Slashdot Mirror
Up, Up, Down, Down: Part Three
Younger Americans are used to being denounced as ignorant, violent, obsessive, even uncivilized. Increasingly, they don't care; they've stopped paying attention. Involvement in gaming can be seen as both manifestation and cause this schism, a profoundly significant force in culture and society. Gaming has affected almost everyone who grew up with it -- which is to say, just about half of the country.
Adults may quake at the transformation, but kids are completely at home with the joystick, the key to a new kind of civilization. "They take the powerful sensory presence and participatory formats of digital media for granted. They are impatient to see what comes next," writes Janet Murry of MIT.
How is the influence of gamers showing up in society? Hardly anyone has studed that systematically, but a decade of e-mailing, talking with, teaching, visiting and working with gamers has given me some impressions.
We know something about gamers. They're quick decision-makers, sometimes to the point of impulsiveness. Since their virtual lives depend on fast reactions, their real-life decision making processes become visceral, instinctive. Wishy-washy gamers are unsuccessful gamers, so gamers make a lot of quick decisions and feel confident about them. Therefore, gamers grow impatient when real world institutions and situations plod cluelessly along. Delayed decisions are costly.
Social stereotypes aside, gamers are team players, not loners. They may sit along at their consoles, but ultimately few game alone. They share strategies, tricks and accumulated wisdom on sites all over the Web. They learn to work in pairs and groups, anticipating their teammates' or partners' reactions, learning how to move, build, create and hunt in groups and packs, often with total strangers. When they do game with people they know, they can form powerful social bonds; they came to know their friends' intellects and instincts in unusual depth. (Check out this UC Berkeley study of Sims users.)
Gamers become strategic thinkers. Their imaginations have been continuously stretched. In the same way that chess players learn to think many moves ahead, gamers are always anticipating the games, their moves, and the moves of their teammates and opponents, virtual and human. In a way, gamers are more battle-tested in their decision-making than most people get to be.
And gamers are bringing much of what they've learned to the workplace:
Gareth e-mailed this message after Part One of "Up, Down ... appeared: ".. gaming has also inspired me to take ideas to the software engineers within [my] company. There are several increidle advances in game technology that could be directly applied to the corporate environment. For instance MMORPG's (Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games) have provided a system where people can virtualy interact while still mainting the visual cues that are required for large converstations to take place. This is a key component missing from the standard audio conferencing that occurs in the workplace. Visual cues are absolutely important for maintaining a sense of order during meetings, it prevents the vocal 'free for all' that occurs otherwise."
It seems inevitable that similiar kinds of ideas will be brought by gamers to educational environments, perhaps even politics.
Gamers are story-tellers. They inhabit increasingly imaginative virtual environments; they spent a substantial portion of their formative years interacting with stories, graphics and representations on screens that nearly become part of their neural systems. They are always telling tales, to one another and to themselves. In the mid-1990's computing power had become cheap enough so that companies like Silicon Graphics could build enormously powerful machines devoted to computer simulations, including their Reality Engine, which began to approach the long sought figure of 80 million polygons a second. Like the PS 2, the Reality Engine turned out to have a powerful impact on gaming and virtual reality.
Finally, gamers are smart. Again like chess players -- except that many video games are more complex -- gamers are often mentally over-stimulated. They can grow tense, keyed-up and narcissistic. They can also become obsessive (and yes, irritable) from focusing so intently on a narrative, character or conflict. Needless to say, they're competitive, as well as resourceful and extremely determined. Successful gaming requires a level of patience and commitment rarely associated with entertainment or, for that matter, education.
Kids of this generation will be different from any that has preceded them. But whether they will able to bridge the generational chasm that separated them from their elders, whether they apply their strategic thinking, creativity and problem-solving skills to our broken educational and political systems -- it's too soon to say.
The computer is the most powerful representational medium ever conceived. Seers like Murray have argued that computing should be put to the highest tasks of society. We know that gamers are the new prophets and story-tellers of society, that gaming is approaching a universal generational experience. So gamers are important. It seems clear that the future is in their hands.
if drooling 16 yr olds who play quake and idolize/objectify level designers because they are female and have breasts are our future, then i opt out. come down from your ivory tower much, jon ?
He just comes up with something that he can babble about, that, whether or not anyone cares about it, panders to what he percieves as the interests of the average slashdotter.
I'm not sure what this article us supposed to tell me. It is full of lazy assumptions and stereotypes though:
There are few studies of the effects of gaming, but some traits are increasingly obvious: gamers are often independent, strategic-thinkers and problem solvers.
How is this obvious if there are few studies into gamers? And besides, these traits are found often in non-gamers as well. Lets have some statistics here.
Gamers are the new artists, visionaries, and story-tellers of our time, sparked by astonishingly inventive new technologies like the PS 2. Ready or not, they will become increasingly influential.
Why? Show proof, or at least a line of reasoning.
Involvement in gaming can be seen as both manifestation and cause this schism, a profoundly significant force in culture and society. Gaming has affected almost everyone who grew up with it -- which is to say, just about half of the country.
So has frozen food.
Therefore, gamers grow impatient when real world institutions and situations plod cluelessly along.
So do non-gamers. Show some statistics.
In a way, gamers are more battle-tested in their decision-making than most people get to be.
Sure, but in what way?
Gamers are story-tellers. They inhabit increasingly imaginative virtual environments; they spent a substantial portion of their formative years interacting with stories, graphics and representations on screens that nearly become part of their neural systems. They are always telling tales, to one another and to themselves.
No, they like to talk to others about their gaming experience, just like we like to chat about the weather and about how the traffic to work sucks. That's not the same thing as story-telling.
It seems clear that gaming and gamers are influencing our society, and increasingly so, but I'd like to see a good essay or in-depth study on the subject, not this collection of sloppy statements.
For the record, it's "Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start". :)
Also, this is third in a series? Where? Not that I'm complaining that it wasn't on the Front Page (that's fine with me) but if you're going to start posting to Features, then stay there...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
it worked in a lot of konami games.
I don't think it was ever unlimited lives, though. (A lot of lives, but not unlimited.)
-- Thrakkerzog
"Computer games don't affect kids.
I mean if Pacman affected our generation as kids, we'd all run around in a
darkened room munching pills and listening
to repetitive music."
Gilad.
Pokemon (the gameboy game) helped my 6-year old nephew to:
You mention an exception (a 6 year old kid with ADHD playing gameboy pokemon).
Most kids who play Pokemon, (THE CARD GAME, not the Gameboy one) are older than 6 years old and don't have ADHD. At that same age I read tons Disney comic books, which are clearly much more interesting, imaginative, informative and fun.
I could be wrong, but I believe that "everything has its place" is too idealistic. Some things are just crap and don't deserve the merit that's attributed to them.
Flavio
Pray tell me, what exactly is wrong with people that used to play Magic? Aside from the fact that it swallowed all my money, of course...
:) and there's nothing wrong with those guys.
Aside from the fact you blew all your money and time on a really bad game, not much.
Magic is very time consuming, like pretty much every RPG/Pseudo-RPG card game. You could've spent your time/money on something better.
My objective wasn't to offend you, though. If I did, I'm sorry. I've played magic 3 or 4 times with friends (I've never bought cards myself) and don't like it very much. I also know some people who played Magic (they've outgrown it
I worry about the Pokemon obsession, because it is... well... an obsession. Magic was never like that.
Flavio
Magic appealed to an people of an age that should be capable of making their own choices, while Pokemon aims at little kids who are hardly capable of determining the way they're being messed around with.
:) and turn to another activity. That'd make _yet another outcast by choice_. Another geek. The cycle never ends.
The problem is I'm not used to seeing "little kids who are (...)" playing Pokemon. I see 8, 9, 10 year old kids playing it. That's probably because I'm not in the US and Pokemon was marketed differently here.
See what I worry about?
So what do you do as a parent, allow your kids to take part in the hype, or make them feel terrible for not having the same toys as the other kids?
I'd try to show my kids something that would make them think "damn, Pokemon sucks!" (not with those actual words
From when I was 7 years old on I read Disney comics like crazy, and there was no way I'd change such activities to watching the Pokemon cartoon or playing the Pokemon card game. I'd play other card games and certainly other video games, but not Pokemon.
But you see, your kids are not like yourself. I don't know what would happen, since I don't have any. I won't have to worry about that in a while. Isn't unmarried life bliss? =)
Flavio
But whether they will able to bridge the generational chasm that separated them from their elders, whether they apply their strategic thinking, creativity and problem-solving skills to our broken educational and political systems -- it's too soon to say.
You can say that again. What will become of the Pokemon generation? Kids that were brought up playing probably the stupidest card games around, dealing with even less strategy than "Magic: the Gathering" players did a short time before them.
It's interesting to see that while thinking/feeling games like Metal Gear Solid 2, Deus Ex, System Shock 2 are released and become quite successful (with the exception, alas, of Looking Glass Studios), we have another contemporary generation obsessed with the dumbest game ever.
Flavio
He isn't paid for this stuff, right?
They're living someone elses vision. Game developers, they're the visionaries, and by creating compelling games, they're leading the gamers into their vision of entertainment/fantasy/etc...
But some kid who gets RSI by age 15 from playing too much Playstation after school is hardly a "visionary".
Granted I didn't read the entire Katz article, but then how many people here did?
The media seems to be denouncing video games for all that is wrong with kids these days. Maybe this is true. Maybe it's not.
Reading over what JonKatz has written here... I have heard every bonus that people get from video games before. In relation to other sorts of games.
Anyone here remember Avalon Hill board games? Especially Third Reich, Russian Campaign, or Panzerblitz?
For those of you who don't know, Avalon Hill was a company that made board games -- in particular, war games. These didn't just encourage independent thinking on the tactical or strategic level -- they required it to win!
Now, I've never heard anyone blame Avalon Hill games for anything...
The other category... Talking about controversial...
Dungeons and Dragons in particular. A discussion on why the media has always disliked it should not be necessary.
Role-playing games with people encourage the same thinking and independence as video games. This was actually proved in a study at some point, but I've forgotten most of the details. (What do you want from me? That was four and a half years ago that I looked it up...)
But the video games are lacking in one aspect.
Wargames and role-playing games also encourage social interaction. You have to have a live opponent in Russian Campaign, or three for Stellar Conquest. And role-playing games have to involve a small group of people. Video games support no such interaction for the most part. Your exceptions tend to be deathmatches in Quake or the like.
Yes, video games are nice. And Squaresoft's stuff is just awesome to behold. ("They can do that?") But give me the interaction in RPGs any day.
And, if you need me, I'll be planning next semester's Amber campaign. --CAE
--CAE
You miss the point.
Books are wonderful, and I love to read. Kids should read, but to be honest, books are pretty easy. They don't require you much beyond comphrension. You don't make decisions while reading a book, your actions are not relevant.
Learning the cause and effect of actions is a good thing, and one of the strongs points of gameplay, be it electronic or a traditional board games.
// EJ
Less Talk, More Beer.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Select, Start. Poof, 2 players, 30 lives each and you're ready to beat Contra.
;), we can learn stuff. Yeah thats right, stuff. Sure. Thats the ticket. Now its 'educational.' Yay. Ok, back to my Rogue Spear (Covert Ops is crap) and Unreal Tournament. And any truly hardcore gamer knows that Q3Arena SUCKS!
Jon Katz, your assertion that gamers become impatient is not entirely true. Patience is something gaming can teach you. I'm overly patient with everything as a result. From the days of trying to dial up to the local l33t BBS to get the newest update for Doom (1.666 is still the coolest version) and sitting in front of the computer, praying to your modem that it will connect and not get a busy signal, patience is forced upon you, or you will go mad.
Fighting games in their early stages were a lot more quick decision oriented, but now all the Tekken Tag crap requires upmost patience and timing. Trust me, thats how all those Asian kids kick my ass all the time. I've got patience, but the timing is awkward and I'm use to old school fighters where as soon as you press an attack button, they actually attack.
Hardcore gamers are better off for being gamers. Perhaps we are a bit unhealthy with our need to play for hours a day, but not only do we have the sweested hand-eye coordination
-=Gargoyle_sNake
-=-=-=-
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
After reading the article, and subsequently reading a lot of people's comments, something glaringly obvious came to mind. I'm going to somewhat generalize here, so take this in stride and just think about it for a minutes. There is a difference between those of us who were born in the early-mid seventies ("Atari Generation"), and those, like myself, who were born in the late seventies/early eighties. If you experienced Atari games as a child you most likely played games that weren't so much intellectually involving but rather relied mainly on reflexive motor control. Many of you then went on to the early PC's (286, etc) and played games on those machines (such as King's Quest, stuff from InfoCom, etc). While I am no way implying that those are "inferior" games (quite the contrary!), they lack the degree on interactivity between the human mind and the computer that Jon is trying to stress. Those of us who started at an early age with Nintendo enjoyed many games which not only were stimulating content-wise, but graphically they were richer than anything that had proceded them. of course their were a load of games that were crap, but just try to frame this in the context of the good ones (Zelda, Final Fantasy, Tecmo Bowl, etc)...well I liked Tecmo Bowl at least. By the time many of us moved on to PC's, we had been conditioned and used to that type of interactivity, and so were better adapted to the new types of games that started coming out (such as Doom, Dune, etc)...I dont know if I actually have a point to this rant, rather just consider it an observation.
...I learned playing the Combat Cartridge on the Atari 2600....
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
Finally, I must say this was a good article from JK. This is my personal view, so, others may think I'm a troll. But it seems it's easier to write something good when we are part of. Anyway, despite the flames, congratulations for this one.
that is a different arguement. The reason all the women in games are unaturally attractive is the same reason all cosmo models float away in a stiff breeze. the gaming industry isn't unique in it's portrayal of women. besides the men in these games are always perfectly proportioned. how many of the gamers can say that their chest is much bigger than their stomach? There are no fat, blind heros just like there are no fat deaf heroines. games are a fantasy escape and people want to fantasize about perfect bodies.
I also take exception to the idea that 1/3 of gamers are women. In my gaming experience (roughly 15 years) i have met maybe a dozen women gamers. contrast that to hundreds of men and i would put percentages more around 5-10 percent. As such games are designed for men. or rather for young men. beautiful women are what young men enjoy looking at.
-1 Troll
/. paycheck
Katz recipe for writing an article:
1) Pick a topic that involves a lot of the slashdot readership (e.g. gaming, high schools)
2) Dream up some profound societal issue related to 1), and fire up the katzian bullshit generator to write an article about it
3) Hope troll article successfully generates lots of responses and big
The definition of "gamer" needs to be clarfied before we start going overboard with any future predictions about their behavior. The vast majority of those who play console and PC games are likely to be casual users, participating in game playing activity for less than an hour a day.
The type of game skills that various different types of games develop are highly varied (strategy versus sports versus action, for example).
Video games (like all programs) rely on hard-and-fast rules. How will those hard-core gamers (with the highest levels of game "training") handle real-life situations where the rules are not clearly stated, leave a lot of room for interpretation and don't clearly distiguish a "winner." I fear they will handle it poorly.
Katz sayeth:
"sparked by astonishingly inventive new technologies like the PS 2."
I thought that the PS/2 croaked in the '80's. Good keyboard/mouse connector, though...
This page accidentally left blank
i go to raves a lot, does this count?
actually, my infatuation with blowing shit up in grade 7/8 led to me reading college chem texts i took out of the library (of course, i went straight to redox first) and subsequently being able to sleep through chem for the rest of my scholastic career. so dont knock blowing shit up :)
What i always find interesting, is when people find every reason to say that games are the ultimate evil in computing. They really have no idea about them at all, they are the people who get motion sickness playing mario kart 64. (yes i do know someone like that)
These are the people who claim that by playing computer games, youths lose their grasp on reality and become insane, acting out game scenarios, and racking up frags in the school cafeteria. However, those accusations are completely unfounded. Most gamers are very stable people, and probably have a better grip on reality than most, which is why they play games, to clear their minds of the awful junk they've had to put up with that day.
The only people who go nuts, and act out games in real life are people who had no grip on reality in the first place. They are people to probably spent the first five years of their lives in front of a TV. These are the people who may ultimately ruin gaming for the rest of us.
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
Yes, but she still wears heels. Funny, that...
