Topic

Pyschological disorders: good idea?

For the game, I mean.

From what I remember from my psych textbooks it's important to distinguish between mood disorders, mental disorders, and personality disorders. If I recall correctly, mood disorders are the kind that require psychiatrists while personality disorders are behavioral in nature, but you can take some creative license here.

For example: if your behavior is consistently selfish/uncooperative, you can develop narcissistic personality disorder and must see a psychologist (branch of bureaucratic arts). If if you spend too much time in a small area, you can develop claustrophobia and/or depression and must see a psychiatrist for antidepressants. (psychology + a medicine skill, perhaps herbology + admixing).

Thoughts on this?

(edit) Since most of the opposed listed the "negative" aspect of psychological disorders as their reason for objecting, answer this: how would you feel about a psychological skill tree that only contributes and doesn't take away? For example, "focus pills" that increase your concentration? Or "mood pills" that act as a lighter version of No No Powder? Say the game doesn't add disorders proper, but adds a "Psychiatry" skill tree from the combination of Bureaucratic Arts, Meditation and Herbology. What are your thoughts on that?

Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

Previous 1 2 3
  • It'd be interesting... but might kinda cheese off people who actually have depression/phobias/etc IRL. Remember the "Deadpan Dike" thread? Imagine what psychological disorder debuffs would dredge up.
    Posted 16 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • VERY unglitch like.
    Posted 16 months ago by Stormy Weather Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I would rather we not make a game of a really serious issue that a lot of people cannot help. I have a predisposition to depression and would prefer to not have it in a whimsical world.

    On a technical side, how would the programming decide your behavior was narcissistic, the ability to understand humanity belongs solely to humanity.
    Posted 16 months ago by Ani Laurel Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "Remember the "Deadpan Dike" thread? Imagine what psychological disorder debuffs would dredge up."

    They're exciting! These sorts of potential issues are only potential because a beta setting creates heightened sensitivity to player feedback and so even the most ridiculous complaints can seem legitimate. 

    Yeah, I was a major participant in that thread. I was strongly against the complaints about that name and I'm even more against complaining about the idea that a game shouldn't contain something from the real world because someone who has experienced the real version of that thing might feel uncomfortable. You'd have to remove cocktail crafting for anyone who was reminded of their alcoholic father and death for anyone who just had a death in the family.

    After a certain point (and the hypothetical complaints you've mentioned are beyond that point) it stops becoming a legitimate grievance and more of not understanding how video games (or even fiction itself) work.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I dislike the idea, for  these reasons-
    1) The DSM has grown from 108 disorders (the DSM-I) to 365 disorders (DSM-IV-TR) and that there are possibly some things within it that don't necessarily need treatment- or may not possibly even actually need treatment, which the Pharmaceutical industry just loves to bank on. (But what do I know? Back about a hundred years, did we medicate for -everything-?) However, there are very serious illnesses that definitely need treatment within it- and bringing them in game pokes fun at things that people cannot help. It could definitely cause a lot of reaction, and not all of it good. 

    2) It'd change the atmospherics of Glitch. Even if it was approached playfully, it'd still give negative undertones to the environment.

    About the name "Deadpan Dike"-  I have no issue with it. However, maybe Glitches could make up background stories for street names. Deadpan Dike could be where ancestoral Glitches 'panned' for currants in the River, or some such? I'd love to see people make up stories about the streets where they live! (And yes, I never saw that thread earlier- so apologies if I'm assuming wrong in where the problem lie.)
    Posted 16 months ago by Zeezee Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Awful idea.  Glitch is positive and upbeat.  It would totally change the feeling of the game if there were such de-buffs based on how you play the game. 
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think that a flat transposition of real world psychological disorders into the game is...hard to find the words...ungainly?  Also...a giant bummer.  It's enough to make me found the Glitch Scientology group just to balance out its sledgehammer...uh..ishness. 

    If I generate currants in my house gardening/animal tending, and I have a massive street sized Alkakol house so I really can do that and spend most of my game time there...does that mean the game would diagnose me with agoraphobia?

    I suppose that also means nearly every Glitchen out there could be diagnosed as a hoarder (well, not striatic or Mr. Dawgg)...

