Naraka
-
Posts
1035 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by Naraka
-
-
Considering how abundant parts can be, you can get a cheap keyboard and monitor to attach to your laptop since your problem looks mechanical and not software base. People toss out keyboards and monitor often, not because they aren't usable but rather because they have something better to replace them. If there's no one to bum one off of for free, a pawn shop or craigslist post might have some for pennies.
Same with just getting a replacement laptop, you might be able to get one for cheap through family/friends or online ads, you just have to know what is a good deal and what is a rip off. Even a barely working one for $5 might have some useful parts you can use if you keep within a certain brand/model.
-
Have you ever got that feeling people are just bored so they start conversations about little inconsequential things like the meaning behind the last episode of season 3 Rick and Morty or if a hybrid attack/control power could be swapped around for more control that is not needed?
-
1
-
-
Going to come at this with more of an impartial POV as I don't really have a preference to one thought over another but with more concrete ideas, one can see pros and cons to any idea.
Hard mode settings: someone mentioned scaling all mobs from lvl1-50 and to elaborate on that, one could devise faction coalitions, fusions or special units for the various factions to add depth and difficult and maybe a bit of randomness your fun. The positive is you can make new content or bolster old content with these new additions similar to the recent story arcs introduced...but for everything without always needing to write a new set of arcs.
The cons, imo, is that players would want heightened control of these add-ons which I could see as being a boon but also limit incentive, making it similarly rewarding to go after easier content as is hard content. Whether you do or don't, people will view things as a casual vs hardcore regardless of if the rewards are unnecessary. You can implement any amount of difficulty and complexity but if you allow it to be fully controlable and unrewarding, it's futile.
Overarching perspectives aside, I just think the foes are too dumb and the player has an answer for anything mobs have to throw at them. There's not enough wrenches to throw at a peak build or even just a solid team. Other games have mechanics that screw the player specifically because mobs are predictable. If you can't make the AI solidly good with enough tools to challenge a solid team, give them wrenches to discourage reckless play. Other games have insta-death debuffs/attacks (CoX has a few as well, but they are very good forgiving) or dispel abilities that remove your buffs or corrupting effects that turn those buffs into debuffs or attacks with much larger range/AoE to punish bad placement. Heck, CoX hardly has toggle drops for any type that relies on them.
To summarize my point, you really aren't going to get far improving difficulty by just increasing level and density of spawns. And if there is no incentive to taking on such upper difficulty, propping it on top of the current difficulty defeats the point of difficulty and is ignoring the options to lower difficulty if the new "hard" is too much.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Solarverse said:
If the only changes made in game were only made if the players agree on the change, nothing would be changed at all.
I and many others can attest to not agreeing with changes but then being made anyway so that's not what happened here.
Perhaps a decent point was made to not implement this particular change and people in this thread just disagreed with the rationale.
-
Still time to make it a ranged teleport-to-target kick.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, tidge said:
On the topic of types of "gates" which exist, and feel natural to me in CoX:
There are a lot of ideas that have been tossed around, some neat, some difficult to quantify or some that are throw aways. Plenty of ammo to put on a drawing board with how to implement, with or without (or both) achievements.
At for "gates", the achievement itself can be a gate and unlocking something through gameplay is how you unlock them. I don't honestly see that as a meaningfully discussion since the reward you unlock should be contextual to said "gate". Like, if we're talking about unlocking a freakshow costume party or power, is assume the gate would be linked to content regarding freakshow.
If it were some kind of movement speed thing, it would probably deal with a race or combating a speedster foe under certain conditions.
-
10 hours ago, VV said:
Because they have lives. Because nobody is paying them. Because time is not infinite and entropy exists. I mean, seriously, what a senseless question.
That wasn't a question. Although it's nice to see your lack of appreciation for what you do get. Rather than put forward suggestions of things you would like to see and let them decide how and if to implement it, you go on bickering about how people assume we have infinite time or chiding on about the entropy of the universe.
