Maybe it's just me, but I find work to only suck when there is a long commute time and it's 2015 and our stupid company is still running Ruby 1.8 on rails 2.3, there is no automated testing, the javascript is an unreadable pile or .rjs mess, and literally every bug is some variant of "undefined is not a function" happening at run-time (for which I get yelled at).
In other words, work sucks primarily because it has been made to suck by a combination of extremely expensive real-estate in a down-town office and inattention toward the subject of how to make work fun.
The article calls this "the realities of work" and that the inherent difficulties and uncertainties are natural to the problems of the "real world" and must be accepted. But I beg to differ, there are tons of games that are extremely hard to play well (e.g. Sim City, Devil May Cry, etc.), yet still incredibly fun and addictive. And if you consider online games where interacting with other player can produce just as much uncertainty as real life, games are no less "real" than reality... yet they are fun while real work isn't.
Personally, I think corporations can take a page from video game design and analyze their own employees work flows and design it to be a more fun process.
> Maybe it's just me, but I find work to only suck when there is a long commute time and it's 2015 and our stupid company is still running Ruby 1.8 on rails 2.3, there is no automated testing, the javascript is an unreadable pile or .rjs mess, and literally every bug is some variant of "undefined is not a function" happening at run-time (for which I get yelled at).
That's why you come home and program in a perfect world of Haskell (or some other toy), just like the farmer chooses the virtual farm over the real one.
> The article calls this "the realities of work" and that the inherent difficulties and uncertainties are natural to the problems of the "real world" and must be accepted.
In a certain sense, you're correct - the challenges to overcome in a game can have the same magnitude. In other sense, you're not. At the end of the day, game is still a game. Maybe it is the responsibility that you feel that makes the difference. In the real world, the stakes are higher; cannot that be the ultimate reason why the work sucks?
While I completely agree with your list of things that make work less fun, I think there's one important thing missing: the fact that you have to do it. It's strange but I like to program in my spare time, and I love to learn more about CS in general. But, when it's a job.. it kind of takes the fun out of it, because you have to do even when you no longer feel like it.
As it so happens, I'm thinking about consulting on exactly this. I have plenty of game design experience; last weekend I stumbled into a hackathon where I ended up giving an early-stage founder some ideas to radically improve an experience that everyone agrees sucks right now(consumer medicine). Based on that data point there's plenty of room to make this work, above and beyond the existing gamification tropes of putting badges and rewards on things. (Badges are an easy sell, but in essence, it was already there - recall "employee of the month" or "reward coupons.")
My pitch would be to make play - not just "fun" or compulsion loops, but the whole dynamic of playful activity - an organizational improvement process. The best results, as with most things, would need deep structural commitment, but there would be room even for a limited engagement to make some progress.
Personally, I think corporations can take a page from video game design and analyze their own employees work flows and design it
That would be nice, yes. Most organisations are tremendously bad at this kind of introspection. And like introspection of the individual, it's painful and time-consuming. Especially when a process doesn't work well and you get into the eternal battle of "we need better employees" vs "better training" vs "change the process".
Not to mention that plenty of managers are Calvinist enough to design the fun out of work; employee fun is presumed to be a cost to the company that must be minimised.
Jane McGonigal's book on gamification, Reality is Broken, includes quite a bit of detail about this similarity between work and games. The basic idea is that humans enjoy work if certain conditions are met, and games are designed to meet these conditions. She defines a game as having four elements:
* Goals to be achieved that give the player a sense of purpose.
* Rules that limit how the player can achieve said goals.
* Feedback on the player's progress towards the goals the proves them to be attainable and motivates the player.
* Voluntary participation by players aware of the rules and goals.
And then the further argument is that we can make the world a better place and people happier in general by bringing all of these game-style elements into work and everyday life. It's an interesting read, if a little one-sided.
On the flip side, the Black Mirror episode "Fifteen Million Credits" features a dystopia in which most people spend their entire lives generating electricity by peddling on stationary bicycles to earn credits they can use to outfit a virtual persona. Let's hope that's not the logical conclusion of Farmville!
The point made in that book that stuck with me ever since I first read it is this (I think she was quoting someone else):
The opposite of play is not work; it's depression.
I think the key thing people do wrong through, is to take work and try to make it more like play by adding in superficial 'game mechanics' like achievements.
Visual Studio had this for a while, and it had things like "use the debugger 100 times" or something like that. This is not how you make work into play. Those achievements are meaningless. Worse, they could provide incentive for using visual studio poorly.
