• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Do you think gaming is ultimately good or bad for the individual and society?

Bowflex

The fact that anyone supports Hillary boggles my mind... I have tested between 130-160 on IQ tests
What began as an attempt to write the foreword to my book, became a kind of meta-perspective chronicle of my gaming history and why I lost interest in modern games. That turned into a casual, generalized essay documenting the cometary evolution of the industry, from a fringe 'nerd/kid' hobby to a cultural centerpiece of entertainment, since I’ve been around to observe it, in addition to the ways in which I feel the future of interactive media (AR/VR) will impact the world.

I’d be a pitiful liar to claim there is not some degree of stealth promotion here. But aside from the bits of me opining about how sweet the Nintendo 64 was to my pre-adolescent self, I’ve quoted only the excerpts relevant to the discussion I would like to have in this thread. It is entirely possible that my criticism (vilification?) of last, current, and next-gen titles, can be reduced to the cognitive bias known as nostalgia goggles, so I’m curious to hear other angles. Let’s hear your opinions on the good and bad changes that have occurred in the industry since you’ve been involved, as well as any other critiques on the activity of gaming from actual gamers who still play.

http://escapeofficial.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-background-intentions-and.html

So as not to be misinterpreted, it may be best to begin with a preface and state explicitly that: I am not inherently against video games. To be anti-video game would also mean to be anti-literature, anti-film, anti-music, and anti-culture as well. I feel that gaming is a budding (if not currently corporatized) art form that has a lot of potential to produce beautiful and transformative experiences never before imagined. I even play and enjoy certain games from time to time, though not as often or enthusiastically as in my youth. However, there is a given order of importance where necessity takes logical precedence over novelty – an order that today is commonly inverted. Gaming is a form of entertainment and pleasure, and thus is no different from any other indulgence done in excess or to serve palliative, therapeutic purposes. This specifically is the problem I aim to elucidate.

In the spectrum of all conceivable relativity, I had a ‘happy’ childhood. It is safe to say that life was pretty dang alright until around the age of ten when my parents separated and things took an undesired change. I remained with my mother, while my dad, conveniently out of work, did not pay child support. Within a few years my mother had exhausted all of her savings paying off legal fees from the prolonged divorce, and we had to relocate to a small down just south of the Oklahoma border where I could be taken care of by my aunt on work days (my mom was a flight attendant for American Airlines out of DFW), and where the living expenses were substantially cheaper.

Before, when my parents were still together, I was never allowed to play video games at home. My dad referred to them as “brain cancer,” and though my dad was mostly a very clever idiot, he would, from time to time, drop proverbs and epithets such as this that became ironic to me down the road, and so held some merit of wisdom (if outside of the context employed at the time). While I did get to play games when visiting friends, it was permitted to have a console of my own, at least not until later on after the split.

The Christmas after we moved (I think it was in ‘96 or ’97) my mom bought me a Nintendo 64 that came packaged with Mario 64. When I saw what had been hidden under the wrapping paper, I nearly wept with joy, and hugged and thanked my mom profusely. It took us an hour to figure out how to hook it up to the bulky Panasonic family TV, but we finally did, I got to play for a couple hours that Christmas night and it was thoroughly magical. One week and 120 stars later, I was forever changed. All the games I’d experienced prior had been 2D: Super Mario World, Mega Man X, Mortal Kombat, a slew of Genesis side-scrollers. Naturally, this new dimension- which was just as fun and surprisingly easy to control - blew my eleven or twelve year old mind, as I'm sure it did for many. I remember renting game after game from Blockbuster, eager for new releases and heartbroken when a sought title was checked out. Occasionally I’d even use my allowance from chores to buy games of particular interest: Star Fox 64, Goldeneye, Mario Kart 64, Banzo Kazooie, and so on. In the end I had a collection of probably forty cartridges, and given the sparse library the 64 had, I like to think that was pretty impressive.

From there, I began collecting gaming magazines (Nintendo Power, EGM, Game Pro, Game Informer, and my favorite, GameFan), browsing gaming news sites and forums (thegia, planetgamecube, gaming-age), and more or less living inside game-related IRC chats. It was through this online subculture that I started gradually learning to separate what games were truly good ones - games with stirring atmospherics, compelling characters and stories, refined art and memorable music - from games that were, well, just kind of mediocre, fodder for entertainment. This conscientiousness of quality propelled my passion further and from that era on, I was officially a ‘hardcore’ gamer, as they are called.

