Slashdot Mirror
Orson Scott Card on Games
RexDart writes "Author Orson Scott Card has published an essay on modern gaming at the Ornery American site. Titled Brain Training, the piece touches on many points in the ongoing debate on videogames. While Card concedes that 'there are brutally violent games' and that games are addictive, he argues that videogames and games in general are excellent brain-stretching exercises, and expands from that into intentional mental workouts as a lifestyle and calling."
My brain must be a level 60 Tauren Shaman by now.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
And yet, we have no game based on either the Battle School game or the Command School simulators? For shame.
That might be, however, because he's bitter that the book of his that everyone loved was not the one he wanted it to be...
He's one to talk about violence in games...
http://ds.ign.com/articles/631/631268p1.html
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
Well, I'd love to play his game, Advent Rising, but they won't stop pushing back the release date for the PC version. I'm starting to get quite irritated.
OMG! Wau!
Well, actually I wasn't. But I did think it was a fun way to relax and spend time with my stepson. Maybe it's a male thing, but it is always easier for fathers and sons to spend time together when they are doing something. For my dad and I it was 1 on 1 basketball. Previous generations had fishing and gathering fireflys. For us, it's gaming. Whatever works, use it;-)
Could we possibly be overthinking these "issues" with gaming?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
...that will teach him tolerance of homosexuals/bisexuals. That'd be good. Until then, I don't give a shit what Card thinks.
The Molten Core is simply an exercise before the real battle...
The past several "insights" of OSC has revealed him to be bit of a crackpot. Why would anyone give a damn about anything he has to say?
Overall, I thought the article was very good; however, I was tripped up on "The Downside" section. From TFA:
But most games are not violent. Even if they are war-themed, they're about as violent as playing chess -- which is also a war game. Most games have no violence at all, and some -- especially online multi-player games -- are highly social and require learning the ability to cooperate and compromise.
I might be reading this wrong; however, it seems that Orson Scott Card is making a distinction between violent games (including war-themed games, like Battlefied 2 and Call of Duty) and online multi-player games (World of Warcraft and Puzzle Pirates).
I think Orson Scott Card is making a faux pas by not mentioning that some online multiplayer games are violent AND require learning the ability to cooperate and compromise, along with allowing an indvidual to "stretch their brain".
My favorite online FPS du-jour at the moment is Battlefield 2. Not being in a clan, I am subject to the feast or famine of public servers when it comes to individuals who decide to play as a team in squad and those who decide THEY want to fly the helicopter, so when you decide to get in, they team kill you with C4; however, I've played the game enough to realize that one squad which is organized and skilled, can win a map for a team.
In addition, Battlefield 2, through the multiple class system, allows you to utilize multiple tools in order outsmart your enemy.
Some would consider Battlefield 2 a "murder simulator" and others would begrudge the game because it makes war "appealing"; however, beyond those labels is a game that forces individuals to work together in order to achieve a goal and use their brain and their skill in order to outsmart opponents.
Respect It.
The only really great novel of his I've enjoyed was Ender's Game, and even that has had it's criticisms (Apology for Hitler, etc). As usual, I think he has a generally correct point, but his details are somehow flawed.
The man suggests that concentrating on a 19 inch screen (monitor or your average TV) somehow increases peripheral vision. If that was somehow part of the study's conclusions, then at the very least Card should be explaining why this occurs.
And I can't say that I agree with the statement that obediance to the law in all cases is an American principle. Card's opinion here seems to be mostly a Brigham Young dictator and prophet worshipping culture that surrounds Utah. The America I read about was founded by people who asserted a inherant moral right to rise against unfair laws. But this was basically an aside, put forth to remind people that he's a mormon, because a personal blog is a great place to make a political statement.
Card also suggests that the majority of games are non-violent. That might be true, but the most popular games, the most widely played games are. At any given point in time, there's more people playing Halflife shooters than all of Yahoo! games in the US. Strategy games, the kind that involve recognizing a situation, coming up with a solution, and analysing the results to repeat the process, all revolve around violence and war. I've yet to see a fascinating game on the exploits of serial entrepeneurs. Strategy games first and foremost are an abstraction of war. Unfortunately it hurts his argument to describe the truth here. At least, with people who aren't convinced that games are beneficial. Even the study used a violent game: Medal of Honor. Another ww2 themed first person shooter.
But generally, yea, games are social tools. Many people will discount games without a multiplayer option, and some even go so far as to say that single player games are more accurately labelled "puzzles".
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
subject says it all
Here's the text:
... it's a videogame! By definition, it's a waste of time!
... or both.
Civilization Watch First appeared in print in The Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC By Orson Scott Card June 26, 2005
Brain Training
My wife gave me an arcade game for Christmas -- a new home version that looks just like the old video arcade unit but contains several dozen games.
Our eleven-year-old has tried out all of them now, and has her favorites. But I zeroed in on Mr. Do and Millipede. In fact, my wife and I play Millipede together quite often, and we have noticeably improved our scores. It feels like such an achievement, but
Or maybe not. Maybe computer games don't rot your brain after all.
So says James Gee of the University of Wisconsin, as quoted in an article in the current Discover (July 2005).
About the only good thing anybody ever said about videogames is that they help develop "eye-hand coordination." And even that was doubtful -- would playing videogames really help you catch a real ball in the real world?
Gee found out what gamers have known all along: that there's a lot more to playing videogames than "mindless killing," and, far from being loners and geeks, gamers are (according to a Harvard Business School study) "consistently more social, more confident, and more comfortable solving problems creatively. They also showed no evidence of reduced attention spans compared with nongamers" (p.42).
Brain Stretching
When you play videogames, you're giving your brain an intense workout, and the skills you're developing are useful across the board.
