Okay PSA. As a *cascade of you* have mentioned now, vaccines do not *cure* infection, they help prevent it before it happens. And you're absolutely right. If these hypothetical people were already infected with a hypothetical disease or hypothetical virus, a hypothetical vaccine would not cure them. I am not a doctor, I am a TH-camr. And a mediocre one at best. So cut me a little slack plz. Or don't, positive or negative, comments only help the vid grow so thank you
when you phrased that if you take vaccine C all the 400 million people will die, so I thought that 400 million is the total amount and vaccine C is a total loss. It's not just phrasing, it's misleading information which is auto completed with pre cognitive biases.
This overlooks one of the most important types of loss aversion in play psychology: the fear of missing out on content. Many players will take the longer way back on their first attempt merely because they don’t want to accidentally skip content. This is the reason why the genocide route in undertale is even completeable: the desire to experience all of a game’s content drives the player forward, even when the activity the player does is not truly “fun.”
Idk what you guys are talking about. I fucken had a field day on the genocide route. I felt empowered killing everything and beating sans made me feel like god. I had more fun on the genocide run then the pacifist run.
@Eric Absolutely! The boss battles during the Genocide run were so much more rewarding than the battles in the other runs because they pushed your skills as a player even farther than the other bosses had until that point. Especially when you consider that some of the Pacifist bosses actively make it so you can’t die to them. Sure, the other runs had the bulk of the game’s content, and were more interesting narratively, but I see the Genocide Route as basically an additional two boss fights that you can play once you’ve beaten the main game. And again, they’re so good!
deysingTH First time through the sanctuary for me, I zoned out, went into autopilot, flipped the switch and I got through the entire stage only realizing afterwards that what I did could have totally destroyed my run.
Oh absolutely! Admittedly I have limited experience with rouge-likes and Dead Cells was my first real taste of it. But this logic can be applied to a ton of games that hit you with a solid risk/reward scenario.
@@DarylTalksGames I was thinking about an old roguelike called ADOM this whole video. Everything you said makes perfect sense applied to it. For example, there's an arena where you can earn tons of gold and a powerful weapon, but the fights are random (and progressively harder). If you're not suitably prepared, there are a few things that can just outright murder you, like an invisible enemy. The gold gain is greatly disproportionate to your level when you first encounter it, so it's really tempting. I've got at least a hundred graves there.
Joke's on you, after hitting the switch I booked it out of the level as fast as I could, because I thought the stage was going to crumble and instakill me on a hidden timer.
Well sir realism did you REALIZE that they might have only liked your comment because of the words in your single and not you as a person? Did you REALIZE that people might not have looked at his comment because people skim the comment section? Who knows, they might not even liked it only liked it to be a nice person. Maybe your friends hang around with you because they pity you. Ever thought of that SIR REALISM?
Yeah, really that statistic is a little broken. Because the ~30 something percent that picked B would've also picked D (I think). So really choice D only gained ~40% of the people that picked A (as the percent went from 26% to 74%). So a majority of the people that picked A also picked C, which is important to note
@@joshuarovinelli8597 Numbers dont really change anything. Even if the chance to kill the whole humanity is < 1%, it still exists. And if it procs, its a total catastrophe... So killing 40% (or even 95%) is much better, because loosing a few millions of people is not fatal and not a problem at all because of natural reproduction.
@@griglog228 The best option mathematically is always the one with the most expected value. When these are equal, then you can ask the moral questions.
As a perfectionist, I will take every gamble as long as the outcome is in my hands and not at the mercy of a die. And I will put myself through all the pain and misery as long as I can only blame myself. At the end of the day, I feel like I've lost more than I've gained from playing Dead Cells. I'm sure if there is Hell, this game is waiting there for me.
Nah bro, I know exactly what you mean regarding rng. But it is so rewarding playing Dead Cells because you can beat the game with pretty much any set-up of weapons. Some harder than others sure, but its always in your hands.
The game its great because that, the biomes are generated, but they are "fair" because the system, the systems makes sure that if you die its your fault... So no that's not hell Hell in any case its something that its totally chaotic and random, something in which you have no injerence
Lol is it bad that I never take the safer routes and only do the risky stuff. Because even if I lose I just think I get to go on another adventure and if I do win it makes that adventure more fun 😆 do I have a bad philosophy for the game
I will not spread memes I will not spread memes I will not spread memes I will not spread memes I will not spread memes I will not spread memes I will not spread memes I will not spread memes I WILL NOT SPREAD MEMES
Great, insightful video. Another factor that can be considered is long term vs short term gains. When I play Dead Cells, I always choose a better item/ability over health and go for a high risk/high reward play style. My reason for this is if I throw myself into these situations, I will get better faster, and so in the long term I will become a much better player and won't need the health boosts for example, even if it means dying a lot in the short term. This logic can also be applied to the battle royale genre: if you first land in a big city with loads of other players you will probably die immediately, or land somewhere isolated and slowly accrue gear you will last longer. The first choice is better for long term growth (and arguably leads to more interesting emergent gameplay)
That’s a really interesting thought process, though I suppose I’ve done the exact same before. Like, I play golf and to get better I started using bladed clubs (more advanced, harder to hit) because I wanted to learn quickly and not rely on any training wheels. Non VG related example but that’s what came to mind haha. Thanks for stopping by! Glad you enjoyed the video :)
In slumbering sanctuary I instantly went to clear the whole level, despite having great difficulty getting there. Of course I got slammed by a golem for it. This is because of my curiosity, I just couldn’t let the mystery of what lies in the level lay undiscovered
Fun fact: for the riddle you gave, Options B and D have an expected value of 240 lives saved. So from a mathematical standpoint, you want to take the risk.
I’d say you’re weighting your equation wrong (or not at all perhaps). If you could do this over and over, like, say, something in a video game or a lottery ticket, you’d want to take the risk, but as it’s an all-or-nothing, real-world, one-time situation with such high stakes, the weight of losing 100% of human life on Earth should be weighted exponentially higher than the weight of saving 200,000,000.
Usually in maths we model outcomes in a bit of a more complex way than that. For instance, we can give an agent a level of risk averseness, and then map all rewards through them.
@@thebuddercweeper it's not all life on earth, and that's an abhorrent use of the word exponential. And two hundred million is 200 000 000. But yes, the point is true.
@@trevorx7872 Technical mistakes fixed, for some reason I thought he said two hundred thousand. But I stand by my use of the word exponential. I'm saying that the weight of losing 100% of human life on Earth should be orders of magnitude (exponents) higher than the weight of saving 200,000,000. I'm using it in the purely mathematical sense, rather than referring to the concept of exponential growth.
@@thebuddercweeper but since you only have two values (save nobody, and save 200 million), you can't tell if that's exponential increase or just really steep linear increase
With your Slumbering Sanctuary example I feel like I'm the exception to this: When I noticed the statues came alive, I went back to the beginning of the level and make sure I back traced all my steps to the switch solely to kill every monster in the level. 11:52 what an absolute bull-! "We don't like unfair difficulty." they say while there are enemies who can attack through walls and having guys throwing knifes at you for a longer duration than a parry protects you from.
Parries don't have a cooldown period, if there was theoretically some kind of enemy that just straight up spammed attacks, you could still perfectly parry every one with good enough timing.
The greatest loss aversion factors in the game were not taken into account. Path choice, killing vs skipping past enemies, mutation choice, unlocking equipment... I can see how you might not feel that way until you're far into the harder game modes, but this video really is only the tip of the iceberg, the first 4 or 5 hours for a complete newbie. Since Daryl here said he has difficulties in dodging and playing near perfectly, he might not yet understand the importance of bonus doors (time doors and flawless doors), so I'll cut him some slack. Also, in the harder game modes, YOU CANNOT SPREAD STATS. It's shooting yourself in the foot to do so. You have to tunnel into one stat, and this is where they get you again with loss aversion. Tactics is powerful and ranged, but the mutations suck, specifically by having no way of malaise prevention(very late game stuff). You'll be a glass cannon, which fares very well in biomes but very poorly in boss fights. Survival and Brutality are much safer, but less powerful against biomes. Path choice is by far the most grueling aspect of the game. After you open up every path, you have to weigh going for harder, way longer biomes with more 3-stat scrolls, elites and cursed chests or short and easy biomes with dual stat scrolls and less elites and cursed chests. Oh, but these short biomes lead to an extra, really hard biome that has very good bonuses if you killed 60 enemies flawlessly on the previous floor and also is rife with good loot. Afterwards, you gotta choose which biome you'll take, which will determine the first boss. Do you prefer to stick with the easy and short route and fight the Concierge, worse loot overall or do you feel confident going for the Ancient Sewers and knocking out Conjonctivius? After that, you get to choose a new biome. Do you want to go with the relatively easier Graveyard or the painstakingly long Slumbering Sanctuary? After that, do you want to hit the absolute hardest, most profitable biome and seal your fate against the Giant, by far the hardest boss, or will you wimp out and eventually hit the far easier Time Keeper instead? Do you feel like you can outrun the enemies and go for the timed door, or do you prefer to kill them all just in case one of them has a good, rare drop? If you do that, can you guarantee that you'll kill 60 of them without taking damage to unlock the flawless door? Mutation choice is the second biggest loss aversion choice in the game. But there's way too much to type about mutation choice, tbh. Just trust me it gets real hard in the late game.