-
6 hours ago, QuiJon said:
I think I personally would rather the devs spend time on creating new challenging content then figuring out ways to simply lock content behind made up walls keeping it locked away.
I don't see why they couldn't do 2 things at once.
-
On 11/21/2020 at 4:53 PM, Coyotedancer said:
You might want to go back and re-read Naraka's post on the subject...
If I called you a bully, it likely had to do with how you put your argument forth. And if I said you were entitled, it probably had to do with how you engaged or dismissed an argument of your opposition. And it certainly didn't ONLY call you a bully or entitled but also came with a slew of other points you likely brushed aside to distill the post down to a personal attack, which it is not (there's a difference between a personal attack and criticism of your opinions).
On 11/22/2020 at 9:42 AM, tidge said:2) It appears that the folks who are most in favor of gated content, also want the game-world to recognize that they have been able to open the 'gate'. It could be visually obvious (e.g. a costume piece, a badge name, a +1 badge count) or it could be performance based (e.g. more enhancement slots, more accolades/powers). The conversation in this thread have revealed that there is not even agreement on what the rewards should be for passing through hypothetical gates.
If by "reorganize", you mean put said opportunity on the table rather than outright dismiss it as additional future content, sure. How you word that makes it sound like restructuring the current game rather than adding it on top of the current game.
On 11/22/2020 at 10:09 AM, Tyrannical said:Who needs grind in game when yall are so busy grinding in this forum
That's a good question. Usually people don't like pointing out their post frequency of their gameplay frequency of ratio of the two. I could outline my playing other games but I don't think it's that relevant.
On 11/22/2020 at 10:25 AM, jubakumbi said:And a corollary to that is an argument that the existence of said gated content would encourage people to both play that content and stay to play in general, if there was more of that content added.
I think the gated content sans costumes is already mostly there in the form of badges and temp powers, personally, and HC is adding more badges.
I also think that this gated content will have no real impact on player retention at this point in the games lifecycle.
I don't play gated content now in MMOs that still have corporate funding, I never played it in COH, unless I felt like the content was fun,
Playing content just to open a gate on a character is a chore like cleaning the garage, it is not fun like playing in the sprinkler on a hot day, IMO.
Sure, I might have a clean garage to show off, but who cares?
Can we just stop and point out how the intent had been hijacked by this consistent use of the term "gated"? Language is a powerful tool than can be used for good or ill. I think using the term to clarify implementation is ok but as an argument against us taking the context of.
Obviously, the intent is "rewards" but that seems to have to positive a connotation for you guys to even use along side your criticism. I think I may see rewards or incentive less than gated.
Frankly, the intent is to give content meaningful rewards. Period. If that isn't something you agree with, you can probably just post that post and stop.
-
23 minutes ago, jubakumbi said:
I tackle depression where and when I see it, I don't consider it to be off limits.
I am not demonizing anyone by recognizing humans play to get hits of dopamine, it has nothing to do with addiction in general.
This is the first post I have even referenced addiction on these forums, I think.
IMO, you tried to use some idea that there is an onus on the players running a game should feel bad for not getting more people to play, because those players 'needed' the game.
That's it.
If that is not your intent, as you have explained, Great!
You can read in whatever else you like.
The initial comparison to adding more and different rewards for various content, be they badges, powers, costumes or unlocks was to give someone more things to achieve, more goals to aim for. The apparent argument against that is, you can impose your own limitations as your goals and you don't need the game to give you dopamine hits.
A common coping mechanism to help fighting the motivation factor of depression is setting goals and achieving them. This point is specifically targeting those that have waning motivation either to do varied content or to come back and play. That's the whole point of the discussion. The point had nothing to do with making people feel bad for not paying or being a support for those who are actually suffering from depression but rather getting those that are playing a stuff routine or are just 'complete' with the game to come back and keep going.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Coyotedancer said:
Let me explain my objections in practical terms... Maybe you'll be closer to "getting it" after that.
