The Wonderland Board

I just figured it was a basic game where you clicked cookies for a while.
Once you got tired, you just left.

This changed from an announcement of cookies to a rebellion against them.

Once you got tired, you just left.

If only. Have you looked at the achievement list? The game expects you to play for absurd amounts of time and actively encourages it. If it didn't, I wouldn't be so angry.

in this topic: muzozavr declares his hatred of cookies while simultaneously forgetting that opinions differ from person to person

Oh yes, that argument. The one that completely misses the point of arguing in the first place. Good job! You're so smart!

DEEMAN223344 wrote:Oh yes, that argument. The one that completely misses the point of arguing in the first place. Good job! You're so smart!

Arguing has a point? O wise one, please enlighten me on this "point" you speak of.

MyNameIsKooky wrote:in this topic: muzozavr declares his hatred of cookies while simultaneously forgetting that opinions differ from person to person

Cookies are to be eaten, not clicked.

Also, hey, if you enjoy being inside a skinner box, good for you. It still IS a skinner box.

Muzozavr wrote:

MyNameIsKooky wrote:in this topic: muzozavr declares his hatred of cookies while simultaneously forgetting that opinions differ from person to person

Cookies are to be eaten, not clicked.

Heretic!

Muzozavr wrote:Also, hey, if you enjoy being inside a skinner box, good for you. It still IS a skinner box.

I think you might be a little confused about what a video game is.

On-topic: For me, the appeal of the game is that I can let it run in the background and still gain lots of cookies while I do other things. That being said, I only check it a few times per day.

It's not a game made for active playing. It's just a thing that you can have running in the background, almost like your desktop. Checking it back and seeing how many trillions of cookies you earned can be vaguely satisfying. A fairly large portion of phone *strategy* games are much the same.

On the other hand, a lot of phone versions do require active playing. THOSE are skinner boxes.

Muzozavr wrote:I clicked on something weird that floated up from the screen and gave me a frenzy bonus that speeded up the production like mad. I think it was a golden cookie. That's it, I didn't get anything else apart from what I've listed. I could get other things, but didn't.

This is an obvious example of someone who isn't even trying to put effort into the game. How long did it take you to get that first factory with only 5 cursors running? 10 minutes? 30 minutes? If you actually experimented around a bit, I'm sure you would quickly discover that there are much more efficient ways to play.

Like I said: you set your own goals. If you're a bit lazy and just want to set the goal "wait a long time for a golden cookie and buy a factory", then you're obviously not going to find this game very entertaining. But if you're a bit more interesting and set the goal "make cookies as fast as possible without standing around for golden cookies", then you will use brainpower trying out the different strategies.

Muzozavr wrote:If only. Have you looked at the achievement list? The game expects you to play for absurd amounts of time and actively encourages it. If it didn't, I wouldn't be so angry.

You make it sound like leaving an extra tab open in your browser is going to kill you, or something.

It's not a game made for active playing.

Then why is it even a game? One step further down the road and you get the hilarious absurdity that is "Progress Quest". Except that was a parody.

This is an obvious example of someone who isn't even trying to put effort into the game. How long did it take you to get that first factory with only 5 cursors running? 10 minutes? 30 minutes? If you actually experimented around a bit, I'm sure you would quickly discover that there are much more efficient ways to play.

I can click like mad if I want to (and even madder if I use both hands at the same time), so I got my factory pretty damn fast, actually. I used to play the first Diablo game A LOT in my childhood, which is probably where my clicking skills come from.

Like I said: you set your own goals.

I'm not intent on finishing the game design of a lazy creator. Especially since "speed" and "efficiency" are the only "sensible" goals in Cookie Clicker. I can have speed by attempting to speedrun Sonic (even though I *suck* at doing that) and I can have strategic efficiency in puzzle games like RTW or Supaplex. That, and any "strategizing" is actually pointless in this case. More on that later.

