I used to play way too many video games. I broke the habit by refusing to buy games that didn't fit a very particular set of criteria:
They have to be...
- single-player,
- story-based campaigns
- with a target completion time under 30 hours
- and a Metacritic score above 85%.
This way, I can play 5 to 10 games per calendar year without a dramatic dent on my social or professional lives. I've been doing this for the last 3 years and my annual gameplay time is probably somewhere around 100 hours.
Some tricks:
Convince yourself that all side quests are for losers without better things to do. That may or may not be true, but it's helpful to avoid spending way too much time on any particular game. Aim for the ending credits & then when you get there, stick the game back in its case and put it on the shelf. Don't leave it in your console.
Don't even try the multiplayer versus modes. Just don't do it. Pretend that menu option isn't even there. Those modes are intentionally addicting.
And if you really prefer multiplayer, or if you simply can't avoid that attractive menu option... then set an alarm before you start playing. Press snooze when it goes off, finish your round, and then STOP PLAYING. If the snooze alarm goes off, turn the console off mid-round.
Try to find great co-op games & schedule time with a friend to play them. This lets you overlap human-contact time & gaming time.
> Convince yourself that all side quests are for losers without better things to do. That may or may not be true, but it's helpful to avoid spending way too much time on any particular game. Aim for the ending credits
While I agree that side quests usually are waste, what is the purpose of your playing? Is it because it's fun or because you have to finish? One could argue that the main quest is also a form of side quest and only for losers without better things to do...
Videogames don't cause cancer, but I wonder whether we'll look on them as being sort of like cigarettes or alcohol in a few decades. There are enough "Wives of Warcraft" stories out there to suggest that normal models of human volition break down when presented with highly addictive material.
South Korea Cracks Down on Gaming Addiction
He was pleased last week when the government ordered what
it calls a "nighttime shutdown" for gamers: the Ministry
of Culture, Sports and Tourism directed the operators of
the three most popular games to block people under age 18
from playing games between midnight and 8 a.m. starting in
September. Another rule will significantly slow down the
Internet connections of young players if they engage for
too many hours into the night, rendering the more
graphics-intensive games unplayable, and several other
bills are pending in the National Assembly that could
restrict kids' gaming habits even further. "It's a great
idea," says Yoon. "Video-game addiction is having bad
effects on our generation. The kids have to study and grow
up eventually."
Wow, those are almost the exact same criteria I've adopted since having kids. My list of games that have hit the bar in the last 10 years or so:
- Half-Life Series
- BioShock Series
- Fallout Series
- Deus Ex Series
- Elder Scrolls Series
Those are the ones that immediately jump to mind. I'd hate to have missed those. There are plenty of awful games out there, but there are also some wonderful storytellers advancing the field first mapped out by games like zork.
Your tricks list reads like the constraint list of your typical professional game reviewer. Depending on the game, many gamers complain that reviews are lackluster or misleading for missing much of the game content.
That said, while I understand the desire to play as many different games as you can in your limited time. Some of us prefer to spend less money or effort looking for games and really savor those that have long playtimes and replay ability.
Back in the old times, I used to play games, and loved gameplay innovations. I discovered that certain brands were the ones continually delivering innovation: Nintendo, Koei, Sid Meier, etc.
With time, It was becoming more and more difficult to find innovation. Until a point in which I mostly lost interest. Except for some occasional incredibly polished games based on established gameplay mechanics, or the rare little innovations that pop up somewhere.
I think that what may open up the space for innovations again, are new interface paradigms, like immersive virtual reality, or AI. What stops these innovations from being realized, are non-viable budget requirements, and a market flooded with worthless games.
I seem to have naturally gravitated towards this since I enjoy playing games and simultaneously feel like I should be doing something better with my time.
Additionally, if I don't personally rate a game as more than '90%' I trade it in.
What I do is give my brother my password for Steam and not keep a copy for myself. When I am busy, I just log out of Steam and I can't play any games until I ask my brother for the password.
I have to wonder when this whole trend is going to come crashing to a halt. When, if ever, the social-gaming population will wake up one day and think, perhaps aloud, and perhaps at great volume, "What the fuck am I doing with my life? Why do I need more virtual corn patches?" And, perhaps, "You know what? I'm not accepting the Facebook invitation into little Mikey's mafia family. Fuck that noise. I'm out."