    Plus mood in Glitch is a volume measure, and there are endless kinds of behavior that is not scripted or measured by the game.  I love the idea of physical illnesses, even allergies, but not this so much.
    Posted 16 months ago by Nanookie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Like I said, it is an interesting idea, I just don't know how excited I would be about the inevitable histrionics it'd raise in certain quarters.
    I think it'd require overhauling the current mood metrics, as well. It wouldn't be that interesting if everything under the sun made you... well, low-mood.
    I think I agree with Nanookie- over and above everything else, it'd be a giant bummer. Not to make light of mental illness, but it'd be fun the way introducing taxes, a 9-to-5 work schedule, and lawsuits in-game.
    You could go with synesthesia, though- I wouldn't be "offended" by it, and I doubt most other syns would be either, and it's interesting more than it's depressing... maybe use it as a temporary condition that gives some kind of disorientation debuff or a buff for some kind of creativity or something.
    Posted 16 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I...honestly, I can understand the desire to have some variation in the mood schema but I honestly have to agree with Nanookie. I am not saying it can't be done well, but a flat transposition wouldn't be it, and the time the devs spent on making it interesting kind of seems countervened by all the weird and interesting things they've dropped tidbits about so far! 
    Posted 16 months ago by Caesura Subscriber! | Permalink
  • look, i don't want to play a game that mimics real world economics or real world illness or real world politics.

    i have a real world for that.

    i like being in a happy little cartoon universe where i just learn to manipulate the little cartoon objects and acquire cartoon skills.

    i have no problem with little cartoon drinks. i would have a real problem if the game started to give me messages like "you've had too many flaming humbabas and now you've missed another important appointment and you've been fired from your mining career and you're going to lose your house."

    don't even get me started on why i don't want a little cartoon game i enjoy playing to dream up psychiatric illnesses that the players can struggle with.

    what happens if you get to be some version of glitchified schizophrenia? do you then fail to be able to interact with other players? fail to be able to go about your daily routines or reliably harvest anything unless you have other players to help you? do you get to take potions to cure you that don't work, or give you bad side effects? do you get to live in a glitch group home, or when you get kicked out of it for agression you can't control, do you go live under a cartoon bridge until you splank another player to death and got to glitch prison?

    yeah, that'd be fun.
    Posted 16 months ago by flask Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I understand some of your concerns. There's no reason to believe integrating, say, Schizophrenia would mandate integrating all kinds of boring psychological disorders, just like the introduction of No-No Powder didn't mandate the introduction of PCP.

    There is nothing qualitatively different in terms of "mimicking the real world" than hangovers or caffeine crashes or Bureaucratic Arts, though, and this objection is rather silly. More people have had to deal with those things than have had to deal with psychological disorders, and more people will know what they're like -- caffeine crashes and brain freezes and waiting in line for your permit are way closer to home and they're still a brilliant addition. It's one thing to say you don't want certain real-world things you don't like introduced but to declaim anything real-world is to denounce a lot of creative aspects of Glitch. Many games since GTA IV have been lauded for introducing buffs and debuffs that affect player choices; Glitch is no different.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • if you think integrating mental illnesses would be a fun addition to the game, clearly you have not spent any time on locked wards or in group homes or in families where they have a loved one who has, say, schizophrenia.

    i have some more fun ideas: let's integrate murders and rapes and maybe give glitches the ability to become pregnant so they can miscarry.

    and bankruptcy! arson! those would be SUPER fun. how about cancer? horrible mining accidents that maim and disfigure? oh, wait! i'm sure we can come up with all SORTS of fun real-life traumas that we can make a fun part of a game.
    Posted 16 months ago by flask Subscriber! | Permalink
  • My question to the OP.  Why did you choose mental illnesses over physical illnesses?
    Posted 16 months ago by Stormy Weather Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @flask --

    Listen dude, cut the snark. I'm not going to compete with you in the "who has experienced a more traumatic life" game. Whatever point you've been trying to make by saying if I had known experienced the real-world version of some traumatic thing I would oppose the inclusion of that thing in a fictional universe, you've lost perspective of it. You need to be more clear about what you're trying to say because right now, your reasons for excluding something like bipolar buffs/debuffs are vague.

