3 ms·

Young Men Are Playing Video Games Instead of Getting Jobs. That's OK. (For Now.)

39 points by imartin2k 9y ago

mc32 9y ago
So long as they don't turn into the equivalent of Japan's Otakus or parasite singles generation. If this automation thing starts taking away jobs in earnest (net absorption) then it definitely will not "be ok".
VladimirGolovin 9y ago
This is one of the best articles I have ever read on understanding what video games are: > Games, with their endless task lists and character-leveling systems, their choice architectures and mission checklists, are purpose generators. They bring order to gamers' lives. > Even the most open-ended games tend to offer a sense of progress and direction, completion and commitment. In other words, they make people happy—or at least happier, serving as a buffer between the player and despair. Video games, you might say, offer a sort of universal basic income for the soul. > What exactly does it mean for a game to be appealing and engaging? What does it mean for games to be fun—so much fun, in some cases, that players will devote hundreds or even thousands of hours a year to playing them? [...] One way to do that, it turns out, is to give people a sense of earned achievement. "What games are good at—what they are designed to do—is simulate being good at something," Wolpaw says. > "It's a simulation of being an expert," Wolpaw says. "It's a way to fulfill a fantasy." That fantasy, ultimately, is one of work, purpose, and social and professional success.
- netzone 9y ago
  Not sure I agree that it simulates being good at something. To make that point, you would have to agree on what a simulation is. Is it a non-physical game, so chess would be included, or would it be any game, which would mean football etc. are also included? Or, perhaps more likely, the author is talking about computer games only. Let's assume that. That means that the only difference between a "simulated" game and a "real" game is that one is done on a computer of some sort. I don't feel any different emotions when I play WoW than when I play chess or football with my friends. To me, they're the same thing, only experienced through different means. The only reason people don't play football for "hundreds or even thousands of hours" every year is because there's a physical limitation to it. I can only make the assumption that the author of the article is making a jab at computers at it's core, and that's troubling because what would that mean for us developers? I see programming almost as a game, it releases the same kind of feelings of progress, completion and commitment as the author talks about in his article. Does that mean that being good at programming is just a simulation of being good at something?
  - skybrian 9y ago
    Games often involve rituals that are symbolic of real-world activities. Crafting a cake in Minecraft is nothing like baking a real cake. Crafting is really just an abstract puzzle, but the theming makes it more satisfying than learning to solve such a simple puzzle would normally be. Similarly for other games. Game combat can be fun and there can be real skills involved, but they are often unrelated to why the ritual is satisfying. It's possible to learn real-world skills from games, but you need to be clear-headed about what those skills actually are and whether they will transfer to anything else. In comparison, sports provide physical exercise and tend to have a lot less theming. But consider the relationship between martial arts and real fighting. There's often some ritual there, no?
  - linkregister 9y ago
    One way to look at it is that video games are not simulations, since there are real-world tournaments with large prizes attached to them. Spectators around the world watch gamers live-stream their gameplay on Twitch.tv. On the other hand, chess is a highly abstracted simulation of battle; other video games are designed to be as realistic as much as entertaining: first-person shooters, racing games, flight simulators. Others simulate concepts, like improving swordplay or archery skills. I think it's safe to call most modern video games simulations. That doesn't mean they don't have great merit as art or athletic/strategic achievement.
garyclarke27 9y ago
Excellent interesting article, I had not realised that so much of the time playing the latest popular video games, has to be spent on mundane boring tasks, such as cataloging items! This was a real surprise to me, I'd wrongly assumed they were all about shooting and fast reactions and constant explosions.
ouid 9y ago
I wonder if this author considers being good at chess a simulation of being good at something. regardless, there are many different types of game, and the author makes the claim that young unemployed people play a specific type of game for a specific type of reason. He doesn't make this claim because the evidence is particularly compelling, but because that was the type of game that he played last march. The reason comes second. How would this article have read differently if he had instead picked up starcraft? This seems like very poor reasoning to me.
thebigspacefuck 9y ago
Games can suck your life away. I've spent a week in a room doing nothing but playing games on multiple occasions when I was in High School or College. It's just too easy to say yes and spend the rest of the day doing it. I know a lot of people manage to have a healthy relationship with games, but at this point I have too many negative associations that I'm hesitant to even own a desktop. Over a summer back with my parents, I played games instead of calling up my friends or getting a job or exercising more. At the end of a Summer I had lost my social skills and had no new real world experiences. I wasn't even comfortable going out any more. It was pretty sad in my opinion. On the flip side, I have had a wonderful time playing Starcraft with people while at school and made new friends that way. Games are like a gas that fill up however much space you have to let them fill up. If you already have a social life and work to do, they are not going to take up much space, but if you find yourself with weeks of free time they could very well take up all of it.
- pyrophane 9y ago
  I hear you. I don't allow myself to play MMORPGs, 4x strategy, or building/management games for this reason. Not only is it so easy to get sucked into them, they don't ever end, as there is always more to do or the opportunity to optimize some aspect of your gameplay. I only play games that are either finite in nature or are unlikely to remain interesting for hours upon hours of gameplay.
linkregister 9y ago
> Those living with and off of their parents are, in effect, already receiving a kind of basic income, administered privately at the family level. That is enough to survive, but for most people it is not enough to feel content. > That's where games come in. They don't put food on the table. But they do provide, at least in the short to medium term, a sense of focus and success, structure and direction, skill development and accomplishment. I think this is the best prediction of what most people would do with their time if they were on a society-level basic income. The idea that there would be an enormous wellspring of art, culture, and technological progress is not supported by what is happening now.