The first RPG I ever played was Chrono Trigger, admittedly on snes9x, a Super Nintendo emulator. I was 15 at that time and to say that this adventure had a very, very profound effect on me would be an understatement. No, it was an out of body, almost religious experience, and I still to this day consider it to be one of the best games, if not the very best game, of all time. Through Chrono Trigger, I discovered Squaresoft in their golden era, and with this new adoration for jRPGs, I was more hardcore about interactive fantasy than ever. The seriousness had become obsession and retrospectively, looking at the circumstances of my life at that juncture, it is obvious why. Gaming was the perfect form of distraction for someone my age with my problems at the time.

But then something happened in the early oughts, at the peak of my fanaticism. Over the course of a few years, around the demise of the Dreamcast, the industry changed and it seemed even my favorite companies had become concerned only with making a profit, as opposed to making magical transcendental experiences for those playing. Casual gamers began to outnumber the hardcore ones, and even in my sacred online communities, there was a noticeable conversion. People went from talking about games like ‘Oh, wow, that games great!’ to ‘Oh, wow, that game has great graphics.’ Even from a design standpoint, the visual appeal of newer games seemed bankrupt due to the rising popularity of the ‘filmified’ veneer of realism, which just looked silly then, and still looks silly today to some degree. Where once there was artistic stylization to account for hardware limitations, a majority of modern games brought to the 128bit table a splendidly dull array of explosions and polygonal breasts; booms and boobies with more sculpting and physics than whole environments within the same games. Structural composition had been substituted for superficial gloss, and any maven of the arts can tell you how wrong and arear such prioritizing is. Though I didn't know why for a few years, this devolution really saddened me and once these trends had become standard procedure, my interest in games started to wane.

There’s many psychological-causal facets to consider about why people play games, why they enjoy them so much, or really just why there is such a gigantic user base for video games in general, but I don’t want to get into them in too much detail here. However, most of these attributors can be reduced to a lowest common denominator, and I’m sure every serious gamer plays games for at least one of two primary reasons. One, games offer experiences that aren’t possible in the mundane parameters of real life and two, they allow people to engage in a more preferable reality that is offered by the fantastic nature and simplicity of these created worlds. This is not revelatory. But whether it’s for the purpose of recreation or the purpose of escapism, the player is being distracted from his or her own life/self, and very few people actually realize how detrimental this can be given the framework of the modern world. We’ll get to that later.

Because of what is offered by the experience, I think anyone who is or has ever been a hardcore game-enthusiast, has probably - at some point - fantasized about how cool it would be to ‘live’ in a game world. Maybe only in the form of a daydream while you were in school or on the toilet or whatever, but I imagine a lot of people dealing with problems at home or just middle or high school think, man, my life sucks, wouldn’t it be really great if I was in…. like, say… Hyrule or something, or were Link from Zelda, instead of Johnny Doe, who is skinny and has acne and gets stuffed into lockers [do kids even do that kind of thing anymore? Sadly, they did back in my school days]

When the “VR” “revolution” “happened,” it seemed like these kinds of fantasies might soon be possible. Though they never materialized, at least not as initially promised, the technology was always expanding and the possibility and demand remained present. Now it seems at long last that the VR movement is right around the corner, actually, not just out of wishful optimism. We are beginning to see tangible, functional augmented reality devices enter the market and similar systems offering complete virtual reality are in development. Assuming the civilization doesn’t collapse or self-destruct in the next few years, we will live to see it; virtual reality in the game-changing manifestation originally heralded way back when. Everyone is excited.

But is this breakthrough a good thing?


In my late teens and early twenties, after losing the passion for gaming, I began reading and learning, and strangely found myself being more aware of how the world worked and how much that differed from what was ideal. I came to understand man’s paradoxical need for both security and heroism as it was: pretty much just as vital as food, air, or water. But knowing this didn’t really help my situation and kind of just made things worse. My own anxieties and depressions got pretty crazy, and that was around the time that I turned towards chemical escapism to get the solace of childhood that I could no longer derive from fictive imaginings. Essentially, I replaced rescuing digital damsels and saving the world from monstrous villains with cheap booze and a variety of narcotics, some legally prescribed, many not. I was amazed to find that drugs and alcohol were a highly effective 'solution' to my many, many problems....for a little bit. Half a decade passed by in a blur of desperation and bad decisions and in the end this lifestyle, as was portended by every voice of reason in my formative years, ruined my entire life. The person I once was was no more, and I spent the last three years rebuilding from the ground up. It was hell at first, but now I can look back and see it as an interesting transformation that has absolutely been for the better. Wisdom is indeed gained through folly.


