GameBanshee Forums

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2002 2:10 pm**

Time.com has an article on Everquest. I have friends who have lost years of their lives to this game. Is it really addictive to the point where Sony needs to put a warning label on the box, or are people on Evercrack suffering from no life syndrome?

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2002 2:38 pm**

I agree a lot with what the article says, it can be a good tool to speak with people, but I think that sometimes people, as it says, take it too far. It all swings in roundabouts I'm afraid, and one thing will never completely be decided...

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2002 3:01 pm**

Interesting article HLD. I have always opted to stay away from this game because of my addictive personality. I certainly would've been one of those people who pissed away 18+ hours a week on the game. So I guess I may fall into the category of people who suggest putting a label on the game. I know myself well enough though to stay away from a fantasy CRPG revolving around real time. The concept seems like amazing fun but I fear I'd get too wrapped up in it.

It scares me to think a family social structure would revolve around a game like Everquest.

Because I opt for putting the 'potential addictive label' on the box does not mean I side with this woman who plans to sue sony. The article doesn't really define if her son is dead because he played the game so much or not. Perhaps the 'clinically depressed' problems the child/young adult suffered from had something to do with it.

I think when it comes to activities/games/hobbies people just have to know themselves. I have an addictive and compulsive personality, and I do my best to tame it. Six months ago it was Baldur's gate 2, the past couple of weeks have been home gardeneing, lawn care, and landscaping. I tend to attack my hobbies almost more than enjoy them. Either way, it keeps me happy.

Great topic! Obviously, since we have so many gamers here, it should lead to some interesting discussions.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2002 3:10 pm**

I have commented on this before:

That joke is not so funny anymore. Last November a clinically depressed 21-year-old named Shawn Woolley shot himself in his apartment in Hudson, Minn. Woolley played EverQuest for two years before his death, and his mother, who discovered her son's body when she came to get him for Thanksgiving, plans to sue Sony. Her attorney says the game was designed to be "as addictive as possible" and should have carried a warning label. Sony declines comment on the case.

Here is my non-reactionary quote from Eurogamer:

Apparently the man was logged on to Everquest just minutes before he shot himself. Despite repeatedly suffering epileptic fits while playing the game, 21 year old Shawn Woolley played up to twelve hours a day, quitting his job and leaving his family to spend more time with the addictive game.

Now a Miami lawyer representing the unfortunate woman wants to force Sony to put cigarette-style warning labels on the game, cautioning that "extensive playing could be hazardous to your health". While players jokingly refer to the game as EverCrack, this lawsuit looks like another case of overambitious lawyers trying to make a quick buck out of bereavement. Shawn was an overweight loner diagnosed with depression and a schizoid personality disorder, using Everquest as an escape from every day life. Even if something that happened in the game did trigger his suicide, it's not something that is likely to happen to more stable Everquest users, and past experience has shown that warning labels aren't going to put people off playing the game for hours at a time.

Rather more worrying is the story of another 21 year old Everquest addict, this time a college student who started skipping classes to play the game during his senior year. According to Jay Parker, a chemical dependency counselor, the student played the game for 36 hours straight and then suffered a severe psychotic break due to sleep deprivation. "He thought the characters had come out of the game and were chasing him. He was running through his neighborhood having hallucinations."

While this kind of incident is obviously incredibly rare, it does bear remembering that too much of a good thing can be bad for you.

I don't endorse what they are saying in this article, it is however a different POV on the incident.

The sad thing about the Time article is that it is created in the same way that most of these articles are by people who seem to know very little regarding the technical issues or the lingo used. They also use many clichés to refer to people, see words like "geek" used more often than is necessary. I will give it some compliments; it does seem to be fairly well constructed and does explore a lot of the issues.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2002 3:13 pm**

To be perfectly honest, I don't think I could afford the money, nor the time for EQ, I don't have a card that they would accept...

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2002 3:22 pm**

I just read Sleep's post, and I couldn't agree more, I find that if you put a lot of people infront of a PC they know how to type and use Word etc, but can't do anything complex, whereas the people that can are geeks and are spotty and overweight...

Part of the problem is that the tech mags and game mags go judgemental over the people that say those things, and reactionary mags that hear about these sort of things blow them way out of proportion....

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2002 3:25 pm**

I doubt if Everquest is much more addictive than any other game - and as Ned says, if you have an addictive personality, then you'll be the same with whatever game. If Everquest gets a warning label, then why shouldn't every game, or come to that, every hobby in the world? Obviously, that's ridiculous. But it sounds like this guy's suicide was not a result of his playing Everquest - rather, his suicide and his obsessive behaviour were both manifestations of his psychological condition, so the game manufacturers can hardly be blamed for it.