    Here are my reasons: Fiction contains dramatic content. That is what makes fiction exciting. Games are included here. Every video game since Super Fucking Mario Brothers has involved elements that, if imported to the real world, would be traumatic. Glitch itself has hangovers. It has cocaine crashes, death, and (I think) illness. Have you ever known an alcoholic? Or a drug addict? Or someone who has died? What about via an illness? Adding illness, cocaine crashes, hangovers and death to Glitch does not trivialize these things at all. I don't need to point you to the scores of games on the market that also feature disease, murder, and so on. You're catastrophically ignorant of game design and perhaps the creative process in general if you think that the inclusion of these elements should be off the table because the real-world equivalent is depressing.  I don't think you actually believe this and are just selectively favoring psychological disorders here, because if you legitimately believed that path of reasoning you would support the exclusion of anything interesting from fictional worlds.

    Your objections aren't reasoned well, and soaking your post in sarcasm isn't going to make them any more valid. You should make an effort to explain why psychological buffs/debuffs are significantly different than drug-induced debuffs or even death with the respect to their "if imported to the real-world, these things would be traumatic" nature. So far, all you've done is snarkily say that if I were in your shoes, I would agree, which is a non-argument.

    @Stormy: I didn't choose mental illnesses over physical illnesses. Both would be exciting! I think physical illnesses are a good idea if they haven't been included already. Here I proposed the idea of adding a medicine skill tree from herbology/admixing, and a pharmacy skill tree with the addition of bureaucratic arts.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • my reasons for not wanting to see debilitating disease introduced as part of a lighthearted cartoon game are not vague at all.

    yes, i know alcoholics and junkies and schizophrenics and manic-depressives and i have seen the insides of group homes and locked wards and halfway houses.

    the introduction of a glitch head cold or papercut might be entertaining, but i have to draw the line at really painful debilitating conditions.

    i chose hyperbole as a vehicle because people would get really offended to have a game casually toss in rape or miscarriage as a fun game component, and rightly so.

    adding in illnesses for which and  there are no cures and often no effective treatment and no care support just doesn't sound like fun to me.

    i am not ignorant of game design; i just don't see the point of creating a game world that's more like the real world that's already depressing enough for me. i don't play shooter and domination games not because i don't understand them, but because i don't like them.

    i think glitch is looking to a lighter, happier demographic, and one that is largely underserved in games.

    if i want to worry about mental illness and resulting loss of function and possibly bankruptcy, homelessness, and a statistical probability of suicide, i'll just stick to my life already in progress. i don't need a cartoon world to do that for me.

    why not suggest a cancer debuff that never quite wears off and has a chance of recurring every day no matter what you do? float that suggestion as fun game play and see how many cancer fans jump up to clamor for it.

    perhaps we might have a fun ALS feature, or a huntington's chorea debuff?

    all real world challenges are not fun gameplay.

    i do not need to explain why mental illness "play" is different than the caffeine crash debuff any more than i need to explain why having low mood in game would be different than playing at crippling illnesses. neither do i have to explain why gameplay that requires me to eat food is fundamentally different than introducing widespread famine or wasting diseases.

    there's nothing wrong with my reasoning, and i do actually believe that making psychological disorders out to be fun or "interesting" for the purposes of game play is inappropriate at best.

    if your definition of anything "interesting" from the real world involves extreme suffering, illness, and death, then yes, i'm against everything interesting.

    as it stands now the no-no crash is disturbing enough to me, but there is no in game mechanism for addiction to take its real toll on the play world. if people around me want to play with the powder, it does not cause my game play to be exposed to increased crime or violence or the breakup of families.

    you asked if it would be a fun idea. i assert that no, it is not a fun idea for the many people who either suffer these diseases or those who love them. i'm here to play games, to have fun. i am not here to find a substitute for a real world that is already painful enough.

    you are, of course free to continue to assert that disease in general and mental illness in particular (which carries much social stigma and whose sufferers are among the most vulnerable and ridiculed members of the population) would make the game more fun.

    since the question was asked, i feel it's important to answer resoundingly NO. past that point, it's up to the developers.

    i am not going to play word and logic games with you; you cannot back up a really bad idea with the argument that anyone who thinks it's distasteful simply lacks reason or logic. you can tell your self that, but i'm not playing.
    Posted 16 months ago by flask Subscriber! | Permalink
  • OMG.   I am not clever.  I am not up to debate.  But I can't even begin to say how horrid this idea is to me.
    Posted 16 months ago by Pirate Apples Subscriber! | Permalink
  • As someone who knows a lot of people with mental issues and who have had addiction issues I would like to thank Flask for summing it up.