The title "Escape" is a reference to a few different things. It is indeed a nod to the Escape sequence, programming vernacular used to execute commands (analogous to Roy's digital determinism), as well as an ode to a number of works with titular similarities, both fictional and non-fictional, that have served the foundation for this book's conceptual and philosophical core, as well as my own. The most obvious allusion, however, is the central theme of escapism, or the practice of avoiding what is painful in reality. It is common defense mechanism that is done in a number of ways: by denying, rejecting, projecting, ignoring, obscuring the truth. It is something that has had a big influence on my life and something that I feel is the attributing cause for the social and political apathy possessed many young people today.

Roy, the novel's subject and central character, is a game enthusiast like myself and many of you. But the key difference between he and us peasants, is that Roy actually has the means to finance his own whims, however absurd or unaffordable as they may seem to the average person. So when he has the "wouldn't it be cool if..." moment of existing in a video game universe full time, instead of sighing and going about his day, decides to pay a bunch of really experienced industry people a lot of his newly-inherited money to make it this private and permanent excursion possible. His incentive isn’t really any different from the aforementioned reasons that anyone else plays video games or reads a fantasy novel, just a lot more radical and extreme. He too is dealing with existential ills stemming from issues of self-esteem. He too is subjected to the constant, rapid-fire bombardment of advertisements, persuaders, profiteers; their vanity, their veiled hatreds, the harassment, the deceit and the crippling burdens they impose. He too is victim to the innumerable oppressions at work and suffers the symptoms of this fascism – the hopeless, powerless, meaningless despair - broadcasted from innumerable external sources, big and small, material, corporeal, theoretical, from people, products, media, the multitude of forms of and faces of authority, all of it ambiguously layered like an infinitely coiled onion one tries in Sisyphean futility to peel, only to spend a lifetime in tears.

While certainly some of us are more sensitive and conscious to these conditions than others, and many are not affected at all, this is the current era, to which we and Roy belong. It’s an era that has seen a staggering rise in global unrest since the very moment the new millennium began. To a degree, there has always been unrest throughout human history, but because of the technological revolution the assimilation of psycho-social persuasion in the political arena, there are new anxieties, new restrictions, and new forms of alienation, which have never existed prior. Our era is distinct that the majority of the world participates in a kind of collective delusion, a capitalistic schizophrenia. Culture, once hallowed and fabulously diverse, has become a conglomerated Westernized monoculture, revolving around strips of paper. Even communities and families even seem to be disjointed and dividing, superseded by the larger telescopic national or global groups. Yet there is no camaraderie to be found there either, just an apparition of it. Many are too preoccupied to notice, but Roy, being isolated and without obligations, is susceptive and becomes compulsively aware. He feels not only alone, but also unable to subscribe to the conventional, orthodox routes for living that our world provides. Roy feels trapped. There is no role he can possibly play that will give him the value and meaning to his life promised to him in history, myth, and fiction, and this all-encompassing discontentedness is the catalyst for 'the game,' Roy's instrument for evacuation.

Money can do many miracles, it cannot quell a deficiency of the soul, nor can it solve the human condition. Roy acknowledges the limitations of his financial power, but intuitively discovers a means to bypass his crisis by willfully changing his environment in a very drastic way. The end goal is simple: to permanently leave the mundane drudgery of the real world in exchange for a world which is ideal, light-hearted, and simple; a plane of existence where there is beauty in everything – even sadness – and where people are either virtuous or vicious, not the involuted, unpredictably mortal amalgamations of emotion that they are in actuality. It is in this kind of world that he believes he can find an adequate heroic role to play - one not limited to making money or building a family or traveling the globe under the guise of leisure - but rather a celestial ambition that will secure his purpose beyond infinity.

