Comments on: Video games: the new book, or the new cap gun?

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:41:42 +0000

I think video games are rad, but there is still a desire for narrative, and so the printed (and this is a broad definition of printed - I include electronic formats such as the one you are viewing) word will remain relevant. The video game experience has become more flexible and less linear, allowing players to create their own narratives, yes these narratives only exist in the context of the immutable rules of the game. Writing is not beholden to these immutable limitations of hardware and software, and retains the power to open up vast vistas of the imagination.

By: BitterOldPunk

BitterOldPunk — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:53:23 +0000

As a kid, my after-school afternoons often consisted of re-runs of Gilligan’s Island and The Brady Bunch.

I suspect that playing GTA: IV would have been an all-around healthier activity.

Grumblebee is right on, though, when he points out that there’s a sweet spot in gaming where one’s attention/absorption ratio is perfectly balanced — it’s the happy hum of a mind engaged in a pleasing task. Sometimes, after a rough day, I’ll boot up Oblivion just to wander around the virtual woods picking flowers. No goal in mind, no objectives to reach, just puttering about.

So much of gaming is goal-oriented: hit a level, go kill the Foozle, finish a mission, etc. That’s why I love the sandbox-style open-world games. It creates an unstructured environment where “just fucking around” can lead to delightful results. That sort of replicates the kid-in-the-backyard experience: “what happens if I do THIS?”

While I think it’s necessary for growth for kids to test boundaries in the real world, testing simulated boundaries in virtual worlds can be a valuable experience in a well-designed game.

Which totally doesn’t answer the question.

Oh well.

By: FelliniBlank

FelliniBlank — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:44:35 +0000

Thirty-five or forty years ago when I was a sprout, most kids didn’t read books much. Older boys were interested in comic books back then, but not girls. Based on what I see today, if videogames have “replaced” any activities, it’s a) board games and b) outdoor neighborhood games like tag, hide-and-seek, kick the can, bombardment, etc. In my town, you just don’t see many kids playing outside anymore, even in good weather. I mean, you see them, from time to time, walking around or riding bikes — but my God, when I was little, in every season, except on rainy/stormy days, we’d often be outdoors during every daylight hour when we weren’t in school or eating.

By: Josh Millard

Josh Millard — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:17:04 +0000

Oh, I think the assumption is silly too, in a general sense; I just keep encountering it nonetheless, so I figure that framing it in that sense might draw out some reactions in either direction.

For my part, video games didn’t supplanted my pursuit of other activities as a kid — still ran around, I still read books like crazy, I still acted like a little jackass on a regular basis. But as a question of how I spent my time, what proportion went to what activities, it’s a fair question: what would I have been doing if I hadn’t been beating Super Mario Brothers? How would my grades in college have changed if I hadn’t had Counter-Strike around? Etc.

By: grumblebee

grumblebee — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:12:34 +0000

I’m confused by the assumption (if I’m understanding it correctly) that new past-times must replace specific old ones. Even if, say, book-reading declines and video-game-playing increases, it doesn’t follow that video games have replaced books. The two trends my be unrelated.

To me, a better question is — given their popularity — what needs/desires do video games fill?

I’m sure there are many answers to this. I’m not a huge gamer, but to me, they fill several needs. But there’s one that I’ve rarely heard discussed, so I’ll outline it here: they allow me to fine-tune my level of alertness and involvement.

Some activities require immense concentration: you can’t sort of pay attention to a book. If you do, you wind up with that lousy feeling of having read thirty pages without really reading them. On the other hand, sometimes television isn’t involving enough. It doesn’t give me anything to do with my hands. It doesn’t present me with many decisions to make.

Obviously, there are games that require immense concentration — as much as reading, maybe more. But every game is different, and if I shop around, I can find one that perfectly meets my personal needs. For me, there’s a sweet spot between a sort of zen-state, where I’m playing on auto-pilot, and a more alert state where I have to constantly think about what I’m doing. That’s a very special state, and I love it. And games — the right ones — get me there better than anything else.

I think there are traditional activities that are closer to this than books, traditional children’s games or TV. I’d liken video games — at least the way I use them — to knitting or driving.

By: starman

starman — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:42:53 +0000

I don’t know about books, maybe comic books. I think the parents that will encourage their kids to read “real” books would also be the type to limit video games, so I don’t think just because a kid plays a lot of video games means he would otherwise be reading.

Playing outside, definitely. I barely ever see kids playing outside anymore (besides organized sports). Sometimes soccer, but not much else. We used to explore the woods, burn leafs with magnifying glasses, kick the can, baseball, bike, etc, and leave the NES for the rainy days (thanks mom and dad!).

I teach mass media to 17/18-year-old and older students and I ask them if they would limit video games based on what they know now vs. what their parents knew. It’s usually pretty split… some would have no limitations, others would limit it pretty well. Doesn’t seem to be a generational thing, more what their own parents enforced on them.