@Supporters : Should GGG use some of its money to buy videogame Psychologists Expertise ?

"

fortispectus wrote:

i know what the OP meant.. and i think you guys are missing the point here.
While psychologist is not needed. people like kripparian and the others are kind of hurting the game because viewers figure out the op build, end game maps and what to expect by WATCHING

if there is no streamers..players who figure this out would have twice more the fun than watching..

example would be something like this :

remember when you play those old playstation 1 final fantasy games, and get one of the best weapon and beat extreme boss and then you feel very satisfied because you know most of your friends doesn't know how ?

yes you don't get these kind of feeling in most games these days due to internet and streamers.

but without streamers i think you can those kind of satisfaction back...

its w/e though..

The idea that there are still "Secrets" is out dated for almost everything that can be Googled. People that don't want spoilers or build guides can usually avoid that kind of stuff and have their fun exploring the game.

Other than watching one of Invalesco's guide to racing a long time ago, I've had no interest in watching other people play. I'd rather be playing myself.

I do admire the players who have lots of skill and experience. There are lot of them out there running games right now, and some of them don't mind a few questions every now and then on how they accomplish what they are doing. You can often see their technique just by watching as you play alongside them.

I enjoy that aspect of multiperson gaming a lot.

When I do try to implement what I've learned, it isn't always easy, and doesn't yield the same level of success, but it can add some more fun, and possibly danger if it lets my characters push the limits a little bit more.

"

Inexium wrote:

While writing this thread i found this interesting page :
http://www.psychologyofgames.com/2013/09/does-respeccing-your-character-in-diablo-3-make-you-happy/

OK, I read through that page and one other:

http://www.psychologyofgames.com/2010/07/the-psychology-of-immersion-in-video-games/

I'm not sure if these are real psychologists or not, but their assumptions are flat out wrong in several cases.

For instance, in the first link they state:

Decades of research in psychology labs and in the field has shown that humans are super good at seeking out, overvaluing, and remembering information that lets them feel better about their current situation. This has been studied under many names: dissonance reduction, self-deception, ego defense, positive illusion, emotion-based coping, self-affirmation, self serving attribution, and subjective optimization.

Notice where all of the "names" used imply that what people are doing is accepting or adapting to failure to some degree.

Now think about this - would most people rather be sad or happy. Now, given the average reader's circumstances compared to what reality is like for many people, do they really have any reason not to be happy?

Starving, homeless, diseased, oppressed, illiterate, jobless - yeah those are reasons to need to cope.

Having a character who picked the wrong skill tree passives and isn't uber at maps - no , not a reason to need any coping.

The article on "Immersion" failed to once mention self-identification with the on screen character. It focused heavily on the sensory environment. Yet, how many players remember Fus-Ro-Dah! Is because the graphics of that skill were more immersive than others? No, it was because it was fun and people could imagine if they had that skill in real life. A quick look at Youtube will confirm that.


Their article on "Nostalgia" in games is equally flawed. They mention technical aspects of older games (using pencil and paper) without once alluding to what many people did enjoy in those "great" games. For some, it was graphics or an environment that was top of line at the time, for most I would suspect it was exciting gameplay. Games that require quick actions or good thinking and end up being fun, are likely to be thought of fondly down the road.

If that same article was written with PoE as nostalgic game, the only thing they would likely comment on would be Desync and Forum QQ'ing. You would think that anything newer would be better.

My apologies to those who wrote the articles, but whoever did really isn't a gamer and should find another field or quit making so many assumptions.

Having a degree in something should mean having useful coherent thoughts on subjects of expertise, but sometimes it is just another piece of paper.


TLDR - If the two articles on that site are any indication of the rest, the site is utter rubbish.

Bullshit.

Blizzard hired teams of economists and psychologists to help design D3. So, no. Stop it.

Just so you guys know, you can look at game design as applied psychology.

The designers are intentionally manipulating the player into having the experience that the designer wants, or to put it bluntly, to have 'fun'.

"

ciknay wrote:

Just so you guys know, you can look at game design as applied psychology.

The designers are intentionally manipulating the player into having the experience that the designer wants, or to put it bluntly, to have 'fun'.

I'd agree with your first statement. On the second, I don't think the game designers need to manipulate the player, all they need to do is afford the opportunity to have fun. I'm sure some games try to steer the player too much, while others don't offer enough structure.

Easier solution.

Ask a couple of the many PoE players.

As a studying psychologist I find this whole premise ridiculous, I don't want to spend 5 years of my life studying so that I can help someone overcome inadequacies about their build in a video game. Are you serious man? There are more people in the world that need psychological help that don't receive it. We should probably focus on them.

"

Inexium wrote:

Hello,




I realised that Kripparian has a 100% chance to make a better build than mine

I'm sure if Kripparian had the time to read this thread he would give you a more accurate percentage and it would probably have several more digits.

in any game of high skill level there will be good players that tower over the lesser ones like gods.

In PoE a lot of the 'skill' can be acquired just by following a guide. This is true for many other games. You can learn the combos from the tournament pros. You can watch a speed run of contra/gradius and learn good tactics. However poe is a very low skill cap game. Even if you memorize all the combos in street fighter you still get your ass kicked if you arn't quick, calm, and able to read opponents. Enemies patterns in contra/gradius are lightning quick, often difficult to predict, and the slightest mistake is punished greatly.

In PoE most content is overcome through simply grinding, whether for levels or currency to buy better gear. Reaction time does play a small factor but enemies are much less dangerous and much more predictable than in steet fighter, contra, or gradius. Mistakes are easily fixed with potions, town portals, or just extra grinding.

In other words because PoE is a low-skill game once you have been taught the correct techniques
(good build, effective grinding methods) than there isn't too much else to the game.