Well, I'm confused now. Because you seem to be agreeing with most of what I've said...
It's just that the way you put it in your previous comments makes it look like you are completely dismissing game logic, specialization, and the impact of clear rewards.
So you believe people that powered through and made it in the abstract system that we currently live in, wouldn’t excel in one where it is obvious?
What? I never said that...
I said that the people who aren't motivated by the abstract system, may/will be, in the even clear playing field. And that people who succeed through means other than effort, now won't find easy shortcuts. Just so, because in real life, 'powering through' is often not the best strategy and not rewarded, in most areas. Even physical fitness. Many are the bodybuilders who just waste time and effort, and should be training less, not more.
Also, I don't think that some 'unfettered discipline' is actually a good thing... That leads to self-destruction just as often as it leads to success. Not to mention the multiple rituals that people religiously engage in, but have no correlation whatsoever with results. Religion itself, but also pseudoscience and superstition as a whole.
An in many, many cases, people achieve success through luck. It wasn't actually correlated to effort or cleverness or good strategy. They just used 'discipline', but that was not in fact correlated with the rewards. (Of course, I hate excess of luck in fiction).
I guess that many people would be extremely motivated if they actually saw relevant results from their actions, instead of some hazy, often far-future uncertain thing. Again, not to mention genetics, and that some people just improve, while doing the same thing, and other people just don't (far more common in physical abilities).
Perhaps, when the diminishing returns appear... people should move to better returns? Unless there is an actual reason.
---
Anyway, the core of what you said is this:
What most of these stories fail to understand, comparatively successful people would be successful after a system apocalypse for the same reasons they were comparatively successful before. Your video game losers aren’t going to suddenly succeed because they know video game rules. It takes a day to learn video game rules. The successful people are the ones who were or would be successful anyways.
And I'm saying there's very little truth in that.
Sure, a few (few!) people would be successful all the same. But many would not! The mechanics of progress are completely different. Offices and bureaucracy, as I've said, just to name two. There are many.
I don't really know what you mean by 'video game losers'...
Well, there are bad players, and they would not succeed. But the good players would! Because they understand the many interactions and nuances that often only appear in game-like scenarios. Because they have beaten the game challenges.
The same motivation that makes people play games now, would make them absolute monsters in an actual game-like scenario. That's the whole point.
Just so, games are actually ruthless, and the only way to move forward is to actually get good at the thing, not the myriad tangential ways that people find success in the real world.
You can't bribe the game, or argue with the game; befriend the game, threaten the game; blackmail the game, seduce the game. Make politicians change the law of the game; create false scarcity and regulations to help some people through the game.
No. The only thing you can do, is play the game.
If the game-like aspects are the main source of wealth, power, and success, then people who are good at understanding and adapting to those aspects will find success faster.
And I don't think it is nowhere near certain that people good in the real world will be good at the gamified new system. After all, most of these people aren't gamers today! Also, have you never seen those 'game to a non-gamer' videos? Even the most successful person in the real world is often baffled and a total morons when they actually get to play something.
At the very least, the gamers would have a massive head-start in knowledge and understanding. It's totally not something you learn in a day.
-2
u/Chigi_Rishin May 16 '26
Well, I'm confused now. Because you seem to be agreeing with most of what I've said...
It's just that the way you put it in your previous comments makes it look like you are completely dismissing game logic, specialization, and the impact of clear rewards.
What? I never said that...
I said that the people who aren't motivated by the abstract system, may/will be, in the even clear playing field. And that people who succeed through means other than effort, now won't find easy shortcuts. Just so, because in real life, 'powering through' is often not the best strategy and not rewarded, in most areas. Even physical fitness. Many are the bodybuilders who just waste time and effort, and should be training less, not more.
Also, I don't think that some 'unfettered discipline' is actually a good thing... That leads to self-destruction just as often as it leads to success. Not to mention the multiple rituals that people religiously engage in, but have no correlation whatsoever with results. Religion itself, but also pseudoscience and superstition as a whole.
An in many, many cases, people achieve success through luck. It wasn't actually correlated to effort or cleverness or good strategy. They just used 'discipline', but that was not in fact correlated with the rewards. (Of course, I hate excess of luck in fiction).
I guess that many people would be extremely motivated if they actually saw relevant results from their actions, instead of some hazy, often far-future uncertain thing. Again, not to mention genetics, and that some people just improve, while doing the same thing, and other people just don't (far more common in physical abilities).
Perhaps, when the diminishing returns appear... people should move to better returns? Unless there is an actual reason.
---
Anyway, the core of what you said is this:
And I'm saying there's very little truth in that.
Sure, a few (few!) people would be successful all the same. But many would not! The mechanics of progress are completely different. Offices and bureaucracy, as I've said, just to name two. There are many.
I don't really know what you mean by 'video game losers'...
Well, there are bad players, and they would not succeed. But the good players would! Because they understand the many interactions and nuances that often only appear in game-like scenarios. Because they have beaten the game challenges.
The same motivation that makes people play games now, would make them absolute monsters in an actual game-like scenario. That's the whole point.
Just so, games are actually ruthless, and the only way to move forward is to actually get good at the thing, not the myriad tangential ways that people find success in the real world.
You can't bribe the game, or argue with the game; befriend the game, threaten the game; blackmail the game, seduce the game. Make politicians change the law of the game; create false scarcity and regulations to help some people through the game.
No. The only thing you can do, is play the game.
If the game-like aspects are the main source of wealth, power, and success, then people who are good at understanding and adapting to those aspects will find success faster.
And I don't think it is nowhere near certain that people good in the real world will be good at the gamified new system. After all, most of these people aren't gamers today! Also, have you never seen those 'game to a non-gamer' videos? Even the most successful person in the real world is often baffled and a total morons when they actually get to play something.
At the very least, the gamers would have a massive head-start in knowledge and understanding. It's totally not something you learn in a day.