Video games with no conditioning?

@JasonR86: All philosophy means is "thinking about stuff critically." All discussions are ultimately philosophical. So relax.

EDIT: And before somebody tries to show me up, YES I KNOW that philosophy literally translates to "love of knowledge."

@JasonR86:

That term is not restricted to a certain school's discussion...

that's like saying you can't use "a priori" in a discussion because it's Latin, even though it has a very valid use in any academic discussion.

@Koshka said:

@JasonR86:

That term is not restricted to a certain school's discussion...

that's like saying you can't use "a priori" in a discussion because it's Latin, even though it has a very valid use in any academic discussion.

I thought the thread was still about Operant Conditioning (which is mainly a psychological term) so I thought the term that was used by you and others, self-ergo, was another term like Operant Conditioning.

@Koshka said:

@JasonR86:

That term is not restricted to a certain school's discussion...

that's like saying you can't use "a priori" in a discussion because it's Latin, even though it has a very valid use in any academic discussion.

Your mom is a priori.

Send it into the bombcast as a question! That would be epic to hear.

@nintendoeats said:

@Koshka said:

@JasonR86:

That term is not restricted to a certain school's discussion...

that's like saying you can't use "a priori" in a discussion because it's Latin, even though it has a very valid use in any academic discussion.

Your mom is a priori.

Boom!

@nintendoeats said:

@Koshka said:

@JasonR86:

That term is not restricted to a certain school's discussion...

that's like saying you can't use "a priori" in a discussion because it's Latin, even though it has a very valid use in any academic discussion.

Your mom is a priori.

Boom!

@1Gorebash1 said:

@nintendoeats said:

@JasonR86: All philosophy means is "thinking about stuff critically." All discussions are ultimately philosophical. So relax.

EDIT: And before somebody tries to show me up, YES I KNOW that philosophy literally translates to "love of knowledge."

Also, again...I'm neither a philosophy OR a psychology student! :D

If you're not a psychology or a philosophy student why are you writing a dissertation on conditioning? Do you mean you're writing a paper on conditioning?

@1Gorebash1 said:

@nintendoeats said:

@JasonR86: All philosophy means is "thinking about stuff critically." All discussions are ultimately philosophical. So relax.

EDIT: And before somebody tries to show me up, YES I KNOW that philosophy literally translates to "love of knowledge."

Also, again...I'm neither a philosophy OR a psychology student! :D

If you're not a psychology or a philosophy student why are you writing a dissertation on conditioning? Do you mean you're writing a paper on conditioning?

@1Gorebash1:

Ohhh, so it's practice for a real dissertation. Ok, that's cool then. Just make sure you're explicitly clear on what you mean by conditioning. Don't say you're talking about Operant Conditioning or Classical Conditioning and then redefine those theories like what has happened here. That's a sure way to get a bad grade.

@1Gorebash1:

Ohhh, so it's practice for a real dissertation. Ok, that's cool then. Just make sure you're explicitly clear on what you mean by conditioning. Don't say you're talking about Operant Conditioning or Classical Conditioning and then redefine those theories like what has happened here. That's a sure way to get a bad grade.

@1Gorebash1: What university are you going to?

@1Gorebash1 said:

@JasonR86 said:

@1Gorebash1:

Ohhh, so it's practice for a real dissertation. Ok, that's cool then. Just make sure you're explicitly clear on what you mean by conditioning. Don't say you're talking about Operant Conditioning or Classical Conditioning and then redefine those theories like what has happened here. That's a sure way to get a bad grade.

Right now I'm in the research phase, I originally talked about writing about doing my dissertation on "Reward systems in Video Games" to my lecturer but I was told to refocus it to "conditioning in video games", after doing some research I talked about Operant Conditioning to him, which what led him to state what I originally posted, asking if what he said could possibly be true.

Tell him that it is impossible to make a game that doesn't have positive reinforcements. But that you can make a game that has negative reinforcements. Just keep in mind that whatever game he brings up ask yourself, "Based off of what I know about that game, what is rewarding about it?". If you can give an answer, even if it is something simple like 'experiencing the next area', then it is a positive reinforcement.

@1Gorebash1 said:

@JasonR86 said:

@1Gorebash1:

Ohhh, so it's practice for a real dissertation. Ok, that's cool then. Just make sure you're explicitly clear on what you mean by conditioning. Don't say you're talking about Operant Conditioning or Classical Conditioning and then redefine those theories like what has happened here. That's a sure way to get a bad grade.

Right now I'm in the research phase, I originally talked about writing about doing my dissertation on "Reward systems in Video Games" to my lecturer but I was told to refocus it to "conditioning in video games", after doing some research I talked about Operant Conditioning to him, which what led him to state what I originally posted, asking if what he said could possibly be true.

Tell him that it is impossible to make a game that doesn't have positive reinforcements. But that you can make a game that has negative reinforcements. Just keep in mind that whatever game he brings up ask yourself, "Based off of what I know about that game, what is rewarding about it?". If you can give an answer, even if it is something simple like 'experiencing the next area', then it is a positive reinforcement.

@1Gorebash1:

Is it even possible for a game to not include a form of (operant) conditioning?

I think it depends very much on your definition of a game. If that definition includes a goal and the possibility to fail or succeed based on what you do (in other words, your behavior determines the outcome) then it has already become impossible for a game to have no conditioning. Even though the efficacy of the conditioning might be questioned.

I'm curious about the games your professor will name. But I'm also skeptical about whether or not we would call his example 'games'. :)

@1Gorebash1: You don't go to the same university as Gamer_152 do you? He is also taking a game course in England.

