5 ms·

Games are quite passive in the grand scheme of things and do little to actually challenge cognition. Compared to other basic toys / learning devices, video game

Games are quite passive in the grand scheme of things and do little to actually challenge cognition. Compared to other basic toys / learning devices, video games don't have compelling research because I don't think it'll work out. There's no 3 dimensional space to work through (Legos), no emotional play (dolls, action figures), visual imagination time (crayons, Play Doh)...on and on and on with better examples that don't need batteries and are more stimulating than being a button mashing monkey.

Agentlien 10y ago
While I strongly agree about the necessity of physical play, I disagree that games in general lack the things you are listing. 3 dimensional space: There are plenty of puzzle games focused on challenging the player to understand how 3D spaces (or higher) are connected. Emotional play: This is one of the main focuses of many RPG:s as well as interactive fiction. Visual imagination: Many games have this at least as a component. I'd say any city building games, The Sims, Conway's Game of Life.
- freeflight 10y ago
  >3 dimensional space/visual imaginiation These do not even require puzzle/building games, most video games that require the player to move trough a 3D virtual environment train the players ability to "mentally rotate objects" and for "visual imagination" (gotta build a map in your head of that virtual place), in this case the games world. Many people who regularly play games don't realize this, but keeping oriented in a virtual space is not something many people are good with by nature. It only feels natural to many gamers because they are used to it. And I'd say anything that involves some kind of "multiplayer" can add emotional play, even more so in games that require coordination between several players on a bigger scale, like MMORPGs. The social drama I've witnessed in games like WoW is some of the worst drama I've ever seen ;)
TulliusCicero 10y ago
> Games are quite passive in the grand scheme of things and do little to actually challenge cognition. 1. Sure they do, although I admit it depends on the game. I'd say video games are more mentally challenging than school, most of the time. I remember most of grade school being kind of a walkover, whereas the games I played were much more consistently challenging, especially when against other people. 2. If what you say is true, why does the research show cognitive improvements from some types of games? > Compared to other basic toys / learning devices, video games don't have compelling research What research they do have has shown improvements, though (did you not even read the pdf this thread is based on?). You're not even attempting to refute this, instead you're just ignoring it. Why? > There's no 3 dimensional space to work through (Legos), no emotional play (dolls, action figures), visual imagination time (crayons, Play Doh)...on and on and on with better examples that don't need batteries and are more stimulating than being a button mashing monkey. It sounds like you're just not very experienced with video games. I'd take competitive Starcraft as a beneficial cognitive toy over Legos any day of the week.
- maccard 10y ago
  > I'd take competitive Starcraft as a beneficial cognitive toy over lego any day of the week. What 8 year olds do you know that are playing competitive Starcraft?
  - TulliusCicero 10y ago
    Ones in Korea? ;) Well, my son will probably be one in a few years. He's five now and just picked up Portal 2.
TulliusCicero 10y ago
Here's a question for you: how many more traditional toys involve strategy? Board games do, obviously, they're also games. But other toys rarely do, and that's one thing video games have in spades. Even visceral, run-and-gun action games usually involve a fair bit of strategizing, even if it's just "what's the optimal path to kill these zombies?" Heck, what parts of school teach any kind of strategic thinking? I struggle to think of anything part of a standard curriculum.
RGamma 10y ago
Yes, I believe video games like all interactions with modern _consumer_ electronics have the potential to make you passive, lacking in drive or addicted and jade you emotionally _if you overuse them_. This is becoming increasingly clear to me having spent 10,000+ hours playing video games. They're insidious in the sense that there's not necessarily anything wrong with the themes on display or that they could not be considered complex, strategic, realistic, imaginative or <insert desirable attribute> _in the world they portray_. It's more the superficial, that is audiovisual via unnatural interfaces, mode of interaction with them that slowly deprives you of the sense of what "the real world" feels like (smell/taste, heat/cold, tactile features, real three-dimensional sight/hearing) if there is or has been no strong counterbalance, i.e. "going outside/into nature", "real socialisation", that could (have) give(n) rise to the meaning or "flavor" of objects and interactions in virtual worlds in the first place. Smartphones are easily one of the worst offenders when it comes to the artificiality and shallowness of the interaction with them and - not owning one - I can only imagine what they do to the young generation... Additionally they also diminish or at least they don't promote a certain kind of imaginativeness, which is more a flaw of any visual medium: Because everything is laid out for you, there's no need to exert yourself with trying to form mental images in your head or fill in the gaps, especially with modern audio-visuals. This'll become clear whenever you read a book. I'll admit that books are also passive in the sense that you never have to come up with original ideas pertaining to the flow or outcome of the story, but you get the point. I know that not all games are created equal and several promote the idea of "being creative", "open world", etc, and they're probably less bad in this area, as is evidenced by huge modding communities although it remains unclear to me if those are lead by a tiny percentage of very productive members or if there's a widespread participation. The epitome of all this are the hugely popular "Let's plays" where you now not even need to play games yourself, but are presented a "performance" by mostly uninteresting/unskilled individuals (my verdict), which seems like something that should never even exist outside maybe game reviews or other, more purposeful activity [1]. The above said, movies and videos are even worse offenders in essentially all of those areas, I suppose, but those were usually of short duration or limited availability, which is not so true anymore either, so a lot of what I wrote applies more strongly to them actually. I'd even claim that with the non-ending, because largely archived, supply of virtual distractions and increasing consumption of those there's no wonder that, as is my impression (I don't want to go hunting for sources now, but I can speak from experience and refer to plausibility), attention spans are decreasing, as is the capability to for example write clearly and concisely, which would admittedly be a symptom of the former, nor that there's a growing NEET population without drive or goals: The machines and a highly productive creative industry think for you now in more and more areas of living. [1] Interestingly the most widely watched and subscribed to (and insufferable) YouTuber in that area, PewDiePie, seems to be coming around to the ideas presented in this comment as well: https://youtu.be/osPKCm7jmeQ?t=6m14s https://youtu.be/osPKCm7jmeQ?t=6m14s Edit: Reduced self-commenting/removed interjections