Edit: People are always looking for someone to blame. If it's not a computer game, it's violence on TV or heavy metal music, or...

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2002 3:33 pm**

Just realized this is a no spam thread. Though I've played EQ and do have an opinion on this, I wil probably (as has been made clear here) not be able to not spam. I apologize for the spamming, it was unintentional.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2002 3:40 pm**

Originally posted by Vivien

Or English People...man those people are the scourge of the Earth!!

FYI my brother in law is a project manager for Sony (PS2), and is out there at EQ with a big, ok apparently HUGE, stand promoting the latest PS2 game....can't remember the game though

not my type, I know that, though he did try and convince me to see the demo this weekend - then we forgot!

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2002 3:40 pm**

Originally posted by Vivien

Or English People...man those people are the scourge of the Earth!!

Watch it! No matter how much hugging occurs, saying that will not make me happy...

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2002 7:36 pm**

I guess one issue is this: Is online gaming now a surrogate for going out and meeting people? You hear lots of horror stories about people meeting over the internet only to hear about them being psycho, pedophiles or otherwise misrepresenting themselves. However, my wife's best friend met her now husband in an AOL chatroom and they are happy as can be (and I don't think either has any major issues).

Some of the people in that article talked about how EQ has improved their family lives, but I have a friend who uses EQ to avoid her relationship and family problems. She is literally wasting her life away in front of the computer and no one can get her to stop (I live too far away, but some of our other mutual friends tried an intervention, but to no avail).

I think the mom who wants to sue Sony has either been maneuvered into it by an ambulance-chasing lawyer, or doesn't want to accept that her son was mentally imbalanced or that she may have been a poor parent. As Mr Sleep said, she's looking to assign blame on someone, and her lawyer is looking to make a lot of money.

This doesn't just apply to CRPGs, but to television, movies, music and other entertainment mediums as well: At what point is the media responsible for influencing our behaviour and at what point are our own decisions responsible?

@Vivien:
I didn't see what you wrote before you edited it out, but you can spam me anytime . . . just tell me in advance so I can have my camera ready.

Posted: **Tue May 21, 2002 7:51 pm**

@HLD, the insidious thing about MUDs (and I use the word insidious without any moral overtones, but according to its original meaning) is that they provide a method of connecting to other people which society in general seldom offers in the realworld nowadays--at least, not after one grows up and moves away from home. The circle of friends is broken, and the culture itself is geared manily towards rampant consumerism. Everquest and other games like it are virtual neighborhoods. For lack of the real thing, they take the place of that community of closeness, support, adventure and mutual caring that we all desire.

Multiplayer online environments can be obsessive, as a result. But I would submit that the solution doesn't like in making multiplayer games less attractive. It lies in creating the kinds of communities where the intimacy of friendly neighbors are recreated and reinforced.

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2002 2:42 am**

No SPAM intended....

...but in looking at the post counts of the people in this thread I can't help but notice that maybe - just MAYBE we are the wrong people to judge the "addictive personality" of EQ players...

Sorry if this sounds like Spam, but I thought it prudent to point this out.

No worries,

Beldin

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2002 4:40 am**

Re: No SPAM intended....

Originally posted by Beldin
...but in looking at the post counts of the people in this thread I can't help but notice that maybe - just MAYBE we are the wrong people to judge the "addictive personality" of EQ players...

Not at all, who better to judge an addictive medium than those addicted to it, look at Trainspotting, one of the most convincing drug stories ever, why because it was produced by a person who had seen and been in that life.

I don't suffer from an addictive personality, see smoking at age 16, not smoking at age 19. Drinking alcohol regularly at age 15 not drinking alcohol much at all at age 19. My post count doesn't reflect addiction, it reflects my work and my living in the country where there is very little to do.

I don't think that addictive personalites taken too far are uncommon, see:

The hospital bed where Friends character Rachel Green gave birth is proving to be a huge attraction for the ladies of New York. The city's St Vincent's Hospital has been inundated with hundreds of requests for the bed after Rachel, played by Jennifer Aniston, had her long-awaited baby there in a hit episode of the long-running show. A hospital spokesman reveals, "Most said they wanted to have their baby where Rachel had hers. They wanted to book her room." The gullible fans are so desperate to emulate their heroine that they don't realize the crucial scene was really filmed in a Los Angeles sound stage. Says one observer, "These women are not just having problems distinguishing between television and reality, they're having children. That's sort of frightening."

It just so happens this is a new subject for some people so it is treated in a certain light.