I'm pretty sure this is a rephrasing of a much older, well known principle in psychology (they cover it in undergrad), that work satisfaction is a function of: autonomy, feedback and variety.
In other words: people want to control how they do work, and feel they have some flexibility. They want to recieve prompt feedback so they understand when they're doing well or badly. And they want to encounter a variety of challenges.
Gamification is just building a tight feedback loop and providing sufficient variety. Autonomy is much harder to automate, because it seems to be the opposite of building an 'on-rails' experience guaranteed to please someone.
Because in games accomplishment is often easier than in real life, maybe because it's more structured and well defined, maybe just because each accomplishment happens faster. We then probably get some kind of chemical hit from accomplishing things, which doesn't discriminate very well based on the importance of the thing we accomplished.
Exactly - the rewards are relatively assured. When I used to play Eve there was a lot of tedious work in terms of resource management and repetitive tasks like heading off to shoot pirates or whatever, but as you fulfilled your goals you got new toys to play with and more choices became available. In many real jobs you master some task and you *might get a pat on the back or a promotion, but you might just as easily get stuck with more of the same or have a bunch of extra demands laid on you - especially true in low-wage jobs, which tend to be the least rewarding/interesting ones.
Exactly, it is a game version of 'work' and it is designed strictly for your enjoyment and tuned to the psychology that brings those rewards.
Work in a game and real-life can be fun if you are accomplishing things and moving in a general progression direction with some success.
In the real world, you can accomplish things and move sideways or backdrift based on many other factors than what you put in as work or capital, in other words, not as fun all the time and not really specifically tuned as a game design for fun.
The reward you get from a (well designed) game is both nearly immediate and directly related to the work you put into it. Additionally there is just enough randomness to create realism but critically not so much as to create the feeling of unfairness.
Compensation from work is much more distantly related to performance. A salaried or hourly person gets the same pay per time period regardless of being more productive than average or not.
Additionally that compensation is money which as at least one step removed from the actual reward.
And sometimes that reward is using the money to buy time off which is apparently a contradiction and requires complex understanding to justify the whole point of work. Games don't have profound contradictions in this category.
Also work compensation is sometime unfair paying inept or unproductive people who are good at office politics. Games obviously can't be unfair in this way.
Sometimes the rewards are immensely remote such as retirement. Game rewards often occur within seconds or at most hours.
Some rewards are just avoiding improbable miseries such as paying for an illness (if you have the misfortune to live in a society where this is a worry). Disasters in games are always no only unbelievable or impersonal but often humors eg minecraft's creeper or sim city's flood. No popular game has you grinding hard to save money just in case you become unemployable due to depression or cancer.
For many, we do what we do for work because it's what we would do anyway for free if we could. We get paid for that work because of all the irritating crap that is a real and largely unavoidable part of doing what we live to do for real. I love programming, and would do it for free if I could; what I get paid for is sitting here past midnight waiting for remote systems to validate an app submission while I try to get three packages to work well together when they inexplicably decide not to because an update to one suddenly has an aversion to seeing "#!" in another's file, and circumstances require I fix it right now regardless of the hour.
We play "labor games" for fun because they are the idealistic of what we really want to do but without that irritating intrusion of reality.
Is that strange to some people? For me it's not strange at all. I'd love to do my job, after work hours, as a game. The good thing about games is that it is clear who wants something from you (you can name the NPC who gave you the quest), the result is clear, sometimes even the path to the result is clear, and success is rewarded(!!!!).
In contrast in real life it is hard to find out who actually wants the result you are just tasked to do, nobody knows how it should look like in the end and everybody has complains about the result no matter how it looks. That's why work feels like work and the same thing as a game feels good.
You guys ever heard of desert bus? Actual game. Possibly the most realistic "work" game ever made.
"The goal of Desert Bus was to, quite simply, drive a bus from Tucson, Arizona to Las Vegas, Nevada; a very very boring drive, as those of us who have done it know. There were a couple catches, though: in the game, your bus could not go over 45 miles per hour. Also, it veered to the right, just ever so slightly, so you could not simply tape down the accelerator button on your Genesis pad and leave the game alone; you had to man the wheel at all times. Oh, and did we mention the trip takes eight hours, in real time?"
“You saw nothing. It was just desert stuff going by, And there was a little green tree hanging from the rear-view mirror, one of those things that makes your car smell better? And it would just kind of drift in slowly to one corner of the screen. And you couldn’t take your hands off the controller, and if you did…it didn’t have a spectacular crash, it just slowly went into the sand, and then overheated and stopped, and then the game was you being towed backwards all the way back to Tucson.”