    Drugs are one thing, mental issues are much much more serious. You can go into rehab for substances, nothing stops your brain from being rewired form birth.
    Posted 16 months ago by Ani Laurel Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Yes, +1 Pirate Apples, Aniloverl, Flask, and pretty much anyone else who has disagreed with this. I find it extremely distasteful for you to even suggest it. Alcoholism and drug addictions are fixable (as Aniloverl rightly stated), mental illnesses are not. People who have to deal with these things would not find it amusing to do the same in a computer game, and to be honest I would find it sickening.

    ETA: They're exciting! These sorts of potential issues are only potential because a beta setting creates heightened sensitivity to player feedback and so even the most ridiculous complaints can seem legitimate. 

    Um, they might be exciting to you, but the people who start those threads actually care about the issues, and actually experience them in real life, as foreign as that idea might be to you.

    Plus: it's spelled psychological.
    Posted 16 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Flask++. Eloquent and right on.

    I've been a depression sufferer. It's not cute, it's not funny, it's not exciting, and it's not a game.
    Posted 16 months ago by Clumdalglitch Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Do NOT fee the troll!
    Posted 16 months ago by Stormy Weather Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Another point to add against that sort of content being added (Or any other that sparks extremely heated debates):

    Too much controversy. The game could lose a lot of people over it. There needs to be new, innovative things added to games to keep it 'interesting', but if the people playing it are divided on it- It might not be the time and/or place to do so.
    Posted 16 months ago by Zeezee Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Really now. Psychological disorders are "more serious" than drug addiction? A cocaine addiction is pretty serious. When you draw the line at some subjective idea that one real-world trauma is more "serious" than another and for that reason should face exclusion from a fictional world, you're not standing on firm ground for any decision. 

    flask, your reasoning has been vague. Extremely so. "You don't know someone who has experienced this problem, thus it shouldn't be included in a fictional world" isn't a well-worded claim. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. It's illogical.

    I've said before -- three times now -- that fictional universes rely on the dramatic, and that excluding something from a fictional universe because the real-world equivalent is traumatic would merit the exclusion of virtually any interesting conflict mechanic in a story or game.

    All you've said in response -- well, you haven't said anything in response. You haven't even addressed the reality that interesting fiction will necessarily contain elements that, if imported to the real world, would be traumatic. Instead, you've just mischaracterized and exaggerated. You haven't explained how you're not cherrypicking mechanics that would be traumatic when imported to the real world and not ignoring the ones that already exist.

    Here's what I mean: to respond with "I don't want rape in glitch" is an exaggeration and a mischaracterization. It's a slippery slope fallacy -- many games contain illnesses, that doesn't mean they're going to contain cancer wards. "adding in illnesses for which and  there are no cures ... just doesn't sound like fun to me" is a mischaracterization -- no one ever wanted uncurable illnesses like cancer (another exaggeration you used later) in Glitch, only curable ones. i just don't see the point of creating a game world that's more like the real world" ignores the aspects of the game that are already like the real world.

    And this? "i do not need to explain why mental illness "play" is different than the caffeine crash debuff"

    I suppose you don't when that's not the point you're responding to. The argument you needed to explain was how the addition of cocaine and hangovers, which has many real-world traumatic equivalents, was less real-worldy or traumatic when imported to a fictional universe than the addition bipolar buffs/debuffs.

    But yeah, when you say "I don't see the point of creating a game that's more like the real world", you do kind of have to answer for things like cheese sandwiches, cocktails, caffeine crashes, bureaucracy, and realty listings.

    There is more than enough wrong with your reply because you have yet to respond to an accurate paraphrase of anything I've said. In every case you've distorted my terms and responded to the distortion, not the terms themselves. "if your definition involves" is how you begin the If By Whisky fallacy, not how you genuinely and honestly address a concern. Even when addressing something straightforward, like "countless works of video games and fiction contain illness and death", you added the vague-but-emotionally-loaded "extreme suffering" to ignore the inconsistency between accepting one import that would be traumatic in a real-world setting but rejecting others on arbitrary grounds.

    There are a number of reasons you could reject this idea. Reasons, mind you, which can be well-supported or badly-supported. "The skill path would be made too convoluted" is a potentially valid reason. "It's too much like the real world", while accepting the other real-world elements in the game, is not. "It's too depressing", while accepting the other depressing elements in the game (death, cocaine addiction), is not.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Stormy Weather, it isn't feeding the troll, because no one is trolling. Some people have one opinion, some people have another opinion. However, The Crepeist IS remaining diplomatic. He's stating his opinion. I don't AGREE with that opinion, but that doesn't qualify him as a troll!
    Posted 16 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ZeeZeeToo much controversy. The game could lose a lot of people over it.