Well, from my perspective, (having completed all 5 boss cells) Cursed chests really aren't an option any longer unless you're just incredibly proficient at killing bosses. You have to take advantage of every single one. I'd say after a while the whole risk-reward factor starts to sort of file down as you develop strategy and experience with each run.
@@alyjos9103 Correct. I didn't mean choosing not to open Cursed chests, that isn't viable. I meant choosing a biome with more cursed chests vs another path that will amount to the same amount of scrolls, but the cursed chest scrolls are 3-stat, while the easier biomes have more dual-stat scrolls.
I'd open every cursed chest even if it meant only getting that one extra juicy scroll. i just feels wrong to leave value behind. Unless you open one before making sure that there are enough enemies on the floor to kill and have to, in the worst scenario, flawless a boss.
@Insect Nipz Not true. In my opinion -at least for me- tactics is the way to go on 5 BC. It's just so easy to cruise through the game when you have a powerful weapon like magic missile or lightning bolt along with a poison Hokuto's bow. Melee just involves getting into danger way too much, which will result in taking so much damage. The key is not so much stats as it is the weapons and the forced requirements to use such weapons. Brutality is rough to use because it's almost entirely melee weapons. With a ranged weapon -generally tactics, although lightning bolt without a poisoned Hokuto's bow will also work for survivability- things can be killed before they have a chance to deal damage, making the only challenge the bosses, which can be learned and dealt with accordingly. The only things I haven't figured out well -for ranged weapon use- is Conjuntivius (mostly because I don't even face him anymore, I just go the other way), and a couple specific attacks of the HotK (namely his quick jab that he does which seems really unfair as there never seems to be any consistent telegraph/pattern before he does it)
Although I agree in nearly every point made, I would point out it changes a lot in Dead Cells if you get to 5BC and start grinding towards the final boss. I don't know how to describe it but every decision making progress changes.
Because 5BC introduces the malaise mechanic, which changes everything about the gameplay. You can no longer take your time making attack plans or assessing risk or gain situations because every second you spend means your malaise is slowly increasing.
we all agree that on your first go at sanctuary the golems teleporting you *back to them* after you try to run away was the most terrifying thing, right?
Yeah when I first started playing it made sense to me to balance my character during a run, but then people on the Dead Cell’s discord were like “NO DON’T”. It’s really interesting how the game forces you to put all your eggs in one basket for stats during a run lol.
Thanks for mentioning the fact that it mostly affects those who are not comfortable with the game. Most decisions you mentioned become either irrelevant or obvious once you've played enough. Great video.
12:39 What an excellent design choice. Humans love deceiving themselves to raise self-importance. The Road Not Taken is a famous poem which takes advantage of this quirk to hit people in the feels, and allowing players to retroactively justify their mistakes is a genius design.
This was an interesting reveal. I chose B at first, but then when the C/D option came up, I realized that C and D were how I instinctively thought of A and B
Daryl: Imagine that a virus is spreading across the world and 600 million people have already been infected Me: I don't gotta imagine it ma dude, I'm living it
While these thought experiments were interesting, my personal experience with them was immediately recognizing the expected value was the same and skipping right to the ethical considerations of guaranteeing some lives saved vs only possibly saving all lives.
Same thing happened to me as well. Another interesting thing to consider (assuming the doctor is a part of the 600 million) is that for Cure A or C, while it guarantees that it will save a crowd of 200 million, it is still random as to specifically choosing who lives and who dies. In the real world, I would assume this is where influences like money or fame would play a part in helping select who would get to live vs. who would get to die. But if it truly was selected at random, then in that scenario (assuming that this was pointed out to everyone), I would say probably most everybody would agree to take the risk of choosing Cure B or D.
GoVocaloider he said that 400 million people would die for sure if you picked cure C, but my thinking was that he didn’t say the other 200 million would survive
The expected value isn't the same though. Medicine A saves an expected 200m people (expected value of a constant). Medicine B saves an expected 0.4*600m + 0.6*0 = 240m people, so Vaccine B actually has the higher expectation. Even if the cures did have the same expectation, one would still have to discuss the variance of the cures as well as the utility of human lives. The variance of A is 0 (variance of a constant). The variance of B is massive at 8.64*10^(16). In more interpret-able terms, B has a standard deviation of about 294m. The standard deviation bars of B are larger than the mean! A definitely wins here in terms of variability. Now let's talk about the utility of human lives. A has a guaranteed loss of 400m lives. B on the other hand has a minimum loss of 0 lives and a maximum loss of 600m lives. If we compare only the worst case scenarios, we have to decide how much worse a loss of 600m is compared to a loss of 400m. There is no well-defined utility curve of human life, and this is actually highly dependent on the distribution of those lives. An unfortunate truth is that not all lives have equal importance on Earth. For instance, if every member of the United States/Russian/Chinese government were killed, this would have a much larger impact on global peace and the economy than an equivalent number of people in a poor isolated village. Depending on the distribution of lives, either A or B could win here. So even within the mathematics, before we get to the ethical considerations of having to pick 200m people to live, there is still an interesting discussion and tradeoff to be had.
I don’t know if you’ll see this. But I was wondering if you could do an episode on minecraft and memory? I’ve always had such vivid memories back at an earlier time of minecraft and I don’t seem to be the only one. And I was wondering if it might be a psychological phenomenon
Could you elaborate? Like do you mean you have memories in the real world that connect to you a time when you were playing Minecraft? Or that you have vivid memories of playing Minecraft in the past? Because this touches on a topic I will definitely be covering later
Daryl Talks Games in a way both. I guess jshlatt said it best in his Tribute to Minecraft. C418’s music was something that locked in his memory and coming back to minecraft and listening to the music he could easily recall his first minecraft world. So I guess having sensory inputs from minecraft triggering vivid memories of minecraft and other real world phenomena would be what I’m referring to!
Video: About how most people hesitate regarding dangerous decisions and regard potential loss Me after a cursed sword drops: "Yeah, I can use this weapon"
Cool vid. I've actually been playing Dead Cells recently and thinking about how risk/reward are woven into the progression system. What I like about the game is how it sets up a false sense of risk. What I mean is that when it comes to video games we seem to anchor our risk/reward sensibilities on our previous experiences with video games as well as our general fear of dying. This game involves infinite continues and permanent upgrades though; if you can embrace it, the game encourages the you to play recklessly more than it encourages caution. Caution is something people bring with them into Dead Cells because of a Pavlovian response to dying in other games. Death and failure are so incredibly productive in Dead Cells that I've killed myself off on purpose just because I was getting sleepy. Even in the relatively early stages of the game, 30 cells lost at the point of death are nothing compared to the 250 cells that were locked in to permanent upgrades on the way to that point. For me the meta game has rendered choices so inconsequential that if my randomly spawned starting melee weapon is the Cursed Sword I just take it as a skill challenge to see how long I can last.
the end is just the beginning for me. I went through the undying shores after a week of playing the game and I eventually got to the throne room and died to king's hand. I got so close to beating it yet I knew that there was still so much to explore and so I did!
The game Dandara did something like the Slumbering Sanctuary before Dead Cells. In the second ''biome'' you find an item at the end of the level, which activates all the traps along the way and forces you to backtrack to the first room. The backtrack is done through some of the same rooms (but now with extra hazards) and also opens new paths along the way, till you reach the first room again and fight the boss there.
8:32 I personally didn't choose A, but I didn't like C's phrasing. It's implied that 2/3 people given the treatment will die, and the fates of the rest are uncertain, meaning giving it to people is essentially murder, 2/3 of the time, and an ineffective treatment 1/3 of the time. D, on the other hand, was congruent with B, and I chose both. A was iffy because 1/3 is a fairly good survival rate, but it's not perfect, and I could have saved more people.
This. Exactly this. Also, I'm pretty sure the original study had the wording better - otherwise, it wouldn't be able to pass peer review for such a glaring hole in the methodology.
As a dead cells player it angered me that you evened out the scroll count. It better to have more damage than health. Who's going to hurt you when all the enemies are dead.
I know the entire community agrees with you on this but I couldn't disagree more. Especially if you can parry well you are way better off with more health and running WDKM mutation (melee parry recovers X% health). I even use it off-color, but on survival it's a no-brainer and can get you so much health back Insane damage is also less interesting imo since it simplifies combat. You take enemies out before they can even attack, there is no interaction. They might as well not even have a moveset 80% of the time, but to each their own
one thing that's really valuable in this game is to constantly destroy gold doors to put a curse upon you everytime. that shit made me more strategic when im dealing with traps and monsters.
It hurts me to see you balance your scrolls between the stats. The damage grows exponentially, allowing you to one-shot enemies with ease, preventing the damage received in the first place (very important in higher difficulties when you don't get full heals all the time). It also helps with clearing cursed chests, helping you earn more scrolls to boost your damage with. Well, you can occasionally throw a scroll into another stat, but it's usually enough to just use the dual scrolls with the wrong stats available on the one that boosts your health more.