“And when you went from Tucson to Vegas and did the full 8 hours, you had bus stops, and the bus stops…you could stop and open the door, but no one got on. No one’s ever waiting for you. And if you went by them you weren’t punished at all, because nobody was there. It meant nothing. And a bug hit your windshield five times during the eight hours, and that was the only animation. It was just road after road after road. Eight hours of desert bus. And then when you got in - and I love this - when you got into Vegas and pulled in and stopped, the counter - which was five zeros - went to 1. You got 1 point for an eight hour shift, and then a guy came in and said, ‘Do you want to pull a double shift, Mac?’ And then you could drive back to Tucson for another eight hours for another point.”
Desert Bus is kind of an exception because it was intended as a joke from Penn & Teller, mocking the argument that games need to be realistic.
But if you want to see people suffer through that game for a whole week 24h/24, come watch the yearly "Desert Bus for Hope" charity marathon in November: http://desertbus.org/about/ :-)
I've recently noticed that roguelikes, more than any other kind of game I play, give me the most satisfaction and pleasure. In particular, games like FTL and Nethack promote decision-making and improvisation - making the most out of what the game throws at you, taking stock of what's available and trying to prepare for future encounters in creative ways.
I find this parallels quite well with my day-to-day software development job, although playing these games remove a lot of the mundane tasks of actual employment (meetings, repetitive tasks, reliance on others, communication issues etc). Both of these involve solving varied problems in different ways, though.
I concluded that I was simply doing what I enjoy, creative problem solving, and that I was just lucky enough to do what I intrinsically enjoyed for a living. I didn't think that my choice of leisure-activity was influenced by society's apparent changing view of free-time as "potential work time".
Also in the randomly-generated area (which i wish they would do a port to current consoles) was "Spelunky" - super challenging and randomly generated levels too.
All being said, I miss the grand era of 80s/90s 2D greatly.
I saw a joke who says that the most real life game was tetris because as in real life, no matter how much we work, always comes a new task faster and faster until we die.
A vacation is a respite from unpleasantness, and since
consciousness of death and decay are unpleasant, it may
seem weird that the ultimate American fantasy vacation
involves being plunked down in an enormous primordial
stew of death and decay. But on a 7NC Luxury Cruise, we
are skillfully enabled in the construction of various
fantasies of triumph over just this death and decay. One
way to 'triumph' is via the rigors of self-improvement
(diet, exercise, cosmetic surgery, Franklin Quest time-
management seminars), to which the crew's amphetaminic
upkeep of the [ship] is an unsubtle analogue. But
there's another way out, too: not titivation but
titillation; not hard work but hard play.
I was talking to my psychiatrist recently. I was making the point that I can't manage to follow the rules I'm being given, that in general the rules of civilization are made up and don't make sense.
She kinda made the argument that if I wanted to progress in life I could follow the rules (work to get this degree), and that it should stimulate me as much as diablo 3. It's true that in both cases, there are rules. Except I thought that life/society/civilization is not really a game. Maybe if you want to improve the economy, you can use bits of game theory to reduce the cost of regulation and corruption, but I doubt that it's sane to imply that all real life is like a game. Maybe I should try to play by the rules, but it would be very tempting to cheat, that's one reason to avoid playing, to avoid the temptation of playing.
In video games the rules make sense, but in society it rarely does. Social stratification, social disintegration, my unemployment, etc.
I don't think video games are much simpler, or that simplicity has something to do with it. But the rules never contradict themselves. There can be games with rules that are pretty complex too, and those games are much more interesting because there is a logic to it.
Maybe an interesting game concept would be to make a game more realistic by introducing more contradictions inside it. Pollute the environment, increase poverty, deal drugs, corrupt politicians, etc, adding a "some people just like to see the world burn" aspect to it. GTA is already a little like that, except I don't see it going all the way through.
asanagi got flag killed, probably for too many "trigger words" but the idea, expressed, phrased somewhat more politely, is people will lie to gain control and power and one thing to lie about is the rules. (edited to add and the most important rule to lie about is that "nobody is taught lies about the rules")
So the bigger and more complicated a culture is (you know, like ours?), the more likely the rules as taught are lies vs the rules as how the world actually works.
