
Awesome By Proxy: Addicted to Fake Achievement - DoctorProfessor
http://www.pixelpoppers.com/2009/11/awesome-by-proxy-addicted-to-fake.html
======
liquidcool
After 6 months of playing WOW, I finally got bored. I looked back at that time
and thought, "What could I have accomplished with 6 months of free time?"
Learned an instrument? Written an application? Dragged my fat carcass to the
gym and lost some weight?

That was early 2005, and I haven't played a video game since (other than some
GNUbg and a few hours of Street Fighter IV). I'm not entirely sure I've used
my free time as wisely as I could have, but I know I didn't waste it killing
boars.

------
manvsmachine
This is what I need to tell people when I try to explain my love for racing
games (and motorsports in general). To me, it really is the epitome of a
mastery-based genre, especially when dealing with time attacks. Multiple
failures with incremental improvements is absolutely required - "I need to do
that lap in 1:30 and I did it in 1:36; if I brake later on the second turn,
maybe I can bring it down to 1:34.4". Check results, adjust strategy, and
repeat.

For a real-life example check Top Gear's visit to the Bonneville Salt Flats:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKPPdTuk8I>. "To reach our targets we'll have
to get the wheelspin off the line _exactly right_. Every gear change, _exactly
right_. We'd have to get our line in the salt, _exactly right_. Every bit of
the run would have to be _perfect_."

~~~
jasongullickson
I have a friend who is working on breaking a motorcycle land-speed-record
(<http://bonnevilleproject.wordpress.com/>) who was the first person to
explain this to me. It's easy to dismiss drag racing as "build a big engine
and step on it" but as he demonstrated (through examples like you have
provided) any one thing can be broken down into millions of variables, and to
compete you have to be willing and able to tweak at this level to rise above
the obvious improvements (which quickly become commodity).

------
allenp
A related (but from a developer point of view) blog post by Jeff Vogel:
[http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2009/11/make-your-game-easy-t...](http://jeff-
vogel.blogspot.com/2009/11/make-your-game-easy-then-make-it-easier.html)

It is really interesting to see these posts come out just days apart - I
wonder if there is any cross pollination there.

~~~
mynameishere
topgear always bugs the hell out of me. To see a real racing film:

<http://www.hulu.com/watch/79438/on-any-sunday>

------
derefr
I don't believe my enjoyment of CRPGs with slim-to-nil skill requirement comes
from any sort of achievement-orientation; instead, it's just a simple
variable-schedule addiction mechanism—I pull the lever long enough, lights
flash. I don't enjoy the kind of lights slot machines have, but lights that
tell a story I enjoy quite a bit. In its effect it's quite like a parent
telling their child they'll have to wait for the next night to hear the end of
their bedtime story.

When I was young I would invite my friends over, and _they_ would play the
games—I would simply watch them, and offer strategic advice when I could
(which I gleaned from reading the included instruction manuals that they
usually ignored.) Thinking back, I got just as much out of this experience as
actually playing them[1] myself, if not more, due to the pair-programming-like
social interaction of pilot and navigator. The variable enforcement schedule
was still there, as there would be times that _they_ were stuck, and, by
empathy, I would feel stuck too. I was two levels removed from the game-world,
only able to direct my friend to direct the character, but it was still just
as fun.

I still play these games, already knowing their plots, just because I can
immerse myself in the game-world's atmosphere by deviating in any direction
from the "move the plot forward" one. It's a bit like taking a guided tour
through a sandbox game; when someone points out a lion, you can stop the bus
and ride it, then get back on toward the next stop. Even then, though, I know
it's really just a movie, and none of the "scenes" I'm creating for myself
would make it past editing.

If you find a lot of yourself in that description, by the way, I'd recommend
checking out the Let's Play Archive[2] from SomethingAwful. Basically just
people being your buddy and playing games with you, sometimes doing MST3K-like
additions to the narrative to make the presented stories even more compelling.

[1] "Them" as in CRPGs. I would not compare for a moment the fun of watching
someone play a skill-based game to actually playing it; the feelings are
orthogonal.