I think another example of loss aversion in dead cells is the use of a shield. Evey time you use one, you have to make the decision "do I just hold it and reduce the damage OR do I try to parry and block all the damage, but risk missing and taking full damage"
wait, i picked both B and D at both situation and realized C/D = A/B. Does this means loss aversion is not applied when one try to list out all the details pros and cons? Like loss aversion is merely a illusion when the big picture is not clearly perceived?
I rarely comment on videos on TH-cam, but this type of video is just so good that I had to tell you. Please keep making more content like this! It's so fascinating and interesting!
Dead Cells has another smaller version of this with the speedrun doors. In the Prisoners' Quarters for example, the very beginning of each run, in every intermittent area between it and other biomes there is a door which only opens if you can find the exit out of the Prisoners' Quarters within 2 minutes. The room behind the speedrun door contains lot of gold and cells to spend on upgrades, as well as 2 random weapons and 1 talisman, though you can only keep 2 of the 3. But if you choose to speedrun through the Prisoners' Quarters, you might potentially be lead down a path through the game that's not what you wanted and you miss out on finding scrolls and equipment in that beginning area.
I haven't seen anyone else say it, so here's something you need to know about Dead Cells: the extra health is actually meaningless, the game takes it from you far too quickly for it to matter. You want to focus any scrolls into one colour so that any enemies you fight aren't around long enough to take a swing. This is, ironically, how you can open lots of cursed chests and get even stronger. But then again I picked vaccine B.
I know the entire community agrees with you on this but I couldn't disagree more. Especially if you can parry well you are way better off with more health and running WDKM mutation (melee parry recovers X% health). I even use it off-color, but on survival it's a no-brainer and can get you so much health back Insane damage is also less interesting imo since it simplifies combat. You take enemies out before they can even attack, there is no interaction. They might as well not even have a moveset 80% of the time, but to each their own
@@Bladieblah Hey whatever floats your boat, just don't blame me when you do chip damage to bosses. In all seriousness though hear me out, just because you kill things quickly with a high damage stat spread, doesn't necessarily mean that the game becomes easy. You take more than one hit at a time and you're done, so the challenge then becomes figuring out how best to deal with enemies with the tools you have (especially if you play on classic mode), and how quickly and smoothly you can clear a biome. For new players and thise not confident with the controls, I totally agree that lots of HP and a patient play-style is really good, but when you start unlocking harder difficulties, it serves you well to learn a "fast and glass" style, that avoids hits rather than relying fully on parries, especially since some attacks bypass shields completely (unless you regularly use Cocoon or Force Shield) Either way, high HP is a valid play-style, but it's not really sustainable past a certain point.
@@cjaudiobooks3470 Bro, just to be clear I have completed multiple long 5BC win streaks, I can do and have done both playstyles. Using a bunch of scrolls for HP is better (for consistently winning 5BC) for higher skilled players because it puts your fate into your own hands so to speak. The run becomes harder because you have to actually deal with enemy attacks, but if you are skilled enough you can deal with this and not make too many mistakes in the harder combat. For a high skilled player this is a great trade-off, for lesser skilled players not so much because the extra health just isn't worth it. It's very ironic you try to paint high health as a scrub strat when it's the other way around. I will say for most players trying to get that first 5BC win, going for a glass cannon build is probably the way to go, exactly because it's better suited for lesser skilled players. You only need one win, so the low consistency doesn't matter.
@@cjaudiobooks3470 Bro, I'm a seasoned 5BC player and have gotten multiple long win streaks on 5BC. I can do and have done both playstyles. The higher HP strat is better (for consistently winning 5BC) because it puts your fate into your own hands so to speak. Combat is harder because you actually have to deal with enemy attacks, in return you get to make a few more mistakes and even compensate them. For higher skilled players this a great trade-off, for lesser skilled players not so much because the extra health just isn't worth it. It's ironic you're trying to frame higher health as a scrub strat when it's the other way around. I will say that for new players trying to get their first 5BC win, running a glass cannon build is the probably the best option. Exactly because it's more suited for lesser skilled players. They only need one win so the low consistency doesn't matter
@@cjaudiobooks3470 @cjaudiobooks3470 Bro, I'm a seasoned 5BC player and have gotten multiple long win streaks on 5BC. I can do and have done both playstyles. The higher HP strat is better (for consistently winning 5BC) because it puts your fate into your own hands so to speak. Combat is harder because you actually have to deal with enemy attacks, in return you get to make a few more mistakes and even compensate them. For higher skilled players this a great trade-off, for lesser skilled players not so much because the extra health just isn't worth it. It's ironic you're trying to frame higher health as a scrub strat when it's the other way around. I will say that for new players trying to get their first 5BC win, running a glass cannon build is the probably the best option. Exactly because it's more suited for lesser skilled players. They only need one win so the low consistency doesn't matter
Tactics builds are easily the most risk-reward builds in a game thats highly risk reward youll run out of health super early, even with certain mutations (dead inside) so its a pretty standard glass cannon build, but it roots itself really well into the game too, bossfights will usually be a struggle because getting hit once or twice can be fatal before you get to kill said boss, but it will be much quicker than other builds, and cursed chests will easily fit right in with the run, since you already arent able to be hit much (also you should try the boss cell difficulties, it really amps up this sort of decision making)
@@NickiRusin I'll ellaborate on what Rafael said; and I'll make a reference to the five D's of Dodgeball. Dodge, dip, duck, dive, and most importantly, dodge. He who masters timing masters the universe. Just saying.
The video have made me think about how I chose the cursed chests in the game. For me it was never a choice of risk vs reward, but I felt that to open the chest is “how the game is meant to be played” and if I didn’t open it I was not playing it “the right way”
I choose C, aha. In my head I was like "well C is still the highest probability of success." It actually didn't even click that they were the exact same numbers.
in roguelikes i never think the decision is really important, i always choose the path where i win something even if i die, because what i win can be something that helps me in another run
No joke; I think Thanos may have awakened some anti-natalist views in our society. It's easier to not care about lives when they are a faceless number in our choices. That being said I chose A and C for the guarantee of lives saved.
Zack Foster yeah, after his speech it got me thinking, like if the population keeps on growing we’ll earth is fucked. But if I had a single chance to “balance” it I would definitely do it.
Awesome video. Just found your channel. As a psych major, I really appreciate you looking at the psychology in games, something I enjoy thinking about as well. Thanks for the content. Definitely subbed! Peace.
I don't agree that vaccines A and C are the same. For A you said, it will definitely save 200 million. For C you said, it will definitely kill 400 millions. These are completely different things. As states, A could save more than 200 and C may save none. That wasn't clearly stated. ...yeah, I studied a math-heavy subject in university. These kind of things just jump at me.
I should have been more clear! Of the 600K, people will certainly either live or die. I meant with A, 200/600 will live. and with C, 400/600 will die. i.e. the same results in both cases. It's sort of like the glass half full/half empty thing. Both are technically true, just different ways of observing the same thing.
Yeah, I kinda noticed the same funny thing with language there. But since I had already chosen risk in the first pair, and immediately realized the same reality was described with different wording on this second risky option, I dismissed it entirely as non relevant because I had already determined it was ultimately the same choice. However, the fact that this happened to me is quite interesting in itself, since I completely dismissed the possibility that the second pair might hold a more favorable option because the wording led me to believe that it was the same choice. It's like the experiment worked as intended on me, but in a reverse way, and from a different framework.
So given that in the first pair, a person chooses to gamble. If a second pair is presented with the same gamble, and an obscured safer choice, will the person in question choose its same previous gamble rather than dig and give the other choice some thought? What would imply said behavior? It's a different experiment, but interesting nonetheless. Would said behavior imply a "cognitive dissonance aversion" bias?
Every time I got in a new area in Dead cells, I thought just try your best. Dying is always a factor in RLs and it's always the end. Even by fighting the giant, the first time he was really easy, but with a other build the fight got a lot harder, so that I learned witch build I can use, for one boss better or less
actually, those scrolls you want to choose 1 all the time. this is because the damage is exponential, as percentages is not he same as regular adding or subtracting. letts say you have 100 damage, 15 percent of it is +15 damage. however, 50 has 15 percent of less than 15, and you can get to 100 damage by choosing the same scroll over and over. sure, you might need a bit more than usual to have that huge exponential increase, but its worth it.
I'm surprised you didn't mention how guiding the Spelunky ghost over gems turns them into much more valuable diamonds. I couldn't tell you how often my greed has gotten the better of me...
Best video I've watched in a while. It makes me harken back to the systems at play in Deck 13's Lords of the Fallen or The Surge 1 & 2. You can choose to hold onto your XP in order to increase its multiplier, rather than bank what you have before being killed and possibly lose it all. The psychology behind game development always boils down to a question I find myself musing in each and every game that I begin playing: "What do the developers want me to experience?" The best games of all time tend to answer this question slightly differently with each subsequent play-through. All told, this video will hopefully only serve to strengthen the bond between passionate gamers and the software that moves them . . .