So unsurprisingly following the rules as taught isn't going to work very well for everyone. The folks who want to maintain control can fight that little problem by all manner of social engineering. Let people vote, but only between irrelevant decisions never the important stuff. Guilt trips. Threats (see religion and eternal damnation for all heretics). Anecdotal examples in the place of actual societal trends (the token xyz in a group, etc). Good ole fashioned bread and circuses, ya see the baseball game last night and how bout that game of thrones episode?
Video games offer a certainty of outcome you can't get in the real world. If you do X and Y, you'll get reward Z. X and Y might be difficult or tedious to do, but you know that Z is there around the corner.
Work often has situations where the outcome is much less certain. We have a problem we don't know how to solve so we need to try various possibilities. This can be fun if there is room for experimentation and we can try some things that fail without failing overall, but in situations with tight deadlines and uncertain outcomes, where you have a limited chance to attempt something and you don't know whether it will work, this is a recipe for stress.
- You can stop playing any time you want, but at work you're bound by standard hours.
- You need to work to make money to buy food to eat. That introduces unavoidable stress into your work in the form that you know, if you don't work well enough, you'll get fired and then you'll starve. Or get your power cut. Or be kicked out of your house.
- You can always start again, no matter how badly you mess up. In a lot of workplaces, if you mess up a couple of times, you're fired and you can't try again.
In short, real work is less like Farming Simulator 2013 and more like nethack, but you only have one life.
>a game where you are an unemployed single mother, doing job interviews and cutting coupons
Sounds a bit like Melanie Emberly from the indie game "Cart Life" (2013).
>A recent divorcee who had to quit her job at her office as a result. Now, Melanie runs a Coffee Hut. Her goal is to amass a sum of one thousand dollars in sales by custody hearing on Monday whilst taking care of her daughter, Laura.
I see two obvious reasons - freedom of choice and having a stake in the outcome. Video games give the player total control over the outcome within the rules of the system. In my experience, workplaces typically define too many constraints and give the player very limited power over the process and next to zero share in the outcome.
Why do backbreaking labor outside when one can sit comfortably in a cool office staring at a screen? Because meaningful labor is invigorating, even in simulation.
Yes. I have often surprised myself with how much I enjoy seemingly menial things like cleaning my windows and restringing my guitars, once I get over the initial pain of starting. Making a real difference to yourself, your living environment, your context, your peers, etc– can be incredibly rewarding.
The equivalent at work would be when you can see a very clear relationship between your actions and the benefit your actions have on your customers and the rest of your team.
[+] [-] ffn|11 years ago|reply
In other words, work sucks primarily because it has been made to suck by a combination of extremely expensive real-estate in a down-town office and inattention toward the subject of how to make work fun.
The article calls this "the realities of work" and that the inherent difficulties and uncertainties are natural to the problems of the "real world" and must be accepted. But I beg to differ, there are tons of games that are extremely hard to play well (e.g. Sim City, Devil May Cry, etc.), yet still incredibly fun and addictive. And if you consider online games where interacting with other player can produce just as much uncertainty as real life, games are no less "real" than reality... yet they are fun while real work isn't.
Personally, I think corporations can take a page from video game design and analyze their own employees work flows and design it to be a more fun process.
[+] [-] asgard1024|11 years ago|reply
That's why you come home and program in a perfect world of Haskell (or some other toy), just like the farmer chooses the virtual farm over the real one.
> The article calls this "the realities of work" and that the inherent difficulties and uncertainties are natural to the problems of the "real world" and must be accepted.
In a certain sense, you're correct - the challenges to overcome in a game can have the same magnitude. In other sense, you're not. At the end of the day, game is still a game. Maybe it is the responsibility that you feel that makes the difference. In the real world, the stakes are higher; cannot that be the ultimate reason why the work sucks?
[+] [-] rifung|11 years ago|reply
Just my opinion though!
[+] [-] chipsy|11 years ago|reply
My pitch would be to make play - not just "fun" or compulsion loops, but the whole dynamic of playful activity - an organizational improvement process. The best results, as with most things, would need deep structural commitment, but there would be room even for a limited engagement to make some progress.
[+] [-] lewisl9029|11 years ago|reply
But a vast majority of "work" out there is nothing like working in software.
So yes, it is probably just you (or us rather).
[+] [-] pjc50|11 years ago|reply
That would be nice, yes. Most organisations are tremendously bad at this kind of introspection. And like introspection of the individual, it's painful and time-consuming. Especially when a process doesn't work well and you get into the eternal battle of "we need better employees" vs "better training" vs "change the process".
Not to mention that plenty of managers are Calvinist enough to design the fun out of work; employee fun is presumed to be a cost to the company that must be minimised.
