It’s time gamers took gaming more seriously • Hacker News Board

Re: It’s time gamers took gaming more seriously

#21

Post by pharrington » Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 6:12 PM UTC

ebbv wrote: post #14

This article is kind of all over the place. On the one hand it is making a sort of "All entertainment we experience affects who we are." argument which is so broad as to be meaningless -- change on what level? Watching one episode of Jeopardy doesn't change me in a meaningful way, watching Jeopardy every night for 10 years might. Then it transitions into "Here's a list of questions to help you appreciate games on a d…

Questions to help yourself take games more seriously

It's a suggestion. She is sharing an opinion. Nowhere does she cast judgement on how or why you're enjoying your games. She's proposing a way to get a little more intellectual stimulation from games, and you can take it or leave it. While I personally think the specific questions are a bit too broad and shallow, there's no reason for the possibility of an alternative mode of thought to be offend me.

Because somebody says "try doing X," does not mean she says "you are bad for not doing X."

Re: It’s time gamers took gaming more seriously

#22

Post by JenniferFinelli » Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 6:13 PM UTC

gmu3 wrote: post #16

The author seems to believe we should adopt a literacy about games very similar to one used when evaluating literature. I think this is incredibly misguided, because they're entirely different mediums (or at least should be). In Steven Johnson's Everything Bad is Good for You, he compares video games to word problems, and says video games like word problems should be judged by their cognitive challenges not their lit…

Hmm, that's a very interesting thought! It made me think: do you think judging literary vs. cognitive challenges could depend on the genre of the game? I would be pretty sad if Portal, for example, was judged only as a puzzle game. That was the idea that turned me off originally when someone described it to me. As soon as I got the story, though, I became interested, because I like to analyze.

Could it be possible that some games should be judged primarily by cognitive challenges, and others by both?

Or, could it be possible that we don't need to judge games at all? o_O

Sounds weird, but this is what I mean. I'm actually in the article never once talking about evaluating the merit of a game on an objective level. It's not about judging games so much as judging how we interact with them. I'm talking about on a personal level, how the game interacts with you, and whether you find value out of it. If you find value only through area MT, that's a thing, I guess. But what if we find other ways of connecting our brains to a game--since the game is affecting those other areas already? On some level, who really cares about the "literary" or "cognitive" value of the game? On some level, you and I don't really give a velociraptor's feathers either way what some arbitrary standard says about a game. We care about how the game affects us.

What do you think? I dunno, you're very societally-minded here, and that takes the article beyond what I'd originally intended. Neat! I'm not sure how we should "judge games," I guess! Just interested in how it gets my brain. ^_^

Re: It’s time gamers took gaming more seriously

#23

Post by JenniferFinelli » Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 6:18 PM UTC

fistofjohnwayne wrote: post #3

Once I started asking these questions while playing video games I became so frustrated that I stopped playing them.

Lol that's why they're intended for before or after, or during conversation with friends. ^_^ During is a bit over the top. I think if I tried writing a paper during Supersmash my husband might reconsider our gaming relationship.

Although in Portal and Braid, the game's slow enough to allow for some thinking time... = P

Re: It’s time gamers took gaming more seriously

#24

Post by JenniferFinelli » Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 6:24 PM UTC

burningion wrote: post #11

As far as mainstream gaming goes, the main focus has been in distraction and addiction, using very powerful psychological triggers. (Skinner boxes, variable ratio reinforcement, social pressure, etc.) If fact, these triggers have been deeply embedded in our social media too, turning both video games and social media into tools for manipulating our emotional selves into cycles of distraction and addiction. There's bil…

o_O This made me think. I def don't know if I agree with everything about mind-slavery (doesn't literature manipulate our emotional selves, too?), but the concentration-studies idea really intrigues me. I have family with ADD, and as a distracted, impressionable person myself, I believe it would be nice for us all to be able to be more aware of the choices we make as gamers. I do think that's going to be more of a personal decision than a facet of the game, but the idea of a game that supports that kind of thinking--wow, you blew my mind!