If you're a bit lazy and just want to set the goal "wait a long time for a golden cookie and buy a factory",

The golden cookie was one of the last things to happen, after I got maybe 3 factories. I didn't ask it to appear, it just happened and I clicked out of curiosity. I didn't even know it existed until the game told me.

then you're obviously not going to find this game very entertaining. But if you're a bit more interesting and set the goal "make cookies as fast as possible without standing around for golden cookies", then you will use brainpower trying out the different strategies.

The entire game so far is clicking, waiting and buying things. Being more efficient only takes time, not brainpower, especially if you do actually click the cookie yourself from time to time. As far as I can understand, you can buy things without limit. Even if the limits are there, they're so absurdly high that even optimization won't be fun. There's no point of strategizing when improvement is a sure thing. That kills the "puzzle" part.

The last remaining sensible goal is pure speed, but, again, better games make for a better experience. I'm reasonably good at speedrunning levels from WA1 (because I don't have to learn complicated movement physics) and really bad at speedrunning anything Sonic-related, for example (because I'd have to learn complicated movement physics), but I do enjoy both.

I still don't see any "real" point in Cookie Clicker. It's a skinner box.

Oh boy here we go, I was wondering when/if this thread would show up

Only really one thing to say at the moment...

yot yot5 wrote:

Muzozavr wrote:I clicked on something weird that floated up from the screen and gave me a frenzy bonus that speeded up the production like mad. I think it was a golden cookie. That's it, I didn't get anything else apart from what I've listed. I could get other things, but didn't.

This is an obvious example of someone who isn't even trying to put effort into the game.

That's not the point, though - There's no natural inclination to actually put effort into Cookie Clicker. Yes, I know about the achievements, but I'd argue those don't really count - Making a number go up for whatever arbitrary reason isn't exactly what I'm talking about here.

There's no "proper" goal in the game. Yes, you can set your own goals, but you can do that in literally any video game ever. Minecraft is a better example of "setting your own goals" gameplay.

Here's an example: In Majora's Mask (first game that came to mind, I've been playing it recently), your goal is... well, save the world. Sure, it's basic, but there's an in-built motivation to play.

From there, as you get better, you can still set your own goals - master the art of speedrunning, or find a way to beat the whole game in just one in-game cycle. Stuff like that.

Saying "Well you're just not trying hard enough" doesn't address the issue. Muzo's spot-on in his description, Cookie Clicker is incredibly comparable to a Skinner box (and for the record I used to play it all the time).

Muzozavr wrote:Especially since "speed" and "efficiency" are the only "sensible" goals in Cookie Clicker. I can have speed by attempting to speedrun Sonic (even though I *suck* at doing that) and I can have strategic efficiency in puzzle games like RTW or Supaplex.

Well, some people want to play Cookie Clicker instead of Sonic or RTW. It's called a preference, and I suggest you learn to accept them.

Muzozavr wrote:The entire game so far is clicking, waiting and buying things. Being more efficient only takes time, not brainpower, especially if you do actually click the cookie yourself from time to time.

I'm not sure you understand the definition of "efficient". It means "achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense." You sat around clicking on a cookie to build a factory, which ISN'T efficient. I spend time thinking about various buildings and their payoff, and in the end I could buy a factory much faster than you and I didn't even have to click the big cookie for more than a few minutes, which IS efficient. And whether you like it or not, my method DID require brainpower.

Muzozavr wrote:As far as I can understand, you can buy things without limit. Even if the limits are there, they're so absurdly high that even optimization won't be fun. There's no point of strategizing when improvement is a sure thing. That kills the "puzzle" part.

Were you even reading my last comment? People set their own goals, and they use brainpower achieving them. Yes, if you set your goal as "improvement" then the game doesn't require any brainpower, but mere improvement isn't enough for most ordinary players. Most ordinary players want FAST improvement, and discovering the most efficient strategy possible DOES require brainpower.