But his reasoning is flawed and ostensible, missing critical factors. Most woes do stem from a destructive environment, yes. This is true. Given the resources he has, the obvious conjecture would be in line with Roy's approach : simply replace the destructive setting for a productive one. True as well. But it is important to remember the things Roy did not consider: that the shape of any social environment is merely a consequential effect of politics and culture, causes which are interchangeably dominant depending on whether you believe first in the chicken or the egg. Going deeper, the primary source for the formation of all social environments is anthropologically indisputable: these occur on the individual level. If enough individuals choose to avoidance and privatism over responsibility and cooperation, and there exist, simultaneously, vulturous types who are eager to exploit, to govern and to manipulate whole populations in whatever way deemed most efficient, we can see, speculatively, what will happen. In simpler terms: if you turn your back for long enough, you may very well come to find a knife in it.

We don’t need Orwell or Dick to imagine this type of scenario anymore, because it’s no longer speculative. It's been happening for decades, and if our eyes are open we can see with crystal clarity where it has taken us thus far. Escape deals with the era to come, the inevitable culmination of this neon, binary trajectory we are on, how the collision ahead will affect the future of humanity on an individual scale, and, how unimaginably terrifying this future might just be.
 
Depends on so many factors and the type of games being produced and consumed. Also the conditions of their production.

I would write something more complex and in depth on it. But I have a lot to do :(
 
This is going to come across as aggressive but you seem young and you apparently grew up in a cultural wasteland, because more than a few times you seem to romanticize "culture" in a way that isn't historically true or even desireable. The less said about your comments on modern gaming, the better.
 

Laieon

Member
You seemed to have completely ignored the rise of indie games and just focused on the AAA. The magic is still there.
 

Bowflex

The fact that anyone supports Hillary boggles my mind... I have tested between 130-160 on IQ tests
Culture a broad term but essentially it is a symbolic reflection of humanity in a particular region and time, a creative product of the collective virtues of any given people. An example of this "romanticized" culture I refer would be the excellence period of ancient Greece or The Renaissance, but even those are not quite ideal. An example of the "bad" culture I refer to would be America, now, a time when the Oxford dictionary word of the year is "selfie" and the best selling video game is a murder simulator.
 

Booshka

Member
Gaming is no more detrimental than any other hobby so long as you aren't adversely affecting aspects of your personal and professional life by gaming. Also, you have to invest in it and work at it to find the content and games that you enjoy. I get really tired of the opinion that gaming is terrible now, every game is just a money grab attempt trying to suck the consumer dry. Every entertainment medium has content that is just shallow, lowest common denominator, cash grab garbage. Seek out the quality content yourself, and ignore the shit that is being shoved in your face via advertising.

I also feel that books, comics, TV, movies, poetry, music, storytelling, etc are just as powerful as escapism for people. Video games are unique in their interactivity, but individuals have gotten lost in their own imaginations for as long as we have been around.
 

Bowflex

The fact that anyone supports Hillary boggles my mind... I have tested between 130-160 on IQ tests
You seemed to have completely ignored the rise of indie games and just focused on the AAA. The magic is still there.
Journey is one of my favorite games, and though I recognize the indie market as a very welcome change, it is insular compared to the mainstream market. Also, Im referring to the total impact gaming has (as a form of entertainment that has 20, 30, 40, or unlimited play-time in a single game as opposed to a ninety minute movie) and how this allocation of time and concentration affects even those who play rich, quality games frequently.
 

rahmz

Neo Member
To be quite honest, simply based on the amount of time I spend on games that I could use for more productive things, I would say overall gaming is not good for me...

Because I'm spending too much time on games, I am not spending as much time helping society and so society also suffers.

I mean I speak only for myself, but I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people who play games more than they should be.

But it's such an accessible way of escape from stress...
 

Bowflex

The fact that anyone supports Hillary boggles my mind... I have tested between 130-160 on IQ tests
Gaming is no more detrimental than any other hobby so long as you aren't adversely affecting aspects of your personal and professional life by gaming. Also, you have to invest in it and work at it to find the content and games that you enjoy. I get really tired of the opinion that gaming is terrible now, every game is just a money grab attempt trying to suck the consumer dry. Every entertainment medium has content that is just shallow, lowest common denominator, cash grab garbage. Seek out the quality content yourself, and ignore the shit that is being shoved in your face via advertising.