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Interesting. One may attack the unrealistic images of women portrayed in video games, but then to commit the hypocrisy of not also mentioning the unrealistic portrayal of women in the general media is unfair. Maxim and AF, Playboy and Penthouse, movies with ditzy blondes and sultry redheads all rain images of the so trim [American model] feminine mystique upon the worlds youth. Mattel has been promoting the never-aging Barbie lifestyle since the time of my grandparents. Emaciated 6 foot runway models with sub-100 pound weights have been the role models for little Suzie?s *proper* career for decades.
True, most of the men in the marketing and design departments don?t want to deal with the fact that ugly, small breasted or even (oh my god?) fat people exist. Rather we live with the images these men believe the average Joe (or Jane) want to see. While I?d rather we have a society that believes in judging people by what?s on the inside, we currently get to enjoy (or hate) a world where, if any visual clue is given, man and women are immediately compared with the standards set up by men who have to pay for their
"You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
Katz says, "Their imaginations have been continuously stretched", but I'd have to disagree. One of the reasons that I've pretty much given up on gaming (I occasionally play a few rounds when I'm bored and want to unstress) is that I always felt too limited. That was why I originally started to learn computer programming; I wanted to design a game that allowed for more creativity. In the process, I realized that programming quenched my thirst for creativity. Programming gives me a well-defined set of rules and methods, and allows me to decide what to do with them.
Another reason that I eventually gave up on gaming was because there was very little reward, in my opinion. Sure, you could beat the game or find all of the secrets and then brag to your friends...but somehow that just wasn't satisfying. When I program, I create something that serves a purpose. For me, the ultimate satisfaction comes from sitting back and looking at a finished program and saying, "Yeah, I did that. The computer now does this-and-such because I told it how."
I didn't think it was misleading. If he'd meant median, he would have said median. Was he supposed to write "average (and I really do intend mean average here)"?
...would get you the following results:
Contra- [at title] thirty lives for both players (though I think the B, A bit had to be done twice to do that, otherwise it was 30 for the first guy).
Super C- [at title] eight lives. A measly EIGHT.
Gradius (NES) [in game, paused] - options, missiles, laser, shield- can only be used once.
Gradius (SNES) [in game, paused] - blows up the ship. Use the shoulder buttons instead of the control pad left and right and you bag a full power up suite that can be used, if I remember correctly, either three times in the game, or a couple of times per level.
The code also does something for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtes, but I forget what. If you have a NES game made by Konami, try it!
Ok, if you'd told me that game DESIGNERS are the new yada yada yada of our time, I'd be with you. Gamers aren't artists any more than moviegoers are artists. They're consumers. They plunk down their cash and take it and enjoy it. I'm not calling them stupid, I play games and go to movies, but I'm saying that although it may take intelligence to fully appreciate a game, there is no creativity whatsoever involved.
Write a column on how the video game is an amazing art form that's going to change the world, and I'll read it. But don't you dare write it without researching. Play Infocom's text adventures, play some of the newer text adventures written in the Infocom engine (some are truly brilliant), play Sierra's 80's and early 90's "Quest" titles all the way through, and compare them to today's games, for better or for worse. You might write something really insightful.
----
grep -ri 'should work'
--
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
Gaming does not make all decisions "impulsive" or "visceral." Quick decision making skills ARE imperative in gaming, that's true, but in my experience, the only time such decisions are 100% absolutely necessary is in the middle of a FPS or action game.
I know for a fact that quick, gut instinct decisions are the fast way to lose a RTS style game.
I think gaming creates a mental structure for BETTER decisions, such as on-the-fly strategic decisions (+100 health vs +100 armor), and long-term strategic decisions (bridgebuilding vs philosophy) made in an accelerated environment.
Actually, I think it's more like 99.
Lemmings was what did it for me...
I was blown away by that music, and I played that game for hours and hours
A few paragraphs down, you say what's really important - that you're making a generalization on an improper conjecture.
Katz isn't saying that people who only play games are going to be the next world leaders - he's saying that people who play games are probably more likely to succeed.
i agree that successful people are likely to be gamers, but i don't think that specifically means you have to be a gamer to succeed. the successful people i know - a fair number of people - play games in some form or another. sometimes it's just solitaire, pinball, or pac-man... sometimes it Quake3 or UT... sometimes its Final Fantasy or Everquest. but these are people who can manage their time, and manage to relax. maybe they learn 'crucial, real-world problem-solving' - or maybe they play games because they're good at these things anyway. you'll find that the games people play relate to the type of person they are.
it seems to me you're biased against gamers. just providing an alternate viewpoint.
-lw
Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
I hear that. In fact, I'll bet more people can complete the phrase "Do not pass Go. Do not collect ..." than can complete "Up, Up, Down, Down..."
To say that 'these people are special because they play computer games' doesn't make much sense to me.
No, Jon, that was not a study of Sims Users, but a study of the amount of information the Internet carries by the School of Information Management and Systems at Berkeley. Geez, John, you could try actually following the link and backtracking to find the actual source of something....
Disclaimer: I didn't read the previous 2 parts.
I am 35 years old. I am a gamer. I do not play computer games. They are boring. There I said it. Whew! I feel so much better now.
My first gaming memories were my father teaching me to play chess at the age of 4. He gave me books to read to help, "Chess Self-Teacher" being one of them. Though my reading levels weren't good enough to take in all the information in the books, the chess diagrams were wonderful. By the age of 5, I was beating my 30+ year old uncles and writing solitaire games in chess notation, descriptive, not the algebraic.
Soon came Monopoly, Scrabble, Clue, and a host of others. My role among the neighborhood kids was in reading the rules and teaching other kids to play. Solitaire games are boring.
By the time I was 13, I discovered wargames from such publishers as Avalon Hill, SPI and the like. At 15, I was playing RPGs, mostly AD&D from TSR.
Now, I own over 100 wargames and run a gaming club in Massachusetts. Gaming is fun, instructive and all the other wonderful things you talk about.
However, I find most computer games to be glorified eye candy. Additionally, I can't seem to justify the cost of the game versus the cost of the old-fashioned cardboard and paper wargames I currently play. Here's why:
1. Platform problems. My Performa 6116CD, even with its NewerTech upgrade card, can't seem to run most games. Why? (1) Most computer games are for the PC. (2) Current computer games require faster graphics cards. So now I have to purchase the latest and greatest computing platform (Windoze to ensure maximum flexibility in titles purchased). Paper wargames only need one platform: a table. You buy the game and find a flat surface to play on. No upgrading necessary.
2. Errata. Computer wargames need patches. Some need excessive support. Paper wargames can be fixed with a pencil.
3. Viewing area. Computer games are limited to the user's monitor size. Paper wargames, such as Europa, can have maps up to 8-10' on a side. Yes, feet! Try viewing this playing surface on even the largest computer monitor.
4. Context. Most computer games lack a historical context. The strategies are simplistic. One notable exception that I've seen in the news is a game called Europa Universalis (not related to Europa). This computer port of an existing paper wargame adds a credible AI engine and supports multiple players. Hopefully, this is the wave of the future. But, take note, what makes this game exciting is the function, not the form.
I could go on. In short (too late!) I prefer substance to flash. Give me exciting strategic situations. Shoot-em-ups in a maze searching for treasure, points or what-have-you is definitely not.
JMHO.
So, try reading the whole article, then. The "not everyone plays games" point is totally irrelevant. The article talks about kids that *do* play games.
Katz bashing is usually fun, but let's try to keep it relevant.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
I don't know about you, but the games I play have as much reading as a book, and often better character development and dialogue.
I don't have the sources but my wife works in NeuroPsycology re: biological causes for behavior, and this is what I heard.
One topic that is starting to get accepted as a modern phenomenon is the new breed of Neurosurgeons and their abilities dramatically exceeding their teachers. Apparently one cited cause it the increased training the new breed had in early adolescents with, that's right, video games.
Increased exposure to hand/eye coordination tests throughout developmental periods looks to be a common factor in the "new breed of doctors" and there seems to be a direct correlation to who had the most "gaming" and who's a good microsurgeon.
I need a Playstation Mom!. I want to be a doctor when I grow up!
"Computer games don't affect kids. I mean if Pac Man had affected us as kids, now we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, bumping into people, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
hehe
well trolled.
Glad to know the leaders of tomorrow will are today's morbidly obese kids hellbent (excuse me, h31183n7) on getting the latest warez.
Some of us want to kick back and blow shit up; it'd be nice if we were developing aesthetic sensibilites and leadership ability and "thinking outside the box" or whatever else at the same time, but it just ain't happening.
No new paradigm, just a newer way to waste what little free time we've got on our hands.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Katz, why do you do this? First you find a conclusion and then you apply logic to reach that conclusion.
Gamers are nothing special. Nor are they some kind of new breed as you continue to note.
Gamers are humans. There are a lot of good gamers, and a lot of bad gamers.
Good gamers tend to be more creative, often have better physical reflexes, are very open minded.
Bad gamers are just as whiny, annoying, and wasteful as other below average human beings.
You have taken an elite group, those "good gamers" and called them gamers as if they are the only gamers in the world. This is the number one flaw in your logic that you continue to commit to. Otherwise this article isn't nearly as bad as others.
It still tries to paint gaming as something more than it is. Good Gaming is a result, not a cause, of creative thinking and reasoning. Some gamers who even look like they can play the game well are in fact the type of people are just stuck in a rut.
One thing I've noticed is that lots of gamers simply try everything. They spend their entire weekend without sleep just working on something to find some trick or trap. A creative person may be able to find that secret in a few hours. An average gamer will spend the whole weekend. They both found it, one took longer... who's more creative?
Jon, do us a favor and go to journalism school. I mean, are you TRYING to be a John Dvorak clone???????
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
..not quite.
I thought you were going somewhere interesting with the complaint that JK says "the 'average' child spends.." rather than "on average, a child spends" or "the average amt. of time a child..." or something along those lines. While in fact JK's usage is entirely standard, this would raise some interesting issues about the interface between mathematical and natural languages.
However, it seems that you are in fact just trying to jump on the the Trash-Jon-Katz bandwagon, a pastime on slashdot second only to First-Posting in poularity and lack of real content.
Your example is incorrect. The average amount of time spent reading SF in your office is in fact (10+10+0*8)/(10) = 2 hrs. The average person in your office is an ill-defined quantity, since 'person' is not a numeric random variable, but if you accept the standard usage, the above would be the correct answer for how much SF they read. I think what you mean to say is that the MEDIAN amount of time spent watching TV, or better yet, the MODE, is 0. That would be correct.
Your example is a good illustration of some basic statistical ideas, but not of JKs misuse thereof. In fact, he says in the line right after the one you object to that "some kids play less, some more" so I really don't understand your objection at all. But if you're going to split hairs over his use of statistical quantities, check yourself first.
Gamers are the new artists, visionaries, and story-tellers of our time
oh pu-leez.
Their interactive instincts often collide unhappily with the traditioins and institutions of a static, passive world.
this is rediculous. i used to play a lot of games a as a kid. now i play almost none. why? because playing video games is "passive." sure it's not as passive as watching TV (which i don't do either), but they're hardly participatory to any real extent.
i hate computer games becuase they are limiting. no matter how good a game, you're still confined to what the programmers and desiners had in mind. Katz' take on the matter would definitely apply to those creating the games, but the little brat playing them for hours at a time? i don't think so.
i agree that games are "evil" like the mainstream media likes to portray sometimes, but they're hardly "revolutionary" as Katz has been proclaiming.
you want to participate? get away from the damned TV (or game machine) and go do something.
(i ignored parts one and two, why couldn't i keep away from part three? oh why!?)
- j
Well, I was thinking of this from an external point of view--meaning another person's point of view.
The only way to know anything about anyone besides yourself is through their actions. So from an external point of view, the actions are defining.
I think your point is that actions are symptomatic of who you are, and I agree with that too. You have an idea in your head, and then you express it. You don't express an idea and then, epiphany, you have it in your head.
Maybe I am just speaking nonsense. I do that sometimes.
--Scott
What are you even talking about? Nowhere in the article does he say that every child in america plays for 49 minutes a day (or more).
I think who you are is defined by everything you do. This includes things done for fun.
Now, i'm not going to go out on limbs and say that gamers are smart, decision makers, leaders, and everything else that JonKatz wants them to be. However, I will say that what they're doing is better than rotting in front of the boob tube. And at least they're not just sitting there! The stereotypes on gamers are horrible. I'd rather be a gamer (which i'm kinda not) than just sit on my ass and watch TV (which I don't either).
Damn, now that I think about it, what *DO* i do with all my time?! :)
Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
> astonishingly inventive new technologies like the PS 2
I don't get it. What's so astonishing about a game platform? The PS2 is purely evolutionary.
Dave
You do a great job of focusing on the positive aspects of gamers, then immediately highlight the negative aspects of the status quo. What about the negative qualities of gamers? Social problems, for example, a strong aversion to tried-and-true methods ("that method is old, therefore it must be bad, I'll re-invent the wheeel"). The way you go on about gamers, you could say the same thing about high-school football jocks (great teamwork abilities, goal-oriented, hard-driven). Yeah, but dumb-as-a-rock! Come on, Jon, you make it sound as though gamers are our saviours, but they're not. They're just pale-skinned, socially-inept kids with well above average problem solving skills. They're not managers or business people, just generally great at solving difficult, but narrowly-scoped problems.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
average=mean statisitic that describes the most number of people=mode i.e. 'the average family has 2.5 children'. I think the artilce is unsubstantiated as hell but If you wanted to flame there were better places to do it.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
My comment should have said; average=mean statisitic that describes the most number of people=mode i.e. 'the average family has 2.5 children'. I think the artilce is unsubstantiated as hell but If you wanted to flame there were better places to do it.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Computer games don't affect kids. I mean if Pacman affected us as kids, we'd all run around in a darkened room munching pills and listening to repetitive music.
(You know the valleys of cleavage, the thin waists and the high pitched giggles...)
Yes, boys everywhere are growing up to be corset-wearing Goths
8-)
In a book written probably back in the 80s, Amusing Ourselves to Death, the author makes a point that news and other "informative" programs had to use "entertainment" methods in order to capture viewers.
This is actually fairly obvious if you look at the History Channel, how much information is disseminated, how much the viewer carries with them, the general breadth and depth of the programs. Since most people watch TV passively, it's really not very much. Look at the TV news, and it's the same story - stories are intended to provoke controversy, because that is what sells, but not to actually inform.
Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with watching TV for the entertainment of it. But it generally isn't expanding your mind. Even thumbing through a copy of Scientific American is more useful in that regard.
Programmers have a hard time getting laid. Think about it. Specialization in one dimension of experience is often effected at the expense of another. Like a blind man getting super-hearing but in reverse. You are what you get high off of. Would you choose to fuck a plastic box instead of a real live girl if you knew better? Do you know better? Why do brainiacs have big swollen brains, skinny worthless bodies and no social skills? Are we going to be a race of dwarves mumbling over our supercustomized masturbation machines?
obviously you didnt read the artice well.. i agree with the writer for the most part...
and your example is flawed... i played games and do play games about x*4 or x*5 from the numbers he gave a day... and i program for a multi billion dollar company making 60k/year my first year out of college this year... so according to your argument which is not at all valid where do i fit in ? yes thats right... he has good points to make and though his numbers may not be dead on yours are even further off than his...
-------------------- Success is a Journey, NOT a Destination....
Ever see a tv commercial on CNN? Look at the negative unrealistic stereotypical portrayals of female actions and of the female body on there.
This idea is in every medium. Not just in videogames.
no
Actually, it's thirty lives per continue, and you should only hit select if you're playing a two-player game.
The kids who spend 0 minutes playing them are usually motivated by other things, such as reality. THESE are the kids who will run the world. They're the ones who have learned the necessary social and leadership skills. The kids who spend x*6 minutes playing the games will spend the next 40 years of their lives shoveling the 21st century equivalent of coal, mad at the unfairness of the world that lets "suits" who make all the money.
What about the ones who spend x*1 or x*2 minutes playing games, and spending the remainder x*4 minutes learning the things that the x*0 people do? I play a lot of games, but I am also developing my leadership skills through ownership of a business, and have taken interest in leadership development seminars and classes. I have a feeling that someone who can appeal to this generation and younger generation will have enough clout in a public office to keep special interest groups in check.
