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."

Comments

OSC and gaming

[Uriel]

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...

Re:OSC and gaming

[phoenix.bam!]

uh oh! He has one opinion you disagree with! Everything else he has ever done must be worthless and wrong!

Re:OSC and gaming

[TeknoHog]

I wasn't aware of this side of Card. I've enjoyed his novels a lot, and knowing that his religious stance is very different from mine hasn't made my reading experiences any worse. In fact I've been surprised how questioning or agnostic the Ender books are, and they leave a lot of room for interpretations and different religious viewpoints.

However, this point got me worrying a little:

But as the adolescent moves into adulthood and continues to engage in sinful practices far beyond the level of experimentation, then the consequences within the Church must grow more severe and more long-lasting;

This notion of "experimentation" worries me. It seems to mean that it's OK to "experiment" with different off-mainstream things when you're young, but once you grow up you have to forget about them and become a docile little consumer. I've seen this idea being applied to various things besides sexual life, for example hair and dress styles.

I hate this kind of thinking; what's the point of experimentation if it never leads to permanent and pervasive changes? We have goodies like fire, wheel, jet engines and Unix because of people who dared to experiment, dammit.

I want to say this generally, not specifically to homosexuality, but it got me thinking: what if homosexuality is simply nature's way of dealing with population explosion? (I wonder if Slashdot is the place to discuss this seriously, but what the heck. Cue the trolls.)

Re:OSC and gaming

[ChaosDiscord]

If you demand that the authors whose writings you read, the painters whose painting you view, the playwrites whose plays you watch all meet your personal standards, well, you'er not going to have much left to read, view, or watch. Perhaps Card does believe something you believe to be morally reprehensible. This doesn't change the quality of his books.

Now, I'm not asking you to love the man. Yes, it will linger in your mind and perhaps taint your ability to appreciate the books. And it's fair game to expose his beliefs. But engaging in a simple smear campaign ("Orson Scott Card is a worthless asshole") is not appropriate. I find it hard to believe that a popular writer could be "worthless." An asshole perhaps, but the world is full of them.

Ultimately you seem to be missing a key element of Card's beliefs: that they're his beliefs. Big shock: he wrote an article for Mormons about why Mormons should remain true to their beliefs. You may disagree with those beliefs (I certainly do), but simply bashing it as "anti-gay backwards bullshit" is hardly going to change anyones mind. Indeed, I found his statements among the more rational of the anti-gay arguments. As he points out, the Mormons are asking gays of no more than they ask their non-married straight members: no sex. Given that basis, one could try to seek some sort of middle ground. If the focus is on protecting the family, perhaps he could be convinced into supporting gay marriage. With gay marriage a homosexual could have a much more traditional, stable family; exactly as Card seems to be seeking.

Super Smash Brothers Melee

[Shadow Wrought]

Just last night as I was playing SSBM with my stepson, I was thinking, "Wow this is really helping him prepare for the world. I wish I had something like this growing up, instead of Combat, Adventure, and Pitfall with their pathetic graphics on a 2600. I probably would have been more successful."

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?

perhaps someone should make a game for Card

[Tumbleweed]

...that will teach him tolerance of homosexuals/bisexuals. That'd be good. Until then, I don't give a shit what Card thinks.

Re:perhaps someone should make a game for Card

[Tumbleweed]

That reminds me of a great quote:

"I don't have a problem with Catholics, as long as they don't practise Catholocism." :)

"The Downside"

[Chi Hsuan Men]

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.

As usual, I slightly disagree

[xenocide2]

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".