I also feel that books, comics, TV, movies, poetry, music, storytelling, etc are just as powerful as escapism for people. Video games are unique in their interactivity, but individuals have gotten lost in their own imaginations for as long as we have been around.
A quick glance at any recent sales chart will tell you
that you are in the minority. The difference between books and movies and games is what I mentioned in the reply above but also books and movies (pre 1970) were about primarily about learning, expanding ones understanding of things through ideas about people and politics and just what it is to be human. This only exists in a very few number of games (there are exceptions), and even then the message is commonly secondary to the immediate entertainment factor , and often overshadowed by this quality.
 

Espresso

Banned
Bad.

It encourages too many nerds to remain isolated from society in their fantasy TV screen lands, who then turn to violence (school shootings).
 
It's certainly an interesting essay that parallels with much of my beliefs now that I have gotten older (okay maybe I'm just an old soul, I'm only 21) but I feel that so much of today's games serve little purpose. They are distractions which I am really seeing through now despite also understanding the validity of mindless escapism.

The indie space I have hope in, and hopefully when these indie guys get bigger, these little two hours treats of beautiful design and art, can be be extended and expanded in every conceivable way to really have a more profound impact on their receptivness amongst a wider crowd.
 

Abounder

Banned
It depends but mostly good

Bad.

It encourages too many nerds to remain isolated from society in their fantasy TV screen lands, who then turn to violence (school shootings).

"A decade-long study of over 11,000 children in the UK has found no association between playing video games from as young as five, and mood or behavioural problems in later life."

http://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/21/archdischild-2011-301508.full.pdf+html
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/18/games-definitely-dont-harm-kids-says-huge-study
 

zoukka

Member
The act of play is always beneficial to our brains. The content found in most games today is quite empty and disgusting theme and story wise like hollywood except way more homogenic and narrow and clumsy.

So on one hand this beneficial mechanic activity makes us dumber by introducing stupid themes to us.

On the other hand playing a gane literally rejuvenates the brain.


Not an easy question to answer.
 
A quick glance at any recent sales chart will tell you
that you are in the minority. The difference between books and movies and games is what I mentioned in the reply above but also books and movies (pre 1970) were about primarily about learning, expanding ones understanding of things through ideas about people and politics and just what it is to be human. This only exists in a very few number of games (there are exceptions), and even then the message is commonly secondary to the immediate entertainment factor , and often overshadowed by this quality.
It doesn't matter of games are an entirely indulgent activity. All things in moderation. If you spend the majority of your time doing anything, you want it to be productive but if it's just a hobby in your spare time, it doesn't matter how brainless it is.
 
Like many things in life, it can be both. Playing the right games can have huge benefits. I can help with attention span, problem solving, memory, reading, coordination, and a bunch of other things. But like anything else, too much of it is bad. However, I don't think that video breed or induce any violence. Human beings are stupid violent by nature, its just a sad fact of life. We have been killing each other since probably before we mastered bipedal movement.

I actually feel less violent and pissed off after playing a game like GTA. I get to vent and release my frustrations on harmless pixels. When Im done, I don't feel the need to smash a fluorescent light across someones face.

Edit: Also, the type of game makes a huge difference as far as if its beneficial or just a hobby. Puzzles, platformers, and some RPGs (at least older ones) are great for brain.
 
I think it ultimately depends on what you believe society should gravitate towards. Personally, I think the obsessive gaming culture that is reflected on boards like gaf are detrimental to the social constructs that many of our institutions and structures rely on. Thankfully this culture will probably never permeate to the masses.

Casual gaming on the other hand is a healthy pastime.
 

GPsych

Member
Purely from my own personal experience, not gaming definitely allowed me to get more accomplished when needed. I basically missed the entirety of gen 6 when I was in grad school. On the surface, it would seem that I lacked the time to play video games (as time to do leisure things was in short supply), but it was actually due to a lack of money to buy the systems and games.

If I would have had said systems, I likely would have spent significant amounts of time playing them instead of studying/working on practicum/internship stuff. Now, that I'm older and in an established career, I buy all the systems and a large number of games. In all honesty, I would probably be better at my job if I returned to being more focused on it like I was in graduate school.