I remember all too well my first Oranbegan characters not being able to have their glowing eyes.... something they really needed at the time to pull off the idea I was going for, since the player-usable armor pieces wouldn't come along until the faction rework years later... Because some nitwit in the old dev crew apparently thought that it was just a GRAND idea to put an entire classification of costume details... auras in that case... behind a level-gated mission. And not even a lowbie mission at that! It annoyed me then, and remembering it still annoys me now.
I also remember not being able to make an Amazon character look the way I wanted her to from the start because the Roman armor pieces I needed to use were locked behind being high enough level to get to the zone and finish an ITF. It was enough to make me abandon the idea of making the character, since I had no desire to play Olivia-the-Generic-Hero-Scrapper for 35 levels waiting to be deemed "worthy" of having the armor the concept called for.
So... no. I'm never going to like the idea of locked and limited costume parts. I've personally been bitten by it in the past and would prefer not to repeat the experience.
I could craft a work around for you, create a story, give a personal example or whatever but it all would be meaningless. I'd be eating my time.
At the end of the day, with those frustrations you had to work through, you obviously didn't quit the game. So while I can empathize with you, I also just wince in disgust at the sense of entitlement that you are, in any way or fashion, inconvenienced and you go out of your way to push others out of your way so that remains so. I'd be right behind you if, at the least, you could agree that it'd be annoying and you'd rather not need costumes to be unlocked but know it wouldn't be the end of the world. But you don't and you can't and I just smh and wonder what is wrong with people now a days.
People complain that games hold your hand and give you a billion hours worth of tutorials and the reason is, people can't be arsed with the inconvenience of having to discover things themselves or go look it up. You literally need a big arrow pointing to objectives or is bad design.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Troo said:
So.. no new costume pieces?
King Solomon solution
Since it's a volunteer effort, why not seek the community to assist? And if the design is good and accepted, why not give the designer a bit of authority for their efforts? Like if they want to put the cosmetic behind unlocking all costume slots (the missions done, not just having them) so be it... Or if they want to make it purchasable with 1000 hero merits... Maybe swing that down to 5 instead but the requirement still exists.
17 hours ago, Omega-202 said:Guy, you need to get some fresh air. Go for a stroll and cool off. You're just lashing out at this point.
You're gaslighting if you think people can't write a forum response without losing their cool because their cooped up (probably wouldn't tell people to go for a stroll either considering you don't know the circumstances of their quarantine situation). Probably just beat to keep to the discussion and not try to appeal to emotion.
17 hours ago, jubakumbi said:I prefer to examine the why over the details of the thing discussed, so sure, I do have a differnt scope, cannot disagree.
I draw context where I see it, thanks, not just where you think it's appropriate. 🙂
Not dialing back at all really, I totally think the whole idea of having to earn costume rewards is directly tied to the monetization of these games ad is the root cause of training people to think these gates are a 'playstyle', I was using it also as an example of leveraging the PWE in others as a dopamine lever.
We make the rules, we can alter them at will, it's not chess ... but it is now COH:HC, so really, HC makes the rules.
The only intersting thing to me is why people bring up these ideas, especially for a gme in this state, the brain chemistry and outlook behind the thoughts are the fascinating part, the details all just change form game to game, mountain to mountain, molehill to molehill.
Totally different scope, no question.
Why people want to turn games like this into discrete chores is just one of teh things I love to examine within the gaming community.
That's what I'm saying. If you examined the why for details, you would be examining the context clues. Context clues is a literal elementary concept of reading and communication. Using contextual interpretation, I understand your response has a passive aggressive tone although you would likely disagree to save face amongst the presence of the other posters. I'm not going to press it because it's commonly understood how text is difficult to convey tone, which is fine, I have no qualms with being wrong or corrected if I misinterpret something... But at the same time, most would expect the same courtesy.
