Comment by rpdillon
2 days ago
I didn't want to paraphrase what he said too much, but since you're inquiring, I think the general idea is that multiplayer games strive for particular types of engagement and the techniques that companies use to drive that engagement is often negative. I can see that this also exists in single-player games, particularly in mobile apps. We tend to avoid those as well.
Multiplayer is a special category of risk in my opinion because I was an ever quest player and I built a feeling of responsibility toward the players that were relying on me and this led me away from schoolwork. I'm trying to avoid that same pitfall by still allowing them to game, even in a multiplayer setting, just only to a limited degree.
We simply try to avoid the games that are the most egregious in this particular way because they're the riskiest.
After a ~20 year break from first person shooters I’ve recently played Call of Duty Multiplayer and what struck me was how many superficial skins or various rewards were visible to others - it seems to steer the player to accumulate these things (through play or $), to show others in the game.
And the odd pumpkin heads (literally players with pumpkins as heads) running around coinciding with Halloween.
Very different than Counter Strike circa 2005.
Roughly the same mechanics but much more commercialised, playing to the psychological weaknesses of players.
I think you've articulated his point better than I could!
Gaming today is very much based in retention and hijacking the retention by any means necessary.
Playing originals is a different experience and possibly what might give kids a different experience of gaming.
A lower-fi game leaves more to the imagination as well.