It's not like riding a bike, where the muscles you develop are useful for riding a bike. When you're playing a videogame, you're stretching your ability to notice things with your peripheral vision (useful for driving cars without killing people), recognize patterns, remember intricate series of events, and to delay instant gratification for greater rewards later.
Most of all, you're practicing learning.
Compare it to homework, where you simply repeat what you've already learned until it's boring. It never gets faster. And if you're making mistakes, you don't get any feedback until the teacher grades your work and hands it back.
With videogames, you get instant response to your mistakes and a chance to correct them right away. And when you've mastered a pattern or figured out a puzzle and moved on, the next puzzle is more challenging and the next pattern is faster or more complex
Videogames keep you constantly on the edge of your abilities, stretching, growing.
And even though the player may be physically alone, he is actually moving in space and time, interacting with many "others" at the same time.
According to the article, "Gee contends that the way gamers explore virtual worlds mirrors the way the brain processes multiple, but interconnected, streams of information in the real world" (Steven Johnson, "Your Brain on Video Games," p. 41).
Here's the clincher: In a study conducted at the University of Rochester, cognitive scientists Shawn Green and Daphne Bavelier discovered that the perceptual differences between gamers and nongamers were "far more pronounced than the differences between hearing and deaf individuals." In other words, playing videogames stretches and improves your visual perception more than having to compensate for deafness does!
They wondered if maybe they got these results because people who were naturally more perceptive were more likely to play games. They took a bunch of complete nongamers and had them immerse themselves in the World War II game Medal of Honor and "the evidence was overwhelming: Games were literally making people perceive the world more clearly" (p. 41).
The Downside
Are there negatives to games? Most people have the idea that videogaming is nothing but killing people -- and there are brutally vio
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
I've had a tough time with this aspect of Card as well. I do disagree that his homophobia comes out in his more mainstream work: Specifically, I think the Ender's Game series has a message of acceptance which seems out of place when you read Card's writings on homosexuality. However, I would agree that his less well-known work, such as the Homecoming series or "Folk of the Fringe" (not sure if that's the exact title) are definitely filled with Card's Mormon beliefs and the opinions expressed in the essay you quoted.
You're right, in that Card is a practicing Mormon and (as he says very specifically in his essay) believes gays should not be viewed as "equal citizens within . . . society." While I don't feel those views are really present in the Ender's Game series, you may disagree. I also agree with you, in that I think his views are "anti-gay backwards bullshit." But I'm honestly not sure it's that simple to discount all of his writings because of that.
I loved Ender's Game when I first read it as a teenager and continue to enjoy rereading it. I don't think his latest Ender's Game-related books have been as good as the original three or four, but that's irrelevant to whether or not any of his work should be valued due to his (admittedly disgusting) beliefs.
I learned about Card's views on homosexuality after I'd read Ender's Game and some of his other work, and thus already enjoyed his writing. I was working at a local sci-fi/fantasy bookstore in the Chicago area (unfortunately now out of business...) when Card was going to come for a signing. The owner, with her encyclopedic knowledge of sci-fi and fantasy authors as well as books, talked to be about the protocol for Card's visit as well as his political/religious views. To make matters worse, she showed me a "children's" book Card wrote, "Magic Mirror." (Do an Amazon or Google search for 'orson scott card "magic mirror"' to find it. Too lazy to hyperlink.) The book is described as a "contemporary fairy tale," and shows "the consequences of misplaced hopes and what happens when people let themselves become disconnected from one another." The the book centers around a family of four (mom, dad, son, and daughter) all of whom are growing distant from each other. Through a 'magic mirror' they are able to see their faults and come back together. The problem for me is that the 'faults' of the children involve playing videogames, listening to 'bad' music, and (in the daughter's case) not looking 'pretty' because she had dyed hair and dressed 'gothy' (a particular mark against Card, as one of the women I worked with at the bookstore was a dyed-hair goth). At the end of the book the daughter's hair is once again blonde and she's wearing some sort of pink dress.
So Card's idea of a "proper" family seems rooted firmly in the ideals of the 1950s white-picket-fence variety. I'd also agree he's a bigot and (at least in his political and social views) has his head up his ass. In that respect, I'd agree he's full of bullshit.
But how does that affect his writing and the enjoyment of his writing by those who disagree with his social/political views?
After much thought and soul-searching, I've come to the conclusion that (in my opinion) he is an excellent writer and, while I do think he's full of "anti-gay backwards bullshit," to me his extreme views are absent from enough of his novels and short stories that I find them worth reading. (Sidenote: if you *are* a Card fan and haven't read any of his short story collections, do yourself a favor and track 'em down. They're good, and - I think - have minimal social or religious messages in them.) I'm still conflicted in that I don't like supporting someone with views that I so violently disagree with, but I'm honest enough with myself to say that I do really enjoy his writing.
I can completely understand how someone else would feel different and, even in books/stories which aren't explicitly social or religious in nature still find it impossible to get rid of thoughts on Card's views. I think
It was his hardcover short story collection that first made me aware of his beliefs. In his explication he described one of his short stories as an allegory for "self-destructive behaviors like drug addiction and homosexuality".
I think his misunderstanding of humanity is on a deep enough level that it pervades all of his writing. I see it in every single book of his that I've read, the Ender Wiggin Saga included. It's more subtle than as you describe in "Magic Mirror". No, he doesn't specify that homosexuality is morally wrong.
That said, I can understand being able to look at the art and ignore a bit of the artist. I certainly enjoyed his work enough to bore through seven or eight novels and a behemoth short story collection while only thinking it was a little screwy. When I finally realized, "oh, it's not screwy, it's fucked", all the magic smoke was gone. Plus Shadow of the Hegemon came out.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.