Better Than Wolves Forum

Feel free to share non-anecdotal examples here.

This NY Times article on the dangers of playground safety has a lot of parallels with the Minecraft experience.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/scien ... html?_r=3&

That article makes an awful lot of sense - it seems obvious to me that kids will seek the same thrills no matter what equipment has been provided and if they can't get it in the playground, how long will it be before they start climbing trees and rigging extra equipment on top of the playground stuff - when I was little, a couple of friends and I used to put a skate ramp on top of the slide to give it a few extra feet of slide and it all ended in tears when one of us broke their arm on it.

Taking that into minecraft, I tend to - when I settle, wall myself in, constructing a completely safe zone for myself all well lit and spiderproof with everything I need to sustain myself indefinitely without needing to venture out. It gets really boring really fast and it won't be long before I come up with some crazy project that gets me out and into danger. That's the genius of BTW that I think the people who moan tend to miss - It gets you out, into dangerous places where you are not god, which is fun!

Very interesting article, and yes, I can see where you're coming from entirely with regards to how it not just relates to Minecraft but games in general.

It seems like we are becoming more and more risk averse as a society. We've recognized failure as bad (duh), but have somehow turned away from using that to strive for success, and instead have decided to isolate ourselves from the potential for failure, to the point where this has extended even to our recreational pursuits.

Games that will legitimately kick your ass are very few and far between these days. I think it's taken as a given that if you sit down with a new game you'll be able to complete it within 40 hours or so (much shorter for many) without really developing your skills as a player very much. Game design has thus largely become tailored to the lowest common denominator of player, with the underlying assumption that *anyone* should be able to complete your game simply by virtue of playing it for X amount of time.

This actually relates to a thought I had while lying in bed the other night while tossing and turning considering various aspects of Hardcore Headwear (yes...I lose sleep over some of these features when I really get into working on them ;) ): that the decline of challenge actually acts counter to interactivity.

I'm not sure if I'll be able to explain this clearly, but the gist of is that games are largely differentiated from other mediums through interactivity. Other mediums like literature or film are entirely linear by nature with the audience being put in the role of passive observer. Games are obviously different by virtue of audience participation.

This interactivity largely comes down to decision making IMO: giving the player meaningful choices to make, and that's where I think the ever declining level of challenge in the average game is failing. You may have choice in an easy game in terms of whether you go left or right, but if you're guaranteed to succeed regardless of what you decide, is that a meaningful decision? If you can just sit in front of a game for 40 hours and complete it just based on time spent, is it even a game anymore or just passive entertainment with a thin veneer of interactivity?

Anyways, just a bit of a different take on how challenge and gameplay are so intimately related.

Thanks for linking the article Dave, was an interesting read.

This is classic Peltzman or risk homeostasis. When you reduce the cost of engaging in risky activity you get individuals attempting to maintain a level of equilibrium that creates the same outcome that existed prior to that safety equipment or insurance against injury or failure state being provided. Sports like Rugby, NFL, skydiving, hockey are places where this is most visible but i think it is a general principle of human nature.

Putting this here as relevant

This video was awesome... Thanks for sharing that.

The vast majority of people who see stress as harmful to their health are people who have been in high stress situations for a long period of time and noticed that is does bad things; increased susceptibility to illness, loss of appetite, lethargy and the like. Likewise, the vast majority of people who do not see it as harmful are people who have been stressed, but with no real problems aside from the stress itself.

It's because some people, biologically, deal with stress better than others.

Being someone who really can't cope with stress myself; it's kinda insulting to have someone say "Hey! if you think the stress is good for you, you'll be fine!" is...you know, kinda insulting. People thoughts on subjects tend to come from experience, not whims.

The science indicates that people who lack a negative belief toward stress are generally healthier, not that people become healthier by switching off those beliefs. That said, this thread is about low risk adversity, particularly as it relates to development and developing a habit of reaching out to others when stressed is unlikely to be harmful.

It's a shame that so many ads on TV advertise stress as a terrible thing when really it's evolutions way of saying you need help with whatever is happening. It also has clear effect with standardized testing in schools, keep students separated in a quiet room under conditions that basically try reversing that biological function to seek help. Schools try to teach us that we will never get help on the hard parts of life (basically anything similarly as hard as a math test or something). For all you non-Americans that have school systems better than us, I envy your teaching style... I wonder what Finland does to be #1 in world education...

Interesting thread, but given my own desire to respond to the above, I can only see it turning political from here.

I will say though that I do not think modern youth are suffering towards an excessive push towards independence as the above would imply. Quite the contrary.