By this, what I really mean is: when someone finally gets sick of Farmville, is he going to move on to the next Farmville, or is he burned out on the genre for good? Seems like there should be a "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" dynamic at work with players of these games. Which would mean that the genre is destined for oversaturation and burnout, and that there will be diminishing returns awaiting any marginal entrants into the field.
I'm sure the genre, as a whole, is still growing by leaps and bounds. But do we have any leading indicators about the playerbase? Such as their likelihood to be investing in more than one time-sinkey social game at a time? Or their likelihood to pick up another after quitting the first?
I'm not wishing for the demise of the genre, but rather, am hoping that it'll hit a plateau from which it will be forced to innovate, experiment, and evolve. Seems to me that the cold, reductionist design philosophy of addiction-by-the-numbers should eventually dig its own grave in the form of mass player burnout on games produced as such. Then again, that's never happened with casinos. So this may be woefully naive thinking on my part.
I had an experience similar to what you describe (waking up and thinking "What the fuck am I doing with my life?"), but it predates these games.
I was in college (can't remember which year, probably my junior year) and my roommates and I were all hooked on Diablo II. So were our friends across the hall. We'd often play together as a group on the LAN, but we also enjoyed playing independently. We all played on headphones so as to not have the sounds of several simultaneous games clashing.
One afternoon, we were all playing simultaneously but independently. I decided to take a break, paused my game, removed my headphones, and stood up. Then I heard it: the sounds of rapid clicking coming from my roommates' mouses (and the mouses of the guys across the hall--we usually kept our doors open). I had decided to take a break right then because I had just leveled up, and that fact combined with the sound of the clicking gave me a moment of clarity: the whole game consisted of me clicking a mouse as fast as I could in order to make an arbitrary number (experience points) go up. Everything else is just embellishment. The fundamentals are: you click the mouse, the number goes up.
I felt like one of those lab rats or monkeys that has two buttons: one that delivers a serving of food, and another that stimulates its pleasure centers. They starve to death because they neglect the food button in favor of the pleasure button. Except I was worse, in a way: I wasn't getting a jolt to my pleasure centers, I was just watching a meaningless number get higher. Of course, I wasn't completely neglecting my well-being, either, but I was wasting a lot of time that could have been spent on more rewarding pursuits.
I uninstalled the game immediately and gave it away as fast as I could. I didn't give up video games, because not all games are such complete wastes of time, but ever since then I have set the bar very high for any game I play (similar to the post by snprbob86 about strict selection criteria). I'm especially watchful for signs that a game is just an exercise in "repeat simple task, increment arbitrary number."
If you look backwards, people have always been quite happy to enjoy fairly simple games with a mild social component. I`m thinking of card games, boules/boche, dominoes. Everywhere I`ve been I`ve seen people spending an afternoon playing these games with a few other people. So as long as onlne addictive games come close to that experience (which doesn`t really offer more than a pleasant time passing and a few jokes with others), they are not going to crash.
I think they're going to pick up another one, and another one, and another one, and another one. Many of us have been playing games for 20+ years, just because they're not social doesn't mean the story isn't the same: spend $x, then a buttload of time playing it.
I probably spent as much time playing the Ultimas, King's Quests etc as any hardcore addict spent on whatevervilles. Probably not as much money on a single game but certainly 1000s over the years.
The author of the original post also wrote a review of Cave Story. It's long and rambly and exasperated, more impressionistic than informative, but it's a good read:
Why did Pixel make this game? Like, why the fuck? The amount of loving attention to detail that went into this game indicates that the man, beyond a shadow of a doubt, possesses the mental fortitude befitting a researcher in a facility in Antarctica, delving into the permafrost, seeking the Cure For All Cancers. Why did Pixel bother making a videogame, when God had given him this situational opportunity to Literally Save The World? At the very least, the man could have sought out the Ultimate Toothbrushing Solution — a three-second-a-day quick rinse that eliminates the need to brush your teeth, while also keeping them sparkling white. (It’d be like those antibacterial hand-wash-lotion things, only for your mouth.) Instead, he made a videogame.
Cave Story is an incredible game. I'm pretty happy it's becoming more popular now (the 3DS version, the Wii-ware remake) so more people can experience it.
I know around '07 there was a pretty large modding community making some real nice mods. I'm pretty sure it must be around still.
