Support NeoGAF

[kittens]

Are books good/bad for society? Film? Theater? Paintings?

Games are just another medium.

 

[Retro_]

I sort of skimmed but it seems you focus more of the escapism aspects of gaming more than the actual play aspects.

I think the answer to your question is highly dependent on the types of games you play and how you play them.

 

[LuchaShaq]

Better than the average dreck on prime time tv.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Neither.

 

[Retro_]

Are books good/bad for society? Film? Theater? Paintings?

Games are just another medium.

The problem with using this as a dismissive argument is that there actually are historical examples of those other mediums having a negative influence on society.

 

[Sinthor]

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

Good, thoughtful post. I'll make a short answer here. First, I believe that gaming can be either beneficial or harmful depending on the individual and/or situation. However the same can be said for just about anything- from exercise and vitamins to guns and government.

On the whole, I believe gaming is more beneficial for society as a whole for the reasons that it provides generally harmless entertainment and an outlet for energy, emotion and even potentially negative energy.

Gaming can be used as a powerful motivator for educational purposes with children and it can provide an outlet for frustrations without providing the opportunity for a physical altercation to arise.

Gaming is also useful as a simple outlet for entertainment. The interactive nature of that entertainment often attracts people and keeps them occupied for a bit longer on average than some other entertainment mediums.

 

[Jackson]

Games have been around since the dawn of time. Everyone plays games. Even animals play games in the wild.

Poker. Chess. Sports. Play fighting, Running a race. Competitions of any sort. Those are all just games. Games are a part of the experience of life. So are stories.

Also anything outside of moderation is bad for you... so... don't use it to escape all the time yo!

 

[TC McQueen]

Well, the ability to kill things without actually killing people seems like a good, safe way to vent people's aggression now that just about every other option has been legislated into illegality or eliminated in some other way.

On the personal level, it's a case by case thing. Some people get positive benefits, others get reinforcement of bad attributes.

 

[MattKeil]

Gaming is not inherently one or the other. It varies per person, and can be an aid or an obstacle, sometimes simultaneously. I fundamentally disagree with many of your assertions about culture and the place of entertainment in it, so I really don't find your stance on the question convincing at all.

 

[Retro_]

Games have been around since the dawn of time. Everyone plays games. Even animals play games in the wild.

Poker. Chess. Sports. Play fighting, Running a race. Competitions of any sort. Those are all just games. Games are a part of the experience of life. So are stories.

Also anything outside of moderation is bad for you... so... don't use it to escape all the time yo!

Problem with this argument is that the most popular modern video games have almost absolutely nothing in common with Chess or Sports besides the label "game".

I think fighting games and RTS and other multiplayer games might fit your argument.

but those aren't the games that are winning GOTY here on gaf, and probably aren't the ones the OP is playing to engage in fantastical escapism.

 

[Kai Dracon]

I don't think there's anything intrinsically good or bad about the medium, just depends on how the medium is used as with everything.

Every time something new pops up there is a human urge to gauge it and determine whether it's a threat or not. As if we could actually make new discoveries and new ideas just "go away". (The dream of the Luddite and of the neophobe who really thinks the world's clock can be rewound to a 'simpler time'.)

I will say the technology behind computer driven games is pretty extraordinary and extraordinarily useful both for entertainment and other purposes. So in that sense the development of it is a net gain for the world.

But again it all comes down to what it is used for.

 

[GPsych]

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.

This also depends on the career. I'm a psychologist so theoretically me being better at my job would lead to helping others thus improving society. Therefore, one could conclude that I am being selfish by playing video games instead of practicing my craft. Nonetheless, we all need some degree of selfishness in order to be happy.

 

[FargoDog]

Games are a form of art, and art is good for culture.

Civilization does not lie to me, you or anyone. Do not doubt it.

 

[jakonovski]

Why would any avenue of peaceful self-expression be detrimental to society?

 

[Retro_]

Why would any avenue of peaceful self-expression be detrimental to society?

Can confirm, spread and perpetuate dangerous thoughts or beliefs.