Of course, this also begs the question: Is being career focused "better" than spending your time engaged in leisurely pursuits? Standard western values based on the holiness of the work ethic would suggest that the answer is yes. I'm not so sure.
 

braves01

Banned
I think gaming is good overall for society because it provides an effective distraction for people from real social issues like inequality. Without gaming there would be much greater social unrest.
 

Okamid3n

Member
Of course, this also begs the question: Is being career focused "better" than spending your time engaged in leisurely pursuits? Standard western values based on the holiness of the work ethic would suggest that the answer is yes. I'm not so sure.

Basically this. If I didn't game, I would be further along in my professional accomplishments.

I would also be undeniably less happy.

As in most things, "good" or "bad" is all a matter of what definitions you're using.
 

Bowflex

The fact that anyone supports Hillary boggles my mind... I have tested between 130-160 on IQ tests
Purely from my own personal experience, not gaming definitely allowed me to get more accomplished when needed. I basically missed the entirety of gen 6 when I was in grad school. On the surface, it would seem that I lacked the time to play video games (as time to do leisure things was in short supply), but it was actually due to a lack of money to buy the systems and games.

If I would have had said systems, I likely would have spent significant amounts of time playing them instead of studying/working on practicum/internship stuff. Now, that I'm older and in an established career, I buy all the systems and a large number of games. In all honesty, I would probably be better at my job if I returned to being more focused on it like I was in graduate school.

Of course, this also begs the question: Is being career focused "better" than spending your time engaged in leisurely pursuits? Standard western values based on the holiness of the work ethic would suggest that the answer is yes. I'm not so sure.

Good post, but there are other channels besides the dualistic career and leisure. Expanding your mind, developing your person and skills, critical thought are the things which society would most benefit from. Career is a means for money and money is a physical symbol for time, energy, and survival, but an individual making money does not help society as a whole. it does not advance the quality of life for mankind, and that is the problem with our hypercapitalistic society - it is fundamentally selfish. human beings are social creatures and we need cooperation to survive and flourish. not just within the confines of the office, but beyond that on community and larger group levels. that is how we cure poverty, disease, war, and eventually even death and reach whatever transhumanistic state that humanity has been striving towards since the dawn of consciousness.
 

eosos

Banned
Honestly, discussions like these make me think that some people (you OP) take gaming waayy too seriously. I mean, it's a video game. Emphasis on the game part. It's just something to enjoy in your spare time. If anything it's neutral for society and the individual. Just another interest to replace some other interest that you would have if video games didn't exist.
 

RaikuHebi

Banned
I'm not in the right mood to meaningfully add to this wonderful discussion at the moment but let me just say that your comments about life-changing, out of body and religious experience is exactly how I feel about my favourite games, especially MGS1-3 and FFVII. It sounds crazy and I actually agree but those games give me some amazing profound feeling.

I'm yet to play more than a few hours of Chrono Trigger but I expect it too will give me that feeling.
 

Bowflex

The fact that anyone supports Hillary boggles my mind... I have tested between 130-160 on IQ tests
Honestly, discussions like these make me think that some people (you OP) take gaming waayy too seriously. I mean, it's a video game. Emphasis on the game part. It's just something to enjoy in your spare time. If anything it's neutral for society and the individual. Just another interest to replace some other interest that you would have if video games didn't exist.
yeah man i should just chill out, drink a heineken and smoke a bowl and listen to some chill wave and forget about all this mumbo jumbo on social issues.
maybe play some cod and just chill. right on bro
 

RaikuHebi

Banned
Honestly, discussions like these make me think that some people (you OP) take gaming waayy too seriously. I mean, it's a video game. Emphasis on the game part. It's just something to enjoy in your spare time. If anything it's neutral for society and the individual. Just another interest to replace some other interest that you would have if video games didn't exist.
No, video games like other forms of media can also be a valid method of expression and mean more than just something to pass the time. Though at the moment games are still behind other established mediums in the ratio of output of those games worthy to be deemed profound experiences.
 
JCwZo1Z.png
 
Honestly, discussions like these make me think that some people (you OP) take gaming waayy too seriously. I mean, it's a video game. Emphasis on the game part. It's just something to enjoy in your spare time. If anything it's neutral for society and the individual. Just another interest to replace some other interest that you would have if video games didn't exist.