Back on topic, I put forth the analogy of depression specifically because it is not a particular target you can be tackling here... Same for the inane dopamine argument (and those two, depression and dopamine (or the inability for receptors to interact with it) are linked. If I'm guilt tripping people with a depression argument, your demonizing with the dopamine and addiction argument. So which way do you want it? To keep pressing with that and continue down that road? Or try to object with something we are allowed to discuss here?
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, jubakumbi said:
No money has to be involved to want to invoke the PWE, I was not talking about strict monetary gain when I referenced PWE.
The entire premise of having to 'earn' things in a game that is dedicated to enjoying free time, is based on the PWE, IMO.
That is the idea behind having to 'earn' any of these things in teh game.
Since it is no longer a Retail game, that simply becomes more evident, IMO.
As for wasting time, it's mine to waste, but good on you for trying to get in a 'your time is useless jab'...
Your idea to 'use basic english and clues', IMO, shows just how you are still wanting to throw punches for some reason, another inuendo that I must be daft.
Too funny.
The problem, IMO, is scope. You're making a mountain of of a molehill here.
And context clues is how you can discern meaning from something even if a piece of information is lost or mixed up. You pretty much went on a tangent about monetization despite that having nothing to do with the rest of the context. Dialing it back now still doesn't mean the objection has as much weight bringing aspects of retail vs non-retail since that is completely superfluous. Chess is free but we don't just skip rules.
As for the other jabs you put in there, you have to be accurate if you want them to hit.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Darmian said:
Circles, good people, circles. Someone on the internet is wrong. How about this just gets wrapped up now or at the very least people stop feeding fires? Now, you can all jump on me for suggesting this but there's plainly no visible middle ground (yet) and quite possibly won't be. I don't have a dog in this race, I personally don't care about gated stuff (not content!) either way as long as neither is gated by RL cash.
So, there are people here on both sides (or more sides depending) that I like and interact with and that have such excellent ideas and thoughts on so many things, that appear to be descending into insults and whatnots. Please don't. I'm going to pop off to other threads now.
Much Love, K.
I actually feel there's an Overton window effect going on since most arguing for the OP line up with your perspective, me included. It's a pretty moderate position that will kind of take a few new approaches in stride whether nothing changes or introducing a few things locked in an arc or with a badge.
I even feel those opposed probably would rage if a new helmet were linked to some content, they just have a preference it wasn't.
The divide is against the vocal arguments directing accusations and ad hominems which are kind of the thorn here.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Omega-202 said:
Labeling someone else's character concept as good or bad is inherently subjective and I am sure that you could share every one of yours and someone would find them objectionable for one reason or another.
Exactly why I labeled it as a devil's advocate point. But just like my point is subjective, so is your example which is why the 2nd part of that post gives other options to rebutt the actual argument that the concept would be unworkable. You can work with it, it's just going to adhere to another authority and structure of lore.
4 minutes ago, Omega-202 said:Last week, I played on a team with a blatant Darth Revan knockoff with a name and bio to match, a mostly naked TW Brute with a name that would have been generic'd on Live and someone roleplaying a pixie who wouldn't drop character in chat (on the nominal PvP server). None of that bothered me and I would never begrudge any of those individuals having fun their way. Live and let live.
And none of those players are bringing their characters in as examples against our position so it's moot. But you did bring your Vanguard character in.
6 minutes ago, Omega-202 said:The fact that you take issue with a Vanguard member character from level 1 is weird, intrusive and makes it look like you're trying to impose your views on people who didn't ask for or care about them.
And I'll reiterate, I don't actually cares about your little Gary Stu Vanguard. I clarified that multiple times and if my post sounds confrontational, imagine someone responding to your posts while ignoring most of what you wrote.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, jubakumbi said:
Back to the old 'wanting everything for free', huh?
Nothing to do with it.
There is no retail game.
It is not a Job.
The bits in the DB have been flipped so we can have all the costume parts up front.
Yet, some people still seem to think those bits in teh DB having been flipped gives us 'free' stuff that we did not 'earn'.