Actually, a study was commissioned by the paranoid politicians here in Oz. /. at the time, but guess what.....rejected.
I submitted it as a story to
I'll see if I can find it again, as it demonstrated that gaming is actually good for you !
Life is just a bowl of All Bran - Small Faces
Found it !
Try this or the PDF of the report is here
Life is just a bowl of All Bran - Small Faces
Found it !
Try this or the PDF of the report is here
Life is just a bowl of All Bran - Small Faces
Why? Because it's become the 'in' thing to narrowly focus on the 'evils' the men of the world force on women in the world, as if they were helpless animals, unable to fend for themselves. Just as it's the normal assumption that almost all domestic abuse is commited by men against women, and all sexual harassment is done by men against women, this trend is hardly transparent. All in all, the stereotypes in games are no different than the stereotypes you'd see in movies, on TV or in advertising, and they indeed affect both sexes, despite what these 'research' projects may seem to imply. Very few of the games I have ever seen have included a scrawny geek, an overweight bully, or anyone else who would be considered a 'sub-optimal' human being.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
I agree with you entirely on your point that people do tend to gravitate to the type of games that suits their skills the best, and usually end up enhancing those same skills because of it. Again, this is just practice. I'm unlikely to choose recreation that doesn't suit my skills because it would become frustrating and wouldn't end up being very enjoyable, nullifying the entire reason for gaming to begin with, unless I had other overriding reasons for choosing the game. It's no different than any job you might take -- you're more likely to enjoy and excel at a job that matches your personal skill set well, than one you take just to make money to make ends meet. When you enjoy your work, you do your work better, usually helping to refine those same skills further, possibly forcing you to develop others.
Like anything, balance is needed, because playing video games 24/7 won't make the bills go away, or give you all the skills you need to survive in the world. They are a hobby and should be treated as such. I'll be the first to say that I have played far too many video games and other parts of my life have suffered because of this, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Gaming can be a productive waste of a few spare hours that would otherwise be wasted on television.
I personally think that Jon is overstating the effects games have in our lives. I get the feeling that most people responding to this thread read it as ego-stroking, which it may well have been, and indeed Jon is showing that he too has a narcissistic side to his personality. It's quite unfair to state that all gamers are this way or that gaming somehow develops this negative trait in all gamers, especially if you consider that a large number of these same people who do partake in gaming also have a lack of self-confidence.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
All this is well and good, but I'm wondering what Sort of positive social effects they would attribute to games such as Leisure Suit Larry. I suppose seduction is an art and does require strategic thinking. The other benefit, I suppose would be it would increase reproduction rates amongst strategie thinkers...
You're using her as bait, Master!
Well, anyway, philosophers have spent millenia arguing this, so I suppose we can just agree to disagree too :)
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
AMEN. I hardly ever post here, but check the news at least once a day. Something about Katz's articles have always bothered me; while he always has well thought-out opinions and some valid points, the patronizing tone seems more intended to gain favor with a large demographic of readers rather then providing unbiased food for thought. How about recognizing that perhaps us geeks have faults too and it's not all society's fault? Specifically, obsessive game playing for hours a day - which I do - causes plenty of problems, ones that imho outweigh the benefits. Game playing is a hobby, one that I love, but there's nothing really noble about it. Saying that there is does a great disservice to those troubled teens who actually should get away from their Playstations and computers for an hour or two a day. -mati
In my brief experience (played a few computer games as a teenager) the arcade-type ones improved my reflexes, but mostly in the specific scenario of the game (e.g. I would be able to dodge enemy ships, but this ability wouldn't help me with a shooter; I would have to learn new reflexes for that). I did martial arts for 2 years and I have quite slow reflexes there - being able to play Space Invaders at double-speed didn't help at all.
With the other games I played (mostly adventure types) the focus was always on finding the missing key to the puzzle. This was beneficial in the real world; I can think of many different things to try; but these games did not develop actual strategic skills. What passed for strategy was essentially random behaviour until the solution was uncovered.
My also brief experience of young gamers (in the 10-15yr range) is that they tend to be passive recipients of technology - in other words, users not creators. As another poster said, they're the consumers. Their role is to buy the game, and play the game.
At 10 years old I was designing and building simple electronic circuits. I was programming in BASIC (sob, sob). By 15, I knew Fortran and Pascal and 2 assembler languages. By 16 I was extending my computer's capabilities using circuits I had designed myself (e.g. the Trs-80 wasn't really designed to take 256k of paged memory). By 18 I was into C, Lisp, Prolog and Unix. And guess what - it was mostly through playing around that I learnt these things.
I'm reasonably successful now, and in hindsight it was due to doing a lot of playing. Playing with technology, not playing games.
most (if not all) of the traits he points out are likely not caused by playing the games, but are instead what causes them to play the games. if they are smart and are puzzle sovers and inquisitive, then they will like the game. but if you take a mentally retarded kid and put him down in from of myst, albert einstein you will not make - you will just have some retarded kid playing myst and possibly not all that well.
- --
and for god's sake, I'm not trying to rip on retarded kids...
-----------------------------------------------
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Their interactive instincts often collide unhappily with the traditioins (sic) and institutions of a static, passive world.
Are you saying the artificial worlds in games (where your controls are limited to half a dozen buttons or so) are less interactive than the real world (where the possibilities are virtually infinite for any given situation)?
I think the opposite is true. Perhaps what you meant to say was "When it comes to making friends and asking people out, many gamers helplessly search for the A button..." ;-)
Why does Katz take it at face value that gaming makes you a smarter, more articulate team player and simultaneously reject out of hand the possibility that games can make you violent?
It seems like Katz's bias is really shining through, here. If Katz is admitting that games can have all of these positive effects, he has to admit they might have negative consequences, too -- something he would never concede.
This is the same kind of logic flaw that a lot of people run into in racist arguments. For example, lots of people think they are doing American Indians a favor by asserting that American Indians are naturally in touch with the land and with nature. But if they admit that, then they also have to admit that American Indians might naturally be lazy drunks.
Katz wants it both ways, and he can't have it.
CueCat Java Tools at http://www.popbeads.org/Software
If you watch TV news, you know less about the world than if you just drank gin straight from the bottle.
"Gamers are the new artists, visionaries, and story-tellers of our time, sparked by astonishingly inventive new technologies like the PS 2."
Do you mean the game programmers? How are the gamers the story tellers?
In Ogre Battle 64, there are multiple ways of going through the game, and your choices affect the rest of the game. I posted to my webpage everything that happened to me in the game, even the fact that I got the worst ending possible. In that way, I am a storyteller of sorts. If I write a walkthrough for Dragon Warrior IV (hypothetically) I'm a storyteller. But if you play through something fairly linear (Final Fantasy VII), you're just a participant, not a storyteller. You're not giving the developers the artistic credit they deserve...
Oh yeah, people who write battle reports for games (battlereports.com) are good storytellers. I mean, some of them go through elaborate lengths to write up entertaining brs, even though each and every one is played on Lost Temple *ahem*, the flash, the animation, the music, the wording all come together to make entertaining story telling.
So gamers are storytellers of sorts, but you're not giving the developers enough credit, and you could have used more examples.
Chill in a bnet chat room for a while. You'll see why I take offense to the stereotype that gamers are smart. Be careful there =)
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
Ok, on one level I can see how it is reasonable that a whole lot of activities, including gaming, might improve certain related skills like "strategic thinking." However, I do not think that this is specific to gaming, which can also has negative side effects: sedentary lifestyle, limiting interaction with humans, excess play/transient addiction...
On the same note, one might argue that sports are just the same, right? Sports can increase physical health, motivation, ambition, and teamwork. Of course sports can also contribute to aggression, groupthink, and be done in excess.
Oh, and looking at pr0n can have benefits too: improved attention to visual detail, increased hand and wrist strength, ehancement of ascetic sense...
While gaming may deserve status slightly above being considered a useless and idle diversion, it's still gaming and it's primary purpose is still just for fun.
Instead of a general study on how gamers are diffrent from non-gamers, studies should be done on how RPG gamers differ from FPS gamers, or how Tekken gamers differ from Infocom gamers. I mean, obviously, gamers are going to me MORE attentive than non-gamers, certain gamers will be sharper, while diffrent style gamers will be more aggresive. It's the diffrent styles of games that we should look into, not the diffrence between gamer and non-gamer.
If you want to bring up hypocrisy: how about not mentioning the unrealistic portrayal of MEN? Not too many male game players match up to the tall, square-jawed, hypermuscular, broad-shouldered and thin-waisted male characters. Why is this considered to be harmless (or even positive), while unrealistic portrayals of women are considered to be part of some vast misogynistic conspiracy?
Yeah it's useless to save Aug "princesses" from counter-terrorist "evil dragonlords" every day. You aren't a gamer, are you? If you think there's a problem with playing computer games, you have a problem.
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
Gamers are the new artists, visionaries, and story-tellers of our time Explain to me how sitting alone at home playing a computer game is more artistic, visionary, and storytelling that being with real live people actually creating something?
There are probably quite a few drug addicts of your generation who would quite happy sitting in that room with the pills and music. And there are a few (not the majority) of kids today who might act out their FPS experiences.
But the bottom line is that it is the way in which the individual thinks, not what he does.
My SIG is a SG-552 Commando
I'm sorry, but as a real (as opposed to social) scientist, I can't become excited by this sort of research. Folks claim that game playing improves reaction time, spacial awareness etc. This may well be true, but (a) we need to directly measure these factors and (b) consider whether they are useful for anything other than playing computer games better (not everyone can work as a fighter pilot). If they are only useful for playing games better, than that is not a problem, it just means that they can't be claimed as a net gain to society.
More importantly, are their any serious health effects? Again, something that can actualy be measured. Obviously, children are getting fatter, but that could just as easily be explained by television. But what about RSI? Where I work, huge effort is out into preventing diseases caused by excessive computer use. Might similar conditions effect excessive game players?
Maybe they are very difficult to measure (how do you have a control group when practically all children play computer games), but has anyone actually tried?
I have seen gamers complain that there is no evidence that excessive game playing causes no harm. Well, maybe that is true, but one cannot then present unsubstantiated claims that it does any good.
Unlimited lives in Contra, if I recall correctly.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
Hmmm... well, I've historically voted with my dollars for games that contain gore, but I understand there's a large market for games that contain bush, too. Nobody ever wants to acknowledge that they went for bush, though. Too embarassing, I think, and they fear what their peers would think.
If someone could come up with a game with both bush AND gore, hell, they've got it made.
NO CARRIER
There are few studies of the effects of gaming, but some traits are increasingly obvious: gamers are often independent, strategic-thinkers and problem solvers.
To whom? The studies? What studies? Cite please!
Gaming has affected almost everyone who grew up with it -- which is to say, just about half of the country.
Ignoring the lack of grammar, half a century? How did games in the 1950s differ from games in, say the 1850s?
We know something about gamers. They're quick decision-makers, sometimes to the point of impulsiveness.
Again, cite please, otherwise it just seems you are pulling "facts" out of your arse. You earlier said they were problem solvers and strategic thinkers. Doesn't this contradict impulsiveness?
We know that gamers are the new prophets and story-tellers of society
How do we know that? Please enlighten us about what story an FPS deathmatch player is telling. Or did you mean a Sim player? Or an MMORPG? Or are you just randomly choosing anything that might back up your point, assuming you have a point.
So gamers are important. It seems clear that the future is in their hands.
Are they? Is it? Randomly collecting a few half-truths and out-of-context opinions, mixed up with some verbal diahorrea does not an argument make.
...astonishingly inventive new technologies like the PS 2
..the PS 2...turned out to have a powerful impact on gaming and virtual reality
Excuse me? So far, there's absolutely nothing special about the PS2, compared to current PC games or even Dreamcast. Maybe it's got some potential, but potential doesn't write great games by itself.
The only powerful impact the PS2 has had so far is emptying the wallets of those that didn't get a pre-order.
If computer games really affected children later in life then all those people who used to play pacman for hours and hours would now be running around munching little pills and listening to repetative music all the time!
> look like Lara or Johanna Dark in real life.
I know lots of women who look like lara croft, Joanna Dark and the girls of DOA2. At the same time. I've even dated a couple. Hell, I'm dating one right now.
The antialiasing can get a little distracting on bright days though... not that I'm complaining.
My other sig is also a
i love trolls. trolls are my bitch. This is the best troll ever. post. piss off. destroy society. repeat.
______
"Sorry, but I don't there's anything charming about ignorance and carelessness." -LordNimon
I agree. Many children gain an understanding about the world through experiences they have as children. As toys and games colide, many more children will grow up learning about space, science and history without books, but with interactive experiences that are developed with technology. All I Want For Xmas is A PS2, a PS2,....
Ummm... that's not a bad thing is it? damn! out of pills again...gotta go.
Memories! Civ is where i learned how to use a hex editor. Dune is the game that almost destroyed me in highschool. I bought a soundblaster for that game. I remember the whoosh of the rockets when your turrets would fire. I remember the obsession....
Thanks. That really relieved me! Now who moderated that down?
Definitions:
XML: Leading the way to make the web a ebiz thing
Aren't us nerds, geeks, and outcasts already limited in social intellect. I have Asperger's Syndrome, and I am a 14 year old high school student. No matter if I like it or not, I can not communicate socially, and I've been that way since birth. I've never had a girlfriend, and never had any "neurotypical" friends outside the close-interest category. All of them were in some way eccentric. That's how I fit in. There is no such thing as gaming addiction (neither is there "internet addiction", which is b.s.), because there is no way that these games can be psychologically (and certainly not chemically) addictive. We know when to quit. We all have our own stopping point. Speaking of that, I, as an Aspie, have always been a "genius". I may have faults, but I was born with them.
Speaking of sports, I think that certainly has negative side-effects. Recently, I was emotionally smashed in Phys. Ed. class. You see, our teacher gave us sportsmanship questions, such as "Is it wrong to purposely distract a player on the opposite team so he messes up?". I consistently answered "yes" to all of the questions (indicating I thought those activities were unsportsmanlike), but the jocks consistently answered "no" and made fun of me for being so "foolish that I thought those activities were unsportsmanlike". <sarcasm>After all, it is perfectly normal to attack the refs, the other team, and disrespect anyone who you don't like (moral moral!), now isn't it?</sarcasm> Seriously, that's bad, morally (don't take me for a religious person here). There's nothing wrong with participating in sports, but many people are fanatics, and horrify me.
Some people also don't care to be social, and when united behind a common interest (e.g. the game), they band together socially.
Definitions:
XML: Leading the way to make the web a ebiz thing
No Jon you said the "average" american child spends 49 minutes playing video games. This means that if I walked up to a child and asked them I would more often then not get the answer that they spend 49 minutes playing games. What you should have said is that the average time spent playing video games by American childeren is 49 minutes. An example from my office. I could take a poll and publish the results. Now assume there are two people in a office of 10 that read SF say about 10 hours a week (this would be about right for where I work) Now if I were to make the statement that the average person in my office reads SF for .5 hours every week that would be wrong the average person in my office does not read SF at all. That is why these numbers are without worth.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
They neglected to mention the enormous positive benefits of Barbie dolls, of course.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
how long will it be before we start having 12-step programs for video-game addicts? Games are like any other form of entertainment. A little is good, a lot can be bad, especially if it negatively impacts your schoolwork, your social life, your job, and your friendships.
I've known people who play so many games, they never go out for anything. These people are usually completely miserable bastards... But you can't blame the games, because there are plenty of other people obsessed with gambling, card games, chat rooms, etc. And, all this about online play helping people interact is pure bunk. Dealing with people on a computer screen is not the same as dealing with people face to face.
Of course, all this is coming from a guy who regularly takes a few days of vacation when a new game comes out...
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
Not to mention the fact that, as an adult, I do indeed Quake. Sometimes for hours.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
Club. Ecstacy. Trance.
What was that again?
