From rssfeeds@jmason.org Mon Oct 7 12:05:13 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.spamassassin.taint.org Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 439B016F20 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:03:51 +0100 (IST) Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0) for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 07 Oct 2002 12:03:51 +0100 (IST) Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9780nK23290 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:00:49 +0100 Message-Id: <200210070800.g9780nK23290@dogma.slashnull.org> To: yyyy@spamassassin.taint.org From: gamasutra Subject: Designer's Notebook: Stop Calling Games "Addictive"! Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 08:00:48 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; encoding=utf-8 URL: http://www.newsisfree.com/click/-0,8613676,159/ Date: 2002-10-06T18:12:44+01:00 We in the game industry know what we mean when we say that a game is "addictive." We think that quality in a game is a good thing: people like it, they keep coming back to it, and they want to play it more and more. I agree that it's a good thing. If a game has that quality, then it's probably a darn good game. But using the word "addiction" to describe that quality does us no favors with the general public.