Also, Pixel (the creator of Cave Story) even made this program that lets you compose songs. It's a kind of tracker, but it's real good for some types of video game music, it's called PxTone.
Well, on your recommendation here I gave it a whirl for the past hour or so. Wow, it is quite fun! Thanks, it's a nice way to spend a Saturday morning. But now I have to get back to cleaning and sundry other less fun things.. :-(
A good Saturday read. The incentives developers face when designing free-to-play games do indeed lead to games that are no fun.
But I actually think many game genres are getting less addictive. It used to be that distribution of games was so expensive that there was little money to be made without catering to the hardcore gamers (I use that loaded term to mean someone who is willing to spend huge amounts of time on a game)--so games often took forever to complete and were designed to be most fun if played in 5-hour chunks.
Now, with internet distribution and marketing, some indie game designer can design smaller games and sell them for $10. So there's a place in the market for smart games designed to be played in less time.
And, unlike the pusher-addict economics of social games, the low cost of distribution is win-win and not going away. Indeed, as it becomes easier and easier for a small team or single developer to make good games, this trend should only accelerate.
I imagine the reason why free-ish games tend toward the unfun si that "fun" is defined in a business model as a profit center. For them to be fun, you have to pay, and I'm guessing this is actually a specific goal in these companies. Any feature that is brought up to be introduced has all the fun elements methodically shunted into the pay-zone.
This kind of thing is admirable in a machiavellian evil kind of way.
It is amazing to think of the thought & effort that goes into making a title as infuriatingly awful (yet unarguably profitable) as some of these ville/hotel/zoo grinding games.
I bet someone somewhere is laughing & twirling their moustache.
I am not sure if the comparison holds but this FEELS like how bankers created derivatives. Its warping something from the inside out just to get some greed fuel.
And there I am still playing Quake because:
- achievements don't matter
- instant play
- a game is 10min
- its fun
- no experience points
- no DLC
- nothing to collect
Subscription brings you more maps.
Oh shall I mention, that Quake doesn't make enough money ?
Last fun game I played was Shenmue II about 8 or 9 years ago. It had it all - story, gameplay, art direction, cinematics, soundtrack, emotion, everything, that is, except profitability. Thus, Sega cancelled the series and I haven't played a game as genuinely enjoyable since. It's sad to say, but some fun games just don't make good business games.
I find games like this utterly vapid and without any appeal whatsoever. I wonder if there's a name for the condition in which you are psychologically immune to these games, for whatever reason. I'm thankful I have it.
This was a pretty good read, and I agree with much of what was written. However I can't help but think a macro piece of the puzzle has been left out: status.
WHY do people pay money for virtual goods? WHY do people assault friends with requests they know are annoying? WHY do people play games that aren't fun? The answer is status. From the outside looking in, we might think people spending real money within these games are crazy. But from the inside, there is a different game with different rules. And the players of theses game have accepted these rules. It may seem ridiculous to outsiders, but within the game there are sometimes millions of other players who create a culture of who and what is "good" or "bad". So just like in real life, "average" people are concerned with nothing more than accumulating crap and generating envy; being "good" at the game.
The model for any Facebook game is easy: Provide a platform where people are able to quantitatively measure their value versus other people. Provide a clear means to increase that value. Sell them the means, and do it for $1 at a time. For most people, that's easier than putting a new BMW in the driveway for your neighbors to oggle.
As someone who balances a free to play social game on Facebook everyday I find this kind of generalization short sighted and demeaning.
The nuances of creating a social free to play game go far beyond this simplistic narrative. A compelling user experience that engages non-paying users and convinces some players to convert is WAY more challenging than most people understand. ESPECIALLY if you care about your community.
The tools you HAVE to use are based on metrics and data. But you don't sacrifice fun. In the end you are still selling fun. If it isn't fun, people won't PLAY it...
In the end though... it isn't art, it's all just entertainment.
This is what makes a game like Starcraft 2 so great. Every player, regardless of time spent in the game, starts out with a level playing field. There is no incentive to play the next game except to get better.
So how does Blizzard extract more money from you? They balance the game, update it frequently, and then don't charge you. And they hope your experience was so great that next time a Blizzard game is released you will know that it's a high quality game that will be supported for years.