[2] <http://lparchive.org/LetsPlay/>

------
zephjc
Here is an article from a few years back that addresses this:
<http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060222/sirlin_01.shtml>

It's main points are is games like WoW teach the wrong lessons, like
"investing a lot of time in something is worth more than actual skill". This
addresses MMOs more specifically, but relates to the larger point raised by
the pixelpoppers article.

~~~
ewjordan
_It's main points are is games like WoW teach the wrong lessons, like
"investing a lot of time in something is worth more than actual skill"._

For the vast majority of our fellow humans, this is exactly the lesson they
_should_ learn to prepare for whatever they are likely to do for the rest of
their lives. It's a vanishingly small proportion of the population that cares
about cultivating a skill beyond "good enough", and that includes a greater
majority than you'd probably expect of programmers, academics, and people in
other "thinking" professions as well. Plenty of people need little more than a
stable income and a few loved ones around them to be happy.

And it's not necessarily a bad thing: shoot for mastery if that's what you
feel compelled to do, but if you don't feel you have what it takes, carve out
a comfortable niche and try to be happy in other ways. Everyone evaluates
their success against a different metric, and we should never be so arrogant
to assume that our personal metrics are valid when we measure others.

------
10ren
_my grades tended to be either A's or F's, as I either understood things right
away (such as, say, calculus) or gave up on them completely (trigonometry)_

Me too. I used to think it was cool to make no effort at all but still come
first - although, away from school, I put a _lot_ of effort into coding, and
was really proud of seeing deeper, solving difficult problems and getting
results.

In changing this, one concept I've used is: _value inputs, not outputs_.

Side note: if one places RPG's in the same category as books and movies (in
which the reader identifies with the protagonist), they can be seen as having
a mastery orientation...

------
bantic
Josh Waitzkin (the kid from Searching for Bobby Fischer) wrote a book called
the Art of Learning and he talks a lot about the difference between these two
modes of learning. He calls it Entity versus Incremental intelligence. (Really
good cliff's notes on the book by Derek Siver are here:
<http://sivers.org/book/ArtOfLearning>). He's even harsher on entity
knowledge-ists -- they crumble under the pressure. It's a good theory to
explain why some of the brightest kids I knew in high school have done nothing
with their lives since: they are afraid to mess up their 'undefeated' academic
records.

------
NickM
As a side note, I found this article really interesting in the context of the
recently released _Demon's Souls_. Despite being a fringe title with
essentially zero marketing, it's expected to sell 250,000 copies by the end of
the year. Why is it so successful? It breaks the conventions set by most
console RPGs in that leveling up only helps you a little bit, and you really
need to gain skill to advance.

So it's much, much more difficult than just about any modern console game I've
played, and yet it's hugely successful. This really seems to suggest that
there's a hole in the market for games catering to mastery-oriented gamers.

~~~
wmf
Isn't the entire multiplayer FPS market based on player skill? Maybe there's a
hole in the RPG market, but not the overall game market.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
Multiplayer FPS is based on social interaction, and skill is a close second
for that.

Edit: Also, RTS is extremely skill-based

------
klipt
A good article, but I'm wary of the idea that you can solve the problem by
spending just as much time, only on a different kind of solo computer game.

Solo computer games are fun for recreation* but until the AI in them starts
approaching humans levels they will never challenge you the way real people
can. Learning a martial art, studying math/computer science or playing a team
sport (even if it's a LAN strategy game) seems to me a much better way to
build muscles (physical, mental, social).

*but playing them too much is probably a sign of akrasia... <http://lesswrong.com/lw/15w/experiential_pica/>

However games which train actual working memory (e.g. Dual N-Back) may be an
exception.

------
roc
I'm not sure how well _genre_ maps to his argument, though I'd agree
'difficulty' as a distinct axis fits fairly well.

Yes, the Gygax/Arneson-style advancement system, when applied in CRPGs often
becomes a dynamic difficulty-scaling mechanism. But one needn't look any
further than this year's Most Important Game Ever (Call of Duty... 6?) to see
similar systems in the most sacred of 'skill based' genres: online,
multiplayer, first-person shooter. Put in the time, get power-ups.

~~~
dkarl
Yep, playing your best in COD and leveling up fast in COD are basically
incompatible. To play well, you have to be fresh and sharp. To level up fast,
you have to keep playing long past the point where you get groggy and start
slowing down. More than a few times I forced myself to keep playing until 3am
even when I was logging 5 kill / 15 death games, because I knew it would bring
me closer to weapons like the PTRS sniper rifle.

------
danteembermage
I think many action-oriented games are just as guilty of this. Instead of
leveling up your character, the skilling-up mechanism is memorizing the
hazards in the levels; with enough patience the player memorizes the pattern
and repeats back the appropriate response and wins. While this may teach a
"pocket-simon" memory skill, it still rewards patience over strategy or
reflexes or whatever else might be developed.

