Hacker News Reader

> Convince yourself that all side quests are for losers without better things to do. That may or may not be true, but it's helpful to avoid spending way too much time on any particular game. Aim for the ending credits

While I agree that side quests usually are waste, what is the purpose of your playing? Is it because it's fun or because you have to finish? One could argue that the main quest is also a form of side quest and only for losers without better things to do...

I think his point is that you'll still have fun playing the main story, but it'll take far less time away from you, and still leave you with the satisfaction of completion.

If you go for finishing side-quests, you may not feel satisfied until you've finished them all. That can take considerably longer and be considerably less worth-while than the main game. (e.g. saving princess and defeating nemesis vs. collect all 500 random blue hidden items. Both fun, one takes far less time, and is more "worthwhile".)

Fair point, although it depends on the game; I enjoyed the sidequests in Oblivion more than the main quest and would submit that most players would be really missing out if they didn't finish them.

Of course, that's quite a different thing to timesinks like "find all 400 hidden widgets" which can get pretty tedious...

Assassin's Creed II has some good examples of worthwhile and non-worthwhile side quests. I cannot imagine completing the game to one hundred percent, but half of that is activity which reveals more about the story (tombs, "truth" encodings), while the other half is just numbers (collecting feathers, weapons, and paintings, although I admit to having taken interest in the last one having been an art history minor).

Agreed.

Some games explain story elements in the side quests, for example. Others add additional gameplay experiences. When I buy a game, I buy it to enjoy it, not so I can ignore 50-75% of it, and as long as I'm enjoying the game (rather than playing purely because I feel I'm missing out on something, even though its not enjoyable), I want to get the most out of it. Especially if it was an expensive game (though I normally only buy games on offer).

Besides, most games have terrible endings, so its more about the journey (the quest, the side quests) than the destination (ending credits).

Its all about fun and enjoyment. Plying a game when you don't enjoy it is stupid. Also, if you have X amount of time to play games, then playing for longer than X is obviously bad, regardless of if you enjoy it or not, but the same is true for watching TV, playing sports etc etc. Everything in life must be balanced.

I was referring mainly to side quests like those of Red Dead Redemption. It's those "Collect 20 Bear Pelts" side quests that can really sap your time for a lower endorphins dosage. Side-stories are A-OK in my book.

Videogames don't cause cancer, but I wonder whether we'll look on them as being sort of like cigarettes or alcohol in a few decades. There are enough "Wives of Warcraft" stories out there to suggest that normal models of human volition break down when presented with highly addictive material.

  South Korea Cracks Down on Gaming Addiction

  He was pleased last week when the government ordered what 
  it calls a "nighttime shutdown" for gamers: the Ministry 
  of Culture, Sports and Tourism directed the operators of 
  the three most popular games to block people under age 18 
  from playing games between midnight and 8 a.m. starting in 
  September. Another rule will significantly slow down the 
  Internet connections of young players if they engage for 
  too many hours into the night, rendering the more 
  graphics-intensive games unplayable, and several other 
  bills are pending in the National Assembly that could 
  restrict kids' gaming habits even further. "It's a great 
  idea," says Yoon. "Video-game addiction is having bad 
  effects on our generation. The kids have to study and grow 
  up eventually."

> "The kids have to study and grow up eventually."

Studying addiction is just as much of a problem in South Korea as gaming addiction is. South Korean children spend a ridiculously high amount of time in class, most of it used very inefficiently. Taking away what scant leisure time the children have and devoting it to more studying is going to have a net negative effect, not a net positive one.

Games really are not addicting. They are compelling, and can easily be used to escape life when it really sucks. Honestly, books, TV, and music can easily be used for the same purpose.

Why are these kids being allowed to play games at those hours? Sounds like bad parenting to me.

There are people who spend vast amounts of time watching, training for, and playing games like football. I haven't ever heard someone say that is unhealthy and a bad thing, even if football is all they ever talk about and use their free time for. Where is the boundary between Football, Chess, D&D, SC2, Quake, and WoW? When does it transition from a healthy interest to a waste of life? Why is the line drawn there?

Because you can make a lot more money being a football player or coach.

That's where the line is drawn.

So, Chess and SC2 must be ok because (somewhere, sometime) there are people playing these games competitively and making money, while D&D and WOW are evil, at least doing more than 10hrs/week, because it's not done competitively and you don't get any reminders about it if/when you are a loser(?)

This is the first media-neutral definition of games that are worth/aren't worth playing obsessively that I've seen, and it actually makes some sense.

Many people play football without any hope for making money of it. Why does the fact that someone somewhere makes money from it matter?

It's very likely that only 1% of children who spent countless hours of their childhood in organized sports ever made a dollar off of it.

I had friends that spent 2 hours a night, saturday morning and sunday morning playing organized football (soccer). Their grades were always low because they rarely completed the assigned homework. They had no social life in football season, literally no social life. I had a friend who would be grounded if he got an after school detention, because it meant he missed an evening practice. He didn't get punished because he'd done wrong, he got punished because his dad wanted him playing sports.

I played video games. I had lots of free time to socialise with friends, my grades were always excellent. Me and my friends would get together for gaming parties, 8-player C&C games, Halo 4 player deathmatch tournaments, etc. I spent most of my time interacting with people. Even when I was at home playing games, half the time I was online with my high school friends.

Why is there a line drawn in allowing parents to forcibly confine their children into organized sports because a very slim minority that don't get serious injuries and manage to play in the top 5 percentile MAY be scouted and then MAY get picked to play for a professional team. If not, they're just a loser that spent way too much time playing a game and achieved nothing.

