What if everyone behaved the same way with games?
Imagine a world where everyone was a cheater, or a fanboy, or a non-team-player
Immanuel Kant was a freaking pimp. It is one of my favorite philosophers because the guy was so stupidly intelligent and logical, his writing can make you smarter than by reading. It is difficult not to come in vain as when philosophy into play, but the purpose of this feature is to have fun with mental exercise, do not enter certain pompous pseudo-sophisticated. The fun here is to take the luster of the logic of Kant, by applying it to video games, and run with it to see what might happen. I mean, just look at the guys, you do not know what he thinks?
One of my hobbies out is to apply Kant’s categorical imperative to things in everyday life, just for fun. Kant, be the pimp he was, found a method to determine the ethical character of a purely by logic. He believed that regardless of whether God said something was right or wrong, or if it caused the least pain to the least number of people have been vague and imprecise way to measure ethics.
The categorical imperative asks you to consider an action that you are about to take, and then extend it to a universal maxim. Here’s my favorite example: Say you are planning to steal something. To be “good” to steal something, you’d have to turn it into a maxim: “Stealing is permitted.” Notice that there is no circumstantial parameters. It based on circumstances similar to what extent something worth stealing or who you are vague and subjective. For Kant, this is not good enough. “Since everyone is equal, you should think about this: If it’s good for you to fly this thing, it should be acceptable for everyone to steal anything at any time. So what happens if you follow this to its logical conclusion? If it is permissible for anyone to steal whenever they feel like The very concept of property no longer makes sense (how can you own something, if someone can take it away from you?). And if the property has no meaning, you can not really rob, can you? The concept involves the theft of property. The proposed ethics contradict logic itself, and so therefore the theft is bad.
Well, this is rather difficult to digest all at once, and I do not blame you if you say: “Wait a minute, this is not quite meaningful to me.” Part of the problem is that I ‘m not as pimp as Immanuel Kant, and nearly as smart, so I’m not the best to explain. If you want a strong explanation, here. Included? Fine, we’ll have fun with Kantian ethics and video games!
What we do here is look at some of behavior related to games that have aroused controversy in the discussions. I guarantee great importance to at least some of them. The fun part is to imagine what happens if we apply the categorical imperative (very bad) behavior in video games. So what would happen if a certain behavior is acceptable? Everybody decided to do the same thing?
What if …
… Everyone is cheating?
Cheaters should think that this is not a big deal they do. They are just having a little fun, so what’s all the fuss? If we apply the categorical imperative of their actions, this would mean that it is normal for everyone to cheat, at any time. Imagine this world. The most common form of fraud is to download and use hacks created by the real hackers (most cheaters do not know how to program hacks, they just buy or download them for free). Since video games are essentially coded rule sets, and hacks rewrite these rules, we would have a world where nobody is really playing games designed by the developers. They are totally playing different sets of rules laid down by hackers. As there are different types of hacks available, among cheaters there would always be people who play different sets of rules in a single game. What this means that some cheats would accuse others of using “unfair” cheats? Somehow, I doubt they would see the irony in this field.
I would also bet that the cheats of today say: “It would be great! Then we would pirates game developers! We’d be writing the rules! “In a way, that would be true. However, there would be other consequences of this. What developers do, knowing that the rules they write in games would just get rewritten by everybody? Video Games as collections of rules written and sold by developers, would be essentially meaningless. If everyone cheated, games could potentially cease to be made quite because why bother? This would be like trying to make a movie or write a book when you know that the public will simply rewrite the way they want.
… Everybody bought pirated games or used games that?
I, AOM amalgam of these two together, not because of an intrinsic link with ethics. Everyone can see how the two practices are not the same thing. However, the interesting thing is, these two practices, if applied universally, have the same result. If everyone pirated games, so no games would be bought for money. If only everyone bought games used, so no games would be purchased with funds that met the developers. The result is the same: the game industry to collapse the moment, because both practices rely on other people first purchase of new games.
