While I found some great friends during the "gaming years", most of the time games were ruining my life.
Yeah, I had my "gaming years", too - EverQuest in particular ate my life for a while to the extent that it threatened my mental health and my marriage.
What I discovered though was that EQ was a symptom, not the cause of my dysfunction. Gaming is an escape; I was at a point in my life where all I wanted to do was escape from it, and EQ offered that in unlimited quantity.
Pft says who? Few of my favorite games can be described as addictive. You can't simultaneously make the argument that "addictiveness" in the sense you're using it is bad, and then quickly switch word senses to claim its a requirement for very good games.
By "bad" I mean the impact of this game design on players' lives – the game is "too fun" for some of them.
I think there are a lot of players that see the Skinner Box-like mechanics popping up in mainstream works, and are increasingly turned off by it too.
I think it's better to judge games on the axis of compulsion vs fun. Some games you play because they feel inherently fun, like Mario. Others you play because you can't stop pressing the lever and it doesn't feel much fun, like grind heavy games. Only the latter kind of games should be called Skinner boxes IMO. And nobody dreams of making games like that! So the whole subthread started by your remark seems a bit unnecessary, no?
Game designers dream and talk a lot about creating the "flow" which is also achieved by correct reward ratio: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/166972/cognitive_flow...
The problem with the whole subthread is me assuming that everybody is more familiar with the subject and not writing a detailed explanation from the beginning.
> 1. Have concrete goals [Reinforcers] with manageable rules [Contingency].
> 3. Have clear and timely feedback [Response] on performance and goal accomplishment.
I'm not making things up – just retelling the common knowledge that I used for work. Ask other game designers if you do not believe me. I understand that deconstructing pleasant experiences into a set of primitive triggers is uncomfortable (hence, over a dozen downvotes) but it's useful to see what pulls the strings from behind the curtain.
Upthread, santaclaus said "I'd say games (and any art, for that matter) can and do improve lives," and you immediately disagreed. You appear to be arguing that games are always harmful. That's silly, and that's why you're getting such pushback.
Both mentioned games are adventures where you need to overcome a challenge (condition) to get a reward (reinforcement) which could be the following part of the story or just an item.
Every single game design can be disassembled to its basic elements this way. Even the most artistic indie games are made from conditions and reinforcers.
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131494/behavioral_gam...