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2002 5:02 am**

I'm like Ned on this, I have a natural tendancy to be obsessive sometimes. I usually have to watch myself very carefully to stop from being addicted to something. That's a large part of the reason behind my decision never to try any hard drugs, or to join a cult, or anything that runs a high risk of being an addictive activity/lifestyle. Whilst this trait is sometimes useful (ie. I used to use up my whole Sunday writing my essays for my english lit. class because I'd just get too caught up in the writing, so they were generally good essays), it can be a big problem (i'd never get my other homework done becuse I'd always be writing essays). I think a modest warning about possible addiction is a good idea, but IMHO mostly the problem with people who get addicted to online gaming lies in the personality type of the person playing the game, not the game itself.

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2002 5:12 am**

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
I think a modest warning about possible addiction is a good idea

Warnings are all very good, but do you know a single person who has quit smoking or not taken it up after they read the warnings on the packaging?

If anything those warnings give a free reign to do what one wants with a product, a company is not accountable because they can sit behind the warning and say that it is the users fault for not paying attention to what was on the label.

It isn't a problem of the theory @ode & Ned, it is merely the execution that might run into problems.

All games are addictive so should one put a warning on every game produced, it would just turn into the EULA; do you know a single person who has actually read one of those?

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2002 5:53 am**

Does this apply not only to online games but other internet activities as well? Are not things like chat rooms, online forums and message boards similar to mulitplayer games in terms of their use and substitute for a community?

Beldin rightly points out that a lot of people around here have posted a lot indicating a significant investment in the GameBanshee community at the expense of our other relationships. Some members are probably like me and posting while at work, but I also check the forums and post from home as well.

The question is: Does our posting on forums and message boards subtract time from our other relationships, or is it an outlet for something we'd be involved in anyway? That is, if we weren't posting on SYM, would we be interacting with our families and friends or would we be out doing something else that takes up an equal amount of time and energy?

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2002 6:05 am**

Originally posted by HighLordDave
The question is: Does our posting on forums and message boards subtract time from our other relationships, or is it an outlet for something we'd be involved in anyway? That is, if we weren't posting on SYM, would we be interacting with our families and friends or would we be out doing something else that takes up an equal amount of time and energy?

Personally i would probably be writing more stories or reading more books, i don't consider "On-Line" a substitute for real life, if i had the chance i would be out in the world sowing my intellectual seed but i find that isn't a possibility (for many reasons none of which i really fancy explaining). I would possibly watch more movies or maybe go walking a little more.

Do i presume that it is the same for everyone else? No. I interact enough with everyone i know IRL, there is a point where one can get disgruntled with everyone, and requires another place to rest a hat. Having somewhere else to go than, the pub or round a mates house is exactly what i consider SYM. Of course there is my moderating which is a responsibility of sorts.

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2002 6:09 am**

As I said, the problem lies with the player, not the game.

I have once read an EULA, however since then I haven't bothered because it took half an hour to read and they're all pretty much the same anyway.

I know if I wasn't posting here I'd just be reading a book (and I read quite a lot anyway) or playing BG2.

Posted: **Wed May 22, 2002 6:18 am**

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
I have once read an EULA, however since then I haven't bothered because it took half an hour to read and they're all pretty much the same anyway.

Really?!? I wasn't being sarcastic, i have never heard of anyone actually reading one of those

I get to about the third paragraph and just can't carry on

for all i know by using their software i might in fact be signing away all my assets

originally posted by HLD
Does this apply not only to online games but other internet activities as well? Are not things like chat rooms, online forums and message boards similar to mulitplayer games in terms of their use and substitute for a community?

They did refer (in the article) to the fact that EQ is like a large chat room, i would assume that is true. Most games played now a days are based on the simpler games of old, i suppose it is true that as times change so do the appearence and the graphics but not the foundations.

originally posted by HLD
Beldin rightly points out that a lot of people around here have posted a lot indicating a significant investment in the GameBanshee community at the expense of our other relationships. Some members are probably like me and posting while at work, but I also check the forums and post from home as well.

Yes i have invested a lot of time, but i have also enjoyed myself and learned a lot, i view it as a growing process, i get on well with everyone i know and i don't shun anyone to spend time on my computer. I have posted about 50-60% of my messages from work....i don't know what that says about my workload

I do not think that i have neglected anyone to spend time online, i just don't work like that, if i had a girlfriend i would spend my time with her, if i had someone i had to look after i would do that, if i was asked to play a tournament of pool i would do that...

<edit> also if you look at a great modicum of my posts they are mostly a sentence or two at most, so i don't exactly spend ages theorizing

GameBanshee Forums

Interesting article on EQ (no spam)

Interesting article on EQ (no spam)