    Any controversy here is exaggerated. All that's needed to say "too much controversy" in a beta setting like this one is to gather five of your friends to invade a thread. Then, viewers will incorrectly extrapolate from that tiny sample size that everyone will see it that way upon launch.

    This is an incredibly niche audience due to the closed nature of the game and because of the original audience the game was circulated to -- Glitch forum posters are nothing like the gaming public and this will not be an issue after the game is launched.

     I'm going to remake this topic after launch, and unless the same minority replies with the same fervor, it will be well-received and the yes/no ratio will be in the opposite direction.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Here's a reason for you: Glitch is supposed to be fun.  Sickness isn't fun.  Testers usually prefer to lobby for fun things, like the ability to make our avatars dance, or new foods to cook, or an underwater area for fishing and swimming.  Glitch should be an escape from everyday life, not a reminder of its pains.
    Posted 16 months ago by glum pudding Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +3.3 trillion glum.
    Posted 16 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Also: actually, guess what? Glitch forum posters are actually quite similar to the gaming public, since newsflash: we're a portion of it.
    Posted 16 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • lol. Glitch forum posters are in no way like the gaming public. The "Deadpan Dike" thread would have been laughed out of any MMO forum, if not outright ridiculed by the moderators. Glitch posters are more similar to the average progressive blogger than the average gamer, and I say that as someone who reads both gaming blogs and progressive blogs.

    I mean, when someone says "sickness isn't fun" it's a way of telling me they're completely ignorant of every RPG ever made for any console, nevermind action-adventure games that integrate RPG elements. You just can't be part of the larger game design dialogue and say something blanket like "sickness isn't fun", because illness has been a persistent part of games since the '80s. That's not something said by someone who is part of the gaming public, it's something said by someone who bought The Sims once.

    I'm sorry, but no, you guys aren't anything like the average gamer. You're smarter than the average gamer, for sure, but this forum is very, very different than gamer forums.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • ETA -nevermind
    Posted 16 months ago by Stormy Weather Subscriber! | Permalink
  • For someone who asked a question in the subject line, you sure are reluctant to hear the answer!  We're all well aware that illness is a part of other RPGs, but this is Glitch.  We've debated the merits of other types of illness in other threads -- search and you'll find them -- but so far, no one responding here has been interested in having a depressed avatar.  Perhaps you could suggest something more cheerful, like rickets.
    Posted 16 months ago by glum pudding Subscriber! | Permalink

  • I mean, when someone says "sickness isn't fun" it's a way of telling me they're completely ignorant of every RPG ever made for any console, nevermind action-adventure games that integrate RPG elements.


    So what? Glitch isn't trying to imitate every other RPG ever made for any console. That's part of the point. It's lighthearted. It's cute. It's different. It's unique. And it's fun.
    Posted 16 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @glum pudding -- the most negative reply I expected was more reasoned, like "it would require too many skills to learn for the payout." In that case I was prepared to say "yeah, I can see that."

    The sensationalist replies here are uncharacteristic of gaming forums in general and I didn't actually expect someone to have such little video game experience to the point that they would suggest that fictionalized sickness or illness is "too depressing." 
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Well, now you're just trolling, shamelessly, so there's no need to debate this any further.
    Posted 16 months ago by glum pudding Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Nice parachute reply. Calling someone names doesn't do anything except make you feel better. That's what a five-year-old does, not what an educated person does. It gives you a reason to believe you're justified in leaving the argument, it does not make your case. Attacking the person does not attack the argument.

    @Cupcake: If you are unique and distinct from other games,  you cannot also say you're part of the larger "gaming public." Being exceptional is necessarily the opposite of being normal. And even then, sickness can absolutely work on a lighthearted, fun, unique game. Earthbound, for example. Using sickness isn't "imitating" them, unless you think that using death is also. Other games are lighthearted with depressing features like death, and Glitch is neither imitating them nor "not fun" by adding death as a game mechanic.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Are you actually unaware that you've been calling the rest of us names since you got here?  If so, you may already have one or more of the disorders you find so entertaining.  Be well, dear.
    Posted 16 months ago by glum pudding Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Glitch is much more light hearted than most RPGs and the focus is different--with the exception of the Rook, the game isn't focused on overcoming strife. I think mental illness would be against the grain of the current game.

