Couldn't addicting games be used as a dieting aid? If you're addicted to an RPG, you can use it to get over your hunger cravings.

I recently released a turn-based strategy for iphone and I think it has the potential for me to be addictive. Currently on turn 15. But why can't I do this with just any other game? I don't like the AAA games I bought.

Usually addiction leads to more eating, or binge eating. Also sitting while playing, not so good for losing weight.

When I clicked on this topic I was expecting to see either a question about whether there were any games that could support someone through dieting, or a clever idea for such a game, similar to how "Zombies, Run!" adds game-play elements to running and supports exercise.

Instead, I found what comes across as an idea which would exploit people trying to lose weight and which may lead to a new addiction which could in turn result in further health problems. This is just my own opinion, and perhaps you didn't mean it to come across the way I'm interpreting it, but to me swapping over-eating for a potentially dangerous addiction doesn't really seem like something to encourage.

Usually addiction leads to more eating, or binge eating. Also sitting while playing, not so good for losing weight.

Depends on HOW you are sitting; you burn a surprising number of calories while sat down if you aren't slouching in a chair.

What tends to be the problem is that while you are sat you are also snacking and intake exceeds energy spent - sugary things are the devil for this (sugar is a major component of why people get fat not fat itself).

Starvation as a method of losing weight is a losing proposition. For a start your metabolism will go in to 'starvation mode' in which it burns fewer calories and stores more fat -- a million years of evolution came up with this intelligent design. For another thing, it tends to result in binge eating or in increased consumption of junky food (high-fat, high-carbo edibles like chips, pop, cookies, candy, the usual "bad" foods). In addition, it encourages snacking (eating while playing) which in turn tends to result in increased consumption over eating the same foods as a single dedicated activity.

No, addiction has been shown time and time again to be an undesirable trait with only down sides. You may as well be promoting heroin addiction (very effective) or smoking (not very effective) as a means to lose weight.

Addiction and addictiveness should not be encouraged. Playability, enjoyability, and replayability are another issue.

To me an addictive game means it is deep, replayable, and enjoyable. But there's got to be a point to it. Games aren't like a drug and I believe there is a good if a person is so engrossed in it, even if the parents or whatever don't understand. Maybe you learn something. Maybe it is somehow socially, evolutionarily a benefit and we just don't understand how yet.

If it's fun it must be beneficial. We are evolved that way. http://blog.wolfire.com/2009/10/game-developers-need-exercise-too-part-i/

And it's not exploitation if you've lost 50 lbs or something using your own method and can testify for it.

I'm not advocating starving. You should eat three healthy meals a day.

Maybe it is somehow socially, evolutionarily a benefit and we just don't understand how yet.

I guess people not reproducing has the positive benefit of the species of removing their DNA from the gene pool...

But that's pretty much all it is; there is no evolutionary advantage because there is nothing in that setup which allows for a competitive advantage when it comes to reproduction which is the "driving" force behind evolution, as much as anything drives it.

Evolution is about the survival of the individual and the species. Not just reproduction rate. Games effect our culture and fit into the greater scheme of social evolution. One needs to examine what is really happening when one plays a game.

Evolution is about the survival of the individual and the species. Not just reproduction rate.

Nope, reproduction rate directly affects evolution - "fittest" is defined as having a significant advantage to reproduce and thus propagate the DNA to the next generation.

Survival of the individual matters in so much as they get to pass on their DNA, survival of the species matters in so much as their are adapted to the conditions.

Games might well have an effect but, aside from stopping people reproducing if they put all their time into it, it has dick all evolutionary effect because in order to effect evolution you have to pass on your DNA.

And, to address the thing you added to your other post; "If it's fun it must be beneficial."
Bullshit.

Sitting on your arse and eating sugar will give you happy feelings but it isn't beneficial.
Sitting on your arse and watching TV is fun but it isn't beneficial.

If anything humans have a tendency to go out of our way to do things which are 'fun' but in no way beneficial; getting drunk and mucking about is fun but it sure as hell isn't beneficial.

In fact I've no idea what the exercise link has to do with that either; while it might be fun (for me its the competitive nature of bettering yourself) the reason it is beneficial is nothing to do with it being 'fun' and to do with our heritage of our evolution to hunter/gathers and the biological changes that come with it.

More to the point it is completely at odds with your original point about addictive games being helpful because doing exercise is basically the complete opposite of being sat on your arse playing games.

Things that are good for you;
- exercise
- moderating your food intake

Pretty much it; the former just needs a routine and the latter will power for the most part (although personally I take some supplements which suppress the craving for sugar which helps but they also promote lean muscle growth which fits in with the exercises I do).

Evolution is about the survival of the individual and the species. Not just reproduction rate. Games effect our culture and fit into the greater scheme of social evolution. One needs to examine what is really happening when one plays a game.

Evolution is about the change in gene (more properly, allele) frequencies in a population over time. In the long run, the primary determinant of whether an allele becomes more or less common is how that allele affects an individual's reproductive success relative to other alleles of that gene.