It's also pretty easy to not realize you have two doors to go through, and just go towards the first one you saw. Because let's face it, this is your first time. You're going to die here anyway.
I'd say this is a great illustration and can be applied to most rogue-lite games. In deadcells I run into this when traversing the Promenade. After collecting all the power-ups there's always the question of "Should I try to get through the prison depths or go straight to Ramparts/Ossuary?" If you've ever run through prison depths on BC 4/5 you'll have an understanding that it's not something you want to do unless you have a VERY solid run going early on in the game. (Unless you're just a godly dead cells player, then more power to you.)
Over a year late, but I wanted to give my experiences both with the cure problems and the Slumbering Sanctuary. I'll start with the Slumbering Sanctuary. When I first reached the Slumbering Sanctuary, everything leading up to the switch went exactly as you said; once I hit the switch, under normal circumstances, I probably would've gone for the path of least resistance. However, I was already having a really bad run and didn't feel like I had anything to lose, as my weapons were among my most hated at the time (Broadsword and Assault Shield), so I just said "screw it" and went the rest of the way with the hope that I'd find something good. I didn't. With the cure problems, I went with drugs B and D, but I didn't realize they were the same until after you had mentioned it. I put the initial problem under the question of expected value, determining drug A (and by extension C) had an expected value of 33.3%, whereas drug B (and D) had an expected value of 40%. When the question C and D came around, I redid the calculation for drug C and realized drug D had the better expected value again, but I didn't realize C and D were just A and B rephrased.
Only 600m that doesn't actually make a sizeable dent in the overall population in terms of loss/gain. Not saying it wouldn't be horrible to actually happen, but, it's no where close to the entire population
@@thinker7938 600 million is nearly 10% of the population. Why assume that the disease will not spread further if the all-or-nothing cure B/D fails? With A/C, you guarantee that humanity will make it.
@@Williamatics 1/3 are *immune* from the disease, that's what a vaccine does. So presumably I could give the vaccine to the rest of mankind, and at least 1/3 would be guaranteed to survive. But this hypothetical is weird because it says we're dealing with vaccines, and vaccines don't cure illnesses, they prevent uninfected people from getting it... so it's vague no matter what. Regardless, in a situation where we're dealing with the potential extinction of humankind -- where we have no do-overs -- I think the safe option guaranteeing survivors is the best choice.
On average the b and d is a better average saving rate, but since it is a one off decision a/c makes more sense because the risk of losing all is much worse than the reward of saving all. Let’s not mention the horrible press you would have to deal with if you chose the one to save them all but it didn’t work and they found out you could’ve chosen one that garrenteed 1/3 survival. You would be ruined
Darkest dungeon also does a fantastic job at this and it's something I noticed because you put it in the video. I know I'm a bit late here but in games like Darkest dungeon the decisions feel even harder because even if you play perfectly you still have the chance to get screwed by a random miss or crit which then causes more mistakes. The game slowly conditions you to treat the treasures you gain and even heroes you have as disposable so those risks feel even less scary if you think you're good enough
I've been bamboozled. I just realized why I like simple linear games because I don't have to think too hard, I just go do the thing my way but it's always just that one choice. Honestly there's already so many choices I have to make in real life, I want games to offer me only good ones. Yet if given the opportunity, I'd clear the whole level clean because that's just what feels right. Feels wrong not to, I'll miss something if I do!
it’s a biome you can go to instead of the stilt village or the graveyard. you can get to it after beating the concierge if you have the spider rune, or after beating conjunctivius.
@@ainasahalin4379 Wait, how do you get to it after the Concierge? I have the spider rune and stuff, but i've no idea where you would be able to reach it. Is there like a hidden area high up on the far wall of the concierge's boss room or something?
@@april5054 well it's in the room between biomes, where you deposit cells into the forge or the collector. you'll see a shaft above you that goes straight up, wall jump up there and then you'll find the SS.
I don't know why this video was recommended to me, but I'm glad it was. Your channel is underrated and I hope to see you prosper soon. Good luck. Excellent video.
I tend to go back to the start because I thought there was something good behind the locked door and don’t even remember if I saw something or not. If I die, I die. Death is only the beginning.
Okay PSA. As a *cascade of you* have mentioned now, vaccines do not *cure* infection, they help prevent it before it happens. And you're absolutely right. If these hypothetical people were already infected with a hypothetical disease or hypothetical virus, a hypothetical vaccine would not cure them. I am not a doctor, I am a TH-camr. And a mediocre one at best. So cut me a little slack plz.
Or don't, positive or negative, comments only help the vid grow so thank you
Vaccine b or d, FIGHT ME BRO.
when you phrased that if you take vaccine C all the 400 million people will die, so I thought that 400 million is the total amount and vaccine C is a total loss. It's not just phrasing, it's misleading information which is auto completed with pre cognitive biases.
@@braindeveloperdimensional5579 Nope. He said it was the same base situation. Even showed the same graphic onscreen with 600 million infected.
@@braindeveloperdimensional5579 but he jst said before that 600 million were infected. There was nothing misleading in his statement ...
I picked the same answer both times.Vaccine B and D both have a chance at saving everyone, even if it's slightly less than half.
The intro has aged like fine wine.
More like fine Austrian wine from the mid 80's
Hahahahhahahahhahahah
Beat me to it
More like milk
@@tuna5305 that's a pretty obscure reference, I would be surprised if many knew it, but I do :)
This overlooks one of the most important types of loss aversion in play psychology: the fear of missing out on content. Many players will take the longer way back on their first attempt merely because they don’t want to accidentally skip content.
This is the reason why the genocide route in undertale is even completeable: the desire to experience all of a game’s content drives the player forward, even when the activity the player does is not truly “fun.”
how is genocide run not fun
@@nothydropump845 how is genocide not fun?*
Idk what you guys are talking about. I fucken had a field day on the genocide route. I felt empowered killing everything and beating sans made me feel like god. I had more fun on the genocide run then the pacifist run.
@@robotmaster4515 (Pssst. Then you're missing the point.)
@Eric Absolutely! The boss battles during the Genocide run were so much more rewarding than the battles in the other runs because they pushed your skills as a player even farther than the other bosses had until that point. Especially when you consider that some of the Pacifist bosses actively make it so you can’t die to them. Sure, the other runs had the bulk of the game’s content, and were more interesting narratively, but I see the Genocide Route as basically an additional two boss fights that you can play once you’ve beaten the main game. And again, they’re so good!
Listens to intro
Checks date
W H A T
lol thinking the same thing. Also, I appreciate bumping into another Nathaniel ;)
@@nathanielmcclaflin1374 ayyy
Mood
He predicted it 😂😂😂
Yea lol
jokes on you i'm so dumb i didn't see the statues and cleared the whole stage without thinking
deysingTH First time through the sanctuary for me, I zoned out, went into autopilot, flipped the switch and I got through the entire stage only realizing afterwards that what I did could have totally destroyed my run.
@@MCSPARTA yeah same pretty much you see a button you press it
That's exactly what I did too. No regrets, though, since I got so many cells.
Wait wait. You don’t have to flip the switch? I flip it every time and it hasn’t killed me yet (but I have yet to put a boss cell in)
@@AJHubb You have to. You just don't need to go back to the beginning.
This logic can be applied to just about any roguelike, but Dead Cells certainly is a fantastic place to frame it.
Oh absolutely! Admittedly I have limited experience with rouge-likes and Dead Cells was my first real taste of it. But this logic can be applied to a ton of games that hit you with a solid risk/reward scenario.
Daryl Talks Games Binding of Isaac happens to be my choice for Rogue-like so I highly recommend it if you liked this game!
This game is dope. Best example of a successful workers cooperative. Cheers!
I think gungeon plays very hard on my loss aversion lol
@@DarylTalksGames I was thinking about an old roguelike called ADOM this whole video. Everything you said makes perfect sense applied to it. For example, there's an arena where you can earn tons of gold and a powerful weapon, but the fights are random (and progressively harder). If you're not suitably prepared, there are a few things that can just outright murder you, like an invisible enemy. The gold gain is greatly disproportionate to your level when you first encounter it, so it's really tempting. I've got at least a hundred graves there.
Joke's on you, after hitting the switch I booked it out of the level as fast as I could, because I thought the stage was going to crumble and instakill me on a hidden timer.
Well I thought the same but the music changed upon hit to the switch the new music was EPIC so I waited and noticed that the instakill never happened
same
i never got to this level, the timekeeper kills me every time
Your roghty
Your right
Bro first five seconds don’t need to imagine it’s happening rn
just give us both drugs, and why are you on youtube if you are a doctor
@@noodel3374 nigga what!?!??!
@@renn4913 r/wooooosh btw, pls show me you nwordpass
@@noodel3374 no
@@noodel3374 how is that r/woosh i am just confused i didnt explain the joke or ruined it
It's not hair pulling if you're an absolute chad and go balls deep in every challenge and survive
@@imacactus1963 look at my comment likes then look at yours, beta male. You'll never be as apex a bro as me.