I'll challenge you: go and find the fastest way to bake 1,000,000 cookies, after only clicking the big cookie 15 times (to afford the first cursor). Go on! Start experimenting! You'll never find a perfect solution, but that's what keeps people coming back: the ambition to improve.

Muzozavr wrote:The last remaining sensible goal is pure speed, but, again, better games make for a better experience.

Once again, it's called a preference.

Muzozavr wrote:I still don't see any "real" point in Cookie Clicker.

You said that "The last remaining sensible goal is pure speed," and yet now you're saying there's no point? I understand if you prefer other games, but you're still completely contradicting yourself!

Muzozavr wrote:It's a skinner box.

You're avoiding the most important point: COOKIE CLICKER DOES NOT REQUIRE EFFORT. The only time you actually spend playing Cookie Clicker is spent customizing your buildings and upgrades, and most people think that searching for the best combination is fun. The Skinner Box was designed to have animals react to various different things, but most people who play Cookie Clicker don't react to anything. They just use their minds to formulate the fastest strategy possible

are you guys really arguing over Cookie Clicker


Well, time for an unsolicited opinion: I believe there's a lot of games that are WAY more productive than this one. (See every single Wonderland game, Minecraft, etc etc.) Even though some may argue all video games are a waste of time when looked at from another perspective, there's some that are slightly more rewarding/productive than others.

That said, everyone has different opinions and preferences, and there's nothing anyone can do about that.

*ollies outie*

yot yot5 wrote:It's called a preference, and I suggest you learn to accept them.

yot yot5 wrote:I'm not sure you understand the definition of "efficient". [...] And whether you like it or not, my method DID require brainpower.

yot yot5 wrote:Were you even reading my last comment?

Okay, that's enough. I've been trying to remain unbiased while reading this thread, but your posts are getting dangerously vitriolic. Knock it off, please.

I'll challenge you: go and find the fastest way to bake 1,000,000 cookies, after only clicking the big cookie 15 times (to afford the first cursor). Go on! Start experimenting! You'll never find a perfect solution, but that's what keeps people coming back: the ambition to improve.

Isn't the game called "Cookie Clicker", not "Cookie Waiter"? Though "fast idling" is actually a reasonable goal. More reasonable than the actual clicking, at least.

Then again, it sounds like it should be solvable with a math equation. Googling "cookie clicker math" reveals people doing just that with an alarming degree of success. Not perfect, but close.

That alone proves how simple the game is even in its "better" goals that you can set for yourself. Go on, math your way through chess. I dare you. Heck, try to math your way through an RTW level. Unless you choose "Mathematical Wonderland", it won't work.

Also, here's your challenge, but with clicking, done as a speedrun by someone on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqHLqQm2uiw

I find the fact that someone would speedrun Cookie Clicker mildly hilarious.

Okay, that's enough. I've been trying to remain unbiased while reading this thread, but your posts are getting dangerously vitriolic. Knock it off, please.

When is a man not a man? When he is a hamster forcibly pulled away from the skinner lever. I see that anger (in reply to me) as only further proving my point. Skinnerian games are like sirens, promising so much and giving so little. As I've said before, it's addictive without really being fun, if that makes sense.

When I asked if you were leading the rebellion against the cookies, I didn't mean it literally, guys.

Besides that, this topic's not even been brought up after the Cookie Clicker Wonderland adventure came out. How did it gain over a page of text in two random days?

And, in addition... I love cookies.
If there was some sort of cookie model and event once the POTZ editor custom models thing goes through, I'd probably play it.

Clicking, I'm not so sure about...
but, I play too many click games to have that go through justified.
(Like Wonderland Adventures... )

Though, I do admit, I get to wondering how this game did get its popularity.

I've only ever heard of it on minecraft until now.
(Here I go advertizing other games on a thread about a different game on a forum of yet a completely different game, oops. )

One more thought for this already-probably-too-long-as-is post...

You don't suppose there's a way to actually make it possible to throw cookies, in Wonderland Adventures, as a mix of Pow(Destroying enemies), Pop(pressing buttons), and Brr(laying on the water[temporarely before dissolving]for you to walk on), do you?