[+] [-] majani|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dyates|11 years ago|reply
On the flip side, the Black Mirror episode "Fifteen Million Credits" features a dystopia in which most people spend their entire lives generating electricity by peddling on stationary bicycles to earn credits they can use to outfit a virtual persona. Let's hope that's not the logical conclusion of Farmville!
[+] [-] jmcqk6|11 years ago|reply
The opposite of play is not work; it's depression.
I think the key thing people do wrong through, is to take work and try to make it more like play by adding in superficial 'game mechanics' like achievements.
Visual Studio had this for a while, and it had things like "use the debugger 100 times" or something like that. This is not how you make work into play. Those achievements are meaningless. Worse, they could provide incentive for using visual studio poorly.
For a really deep look at how games can be used to improve real world tasks, I recommend the works of [James Gee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Paul_Gee).
[+] [-] alanctgardner3|11 years ago|reply
In other words: people want to control how they do work, and feel they have some flexibility. They want to recieve prompt feedback so they understand when they're doing well or badly. And they want to encounter a variety of challenges.
Gamification is just building a tight feedback loop and providing sufficient variety. Autonomy is much harder to automate, because it seems to be the opposite of building an 'on-rails' experience guaranteed to please someone.
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brownbat|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drawkbox|11 years ago|reply
Work in a game and real-life can be fun if you are accomplishing things and moving in a general progression direction with some success.
In the real world, you can accomplish things and move sideways or backdrift based on many other factors than what you put in as work or capital, in other words, not as fun all the time and not really specifically tuned as a game design for fun.
[+] [-] jsilence|11 years ago|reply
And also: No meetings.
[+] [-] whybroke|11 years ago|reply
Compensation from work is much more distantly related to performance. A salaried or hourly person gets the same pay per time period regardless of being more productive than average or not.
Additionally that compensation is money which as at least one step removed from the actual reward.
And sometimes that reward is using the money to buy time off which is apparently a contradiction and requires complex understanding to justify the whole point of work. Games don't have profound contradictions in this category.
Also work compensation is sometime unfair paying inept or unproductive people who are good at office politics. Games obviously can't be unfair in this way.
Sometimes the rewards are immensely remote such as retirement. Game rewards often occur within seconds or at most hours.
Some rewards are just avoiding improbable miseries such as paying for an illness (if you have the misfortune to live in a society where this is a worry). Disasters in games are always no only unbelievable or impersonal but often humors eg minecraft's creeper or sim city's flood. No popular game has you grinding hard to save money just in case you become unemployable due to depression or cancer.
[+] [-] ctdonath|11 years ago|reply
We play "labor games" for fun because they are the idealistic of what we really want to do but without that irritating intrusion of reality.
[+] [-] erikb|11 years ago|reply
In contrast in real life it is hard to find out who actually wants the result you are just tasked to do, nobody knows how it should look like in the end and everybody has complains about the result no matter how it looks. That's why work feels like work and the same thing as a game feels good.
[+] [-] crimsonalucard|11 years ago|reply
"The goal of Desert Bus was to, quite simply, drive a bus from Tucson, Arizona to Las Vegas, Nevada; a very very boring drive, as those of us who have done it know. There were a couple catches, though: in the game, your bus could not go over 45 miles per hour. Also, it veered to the right, just ever so slightly, so you could not simply tape down the accelerator button on your Genesis pad and leave the game alone; you had to man the wheel at all times. Oh, and did we mention the trip takes eight hours, in real time?"
“You saw nothing. It was just desert stuff going by, And there was a little green tree hanging from the rear-view mirror, one of those things that makes your car smell better? And it would just kind of drift in slowly to one corner of the screen. And you couldn’t take your hands off the controller, and if you did…it didn’t have a spectacular crash, it just slowly went into the sand, and then overheated and stopped, and then the game was you being towed backwards all the way back to Tucson.”
“And when you went from Tucson to Vegas and did the full 8 hours, you had bus stops, and the bus stops…you could stop and open the door, but no one got on. No one’s ever waiting for you. And if you went by them you weren’t punished at all, because nobody was there. It meant nothing. And a bug hit your windshield five times during the eight hours, and that was the only animation. It was just road after road after road. Eight hours of desert bus. And then when you got in - and I love this - when you got into Vegas and pulled in and stopped, the counter - which was five zeros - went to 1. You got 1 point for an eight hour shift, and then a guy came in and said, ‘Do you want to pull a double shift, Mac?’ And then you could drive back to Tucson for another eight hours for another point.”