I don't need the Protestant Work Ethic in my video game to enjoy it...it's really just that simple.
I understand there are those that DO want the PWE in thier games.
They have the tools to make thier own gates.
Then reassess my word usage as the intent of my post has nothing to do with monetary gain. But now you wasted your time rebutting a useless stance and my time explaining how the stance was useless.
If "everything free" is a problematic term, use basic english and context clues to understand the intent and exchange the term for "handed out baseline" or something.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Omega-202 said:
Just to play devil's advocate, people who want goals and gating can self gate and leave everyone else to play how they want.
It might take a bit more creativity and self discipline but wanting a game to give you direction and a sense of accomplishment, that seems pretty sad.
Works both ways.
That's not devil's advocate. You'd find more people supporting your position than not.
The main reason I say it's a devil's advocate position is because it's mainly targeting the premise that "all concepts are good concepts" with the argument that your example is just a Gary Stu that ignores the lore of the game. Yeah, I know, not everyone cares about the in-game lore and freedom and blah blah blah but you don't actually admit you want to disregard that lore but instead mask it in a "I just want freedom".
Like I said, it's fine and I don't think back pedaling that would be good but don't piss on someone's leg and say it's raining. If wanting to have aspects adhere to some form factor is selfish, so it's wanting everything free because you don't actually want to adhere to the form factor of the game.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Omega-202 said:
I have made Vanguard characters that start as part of the Vanguard from level 1, who leveled up using as many Lost and Rikti arcs as possible. Without the level 1 free costume pieces, that character wouldn't have existed.
What benefit is there for YOU to have made MY character concept unworkable? Seems selfish.
Just to play devil's advocate (I don't agree with locking those pieces NOW, but if additional pieces were designed and put into the game and the designer had a desire to link it to some in-game content in some way, I wouldn't be opposed to locking THAT), I don't see why your Vanguard trainee couldn't have a training suit that has a different look and feel from the active Vanguard forces. In fact, you could create a bunch of characters who are trainees in a junior Vanguard who are aiming to join active forces over their career. It might require a bit more creativity and you might not be able to make your 5-star general leader of his own brigade of Vanguard at level 1 but hey, the latter seems pretty uncreative and reeks of being a Gary Stu.
While I can understand that the latter example is a viable character concept, I can also understand that it is not the only option thus, if the example costume parts were locked, it doesn't make the concept unworkable, just requiring some forethought.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Omega-202 said:
Not everything is up for compromise.
Here's an analogy: Right now, we have a nice park with a full baseball field on it. You come along and say "Remeber when there was a duck pond in the park? I want to put a duck pond back in the park", but the only place to put said duck pond is on home plate. Everyone says "no you'll ruin our baseball field" and you ask for a compromise where we put a little bit of a duck pond on first base instead...
There is no compromising this. And yes it is nice to have things in a good place right now.
Why the hell is home plate the only place to put a duck pond!? Or maybe you just think that's where someone is arguing to put it?
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Luminara said:
No, I'm arguing that personal fulfillment shouldn't be something one expects from the predefined rewards within the game. Personal fulfillment comes from meeting one's own goals and feeling rewarded for that, not from meeting someone else's goals and being rewarded. Game rewards can never fill the same role as personal rewards. Enjoying what one has accomplished for one's own satisfaction, not for a shiny digital representation of a developer saying "Good job". What we get from the game, intellectually, emotionally, not what the game offers us in rewards.
Pretty similar to my conclusion, although maybe I just view your conclusion differently.
Overall, I don't think such a mechanic can work in a game like this. Setting your own goals would require far more creativity a free form system than CoX can accomplish. Something like Minecraft would fit that mold. But again, in not arguing for personal fulfillment, I'm appealing to retention and incentive.
10 minutes ago, Luminara said:And "new" content is only so new, since it's only new within the context of that specific game, and what newness it offers fades rapidly. This isn't a model for retention, nor for player happiness. Both have to come from giving players more than shinies. They have to come from giving players a sense of personal gratification, from them having more emotional investment in the game and feeling a sense of inner reward when they do things.
