, am I totally okay with doing this just because I like doing it, laboring under no illusion that it benefits me or anyone else?

What does the Olympics do besides motivate and inspire people (and bring in money to the host city)? Can't (video) games theoretically do the same things? Whether or not an activity makes a positive difference in your life, or anyone's else's life is relative to everyone's priorities. There is no absolute universal law which defines what "benefit" is. Whether or not it benefits people depends on whether or not it can get what people want. And what people want these days vary.

I think the author is confusing what he wants and what he thinks is beneficial to be what other people want and think are beneficial. It's a matter of preference if I want to walk on a treadmill or go for an actual walk. Whichever one is better is highly subjective. Everything you do is in this world, has consequences and benefits in this world. And as I have argued, games, video or otherwise, are simply isolated well defined subsets of our universe which are also analogous to the universe (both are defined by rules).

Need I mention the real-world achievements of those (no, not me) who have attained the rank of Eagle Scout?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Eagle_Scouts_%28Boy_Sco...

The author decries meaningless achievements without ever saying what he considers to be meaningful. This is nothing more than a load of badly thought through opinions that the author attempts to pass off as insights.

Behavioral economics taken to a horrifying extreme. I thought that's what he was warning of - until I got to the conclusion and realized he was condoning it. Yuck. It's like a bad episode of Sliders.

He may just be upset because he's no good at video games.

I wonder whether video game developers are also wasting their life? (I'm not a video game developer)

Unfortunately, as much as I enjoy HN, I think "Achievement Porn" is a danger on this site - I've recently recovered from an unproductive karma obsession. Although necessary for HN, karma is of little value (over a minimum threshold), except maybe for credibility reference for certain comments. The occasional binge can be instructive - everything in moderation I suppose(including moderation).

I don't agree with the author on one point, not all achievement in a game are "fake". Well, that actually depends on your perception of the definition of what is fake. In my opinion, if you actually solve a problem, a puzzle or a quiz in a game that amounts up to a "real" achievement.

gradubation...lol