    And speaking as someone who both has (three! It's the magic number!) and loves people with mental illnesses, I would not play any game that made light of them. And Glitch is a game that makes light of things.
    Posted 16 months ago by Sheepy Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The Crepeist

    Glitch is uncharacteristic of gaming in general, and many of the participants are here because they don't like the usual video gaming experience.  The target audience for Glitch has never been 'your average gamer'.  

    Very early in the development of the game, in a public interview, one of the founders said
    "Because Glitch is a thinking-person's social game, Tiny Speck is not aimed at the entire world, at least not at first, especially not teens eager for the next World of Warcraft. Instead, Butterfield admitted, "There's not a better way to say [who we're targeting] than people with above average intelligence and sophisticated tastes, in their 20s or early 30s...The intersection of NPR listeners and game players."

    So whatever was attractive about WoW, and whatever is attractive to teen gamers, this isn't what Glitch is aiming for.  It's a thinking person's social game.  Sophisticated tastes, above average intelligence.  Posters having "such little video gaming experience" may actually mean that Glitch is attracting exactly the people it expects to be here and enjoy the game.  You may believe that designing a game for this audience is foolish, and and you may find that Glitch is not going to be attractive to you in the long run. Perhaps a quick review of how much support the current player base is giving to this idea will give you an idea of what the "average" Glitch player would find enjoyable.

    After launch, Glitch will still be targeted to the same audience that it is currently targeted at.  TS is not testing a game with a group of beta testers that are different from the kind of people they are trying to design a game for.  The people who are here are the ones TS has invited.  In fact, they are so much like the people TS wants to attract that the main method for finding new testers is (gasp) have current testers invite their friends, ie  people just like the current testers.

    You said:This is an incredibly niche audience due to the closed nature of the game and because of the original audience the game was circulated to -

    If you really think that TS is aiming the game at one audience, but testing it on an entirely different audience, then don't give them any of your money.  They are surely fools, as are the VCs who are backing them.  On the other hand, stoot has already made millions with another little startup (Flickr).  Maybe he's recognized a niche that is not being addressed by the video games currently out there and is creating a game for this 'incredibly niche audience.'
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It's a squicky idea, a lot of people think it's a squicky idea, therefore, why not be done with it?  I don't think people need to justify it with anything more than spidey sense, and some have offered up even more than that.   I think the uneasiness that this idea inspires pretty much short circuits any additional effort to cast it in terms of game design/mechanics/metrics, etc.   

    Some ideas are great, some are not great...generally there are more crap ideas out there than great ones, so why be wedded to this one?  I have lost count of the ideas I posted on these forums that got mocked and shot down or didn't even get a single response.  And not only that but not a single one have I yet to see IN the game, but that doesn't matter either.  It's just great to have an outlet for a thing (Glitch) that inspires me.   
    Posted 16 months ago by Nanookie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Just to clarify, I'm not "wedded" to the idea, Nanookie. Nor have I called anyone names, glum. I've continued to reply because, even as of this post, no one has explained how this is  not cherrypicking mechanics that would be traumatic when imported to the real world and not ignoring those mechanics in Glitch that already exist. The closest anyone has come is to say that cocaine addiction isn't as severe as mental illness, which is a pretty bold claim and wasn't given supporting reasoning. There still hasn't been a definitive reason to keep disorders out of the game that wouldn't exclude many already real-worldy or "depressing" things already in the game we continue to enjoy. Something like "Glitch's audience isn't representative of the gaming public" is a side-issue that deals with how many people will make these kinds of objections, and I can continue to address it, but it has nothing to do with whether those objections are right.

    The most you can do is say "okay, we're hypocritical on this -- that's just how the majority opinion on this issue is." But many who have objected under that pattern of reasoning are insisting that they don't hold any internal contradictions, which, as long as they use that reasoning, isn't true.

    e.g. in Sheepy's reply: "Glitch is much more light hearted than most RPGs." More lighthearted than Earthbound, which has sickness? That's debatable. And even despite Glitch's lightheartedness, it has cocaine crashes and hangovers and death. If disorders "go against the grain" of the current game, so do a lot of other already-existing mechanics in Glitch.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I am glad you are not sticking with it for the sticking's sake!   I hope your perfect argument comes to deliver you soon.
    Posted 16 months ago by Nanookie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 to what Windborn said
    That is why I play THIS game and not any other RPG's.
    -1000 to the original idea=Absolutely, positively NO!
    Posted 16 months ago by Holly Waterfall Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Whether or not you agree with the objections, and whether or not the objections seem logical to you, every single person in this thread has said it's a bad idea for Glitch. 