And this is only relevant if true personal fulfillment was the point I was arguing.
12 minutes ago, Luminara said:I did. If you're asking why I'm not discussing pharmaceutical moderation of brain chemistry, or therapeutic methods, or something similar, because I'm not dragging the topic off in that direction. I'm responding to your points and keeping the discussion relevant to the topic, how various game rewards and content are valued and how they might be used.
Okay.
Are you really going to make this point?
No you didn't correct me because if you did, the term "analogy" would fix this whole tangent you went on then accuse me of derailing to brain chemistry. No, I asked you to not be disingenuous about an analogy and actually discuss the point about lack of motivation and it's connection with targeted incentives, not morally or semantically castigate about my position.
-
24 minutes ago, Luminara said:
Short-term neurotransmitter increases don't fix mental illness. The high doesn't last. That's why it's a high, not a cure. And that's exactly why it's relevant to the topic. There are a limited number of badges, and adding more doesn't increase that number to ∞. Missions, story arcs, *Fs, they last a finite amount of time and can be run only so many times before they become actions performed by rote. Costume parts and special titles don't give the same thrill when they're acquired for the tenth or fiftieth or hundredth time.
But personal gratification, achieving something that you set out to do and because you wanted to do it, not because someone offered you a shiny, that's long-term. Doing things for ourselves, not to get attention or show off or be recognized in some way, is what makes us feel truly happy with ourselves, and a game which allows us to feel happy with ourselves has a lot more going for its retention than a game with 6 hours of gameplay added every few months.
Long-term mental health comes from stable, consistent dopamine levels. So does long-term player retention, i.e. falling in love with the game, not having a passing crush or brief craving for it.
On one hand, you argue how short term neurotransmitters don't fix mental health and on the other you argue that long-term mental health is a consistent application of dopamine.
To those points I can understand how one can view them as being a linear departure from each other with one being an inversion and solution to the other... But I can also see how it's antithetical to your own argument. Some view the game as it is live as being the very short-term high with little long-term appreciation and satisfaction to be gained. Again, I get that your trying to argue that personal fulfillment isn't something you should be aiming to attain from a game but now it's up to you to understand that people are not arguing that at all.
24 minutes ago, Luminara said:An allusion doesn't specifically mention the subject. You didn't allude to depression as a comparison to player satisfaction or retention, you used it as an example and segued into why more "stuff" should be added. As I just said, I addressed all of your points.
And you fell for it. Yeah it wasn't an allusion, it was an analogy. But why didn't you actually correct me? Instead you pointed out I was wrong and left it there. You don't seem willing to actually empathize or reason with your opposition.
But real talk, I didn't actually set up a trap card or anything, I just used the wrong term but you resorting to a literal semantics argument just illustrates it is likely no use discussing anything with you unless you agree with it.
-
37 minutes ago, jubakumbi said:
As for the toxic guilt trip someone is trying to lay on the thread that by not encouraging someone to play the game through changing and adding content, anyone is somehow dimissing mental health issues, I wish I could post what I really think...but I will try and do it in a way that will last longer...
While these games are a great tool and coping mechanism for a large number of at-risk people, it is not some idea that can be used as a weapon to make people think a group of fans running a dead game need to make changes to accomodate people with issues, when they are lucky to even keep it running.
That kind of guilt trip is exactly the reason I refer to the 'community' of this game in the negative terms I often use.
The funny thing is, it was an allusion and not meant to be directly compared to depression but was assumed to be a direct comparison by someone else. No one has even argued if it's an apt comparison but the opposition has been perfectly justified in demonizing the OP as appealing to addiction of dopamine. If you can't see the hypocrisy there, I just outlined it for you.
