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...
If you go for finishing side-quests, you may not feel satisfied until you've finished them all. That can take considerably longer and be considerably less worth-while than the main game. (e.g. saving princess and defeating nemesis vs. collect all 500 random blue hidden items. Both fun, one takes far less time, and is more "worthwhile".)
Of course, that's quite a different thing to timesinks like "find all 400 hidden widgets" which can get pretty tedious...
Some games explain story elements in the side quests, for example. Others add additional gameplay experiences. When I buy a game, I buy it to enjoy it, not so I can ignore 50-75% of it, and as long as I'm enjoying the game (rather than playing purely because I feel I'm missing out on something, even though its not enjoyable), I want to get the most out of it. Especially if it was an expensive game (though I normally only buy games on offer).
Besides, most games have terrible endings, so its more about the journey (the quest, the side quests) than the destination (ending credits).
Its all about fun and enjoyment. Plying a game when you don't enjoy it is stupid. Also, if you have X amount of time to play games, then playing for longer than X is obviously bad, regardless of if you enjoy it or not, but the same is true for watching TV, playing sports etc etc. Everything in life must be balanced.
In related news:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1983234,00.htm...
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."Why are these kids being allowed to play games at those hours? Sounds like bad parenting to me.
There are people who spend vast amounts of time watching, training for, and playing games like football. I haven't ever heard someone say that is unhealthy and a bad thing, even if football is all they ever talk about and use their free time for. Where is the boundary between Football, Chess, D&D, SC2, Quake, and WoW? When does it transition from a healthy interest to a waste of life? Why is the line drawn there?
Football intuitively seems healthy, whereas Farmville seems perverse and almost purely destructive.
We can safely say that Farmville is addictive because it is designed to be addictive, and succeeds at invoking addictive behaviors. People who play football/watch football don't seem to do so addictively.
Come on, are you being serious? Are you trolling?
I completely agree, which is why I included it!
My personal experience has been that Chess is treated in much the same way. Sure, they might be happier with that person having picked Football, but nobody would ever call them addicted to Chess.
I agree that Farmville is an abomination; I disagree with calling it addictive. Sure, you can demonstrate that people will abuse games (I'm unsure about Farmville, but this certainly applies to ones like WoW) to avoid real life and to make themselves feel better. Taking away their computer may result in them exhibiting withdrawal symptoms such as irritability. The same is true of movies, TV programs, books, computer programming, and almost any sort of entertainment.
People can play games for many different reasons. A few:
- casual, healthy entertainment
- competition, like regular sports sans muscles
- a way to avoid dealing with life
The 3rd is a problem, but is not exclusive to games, and is generally ignored if you use something like books. That said, many video games are perfect for being used for avoiding life; IMO due to the easy immersion, repetitive interaction, and satisfying rewards.
That's where the line is drawn.
I had friends that spent 2 hours a night, saturday morning and sunday morning playing organized football (soccer). Their grades were always low because they rarely completed the assigned homework. They had no social life in football season, literally no social life. I had a friend who would be grounded if he got an after school detention, because it meant he missed an evening practice. He didn't get punished because he'd done wrong, he got punished because his dad wanted him playing sports.
I played video games. I had lots of free time to socialise with friends, my grades were always excellent. Me and my friends would get together for gaming parties, 8-player C&C games, Halo 4 player deathmatch tournaments, etc. I spent most of my time interacting with people. Even when I was at home playing games, half the time I was online with my high school friends.
Why is there a line drawn in allowing parents to forcibly confine their children into organized sports because a very slim minority that don't get serious injuries and manage to play in the top 5 percentile MAY be scouted and then MAY get picked to play for a professional team. If not, they're just a loser that spent way too much time playing a game and achieved nothing.
At least video gamers tend to lead a life because they need money to buy games.
It may be true that video games are addictive, but so are cigarettes and alcohol and the majority of addicts lead normal productive lives because these minorly addictive substances require money. This money requirement means people work, which mean people socialize.
Most gamers I knew as a kid had paper routes or mowed lawns for money. Why? Because money bought games. The kids playing sports didn't have paper routes, they didn't have the time. They never did a job until they graduated highschool.
Myself at 15 was working as a video game reviewer. It was a job that gave me video games.
If you fail to get into the NFL, you can at least coach. No one is going to pay you to coach them Halo.
This is the first media-neutral definition of games that are worth/aren't worth playing obsessively that I've seen, and it actually makes some sense.
Studying addiction is just as much of a problem in South Korea as gaming addiction is. South Korean children spend a ridiculously high amount of time in class, most of it used very inefficiently. Taking away what scant leisure time the children have and devoting it to more studying is going to have a net negative effect, not a net positive one.
- 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.
I'm not a big fan on limiting game play in this way, but I also recognize that different things work (or don't) for different people.
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.
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.
There has been a huge indie golden age in recent times & I'd argue we never had it as good as now in terms of innovative games.
I'll have to see if I can cajole some people into it.
Batman, Halo, Call of Duty, Gears of War, Splinter Cell, LA Noire, Assassin's Creed, GTA, Dead Space, Bastion, Red Dead Redemption, Shadow Complex, Splosion Man, Braid
Additionally, if I don't personally rate a game as more than '90%' I trade it in.
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.