 

[livestOne]

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.

right on, as opposed to being face to face "social" with work friends they'll never care about

 

[Bowflex]

There is a lot to respond to, but this is precisely the type of thing I was looking for.

I think I should have defined 'good' in terms of society. And yes it can be defined objectively.

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.

I'm going to respond to this with an analogy. The game industry, as its become, is like Wal-mart. Does Wal-Mart care about the quality of their food? Likely not. Do they provide food that tastes good? To most people, yes. Do they offer for an affordable price, products the masses want, which are satisfying but ultimately unhealthy? Yes. Do these monopoly-like ventures require huge investments that allow for huge sales and squash lesser, more beneficial ventures? Yes. If super corporations like Wal-Mart sold only organic, healthy products would they still have these kind of sales or would the business fail? Clearly the latter. Indie games or any games with intellectual richness are like the local farmer's market. Some people understand what is in the food at Wal-Mart, and opt to not shop there. But the general person does not think twice, because the general person is stupid. The general person is unconsciously swayed by whoever has the most money to spend on advertising, and advertising is typically focused on shallow products. And it is precisely the general person who votes, whose actions dictate the future of society.

For many it is the only affordable option, and participation in it establishes cultural norms, which perpetuate it as being the 'right' thing to do. But if this food is ridden with chemicals and high in things which are scientifically unhealthy for the people who eat it, and the majority of people shop there, wouldn't that be detrimental to society, in terms of 'unhealthy for the bodies, minds, and even egos' of the average bloke?

you can circumvent this dilemma by choosing not to support what you perceive to be negative business practices.

I'm going to stop right there and remind you that the average person, who has influence on any given 'culture,' is not like you or me. They are conditioned in our paradigm to not be critical of these things, to be swayed by the psychological persuasions of marketing, to consume in a certain way. This kind of consciousness, this free-will to choice between good and bad, helpful or harmful, is a privilege given only to those who have been taught what that is.

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.

This is not a personal issue, my concern is with the progeny of the human race, and how these things will affect where humanity ends up. If these considerations of quality and underlying productivty are not discussed widely, not seen and understood by the common man, then the future could very well be one that would render every human endeavor useless. The basis everything I'm saying isn't arbitrary or self-involved. It has to do with what it means to be human, and how individual lives have meaning within the temporal universe or how they do not, depending on what direction we humans, as a whole, take.

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

I only used Chrono Trigger as an example, because if I were to have included every single game that has ever had a profound effect on me, the article would have been 10,000 words long. I will happily provide you a list of all the games I have played, as well as the systems and games that I own. There are many recent games that I enjoy but my point is that modern RPGs (Xenoblade is an exception here) are objectively missing the vital compositional framework that once made them so great. Chrono Trigger was one example I feel most people on neogaf can relate to, and that is why it was used.

I mentioned that the superficial trend came following the DEMISE of the Dreamcast, not during. I will happily provide data for this claim if you'd like.

to speak directly to the idea of "is the interaction with virtual worlds positive for the human race?"; the answer is essentially unknowable

this is not true. We can assess movements into data, and include all factors mathematically to separate correlation from causality, and arrive a general scientific prediction of the effect something will have on the future. Much must be defined first. What is good for man and what is bad? That is easy : health, well-being, and contentedness in line with his biology, and then apply this to a global, or at least regional scale. From there we only need to look at the clinical studies that have already been accumulated, to see how something effects us. I feel I'm being too vague here, but again I can expand if needed.

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".

there are two possible conclusions to human life on earth: some productive state of deity unto some yet-to-be-determined purpose OR, oppression, suffering, and eventual annilhation. What is right is what is good, what makes all of humanity healthy, happy, productive, and not repressed, frustrated, and destructive. So yes, there is a "right" and "wrong" approach to living.

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 getting into solipsism now, post-modernistic cyclical reasoning territory, and its a rhetoric that cannot be proven or disproven, and it would take far too long to reply to that.

 

[MaximoffZero]

The problem with using this as a dismissive argument is that there actually are historical examples of those other mediums having a negative influence on society.