At least video gamers tend to lead a life because they need money to buy games.

It may be true that video games are addictive, but so are cigarettes and alcohol and the majority of addicts lead normal productive lives because these minorly addictive substances require money. This money requirement means people work, which mean people socialize.

Most gamers I knew as a kid had paper routes or mowed lawns for money. Why? Because money bought games. The kids playing sports didn't have paper routes, they didn't have the time. They never did a job until they graduated highschool.

Myself at 15 was working as a video game reviewer. It was a job that gave me video games.

Why are you shooting the messenger? I never said I liked football being glorified over other games.

If you fail to get into the NFL, you can at least coach. No one is going to pay you to coach them Halo.

Playing football involves running and jumping and being alive. Playing Farmville involves sitting still and clicking the same buttons over and over and over. Football breeds real, live, community. Farmville virtualizes community.

Football intuitively seems healthy, whereas Farmville seems perverse and almost purely destructive.

We can safely say that Farmville is addictive because it is designed to be addictive, and succeeds at invoking addictive behaviors. People who play football/watch football don't seem to do so addictively.

Come on, are you being serious? Are you trolling?

> Football intuitively seems healthy

I completely agree, which is why I included it!

My personal experience has been that Chess is treated in much the same way. Sure, they might be happier with that person having picked Football, but nobody would ever call them addicted to Chess.

I agree that Farmville is an abomination; I disagree with calling it addictive. Sure, you can demonstrate that people will abuse games (I'm unsure about Farmville, but this certainly applies to ones like WoW) to avoid real life and to make themselves feel better. Taking away their computer may result in them exhibiting withdrawal symptoms such as irritability. The same is true of movies, TV programs, books, computer programming, and almost any sort of entertainment.

People can play games for many different reasons. A few:

- casual, healthy entertainment

- competition, like regular sports sans muscles

- a way to avoid dealing with life

The 3rd is a problem, but is not exclusive to games, and is generally ignored if you use something like books. That said, many video games are perfect for being used for avoiding life; IMO due to the easy immersion, repetitive interaction, and satisfying rewards.

Wow, those are almost the exact same criteria I've adopted since having kids. My list of games that have hit the bar in the last 10 years or so:

- Half-Life Series

- BioShock Series

- Fallout Series

- Deus Ex Series

- Elder Scrolls Series

Those are the ones that immediately jump to mind. I'd hate to have missed those. There are plenty of awful games out there, but there are also some wonderful storytellers advancing the field first mapped out by games like zork.

The Elder Scrolls is probably the last modern D&D-like RPG I really look forward to. Since Baldur's Gate it just hasn't been the same. But Morrowind was pretty groundbreaking and Oblivion was great. I have to admit I'm looking forward to Skyrim!

I looked at "Elder Scroll series" and "Fallout series" and wondered how these met the 30 hour rule. Then I remembered that the advice also suggests skipping all side-quests. If you're only playing the main-quest stuff in those games, though, you're missing out on the best content.

I'm not a big fan on limiting game play in this way, but I also recognize that different things work (or don't) for different people.

Your tricks list reads like the constraint list of your typical professional game reviewer. Depending on the game, many gamers complain that reviews are lackluster or misleading for missing much of the game content.

That said, while I understand the desire to play as many different games as you can in your limited time. Some of us prefer to spend less money or effort looking for games and really savor those that have long playtimes and replay ability.

Back in the old times, I used to play games, and loved gameplay innovations. I discovered that certain brands were the ones continually delivering innovation: Nintendo, Koei, Sid Meier, etc.

With time, It was becoming more and more difficult to find innovation. Until a point in which I mostly lost interest. Except for some occasional incredibly polished games based on established gameplay mechanics, or the rare little innovations that pop up somewhere.

I think that what may open up the space for innovations again, are new interface paradigms, like immersive virtual reality, or AI. What stops these innovations from being realized, are non-viable budget requirements, and a market flooded with worthless games.

Are you from 5 years ago?

There has been a huge indie golden age in recent times & I'd argue we never had it as good as now in terms of innovative games.

Totally agree, try Braid, Portal 1 & 2, Limbo, Minecraft, Karoshi, World of Goo.. Outlets like xbox live arcade and ios app store make it easier for indie developers to reach a large audience.

Some people ignore indie games, sadly... But you've just mentioned them, so perhaps this person will take a look at them and see what they've been missing :D Because yes, indie games are awesome.

KOEI? Maker of Romance of the 3 Kingdoms/Dynasty Warriors games 1 through 17?

Borderlands got 84%. I'd still highly recommend it for all of the other reasons you like games for.

Borderlands is also infinitely better when played with three other real people.

I've not had friends who wanted to play it, so I've been enjoying it single player.

I'll have to see if I can cajole some people into it.

If you haven't played them, the Uncharted series fits your criteria rather well.

Yeah... I've really been wanting to play those, but I really don't want to buy a PS3 for just 3 games :-P

Can you list the games you enjoy, please?

Xbox 360 games and series that stick out in my memory:

Batman, Halo, Call of Duty, Gears of War, Splinter Cell, LA Noire, Assassin's Creed, GTA, Dead Space, Bastion, Red Dead Redemption, Shadow Complex, Splosion Man, Braid

I seem to have naturally gravitated towards this since I enjoy playing games and simultaneously feel like I should be doing something better with my time.

Additionally, if I don't personally rate a game as more than '90%' I trade it in.

The thing is, if you have control you can play ANY game without getting sucked in, they focus on the people without this type of self preservation.

What I do is give my brother my password for Steam and not keep a copy for myself. When I am busy, I just log out of Steam and I can't play any games until I ask my brother for the password.