Because that'd be amazing.

Whoa-oa-oa
Calm down guys. Never expected that this could even cause an argument.

For me, I slammed the "damn thing" shut in 10 minutes flat. Call it lack of trying, but I rage quitted out of boredom.

Well, I think it's not wrong when people such as Muzozavr and Qloof234 say that Cookie Clicker is a skinner box (ouch, though). It's merely their opinion, which you can disagree with. Likewise, yot yot5 also has a point (although I never thought of it that way)

Please don't quarrel

You don't suppose there's a way to actually make it possible to throw cookies, in Wonderland Adventures, as a mix of Pow(Destroying enemies), Pop(pressing buttons), and Brr(laying on the water[temporarely before dissolving]for you to walk on), do you?

Oh my god. That'd be amazing, indeed.

Qloof234 wrote:Okay, that's enough. I've been trying to remain unbiased while reading this thread, but your posts are getting dangerously vitriolic. Knock it off, please.

Muzozavr has spent the entire topic implying that everyone who plays Cookie Clicker is a brainless animal! Not to mention all the disgusting things he's saying about the game in general (calling a game a "Skinner Box" is on its own a truly horrible insult). Do you really think I'm the only one who's being vitriolic? My comment was a bit aggressive, and I apologize for that, but as a mod, you should treat both sides of the argument with the same levels of respect. I think you're letting your opinions get the better of you, Qloof.

Muzozavr wrote:When is a man not a man? When he is a hamster forcibly pulled away from the skinner lever. I see that anger (in reply to me) as only further proving my point.

I can see we're not going to be able to have an agreement now. We've reached the point where we're both just implying nasty things about each other. So Muz, I apologize if any of my comments hurt you. Enjoy playing your games, and I'll enjoy playing mine.

OK, I was tactless in my last post. In fact, I probably let my tone slip on several other occasions. I apologize, but only for the vitriolic tone. I still stand behind my opinions on Cookie Clicker and Skinner boxes.

Didn't I say I understand how it works and why people play it? Had I let the game suck me in, I'd be another hamster-in-the-cage by now. I quit when I realized I wasn't having fun, but that realisation took me (I think) almost an hour. The mere ability to pull the wool over my eyes and trick me into thinking I'm having fun for such a long time is a testament to how effective Skinner boxes can be.

After all, there's a reason why Skinnerian game mechanics exist. They work. The results are addictive. Not always fun, but addictive. There's also a reason why the "Skinner box" experiment was made and why scientists do relate humans to animals and vice versa. It's not an insult. We ARE the most advanced animals, but animals all the same. There's no reason why Skinnerian mechanisms should suddenly stop working on humans.

I just don't want to be inside a Skinner box, especially one that's so transparent. A few years back, when I had more time to fill with something pointless and less knowledge to deal with the situation, I'd probably fall right into it. I wouldn't be having fun, but I wouldn't know that.

calling a game a "Skinner Box" is on its own a truly horrible insult

Do you think I was being original? Actually, I thought I was, but, apparently, I wasn't. Google "cookie clicker skinner box" to see just how many people claim the same thing -- fans and haters alike. It's not an insult, it's truth. I just happened to word it in an insulting fashion, which I apologize for.

Do you really think I'm the only one who's being vitriolic?

It wasn't really intentional on my part. When I express negative opinions, I always try to go for the funniest and most over-the-top way of expressing myself possible while still maintaining a polite tone. If I let the latter fall aside, I do apologize.

With no "funnies" and maximum politeness, here's the summary of my opinion on Cookie Clicker and other similar games:

1. The game is pointless, even from a "gamer's point of view". Even the most interesting and challenging possible goals can be much more interesting and challenging in other games.
2. The game is very comparable to a Skinner box in its mechanics, making it quite addictive, but not necessarily fun. I repeat that this is not an insult and I'm far from the only one saying this.
3. Anyone who keeps playing it is having a few intrinsically flawed parts of the "reward system" of the human brain exploited... without getting all that much in return. The game doesn't care if you're having fun or not, all it cares about is the illusion of fun that keeps you playing and playing and playing. That last bit is what makes me call it "soulless" and "mechanical".