Well sir realism did you REALIZE that they might have only liked your comment because of the words in your single and not you as a person? Did you REALIZE that people might not have looked at his comment because people skim the comment section? Who knows, they might not even liked it only liked it to be a nice person. Maybe your friends hang around with you because they pity you. Ever thought of that SIR REALISM?
I am normally not this mean it's just your name
@@thesmilingknight7078 :(
@@thesmilingknight7078 Lol that's exactly what Joe would say
“When you usually get killed, it’s because you got too greedy.”
Fisherman: am i a joke to you?
Hand of the King on 4 bc: *Am i a joke to you?*
NKG :am i joke to you
*The Entirety of The Ossuary* : am I a joke to you?
@@LordOsiris499 Ossuary is actually pretty easy, though.
@@PedroHawk1 yes, you should just take it slow
I love how this guy thinks I actually pay attention to the pros and cons, I just grab the crap and run.
Our brains make decisions outside our awareness
*Me, sweating a little having chosen vaccine b and vaccine d*
Same lmao
It makes sense based on expected value, if the chance was 33.3%/66.7%, then I wouldve fell for it
Yeah, really that statistic is a little broken. Because the ~30 something percent that picked B would've also picked D (I think). So really choice D only gained ~40% of the people that picked A (as the percent went from 26% to 74%). So a majority of the people that picked A also picked C, which is important to note
@@joshuarovinelli8597 Numbers dont really change anything. Even if the chance to kill the whole humanity is < 1%, it still exists. And if it procs, its a total catastrophe... So killing 40% (or even 95%) is much better, because loosing a few millions of people is not fatal and not a problem at all because of natural reproduction.
@@griglog228 The best option mathematically is always the one with the most expected value. When these are equal, then you can ask the moral questions.
As a perfectionist, I will take every gamble as long as the outcome is in my hands and not at the mercy of a die.
And I will put myself through all the pain and misery as long as I can only blame myself. At the end of the day, I feel like I've lost more than I've gained from playing Dead Cells.
I'm sure if there is Hell, this game is waiting there for me.
Nah bro, I know exactly what you mean regarding rng. But it is so rewarding playing Dead Cells because you can beat the game with pretty much any set-up of weapons. Some harder than others sure, but its always in your hands.
The ice thingy does make it way easier though....
The game its great because that, the biomes are generated, but they are "fair" because the system, the systems makes sure that if you die its your fault...
So no that's not hell
Hell in any case its something that its totally chaotic and random, something in which you have no injerence
Lol is it bad that I never take the safer routes and only do the risky stuff. Because even if I lose I just think I get to go on another adventure and if I do win it makes that adventure more fun 😆 do I have a bad philosophy for the game
Ah yes 5bc Hell difficulty
Honestly, your editing and delivery is so high quality, I can't fathom how you have so few subs.
I just might be early to the party.
Thank you so much! I'm in no rush for subs, just trying to get better at doing this and enjoy myself along the way :)
@@DarylTalksGames Hey. I don't think you need to rush really. Seems more inevitable than anything.
I will not spread memes
I will not spread memes
I will not spread memes
I will not spread memes
I will not spread memes
I will not spread memes
I will not spread memes
I will not spread memes
I WILL NOT SPREAD MEMES
The script is quite good, and so is the editing, but when the same video sequence repeats several times, it becomes a bit fatiguing.
9:40 hehe his money says b00b
The intro aged badly
Yeah...
Big oof
I thought the intro was sarcastic I realised the upload date. . .
Oof
@@eslushpuppy64 lol same
"so what drug would you use to cure people Doctor?"
*literally 5 seconds later*
"Dead Cells is a game about balancing Risk and Reward"
What's your point?
@@CMWick Likely the unsubtle jump in topics, which at a glance would seem completely unrelated
Great, insightful video. Another factor that can be considered is long term vs short term gains. When I play Dead Cells, I always choose a better item/ability over health and go for a high risk/high reward play style. My reason for this is if I throw myself into these situations, I will get better faster, and so in the long term I will become a much better player and won't need the health boosts for example, even if it means dying a lot in the short term.
This logic can also be applied to the battle royale genre: if you first land in a big city with loads of other players you will probably die immediately, or land somewhere isolated and slowly accrue gear you will last longer. The first choice is better for long term growth (and arguably leads to more interesting emergent gameplay)
That’s a really interesting thought process, though I suppose I’ve done the exact same before. Like, I play golf and to get better I started using bladed clubs (more advanced, harder to hit) because I wanted to learn quickly and not rely on any training wheels. Non VG related example but that’s what came to mind haha.
Thanks for stopping by! Glad you enjoyed the video :)
So I’ve always loosely had that thought banging around about the battle royal thing. Thank you for staying it more concisely than I could!
In slumbering sanctuary I instantly went to clear the whole level, despite having great difficulty getting there. Of course I got slammed by a golem for it. This is because of my curiosity, I just couldn’t let the mystery of what lies in the level lay undiscovered
Fun fact: for the riddle you gave, Options B and D have an expected value of 240 lives saved. So from a mathematical standpoint, you want to take the risk.
I’d say you’re weighting your equation wrong (or not at all perhaps). If you could do this over and over, like, say, something in a video game or a lottery ticket, you’d want to take the risk, but as it’s an all-or-nothing, real-world, one-time situation with such high stakes, the weight of losing 100% of human life on Earth should be weighted exponentially higher than the weight of saving 200,000,000.
Usually in maths we model outcomes in a bit of a more complex way than that. For instance, we can give an agent a level of risk averseness, and then map all rewards through them.
@@thebuddercweeper it's not all life on earth, and that's an abhorrent use of the word exponential. And two hundred million is 200 000 000. But yes, the point is true.
@@trevorx7872 Technical mistakes fixed, for some reason I thought he said two hundred thousand.
But I stand by my use of the word exponential.
I'm saying that the weight of losing 100% of human life on Earth should be orders of magnitude (exponents) higher than the weight of saving 200,000,000. I'm using it in the purely mathematical sense, rather than referring to the concept of exponential growth.
@@thebuddercweeper but since you only have two values (save nobody, and save 200 million), you can't tell if that's exponential increase or just really steep linear increase
Who would have thought the world would be dealing with the Corona virus now
With your Slumbering Sanctuary example I feel like I'm the exception to this: When I noticed the statues came alive, I went back to the beginning of the level and make sure I back traced all my steps to the switch solely to kill every monster in the level.
11:52 what an absolute bull-! "We don't like unfair difficulty." they say while there are enemies who can attack through walls and having guys throwing knifes at you for a longer duration than a parry protects you from.
attacks that go through walls still have visual & audio queues.
You can parry straight again after parrying one knife.
Scrub.
Parries don't have a cooldown period, if there was theoretically some kind of enemy that just straight up spammed attacks, you could still perfectly parry every one with good enough timing.
Not to mention that if you don't have a shield you have the option of jumping over or retreating
I see hidden treasure in games as intrinsically mine, thus the "loss" in talking a shortcut makes loss aversion a factor in me taking the "risky" path
The greatest loss aversion factors in the game were not taken into account. Path choice, killing vs skipping past enemies, mutation choice, unlocking equipment... I can see how you might not feel that way until you're far into the harder game modes, but this video really is only the tip of the iceberg, the first 4 or 5 hours for a complete newbie. Since Daryl here said he has difficulties in dodging and playing near perfectly, he might not yet understand the importance of bonus doors (time doors and flawless doors), so I'll cut him some slack. Also, in the harder game modes, YOU CANNOT SPREAD STATS. It's shooting yourself in the foot to do so. You have to tunnel into one stat, and this is where they get you again with loss aversion. Tactics is powerful and ranged, but the mutations suck, specifically by having no way of malaise prevention(very late game stuff). You'll be a glass cannon, which fares very well in biomes but very poorly in boss fights. Survival and Brutality are much safer, but less powerful against biomes.
Path choice is by far the most grueling aspect of the game. After you open up every path, you have to weigh going for harder, way longer biomes with more 3-stat scrolls, elites and cursed chests or short and easy biomes with dual stat scrolls and less elites and cursed chests. Oh, but these short biomes lead to an extra, really hard biome that has very good bonuses if you killed 60 enemies flawlessly on the previous floor and also is rife with good loot. Afterwards, you gotta choose which biome you'll take, which will determine the first boss. Do you prefer to stick with the easy and short route and fight the Concierge, worse loot overall or do you feel confident going for the Ancient Sewers and knocking out Conjonctivius?
After that, you get to choose a new biome. Do you want to go with the relatively easier Graveyard or the painstakingly long Slumbering Sanctuary? After that, do you want to hit the absolute hardest, most profitable biome and seal your fate against the Giant, by far the hardest boss, or will you wimp out and eventually hit the far easier Time Keeper instead?
Do you feel like you can outrun the enemies and go for the timed door, or do you prefer to kill them all just in case one of them has a good, rare drop? If you do that, can you guarantee that you'll kill 60 of them without taking damage to unlock the flawless door?
