Dark Pattern Games

I like the idea, but their ratings seem.. dubious at best. For example: Hyperrogue, which hit the frontpage a few times and which I can confidently say does not feature any dark patterns, is rated just 1.19 [0] on a 5 (best) to -5 (worst) scale.

[0] https://www.darkpattern.games/game/18554/0/hyperrogue.html

also funny how those first 3 'dark patterns' are basically just the core appeal of the genre

Yeah, can't take this site seriously when it lists some of my favorite mechanics as dark patterns.

Yeah I think this clarifies the core issue with this kind of thinking (imo).

The venn diagram between 'mechanics that make games fun' and 'dark patterns' (as described by this site) is basically a circle. The important thing isn't the patterns themselves, it's that they're used to make you spend money on microtransactions.

Looking at just the mechanics divorced of any context of the surrounding business/marketing/monetization is missing the point.

'Competition' is listed as a dark pattern. Ya know, the core thing common to basically all games going back millenia, this site is ridiculous.

The site says: "People like a challenge and playing against other people is often how games provide this challenge. Competition by itself is not necessarily a dark pattern. Classic games like chess and checkers, and most sports have competition. It's when competition is combined with other dark patterns that problems arise."

And this is true. In particular, competition where you gain rewards for staying on top of leaderboards, and there is a pay-to-win element. Competition isn't necessarily bad, competition can be fun, "but how is this game using competition" something you should think about before you get into a new game.

Sure but they have no room for this level of nuance on their actual ratings, it's just a checkbox for 'game has competition' which always counts as a 'dark pattern' for the purposes of the overall score.

Competition is not core to all games by any means. You could argue that challenge is core to games, for a particular definition of ‘challenge.’

Plenty of games simply don't feature competition.

Solo/single player games are common now, but looking at pre computer history the majority of games are sports where you're competing against others either alone or in teams and board/card/dice games where you are competing against others (and probably gambling too).

Sure there are some solitaire card games, and toys like yo-yos, kendama and the like that could be classified as games. But competition defines most of what we consider "games" up until computers were able to simulate the other players in the form of hostile/friendly npcs, computer controlled 'players' etc.

> The venn diagram between 'mechanics that make games fun' and 'dark patterns' (as described by this site) is basically a circle.

I don't really think Daily Rewards are a fun mechanic. Nor is Friend Spam, and Social Pyramid Scheme is rarely fun either.

I agree, HyperRogue's rating on this site is just baffling. It should definitely be +5.

Single-player games very much existed before computers: puzzles, solitaires, etc.

3/16 is not great. All good bullshit is wrapped around a grain of truth, this website might be more useful if they just concentrated on the things are dark patterns regardless of context.

See second paragraph. 'Basically all' may have been an exaggeration, but the crux of my argument is that the concept that human beings know as a 'game' up until the advent of computer games more often than not involved competition.

Most of the dark patterns are not fun. The "psychological dark patterns" are, to some healthy degree.

You're allowed to like dark patterns. Doesn't make them any less dark. They manipulate you to get you to play more. But you are allowed to enjoy it. Trying to save your ego or pride by pretending is silly.

Yes, their summing up is not very useful. As a database of which games have which patterns, I think it can be useful.

I don't agree that they are dark though.

> Trying to save your ego or pride by pretending is silly.

Now you really convinced me!

The person who wrote that text and the person that coded the website need to get relationship counseling; every page on the website except that paragraph treat competition as one more bad point ok the bad points scale.

Not sure what your point is. There is no addiction without appeal.

Computers didn’t introduce the notion of solo play and there are examples of games throughout history that are not about competition.

Archery, for example, has its roots in improving your skills for the battlefield. But archery as an hobby, which goes back as long as the bow was invented, is simply for the enjoyment of doing it.

Kids playing together with toys is not a competition. Lego/Meccano/building blocks. The list goes on.

It's all too common to make a taxonomy of potential problems and then when deciding how to sum it up just throw up your hands and say each potential problem is worth one point.

> I don't agree that they are dark though.

But they are. That you disagree is immaterial.

> Now you really convinced me!

Convincing you isn't important to me. Correcting you is.

No, they are not and you have no authority in this matter.

> Convincing you isn't important to me. Correcting you is.

Truly, a martyr for the greater good.

Regarding hyperrogue, I've seen it mentioned multiple times as a fun game. I tried to play it but I had found no fun in it at all. The non-euclidean take is interesting, but it felt just like a demo of the weird-geometry engine, I've found no enjoyment in that. Graphics is rough, I've found no interesting items, enemies, mechanics or puzzles. Not sure if I just played it wrong or why my experience was different.

> No, they are not and you have no authority in this matter.

I don't need it. English does as well. Your desire to change the definitions of things to suit your narrative means you are wrong.

> Truly, a martyr for the greater good.

Better that than a martyr for ignorance.