have a great deal of respect for gamers. There's something very admirable about a person who spends hours at a time striving for a goal that isn't tangible, yet couldn't be more real to the person who is making it their mission to achieve. As humans we permanently strive to prove ourselves, to succeed is to survive. Success is euphoric and will always remain with you, etched into you as a personal reminder of your victories and in the case of the gamer, a victory that would seem to some meaningless and to others a testament of greatness.
This is also an argument against the gamer, that what they are doing is pointless, it has no end, at least an end a great deal of people never see. Do the people who say this have a point?
The very fact that people hack their Gamerscore shows they must value it.Gaming is as legitimate as any other hobby, enjoyed by millions of people daily and giving them great satisfaction. The triumphs we have still produce adrenaline that rush that people seek in many other places. The hobby that is gaming is certainly popular, yet should we really hold such ceremony for achievements that have no real world value?
Take for instance the Gamerscore system implemented for Microsoft's Xbox 360. It's a shining example of a company hooking its talons into the frailties of the audience. The achievement system makes slaves of us. Blogs have even been set up to charter the gargantuan effort of reaching one million Gamerscore; there are leader boards and competitions. People even go to the effort of hacking their Gamerscore in order to boost it.
The very fact that people hack theirs shows that they must value it. So by valuing it, we give it more meaning, making it more prestigious — forcing us to want that full Gamerscore, forcing us to play a game that may be poor quality, yet because we will raise those few numbers we play on regardless. But should we really consider these achievements a victory?
In some respects it's the dedication to the perpetuation of the play-reward cycle that's just as admirable.They may well be virtual trophies but what difference does that make? It's a personal victory. You know it happened, you've gained fame in a virtual realm. Those hours have gained you nothing in the real world yet you still have that fulfillment, a sense of placation. In the end that's all that's important. There's a sinister twist in this though: developers know full well you love to win. They'll not think twice about baiting you with success.
So what if these goals are just bait? Bait for you to keep playing and in some cases keep paying.
MMOs make great use of this bait. They can be likened to a Skinner box — the Skinner box being a scientific experiment designed by Burrhus Skinner in which an animal is conditioned to push a button to receive food. If you were to boil any MMO to it's base, it would be a Skinner Box. It's a hard fact to face but that's what gaming is: a player pushing buttons to achieve a reward. A never-ending circle of play and reward. In some respects it's the dedication to the perpetuation of this cycle that's just as admirable. A feeling of belonging in a virtual world and a feeling of success in a virtual world is just as good as the real thing. At least it is to the most important person: the gamer. We shouldn't hold stock in the sniping comments of non-gamers. Any victory over any challenge, real or not, is still a victory.
It's clear that the gaming world is populated by people who have a fevered desire to be the best, even in the face of an apathetic outside world. It's also clear that the only important view is our own. Many hours have been pumped into becoming the best and achieving that respect. As gamers we should acknowledge that and also remember that you should be proud of all your tiny victories, real or not.
What Nathan means by hacking, I think, is that their actions confirm value — much in the same way thieves follow the money.
Generally, I don't know any type of leisure or avocation that couldn't be compared to the programming of a Skinner box. Improving that golf swing or those ten frames — the only difference between those efforts and video gaming is the ease with which gaming achievements can be made abstract (and depreciated).
I was just discussing the "point" of achievements with my coworkers yesterday. I acknowledged that while I do not obsess over my gamerscore and find it a bit pathetic when others do, I have still managed to get to a psychological place where I am not interested in a game that does not have achievements.
Specifically, though I could have purchased games for the PS3 over the summer, the fact that trophies in those games would not count towards my gamerscore on the 360 actually deterred me from what I know must be exceptional experiences. I literally refuse to play Uncharted, despite the fact that it is there, simply because I'd rather be playing an XBOX game. It's quite sad.
For me, the biggest legitimacy question came when I got 100% completion in Final Fantasy XIII. I still don't think that was justifiable, regardless of score or bragging rights. That time could definitely have been better spent...say, punching myself in the face, or something.
To those who say playing games is pointless and to no end...I say what are you doing that is so much better? Something so important that it's going to change mankind forever? No? Then who really cares.
It's my life. If my personal goals in life include playing as many video games as I can and challenging myself with the games as I see fit, what does it really matter to others?
I agree with most points in the article, Nathan, but I disagree that the lazy bums hacking their gamerscore really care about it. I think those people should get their account banned, personally.