Cheers,
Tom
Reality does not happen until you analyze the dots. -Don DeLillo (Underworld)
the enjoyment of gaming is a natural characteristic of intelligent and creative people. Those people have always enjoyed all types of games and video games are just the newest and most exciting type of game. This isn't a new phenomenon. I think you'd find that many of today's most influential and creative people played card games, chess, role playing games, or other games instead. Strategic thinking, creativity, and problem solving can be developed just as well from other sources. I disagree with your assesment that computer games are more complex or more stimulating than other games. Your example is chess. I think that if you applied game theory you'd find that chess is much more complex than any computer games that currently exist (excluding computer versions of games like go). Those games start simply enough, but get more and more complex as they continue on. How many possible ways are there that a chess game can finish as compared a computer game? It took our most advanced computer to defeat a human in chess, and that was an anomaly. I believe that game theory would show that computers actually create limits which simplify games. Compare computer RPG style games to real RPG's. Normal RPG's allow for much more creativity and player-determination of events and therefore stimulation. Todays hardware could handle much more complex games than are currently available and future games should be able to emulate current RPG's. However, I believe that future computer RPG's will still be similar to today's movies compared to books. Movies are enjoyable, but don't stimulate the imagination like books do. I may have rambled off subject... sorry.
A friend of mine pointed out something interesting the other day. Why is there now, all of a sudden, this huge flap of interest over what video games are sold to children, and not what books they are trying to buy? I countered this with a couple of real-world arguments:
1. Video games are nowhere nearly as old as books. Books have a grandfather clause of respect that video games don't have and may never get.
2. Kids get access to books censored regularly anyway; we just don't hear very much about it except on Banned Book Week.
Video games are horribly overrated -- both by the people why play them and by the people who obsess over how they're "destroying children's minds" or somesuch foofaraw. The only way they are significant is in how parents and peers react to them, and there's evidence to suggest that children are influenced more by other children their own age than by their parents (provided they are exposed to them, that is). But they're not the world-destroying evil that many finger-waggling self-appointed "moral guardians" think they are -- nor are they the Big Way Out, according to other finger-waggling self-appointed "cultural critics" like Katz.
A personal note: I used to be a game lover, but in the past few years I've come to realize I'm just not that interested in them anymore. Put it this way: How many times do you solve a crossword puzzle, then erase the squares and do it again?
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
Yah, gaming is escape from reality into a more stimulating experience. We are certainly overstimulated in America. The pace of our lives is accelerated, and we all suffer from a form of ADD that is sensory-overload induced.
What we really want is a real experience, but the relative price is too high. Why leave this world of trinkets and sensory-overload (which is what it would take to have e genuine experience), when you can just flick a switch and get your brain numbed and ego stroked as you play God and General over a legion of loyal mercenaries? Or whichever "reality" you choose...
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
Yes, Katz mentions that gamers tend to be "narcissistic" and then, knowing full-well that about 75% of his audience are gamers goes on to schmooze 'em by telling them how smart they are; how they are the 'new prophets and story-tellers'. Please tell me your not pandering to us, Jon, I would hate to think that your objectivity could be clouded by some other agenda. Besides, it will never work with this crowd.
... maybe "violent" (Doom), and "perverted" (LS Larry??). I assume the study referred to might clarify Sims-types, but its been /.ed...
As far as gaming goes, I agree that gaming can shape the attitudes and dispositions of impressionable people, but as many posts have pointed out, it may be a case of chicken or egg, are gamers made that way due to the influence of the games, or are people naturally inclined to game aggressive, quick-thinking, prophetic story-tellers? I believe it to be a little of both, and all of neither, as do most. I personally notice that the high tension of my drug of choice (StarCraft - hey, I'm in another clan!) remains imprinted in me long after the game is over. I retain a heightened awareness and I have this aggressiveness that I can tap into; I feel it mostly when I play my daily lunchtime chess game. It doesn't help me to win any more chess, but I feel that I clearly have a more aggressive approach in my chess-thinking after a night of high-intensity strategic gaming.
One more point. I think it might be beneficial to classify gamers and their personalities according to the type of game they prefer: strategy (StarCraft), role-playing (er, Diablo), non-competitive (The Sims, RollerCoaster Tycoon), and probably a few others
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
Hey, not ALL games are Tomb Raider. Take the ever-quality Thief II. Women as guards, kicking your ass, with very normal bods. Heck, 2 of the main charecters in the game are female, too, and both of them can run without ripping themselves apart. Sure, Tomb Raider is the famous poster-girl game, but there are others, and when is the last time you actually played TR, anyways???
Laugh at stupidity: mod idiots +1 Funny.
Gamers aren't all identical and therefore can't be lumped into a single stereotype, even if this lumping is done by someone going by the name of "JonKatz."
This series of articles has to be the most worthless heap of trash I've seen since I stopped watching election coverage about a month ago.
"If games really did affect the mental health of our children, then the generation that grew up playing Pac-Man would be doing nothign but running around dark rooms, eating pills, and listening to repeditive music."
Anyone ever been to a rave? Lots of people, moving around a dark room, popping pills, and listening to... well, you get the idea...
Maybe games really -do- have an impact?
Here's an interesting essay on the subject.
--
01 13 19
TVDJC TDSLR AZNGT NWQSH KPN
I've been checking out /. for a decent amount of time now (at least a year if not more), but I've seem to have missed the whole Katz sucks thing. What started this anamosity?
/.ers dislike John just because of the apparent hyperbole? Or is it that Columbine book, comments property thingie? *shrug*
Do
I ask this sincerly, as I'd like to know...Note: I have no interest in trolling/whoring... Is there a site dedicated to this where I could be informed of the progression of events that causes this phenomenon?
Thanks!
E.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
One question, John. Where are you getting this information from? Where are the studies that backup this behavior? Cite some references. Or have you just pulled all of this out of your head because it fits your agenda? My guess is the latter.
... you could also think of it this way. A very good RPG type game is like a very well written mystery book.
One is interactive, one is not so interactive but still conveys the same points.
Oh man, and here was me playing quake I, II and III with a keyboard and mouse thinking that was the way to do it!
---
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
grin. I know he meant consoles. never mind =)
---
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
For shame, I hope I didnt encourage them. *gasp*.
---
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
Computer gaming industry behemoth ID Software has recalled its latest release Quake3 Team Arena, which was poised for a huge christmas release. Officials contacted at the ID say that the FCC informed them it was hazardous for small children, and that instances had been found where farm animals had been blown apart by "weapons unknown". Sources close to the animals suggest that rocket launchers, shotguns, and a strange gauntlet may have had something to do with the deaths.
In other news, a fly died in china. Authorities suspect it is the victim of a serial killer.
---
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
Is it the game that makes the player smart or the smart players that are good at the games?
You could say that comptuers make people smart because you observe smart people working with computers. However, I talk to people everyday who aren't any smarter as a result of using the computer.
Children are the future. Youth are the future. The people who played baseball in the fields 30 years ago are our managers and writers and leaders and so on. Some of those same people who were playing baseball 30 years ago are NOT world leaders, but collecting trash instead.
Now, something CAN be learned from games, but I don't think that games are singlehandedly making our youth smarter/faster/better. There are plenty of other challenges in life, sure the digital world makes it fun and easy, but it's still just a computer.
Silly slashdot, sigs are for kids!
...it's actually frequent masturbation that does all these things. What a wonderful world this would be if we all just did it for 45 minutes a day.
Gamers are the new artists, visionaries, and story-tellers of our time
What the fuck are you talking about? Game AUTHORS fit that role, not the drooling, twitching, haunched-overs masses of stimulus/response driven junkies.
Gamers are the new consumers. The new target markets. The new clique. The new buzzword. The new genre.
Jeez, it's like Yngvie Malmsteen (sp?) comparing himself to Beethoven. So does that mean that just because I can type 200 words per minute that I'm William Shakespeare (even more spelling errors).
---
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
and get a life and go skiing or snowboarding or hiking and not spend their days staring at a flickering box.... gaming is fun but it should be in moderation just like anything else... Katz is wrong, gamers aren't the new anything......
I'm really glad someone posted this before I got the chance to. I like games and all but that whole thing was remarkably silly.
And I used to try to defend JonKatz until now. Eesh. I mean I held out as long as I could, I really did.
Is the poster saying the Columbine posters have to have used Linux to be worth of posting to Slashdot. Yuk.
No. Clearly not. Come on, you know better. Read the post. update() is 100% correct. What's more, his/her point is simple and clear and you look very bad in dismissing it so casually.
I'll elaborate on that. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the argument, but if you're going to flippantly assign a particular logical fallacy to it, i.e. circularity, that fallacy should be noticeable somewhere in the argument in question. I have a real hard time finding any circularity in that particular argument. That looks bad.
I know geeks and gamers that are visionaries. I know geeks and gamers that are artists. But being a geek or a gamer implies neither of these things in any way. I also know geeks who have no such interests and I also know gamers who are utter simpletons.
By the way, I'd like to know what games you're playing that you think are more complex than chess. Even Nethack, the deepest and most subtle computer game I know of, pales in comparison to chess.
Oops! I accidentally attempted to read the ramblings of Jon Katz again! When will I learn? (Where's that computer game I was playing??)
-- I Am Not A Terrorist.
The "Americas" MEANS Every country on this continent, "America" means the US.
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
not true, I was gmer all through my childhood and now look at me. I make more than most people, and I run my own company that makes over 18 milion a year, and and i have gameing as a kid to thank for it. kids who game are more likly to get involved in other aspects of computing, and Computers are in fact the "coal of the 21st century" as you put it. so gaming in fact Helps kids more than it hurts them. It is the kids who stay AWAy from computers who will be the bitter ones working at some fast food joint or in some other low paying job complaining bitterly about all of the "techies" that make the big money.
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
"Adults may quake at the transformation..."
I donate all spillover Karma to the charity of my choice... Ada was still a babe despite what people may say...
No, actually, Jon is right. He said the average kid plays for 49 minutes a day. Now unless every kid plays for exactly 49 minutes, for it to be an average some have to play more, and some have to play less (or not at all). He just didn't say the second part because most people understand averages. I assume this was just a mental pause, I'm not trying to flame here.
On a seperate note, those surveys are highly inaccurate, they ask a bunch of 8-year olds How many hours a day do you play video games? Then they give them choices like 0, 1, 2, 3, 4... etc. I bet you most kids aren't thinking farther back than last night or the week before.
Kurdt
Kurdt
I'm not anti-social. Just pro-technology.
OK, it's got pretty graphics, it's fast and it's got decent connectivity, but it's still a game console. Is this innovative in the Microsoft sense of the word?
--
I would be a paid subscriber if Taco and Hemos weren't such cunts
There are a lot of games out there where certain abilities of the player have large impacts: leadership plays a huge role in team games, especially team deathmatches where the team is all in one place. Allocation of resources plays a role here too, but also in various strategy games, not to mention good wargames. Lots of boardgames rely to a large degree on politics and persuasion, while others are based on figuring odds and strategies. It's a stimulating world for people who are interested enough and intelligent enough to look into the depths.
I'm a biologist, so I tend to see parallels with biology everywhere. There's been a lot of debate as to whether various characteristics are based on genetics or environment; most say that it's some combination of the two. I'd say that the situation with gamers is much the same. People get involved in these games for various reasons... those who stick with the games often do so because they enjoy them; some part of them resonates with the challenges of the game. The more they stick with it, the more it grows on them, and the more they learn to think or act to play the game. Leadership skills develop among some, strategic thinking among some, and hand-eye coordination among others.
Of course, some people are more apt to be leaders, and others are more dextrous... that's a matter of the person, the game can only help develop certain skills, not develop them out of whole cloth. No, games won't make you a leader, or a strategist; but like they say, "practice makes perfect." If you have the ability to think strategically, playing strategy games will help develop those skills. On the other hand, if you have no idea how to plan for the future, you won't do very well at these games, and either you won't continue to play them, or you'll get better very slowly.
In the martial arts analogy that keeps coming up, those who are interested in the spiritual aspects will focus on them, often choosing to study styles like Aikido, while those who are into the 'kick-ass' factor tend to go with styles like Ju-Jitsu or Kickboxing... most, however, go with Taekwondo or Karate, 'cause that's what's available.
Perhaps there are more 'intelligent' people playing games simply because it's an active, mental endeavor. Watching TV is passive... gaming requires thought, regardless of the type. Of course, this all depends on your definition of 'intelligent', which is harder to nail down than a good politician...
As for those studies, I dunno... I haven't read them. I'd like to see a study that tracks gamers from when they start gaming 'till they stop. Or at least divides them up by how long they've been gaming. If they're right, we should see a steady gain in intelligence... if I'm right, you won't seem much change. Of course, the flaws here are many: IQ ratings generally drop as you get older (flaw in the test design), and IQ doesn't rate things like gain in leadership skills, increased dexterity, or the ability to plan logistics...
True. Slashdot's a commercial entity that reports news (apparently). It should be responsible and employ at least one journalist.
Let's start a campaign!
This whole series has been a load of self-serving twaddle. BORING!
This topic has been mentioned before, but I think differentiating between gamers based on the games they play is an important consideration when drawing conclusions about their effects.
:) Personally, I only really play RTS games (Starcraft and Warcraft 2) with any regularity, and I think these types of games do reflect my personality and strengths (like planning, timing, taking calculated risks). Quake never interested me much at all, and even in the after-hours lag-free death match sessions on our network at work I find myself getting bored quickly. Does this also say something about what kind of a person I am? I think some of the skills learned in games *can* enhance your development as a person, but there is definitely a limit, and it is nowhere near a substitute for normal interaction. I, too knew reclusive 12-hour-a-day gamers in college and they were, generally, miserble and lacking in social skills.
Some games stress interaction (Everquest, most RTS), while others (like Final Fantasy) don't involve any. Does this preference generalize to predicting an extroverted or introverted personality?
Katz makes sweeping comments referring to gamers as a whole ("smart, "storytellers", "strategic thinkers") but as a casual to moderate gamer, I can say these don't apply to many gamers (both teenagers and 'mature' gamers
Sorry to ramble. My point is that if Katz wants to take a psychological approach to gamers, it will help to categorize and EMPIRICALLY MEASURE them somehow first (i.e. don't state that they're 'quick decision makers' like its some kind of fact without having evidence to back it up first).
From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc
I'm with you on your first paragraph, but you're wrong in your impression that only 5-10 percent of gamers are women. I play hearts and cribbage on Yahoo from time to time, and I find that the proportion of males to females is around 50-50. Same for Acrophobia. Just because you play games geared towards men doesn't exclude the female (and male) gamers you have never encountered.
From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc
I might need to re-open my geography book from something like sixth grade. As I recall there is a NORTH America and a SOUTH America. You are a frickin idiot.
Got hup?
I spent years playing this game!
I'm too sexy for you.
Problem with some of these bright studies is they appear to assume all things were equal. I can't quite see my dad playing CarWars on an IBM 360/40. Probably a bit of a problem interfacing a joystick and color monitor with one of those, not to mention the expense of CPU time in that age.
Question is: were people more like they are now than before? Impossible to measure, I expect, but review some historical works of fiction, film, newspapers and you'll find things have been graphically portrayed for entertainment purposes for quite farther back than the modern puritan realizes.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
There are few studies of the effects of gaming, but some traits are increasingly obvious: gamers are often independent, strategic-thinkers and problem solvers.
Gaming doesn't produce those traits in gamers; people with those traits are more prone to an interest in games.
To use another example: while stamp collecting may be an excercise in patience, people with patience are more likely to take up stamp collecting...patience isn't an "effect" of stamp collecting.
Given that your own president (barring further legal battles) doesn't know the prime minister of India (or 'The General' of Pahkistan) i'd say some of the older Americans fit that catagory as well....
At the same time gamers don't learn basic social skills, don't know how to really interact with other human beings - apart from taking them into account as either opponents or teammates. But sooner or later such "gamer" as described by mr. Katz would realize that he (or she) has wasted the best years of his life on something that maybe taught him how to win but didn't tell him how to be happy - and make others happy.
And that's what is important in life, not how many points you scored or how many bucks you earned - but how happy you are. And there is no technology that could change this...
If anything, I would place the old 8-bit systems in the place of the PS2. When you turned them on, you had a blank slate from which to create anything you could think of (within obvious technical limits). When you turn on a PS2, your only option is to put somebody else's imagination into it and absorb another's fantasy. There is no room for modification from what is encoded on that disk. There's no way for a gamer to decide that they want their protagonist to be a squirrel instead of a busty archeologist. How does this canned system allow the creative expression that is claimed in this article?