@1Gorebash1 said:

@JasonR86 said:

@1Gorebash1 said:

@JasonR86 said:

@1Gorebash1:

Ohhh, so it's practice for a real dissertation. Ok, that's cool then. Just make sure you're explicitly clear on what you mean by conditioning. Don't say you're talking about Operant Conditioning or Classical Conditioning and then redefine those theories like what has happened here. That's a sure way to get a bad grade.

Right now I'm in the research phase, I originally talked about writing about doing my dissertation on "Reward systems in Video Games" to my lecturer but I was told to refocus it to "conditioning in video games", after doing some research I talked about Operant Conditioning to him, which what led him to state what I originally posted, asking if what he said could possibly be true.

Tell him that it is impossible to make a game that doesn't have positive reinforcements. But that you can make a game that has negative reinforcements. Just keep in mind that whatever game he brings up ask yourself, "Based off of what I know about that game, what is rewarding about it?". If you can give an answer, even if it is something simple like 'experiencing the next area', then it is a positive reinforcement.

Cheers, that's how I felt but I'm damn sure (from what I already know about him) he'll still argue his point for which ever games he has in his mind despite what you've summed up there...I'll let everyone know what games he was thinking about once I get them out of him.

I've had professors like that. To their credit, they're just trying to make you think by being devil's advocate. That's why he said 'arguably' so that there's an out for him and you to never be right or wrong. He just wants to stimulate conversation and by discussing something you find interesting he might lead you to really think about the topic of your paper.

That said, if he were on the internet he'd be a troll.

@1Gorebash1 said:

@JasonR86 said:

@1Gorebash1 said:

@JasonR86 said:

@1Gorebash1:

Ohhh, so it's practice for a real dissertation. Ok, that's cool then. Just make sure you're explicitly clear on what you mean by conditioning. Don't say you're talking about Operant Conditioning or Classical Conditioning and then redefine those theories like what has happened here. That's a sure way to get a bad grade.

Right now I'm in the research phase, I originally talked about writing about doing my dissertation on "Reward systems in Video Games" to my lecturer but I was told to refocus it to "conditioning in video games", after doing some research I talked about Operant Conditioning to him, which what led him to state what I originally posted, asking if what he said could possibly be true.

Tell him that it is impossible to make a game that doesn't have positive reinforcements. But that you can make a game that has negative reinforcements. Just keep in mind that whatever game he brings up ask yourself, "Based off of what I know about that game, what is rewarding about it?". If you can give an answer, even if it is something simple like 'experiencing the next area', then it is a positive reinforcement.

Cheers, that's how I felt but I'm damn sure (from what I already know about him) he'll still argue his point for which ever games he has in his mind despite what you've summed up there...I'll let everyone know what games he was thinking about once I get them out of him.

I've had professors like that. To their credit, they're just trying to make you think by being devil's advocate. That's why he said 'arguably' so that there's an out for him and you to never be right or wrong. He just wants to stimulate conversation and by discussing something you find interesting he might lead you to really think about the topic of your paper.

That said, if he were on the internet he'd be a troll.

@1Gorebash1: Are you allowed to drop names on this here forum?

@1Gorebash1: Are you allowed to drop names on this here forum?

And for the anti-climax. 
 
I had asked him what games he was thinking of today and to explain himself. He sat and tried to recall....then said "Scrabble" was one of the games he was thinking of.....I said "But what about the points system?"...he said "Oh yeah"......... -_-

@1Gorebash1 said:

And for the anti-climax. I had asked him what games he was thinking of today and to explain himself. He sat and tried to recall....then said "Scrabble" was one of the games he was thinking of.....I said "But what about the points system?"...he said "Oh yeah"......... -_-

Haha, just read through the whole thread and that sure was a major downer... I thought the person suggesting Garry'smod was on the right track, but that's not really a game is it.

What pure logic puzzle games? Not the Tetris kind that gives you points and scores, but things like Polarium, Professor Layton or Lemmings, in those games you often have little or no conditioning. You do learn patterns and strategies to solve the puzzles along the way, but it doesn't reinforce any specific behavior, as doing more of an specific actions leads to absolutely nothing, it's only using the actions that solve the puzzle that are meaningful. It's essentially staring at a puzzle till to figure out the solution and unlike Scrabble there isn't really an reward for doing more "complicated solutions", it's just about figuring out the puzzle (some puzzle games of course have a little scoring/time based stuff on top, but not all).

There are definitely some old Atari games and stuff that have no conditioning.

Obscure titles primarily!

@1Gorebash1: Actually I saw that Minecraft has some form of Achievement system now?

Heya Duders, long time reader first time poster.   I'm on the verge of writing my university dissertation based around conditioning in video games (original right?). I have a fairly vast knowledge of games but my lecturer stumped me by saying "I can think of at least 2 video games that arguably have no conditioning"....is that even possible?...what the hell are they? Can anyone name them? Any help will be much appreciated. 

@BlinkyTM said:

There are definitely some old Atari games and stuff that have no conditioning.

Obscure titles primarily!

Name one.

@Dagbiker said:

@BlinkyTM said:

There are definitely some old Atari games and stuff that have no conditioning.

Obscure titles primarily!

Name one.

Crazy Climber. "Should the climber succumb to any one of these dangers, a new climber takes his place at the exact point where he fell; the last major danger is eliminated"

"If the player completes all four skyscrapers, he is taken back to the first skyscraper, and the game restarts from the beginning". You do get points but you can just keep dying and dying and dying without a negative effect.