Mutation choice is the second biggest loss aversion choice in the game. But there's way too much to type about mutation choice, tbh. Just trust me it gets real hard in the late game.
Well, from my perspective, (having completed all 5 boss cells) Cursed chests really aren't an option any longer unless you're just incredibly proficient at killing bosses. You have to take advantage of every single one.
I'd say after a while the whole risk-reward factor starts to sort of file down as you develop strategy and experience with each run.
@@alyjos9103 Correct. I didn't mean choosing not to open Cursed chests, that isn't viable. I meant choosing a biome with more cursed chests vs another path that will amount to the same amount of scrolls, but the cursed chest scrolls are 3-stat, while the easier biomes have more dual-stat scrolls.
This is spot on. Dead Cells is a genius game. Way deeper than most people give it credit for.
I'd open every cursed chest even if it meant only getting that one extra juicy scroll.
i just feels wrong to leave value behind.
Unless you open one before making sure that there are enough enemies on the floor to kill and have to, in the worst scenario, flawless a boss.
@@mortanes2 That is painful.
I remember the first time I got a cursed treasure chest, I thought it was going to be a boss fight, but I was like "wtf this boi has a foot fetish"
40/60 are odds I think I can gamble with.
Was that your thought process with the first 600 million Connors? 😂
Look at this man playing on 0 cell mode
When he said that he prefers more health over damage I was like: "bruh, try your strategy on 2bc"
@@avamaco3357 try a tactics build on 5bc. May as well just run around with a cursed sword.
*Pathetic*
@Insect Nipz
Not true. In my opinion -at least for me- tactics is the way to go on 5 BC. It's just so easy to cruise through the game when you have a powerful weapon like magic missile or lightning bolt along with a poison Hokuto's bow.
Melee just involves getting into danger way too much, which will result in taking so much damage.
The key is not so much stats as it is the weapons and the forced requirements to use such weapons. Brutality is rough to use because it's almost entirely melee weapons.
With a ranged weapon -generally tactics, although lightning bolt without a poisoned Hokuto's bow will also work for survivability- things can be killed before they have a chance to deal damage, making the only challenge the bosses, which can be learned and dealt with accordingly.
The only things I haven't figured out well -for ranged weapon use- is Conjuntivius (mostly because I don't even face him anymore, I just go the other way), and a couple specific attacks of the HotK (namely his quick jab that he does which seems really unfair as there never seems to be any consistent telegraph/pattern before he does it)
I mean some of us aren't that good, chill. I got to 1 cell and I'm struggling to keep going very far. Not everyone will be able to get 4 or 5 cells.
Man I love your editing
The transitions, text effects, animation
Also the script, structure, and delivery
The series is a great idea honestly
Although I agree in nearly every point made, I would point out it changes a lot in Dead Cells if you get to 5BC and start grinding towards the final boss. I don't know how to describe it but every decision making progress changes.
Can you even take a hit on 5bc or does the game just delete your save file?
Because 5BC introduces the malaise mechanic, which changes everything about the gameplay. You can no longer take your time making attack plans or assessing risk or gain situations because every second you spend means your malaise is slowly increasing.
we all agree that on your first go at sanctuary the golems teleporting you *back to them* after you try to run away was the most terrifying thing, right?
Essential oils will save no lives so imma stick to them, thank you very much
I applaud your resolve sir 👏🏼
hi fellow balkan person
@@taltzi hi hi
One of the best videos you have made man, always a pleasure to see something new from you
Thanks man! Always a pleasure to read your thoughts and feedback :)
As a dead cells veteran seeing people make the mistake of spreading stats like that hurts so much
Yeah when I first started playing it made sense to me to balance my character during a run, but then people on the Dead Cell’s discord were like “NO DON’T”.
It’s really interesting how the game forces you to put all your eggs in one basket for stats during a run lol.
Thanks for mentioning the fact that it mostly affects those who are not comfortable with the game.
Most decisions you mentioned become either irrelevant or obvious once you've played enough.
Great video.
Dude thank *you* for noticing that I mentioned that lol, tons of folks seemed to just gloss over that part and voice their grievances with no remorse
12:39 What an excellent design choice. Humans love deceiving themselves to raise self-importance. The Road Not Taken is a famous poem which takes advantage of this quirk to hit people in the feels, and allowing players to retroactively justify their mistakes is a genius design.
This was an interesting reveal.
I chose B at first, but then when the C/D option came up, I realized that C and D were how I instinctively thought of A and B
I’ve been binging this psych video playlist and i just have to say, as a psych nerd and gamer, these are some great videos!
Daryl: Imagine that a virus is spreading across the world and 600 million people have already been infected
Me: I don't gotta imagine it ma dude, I'm living it
Took A and C, didn't even consider leaving without clearing everything despite being bad at the game.
While these thought experiments were interesting, my personal experience with them was immediately recognizing the expected value was the same and skipping right to the ethical considerations of guaranteeing some lives saved vs only possibly saving all lives.
Same thing happened to me as well.
Another interesting thing to consider (assuming the doctor is a part of the 600 million) is that for Cure A or C, while it guarantees that it will save a crowd of 200 million, it is still random as to specifically choosing who lives and who dies.
In the real world, I would assume this is where influences like money or fame would play a part in helping select who would get to live vs. who would get to die.
But if it truly was selected at random, then in that scenario (assuming that this was pointed out to everyone), I would say probably most everybody would agree to take the risk of choosing Cure B or D.
GoVocaloider he said that 400 million people would die for sure if you picked cure C, but my thinking was that he didn’t say the other 200 million would survive
The expected value isn't the same though. Medicine A saves an expected 200m people (expected value of a constant). Medicine B saves an expected 0.4*600m + 0.6*0 = 240m people, so Vaccine B actually has the higher expectation.
Even if the cures did have the same expectation, one would still have to discuss the variance of the cures as well as the utility of human lives. The variance of A is 0 (variance of a constant). The variance of B is massive at 8.64*10^(16). In more interpret-able terms, B has a standard deviation of about 294m. The standard deviation bars of B are larger than the mean! A definitely wins here in terms of variability.
Now let's talk about the utility of human lives. A has a guaranteed loss of 400m lives. B on the other hand has a minimum loss of 0 lives and a maximum loss of 600m lives. If we compare only the worst case scenarios, we have to decide how much worse a loss of 600m is compared to a loss of 400m. There is no well-defined utility curve of human life, and this is actually highly dependent on the distribution of those lives. An unfortunate truth is that not all lives have equal importance on Earth. For instance, if every member of the United States/Russian/Chinese government were killed, this would have a much larger impact on global peace and the economy than an equivalent number of people in a poor isolated village. Depending on the distribution of lives, either A or B could win here.
So even within the mathematics, before we get to the ethical considerations of having to pick 200m people to live, there is still an interesting discussion and tradeoff to be had.
@@samroby3269 this
The intro got me sweating in 2020
Daryl: you draw your own conclusions
DangerouslyFunny: If I'm not getting permanent attack boosts and cool weapons, it's definitely a loss for me
I don’t know if you’ll see this. But I was wondering if you could do an episode on minecraft and memory? I’ve always had such vivid memories back at an earlier time of minecraft and I don’t seem to be the only one. And I was wondering if it might be a psychological phenomenon
Could you elaborate? Like do you mean you have memories in the real world that connect to you a time when you were playing Minecraft? Or that you have vivid memories of playing Minecraft in the past? Because this touches on a topic I will definitely be covering later
Daryl Talks Games in a way both. I guess jshlatt said it best in his Tribute to Minecraft. C418’s music was something that locked in his memory and coming back to minecraft and listening to the music he could easily recall his first minecraft world. So I guess having sensory inputs from minecraft triggering vivid memories of minecraft and other real world phenomena would be what I’m referring to!
@@seathealchemyst SmarterEveryDay did an video about this. The video is 125.
I don't remember Minecraft having music
Video: About how most people hesitate regarding dangerous decisions and regard potential loss
Me after a cursed sword drops: "Yeah, I can use this weapon"
Cool vid. I've actually been playing Dead Cells recently and thinking about how risk/reward are woven into the progression system. What I like about the game is how it sets up a false sense of risk. What I mean is that when it comes to video games we seem to anchor our risk/reward sensibilities on our previous experiences with video games as well as our general fear of dying. This game involves infinite continues and permanent upgrades though; if you can embrace it, the game encourages the you to play recklessly more than it encourages caution. Caution is something people bring with them into Dead Cells because of a Pavlovian response to dying in other games. Death and failure are so incredibly productive in Dead Cells that I've killed myself off on purpose just because I was getting sleepy. Even in the relatively early stages of the game, 30 cells lost at the point of death are nothing compared to the 250 cells that were locked in to permanent upgrades on the way to that point. For me the meta game has rendered choices so inconsequential that if my randomly spawned starting melee weapon is the Cursed Sword I just take it as a skill challenge to see how long I can last.
Funny how this is the best explanation for the concept of Loss Avertion I've found on TH-cam.
Anti vaxxers when they take the survey: well I choose neither
The power of essential oils 🙄
Just want to say that that massive drop at 1:06, with big letters popping up was a great cinematic (if that's the correct word) moment!