Has Mr. Katz even used a PS2, let alone tried to program one? What examples of gamer creativity has he seen that can be attributed solely to the manifest power of the PS2 system? If he is simply trying to convey the thought that increasingly capable technology allows for increasingly fantastic creativity, then he should simply say that and shy away from doing product placement for Sony products.
It's the United States of AMERICA.
Check the dictionary as I did on www.m-w.com-
Main Entry: 1American
Pronunciation: &-'mer-&-k&n, -'m&r-, -'mar-, -i-k&n
Function: noun
Date: 1578
1 : an American Indian of No. America or So. America
2 : a native or inhabitant of No. America or So. America
3 : a citizen of the U.S.
4 : AMERICAN ENGLISH
Look at #3....
People from Canada are called CANADIENS, people from Mexico are called MEXICANS, etc.
After musing through this article I couldnt help but respond negatively to what the author has stated. I completely disagree with the thesis. It states that "gamers are ...visionaries, quick thinking....our future" nothing could be more from the truth. I have never seen Parker Bros. or Hasbro win any Nobel Awards. Gamers I have seen are nothing but immature teenyboppers who have a disdain for those who do not see the world from a series of 1's and 0's, and care nothing about the world around them, except for the new 'sploit, code, cheat or whatever new "thing" is on the horizon.
I am sure this is not true of all serious gamers, who might see the game as art,but that doesnt help society solve its day to day problems. Maybe these far-seeing all knowing gamers could apply their knowledge to traffic control, cleaner sources of energy,or not to mention freedoms that are being eroded by our government everyday.
This article is a slap in the face to every struggling artist, be it writer, painter, singer, etc that has ever chronicled honest feelings about the world they see. Grow up, I dont feel that the world owes me something just because I can play tetherball well.............
Come on, does this mean that every person that goes to the movie theatre is a Hollywood Director?
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
Sure its a stupid, overly simple game. But it isn't designed to compete with Metal Gear. Its a simple game for young kids. When they get a little older, they will be bored with it, and be ready to move on to more complex games. Whats more, they will have a taste for games that do require some thinking and stategy for success. Personally, I think that that is much better than the kids a little old who seem to gravitate to whatever FPS has the most gore... Remember Quake, which iD actually PROMISED wouldn't have a storyline or characters?
/* This post not warrantied for mission critical applications. */
You are welcome to your opinions but to present what is mostly hogwash without supporting studies or other objective data is just bullshit being passed off as journalism.
I'm scared of world leaders who think locally and act globally.
What a pile of crap!
Kids who participate in sports are much better adapted to deal with life than your video game prodigies to be sure.
You need to get out more, jon. Go for a hike or something! TV, Video Games, Radio, Movies, Personal computers....I'm certain we could survive without any of them. I know I certainly could, despite being a linux geek and programmer in my spare time (not much of that in the summer when I'd rather be out enjoying the world though!)
Funny, before this story came out I was talking to my freind about the very same subject, did videogames help us get to where we are today.
:_)
He was very admimate about it, I asked him, "What does playing zelda have to do with being a sysadmin?" His reply, "Remember when you had to get the key, to get the flute, to get the tornado to get to gannon?" "Yes", I replied. "Well, that was troubleshooting skills being nurtured there" All of the sudden, the lightbulb went on in my head and I got it! We started tracing back our video games to our skillset.
Nintendo, most games taught us problem solving skills. Also when the damn cartrige wouldn't work we'd do what would be compared to a ctrl-alt-delete today, blow on the cartridge!
Barren Realms Elite, started to teach us the basics of networked systems, well fidonet anyways.
Doom, We wanted to play it multiplayer so we had to learn about things like loading 3c90x.exe and dosodi.com ect. ect, we were learning IPX networking in a novell enviroment.
Quake, This would start teaching us about lag, bandwidth, and all sorts of nifty things about tcp/ip networking.
And many years later we're both sysadmins making a good livin, all thanks to uuddlrlrab
--Toq
Jon, gamers are not necessarily artists or storytellers. SOME gamers are, when they make skins, mods, fan fiction, etc. But others simply respond to the game. This level of interactivity may be preferable to no interactivity (the TV) but it doesn't make all gamers storytellers. Like with most media, games are how you use them. Fragging a few people in quake doesn't make you an artist. But playing in a Massively Multiplayer RPG, giving it some thought, and writing a fanfic or two can.
While that may all be true, the 'american' has indeed (d)evolved to indicate someone living in the U.S. So please stop insulting us Canadians by grouping us as americans.
I think Katz needs to make a distinction between wargamers, role-players, arcaders, and the multitude of other subdenominations. "Gamers" used to be a term applied to those who spent hours exploring the intracasies of rules in Avalon Hills games. They tend to grow to make pretty good lawyers, that is, if they're not overly prone to wax emotional. Now it seems that all people who play games of any type are seen as gamers. Certainly you must agree that people who play chess and go are not the smae sort of gamers as those who play Super Mario Bros. or Quake.
There was a Slashdot article (I think -- who knows anymore with the plethora of media outlets bombarding us through all mediums) recently that stressed the differences in styles of software. I believe the same distinction must be made between different types of gamers.
Of course, in so doing, we open ourselves up to a class structure with respect to gamers, which is open to all sorts of myopic squabbling. I just hope to see a discourse on gaming that isn't such a monolithic view of games in general.
----
And in a gaming article too.
On Slashdot?
We don't like prophet here. Or Kats.
Ok its BLATANT GENERALIZATION TIME here on Slashdot.. and who else to do such blatant sucking up than the one and only John Katz. I was sitting there.. and I read the first paragraph and it didnt seem to be the same old suck fest.. and then.. as usual.. it got worse. Lumping gamers together is something that shouldn't be done. There are many different types of "gamers". If "gamers" are people that play video games alot, then my little brother who drools over his Pokemon Gameboy Game for 4 hours straight is an intelligent and indepentant person. In some cases, such as rpg games, i can see the "gamers" as being such, but this generalization should not be applied to everyone. If he is just trying to be young and hip, it isn't working.
- yezzz, my name is a joke.
As a matter of fact, I am reading J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the rings", as I play Baldur's Gate..And even though they don't have that much in common, I feel like one completes the other.
And I've felt that way about a lot of stuff. The first time I played "Alone in the dark" I was reading Lovecraft, and I felt like the book took me more and more deep into the game.
I live for games... I like to sit back in front of my screen, when I get home from work.. and play until I'm stuck and my eyes cannot work anymore, or until the sun "pops out"... And every once in a week, I sit back, on my couch, relax, get a nice cup of hot coffee (colombian coffee that is!) and read on...
I enjoy reading almost as much as I enjoy playing. Those two broaden your mind a lot. Of course, so does traveling, but hey.. I'm not that rich.
burp!
Maybe the President of the United States in 40 years will be a kick ass Quake III player, that would be cool! Forget about READING BOOKS or going out side TO WALK it is obvious that the skills gamers are learning today will allow then to conquer the world in the future. They will be so unstopable even the Borg will be brought to their knees!
There is a reason America has the highest child obesity in the entire world. It is partly to do with diet and it is partly to do with sitting on their asses playing Pokemon. Please tell me with a stright face that playing Pokemon will give me life skills my employer is looking for.
"So your resume says you have 700 hours of Pokemon experience...sorry we need people well versed in Quake 3 and SIMS...flying an airplane needs the type ingenuity that these games teach you to be competitive in the 21st century"
WHAT A LOAD!!!!!!!!
The surest way to make a monkey of a man is to quote him. --Robert Benchley
I have to say .. good views (except that joystick thing)
I have been a gamer *forever* Oddesy II (anyone remember that), atari, intellivision, colecovision, nintendo (enough ancient history.)
I also did the d&d etc stint. a little LRP (hangs head in shame at past geek activities), board games galore (risk, chess, monopoly -- no one ever badmouthed THOSE games!!)
Then we have the 'real' games: soccer, triatholon, paintball etc. All of which I have taken part in.
I even (in 1993) opened a game shop .. selling magic cards (wahoo! Cha-CHING!) Games-workshop, TSR stuff, video games, etc etc etc
two of my jobs have been with gaming companies, and I spent a year overseas with one of them setting up their japanese division.
all before I was 26
all in all, I have to agree, the lessions i learned in early video games: patience, persistance, and petulanche (heh) paid off. I learned important lessions, strategy. I learned not to overextend myself, to fortify my borders/assets. Things that helped me in business. I learned to abandon lost skirmishes, so I could concentrate my attention on the larger image to 'win'. I learned to plan ahead, to 'read' my opponents. And more importantly, I learned to *learn* - on the fly, and often with only seconds to spare. As everyone knows .. there is *no* time to spare when your quaking with
l33td00dz *chuckle*. (If only I had learned to spell ! ) Gaming has both been good to me, and been good for me.
even that one summer at age 13 .. where I didn't see another human for over 3 weeks.
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
"Successful gaming requires a level of patience and commitment rarely associated with entertainment or, for that matter, education."
Oh, please. Maybe the education of a journalist doesn't require much concentration (why try? poly-sci!), but I would be willing to bet that anyone else here with a engineering, scientific, or computer science degree would find that remark laughable.
And so I laugh. Ha, ha Jon. Get a clue.
-----------
-----------
If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, forget 'em, because man, they're gone. -- Jack
There, now the point is bigger than Katz and the people who hate him. I am so tired of hearing the same sh*t about geeks -- geeks are this, geeks are that, geeks exhibit this, geeks exhibit that. And the standard reply is no we aren't, yes you are, ad nauseaum.
One day, we'll find ourselves arguing about whose dad is better.
But all your doing is proving him right, maybe his examples aren't right, but the basic philosophy is. "Geeks" are different, and in beautiful paradoxical fashion, you like it and you hate it, and when someone calls you one, you just rally around the other.
Katz posts it, and all the /. readers go ballistic, they say go away, they say you're wrong , they say the polar opposite of
whatever the article was about.
First off, he's jacking your strings, isn't that obvious? Why do you think he belabours the same f*cking point over and over, cause you self proclaimed illuminati can't resist saying the same thing over and over.
Second point, Why is it, when "geeks" (and I use that term lightly) are drawn out into the "real world(see previous parenthesis) and compared to other neanderthals, /. readers go up in arms about how wrong that is.
It's getting to be a joke, folks. I never realized that elitism, self inflation, and unparralled ego pushing were prerequistites to entrance in the technology world.
I'm thinking you can keep it, cause you're the only ones who want it.
Thus ends my diatribe.
---------- You are not the contents of your sig.:-p
Amen brotha! UT allll the waaayyyy!!! Q3A has NOTHING on UT - one of those games better left unreleased :P I also have to say the same about HalfLife CounterStrike. I admit TFC is a sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet mod but the game engine is so dated that after playing some good fast UT it seems as if I'm crawling through some thick molasses playing TCF. It's SO much slower and unrefined, especially the controls. Don't get me wrong the mod is nothing short of a wonder in itself but did that and counterstrike REALLY deserve their own game? What they REALLY deserve is to be ported to the UT engine in all their glory - THAT would be seriously kewl and l337 8)
"Christ what a design! I could eat a handful of iron filings and PUKE a better emergency pump than that!"
Wow you really ARE a UNIX bigot! At least you admit it though...that's halfway to being cured :) Don't get me wrong, UNIX does kick soooo much ass. But it's NOT RISCM/b> - that's entirely dependent on the processor you run it on. Whereas Win32 is 32 bits on any processor - from the 486 on up. So maybe you could call it "EUNUCH64AssKickingFastandStable" 8)
"Christ what a design! I could eat a handful of iron filings and PUKE a better emergency pump than that!"
goddamit my typing has been soooo bad lately...please forgive my rampant bold tag :> I go now to torture myself for this slight of /. ettiquette.
"Christ what a design! I could eat a handful of iron filings and PUKE a better emergency pump than that!"
Read the previous installments of this article. One of them (don't remmeber which of the two) is actually about this very thing - that the "establishment" is basically having a moral panic about gaming and gamers in general because it's so different from everything they know. :)
"Christ what a design! I could eat a handful of iron filings and PUKE a better emergency pump than that!"
how every one in the UK can sing the theme tune to the Bodyform advert despite the fact it hasn't run on TV for three years.
[/Quoted]
Please. For the sake of our collective sanity, do not tempt fate. Thank you.
I will post this disclaimer, I do no have kids of my own. The reason I don't have kids of my own is that my wife and I are unable to have them without involving the forefront of medical science. So it takes longer and costs $$$$$$$$$ So, that being said, I love children. I have weekly contact with kids from my youngest nephew at 2 months, to a young man I've known/played with/talked to since he was born. He's 15 now. All of the kids I talk to and play with (I have one of the largest collections of LEGO, Video Games, and Computers they've ever seen) are bright, intelligent, and overall very happy. Video games don't destroy them, Video Games entertain them. They entertain them more than the TV does. I've seen them dance in their seats while trying to do a particular nasty jump, waving the controler through the air trying to push the character to it's next height. Laughing, joking, enjoying themselves. Turn the TV on, their eyes glaze over and you never hear from them. An aquaintence of mine has a 15 year old son. He came home, found all the lights ni the house on with him glued to the TV. he turned every light in the house off while his son sat their glued to the TV, after the last light was off, he jumped up, and asked him there was a power outage.... Video Games are the easy enemy to pick on, 49 mins is nothing to the four or five hours average that is spent in front of the TV...
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Sad? Why is it sad someone spends time with something they enjoy which also happens to be constructive?
As for "many young people are semi-literate", what the hell is that supposed to mean? This isn't because of gaming, if this even is the case at all. In case you haven't noticed, the younger generation is moving ahead quite a bit faster than the older, for many reasons I should need not explain.
Besides, games have words, too.
On top of that, how do you expect your so-called semi-literate younger generation to read web pages, or game instructions, or everything else they read. Technical sites or instructions, which must be read in the case of gaming or surfing which apparently seem to plague the younger generation, according to you, is not a simple task, nor is it one in which you can be semi-literate and understand half of it.
If anything, 49 minutes a day seems quite a bit off, as does your semi-literate comment on semi-literate people.
Normally I'm a big fan of Katz's work, but this piece just plain sucks. The entire article extolls the virtue of gamers, to the point of stereotyping them all as 'strategic thinkers' and 'quick decision makers.' While at first this appears attractive to a gamer, myself included, after some careful scrutiny you realize that this article reads like a fortune cookie or horoscope. 'You are patient' it reads, "well hell, I knew that, and thank you," you think. What a crock! All Katz is doing here is hyping up gamers as this new breed of super people, all the while saying they are being feared and misunderstood. Well John, congrats, you're pigeon holing us as much as the establishment. We're not all alike, and we can't be the subject of such a broad brush-stroke. I'm disappointed, in an article purporting to examine gamers as a social group all you did was further stigmatize us. Next time go on a case by case basis, or at least TRY and support your wild claims with some evidence. Better luck next time, but this article was a wash!
-who's scruffy looking?
It already is. After those few thosand years, books still don't have ads making up at least 30% of their content. Hell, all they can muster are mail-in order forms for "books by the same author." Without the product placement and input from hundreds of marketing experts, how can books possibly have any content worthwile at all? I mean they just sit there.
Disclosure: I'm a hard-core gamer who has opted for a fat DSL over cable television. I don't have the benifit of Discovery or History channels and have to rely on the books and the internet to get my infomation. All I get on my TV (no remote, manual dials for UHF) are 2 PBS stations, the 4 networks, Korean and Polish channels, and some cell phone calls. Thus I may be lacking the aquired "smarts" that comes from cable and may not even be qualified to comment at all.
"When it rains, it pours." --Morton's Salt
I will tell you why they dont read a book. They spend all day at school reading books, and some of then even read books in the other 7 hours of the night they are at home. Video games are a way to get you head out of books when you are a student. No one wants to read all day at school and then go home and read somemore. I know for me...if I am spending alot of time reading when I am at home...I feel guilty cuz I should be reading something out of a textbook and not something by Robert Jordon or something...for me...playing a computer game is a great change of pace form schoolwork.
The more technology we use....the more it is no ones fault.
Preach on Brotha....Preach on...
The more technology we use....the more it is no ones fault.
The Article neglected to say that for the most part games like quake and unreal don't cause people to become violent it lets them let out that bottled up emotion on something that they cannot hurt I simply don't believe that quake would cause a child to kill another one. I mean really if you shoot someone with a rocket it would blow him or her up, not just take 70 something health and armor off of them. Everyone Knows this, people who do school shooting should probably try a quake deathmatch, they might not want to shoot people anymore.