I sometimes hate the word videogame, it's such a misnomer for the medium in relation to what they occasionally have and can become.
 

eosos

Banned
yeah man i should just chill out, drink a heineken and smoke a bowl and listen to some chill wave and forget about all this mumbo jumbo on social issues.
maybe play some cod and just chill. right on bro

Or maybe direct your efforts to actual social issues instead of entertainment.
 

RaikuHebi

Banned
Or maybe direct your efforts to actual social issues instead of entertainment.
There exists people who are primed to do the former and others that are primed to do the latter.

So are you saying no to Human cultural output?

You're seeing games only as entertainment. We're talking about how they can be so much more than that. They can be both. Just like books. Just like plays. Just like films. Just like music. Just like dancing. Just like art.
 
What began as an attempt to write the foreword to my book, became a kind of meta-perspective chronicle of my gaming history and why I lost interest in modern games. That turned into a casual, generalized essay documenting the cometary evolution of the industry, from a fringe 'nerd/kid' hobby to a cultural centerpiece of entertainment, since I’ve been around to observe it, in addition to the ways in which I feel the future of interactive media (AR/VR) will impact the world.

I’d be a pitiful liar to claim there is not some degree of stealth promotion here. But aside from the bits of me opining about how sweet the Nintendo 64 was to my pre-adolescent self, I’ve quoted only the excerpts relevant to the discussion I would like to have in this thread. It is entirely possible that my criticism (vilification?) of last, current, and next-gen titles, can be reduced to the cognitive bias known as nostalgia goggles, so I’m curious to hear other angles. Let’s hear your opinions on the good and bad changes that have occurred in the industry since you’ve been involved, as well as any other critiques on the activity of gaming from actual gamers who still play.

http://escapeofficial.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-background-intentions-and.html
As a sociologist, and a lazy one, at that; I think this about the question:

Anomie (an individual who feels and/or is on the "outside" of normal society - i.e. depressed, overly introverted, etc..) can be very painful, and can lead to suicide, or degradation of the individual's psyche.

I feel that video games, especially online games, provide a place for people in such situations. For those who can't function in "normal" society, it is a welcome home (as EverQuest was for me in my teen years).

For those who are "normal" video games provide a focus for social activities. My friends and I have spent countless hours playing video games together, that might otherwise have been sit on the couch and watch TV/movies and don't talk scenarios.

So for both those on the rim of society, and "normal" individuals, video games bring people together. There are extreme cases of video games causing anomie from normal society, but those appear to be more rare than the two aforementioned scenarios.
 
OP seems to be erroneously attempting to relate the rapid commercialization and commoditization of videogames to the question of whether or not interacting with virtual worlds is positive for the human condition. these two concepts are not mutually exclusive, but the amount of logical gymnastics required to tie them together isn't sufficiently covered in the original post, and quite honestly feels like an exercise in futility.

you can circumvent this dilemma by choosing not to support what you perceive to be negative business practices. don't pay or play games that don't suit your tastes, or seem solely to exist to make money rather than advance the medium or impart some genuine kind of artistic communication. if you're allowing your own personal interests and tastes to be affected by the quality of conversation and idea exchange that surround them, you're already doing yourself a disservice. change the conversation or find new people to talk to and interact with. there are a host of gamers in the world who recognize the mainstream/corporate sphere of popular gaming for what it is whilst simultaneously extolling the virtues of all games, regardless of their origin. it's folly to take issue with a topic of conversation like "are the graphics good?" if the conversation doesn't apply to you. focusing your attention on other people being (too) concerned about something you perceive to be pointless or irrelevant seems like a great way to arbitrarily and needlessly stress yourself out for no reason.

furthermore i question the author's personal background, and how the experience with one game (Chrono Trigger) in an approximate seven year span of gaming at all (1996-2003) became this paradigm of an era that has long since passed. Chrono Trigger is phenomenal game, but it is not the only game of it's kind. using one singular experience during a tumultuous and exploratory period of your life to define your entire outlook on a subject is most-assuredly a case of 'nostalgia goggles'. he goes on to say that the Dreamcast-era is when gaming began to move away from "artistic stylization" to "superficial gloss" when it is widely regarded by long-time gamers that the Dreamcast itself produced some of the most creatively rich and unique games the medium has ever seen. it seems to be the author grew up wanting what he couldn't have simply because he couldn't have it, and once he did, he exhausted it's limited potential (for him) fairly quickly.