~~~
duskwuff
Case in point: Touhou.

------
amalcon
Some types of RPGs do have another attraction, that appeals to the "Master"
style: they give you a single system, and steadily tack options onto it. While
your character does improve as a result of this, if the game is well-designed,
the difficulty remains roughly constant or increases over the course of the
game. This gives you the opportunity to master aspects of the system in more
manageable chunks. That is, it takes a complex system that would normally
require a tutorial, and spreads the tutorial out over the whole game.

FPS/RPG hybrids often have this, the most notable I can think of being Deus Ex
(Bioshock is a passable example, but nowhere near as complex in the endgame).
Action and strategy RPGs have this if played in a certain way, though most of
them are just really easy to begin with. Roguelikes have this in spades. The
combat in pen-and-paper dungeons and dragons can have this.

Console-style RPGs like the Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest series usually
don't have this. MMORPGs usually don't have this as such; rather, they usually
have two almost independent games (beginning-game and endgame).

~~~
jerf
There are also other options. I've come to enjoy playing RPGs with the
deliberate goal of underleveling. Where a performance-oriented player's idea
of an ultimate fight is walking up to the end boss and smacking them down in
one hit with damage to spare, my ideal battle is every member of my party down
but the mage, every expendable expended, with the only option left for the
mage to attack with their staff... and that 1HP hit finishes the boss off.

I've never quite experienced this exact ideal, but I've come close. And I've
also been beaten, which makes the next time even sweeter when my adjusted
strategies carry the day.

This turns the game into a bit of a puzzle. Despite your mentioning them,
Final Fantasies have typically been very good at this, _if_ you take the
minimal/"easy" game path. Which does mean not doing all the extras, but as FF
games get bigger and bigger via copy&paste questing I'm finding this is less
of an issue than it used to be. (You can still do the "postgame" stuff if
you're that into it.)

The _Persona_ series also involve some skill and some luck; sometimes I find
it hard to believe how one error can be the difference between wiping my party
out without me touching the enemy and my wiping out the enemy without them
touching me. It doesn't seem like it should work that way, but it has happened
to me numerous times, where even a well-leveled party for where they are gets
themselves wiped out because I had a momentary brain fart and hit the wrong
command in the first round. It's a very mathematically unstable system, vs.
FF's very stable/predictable one, but great fun.

~~~
derefr
Indeed, the (early) Final Fantasy series actually becomes quite tactically
complex if you limit yourself such that you'll never take an unneeded step
except to move toward the plot, use various amenities (inn/shop/etc) or take
treasure. Doing so also means you don't end up with a glut of money, disabling
you from getting better equipment at every opportunity (but usually often
enough that it never becomes a serious problem in-and-of-itself.) Most bosses
can be "brute-forced", but they usually also have a strategic weakness that
most players might have never even discovered due to their higher-than-
required level upon reaching them.

------
RevRal
I liked the highly motivational ending, if you lose, in Death Duel for the
Sega Genesis:

 _Your defeat has brought chaos to the Federation. Your cowardice and betrayal
shall be known throughout the stars. Your decaying corpse will be an object
for ridicule and scorn. Disgrace will follow your family for centuries.

Once adorned and worshipped by all. Your rotting flesh will serve as a
reminder of the price of failure.

Oh, the horrible pain of defeat....

Game Over_

------
shalmanese
What an excellent way to explain this!

------
mkyc
<http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/> (2007) has the best account of this
effect that I've seen.

one page version:
[http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&...](http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=How+Not+to+Talk+to+Your+Kids&expire=&urlID=21157633&fb=Y&url=http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/)

------
srn
I play tabletop RPGs which could be considered fake achievement. The types I
play however reward creativity and problem solving so I think they have merit.

------
sofal
Quake has taught me more about how to confront pressure and competition than
my entire academic career.

~~~
srn
Quake gave me a sense of direction when I was a teenager. Before that I had
either walked very short distances or been driven everywhere. My sense of
direction meant I could figure out that this street was parallel to that
street etc. but it was not based on cardinal directions. When I started using
a map during college was when my sense of north aligned with north.

In silicon valley it's interesting because people sometimes define north/south
as parallel to the freeway north/south 101. It actually runs ~east/west where
I am.