    There is no requirement that decisions be based on logic. 
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • You haven't insulted anyone?

    "it stops becoming a legitimate grievance and more of not understanding how video games (or even fiction itself) work." Okay, so apparently we don't understand how video games or fiction work.

    "this objection is rather silly" Our objections are silly.

    "Listen dude, cut the snark. I'm not going to compete with you in the 'who has experienced a more traumatic life' game." Someone who objected was being "snarky," and obviously didn't actually care about the issues he was discussing, since it's apparently a competition against you.

    "You're catastrophically ignorant of game design and perhaps the creative process in general if you think that the inclusion of these elements should be off the table because the real-world equivalent is depressing." Oh look! We're also ignorant!

    "I mean, when someone says "sickness isn't fun" it's a way of telling me they're completely ignorant of every RPG ever made for any console, nevermind action-adventure games that integrate RPG elements." Whoop! We're ignorant again. I'd almost forgotten, from the first time you said it.

    "Calling someone names doesn't do anything except make you feel better. That's what a five-year-old does, not what an educated person does." Hmm...maybe it's just me, but calling someone a name in the same paragraph you accuse that person of calling you names seems...odd.

    Finally, I'd like to add: "So far, all you've done is snarkily say that if I were in your shoes, I would agree, which is a non-argument." Hmm. A little later, you say " I'm going to remake this topic after launch, and unless the same minority replies with the same fervor, it will be well-received and the yes/no ratio will be in the opposite direction." Which is basically, "if you were different people, you'd agree." Bit of a non-argument there, too.

    ETA: WindBorn, I strongly agree.
    Posted 16 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ Crepe, you have asked the question "Psychological Disorders: good idea?"
     
    The short answer is 'No.'

    btw: you might make a fine Criminal Defence Lawyer 
    ~but we're not on trial here,so please don't be so 'harsh' with us just because we do not
    agree with you and do not want TS to integrate mental health issues into the world of Glitch.
    Clearly you have given it all a lot of thought,and I commend you for it,but I now challenge
    you to try and explore the issue of mental health in general.
     I can tell you, even in this enlightened day and age,to be labelled with even the mildest form
    of mental illness,will burden a person with a social stigma akin to leprosy,and will affect you
    in every single aspect of your life! With a bit of empathy for those who live with it,it is a small step
    to understand why so many do not want these things to be a massive part of Glitch,a fantasy
    world far removed from troublesome RL issues.

    You mention, NoNo powder and Hell,any player can easily avoid those,
    but how would the game distinguish between selfish and self reliant,and/or
    uncooperative and simply being a single/solo player?
    You have also said "fictional universes rely on drama" maybe so,but games also
    rely on being fun,and mental illness is neither a form of drama,nor is it fun.
    Posted 16 months ago by ~Scilly~ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • And also:

    You should make an effort to explain why psychological buffs/debuffs are significantly different than drug-induced debuffs or even death with the respect to their "if imported to the real-world, these things would be traumatic" nature.

    Okay, I'll do just that. The way you suggest it, the way you play (whether you play selfishly, or if you don't want to branch out) could give you a debuff. That doesn't seem wrong to you? In Glitch, if you lose energy, if you forget to eat food, you'll die and go to Hell, yes. However, it's quite normal to have to keep your energy up - dying just puts a funny twist on it, in Glitch. And yes, you can take drugs - but that's up to you; it's not like once you sniff no-no you're hooked for all eternity, and it's not like you're forced to sniff it in the first place. Developing psych disorders because of the way you choose to play in general would not be fun. Most games, as far as I know, don't punish players because they don't play the "right" way. And maybe I'm completely wrong, maybe I AM "catastrophically ignorant of game design." But, so what? Why does it MATTER what every other game has? We're addressing what, in Glitch, fits the nature of the game and would be enjoyable to the players. In what way would forcing players to conform to one type of playing (that is, not being "selfish/uncooperative" or not "spending too much time in a small area") be fun?
    Posted 16 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • points:

    "to be labelled with even the mildest form of mental illness,will burden a person with a social stigma ... it is a small step to understand why so many do not want these things to be a massive part of Glitch."