to speak directly to the idea of "is the interaction with virtual worlds positive for the human race?"; the answer is essentially unknowable and is really a matter of preference or perception. is there some definable sense of "right" when it comes to human existence? if we were all to get "into the box" so to speak and leave this reality, eventually there will be a time where the memory (and by extension, it's existence really) of this 'real world' would cease to exist. only the reality "inside the box" exists, and exists solely for those inside of it. at that point, what do they care? they know reality as they perceive it, and without any outside force (someone "outside the box") to tell them, there's no perspective on whether their existence is "right" or "wrong".

reality is reality; both the 'real world' and the 'virtual world' are constructions of reality. the only difference is in our perspective and perception of those worlds. most people only regard videogames as "less than" types of realities simply because you are, from this reality, able to perceive it as a finite and quantifiable "thing". it has boundaries, limits, and hard-written rules into how the denizens of it interact and communicate, and most of time these are all reductions and facsimiles of these same concepts in the 'real world' (less than). except what would you think of this 'real world' if you were only able to interact with it through a screen and an input device? what would a game character feel about their 'virtual world' if the only thing they knew was it's reality? does Kratos ever question why he can't jump off any ledge any time he pleases? do you question why you're not able to walk through walls or travel through time at will? would a fourth-dimensional being in higher plane of 'reality' look at your inability to time-travel at will and think, "well that's stupid, whoever designed this is an idiot."?
 
You're seeing games only as entertainment. We're talking about how they can be so much more than that. They can be both. Just like books. Just like plays. Just like films. Just like music. Just like dancing. Just like art.

If the trade-off is having to put up constantly with pretentious pseudo-intellectual talk from people ashamed to just play video games who seek validation by trying to "elevate" them to what they think could be an acceptable standard, then it might not be worth it. That shit is partly responsible for the whole "(cinematic) experience" bullshit.
 

Aesnath

Member
I don't know...

I think that you've given video games too specialized a place in terms of what impact they have. Currently, video games have greater prominence, especially in youth culture, than do many forms of more traditional art/media. However, I do not think that they are inherently more damaging or problematic than earlier types of works. Admittedly, playing games rarely results in a payoff of material, societal, or self-actualizing rewards; however, merely being able to do something "better" or "more productive" should not be a rallying cry against an activity. If it were, most any hobby (all of which can be obsessed about or used as avoidance) should be considered detrimental.

I do think that you're right on the point that avoidance (or escapism) is a major problem for people. Additionally, when someone who chronically avoids their problems/emotions/relationships/life uses video games as their mechanism of avoidance than video games are a problem. However, I disagree that video games are more likely to be used in this manner than are other things.

I also agree that the content of video games is rarely focused on elevating its users. I think that this is largely a reflection of the culture that we currently have (as you mentioned) and the fact that anything governed primarily by corporations will lose artistic integrity. Again, there is an argument to be made that other values can be transmitted through the medium.

Wish fulfillment and avoidance are concepts older than Freud. It is folly to suggest that video games are more damaging than other media; they merely best fit the technology of the time. Music, literature, and other various pursuits have been similarly criticized in the past. The problem you present isn't with video games, it's with how people deal with pain in maladaptive ways.
 
Culture a broad term but essentially it is a symbolic reflection of humanity in a particular region and time, a creative product of the collective virtues of any given people. An example of this "romanticized" culture I refer would be the excellence period of ancient Greece or The Renaissance, but even those are not quite ideal. An example of the "bad" culture I refer to would be America, now, a time when the Oxford dictionary word of the year is "selfie" and the best selling video game is a murder simulator.
Where did you go to college and what was your major? This comment and your one regarding films/books need background before commenting.
 

sn00zer

Member
Bad. Most forms of entertainment have become ways of life and a generation of kids are wasting away in front of computer screens being "social" with people they will never meet.
 
It ultimately depends on what people are making games for. On one end, some people have made horrible propaganda games(see the Extra Credits videos on that and Call of Juarez: The Cartel). A good example would be this one: http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/spf2/spf2.htm

On the other side of the coin, games have great potential for improving the world. James Portnow, one of my game design teachers, is working with people to find out ways to improve the education system.

He told us about this fantastic educational game on iOS and Android called DragonBox 2. Just play it and you'll see what exactly it teaches.
 
Top Bottom