Re: It’s time gamers took gaming more seriously

#25

Post by ebbv » Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 6:24 PM UTC

JenniferFinelli wrote: post #20

ebbv wrote: post #14

This article is kind of all over the place. On the one hand it is making a sort of "All entertainment we experience affects who we are." argument which is so broad as to be meaningless -- change on what level? Watching one episode of Jeopardy doesn't change me in a meaningful way, watching Jeopardy every night for 10 years might. Then it transitions into "Here's a list of questions to help you appreciate games on a d…

Hi, ebbv! I do want to point out that those are questions, not answers. No one is telling you how to enjoy games--the fundamental question is, is there a way to enjoy games that accesses the deeper human levels of our existence? No where in this article does it say "DAMN YOU FOR NOT FINDING DEEP MEANING IN TETRIS YOU FOOL." That, I agree with you, would be a little over the top. = P There's another, bigger question t…

I think saying that "your brain actively practices killing" is overstating it. It sure sounds good, but it's not even close to reality.

When you see visual stimulus, it causes your brain to simulate that in your mind but it's not true that your brain is "practicing" that behavior. When you see or hear someone playing guitar, the same effect is happening in your brain. That doesn't mean that you can watch Stevie Ray Vaughan play "Rude Mood" 20 times and then play it yourself. Likewise you aren't going to turn into a killer no matter how many hours you spend playing GTA4.

On top of that, I think approaching the issue by telling people "think before you play games" is condescending and ineffective. It's like articles that say "think before you eat." Nobody reads that and says "Oh you're right! I was a mindless eating machine before and now I'm going to be more thoughtful." They think "Who's this jerk telling me what to do? I'm getting a KFC Sadness Bowl with extra bacon!"

You are obviously free to write whatever articles you want, I just found this one a bit condescending and also based on a false premise. It was clearly well intentioned and thoughtful, so I'm not trying to insult you or make you feel bad just express my reaction.

EDIT:

Also I don't play multiplayer FPS of any kind much these days but when I fire up TF2 once in a while I usually play the Soldier because it's most like the old Quake 1 days of rocket battles.

Re: It’s time gamers took gaming more seriously

#26

Post by saraid216 » Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 6:26 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #2

I personally feel this may be taking the "games as art" discussion a bit too far. Yes, some games are art, and almost all games have artistic value. But when I'm playing Quake, I don't care about any of that. All I care about is that it's fun and it's challenging and I'm playing with my friends. Just like when I'm watching the latest summer blockbuster, I don't care that it won't win an Oscar, or that the girl in the…

You're not required to care. The average movie-goer is not required to be Roger Ebert, but Roger Ebert nevertheless tried to educate those who were interested in how to ask for better movies.

Re: It’s time gamers took gaming more seriously

#27

Post by klrr » Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 6:40 PM UTC

I play either to be entertained(maintstream games are good at this) or to feed my need of being competitive(Quake and such games are good at this). All people don't play games for their artistic value, although many games have a highly artistic value.

Re: It’s time gamers took gaming more seriously

#28

Post by klrr » Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 6:44 PM UTC

pharrington wrote: post #21

ebbv wrote: post #14

This article is kind of all over the place. On the one hand it is making a sort of "All entertainment we experience affects who we are." argument which is so broad as to be meaningless -- change on what level? Watching one episode of Jeopardy doesn't change me in a meaningful way, watching Jeopardy every night for 10 years might. Then it transitions into "Here's a list of questions to help you appreciate games on a d…

Questions to help yourself take games more seriously It's a suggestion. She is sharing an opinion. Nowhere does she cast judgement on how or why you're enjoying your games. She's proposing a way to get a little more intellectual stimulation from games, and you can take it or leave it. While I personally think the specific questions are a bit too broad and shallow, there's no reason for the possibility of an alternati…

No but it's written a way that it's easily interpreted like that.