I, AOM not blind to the wider application of this argument and how old it is. The same argument could be made for the music industry (and boy did they say about it), but it could even be made for libraries, libraries and no one thinks are wrong. Now, a big argument that proponents of the use of music piracy, is that the industry could still survive, it would just rethink how to make money (as live performances). We already see this AORE in games with anti-piracy aren, Aot DRM, such as special content available only for legitimate copies of the game (fighting also used to purchase the game). The funny thing is, if everyone only bought used games, the behavior would itself defeat retailers such as GameStop person who would buy new games, so to avoid going bankrupt, they have Aód to stop selling games fully utilized.
The easy justification for not buying new games is that your purchase is a drop in the ocean. Like most people buy new games, which would hurt your transaction? Consider this: the drop is still a drop, so your purchases, however insignificant, are still affecting the industry. She AOS the same argument about the vote: why should you vote when your vote doesn, AOT has long term? Because if everyone thought like that, nobody votes, and the system would collapse. I’m not saying it’s wrong to buy used games, but it is interesting to consider the effects when applied universally.
… Everyone camped in shooters?
This one, AA funny, and also a little sad. Firstly, I have no problem with the campers. If this is what they want to do very well, I’ll treat it as it comes. But what happens when we imagine a world where everyone finds a hiding place and waited for the enemy to come? Imagine a map of Modern Warfare 2, where nobody moves after finding their original (okay, so how hardcore is close but not quite). Shooters, by their self-definition, should logically implode, because nobody would do any shooting. Camping only promotes gameplay if some people refuse to do so.
On the other hand, what if nobody ever camped? Each shooter would become a run-and-gun game of tic-oriented. Of course, the old shooters like Quake and Unreal Tournament have their place, but the shooters have evolved to become more tactical and methodical. This is what the campers will tell you they do – be tactical. Many players say that the best style of play is when you stop short camp, and then move on (which is not really camping if you do not stay there, right?). It is difficult to imagine as it is applied universally, but the main point to consider if you are camping, this is the only reason that you can do that and still take anyone because at least some of your opponents don ‘t do what you do.
… Everyone played to win?
I Äôve talked about the mentality of playing to win before (I, AOM a promoter, just to make donation, Aot hide any bias). It breaks down like this: if you choose to play to win, you do everything you can within the rules of the game to win. So, excluding piracy, but everything else is a game, including everything doubled Äúcheap., At lot of people who choose not to play to win do so because, SOA is not as fun for them. Or, AOS not see why this may or may not be the case if everyone plays to win. First, we have cheap Aód person caller, because everything is fair game. It would also mean that the most powerful weapons and strategies / tactics would get abused like crazy. He would probably say that most games, playstyles would be reduced to obtain the most effective, reducing the options because no weapons or low key characters / classes.
This scenario n, Aot difficult to imagine because real life multiplayer games is already partly there. Think of all the noobtubers (fucking grenade launchers), all actors Ken, all rushers Zerg. We find what works and then others copy them. The problem, of course, is that with limited options, the games tend to become less diverse and less interesting (which people often use the argument against playing to win).
Above: “superior tactics to win again! What you say, you’ve never boxed before? How does this affect me? ”
The unknown factor in this imaginary scenario is dedicated to developers how would their agreement after the games release. Take, for example, the original StarCraft. Blizzard is known for a very broad support after release, and treatment of StarCraft is emblematic of this approach. StarCraft has managed to remain more popular way than any other multiplayer game competitive, and yet his players have always been fiercely hardcore. How to manage the game for not crumbling under the weight of some cookie-cutter strategies under control? continuing balance.
The other factor is how the players are ready to deal with reduced options. Take the number of iterations of Street Fighter, for example. To play in the tournament, where everyone, in fact, play to win, there are rows of characters. If you try to win a tournament with a low level character, nobody will expect you to win. Thus, even if Street Fighter is loved by people who play to win, it’s still a game that is less diverse than it should be, because some characters are simply not considered viable (although several tournaments have been upsets which supposedly features a surprisingly low level below).
The reverse is also interesting to consider: what if no one plays to win? Would everyone has more fun, like anti-game winning advocates say? Perhaps, even if it is ironic that some options would also be eroded – they just be the most powerful options instead of weaker. Unfortunately, there is a fatal error by refusing to use the most powerful options: once you’ve tried “cheap” items out of bounds, something else would become the leading power. This argument plays to win many supporters do: if you continue to remove the best weapons, everyone would be fighting against the worst guns without special abilities, because it’s “true skill.” However, I am not a proponent of this argument because it is an error known as a slippery slope. Just because A causes B, it does not mean that A always leads to B, C and D. Yet there is a Kernal of logic here: How do you determine what is “cheap” and what is not? Could all players agree? Is it possible to determine a clear distinction, no doubt this is an honest game?