There are multiple awesome video games every year. This post seems to be describing Facebook games or one genre of games in a generalization of the entire industry. As an avid gamer and big fan of the industry this post's title/conclusion is appalling.
Also, it's quite easy to play video games and still have time to learn things and further your skills for your career. I'm a dad, a gamer, and a programmer, and I love it.
These games are the embodiment of a generation raised on the idea that when the bell rings you change classes and at the end of thew week you get a gold star if you did all the things you were supposed to.
It puts them right back into a safe world where if the follow the rules they get rewarded.
It's kind of gross how that market of games is growing. It's really quite terrible, but at the same time genius, at least in the metric of making money.
At the same time I don't think there is a need to worry about the gaming industry being overtaken with that dirt - indie games have really been keeping my hope up with video games as a creative outlet. Lots of really wonderful stuff and wonderful people behind the works - here are some nice sites for finding such games.
I've become pretty harsh on video games in general. I wasted a lot of my life in WoW, and I've seen a couple other people waste their brilliant minds on video game playing.
If it doesn't contribute to interpersonal, personal, or societial good, I don't want to play it. I've gotten my 'video game' fix by playing pen and paper RPGs and meeting new people.
These days, I read history books for my "long-term amusement" and wouldn't mind playing video games with long-distance family (they don't play though).
Remember Steve Yegge's talk this summer. Please, do something more uplifting than incrementing a digital counter.
[+] [-] snprbob86|14 years ago|reply
They have to be...
- single-player,
- story-based campaigns
- with a target completion time under 30 hours
- and a Metacritic score above 85%.
This way, I can play 5 to 10 games per calendar year without a dramatic dent on my social or professional lives. I've been doing this for the last 3 years and my annual gameplay time is probably somewhere around 100 hours.
Some tricks:
Convince yourself that all side quests are for losers without better things to do. That may or may not be true, but it's helpful to avoid spending way too much time on any particular game. Aim for the ending credits & then when you get there, stick the game back in its case and put it on the shelf. Don't leave it in your console.
Don't even try the multiplayer versus modes. Just don't do it. Pretend that menu option isn't even there. Those modes are intentionally addicting.
And if you really prefer multiplayer, or if you simply can't avoid that attractive menu option... then set an alarm before you start playing. Press snooze when it goes off, finish your round, and then STOP PLAYING. If the snooze alarm goes off, turn the console off mid-round.
Try to find great co-op games & schedule time with a friend to play them. This lets you overlap human-contact time & gaming time.
[+] [-] Too|14 years ago|reply
While I agree that side quests usually are waste, what is the purpose of your playing? Is it because it's fun or because you have to finish? One could argue that the main quest is also a form of side quest and only for losers without better things to do...
[+] [-] ramanujan|14 years ago|reply
In related news:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1983234,00.htm...
[+] [-] jhickner|14 years ago|reply
- Half-Life Series
- BioShock Series
- Fallout Series
- Deus Ex Series
- Elder Scrolls Series
Those are the ones that immediately jump to mind. I'd hate to have missed those. There are plenty of awful games out there, but there are also some wonderful storytellers advancing the field first mapped out by games like zork.
[+] [-] DLWormwood|14 years ago|reply
That said, while I understand the desire to play as many different games as you can in your limited time. Some of us prefer to spend less money or effort looking for games and really savor those that have long playtimes and replay ability.
[+] [-] nzonbi|14 years ago|reply
With time, It was becoming more and more difficult to find innovation. Until a point in which I mostly lost interest. Except for some occasional incredibly polished games based on established gameplay mechanics, or the rare little innovations that pop up somewhere.
I think that what may open up the space for innovations again, are new interface paradigms, like immersive virtual reality, or AI. What stops these innovations from being realized, are non-viable budget requirements, and a market flooded with worthless games.
[+] [-] AndrewDucker|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] latortuga|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chopsueyar|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alinajaf|14 years ago|reply
Additionally, if I don't personally rate a game as more than '90%' I trade it in.
[+] [-] emp_|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rottendoubt|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonnathanson|14 years ago|reply
By this, what I really mean is: when someone finally gets sick of Farmville, is he going to move on to the next Farmville, or is he burned out on the genre for good? Seems like there should be a "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" dynamic at work with players of these games. Which would mean that the genre is destined for oversaturation and burnout, and that there will be diminishing returns awaiting any marginal entrants into the field.