"The secret of success is to know something nobody else knows." -Aristotle Onassis
People talk about computer/game system gaming because it is relatively new. Anything new will have some people up in arms, while others will be singing its praises. Still others, most others probably, won't care.
I'm sure there were people that complained up a storm when 'Monopoly' came out.
$ finger #timmy
invalid use of finger
Hey, there are quite a few posts talking about how this is stuff WE already know. So it's pointless to say it. I've been sending links to these articles to my parents. This stuff isn't written for us. It's written for the people who think of TV as more socially acceptable than video gaming. I snowboard, I kayak, I backpack. But I still get ripped on for wasting my time in front of a computer game. It's just kinda nice to hear someone else say this stuff. (It's nice to know it's not just my imagination.)
I AM sure that you DON'T have to write every article about me. I really liked this article. Now, it's all stuff I already know (because I'm one of the people you're talking about), but my whole point is that that's not a bad thing. I'm glad that decent writer decided to write about this stuff. (Your mis-interpretation of my last post is a good example of why I'm a programmer instead of a writer.) Then when I can't explain my attitudes about tech stuff to people like my parents, I can point at things like your article and say "That's what I'm talking about." That's what I meant when I said this article is more for my parents and friends than for me. It IS about me, it IS relevant to me, and it's communicated better than I could do. (Wow. First time I've been called an elitist.)
...the constant chatter of the units as an attack is launched. yes sir, reporting, yes sir, yes sir, yes sir, reporting, on my way sir... And when it goes all wrong -unit lost- -unit lost- -unit lost- -unit lost- -unit lost- -unit lost- -unit lost- -unit lost- ...
Hah, that's nuthin. When one of my friends got zelda for his 64 when it came out, we stayed up like 26 hours straight and beat it the first day he had it.
That is extreem gaming.
with a vocabulary like that.
"I'm not some fucking visionary. I'm not going to lead the people of Earth into some utopia or some shit. "
No joke
You sound more like the stereotypical junior high gamer than anyone. F this f that, I hate this I hate that. My opinions are better than yours NYAH NYAH
At least Jon contributes with meaningfull commentary and not foul language riddled prattle and self centered opinionated garbage.
Grow up. Then when you're done - reply with something resembling intellect.
Why do you have to refer to religion in a derogatory manner? Thats definately not cool man.
Because he's spewing out exagerated facts, and yellow (masturbatory?) Journalism. Most people who do that get bashed. Then again if I were a supermarket tabloid I'd hire him in an instant.
Maskirovka
-History is on the move: those who can't keep up will be left behind. Those who get in the way won't survive.
What you say is true. I got a Christmas list from my brother (21 years old) and at the top of it was old NES carts. He didn't have any preference on what I got him, he just wanted more games to play. He has roms, a SNES, and a PSX, but his favorite is the NES :)
Ahh, there's nothing like playing Civ in 16 colors with the nice ol' bleepy pc speaker sounds. Now, those were the days. Any of you remember the first time he heard speech out of a Soundblaster/Adlib card? For me that was with Dune II...
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
"Books" are the analog version of PDF files. And yes, if sufficiently big, they are quite lethal.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Or what you do is an expression of what you are, or in the case of a lot of computer games, what you would like to be...
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
I actually spent three days playing Lemmings nearly non-stop with a friend. He used the keyboard, I controlled the mouse. At the 29th level of "Mayhem", the mouse broke down. I never played Lemmings again.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
So says a man who has never played a square roleplaying game. If you can't read, you can't play. Though I must admit it won't put your vocabulary through so much of a workout as Dickens, or even King. -GiH
Parental control is completely different from parental guidance. There are those people that feel a child should be told exactly what to do and forced to do it at all costs. It seems you are talking about parental guidance and using a poor choice of words. If you are not one of those "You will never, ever listen to that kind of muse/watch that TV show/listen to that radio station/see that movie/do anything enjoyable" type of parents, then you aren't talking about controlling them. You are talking about giving guidance, which is exactly what should be done. The brainwashing of christianity, well, I'll leave that garbage for someone else to cover. Other than this, Christianity teaches you that no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, you are a worthless fuck, and you deserve nothing but death and damnation. It is not a healthy mental image to stir in youth, but if that is your choice, so be it.
Oh yeah, and the conversation started with talk of TV. That's why I threw that in there.
------------
You call for more parental control? Your kids will be a mess!
Invariably the children that are messed up at an early age are the kids raised by "controlling" parents. The first chance they get, they go out, get drunk, do drugs, fuck everybody they can, and get knocked up. You have to teach your children to deal with situations that may present themselves to them. You can't just keep them locked in a "safety" room their entire childhood and expect them to emerge as an adult "ready to take on the world". It is a cruel and heartless action that will lead to devestated adulthood and and feeling of contempt for the parent.
I'm not suggesting that more TV time is needed. I'm suggesting that involvement with a child is very, very different from controlling them. You don't need "parental control" to properly raise children. You need "parental guidance". Do you know what that actually means? It means teaching your childrens, reading with them, helping them out with problems when they need the help, and occassionally allowing them to go out and figure out things on their own. Even, god fobid, allowing them to make the occassional mistake. Just always be waiting at home for them with open arms, open minds, and open hearts. Talk with them as a friend, guide them as a teacher, and love them as a parent.
Any parent that thinks control is more important than the three things I listed (friendship, guidance, and love) is going to raise a twisted, sick and mentally unhealthy child. Take a look around. How many of the kids that shot up schools were raised by "controlling" parents that "never let me have anything cool"? It's way more than you think.
Don't spoil your kids, but don't make them feel that anything they enjoy must be worthless either. Always ask yourself how you are making them feel. Think of them, and how it will affect them later in life. Yeah, it's a tough job if it's done correctly. But who said being a parent was supposed to be easy?
------------
Now, I must reiterate something that I have stated in the past. Jon Katz seemingly has intelligent thought processes. But unfortunately, he is suffering from major delusions when he states publicly, over and over again, that everything he has been involved in, or has done, is THE biggest and most important andvancement in the existence of the human race.
Video games are entertainment. I've played a few, more than a few, but I don't believe, even for a second, that playing video games makes you "better" than other people. I think the people that are smarter, more intuitive, more insightful, whatever, are that way to start with, and video games, good ones anyway, tap into their larger than normal imagination.
It's like that old fashioned thinking that listening to heavy metal will make you an anti-social outcast. The observation is wrong. It isn't that listening to heavy metal makes you an outcast (or playing video games makes you more imaginative) it's that being an outcast attracted you to heavy metal (or being imaginative, you enjoy a good video game).
Jon tries to make a good point, but he has missed the boat this time. I will again say, I think it is time for Mr. Katz to take a vacation. He is only one step removed from being a member of the "GOD COMPLEX CLUB". He believes that everything he has been a part of is the biggest influence ever on the human race. It's just one facet of humanity that is interesting, but not the be-all end-all of human existence.
------------
What gets me is that he miswrites his own title, quite the blasphemy if you ask me. He writes "... the first Up, Down..." Clearly we all know the code is Up Up Down Down.. Eh, well...
"Gamers are the new artists, visionaries, and story-tellers of our time"
Um, what? There may be the odd game out there that requires artistic or narrative creation, but none of them are popular (look not to Sony's shamelessly and profitably derivative library of games, but to things like "Mario Paint" on the embarrassing failure that was the 64DD).
To quote someone from another forum, here's what you get from the majority of gamers these days:
"Ooooh, this edition of Gran Tekken Fantasy Solid XXXIIICM is pushing 15% more polygons than the last version, and with identical gameplay! I'm in heaven!"
It may well be that some people who are gamers will become our "new artists, visionaries, and story-tellers", possibly even by becoming game designers. So why not say that, instead of the nonsense above?
"...sparked by astonishingly inventive new technologies like the PS 2."
Is that a joke? There's not a scrap of invention in the PS2. You sound like Trip Hawkins, saying unbelievable crap like, "It's historic, a mass-market appliance that fundamentally changes society in the way the printing press did."
(yes, he actually said that)
It's a couple of long-existing technologies rolled into one, in a bid for the set-top box that will control the spew into every American's living room. It's going to ride the PSX's swell of mindshare and be very popular. Many kids will play it for a long time, having plenty of fun while getting pudgier and pastier and more passive. And that's about it.
The attitude by a lot of gamers is that of the rest of society goes out pointlessly trying to fulfill the expectations of western life. The rest of society is shallow and a slave to society. I'm sure not all gamers feel this way, but a lot do, and the ones that make the most noise always get noticed.
Unfortunately, I play enough UT and know enough gamers to know the gaming culture is just the same in its depth.
Don't take that too seriously, but I mean really, gamers being the future of the world's artists and whatnot? Soldiers on the battlefield gain almost all the skills of the gamer WITHOUT the save games and magical powerups, and I don't see too many of them being the future of society. As was said earlier, sometimes a game is just a game.
Sure, I can see how some UT levels can classify as art, but then again, everything is art. I think the greatest absurdity posed by this new generation is the sheer lacking of social ability. No, I do not mean that all gamers are loners, not even that most are. As Chris Rock points out, those Columbine kids were a group of 6. That's 3 on 3 with a half-court.
What I do mean is that there is just a lacking of social skill with regard to society. No, you may not want to visit aunt betty, but it is neccessary for things to move smoothly. You may not want to wear a suit for your graduation, but do things not run much smoother. Quite frankly, so much of what we do is simply not important to who we are that we do need to accept social customs to allow things to move freely. Social customs may be shallow, but moving against them for the sake of "I don't want to", and "you're not the boss of me" is going above the surface.
Play games, enjoy them, have online communities, don't go jump in the snow (lord knows I won't), but don't lose sight of the fact that there is a socity out there, and just as there are virtual customs (like a pointless "gg", after a UT match, there a social customs).
"Finally, gamers are smart. Again like chess players -- except that many video games are more complex -- gamers are often mentally over-stimulated." Oh please! So let me guess, you reckon if you take some pizza munching lardarse kid who plays quake 3 for hours every day and teach him chess he'll take Gary Kasparov to checkmate? Bullshit. DO you make this stuff up yourself or do you get some technohippy on E to think it up for you?
... ever been to a rave?
Try my nuts to your fist style!
Honestly, though, what is the target audience for this kind of unreasoned, starry-eyed tripe? As a gamer who spends well over 49 minutes a day, I know it isn't me. By the tone of the other posts here, it doesn't seem to be slashdot readers either.
Does anyone else find it scary that the people who might find this kind of writing interesting/insightful are just the kind of people who are least qualified to criticize it?
Nobody has mentioned here that many computer games use extreme violence. People are not born with an instinct to kill - it takes practice to break down the barriers against homicide. In the military, they start with a bullseye, then you shoot at a human shaped target, then eventually using blanks against other teams. Video games are training a generation to "shoot to kill" at human-looking targets.
Personally I don't play computer games, and haven't played them since the day I started my computing degrees. I can't stand the thought of playing computer games in my limited recreational time after a day of sitting in front of the screen. An old friend of mine is now a game addict (yes, addict - escapism is an addictive pursuit) and it makes me sad to see a young life deteriorate into eating, pot-smoking and gaming.
As for the "creative thinkers of tomorrow" or whatever, I'd say those kids would be better off studying and learning something about the real world, whether the learning is directed by school or self-motivated. There's still plenty of wisdom in books.
It seems that the author of this article is obsessed with the notion that somehow a bunch of kids masturbating are changing the world. I'm an avid video game player and have been for years, but never have I fooled myself into thinking that gaming was anything more than electronic masturbation. It's fun, it wastes time and it's a great stress reliever. The only "new prophets and story-tellers of society" I can think of are not the gamers but the people who've actually made games. People like Ken Kutaragi and Shigeru Miyamoto are the true creative and technical visionaries in the gaming world not the audience. The Authors statement, "We know that gamers are the new prophets and story-tellers of society, that gaming is approaching a universal generational experience", is tantamount to saying that people who go in to watch a movie are somehow responsible for the genius behind the film. Your writing is full of superlatives and grandiose claims, where are the facts? I just don't buy it. "gamers are often independent, strategic-thinkers and problem solvers." Says who? "Younger Americans are used to being denounced as ignorant, violent, obsessive, even uncivilized." All younger generations are percieved as such. "Involvement in gaming can be seen as both manifestation and cause of this schism" They didn't have gaming in the 60's. What caused that generation gap? "How is the influence of gamers showing up in society? Hardly anyone has studied that systematically" Obviously neither have you. "They're quick decision-makers, sometimes to the point of impulsiveness. Since their virtual lives depend on fast reactions, their real-life decision making processes become visceral, instinctive" If I were to buy into this definition of such a person then its no doubt why your writing seems so visceral. "Wishy-washy gamers are unsuccessful gamers" George W. Bush would be proud of you. "Kids of this generation will be different from any that has preceded them." Okay, I figured it all out. You must have just finished reading Arthur C. Clark's masterpiece "Childhood's End." -- "Think wrongly, if you please, but in all cases think for yourself." --Doris Lessing
"Your articles continue to put me in mind of a middle-aged Dad trying to be cool in front of his children's friends." My thoughts exactly. Geez, I think this katz guy has to get out of the house more. Yes, games are a huge deal for the entertainment industry, but I'm positive they will not jump-start some kind of cultural or intellectual revolution. As an artistic medium it just does not seem to posess the same elegance and simplicity as music or film.
The nearest thing I can think of that's like gaming but encourages creativity is social MUDding- the text-based virtual world socialising in which you build an identity and seek friends, sex, whatever. In this arena, creative and expressive abilities are everything and define attractiveness and influence- yet still, people seem to end up with the abilities they bring to the game, they typically don't learn or change from it. And that's in the sort of game _most_ directly rewarding of creative abilities.
... addicted to dopamine.
I found a copy of Civilization the other day. I played continously when it first came out. I haven't touched it in years... but the first time I did, I went straight from 9pm to 5am on a work night. For several days I couldn't stop.
In recent years, I had this with Quake 2. We installed it on the computers at work to help us get through all nighters. Eventually we were all playing for hours against each other at the end of every day.
It's bad. You wake up in the morning wanting a game. You get your fix. You then spend the rest of the day getting less and less productive, and more and more restless. Games start earlier each day, when possible. Then you play forgetting to eat, blink, stretch, etc. You feel good until you stop playing. Then you get up and it hits you. You can hardly see, you can hardly walk, and you're ravenously hungry.
Jon, in amongst all those BS unsubstanciated stereotypes, you forgot to mention that there could be a physiological reason. I normally don't have a very addictive personality. But, certain games will have me playing to the detriment of my health and other priorities. Trying to fight it leaves me strung out, just like a heroin junky. I'm not the only one either: I've seen other people in just the same state. Perhaps dopamine product is a more accurate characteristic of gamers. This is probably more an explanation why people play for more than 49 mins per day. I bet you'll find that males play more video games than females, which falls in line with dopamine.
Respectfully, Jon, if you mean to say that game-playing causes creativity, I have terrible time seeing this. All the behavioral enhancements you note in experienced gamers (team play, strategic thinking, decisiveness) sound to me like well-developed problem-solving skills. But I suggest there's a qualitative difference between acquiring and honing skills specific to running repeatedly through a set of stimuli (a particular game) and being "creative" and a "storyteller."On the other hand, consider the rare gamer who becomes bored with playing games and ponders, "What are the possibilies of this medium?" Gamers who go on to modify and extend games through scenario builders, to design better games from scratch, and to compose fiction around characters and plotlines seen in games -- they are truly creative and not merely adept and intuitive at playing the games themselves. This sort of gamer might not become as adept at problem-solving his/her way through the game, but s/he is exhibiting true creative expression in making something that wasn't there before.