I hope to have at least got you thinking about what it means to play to win or not play to win. I will not tell you who is right or wrong, but you know my personal feelings on the matter. I just hope you at least take a minute to think like Kant – “What games will be like if everybody played to win, or do not play to win?”
… Everyone was a fanboy / girl?
Imagine a world where everyone owned a single platform and open the possibility that good games could never exist on other systems. A world where every comment in a magazine called into question the integrity of the author whenever a “bad” score was assigned to the platform fanboys “chosen / cons? Of course, all reviewers should be fanboys as well, if the games on their systems selected would receive favorable scores while the opposite would be biased to score low. What’s funny to me is that real life fanboys already see the commentators rather than fanboys that they are or not.
I wonder, how would it affect the game development and releases? Developers should be fanboys too, so either they would develop games for their platforms chosen or in case of multi-platform releases, they would surely have to work half-ass on alternate platforms. We would have to assume that in any studio, not everyone would even fanboys (at least with third-party developers for obvious reasons) and so we would have dev teams essentially self-sabotage as some members of the team s efforts to “make a platform game of some high quality while others do not care.
What do you think? Would opposing fanboys cancel, or would it be disastrous for the industry? Surely it would be terrible for the industry, but at the same time, if devs could push vigorously to get awarded only to projects on any platform they like, can it be good for gaming? Then we could have a group of developers working with fervent passion to design a game that perfectly suit the platform. On the other hand, it could produce games botched because the blind love of a platform that can do no wrong can result in games that do not correspond to the hardware (like a dev trying to create an MMO on Wii, for example – and no, Monster Hunter Tri does not count)
One thing is certain: implode fanboyism in the expression of opinions, since the statements of people on a game can be trusted (even from an unbiased public), and those who would listen to their fanboys same, automatically updating the statements did not reflect their beliefs, even if these statements were valid, because fanboys are right at least part time.
Of course, in a sense, it’s just saying: “All the discussions about the games would be any discussion on the Internet.”
… But everyone bought games that has received critical acclaim?
A lot of huffing and puffing is thrown around when it comes to review scores (on our website is not excluded), and especially the Almighty Metacritic. Developers and publishers make a big deal of their Metacritic scores, and not just because they want their games regarded as objectively good, but more because of the belief that higher scores translate into strong sales. There must be some correlation exists, even if we can all think of exceptions to the rule.
However, if only everyone bought games that say scored 8 / 10 or more (for some 7 / 10 became the new “poor”), what would happen to the industry? First, in the immediate future, companies specializing in shovelware immediately go out of business. Large companies that produce both high and low quality games should change their business plans. The practice of pre-orders will go out (if it’s a good thing or not, I’m not sure). Clearly, the average quality of games will increase, even if the examiner scores have a huge amount of scope for subjectivity. However, something strange would certainly: Media Games would have to move their rating criteria, because all good games are equal. In a sense, it is a distilled version of what everyone calls the rating system 7-10. Score systems would have to adjust to what is now considered an 8 / 10 (“big” on the scale GamesRadar) should be the equivalent of a tenth. Although this seems absurd, we will follow the behavior further down the road – now, players are only buying games worthy of 8 / 10 or more on this new scale inflated. We can see that the games, then have to continuously improve quality to meet the demands of a world of demanding gamers.
The opposite course of action becomes clear – if everyone bought bad games, the quality of all the games would fall permanently. Although the real world does not work in these two extremes, they serve as a model for what these types of behavior promoted.
… Everybody played team games selfish?
We have all seen the solo-Rambo – players who could not care less about his teammates, who have the ability to heal or replenish your energy and even run right past you when you are injured and politely macro (no spamming) “We need a doctor! “What kind of game world are contributing to Rambos? If everyone followed their example, the games team is strange, and probably very boring. A strange thing is that the actual results of team matches against the team may not really change. If everyone plays for themselves, no team will use teamwork to dominate the opposition. Matches will be won and lost without much change in the results.