Great video! I really enjoyed playing Dead Cells and I can see how genius it is
Thank you! I had a great time with Dead Cells, such a rewarding game overall
the end is just the beginning for me. I went through the undying shores after a week of playing the game and I eventually got to the throne room and died to king's hand. I got so close to beating it yet I knew that there was still so much to explore and so I did!
00:00 that aged well
The game Dandara did something like the Slumbering Sanctuary before Dead Cells. In the second ''biome'' you find an item at the end of the level, which activates all the traps along the way and forces you to backtrack to the first room. The backtrack is done through some of the same rooms (but now with extra hazards) and also opens new paths along the way, till you reach the first room again and fight the boss there.
In the slumbering sanctuary you can't backtrack, the wall is curved so that even with wall climbing you cannot climb it
Intro: If he knew about Corona
While answering those questions I was thinking in terms of percentiles (2/6 = 30% < 40%)
8:32
I personally didn't choose A, but I didn't like C's phrasing. It's implied that 2/3 people given the treatment will die, and the fates of the rest are uncertain, meaning giving it to people is essentially murder, 2/3 of the time, and an ineffective treatment 1/3 of the time. D, on the other hand, was congruent with B, and I chose both. A was iffy because 1/3 is a fairly good survival rate, but it's not perfect, and I could have saved more people.
This. Exactly this. Also, I'm pretty sure the original study had the wording better - otherwise, it wouldn't be able to pass peer review for such a glaring hole in the methodology.
As a dead cells player it angered me that you evened out the scroll count. It better to have more damage than health. Who's going to hurt you when all the enemies are dead.
I know the entire community agrees with you on this but I couldn't disagree more.
Especially if you can parry well you are way better off with more health and running WDKM mutation (melee parry recovers X% health). I even use it off-color, but on survival it's a no-brainer and can get you so much health back
Insane damage is also less interesting imo since it simplifies combat. You take enemies out before they can even attack, there is no interaction. They might as well not even have a moveset 80% of the time, but to each their own
one thing that's really valuable in this game is to constantly destroy gold doors to put a curse upon you everytime.
that shit made me more strategic when im dealing with traps and monsters.
It hurts me to see you balance your scrolls between the stats. The damage grows exponentially, allowing you to one-shot enemies with ease, preventing the damage received in the first place (very important in higher difficulties when you don't get full heals all the time). It also helps with clearing cursed chests, helping you earn more scrolls to boost your damage with. Well, you can occasionally throw a scroll into another stat, but it's usually enough to just use the dual scrolls with the wrong stats available on the one that boosts your health more.
I think another example of loss aversion in dead cells is the use of a shield. Evey time you use one, you have to make the decision "do I just hold it and reduce the damage OR do I try to parry and block all the damage, but risk missing and taking full damage"
wait, i picked both B and D at both situation and realized C/D = A/B. Does this means loss aversion is not applied when one try to list out all the details pros and cons? Like loss aversion is merely a illusion when the big picture is not clearly perceived?
Allen Yeoh well, I though A/C were different, as the phrasing of C makes it sounds like MORE than 4M people might die, and that’s a minimum.
My roguelike strategy is this: be greedy and die until I'm good enough to be greedy and live. Not being greedy is not an option.
When i heard the intro, I rechecked the Dates and i was like: *WHAT THE FU-*
I rarely comment on videos on TH-cam, but this type of video is just so good that I had to tell you. Please keep making more content like this! It's so fascinating and interesting!
Thank you so much for stopping by! I’m glad to hear you enjoyed it :)
That intro hits different now
Dead Cells has another smaller version of this with the speedrun doors. In the Prisoners' Quarters for example, the very beginning of each run, in every intermittent area between it and other biomes there is a door which only opens if you can find the exit out of the Prisoners' Quarters within 2 minutes. The room behind the speedrun door contains lot of gold and cells to spend on upgrades, as well as 2 random weapons and 1 talisman, though you can only keep 2 of the 3. But if you choose to speedrun through the Prisoners' Quarters, you might potentially be lead down a path through the game that's not what you wanted and you miss out on finding scrolls and equipment in that beginning area.
Always so informative, Daryl! Have you considered starting a Discord server for your channel to host discussions on the topics you bring up?
I haven't seen anyone else say it, so here's something you need to know about Dead Cells: the extra health is actually meaningless, the game takes it from you far too quickly for it to matter.
You want to focus any scrolls into one colour so that any enemies you fight aren't around long enough to take a swing.
This is, ironically, how you can open lots of cursed chests and get even stronger.
But then again I picked vaccine B.
I know the entire community agrees with you on this but I couldn't disagree more.
Especially if you can parry well you are way better off with more health and running WDKM mutation (melee parry recovers X% health). I even use it off-color, but on survival it's a no-brainer and can get you so much health back
Insane damage is also less interesting imo since it simplifies combat. You take enemies out before they can even attack, there is no interaction. They might as well not even have a moveset 80% of the time, but to each their own
@@Bladieblah Hey whatever floats your boat, just don't blame me when you do chip damage to bosses.
In all seriousness though hear me out, just because you kill things quickly with a high damage stat spread, doesn't necessarily mean that the game becomes easy. You take more than one hit at a time and you're done, so the challenge then becomes figuring out how best to deal with enemies with the tools you have (especially if you play on classic mode), and how quickly and smoothly you can clear a biome.
For new players and thise not confident with the controls, I totally agree that lots of HP and a patient play-style is really good, but when you start unlocking harder difficulties, it serves you well to learn a "fast and glass" style, that avoids hits rather than relying fully on parries, especially since some attacks bypass shields completely (unless you regularly use Cocoon or Force Shield)
Either way, high HP is a valid play-style, but it's not really sustainable past a certain point.
@@cjaudiobooks3470 Bro, just to be clear I have completed multiple long 5BC win streaks, I can do and have done both playstyles.
Using a bunch of scrolls for HP is better (for consistently winning 5BC) for higher skilled players because it puts your fate into your own hands so to speak. The run becomes harder because you have to actually deal with enemy attacks, but if you are skilled enough you can deal with this and not make too many mistakes in the harder combat. For a high skilled player this is a great trade-off, for lesser skilled players not so much because the extra health just isn't worth it. It's very ironic you try to paint high health as a scrub strat when it's the other way around.
I will say for most players trying to get that first 5BC win, going for a glass cannon build is probably the way to go, exactly because it's better suited for lesser skilled players. You only need one win, so the low consistency doesn't matter.
@@cjaudiobooks3470 Bro, I'm a seasoned 5BC player and have gotten multiple long win streaks on 5BC. I can do and have done both playstyles.
The higher HP strat is better (for consistently winning 5BC) because it puts your fate into your own hands so to speak. Combat is harder because you actually have to deal with enemy attacks, in return you get to make a few more mistakes and even compensate them. For higher skilled players this a great trade-off, for lesser skilled players not so much because the extra health just isn't worth it. It's ironic you're trying to frame higher health as a scrub strat when it's the other way around.
I will say that for new players trying to get their first 5BC win, running a glass cannon build is the probably the best option. Exactly because it's more suited for lesser skilled players. They only need one win so the low consistency doesn't matter
@@cjaudiobooks3470 @cjaudiobooks3470 Bro, I'm a seasoned 5BC player and have gotten multiple long win streaks on 5BC. I can do and have done both playstyles.
The higher HP strat is better (for consistently winning 5BC) because it puts your fate into your own hands so to speak. Combat is harder because you actually have to deal with enemy attacks, in return you get to make a few more mistakes and even compensate them. For higher skilled players this a great trade-off, for lesser skilled players not so much because the extra health just isn't worth it. It's ironic you're trying to frame higher health as a scrub strat when it's the other way around.
I will say that for new players trying to get their first 5BC win, running a glass cannon build is the probably the best option. Exactly because it's more suited for lesser skilled players. They only need one win so the low consistency doesn't matter
Tactics builds are easily the most risk-reward builds in a game thats highly risk reward
youll run out of health super early, even with certain mutations (dead inside) so its a pretty standard glass cannon build, but it roots itself really well into the game too, bossfights will usually be a struggle because getting hit once or twice can be fatal before you get to kill said boss, but it will be much quicker than other builds, and cursed chests will easily fit right in with the run, since you already arent able to be hit much
(also you should try the boss cell difficulties, it really amps up this sort of decision making)
I basically never go for tactics, having low health frightens me. Could you give some tips on how to make them work?
@@NickiRusin one word: dodge
@@NickiRusin I'll ellaborate on what Rafael said; and I'll make a reference to the five D's of Dodgeball. Dodge, dip, duck, dive, and most importantly, dodge. He who masters timing masters the universe. Just saying.
The video have made me think about how I chose the cursed chests in the game. For me it was never a choice of risk vs reward, but I felt that to open the chest is “how the game is meant to be played” and if I didn’t open it I was not playing it “the right way”
I choose C, aha. In my head I was like "well C is still the highest probability of success." It actually didn't even click that they were the exact same numbers.