You are correct. However, I think many of those examples can be attributed to the ignorance of their audience at the time. For instance, Orsan Wells' radio presentation of "War of the Worlds" broadcast caused mass confusion because most people knew so little about outer space and Mars that they considered a Martian Invasion a real possibility. If that broadcast happened this day and age, it would have been universally understood to be a work of fiction.

 

[VXLbeast]

It's a medium. Absolute neutral force.

 

[kaching]

It's a medium. Absolute neutral force.

Quote, Rinse, Repeat.

 

[Bowflex]

It's a medium. Absolute neutral force.

Everyone has been saying this, so perhaps I worded my question poorly. A medium is neutral, yes, but I mean, given the current factors, the current ways in which it is used, is the impact negative or positive? A gun can be neutral, but if a bunch of idiots own guns and want to go to war with one another and in turn effect innocent lives, given that circumstance, the gun is no longer neutral. But even this analogy is flawed, because a gun doesn't take up thousands of hours a year of potential time spent learning, exploring, traveling, communicating, engaging, questioning - at least no where near on the level that these things occur in 'real life.'

When was the last successful social or political revolution? I mean a real revolution? Where are the individual inventors and philosophers outside of academic channels, which are preordained in their concrete "truths." Why do people settle for making 80% less money on average than 50 years ago? Why do people accept any kind of standard less than ideal? Why are we not working together to change things. To cure death and disease? To allow the means for every human being to play a crucial role in the future of man? Because the paradigm was designed for the profit and control of a few over the rest, and even though they are the majority, they are numbed by distraction. It's like a dog who remains kenneled for the prospect of its daily meal. Sure, there are other forms of distraction, but video games require complete attention and require it for much longer periods of time than most other mediums, therefore i feel they are more of a central concern than TV, internet, porn, movies, books, comics, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Quackula]

I can't really speak for society, but good or bad, gaming is here to stay.

Individually, I don't think there's anything wrong with indulging in the occasional pure entertainment glossy fluff. Just don't blow off important obligations or responsibilities for it.

 

[useyourfist]

Well id argue against escapism being negative. In fact there is much research that shows games used as a form of escapsim can positivley reduce stress levels in players. Then from a psycho-social perspective the people who have negative experiences, such as behaviour issues or becoming 'addicted' (medically their not classified as addicted, they just over play) are not having these negative experiences because of the medium of games, id suggest in these cases games are a symptom of a different problem, e.g to escape low self esteem, bullying, abuse pretty much anything.

Also id really recommend you draw upon some comparisons with childrens or adults fantasy literature as the stuff there about escapism is really interesting and complements arguments around gaming really well.

 

[Quackula]

Everyone has been saying this, so perhaps I worded my question poorly. A medium is neutral, yes, but I mean, given the current factors, the current ways in which it is used, is the impact negative or positive? A gun can be neutral, but if a bunch of idiots own guns and want to go to war with one another and in turn effect innocent lives, given that circumstance, the gun is no longer neutral. But even this analogy is flawed, because a gun doesn't take up thousands of hours a year of potential time spent learning, exploring, traveling, communicating, engaging, questioning - at least no where near on the level that these things occur in 'real life.'

When was the last successful social or political revolution? I mean a real revolution? Where are the individual inventors and philosophers outside of academic channels, which are preordained in their concrete "truths." Why do people settle for making 80% less money on average than 50 years ago? Why do people accept any kind of standard less than ideal? Why are we not working together to change things. To cure death and disease? To allow the means for every human being to play a crucial role in the future of man? Because the paradigm was designed for the profit and control of a few over the rest, and even though they are the majority, they are numbed by distraction. It's like a dog who remains kenneled for the prospect of its daily meal. Sure, there are other forms of distraction, but video games require complete attention and require it for much longer periods of time than most other mediums, therefore i feel they are more of a central concern than TV, internet, porn, movies, books, comics, etc. etc. etc.

Gaming (at least of the sort you're referring to, immersive, large scale, and requiring a large time commitment) largely appeals to a particular demographic; young males, and isn't really something that society as a whole has latched onto yet.

Why isn't this sort of weight given to say, social media? Isn't it far more ubiquitous?