I'm sure the genre, as a whole, is still growing by leaps and bounds. But do we have any leading indicators about the playerbase? Such as their likelihood to be investing in more than one time-sinkey social game at a time? Or their likelihood to pick up another after quitting the first?
I'm not wishing for the demise of the genre, but rather, am hoping that it'll hit a plateau from which it will be forced to innovate, experiment, and evolve. Seems to me that the cold, reductionist design philosophy of addiction-by-the-numbers should eventually dig its own grave in the form of mass player burnout on games produced as such. Then again, that's never happened with casinos. So this may be woefully naive thinking on my part.
[+] [-] lucasjung|14 years ago|reply
I was in college (can't remember which year, probably my junior year) and my roommates and I were all hooked on Diablo II. So were our friends across the hall. We'd often play together as a group on the LAN, but we also enjoyed playing independently. We all played on headphones so as to not have the sounds of several simultaneous games clashing.
One afternoon, we were all playing simultaneously but independently. I decided to take a break, paused my game, removed my headphones, and stood up. Then I heard it: the sounds of rapid clicking coming from my roommates' mouses (and the mouses of the guys across the hall--we usually kept our doors open). I had decided to take a break right then because I had just leveled up, and that fact combined with the sound of the clicking gave me a moment of clarity: the whole game consisted of me clicking a mouse as fast as I could in order to make an arbitrary number (experience points) go up. Everything else is just embellishment. The fundamentals are: you click the mouse, the number goes up.
I felt like one of those lab rats or monkeys that has two buttons: one that delivers a serving of food, and another that stimulates its pleasure centers. They starve to death because they neglect the food button in favor of the pleasure button. Except I was worse, in a way: I wasn't getting a jolt to my pleasure centers, I was just watching a meaningless number get higher. Of course, I wasn't completely neglecting my well-being, either, but I was wasting a lot of time that could have been spent on more rewarding pursuits.
I uninstalled the game immediately and gave it away as fast as I could. I didn't give up video games, because not all games are such complete wastes of time, but ever since then I have set the bar very high for any game I play (similar to the post by snprbob86 about strict selection criteria). I'm especially watchful for signs that a game is just an exercise in "repeat simple task, increment arbitrary number."
[+] [-] zipdog|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benologist|14 years ago|reply
I probably spent as much time playing the Ultimas, King's Quests etc as any hardcore addict spent on whatevervilles. Probably not as much money on a single game but certainly 1000s over the years.
[+] [-] frou_dh|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] extension|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pnathan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] palish|14 years ago|reply
If you want to play an absolute gem of a game, go grab Cave Story. It's free, and it's "fun", in the most distilled form.
http://www.cavestory.org/
It's one of those games that makes you wish you could wipe your memory --- just to re-play it again for the first time.
[+] [-] thristian|14 years ago|reply
http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=416
Why did Pixel make this game? Like, why the fuck? The amount of loving attention to detail that went into this game indicates that the man, beyond a shadow of a doubt, possesses the mental fortitude befitting a researcher in a facility in Antarctica, delving into the permafrost, seeking the Cure For All Cancers. Why did Pixel bother making a videogame, when God had given him this situational opportunity to Literally Save The World? At the very least, the man could have sought out the Ultimate Toothbrushing Solution — a three-second-a-day quick rinse that eliminates the need to brush your teeth, while also keeping them sparkling white. (It’d be like those antibacterial hand-wash-lotion things, only for your mouth.) Instead, he made a videogame.
[+] [-] seagaia|14 years ago|reply
I know around '07 there was a pretty large modding community making some real nice mods. I'm pretty sure it must be around still.
Also, Pixel (the creator of Cave Story) even made this program that lets you compose songs. It's a kind of tracker, but it's real good for some types of video game music, it's called PxTone.
[+] [-] losvedir|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkersten|14 years ago|reply
For the first section or so, I didn't think it was all that fun, but after you get into it a bit, it gets pretty good.
[+] [-] rottendoubt|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelbuckbee|14 years ago|reply
On this site we love (ohmygoddowloveit), AB Testing, metrics tracking and all that goes along with it.
"Games getting more addictive" is very similar to "We used Abingo and this is what got the most responses."
I'm not saying this is bad so much as it doesn't represent everything and that there is a point between pandering to people and providing a service.
