. . . and still playing, apparently.
My opinion on how things should be Re OP:
10 Likes
Yes, exactly. Its called trial and error.
If someone hands you a spoon, you wont appreciate the food you are about to eat. Only by trial by fire, only through experiencing it, will you truly appreciate the game.
If we are talking about maturity and experience, then neither. Even an adult can, and do, act like immature idiots. It depends on the person. You can have a 40 year old scream and shout in his mic like an idiot and make the same mistake a new player would, and rage quit all the same. It has everything to do with what sort of character you have. Some are made for this world of eve, others, not so much.
No, because a video game is different from reality.
It is good to get a kill streak and kill a lot of players in Call of Duty.
It is wrong to get a kill streak and kill a lot of civilians in the real world.
And when you find a 0 year old playing EVE, i will agree with you, he shouldnt be playing this game.
But EVE is rated T for Teens, and its average player base is 40 years old.
The player behind the character, can certainly give consent.
Call of duty.
I dont have to play single player. I dont have to play for a second. I can install, and go straight to multiplayer, and die, repeatedly and suck.
3 Likes
Trial and error is another way of saying, “Guess and fail and guess and fail and guess and fail . . .”
Do you see the “fail” part in there? When you MAKE someone fail, they usually don’t have fun and they need a certain, narrow frame of reference to make any sense of their failure. In order to establish an appropriately narrow frame of reference, they need to have gathered enough points of data, enough experience, to form that frame of reference. Just slapping the spoon out of their hand every time they try to take a bite isn’t teaching them. It’s just abuse.
Okay, but if the person keeps playing, no matter how they choose to play, who are you to decide that they are or are not “made for this” world of EVE?
How so? ← This is not a rhetorical question. You are making a distinct assertion that should be very easy to support.
Killing a bunch of enemy on the battlefield isn’t exactly “wrong”, and neither is killing civilians for that matter, but why are we comparing this with playing . . . Call of Duty? This isn’t a discussion about Call of Duty.
But like you just said, it isn’t so much about age or experience. It is about whether the player can properly adapt to the “game”. To go back to your spoon analogy, if I just slap the spoon out of the player’s hand before they can take a bite, they will never get the chance to adapt to the environment. Give them enough time to solve the problem or at least formulate plausible solutions and they might.
There are no age 0 players, obviously. The question is how much of their previous experience is relevant and how much of it and how quickly can they bring it to bear on the problem of “game”? If you slap the spoon out of their hand over and over too soon and too quickly, then the answer will always be “none”.
1 Like
That’s like disputing that the sky is blue (usually). Or that 1+1=2. I mean seriously. How can you claim that a video game is equivilant to reality.
4 Likes
Because if you get shot in a video game, you don’t actually get shot in real life. You’re still just sitting at your computer.
2 Likes
1+1=2 because we say it does. We could construct mathematics from other sets of facts that would also be self consistent and useful for describing observed material reality.
“Blue” has a very distinct meaning. It is the token correlated with a specific, visual phenomenon.
“Real” does not have a distinct meaning. Things are “real” in relation to other things. To me, your pain or your joy is not “real” except in your physiological response to it. I don’t experience the “reality” in which you enjoy or suffer, only in my own “reality”, which is just a model of the “real” world. I can imagine your joy or your suffering, but those are my own machinations. The only objective phenomenon I can point to and call “real” with respect to your joy or suffering are the changes in your physical object, your body.
So to say that a video game is not “real” requires either that I completely disregard everything but objective, empirical reality or it requires that I at least embrace without evidence the possibility that the visual phenomenon I experience as “a video game” does not correlate to any more fundamental phenomena that would constitute an underlying reality. But then the stars would just be points of light in the sky, and not giant balls of plasma light years away.
“Since the initial publication of the chart of the electromagnetic spectrum, humans have learned that what they can touch, smell, see, and hear is less than one-millionth of reality.”
― R. Buckminster Fuller
What you are saying is that the consequences for failure in the video game are not the same as the consequences for failure in “reality”, but just like in “reality”, there are consequences to failure and just like in “reality”, we are induced to psychological and even physical response to those consequences.
There is no “getting shot” in a game, because there are no bullets “in” the game. My physical, biological avatar is not participating in the game. It’s like saying a car race isn’t “real” because when I wrecked, my Porsche was fine. It took no damage . . . when that’s not the car I was running the race in. It’s an absurd notion.
Our MINDS are in the game. Is your mind real? Mine is. And just as in “reality”, my mind attempts to make sense of the events in a video game. It adapts its priorities and normalizing processes to interpret and predict events. It is not fundamentally different from a small child trying to figure out how to use a spoon to eat with. If you think it is, then by all means explain to me HOW it is different? Otherwise, I reject your assertion.
What? No. Maths is a constant not subject to whim or even individual perception.
3 Likes
1+1 can equal 3 or more, this happens occasionally if you forget about contraception.
4 Likes
Yes, but so what, because what you asked when told that:
…a video game is different from reality…
is
how so?
It’s pretty simple.
All of the abstract rubbish after that is exactly that. Rubbish, but does explain why you aren’t able to separate the game from reality and instead want fewer players playing the game.
3 Likes
If you enjoy his forum musings, you should hear what he says in SWA corp chat. There’s a reason that most players have him blocked…
4 Likes
As much as nails down a blackboard.
3 Likes
That much? I’d rather have my entrails stirred with a red hot poker.
3 Likes
That’s like living in England right?
2 Likes
Indeed, but we’re ever so polite about it.
2 Likes
So, it works just like reality. It works consistently with reality. And it works within reality . . . but it’s not reality?
^ This doesn’t work. People don’t fundamentally alter their behavior just because they are “in” a game nor do they remain “in” the game in their decision making continuously, but rather the greater external reality also informs their play. That’s why they can even play at all. We don’t have hands “in” the game to click the mouse “out” of the game. We use our “out of game” hands.
If you accept the alternative, that a video game is not, fundamentally, different from “reality”, then everything makes sense and you can see how giving players a chance to learn about and experience the game before imposing negative experience and consequence on them might be a good idea.
That’s what games are; right? They’re a way to “play” reality without injury, death, humiliation, etc. That’s probably their original purpose.
Sure. If you get shot in game, you’ll be shot in reality.
No wonder you are such a Carebear. I’d be too if I believed that.
I guess you are one of the nuts that believes that players shooting in COD is what they do in real life. The behaviour is the same.
That’s Alex Jones level thinking.
Games are a form of escapism for a lot of people. It’s exactly because they can alter their behaviour, that they get some enjoyment from games.
To others they are completely inconsequential entertainment. Nothing of value is affected by anything (as per the EULA, which we all agreed to).
2 Likes
How about not allowing mining for the first 90 days. Newbs are just going to lose their Ventures to the Trig patrols anyway…
5 Likes
This suggestion makes a lot more sense.
Mining is associated with the group of players that end up playing the game for the shortest amount of time. The boring, monotony of it is exactly what it seems a vast majority of people are not looking for when they first join EVE (it takes some time to truly appreciate the monotony of mining).
The OP should be proposing the opposite of what he wants. Throw new players into pvp corps asap. Give them some assets to go lose and get them into fleets and corps. Get them engaged in the social aspects of the game, rather than the anti-social aspects that mining promotes.
6 Likes