    This only excludes certain categories of mental illnesses that carry a social stigma. "Psychological disorders" includes everything from the more traditional disorders to sociopathy. And even then, not every disorder carries a stigma. I've been diagnosed with both ADHD and an anxiety disorder, for example -- there's no social stigma to either, and I wouldn't mind their inclusion in the game. Would you object to that, too? What about bipolar? There's a range of disorders. The real-world version of bipolar is depressing, but the game version of bipolar could be fun. The real-world version of an anxiety disorder sucks, but an in-game anxiety disorder could be fun.

    "mental illness is neither a form of drama,nor is it fun."

    Real-world mental disorders aren't fun. But then, real-world death isn't fun either. Sickness and debuffs in general have been used across countless games to make their gameplay more interesting. It's a form of drama because it adds tension and release.

    "how would the game distinguish between selfish and self reliant,and/oruncooperative and simply being a single/solo player?"

    And with that, you've touched on one of the biggest questions in the Western RPG genre.

    There are countless ways you could do that, to be honest. You could do it in a more traditional way, where the player could acquire sociopathy if they relentlessly poison trees for an extremely short period of time without any "good" behavior in-between. You could also do this in a cheeky way, where the player acquires narcissistic personality disorder from spending too much time in their wardrobe. It's really up to the developers.
     
    " Developing psych disorders because of the way you choose to play in general would not be fun."

    Really? Since the mid-2000s it's been extremely common for games with RPG elements to face positive or negative consequences from the way you act, and those additions have been lauded. Are you sure you aren't just limited by your imagination and/or focus on a particular disorder? 

    side-points:

    @Cupcake: Those aren't names, for starters. Saying "that argument is silly" is far from calling you an idiot. Mentioning Glitch's demographic would be a non-argument out-of-context, but when someone says an idea is "too controversial" that controversy is a direct result of the current demographic. I will re-suggest this idea a few months after launch with a slightly different angle and the yes/no ratio will be reversed. I'm pretty confident about that.

    @WindBorn: I agree, there is definitely no mandate that your objection be logical. The problem arises when virtually everyone who replies insists that their objection is logical and consistent. Saying "this is depressing in the real world, it shouldn't be added" would exclude many gameplay elements that already exist, such as death. Someone who believes this would be fine in admitting their viewpoint is contradictory, but no one's done that.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • No one needs to "admit" anything.  Your suggestion is not one that the player-base in Glitch is supportive of. 

    This is not a game that is designed to attract the usual online video game player.  To claim that TS will need to redesign the game once it goes live indicates that you don't think they're actually testing it on the audience they want to attract.  Why would a game company test and tweak a game using a group of testers that are not at all like the people they really want to attract when the game goes live?  You really think the TS staff is that dumb?  Why wouldn't they want to test it on the people who will support your idea?   Instead, they've chosen testers who are  "completely ignorant of every RPG ever made for any console, nevermind action-adventure games that integrate RPG elements. "

    I'm equally confident that a few months after launch the people you expect to support this idea will have tried the game and left again, because they are not the people it is targeted to.  This is not a game built on the action-adventure games that integrate RPG elements.   If TS wanted to target those players, they would be testing the game with those players, not the ones that that they invited to be alpha and beta testers and whose feedback they are actively soliciting. 
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It will be different, WindBorn. Even if they have a specific demographic in mind, they'll still undergo the same transformation reddit did when the demographics shifted to the broader internet culture and left behind their role as a Slashdot refugee site. The greater internet requires a far thicker skin than "I'm potentially offended by Deadpan Dike" and once you mainstream an online game, even if they're trying to attract a new demographic, you'll get that kind of person.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Wait, so let me get this straight. You're asking for something unpleasant to be added to the game, to fit the needs of the unpleasant people who will inevitably play it?
    Posted 16 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I don't think my suggestion or someone who would enjoy it is unpleasant and I can think of several ways in which it could be quite fun. "Psychological disorders" are broad -- no one said they had to include each and every one of them, just those that make for fun gameplay. Bipolar would. I think anxiety disorders would too.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
Previous 1 2 3