Re: It’s time gamers took gaming more seriously

#29

Post by kabdib » Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 6:49 PM UTC

pharrington wrote: post #21

ebbv wrote: post #14

This article is kind of all over the place. On the one hand it is making a sort of "All entertainment we experience affects who we are." argument which is so broad as to be meaningless -- change on what level? Watching one episode of Jeopardy doesn't change me in a meaningful way, watching Jeopardy every night for 10 years might. Then it transitions into "Here's a list of questions to help you appreciate games on a d…

Questions to help yourself take games more seriously It's a suggestion. She is sharing an opinion. Nowhere does she cast judgement on how or why you're enjoying your games. She's proposing a way to get a little more intellectual stimulation from games, and you can take it or leave it. While I personally think the specific questions are a bit too broad and shallow, there's no reason for the possibility of an alternati…

_Where is the artistic value in this game?_

Blowing stuff up is fun? Try Robotron, or Serious Sam. You're saying I need to examine someone's motivation and weigh a game's social conscience before I install the thing, or I'm a bad person?

Get real. Blowing stuff up is fun.

Once upon a time at Atari, one of the head Marketroids in the home computer division decided "No violent games!" The problem was, all of the non-violent games they were able to come up with _stunk_. They sunk millions into developing titles that didn't sell.

I "played" _Dear Esther_ and it was interesting, but I uninstalled it and there's no point in going back; I won't play another game like that.

I want to play games with a social conscience as their primary mission about as much as I want to attend another mandatory sensitivity training. [For the record, I only had to do that once, a long time ago. :-) ]

For the most part, games are made to make money. This is what companies _do_. If you're saying that _Dear Esther_ is the answer, then the question is very silly indeed; it's not what the market wants.

[For the record, I do think that "bikini armor" in RPGs is stupid, and I wish they'd stop. But my Old Fart notions are swamped by the cash represented by a legion of 15 year old boys.]

Re: It’s time gamers took gaming more seriously

#30

Post by Lewisham » Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 7:09 PM UTC

ebbv wrote: post #25

JenniferFinelli wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, ebbv! I do want to point out that those are questions, not answers. No one is telling you how to enjoy games--the fundamental question is, is there a way to enjoy games that accesses the deeper human levels of our existence? No where in this article does it say "DAMN YOU FOR NOT FINDING DEEP MEANING IN TETRIS YOU FOOL." That, I agree with you, would be a little over the top. = P There's another, bigger question t…

I think saying that "your brain actively practices killing" is overstating it. It sure sounds good, but it's not even close to reality. When you see visual stimulus, it causes your brain to simulate that in your mind but it's not true that your brain is "practicing" that behavior. When you see or hear someone playing guitar, the same effect is happening in your brain. That doesn't mean that you can watch Stevie Ray V…

> I think saying that "your brain actively practices killing" is overstating it. It sure sounds good, but it's not even close to reality.

To support your point a little bit, some video game scholars, like Espen Aarseth, don't buy into the idea what the representations provide any relevancy:

[1]: "The "royal" theme of the traditional pieces is all but irrelevant to our understanding of chess. Likewise, the dimensions of Lara Croft's body, already analyzed to death by film theorists, are irrelevant to me as a player, because a different-looking body would not make me play differently (see sidebar). When I play, I don't even see her body, but see through it and past it."

While Aarseth has been quite extreme in his rejection of narrative, the main aspect of his argument is that gamers see the underlying constructs of the gameplay systems, and I think gamers choose whether to engage with the dressing that sits on top. Bioshock Infinite tells a story that you can listen to, but when you're playing you're not listening.

This explains the disconnect between players of GTA and observers. Those who observe and go "YOU KILLED THAT PROSTITUTE TO GET YOUR MONEY BACK AND YOU DON'T EVEN CARE" are viewing the game at the narrative level; whereas the gamers who do this are working at the mechanics level. It is a fallacy to then believe that those gamers are more susceptible to perform those actions they see at the narrative level in real life, as they were never there in the first place. The prostitutes aren't people, they're walking wallets. Bioshock tried to play with this idea with the Little Sisters, but I felt it ultimately failed, as the Little Sisters were sufficiently dehumanized that they looked a lot like walking health packs who would be put out of their misery. People who really do see others like this in real life already have a name; they're psychopathic. Fortunately, most people are not psychopathic :)

[1] http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/firstperson/vigil...