[+] [-] asr|14 years ago|reply
But I actually think many game genres are getting less addictive. It used to be that distribution of games was so expensive that there was little money to be made without catering to the hardcore gamers (I use that loaded term to mean someone who is willing to spend huge amounts of time on a game)--so games often took forever to complete and were designed to be most fun if played in 5-hour chunks.
Now, with internet distribution and marketing, some indie game designer can design smaller games and sell them for $10. So there's a place in the market for smart games designed to be played in less time.
And, unlike the pusher-addict economics of social games, the low cost of distribution is win-win and not going away. Indeed, as it becomes easier and easier for a small team or single developer to make good games, this trend should only accelerate.
[+] [-] rhizome|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HaloZero|14 years ago|reply
TF2 and Heroes of Newerth both became free in order to sell more premium "can't wait" for it goods.
Valve even has job listings for economists and psychologists now.
[+] [-] 5hoom|14 years ago|reply
It is amazing to think of the thought & effort that goes into making a title as infuriatingly awful (yet unarguably profitable) as some of these ville/hotel/zoo grinding games.
I bet someone somewhere is laughing & twirling their moustache.
[+] [-] cavalcade|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zobzu|14 years ago|reply
Subscription brings you more maps.
Oh shall I mention, that Quake doesn't make enough money ?
[+] [-] rooshdi|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dereg|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcantor|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tatsuke95|14 years ago|reply
WHY do people pay money for virtual goods? WHY do people assault friends with requests they know are annoying? WHY do people play games that aren't fun? The answer is status. From the outside looking in, we might think people spending real money within these games are crazy. But from the inside, there is a different game with different rules. And the players of theses game have accepted these rules. It may seem ridiculous to outsiders, but within the game there are sometimes millions of other players who create a culture of who and what is "good" or "bad". So just like in real life, "average" people are concerned with nothing more than accumulating crap and generating envy; being "good" at the game.
The model for any Facebook game is easy: Provide a platform where people are able to quantitatively measure their value versus other people. Provide a clear means to increase that value. Sell them the means, and do it for $1 at a time. For most people, that's easier than putting a new BMW in the driveway for your neighbors to oggle.
[+] [-] marshray|14 years ago|reply
So how would one describe DF in this framework?
[+] [-] taybervoyer|14 years ago|reply
The nuances of creating a social free to play game go far beyond this simplistic narrative. A compelling user experience that engages non-paying users and convinces some players to convert is WAY more challenging than most people understand. ESPECIALLY if you care about your community.
The tools you HAVE to use are based on metrics and data. But you don't sacrifice fun. In the end you are still selling fun. If it isn't fun, people won't PLAY it...
In the end though... it isn't art, it's all just entertainment.
[+] [-] ericdykstra|14 years ago|reply
So how does Blizzard extract more money from you? They balance the game, update it frequently, and then don't charge you. And they hope your experience was so great that next time a Blizzard game is released you will know that it's a high quality game that will be supported for years.
No gimmicks, no shortcuts, just gameplay.
[+] [-] jneal|14 years ago|reply
Also, it's quite easy to play video games and still have time to learn things and further your skills for your career. I'm a dad, a gamer, and a programmer, and I love it.
[+] [-] fleitz|14 years ago|reply
It puts them right back into a safe world where if the follow the rules they get rewarded.
[+] [-] seagaia|14 years ago|reply
At the same time I don't think there is a need to worry about the gaming industry being overtaken with that dirt - indie games have really been keeping my hope up with video games as a creative outlet. Lots of really wonderful stuff and wonderful people behind the works - here are some nice sites for finding such games.
http://indiegames.com/index.html http://gamejolt.com/
[+] [-] dimitar|14 years ago|reply
Now I play 5 year old games with a GPU integrated into my CPU. And since I'm pretty casual as a gamer (a few times a month), I'm pretty content.
[+] [-] pnathan|14 years ago|reply
If it doesn't contribute to interpersonal, personal, or societial good, I don't want to play it. I've gotten my 'video game' fix by playing pen and paper RPGs and meeting new people.
These days, I read history books for my "long-term amusement" and wouldn't mind playing video games with long-distance family (they don't play though).
Remember Steve Yegge's talk this summer. Please, do something more uplifting than incrementing a digital counter.
[+] [-] bostonvaulter2|14 years ago|reply
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110918144955.ht...