Agentlien 10y ago

While I strongly agree about the necessity of physical play, I disagree that games in general lack the things you are listing. 3 dimensional space: There are plenty of puzzle games focused on challenging the player to understand how 3D spaces (or higher) are connected. Emotional play: This is one of the main focuses of many RPG:s as well as interactive fiction. Visual imagination: Many games have this at least as a component. I'd say any city building games, The Sims, Conway's Game of Life.

freeflight 10y ago
>3 dimensional space/visual imaginiation These do not even require puzzle/building games, most video games that require the player to move trough a 3D virtual environment train the players ability to "mentally rotate objects" and for "visual imagination" (gotta build a map in your head of that virtual place), in this case the games world. Many people who regularly play games don't realize this, but keeping oriented in a virtual space is not something many people are good with by nature. It only feels natural to many gamers because they are used to it. And I'd say anything that involves some kind of "multiplayer" can add emotional play, even more so in games that require coordination between several players on a bigger scale, like MMORPGs. The social drama I've witnessed in games like WoW is some of the worst drama I've ever seen ;)

TulliusCicero 10y ago

> Games are quite passive in the grand scheme of things and do little to actually challenge cognition. 1. Sure they do, although I admit it depends on the game. I'd say video games are more mentally challenging than school, most of the time. I remember most of grade school being kind of a walkover, whereas the games I played were much more consistently challenging, especially when against other people. 2. If what you say is true, why does the research show cognitive improvements from some types of games? > Compared to other basic toys / learning devices, video games don't have compelling research What research they do have has shown improvements, though (did you not even read the pdf this thread is based on?). You're not even attempting to refute this, instead you're just ignoring it. Why? > There's no 3 dimensional space to work through (Legos), no emotional play (dolls, action figures), visual imagination time (crayons, Play Doh)...on and on and on with better examples that don't need batteries and are more stimulating than being a button mashing monkey. It sounds like you're just not very experienced with video games. I'd take competitive Starcraft as a beneficial cognitive toy over Legos any day of the week.