I chose B and D, I also didn't realize it's the same numbers.
in roguelikes i never think the decision is really important, i always choose the path where i win something even if i die, because what i win can be something that helps me in another run
i chose A and C, but now i feel guilty for the 400 million that will die
Moody Guy I wouldn’t, I also chose A and C, that’s still saving a big part of the population. Plus free population control
I chose b and d
@@BrokenDreamers Perfectly balanced...
No joke; I think Thanos may have awakened some anti-natalist views in our society. It's easier to not care about lives when they are a faceless number in our choices. That being said I chose A and C for the guarantee of lives saved.
Zack Foster yeah, after his speech it got me thinking, like if the population keeps on growing we’ll earth is fucked. But if I had a single chance to “balance” it I would definitely do it.
Awesome video. Just found your channel. As a psych major, I really appreciate you looking at the psychology in games, something I enjoy thinking about as well. Thanks for the content. Definitely subbed! Peace.
I don't agree that vaccines A and C are the same. For A you said, it will definitely save 200 million. For C you said, it will definitely kill 400 millions. These are completely different things. As states, A could save more than 200 and C may save none. That wasn't clearly stated.
...yeah, I studied a math-heavy subject in university. These kind of things just jump at me.
I should have been more clear! Of the 600K, people will certainly either live or die. I meant with A, 200/600 will live. and with C, 400/600 will die. i.e. the same results in both cases. It's sort of like the glass half full/half empty thing. Both are technically true, just different ways of observing the same thing.
Yeah, I kinda noticed the same funny thing with language there. But since I had already chosen risk in the first pair, and immediately realized the same reality was described with different wording on this second risky option, I dismissed it entirely as non relevant because I had already determined it was ultimately the same choice.
However, the fact that this happened to me is quite interesting in itself, since I completely dismissed the possibility that the second pair might hold a more favorable option because the wording led me to believe that it was the same choice. It's like the experiment worked as intended on me, but in a reverse way, and from a different framework.
So given that in the first pair, a person chooses to gamble. If a second pair is presented with the same gamble, and an obscured safer choice, will the person in question choose its same previous gamble rather than dig and give the other choice some thought?
What would imply said behavior?
It's a different experiment, but interesting nonetheless. Would said behavior imply a "cognitive dissonance aversion" bias?
@@DarylTalksGames I know what you wanted to say ;) It's just my mathematical instict that demands precision, lol.
I didn't understand why A could save more than 200, and C may save non when you have a total of 600m... ?
yeah and those statues in the sanctuary appear behind you like freaking weeping angels
The algorithm got you; prepare for a nice rise
Every time I got in a new area in Dead cells, I thought just try your best. Dying is always a factor in RLs and it's always the end.
Even by fighting the giant, the first time he was really easy, but with a other build the fight got a lot harder, so that I learned witch build I can use, for one boss better or less
Interesting video! :)
Top 10 Interesting Videos
actually, those scrolls you want to choose 1 all the time. this is because the damage is exponential, as percentages is not he same as regular adding or subtracting. letts say you have 100 damage, 15 percent of it is +15 damage. however, 50 has 15 percent of less than 15, and you can get to 100 damage by choosing the same scroll over and over. sure, you might need a bit more than usual to have that huge exponential increase, but its worth it.
TH-cam, I have work to do, stop recommending me cool videos please.
I'm surprised you didn't mention how guiding the Spelunky ghost over gems turns them into much more valuable diamonds. I couldn't tell you how often my greed has gotten the better of me...
Wow hearing your intro today is insane lol
Best video I've watched in a while.
It makes me harken back to the systems at play in Deck 13's Lords of the Fallen or The Surge 1 & 2. You can choose to hold onto your XP in order to increase its multiplier, rather than bank what you have before being killed and possibly lose it all.
The psychology behind game development always boils down to a question I find myself musing in each and every game that I begin playing:
"What do the developers want me to experience?"
The best games of all time tend to answer this question slightly differently with each subsequent play-through.
All told, this video will hopefully only serve to strengthen the bond between passionate gamers and the software that moves them . . .
It's also pretty easy to not realize you have two doors to go through, and just go towards the first one you saw.
Because let's face it, this is your first time. You're going to die here anyway.
I'd say this is a great illustration and can be applied to most rogue-lite games. In deadcells I run into this when traversing the Promenade. After collecting all the power-ups there's always the question of "Should I try to get through the prison depths or go straight to Ramparts/Ossuary?" If you've ever run through prison depths on BC 4/5 you'll have an understanding that it's not something you want to do unless you have a VERY solid run going early on in the game. (Unless you're just a godly dead cells player, then more power to you.)
I think this video was a warning
Over a year late, but I wanted to give my experiences both with the cure problems and the Slumbering Sanctuary.
I'll start with the Slumbering Sanctuary. When I first reached the Slumbering Sanctuary, everything leading up to the switch went exactly as you said; once I hit the switch, under normal circumstances, I probably would've gone for the path of least resistance. However, I was already having a really bad run and didn't feel like I had anything to lose, as my weapons were among my most hated at the time (Broadsword and Assault Shield), so I just said "screw it" and went the rest of the way with the hope that I'd find something good. I didn't.
With the cure problems, I went with drugs B and D, but I didn't realize they were the same until after you had mentioned it. I put the initial problem under the question of expected value, determining drug A (and by extension C) had an expected value of 33.3%, whereas drug B (and D) had an expected value of 40%. When the question C and D came around, I redid the calculation for drug C and realized drug D had the better expected value again, but I didn't realize C and D were just A and B rephrased.
'60% chance of human race extinction'
yeah, I will go for that, seems legit
Only 600m that doesn't actually make a sizeable dent in the overall population in terms of loss/gain. Not saying it wouldn't be horrible to actually happen, but, it's no where close to the entire population
@@thinker7938 Precisely. Let´s reliably save the 200m and be done with it. Good job for the day.
@@thinker7938 600 million is nearly 10% of the population. Why assume that the disease will not spread further if the all-or-nothing cure B/D fails? With A/C, you guarantee that humanity will make it.
@@Williamatics 1/3 are *immune* from the disease, that's what a vaccine does. So presumably I could give the vaccine to the rest of mankind, and at least 1/3 would be guaranteed to survive.
But this hypothetical is weird because it says we're dealing with vaccines, and vaccines don't cure illnesses, they prevent uninfected people from getting it... so it's vague no matter what.
Regardless, in a situation where we're dealing with the potential extinction of humankind -- where we have no do-overs -- I think the safe option guaranteeing survivors is the best choice.
On average the b and d is a better average saving rate, but since it is a one off decision a/c makes more sense because the risk of losing all is much worse than the reward of saving all. Let’s not mention the horrible press you would have to deal with if you chose the one to save them all but it didn’t work and they found out you could’ve chosen one that garrenteed 1/3 survival. You would be ruined
I never considered any of this while playing the game, very insightful video. Your content is great dude, can't wait for more!
Thank you man! I really appreciate that, there is more to come 😁
Did you say Slumbering Sanctuary?!?! No no No No no, I ain't going to THAT place again?
I came for dead cells, but what I got was one of the best explanations of loss aversion. Great vid
I did vaccine A and vaccine C also why would you ever do the cursed chest they seemed meh for such a bad effect
Am I dumb because I don't overthink and just focus on the "a chance of extinction" ? why would people choose that
Well, if you have the confidence to know that you definitely won't get hit, it's a decent reward for a nothing effect
Darkest dungeon also does a fantastic job at this and it's something I noticed because you put it in the video. I know I'm a bit late here but in games like Darkest dungeon the decisions feel even harder because even if you play perfectly you still have the chance to get screwed by a random miss or crit which then causes more mistakes. The game slowly conditions you to treat the treasures you gain and even heroes you have as disposable so those risks feel even less scary if you think you're good enough
DONT SPREAD YOUR STATS
I've been bamboozled. I just realized why I like simple linear games because I don't have to think too hard, I just go do the thing my way but it's always just that one choice. Honestly there's already so many choices I have to make in real life, I want games to offer me only good ones. Yet if given the opportunity, I'd clear the whole level clean because that's just what feels right. Feels wrong not to, I'll miss something if I do!
Plays Dead Cells for 30 hours
"The Slumbering Sanctuary"
*The. WHAT?*
it’s a biome you can go to instead of the stilt village or the graveyard. you can get to it after beating the concierge if you have the spider rune, or after beating conjunctivius.
@@ainasahalin4379 Wait, how do you get to it after the Concierge? I have the spider rune and stuff, but i've no idea where you would be able to reach it. Is there like a hidden area high up on the far wall of the concierge's boss room or something?
@@april5054 well it's in the room between biomes, where you deposit cells into the forge or the collector. you'll see a shaft above you that goes straight up, wall jump up there and then you'll find the SS.
I don't know why this video was recommended to me, but I'm glad it was. Your channel is underrated and I hope to see you prosper soon. Good luck. Excellent video.
That intro... _OOF_
I tend to go back to the start because I thought there was something good behind the locked door and don’t even remember if I saw something or not. If I die, I die. Death is only the beginning.