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

Re: It’s time gamers took gaming more seriously

#41

Post by papsosouid » Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 9:16 PM UTC

eurleif wrote: post #31

Lewisham wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If that were true, why would gamers prefer games with better graphics? Why does Valve make a fortune selling virtual hats if no one cares how their character looks?

>Why does Valve make a fortune selling virtual hats

Because of the perceived social status conferred on them for having a rare or "cool" hat. It has nothing to do with the narrative vs mechanic question.

Re: It’s time gamers took gaming more seriously

#42

Post by papsosouid » Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 9:21 PM UTC

saraid216 wrote: post #26

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.

You are making the (quite appalling I think) assumption that "more artistic" means "better". Video games are not movies. There is far greater variety in video games, and far more reasons to enjoy them. I think people doing research on why human beings have "fun", what fun means and how we can provide more fun experiences are doing far more for the future of video games than people trying to pretend they are movies, and should aspire to be "art" movies.

Re: It’s time gamers took gaming more seriously

#43

Post by Garoof » Fri, Apr 12, 2013, 9:50 PM UTC

Usually when someone writes a piece on taking gaming seriously, I get the impression that the author does not take gaming very seriously, finds some other issues to be pretty serious, and thinks that to take gaming seriously is a matter of relating it to those issues.

Usually those other issues are mostly things I don't take very seriously. So it kind of comes off like the opposite. Like people should take rocket jumps and knight forks less seriously, and politics and morals and some faff more seriously.

Re: It’s time gamers took gaming more seriously

#44

Post by saraid216 » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 4:34 AM UTC

papsosouid wrote: post #42

saraid216 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are making the (quite appalling I think) assumption that "more artistic" means "better". Video games are not movies. There is far greater variety in video games, and far more reasons to enjoy them. I think people doing research on why human beings have "fun", what fun means and how we can provide more fun experiences are doing far more for the future of video games than people trying to pretend they are movies, a…

And some movies go into the category "pornographic" and are not supposed to do anything but turn you on.

Re: It’s time gamers took gaming more seriously

#45

Post by JenniferFinelli » Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 5:56 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…

Hmm, the premise is scientific, if you want to check my sources. I think you're misunderstanding the difference between the pre-motor cortex and sensory cortex. You're right, the sensory cortex is the part of the brain that just "simulates" what you see. The pre-motor cortex, however, actually "primes" your motor cortex for action. Your brain is actually practicing actions you see. That's new research, but totally verifiable if you take an intro-level college neurobiology class. The idea isn't "think before you play games" so much as, "whoa, new research suggest games affect our brains like this--let's think about that!" It's a celebration, not a condemnation. No one's saying TF2 is evil: people are saying, "hey, let's use other parts of our brains and see if that affects us differently," because we tend to use certain parts more than others. That's me as much as you.

Besides, what's wrong with thinking before we eat? As the old Chinese proverb says, "let your food be your medicine." In both gaming and eating, science shows that it's legit to pay attention, to be "mindful" of what we're doing. That's okay. I mean, what's the counter-argument? Don't pay attention to what you eat? = P