Why I Dislike Roguelikes

[guest509]

They've ruined me for all other games, apparently. Especially big budget mainstream games. During my ill conceived 'break' from playing roguelikes I actually gamed at least 3 times as many hours for maybe, MAYBE, 1/2 the satisfaction.

Grinder games make me depressed, and that's most mainstream games anymore. Chasing the dollar just like gambling machines do. Roguelikes helped me to see that. Totally ruined me.

I feel like Neo in the Matrix a bit. I took the wrong fucking pill and now I see the truth.

 

What's the difference you say? What am I talking about? It's hard to describe, but if a freakin' success in a game is a function of time and devotion rather than a function of skill you are dealing with a Skinner Box. A raisin dispenser.

Give a kid a Pez dispenser, and refill it as many times as they want. Watch them puke their guts out from the sugar.

Goddamn Roguelikes in particular and indie games in general have helped me to see this.

Morphius:"What if I told you there's a game that has evolved to the point is has learned how to trigger addictive behavior?"

Neo:"Is it a roguelike?"

[ekolis]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but roguelikes are Skinner boxes, too. It's just that instead of in-game loot you're grinding for, it's knowledge of the inner workings of the game, the better to win NEXT time...

[Kyzrati]

But the latter is, by definition, more intellectually stimulating.

[Vanguard]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but roguelikes are Skinner boxes, too. It's just that instead of in-game loot you're grinding for, it's knowledge of the inner workings of the game, the better to win NEXT time...

That's stretching the meaning of Skinner box so far.  If learning naturally as one gains experience with an activity makes a Skinner box, then basically everything is a Skinner box.

[Holsety]

I get the feeling we're stretching the same conversation over four threads, where it slowly lumbers forth, each time shedding its outer shell to turn into something new.

Also I'm not entirely sure I agree with the way everyone's casually flinging the term Skinner Box around.
A slot machine is a skinner box. Pachinko is a skinner box. Keyword being a repetitive action that 'rewards' the user.
I'm not decided whether I feel pinball is too complicated to be a skinner box or whether it's the ultimate skinner box 

Modern games are flawed, for sure, but I don't think they work on the 'do something repetitive, get reward' model enough to be called skinner boxes.

ON THAT NOTE THOUGH, have these fffascinating articles from the wonderful (and slightly inaccesible) website Insert Credit! First off "ten games PONG is better than" in which a game over forty years old is compared and found to be better than ten games that came after it:
http://insertcredit.com/2012/11/14/ten-games-pong-is-better-than/

Next up is "Who killed videogames? (a ghost story)" in which the author explains that he is in fact a shard of pure evil, and gives an amazing view into how the people who are in charge of actually supplying us with new videogames see them (and us, the gamers):
http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story/
Also, you know, if you want to see a REAL skinner box :B

I think these articles are well worth it to read. If nothing else you'll be entertained. 

[Vanguard]

Modern games are flawed, for sure, but I don't think they work on the 'do something repetitive, get reward' model enough to be called skinner boxes.

Not even MMOs?

[Holsety]

Modern games are flawed, for sure, but I don't think they work on the 'do something repetitive, get reward' model enough to be called skinner boxes.

Not even MMOs?

Touché. But I would not underestimate the fact that they're multiplayer. Yes, you're essentially in a skinner box, but there's other people present in your little corner of hell. Would MMO players deign to play a MMO if it was singleplayer?

Also, after running your hamster wheel to max level (or maybe even before that) you might feel the fancy to group up with other players to go on a 'raid'. A big ol' collective dungeon romp, topped with a bossfight and extremely desireable loot afterwards.
'Raiding' is that magical moment where a MMO leaves aside the skinner box model of 'kill X foo, receive reward' and actually plays out as a multiplayer game, where all players are invested in the gameplay. I can't bring myself to dismiss that part of an MMO as 'grindy pavlovian bullshit'. It's an honest to god game at those times.

You could call the raid instance itself a BIG skinner box, but by that point you're rrreally downplaying the inherent entertainment value of 'actually doing something with other people'.

[Vanguard]

The presence of redeeming qualities doesn't stop a Skinner box from being a Skinner box.

How many players would play a single player MMO?  Probably not many.  But I think that if you removed all the gold, the equipment, the experience levels, and the achievements from an otherwise traditional MMO, the end result would not be very popular either.