[+] [-] wildpeaks|11 years ago|reply
But if you want to see people suffer through that game for a whole week 24h/24, come watch the yearly "Desert Bus for Hope" charity marathon in November: http://desertbus.org/about/ :-)
[+] [-] crimsonalucard|11 years ago|reply
Desert Bus illustrates what happens when the accomplishment is 1 point, and the work is 8 hours.
[+] [-] zokier|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barbs|11 years ago|reply
I find this parallels quite well with my day-to-day software development job, although playing these games remove a lot of the mundane tasks of actual employment (meetings, repetitive tasks, reliance on others, communication issues etc). Both of these involve solving varied problems in different ways, though.
I concluded that I was simply doing what I enjoy, creative problem solving, and that I was just lucky enough to do what I intrinsically enjoyed for a living. I didn't think that my choice of leisure-activity was influenced by society's apparent changing view of free-time as "potential work time".
[+] [-] mpdehaan2|11 years ago|reply
All being said, I miss the grand era of 80s/90s 2D greatly.
[+] [-] anodari|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] technomancy|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] getsat|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnal943|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaryd|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calibraxis|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saraid216|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jokoon|11 years ago|reply
She kinda made the argument that if I wanted to progress in life I could follow the rules (work to get this degree), and that it should stimulate me as much as diablo 3. It's true that in both cases, there are rules. Except I thought that life/society/civilization is not really a game. Maybe if you want to improve the economy, you can use bits of game theory to reduce the cost of regulation and corruption, but I doubt that it's sane to imply that all real life is like a game. Maybe I should try to play by the rules, but it would be very tempting to cheat, that's one reason to avoid playing, to avoid the temptation of playing.
In video games the rules make sense, but in society it rarely does. Social stratification, social disintegration, my unemployment, etc.
I don't think video games are much simpler, or that simplicity has something to do with it. But the rules never contradict themselves. There can be games with rules that are pretty complex too, and those games are much more interesting because there is a logic to it.
Maybe an interesting game concept would be to make a game more realistic by introducing more contradictions inside it. Pollute the environment, increase poverty, deal drugs, corrupt politicians, etc, adding a "some people just like to see the world burn" aspect to it. GTA is already a little like that, except I don't see it going all the way through.
[+] [-] VLM|11 years ago|reply
So the bigger and more complicated a culture is (you know, like ours?), the more likely the rules as taught are lies vs the rules as how the world actually works.
So unsurprisingly following the rules as taught isn't going to work very well for everyone. The folks who want to maintain control can fight that little problem by all manner of social engineering. Let people vote, but only between irrelevant decisions never the important stuff. Guilt trips. Threats (see religion and eternal damnation for all heretics). Anecdotal examples in the place of actual societal trends (the token xyz in a group, etc). Good ole fashioned bread and circuses, ya see the baseball game last night and how bout that game of thrones episode?
[+] [-] asanagi|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lmz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imgabe|11 years ago|reply
Work often has situations where the outcome is much less certain. We have a problem we don't know how to solve so we need to try various possibilities. This can be fun if there is room for experimentation and we can try some things that fail without failing overall, but in situations with tight deadlines and uncertain outcomes, where you have a limited chance to attempt something and you don't know whether it will work, this is a recipe for stress.
[+] [-] anon4|11 years ago|reply
- You need to work to make money to buy food to eat. That introduces unavoidable stress into your work in the form that you know, if you don't work well enough, you'll get fired and then you'll starve. Or get your power cut. Or be kicked out of your house.
- You can always start again, no matter how badly you mess up. In a lot of workplaces, if you mess up a couple of times, you're fired and you can't try again.
In short, real work is less like Farming Simulator 2013 and more like nethack, but you only have one life.
[+] [-] sakri|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tauchunfall|11 years ago|reply
Sounds a bit like Melanie Emberly from the indie game "Cart Life" (2013).
>A recent divorcee who had to quit her job at her office as a result. Now, Melanie runs a Coffee Hut. Her goal is to amass a sum of one thousand dollars in sales by custody hearing on Monday whilst taking care of her daughter, Laura.
[+] [-] visakanv|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bottled_poe|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nether|11 years ago|reply
Why do backbreaking labor outside when one can sit comfortably in a cool office staring at a screen? Because meaningful labor is invigorating, even in simulation.
[+] [-] visakanv|11 years ago|reply
The equivalent at work would be when you can see a very clear relationship between your actions and the benefit your actions have on your customers and the rest of your team.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]