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
I'm not getting your squawk Squadboy. Of course that's an average. Thats what an average means. What's your point? Of course some kids play less, some more. Personally, I'd be embarrassed to comment on something I had read, and to do so publically and enthusiastically. Takes much gall.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Interesting topic..I'd be interested to read more about that, but I've never writtena bout cheating..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
I like the connection between non-gamers and anal retentiveness, though from some of the posts here, you might not want to take it too far. But I think this is a very smart post. One of the interesting things about gaming is that repetition becomes satisfying, even sometimes obsessive. Have to think about the connection to Republicans, thought.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Off-hand, some universal generational experiences: TV, movies, shopping (non-cultural). Book were a universal experience among educated elites, but less so these days, as many well educated people choose other forms of entertainment and information (like gaming) although book readership remains high. TV is probably the best contemporary American example of a previous generational experience, though remember it was passively consumed -- until the switcher people could only watch, not control or participate.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
I'm not sure I disagree, or that this is an extreme viewpoint. And you can just read Threads to see that smart people can be thugs as well. But you can't consider who these gamers are -- technologically empowered kids in the millions, and not, in my opinion, believe they will be shaping society in the future. But sure, a lot of them are jerks, as you can gleam from reading any Threads on any topic. Doesn't mean they aren't smart or won't be influential, tho. Or that they won't grow up and find better use of their time than writing hostile posts...
jonkatz@slashdot.org
If you read Playfful World or Trigger Happy by Stephen Poole, there are some interesting studies from the Pentagon and Harvard Medical School about how gamers often have high (higher) IQ's in comparison to the general population because of the stimulation . Reading the studies, I honestly couldn't figure out if because gamers are apt to be relatively intelligent and educated, or if games make them that way. Gaming, it seems to me, would have at least as much impact on a mind as chess or othe pursuits society deems worthwhile..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
This is a pretty circular argument. It goes from a good point...game developers are largely uncredited artists, to some ranting about Columbine and Napster (I haven't written much about Napster in quite awhile) that I simply don't understand. The germ "Geek" is also pretty meaningless these days when everybody's grandma is online. I think this poster is clinging to the notion of somehow being superior, but as I said, I can't really follow the reasoning past the smart and true point up top.
Is the poster saying the Columbine posters have to have used Linux to be worth of posting to Slashdot. Yuk.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Got Starcraft and Diablo last month and have begun playing them (very happily). I've played some games briefly, but no, I'm not much of a gamer at all. Maybe that will change.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Yes, definitely I'm serious. In five years, society at large will be taking gaming very seriously as a culture. Make sure to e-mail me when you see it. (I'll be cleaningsomebody's floors)
jonkatz@slashdot.org
I'm not sure that I have to write every article for you. I've gotten about 600 e-mails so far about this article, and people seem to find it plenty interesting and relevant to them. I'm thrilled that you kayak, but is that written for me? The notion that "WE" know everything about stuff like this is just elitist. Gaming is a huge subject and a lot of people are eager to talk about it. If you know it all, then skip it.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
I don't set out to reach any particular audience, but your assumptions about slashdot are wrong. For obvious reasons, a very small percentage of people post on Threads, due to the number of people screaming that they know everything about everything. But I got more response to this series from Slashdot readers than anything I've written since The Last Days of Politics, so somebody is mis-reading something. I don't think it's me.
Be careful about gauging slashdot from the disprorportionately hostile group of people who monopolize Threads. Not typical. As I said earlier I've gotten well over 600 e-mails about this column, almost all from Slashdot readers, many apologizing for the tone of many of the comments here. The e-mail is by no means all praise, but invariably thoughtful and interesting. Sorry they won't post publically, as should be the case.
But you misjudge slashdot by assuming what the audience is or isn't. The audience is very diverse and mixed and lots of people are very interesting in this subject...The idea that people might find the subject of gaming "scary" is...well, scary.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
...the physical side of life? Sounds highly metaphysical..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
...are you making between gaming and social skills? I'd be curious to know what you mean..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Spewing out masturbatory journalism is definitely a first-rate reason for Katz or any other bashing. But I'm not sure a supermarket tabloid would hire me, though if you have one in mind let me know. I hear they pay well.
I'd definitely bash Katz if I thought he were real, rather than a figment of Jeff and Rob's imagination..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
I have to say this is a good and smart point. I'm obviously not in a position to undertake so detailed a society of individual gamers and their gamers, but Rudeboy's point about games reflecting individual personality's is well taken. It would be very worthwhile. Though I sort of thought I was making somewhat the same point.
The purpose of writing a column or series like this isn't to be as definitive as that, but to raise a subject and an issue and let people talk about it. I'm glad to see that's happening.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
The answer is, I think, that few kid's books deal with graphic themes of violence. Plus they aren't repetitive or the least bit addictive. Also, they are controllable easily by adults. Just some of the differences.
As to being self-appointed, I've never been dumb enough to hire me. Somebody else always has, though they usually get over it and come to their senses.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
You can block them, ignore them, or criticize them. Jeez, how many choices do you want? As to the Katzian bullshit generator, it triggers many responses..the big paycheck is another question..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
The assertion that gamers are, as a group, any smarter or more logical than any other group of people picked at random is utter bull, and I wish Katz would get off of it. Gaming gave me better eye-hand coordination and a lot of fun hours in the process, but I can't say it affected my real-world problem-solving skills. Programming sure did, as did the formal logic courses I took in college, but Quake? Pfaw.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
At beginning:
"No, no, nooooooo. Not Katz again!.."
At end:
I should have done this Part I. And really stop here. You made some points. They are discussable but real. Yes, in fact games give a good push. But that also depends on what games kids play. And at what level. And it also depends on many things sorrounding them. Even Quake has its positive points not matter the raw violence of the subject. I saw teenagers developing real good skills with this game. They become aware of decision making tasks. Under the stressful conditions of the game this produces a series of interesting moments. For example, a 16 year old kid commanding a whole bunch of sysadmins. They are older, more experienced in real life, they feel superior to this guy who just learned to tie his boots. But in the virtuality of the game, this youngster was marvelous. Specially on things like CTF or Arena. He was somehow authoritarian and maximalist. However, this was seen more as a secondary drawback, as he managed to divide team's tasks, take decisions in the appropriate moment, measure the risks. Somehow his authoritarism was useful with some kamikadze "frag" hotheads. There was always the problem of getting weaponery, ammunitions, health and other stuff and he managed all this quite well.
Later at his 18-19 he started to show in real life some of these qualities (and defects also!). But the fact is that the boy, overall got a good push commanding the most anarchic team I ever knew. In fact it his a HELL to hold up anyone of us... We are all natural born deathmatchers
This is what _The Diamond Age_ is all about (and I know almost everyone here likes Neal Stephenson): how an utterly involving interactive text-adventure can turn a reasonably smart young girl into a very clever, intelligent woman who examines everything (in addition to teaching things like self-defense). It's vindication for all those people who decried the death of the text adventure by 'one dimensional' first person shooters! Hopefully the future will be like this.
"... I declare our city to be a free and independent state to be named Tri-Insula!" --Fernando Wood, Mayor of NYC 1861
Gamers are the new artists, visionaries, and story-tellers of our time, sparked by astonishingly inventive new technologies like the PS 2.
The PS2's technology doesn't spark imagination. It is an incredibly difficult-to-program machine, and if anything, inhibits creative game design. Publishers will take less risks since just getting the game out the door is risk enough. If you want real storytelling, go to www.ifarchive.org and play some interactive fiction.
Younger Americans are used to being denounced as ignorant, violent, obsessive, even uncivilized. Increasingly, they don't care; they've stopped paying attention. Involvement in gaming can be seen as both manifestation and cause this schism, a profoundly significant force in culture and society.
If kids ever cared, they stopped when Elvis went on TV and started twisting his hips. Remember, it was rock'n'roll that destroyed our youth. No, it was comic books...Wait, no it was...
The point being...'gaming' is just GAMES!!! Doom is only mildly seperated from 'cowboys'n'indians' with your finger as a gun, which is only mildly seperated from 'kill the sabertooth tiger' with pretend spears. About the only difference being that Doom doesn't allow for actual physical exercise.
Gaming has affected almost everyone who grew up with it -- which is to say, just about half of the country.
So has cottage cheese. When can we expect to see an expose on the dramatic influence that cottage cheese has on young people.
Adults may quake at the transformation, but kids are completely at home with the joystick, the key to a new kind of civilization.
Damn!! I waisted my time in college when all I had to do was learn the JOYSTICK!! Damn! Damn! Triple DAMN!!
We know something about gamers. They're quick decision-makers, sometimes to the point of impulsiveness. Since their virtual lives depend on
fast reactions, their real-life decision making processes become visceral, instinctive.
,and since they rarely give themselves time to truly consider the consequences of their actions, the real-life decisions are wrong.
Wishy-washy gamers are unsuccessful gamers, so gamers make a lot of quick decisions and feel confident about them.
no matter how completely duffle-headed those decisions may be.
Gamers are story-tellers. They inhabit increasingly imaginative virtual environments; they spent a substantial portion of their formative years interacting with stories, graphics and representations on screens that nearly become part of their neural systems. They are always telling tales, to one another and to themselves.
From what I've seen of my nephews who 'game' constantly, gamers like to be told tales. These guys spend very little time creating or adding to content. It's all about buying a game that someone else created. What time I've tried to spend with them explaining how a computer works is totally ignored. Any book that I've given them on how computers work have gone unread. Of course, they want to know about any neat hack I can tell them about, as long as I can give step by step instructions. They don't want to spend a second trying to grok the internals, they just want to know the sequence of up-down-left-right-etc. One even asked me to teach him to be a hacker; of course, he only had about 15 minutes to spend on the lesson, and he didn't want to waste time learning to count in binary. I don't think we're going to see these types replacing the intelligentsia any time soon.
Kids of this generation will be different from any that has preceded them.
Only in the same way that every generation has been different from every preceding generation, which is to say, "Bullshit, John. Take your head out of your rectum long enough to get a perception of things past your bedroom door." People are always the same. Most are lazy and want to be entertained and coddled. Games are just the latest incarnation of the circus. As for fixing political problems, the only thing most gamers will do is vote for someone that will guarantee them bread.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I'm confused. I see that the new generation's familiarity with computers brings them some useful skills and points of view. But I don't see how their gaming experience makes them any different from, say, the previous generations who *also* had gaming experience.
Before computers it was D&D. Before D&D it was cowboys and indians, football and little league baseball. Before that, youths played word games in Victorian england. Card games throughout the 19th century. During feudal history it was play swordfighting. Hopscotch, mumbleypeg, caber tossing. Olympic contests in greco-roman times. Lacrosse was played by amerinds thousands of years ago. Even cavemen probably had contests of strength, coordination and wit.
Young people have always played games of one sort or another. That they're now doing it with a computer, and with a wider assortment of people throughout the world, will have an effect on their skills and worldview. But 90% of the things mentioned in the above article apply to the gamers of every generation for thousands of years into the past.
We are not that different.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Yes! Yes! Thank you! Someone else gets the idea!
What on earth is Katz thinking when he fluffs up this geek ideal which involves not coding, not activism, not creation of any sort, but passive activities like Napstering, DVD ripping and gaming?
There's a great big difference between actual action and a couch-potato "Yeah, I'm cool" attitude. Major props to you for being so articulate about it.
grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Mr. Katz, look up the word generalization. Then go discover on the net why it's a logical fallacy (a Google search on "informal logic" would help). Your entire piece is one large generalization of what a "gamer" is.
Please, if you're going to try to categorize people, please put some science and logic behind it.
----------------------------------
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
Jon, why do you insist on writing lengthy articles describing just exactly what we, the various groups in the "geek" community, are? It just sounds like sucking up. Wow, we're *smart*, we're *free thinkers*, we're *team players*, we're *independent*, we're *creative*, oh yeah, did I mention we're *free thinkers*, blah blah blah. Why are you telling this to us? I think "we" know who "we" are (or at least "they" know who "they" are). Do you also write long analytical articles about the character of choir boys, for the choir? If you are going to stereotype, and then fall over yourself flattering any given group of people, at least do so to *a different* group. Next article: Return Return Tab Tab Brace Left Brace Right - Programmers are *smart*, *independent*, *free thinking*, *creative* people!
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I always try to be fair to Mr. Katz, but this article is superficial. It reads like an attempt to vindicate gamers from all the bad press games have been receiving. It doesn't reach below the surface or attempt to look for the truth.
At the moment, there is a schism in gaming. The traditional hardcore players are becoming more and more inbred and negative, while being almost entirely separated from the surge in video game popularity. On the web you see ravings from people who seem obsessed with aliasing and polygon throughput and so on, as if this is somehow related to fun. At the same time, hardcore gamers are hugely conservative. If you develop an RPG or FPS that at all deviates from the norm, then you take heavy flak for it. Heck, you can't even get away from gothic, sci fi, or midieval settings, because no one will stand for it. Or try to do a first person shooter that doesn't include a rocket launcher, and you get grilled.
So I'd consider most people who consider themselves gamers to be behind the curve in a big way, in that they're handicapped with a narrow view. There's no reason to call them any kind of cultural force, any more than people who think that Lethal Weapon 4 is, like, the most awesome movie ever.
I've seen a lot of masturbatory journalism in my day, but this takes the cake. JonKatz conjures up images of some little boy saving a plane-load of Christmas travelers by seizing the controls and guiding down the plane with his lightning-quick Playstation reflexes and flight simulator training. Why don't you instead post some tales about how slashdot stories will save true journalism, or maybe that the legions of /. readers are educating the world and making everything hunky-dory by becoming the Jehovah's Witnesses of all things geeky?
--Brogdon
This tagline is umop apisdn.
Katz quoted a figure of 49 minutes (presumably a mean, the average time for which US children game) and described it as if it were the median (the time for which an "average child" games). There's a difference, and it's a significant difference as this article was concerned.
This sort of slapdash inaccuracy is something of a Katz trademark, and it's why he has a poor reputation with many Slashdot readers. In some ways he's the Germaine Greer of /. -- He's often absolutely right, but he argues the case so badly that you begin to disbelieve him anyway.
How sad. It would be much better for all concerned if they'd use that time to read a book.
No wonder many young people are semi-literate.
Logged into one of my boxes at work, and got this fortune:
And of course Jon Katz posts one of his silly articles today. Very amusing!
I have to wonder if the two are related. If so, I don't think that Jon got the sarcasm gene.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
That's as much of the article as you need to read to understand just how messed up Jon Katz is. I know no such thing--in fact, it's one of the stupidest suppositions I've ever read, and here he is trying to state it as fact.
Honestly
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Gamers are story-tellers...
Who you are is not defined by what you do for fun (or for work, for that matter).
Our 7 year old is smitten with realMyst this week, but that doesn't change who he is -- he's always been inquisitive -- this is just an outlet for him to express that part of himself.
That said, we do limit how long he can be at the computer because there is I think a danger that kids can get a little to involved in one thing and miss out on other important parts of childhood -- but games, sports, books, etc, etc, are all capable of this effect.
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
How sad. It would be much better for all concerned if they'd use that time to read a book.
No wonder many young people are semi-literate.
What utter drivel. Once again we return to the outdated idea that because something is printed on a dead tree that automatically gives it a status above everything else. Reading, in and of itself, is no better than playing video games or watching television. Just because someone is a "reader" doesn't make them smarter or better equipped for society.
The key here is that its about what you read, what you play, or what you watch. If reading was the key to being smarter then why aren't disgruntled housewives who bury themselves in romance novels considered the smartest humans on Earth? If I turn on the Discovery Channel or the History Channel and watch it all day, I can assure you I'll be much better off than them.
Now is there more "quality" material out there in book form than in television or video games? Sure. Remember though that books have had a few thousand years head start. Given how far the electronic medium has come in less than a hundred years, that gap is going to be erased quickly.
Its time everyone got over this outdated idea that books are just plain "better" than anything else. In a hundred years or so we won't print books anymore. Do we all think the population will be a herd of illiterate drones?
mr.nobody
--Don't you wanna go where nobody knows your name?
Gamers are used to operating within and accepting a system of carefully crafted rules. Software is nothing, if not a set of rules. As complexity increases, not only in the rules but also in the devices, synapses are dedicated to adapting, not creating. Those who are trained to adapt are optimal device operators.
If gamers were the ones developing these new paradigms, I would be much more impressed, but the PS2 was the product of trained electrical engineers (among other professionals), very few of whom, I imagine, were making trips to the mall to buy 12 sided dice ten years ago. The kids in my classes who were really really smart, the kind of people who are media innovators, were bored by games. That's why they became innovators.