maccard 10y ago
> I'd take competitive Starcraft as a beneficial cognitive toy over lego any day of the week. What 8 year olds do you know that are playing competitive Starcraft?
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  Ones in Korea? ;) Well, my son will probably be one in a few years. He's five now and just picked up Portal 2.

TulliusCicero 10y ago

Here's a question for you: how many more traditional toys involve strategy? Board games do, obviously, they're also games. But other toys rarely do, and that's one thing video games have in spades. Even visceral, run-and-gun action games usually involve a fair bit of strategizing, even if it's just "what's the optimal path to kill these zombies?" Heck, what parts of school teach any kind of strategic thinking? I struggle to think of anything part of a standard curriculum.

RGamma 10y ago

Yes, I believe video games like all interactions with modern _consumer_ electronics have the potential to make you passive, lacking in drive or addicted and jade you emotionally _if you overuse them_. This is becoming increasingly clear to me having spent 10,000+ hours playing video games. They're insidious in the sense that there's not necessarily anything wrong with the themes on display or that they could not be considered complex, strategic, realistic, imaginative or <insert desirable attribute> _in the world they portray_. It's more the superficial, that is audiovisual via unnatural interfaces, mode of interaction with them that slowly deprives you of the sense of what "the real world" feels like (smell/taste, heat/cold, tactile features, real three-dimensional sight/hearing) if there is or has been no strong counterbalance, i.e. "going outside/into nature", "real socialisation", that could (have) give(n) rise to the meaning or "flavor" of objects and interactions in virtual worlds in the first place. Smartphones are easily one of the worst offenders when it comes to the artificiality and shallowness of the interaction with them and - not owning one - I can only imagine what they do to the young generation... Additionally they also diminish or at least they don't promote a certain kind of imaginativeness, which is more a flaw of any visual medium: Because everything is laid out for you, there's no need to exert yourself with trying to form mental images in your head or fill in the gaps, especially with modern audio-visuals. This'll become clear whenever you read a book. I'll admit that books are also passive in the sense that you never have to come up with original ideas pertaining to the flow or outcome of the story, but you get the point. I know that not all games are created equal and several promote the idea of "being creative", "open world", etc, and they're probably less bad in this area, as is evidenced by huge modding communities although it remains unclear to me if those are lead by a tiny percentage of very productive members or if there's a widespread participation. The epitome of all this are the hugely popular "Let's plays" where you now not even need to play games yourself, but are presented a "performance" by mostly uninteresting/unskilled individuals (my verdict), which seems like something that should never even exist outside maybe game reviews or other, more purposeful activity [1]. The above said, movies and videos are even worse offenders in essentially all of those areas, I suppose, but those were usually of short duration or limited availability, which is not so true anymore either, so a lot of what I wrote applies more strongly to them actually. I'd even claim that with the non-ending, because largely archived, supply of virtual distractions and increasing consumption of those there's no wonder that, as is my impression (I don't want to go hunting for sources now, but I can speak from experience and refer to plausibility), attention spans are decreasing, as is the capability to for example write clearly and concisely, which would admittedly be a symptom of the former, nor that there's a growing NEET population without drive or goals: The machines and a highly productive creative industry think for you now in more and more areas of living. [1] Interestingly the most widely watched and subscribed to (and insufferable) YouTuber in that area, PewDiePie, seems to be coming around to the ideas presented in this comment as well: https://youtu.be/osPKCm7jmeQ?t=6m14s https://youtu.be/osPKCm7jmeQ?t=6m14s Edit: Reduced self-commenting/removed interjections