Stuff I learned from vidya games

I’m almost scared to consider how many hours I’ve put into vidya games, but the truth is I’m not.  There’s a didactic value to most of them, and I’d argue that anyone who thinks video games are a waste of time is just being a small-minded asshat.  Gaming well is a skilled behavior, and one of the beautiful things about skills is, most are transferable.  Even if it’s in some weird way. Fast example: a lot of my income in the last couple of months has come from calculating and presenting about risk analysis, which…I got the hang of quickly.  Compared to colleagues….really quickly.
And I figure it’s because I’ve been doing it as a kid in any role playing game.  Avoiding vs mitigating damage vs creating opportunities, come on….  Such is rp.

Even for the games that are reflexive, muscle memory, and teach you to pay attention? I argue that if it’s fun, it’s propaedeutic.

Lastly, come on, multiplayer means socialization to some extent.

On that note:

-Muscle memory still involves ingraining the reflex.  You can condition some really weird reflexes, awesomely.

-Someone needs to be in a responsive to stimuli state of mind to respect a stimuli with anything more than a startle response.

-The element of surprise > quick response/reflexive tactics.

-Frustrating most opponents makes their strategies stupider.

-In times of being overwhelmed, the best response is retreat, but only if the cost is less than engaging a situation by taking a solid inhale and focusing on something smart.

-When forced to engage multiple points, a key difference between great and weak gamers is that great players can accomplish a lot by taking a solid inhale and focusing on something smart.

-The worst players just persevere.

-Master baiting leads to better possibility

-Seemless good play always involves work and prep

-If you can afford the time for it, read. In or out of the moment.

-Morale is a dps bonus

-Strategy = long-term, overarching general goal-oriented decision-points.  Tactics are the short term steps taken to achieve a strategic objective.

-Being in the zone enhances tactics. Hindsight and foresight enhances strategies.

-People can be tactical morons and strategic smartypants, strategic idiots and tactically gifted, or both, or neither.  Both categories can be learned, and good teamwork should result in the best of all worlds.

-Usually, leadership just means communicating what’s smart and unifying everyone’s agenda

-People grow into a bigger team by thinking of themselves, first. They learn their job and their role and their tactics and strengths and preferences, and then they get on board with a larger unit.  The ones who do the most work to learn the strengths of their individuality before trying to incorporate into a larger whole are either the best, or the worst teammates.

-People can love their team more than they love themselves.  This is where drama can be the most intense and/or fun.

-There’s no better way to make an organization suffer more than stifling the growth of fundamentals.

-“Carrying” hampers the person carrying every bit as much as it benefits the person being carried.

-The scariest fun people are very serious underneath their sense of humah.

-The weakest scary people have no sense of humah.

-Impulsive, non-strategic opponents are less dangerous, but more attention hogging than the most strategic ones.  Unless your masterfully organized, facing off against multiple opponents that combine these categories is the worst.

-Tactical alliances are 1% heart and 99% convenience. Strategic alliances are 99% heart, and 1% convenience. The better the balance, the weaker the weakness.

-Some games are just about organization and it takes a special type to love them.

-In the long term, reliability and consistency is preferable over high-risk and high-reward almost every time.

-The above is a funny joke, but only if you get it.

-Cost/benefit analysis is a thing, so long as you’re calculating the affordability of creating an opportunity. If you’re just calculating how to avoid a risk, you’re only calculating how to lose more slowly.

-individual style makes things fun and lends value and specialness, but only when it works.

-A smarter user who has an array of skills can always beat a specialist.  Otherwise, what the specialness offers is not a speciality, as much as the thing you should do.

I think that’s enough.  I just wanted to puke that up.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s