-
Good day, Stranger! — Are you new to our forums?
Have I seen you here before? To participate in or to create forum discussions, you will need your own forum account. Register your account here!
Have I seen you here before? To participate in or to create forum discussions, you will need your own forum account. Register your account here!
With all due respect. Having limited thinking is not something that interest me.
Should the game have perhaps different levels to cater for different people and their requirements, it would cater for a wider audience.
The game is basic in construction and not that greatly developed. Criticism is part of life and part of developing the game.
You complain about the game being catered for other people, but then demand that the game be catered for your need. What a lack of clear thinking.
My suggestion would be that the game cater for different people. Therefore different levels. If there are people who, have a life, but would like to play the game for fun, then create a level for them. Not a blanked change that all who play the game has to be subjected to. People would then be able to choose what level they want to play the game at.
Should you provide different levels for different people who want to play the game, it would also open it for a wider audience. Therefore it could just benefit the developers.
This would require more work. But as they generate the game with a few clicks, it is not impossible. Only should the software be restricted, could it prove a challenge.
I find it amusing that people can become so personally grieved because someone has a different opinion or have a critical opinion about something as simple as a game.
To enlighten you a bit.
Researchers at Leeds University, led by Prof Jens Krause, performed a series of experiments where volunteers were told to randomly walk around a large hall without talking to each other. A select few were then given more detailed instructions on where to walk. The scientists discovered that people end up blindly following one or two people who appear to know where they’re going. The published results showed that it only takes 5% of what the scientists called “informed individuals” to influence the direction of a crowd of around 200 people. The remaining 95% follow without even realizing it.
“There are strong parallels with animal grouping behavior,” says Prof Krause, who reported his study with John Dyer in the Animal Behavior Journal. “We’ve all been in situations where we get swept along by the crowd but what’s interesting about this research is that our participants ended up making a consensus decision despite the fact that they weren’t allowed to talk or gesture to one another… In most cases the participants didn’t realize they were being led by others.”
Now, this isn’t really anything new, especially if you have an interest in human psychology or social dynamics. But for those of you that wasn’t aware of this before, let me ask you this question. Isn’t human behavior worrying?
In our society, we value the gifted individuals that strive for something greater. We all love an inspiring story of a man who made it against all odds and did something extraordinary. Yes, we get spurred in the moment to take action too, thinking ” I want to do that too”. But how many of us actually keep going after the initial months of no results and constant feedback from others saying we made the wrong choice?
Or how many people get tricked into a cult or business because of group pressure and manufactured positivity to influence you to take the plunge?
If we human beings were such an intelligent independent being we would see through all the scams and use our common sense, right?
Sadly, we are not as intelligent and independent as we would like to think we are. Yes we have potential and there’s the few anomalies. However, the majority of us are like sheeps and act according to our herd. This is the reality of our society. From uptown classy people to the downtown hipsters. They are basically the same. A herd. They are fundamentally no different, and if anyone argues that there are differences, then they are merely quibbling over semantics.