However, the gameplay itself would certainly change, and it would become more homogeneous. Most people probably play offensive style classes, although we could imagine getting used tutoring as they have the capacity for self-promotion, such as self-healing.
Above: “I could be the healing of my teammates, but I think I’ll heal my turret because it kills me”
The developers would see no point in adding features team-oriented, so the game is not only simplistic, they again become more similar. Each shooter is on the order of shooting and little else. Players would also like to kill wolves, all scrambling to get in the way of being “best.” This reminds me of the old adage crabs in a bucket. Supposedly, as long as you more than one crab in a bucket, there is no need for a lid, because the crabs pull each other in attempts to escape. By not working together, no escape from them. Crabs should really spend more time to read Kant.
… Developers multiplayer / co-op for all games?
Here’s one that seems to be approaching reality. How many times now it seems that multi-player or co-op modes have horned shoes in games, because market research showed that these games sell more components? With all these resources dedicated to multiplayer, it certainly affects the quality of the solo mode. I do not play the solo parts are bad in adding multiplayer, but imagine that BioShock 2 is a player could have been like if all the money and hours spent on developing multiplayer has been channeled into the making the only player that much better.
In economics, the specialization has been developed for very good reason: if you have people or resources to work on a limited task, they become better and better. game companies have partially applied this method by outsourcing to companies multiplayer specializing in multiplayer modes. It’s a smart approach, but again, we look at the money diverted to these teams from outside that could be spent on one player.
I am not anti-multiplayer at all – I bought a lot of games that had single and multiplayer with the intention of playing the most multiplayer. I am also not saying it’s better to concentrate solely on one type of game but in a world where all games could soon have multiplayer co-op elements, will be purely solo experience pain? Logic would suggest yes, because there are always limited resources to spread around.
… Everyone was an asshole?
Yeah, we can say cheaters are idiots, but I speak of racist, sexist, whiners, xenophobic and troublemakers. Hell, the Xbox Live appears to contain about 60% shower clods. Imagine if everyone behaved this way. At some point, the insults would become meaningless because everyone used it (we can already think of a connection used so homophobic it was almost as shocking as a burp). It would be a sort of arms race, where insults common lose their power and creative types will also find new ways to be verbal rec. But there are probably limits, especially in the imagination of the general population is by far the way the language could be taken. Finally, being an asshole is not really con-ish more – it is simply the norm. Logically, it would lose its meaning.
Then think about griefing. What if everyone was a griefer? Team based multiplayer would be meaningless because nobody would be on a team more. Developers have to include only one type of game in their multiplayer – Free for all – except then we would not be griefing over, would we? Behavior collapses on itself. So if you’ve already killed a teammate in the back “just that once, just for fun” to take a moment to consider how your actions have contributed to a world where multiplayer team would not be able to exist.
Ultimately, they may be “if”
Kant was a better man than most of us. He imagined a world where we all act in principle, not on the circumstances. You do not fly because the flight is bad, and that’s all. And we should all live by these principles. In the real world, live your life through the Kantian ethics seems impossible – and it may be. This does not mean his line of thinking is not useful, however. Of course, you can rationalize stealing a pen from your job because it’s a small thing, and besides, your work can afford to (or perhaps your work “screwed” you in some way he is correct). However, the values attached to such action are relative and arbitrary. If it’s good for you to steal the pen, it should not be acceptable for someone to steal a pen from you? And if a pen, why not something slightly more valuable, because really the value of a pen can be anything depending on the person he sees.
Most people, of course, stealing a pen and say, stealing a car as two very different things. Kant said that there is no difference, because theft is wrong. This is why it is so difficult to follow his ethics – most of us, the levels of deceit. Yes, stealing a pen and a car theft are both wrong, but stealing a car is no longer true. Moreover, most would say.
Now we are going back to games. Can we really expect to live the principles of high when you play? Probably not. But before you make an impulsive action in a game to suit your desires sucks the brain at the moment, try to stop yourself and ask for a second – if it’s okay for me to do this would be the game world will be like if everything went well for everyone to do, whenever they wanted?