Muzozavr wrote:-Shortened-

Explaining why you think I'm a hamster in a cage doesn't make it any less insulting. You sir, are saying that Super Nuclear Power, Peegman, StinkerSquad, MyNameIsKooky, Master Wonder Mage, and I are nothing more than hamsters in a cage. That is rude, whether you explain it or not.

Muzozavr wrote:It's not an insult, it's truth.

The truth? THE TRUTH? There is no such thing as a "truthful" opinion, Muz! Everyone is unique, and everyone has their own opinions! Sure, lots of people think Cookie Clicker is a Skinner Box and everyone playing it is a hamster in a cage, but saying that your opinion is "right" and the fact that we're all idiots is "the truth" is completely unacceptable!

Some people enjoy Cookie Clicker. Get over it.

Some people enjoy Cookie Clicker. Get over it.

But do they really? Or do they only think they do? (If they really do, that's fine)

There's no such thing as a "truthful" opinion, Muz!

Some people weren't scared by "The Shining" at all. Will they try to deny that it was a horror book/movie? Of course, not.

My opinion is that Cookie Clicker is a bad game, but I didn't say THAT is "truth".

But the Skinner box comparison is different. It's not about a subjective "like/dislike" opinion, it's about very, very comparable mechanics. If you define "Skinnerian games" as a genre, then Cookie Clicker is a meticulously crafted Skinnerian game, just like The Shining is a horror book/movie.

I've PMed you a link to a not-so-family-friendly article on Skinnerian games and game mechanics. To avoid making a flamewar on the forum, I will get out of this thread now, but I do suggest reading the article, because it's written by David Wong and it's pretty funny.

Muzozavr wrote:But do they really? Or do they only think they do?

MY LAST POST wrote:lots of people think Cookie Clicker is a Skinner Box and everyone playing it is a hamster in a cage, but saying that your opinion is "right" and the fact that we're all idiots is "the truth" is completely unacceptable!

I'm looking for an apology, Muzozavr. I have apologized for being rude in my earlier posts, but you're still acting like you're 100% right and everyone who disagrees with you needs to rethink their life, or something.

EDIT:

Muzozavr wrote:My opinion is that Cookie Clicker is a bad game, but I didn't say THAT is "truth".

I'm complaining about you treating the fact that we're idiots as the "truth". Feel free to state your own opinions about Skinner Boxes and games you enjoy/don't enjoy, but it's unacceptable for you to say that it's "the truth" we're stupid.

I'm looking for an apology, Muzozavr.

"You just couldn't let me go, could you?" (The Joker)

When is a man not a man? When he is a hamster forcibly pulled away from the skinner lever.

I apologize for that. That was uncalled for.

If you define "Skinnerian games" as a genre, then Cookie Clicker is a meticulously crafted Skinnerian game, just like The Shining is a horror book/movie.

I do not apologize for that. If you enjoy Skinnerian games, that's fine. Just don't pretend they aren't Skinnerian. If you continue claiming otherwise, I will continue claiming that you're being willfully oblivious to the incredibly obvious.

Or you could try to provide a counterargument based on logic, not the emotional desire of an "apology".

You already proved that there can exist at least one kind of decently challenging goals in this game. Even though, again, I think they're solvable with grade-school math, it's still something I haven't accounted for. Can you go on from that? Can you provide an argument that what I consider to be a Skinnerian game is not, in fact, Skinnerian?

Muzozavr wrote:I apologize for that. That was uncalled for.

Thank you.

Muzozavr wrote:Can you provide an argument that what I consider to be a Skinnerian game is not, in fact, Skinnerian?

I assume your definition of a Skinnerian game is a game that requires lots of work without resulting in any real reward?