-
17 minutes ago, Luminara said:
That's not toxic, and anyone who labels it as such has never actually encountered toxic behavior. @EmmySky couldn't be toxic if she tried, and her point is valid and honest. If someone has to be talked into playing, even by themselves, they're not really interested in playing anyway, and a token in a video game isn't going to help them feel better for more than the length of time it takes to get that token. Then they're right back in the stew pot. They don't need to be encouraged to play, they need to be encouraged to root out the reason they're depressed and address it, and they need to be encouraged to find things that make them happy for what they represent to them, not what they represent to others. Personal gratification, not gold stars.
Great, I understood @EmmySky's point and I wasn't labeling them as toxic. The point is, you gladly validate arguments you agree with and ignore the ones you don't. Even I can agree with that post on some points while also pointing out why I disagreed and explained why but you don't seem to be capable of the same.
-
6 minutes ago, Luminara said:
Temporarily, within the context of the discussion, that being in a video game, and potentially to the detriment of finding long-term ways to overcome their mental state. A carrot on a stick doesn't fix depression. A short-term goal doesn't fix depression. A gold star doesn't fix depression. A video game doesn't fix depression, it distracts the player from the problems which cause their suffering. A distraction isn't a cure.
I never said it was a cute or treatment for depression, merely compared some symptoms with the purveyance of player retention. To assist in keeping players engaged, you give them content and to motivated them to do that content you provide incentive. If you are making an argument on that, would be more on topic.
12 minutes ago, Luminara said:A pat on the back isn't what everyone needs when they're depressed. Sometimes it's the opposite of what they need. Motivation has to come from within, and yes, it can be encouraged, but that doesn't solve the problems they're having.
The game has finite rewards. Every game has finite rewards. Expecting an infinite supply of rewards, motivations, pats on the back, is pointless because it's impossible. And relying on finite rewards to "fix" depression is guaranteed to fail. One has to find personal gratification within the structure of a game, an inner need to continue playing, in order for it to be fulfilling, and unless it's fulfilling, it's not helping, it's just providing a delay in dealing with the problems which caused the depression.
And others are going to get their temporary distraction from the real problems in their lives, then go back to being depressed when it runs out.
I've spent more than 40 years of my life fighting mental illness. I've learned that distractions aren't solutions to depression, finding personal gratification and inner happiness are. No-one can truly change the way we feel, stop the pain, make the voices in the rain go away, except ourselves, and we can't do that with short-term, temporary fixes. Personal gratification, taking satisfaction in something that doesn't require external validation, self-acceptance, those are how we combat depression effectively. Badges and five mission story arcs and new animations, those are digital medication. Real healing starts inside.
And sometimes, we can't be healed. Some of us are going to live with our demons forever. Understanding those demons and accepting that we're just not going to be "normal" does a million times more good than a reward or distraction in a video game.
So no, I'm not going to agree with you, on any of your points. People suffering from depression need real assistance for their real problems, not the ephemeral relief of a pat on the back by video game developers.
So if your argument is going to be prescribing your own psych-analysis and you want us to recant any logical links to the comparison, can you also recant the argument of the topic having anything to do with "dopamine hits" for the thread as well? Completely revoke that argument from the thread then and perhaps we can examine game defined goals as a tool and an incentive.
My computer may be dying
in General Discussion
Posted
I've had my laptop for 8 years (so I think, I know I got it before I enlisted) and it's been with me for 1 deployment, 2 rotations and 4 schools that lasted months at a time. For the most part, I use a desktop at home, a phone for various smaller tasks and then the laptop if I need a mobile "desktop" and I say that in quotations because even as a laptop, I prefer the comfort and luxury of a good display vs a laptop screen. I also don't like track pads so I'm using a bluetooth mouse and most of the time the keyboard is positioned uncomfortable so I avoid excess typing unless I decide to plug in a keyboard.
Ultimately, though, I think utilizing multiple computers alleviates some burdens that may shorten the lifespan of a device although some devices are only going to last a certain amount of time. Usually people don't keep phone for longer than 3 years.
Also, I guess you must have been unlucky. I suppose that can happen too...