In my experience, gamers are largely responsible for highly derivative output, which is not necesarilly their fault- There are maybe five different types of games (when you really get down to it), and this is because this is what the market demand is. Wildly divergent games are not made. Those who would really challenge the gaming industry (and for that matter the music, or publishing industry) to create a more interesting product don't make up enough of the market to warrant it.
Basically, gamers (definitions vary, but just playing video games does not make you a gamer) are the future plumbers of tommorow- Only they'll be installing routers in people's houses and making sure port xxxx is open so Bob and Tammy can configure/inventory their fridge from work.
I don't mean to be modest when I say that I am a good example of this statement. Beginning at about the age of three, with my dad's Atari ___ [insert number, I forgot], I was destined to be somewhat of a gamer for a large part of my youth. I've spent a limited amount of time studying the effects of childhood gaming habits, and the result that seems to echo everywhere is that spatial abilities are discovered and developed through playing video games.
Taking this a step further, in general more boys than girls make it a habit to play video games. More boys than girls also tend to excel in mathematics. Many studies have concluded that the skills developed in video game environments and mathematics are closely linked, and therefore ... to make a very long shory incredibly short, probably confusing the hell out of you ... video games help to develop our intelligence. I say everyone play video games, but not too much...
If you REALLY want kids to succeed, get a hold of some old Infocom games. Nothing better in terms of learning analytical skills.
--
It's people like you that raise children that go into classrooms and shoot people.
If all I got to watch on TV was "something wholesome like Mary Poppins," I'd probably be shooting up schools too.
Earth to AC: your kids are going to grow up to be dorks and losers and they won't be respected by ANYBODY.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
Did I say I didn't grow up enjoying video games more than was good for me, or become a successful consultant? No. Do I know people who devoted their lives to a game or two, to the exclusion of all else, who now pack groceries? Yes.
Be yourself. Don't worry about the bell curve: it's a measurement of the world, not of you.
John
John
I even said " other than in the extreme cases, I suspect that video game experience doesn't relate to real life at all." So, do you consider yourself an extreme case? I believe you implied you were a 1*x-2*x game player: do I need to go back and write a general case that doesn't exclude you, too?
<SARCASM>Quit spending your time worrying about people making meaningless generalizations on Slashdot that don't even apply to you, and get back to work.</SARCASM> :-)
John
John
Computer games don't affect kids. I mean, if Pac Man affected us as kids, we'd all sit around in a darkened room, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive music
Not all female game characters are skinny blondes - check out Lucy from Quake 3 Arena...
Computer games don't affect the kids of today; I mean, if PacMan affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music. Oh wait.. uh.. shit.. nm.
for a split second I thought about it. But only to change the password to stop these insistant posts at the start of each article. *sigh*
---
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
I agree with the fact that gaming strenghtens some problem solving abilities. I also agree that the virtual universes which are simulated in videogames can stimulate human spatial perception.
However, the same has also been said years ago about the television and we yet have to agree on a gamer : do you mean any sofa potato that'll just undergo a digital experience or some more active fellow that'll keep puzzle himself trying to overtake the game possibilities ?
It is a matter of effort, whatever we speak about : gaming, watching tv or even listening to music which will (without too much brain passivity) respectively bring their addicts reflexes, culture or an accute sense of observation.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Umm... Is this because you, Mr. Katz, are a gamer and see "artists, visionaries and story-tellers" as the type of people that you admire? Personally, I'd like to be a gamer. I've got a PIII 933MHZ and a Prophet II Ultra for those blazingly fast frame rates. Unfortunately, I'm too damn busy to play any games. Between the MASSIVE amount of reading required to remain current in this field, plus the work itself, any free time left is taken up by my family.
Of course, I'm not a kid, but when I was, I was much more interested in WRITING software than playing it. Personally, I think the new generation of artists, visionaries and story-tellers will be busy testing their talents and creatively stretching themselves than spending large amounts of time playing video games.
Both views have a point, and of course both simplify the question of success. The point is that there are lots of things that are important to success. Analytical skills can be honed by some games, and socialization skills can be honed by spending time away from the console. Katz' article makes the point that there are some good analytical attitudes developed by game playing (which goes for board games as well as vids, to a certain extent) and the idea that you should think about behavior in a way that optimizes something (points, dollars, happiness) is a good attitude to develop. It is not the extreme gamers who will succeed necessarily, and is not that people who totally avoid games will succeed necessarily. As usual, the optimum is somewhere in the middle...
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
Yes, people play them for 49 minutes a day (I love the way Katz always has to reach for a Believe-it-or-Not! style stat before he makes one of his trite observations).
No, you are never going to really understand why people make or play games Jon. Your articles continue to put me in mind of a middle-aged Dad trying to be cool in front of his children's friends. You're not documenting anything that isn't glaringly obvious to the average person. In fact, you're pidgeonholing gamers (a monolithic entity to you - just as you claim "outcasts/geeks" are to the Oppressive School System) in a rather unhelpful way.
NEWSFLASH : Most gamers are not children. "Gamers are the new story tellers" WTF? It's a romantic statement that simply doesn't reflect the real situation. And I suppose people that don't play games are incapable of strategic thought? Jesus, any more unfounded sweeping generalisations you want to make?
And before I forget, the repeated trumpeting of Sony's PS2 as the Second Coming is simply embarrassing. Woo, a box that can't begin to compete (either on visuals or quality and diversity of games) with the PC, and even seems to struggle head-to-head with the 18-month old Dreamcast.
Go find someone else's hobby to ruminate about!
Preferences > Homepage > Customize stories on homepage > Authors > Zonk > Uncheck
Gaming, like gambling, is an elaborate form of masturbation. Yes, it develops an extensive set of responses -- which, guess what, don't translate too well into the real world. (Remember how the narrator of Snow Crash had the coolest hangout possible in cyberspace but lived in a U-Stor-It in real life?)
Gaming is not about making you a better person, or even building a community -- the community thing happens by itself whenever a bunch of people get interested in the same thing. This is why you have a Linux community, a C community, a Sega community, a Nader community, a neighborhood community, a drug community, an HO scale train community, even a Lesbian S&M community.
Gaming itself is about pleasure. People play games because the games are simpler and make more sense and reward you more reliably for your effort than real life. As other people have pointed out here, the responses appropriate in a game environment -- make snap decisions, take risks, shoot at anything that moves, go for the reset button, cheat when necessary -- will get you into big trouble if you attempt to apply them in real life.
I'd say the #1 problem caused by games (but not just by games, also by other electronic media) is that they do not teach patience or perseverence or an extended span of attention. How many games reward you for sitting still for hours, being alert to your environment, and then acting on short notice with little warning when something unexpected happens? How many teach you that the sum of a thousand seemingly pointless boring tasks can be a single achievement, preceeded by no other reward at all, but making the whole effort worthwhile?
I grew up with computers and TV too, in an age when Jerry Mander was moved to write Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television (all of which also apply to video games FWIW); in an age when the things Mander complained about were far milder than they are today, it took me years to unlearn a bunch of unhealthy patterns of behavior, and there are some impulses I doubt I'll ever shake.
Back in the dark ages when our parents had to walk to school in the snow (uphill both ways, remember) kids learned patience the hard way -- by being patient. There were long periods of time when there was no entertainment (or none of interest, e.g. nothing but soap operas on TV during summer afternoons), no companions, nothing structured to do; and you learned to deal with those times the way humans learn to deal with everything, by going through them and surviving. Some would turn to reading, some to working out, some to quiet inner contemplation, but most would figure out something interesting to do with a rainy afternoon. But now it seems like every waking moment can be engaged by some electronic companion. While this is a great convenience when we want it, it seems to me that the mental electric wheelchairs have taken over and people are forgetting that they have mental legs, too.
But I don't mean this to be a diatribe against games per se; they are now part of our environment and we will either adapt to their presence or (cough)fail to adapt(cough). It's just that the electronic / computer / gaming world needs its Pat Califia. This was just another tireless but tired advocacy job from the Marquis de Sade.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
That's one of Katz's greatest shortcomings: he assumes everyone is exactly like himself.
Of course, on slashdot I suppose there are a few people, maybe more than a few, that are similar enough to him that his writings strike a chord that makes a lot of heads nod up and down. Unfortunately, I think that he is way too obsessed with telling "computer people" that "computer people" are the most important people ever, are the smartest people ver, are the most insightful people ever, are the most imaginative people ever, are the most misunderstood people ever, are the most underrated people ever, are the most wonderful people ever...
Katz is obsessed with stroking his own ego, and hopefully in the process making us poor, poor misunderstood "computer people" feel that we are just as important as the Roman Empire, the greatest thinkers of all time, the great politically shaping wars of history, and the development of the human race all put together. It just isn't so people. We are just another section of humanity, and while we all "see" how important the Internet, and computing in general, has become to us, we sometimes fail to understand that computers are not the only thing that matters. There is an entire world out there beyond your screens. Jon Katz tries to make you believe that those people that exist outside of computerdom do not matter, that we are more important than them. It isn't true. We are all a part of humanity, each of us just as important, or as worthless, as the next.
I'm sorry to sound so harsh, but I do not believe all of this ooey-gooey "We are kewl" type of ego stroking is good for people. If you actually start to believe you are a part of the most important thing ever, you fail to complete anything that could be important. You begin to spend more time stroking your ego than completing work that could make an important impact. It isn't healthy, mentally or historically.
Not to say that computer people are bad, but we are not the most important creatures to ever inhabit the Earth. Please, let's try to keep some perspective here people.
------------
Chill dude.
Fact is the more you play (with words, with toys, with props, with yourself,) the smarter you are because play is learning.
Gifted children are recognizable as gifted adults because the one who managed to survive the educational system still exhibit almost childish delight in learning. New sh*t is "kewl".
Sadly, (for them,) a lot of people young or old, feel that play isn't worthwhile or take their play entirely too seriously to gain any cognitive benefit.
It becomes rote, repetition and drill instead of wonder and enlightenment. And they become Republicans or merely anal-retentive.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
It reads as if a gamer wrote it. One who is a team player that shares strategies or cheats with others, not a loner who figures out the game on her own. Apparently writtein by one who assumes that all gamers are like themselves.
Jon says, "We know that gamers are the new prophets and story-tellers of society, that gaming is approaching a universal generational experience. So gamers are important. It seems clear that the future is in their hands."
/.er's heart, but this sort of connection is ridiculous. Game designers are no more important to society than Gygax, or the guy who invented monopoly.
Can anybody thing of any other universal generational experiences? I know I can - and ones that are far more universal. But no one ever equates them with the future of society.
I mean, what about books? what about TV? what about mass-brand shops?
I'd be more likely to pay attention to a thesis on the power of the universal Starbucks experience, or the way half the under-twelves of the Western World have all read Harry Potter, or how every one in the UK can sing the theme tune to the Bodyform advert despite the fact it hasn't run on TV for three years.
I know computer games are close to many
Wow, actually got a response, maybe we can have an interesting conversation. :)
;)
Concerned parents who take an active interested in their children's wellbeing and letting them only watch Mary Poppins don't exactly go hand-in-hand.
Yes, I do believe nowadays that crappy parenting is a problem. Neglect is a problem.
No, I don't have any children. And I'm glad I don't, and I'm not going to have any for some time now because I know I'm not suitable for being a parent at the age of 21.
Let me see here, out of about 10 of my close friends, 8 of them are married. 6 of them have kids. 4 of them have more than one kid. And NONE of them are above the age of 23.
I'm sure that you want the absolute best for your kids, and I'm not questioning that, I'm simply questioning what's the best way to go about it?
I do believe that it's extremely important for kids to find out for themselves what is right and wrong, what they should do and what they shouldn't. And I also believe it is extremely important for kids to be respected. It's also extremely important for them to respect you.
I don't think that sheltering your kids from TV or society in general is the way to go about it.
I respect my parents, I love em, I think I had the greatest upbringing. I have respect for just about every individual I run across. I'm generally a nice guy.
It really disgusts me to run across kids who have lived a really sheltered life. In general, they are more shy, they don't have fun with the other kids, and they are generally confused most of the time.
Case in point, my cousin Mason. I'm the oldest in my family, and I have around 30 cousins. Mason is around 13 years old now. His parents are the sort that don't have cable on their TV, they don't have a computer, they don't have any video games. They generally try to keep the rest of society out of their children's lives.
Now, when we all meet for family gatherings, he never plays with the other kids his age. In fact, he doesn't play with any of the other kids. He's extremely shy, he doesn't talk to people, he generally stays by himself. Same goes with his sister Tracie.
I mean, I really do think it is important for kids to be respected by their peers and by other people. And I think it's important that they have respect for you.
I hope to be a great parent one of these days, whenever I'm through with being a kid.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
The kids who spend 0 minutes playing them are usually motivated by other things, such as reality. THESE are the kids who will run the world. They're the ones who have learned the necessary social and leadership skills. The kids who spend x*6 minutes playing the games will spend the next 40 years of their lives shoveling the 21st century equivalent of coal, mad at the unfairness of the world that lets "suits" who make all the money.
Sure, these are rather extreme viewpoints. Certainly there are good, smart kids who play video games, and there are also slugs who probably aren't smart enough to figure out video games. As a matter of fact, other than in the extreme cases, I suspect that video game experience doesn't relate to real life at all. But the kids who get no exposure to life outside of a PlayStation are quite ill prepared to be kicked out of Mommy & Daddy's basement. Don't raise them up on some kind of virtual pedestal -- you're looking in the wrong direction.
John
John
Now, I don't game, so I can't really say much about this. But I sure as hell don't know any women who look like Lara or Johanna Dark in real life. And I am not sure that adult fantasy figures are a good thing for young minds. Just a thought.
This is another view of the world.
Jon that average does not mean that every child in America plays videogames for 49 minutes a day and that some play longer. That average includes all the children who do not play at all along with the children like mine who get a couple of hours a night (I think it is better than TV in many ways) So your implication at the start of this is just wrong. No I did not read the whole thing but that put me off so I just had to reply.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Here's a bit of my own, totally non-scientific, research:
Kids don't care if the games are full of the latest 3D-mega-graphic technologies or not. The games I've seen kids play are very often old platform games on the Nintendo emulator (the old 8 bit NES). OK, the graphics and sound aren't up to par with the newest games, but the gameplay keeps the kids involved for hours and hours, month after month.
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
Gamers are the new artists, visionaries, and story-tellers of our time, sparked by astonishingly inventive new technologies like the PS 2. Ready or not, they will become increasingly influential.
Bah. Sounds way to serious to me to be fun.
This is just like the cant you get from athletic "supporters" about football turning kids into leaders.
My hobby is martial arts, and we're totally infected by the ego tripping idea that just participating makes us better/more spiritual/more disciplined people. The fact is that plenty of us are short sighted, mean spirited and impulsive. The really important things -- leadership, creativity, spiritual development don't come from our hobbies -- they're more a matter of character. Sure there are a rare few in the martial arts world who do find a kind of transcendence in the practice, but I expect that it has more to do with who they are than anything else. Perhaps they'd find a kind of spiritual transcendence in philately. Frankly these people aren't the crashing bores who are droning on and on about their terrific spiritual development or superhuman discipline.
I expect that there's been too much hype about how video games rot your brain and degrade your morals. The answer to that isn't counterhype, just the recognition that sometimes you just need to have some fun, even if it isn't completely wholesome. I'm not going to stop eating chocolate because it has saturated fats and refined sugar, I just don't make it my total diet.
Freud said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; sometimes a game is just a game. Even nascent ubermen to be need to take a break now and then.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Uh, no. Game developers are, maybe. And I'll include gamers who make levels or skins. But players? They're at best the new audience for artists and story-tellers.
Anyone else get the impression that Slashdot now functions largely as a self-esteem booster for teenagers? First, everyone here was made out to be an "open-source hacker". As the site filled with readers who can't compile, let alone code, everyone with a Red Hat CD he may or may not have installed became a "member of The Community".
Then the Columbine stuff drew a crowd that a) couldn't care less about Linux and b) craves flattery even more than the old gang did. Jon Katz steps forward with article after article about how Napster kiddiez, game console owners and pompous, disgruntled teenagers are "geeks", "visionaries", "artists", "revolutionaries"...
Come on, kids. If you're not willing to go outdoors or to talk to girls, at least learn to use your computer. Read this largely unnoticed Ask Slashdot and see what being a geek is really about.