39 points by imartin2k 9y ago

mc32 9y ago

So long as they don't turn into the equivalent of Japan's Otakus or parasite singles generation. If this automation thing starts taking away jobs in earnest (net absorption) then it definitely will not "be ok".

VladimirGolovin 9y ago

This is one of the best articles I have ever read on understanding what video games are: > Games, with their endless task lists and character-leveling systems, their choice architectures and mission checklists, are purpose generators. They bring order to gamers' lives. > Even the most open-ended games tend to offer a sense of progress and direction, completion and commitment. In other words, they make people happy—or at least happier, serving as a buffer between the player and despair. Video games, you might say, offer a sort of universal basic income for the soul. > What exactly does it mean for a game to be appealing and engaging? What does it mean for games to be fun—so much fun, in some cases, that players will devote hundreds or even thousands of hours a year to playing them? [...] One way to do that, it turns out, is to give people a sense of earned achievement. "What games are good at—what they are designed to do—is simulate being good at something," Wolpaw says. > "It's a simulation of being an expert," Wolpaw says. "It's a way to fulfill a fantasy." That fantasy, ultimately, is one of work, purpose, and social and professional success.

netzone 9y ago
Not sure I agree that it simulates being good at something. To make that point, you would have to agree on what a simulation is. Is it a non-physical game, so chess would be included, or would it be any game, which would mean football etc. are also included? Or, perhaps more likely, the author is talking about computer games only. Let's assume that. That means that the only difference between a "simulated" game and a "real" game is that one is done on a computer of some sort. I don't feel any different emotions when I play WoW than when I play chess or football with my friends. To me, they're the same thing, only experienced through different means. The only reason people don't play football for "hundreds or even thousands of hours" every year is because there's a physical limitation to it. I can only make the assumption that the author of the article is making a jab at computers at it's core, and that's troubling because what would that mean for us developers? I see programming almost as a game, it releases the same kind of feelings of progress, completion and commitment as the author talks about in his article. Does that mean that being good at programming is just a simulation of being good at something?
- skybrian 9y ago
  Games often involve rituals that are symbolic of real-world activities. Crafting a cake in Minecraft is nothing like baking a real cake. Crafting is really just an abstract puzzle, but the theming makes it more satisfying than learning to solve such a simple puzzle would normally be. Similarly for other games. Game combat can be fun and there can be real skills involved, but they are often unrelated to why the ritual is satisfying. It's possible to learn real-world skills from games, but you need to be clear-headed about what those skills actually are and whether they will transfer to anything else. In comparison, sports provide physical exercise and tend to have a lot less theming. But consider the relationship between martial arts and real fighting. There's often some ritual there, no?
- linkregister 9y ago
  One way to look at it is that video games are not simulations, since there are real-world tournaments with large prizes attached to them. Spectators around the world watch gamers live-stream their gameplay on Twitch.tv. On the other hand, chess is a highly abstracted simulation of battle; other video games are designed to be as realistic as much as entertaining: first-person shooters, racing games, flight simulators. Others simulate concepts, like improving swordplay or archery skills. I think it's safe to call most modern video games simulations. That doesn't mean they don't have great merit as art or athletic/strategic achievement.

garyclarke27 9y ago

Excellent interesting article, I had not realised that so much of the time playing the latest popular video games, has to be spent on mundane boring tasks, such as cataloging items! This was a real surprise to me, I'd wrongly assumed they were all about shooting and fast reactions and constant explosions.

ouid 9y ago

I wonder if this author considers being good at chess a simulation of being good at something. regardless, there are many different types of game, and the author makes the claim that young unemployed people play a specific type of game for a specific type of reason. He doesn't make this claim because the evidence is particularly compelling, but because that was the type of game that he played last march. The reason comes second. How would this article have read differently if he had instead picked up starcraft? This seems like very poor reasoning to me.

thebigspacefuck 9y ago

Games can suck your life away. I've spent a week in a room doing nothing but playing games on multiple occasions when I was in High School or College. It's just too easy to say yes and spend the rest of the day doing it. I know a lot of people manage to have a healthy relationship with games, but at this point I have too many negative associations that I'm hesitant to even own a desktop. Over a summer back with my parents, I played games instead of calling up my friends or getting a job or exercising more. At the end of a Summer I had lost my social skills and had no new real world experiences. I wasn't even comfortable going out any more. It was pretty sad in my opinion. On the flip side, I have had a wonderful time playing Starcraft with people while at school and made new friends that way. Games are like a gas that fill up however much space you have to let them fill up. If you already have a social life and work to do, they are not going to take up much space, but if you find yourself with weeks of free time they could very well take up all of it.

pyrophane 9y ago
I hear you. I don't allow myself to play MMORPGs, 4x strategy, or building/management games for this reason. Not only is it so easy to get sucked into them, they don't ever end, as there is always more to do or the opportunity to optimize some aspect of your gameplay. I only play games that are either finite in nature or are unlikely to remain interesting for hours upon hours of gameplay.

linkregister 9y ago

> Those living with and off of their parents are, in effect, already receiving a kind of basic income, administered privately at the family level. That is enough to survive, but for most people it is not enough to feel content. > That's where games come in. They don't put food on the table. But they do provide, at least in the short to medium term, a sense of focus and success, structure and direction, skill development and accomplishment. I think this is the best prediction of what most people would do with their time if they were on a society-level basic income. The idea that there would be an enormous wellspring of art, culture, and technological progress is not supported by what is happening now.