Quite simply, Cookie Clicker doesn't require lots of work (because you can just leave it open as a tab) and I think the reward is worth it (the satisfaction of reaching a new limit). Once again, if you think otherwise, that's fine. But the logic "Cookie Clicker is a Skinnerian game, so anyone who plays Cookie Clicker is a brainless clicking machine" is severely flawed.

yot yot5 wrote:Muzozavr has spent the entire topic implying that everyone who plays Cookie Clicker is a brainless animal!

That's news to me. Literally the only comment from Muzo I've seen that implies anything like that is the hamster one. The only other one that stands out to me is "I, however, refuse to be worked over in such a mechanical way, that's all.", and in the same paragraph he said he understands why people play it.

yot yot5 wrote:Not to mention all the disgusting things he's saying about the game in general (calling a game a "Skinner Box" is on its own a truly horrible insult).

Okay, but why are you getting so offended about that? I have literally no idea where you're getting the "if you play this game you're an idiot" thing from.

yot yot5 wrote:Do you really think I'm the only one who's being vitriolic?

In general? No. Muzo's been providing his opinions on the game itself - I'm not about to call him out for being vitriolic towards the game, that's his opinion. The reason I levelled that comment at you specifically is because you've been directing your comments at Muzo himself. Quite directly, in fact.

yot yot5 wrote:My comment was a bit aggressive, and I apologize for that, but as a mod, you should treat both sides of the argument with the same levels of respect. I think you're letting your opinions get the better of you, Qloof.

If you feel that I'm being unfairly biased, so be it. As I said, I've been sitting here watching this thread go, and I chose to respond in what I thought of as the best manner based on everyone's actions in this thread. I don't expect to please everyone, nor would it be reasonable to expect that of me.

If this thread (and I do mean the thread as a whole) can recover, I'll leave it unlocked. All I really have to say is I was seriously considering locking it, because so far this just hasn't been working out.

Also I'll just leave this links here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_co ... ng_chamber
http://psychology.about.com/od/sindex/g ... nerbox.htm

Qloof234 wrote:Okay, but why are you getting so offended about that? I have literally no idea where you're getting the "if you play this game you're an idiot" thing from.

The Skinner Box was a test designed to take advantage of an animal's lower intelligence. If Muzozavr still thinks that this game is Skinnerian, then he's basically saying that anyone playing Cookie Clicker is too "blind" to realize the "true intentions" of the game. In other words, anyone who plays Cookie Clicker is being stupid and wasting their time.

So yes, I think I had a very good reason to be offended.

EDIT: But Muz has apologized for being rude beforehand, so I'm not annoyed at him about that anymore.

The Skinner Box was a test designed to take advantage of an animal's lower intelligence.

It was a test designed to study behavioristic psychology in an exceptionally controlled environment. The reason why I personally do not find the "human/animal" comparison offensive in such a context (and the reason why I even wrote the "hamster" phrase) is because it was the working method of generations of scientists that have collectively helped save millions of lives and heal millions of broken souls and shattered minds. I have no reason to be angry at such a helpful thought construction. Also, the overly radical and extreme versions of behaviorism were later on disproved, keeping the comparison within its rightful limits.

The Skinner box has one element that no online game can possibly have: it's closed, depriving the hamster of any non-Skinnerian sensible actions. Imagine an open Skinner box, one allowing the hamster to go out and just do whatever it wants. I think it's plausible that some hamsters would go out and forget the box entirely, while some others would remain there, pressing the lever. And for non-scientists like us, it would be quite hard to understand and/or explain the cause for such a difference.

I'm starting to feel like that I should not have made this thread.

I'd not mind being a hamster...
as long as I'm not tested on.
but, I suppose that's a bit too off-topic at this point.

I honestly have nothing to say about the game, on account of that I didn't play it...
except, it certainly seems to have a lot of emotion and influence.

It's all so inspirational for rather unusual inventions, like the edible all-in-one-tool known as the Super Cookie.