7 ms·

Books were an escape vehicle before TV, movies, and games.

lytedev 8y ago
Sure, but doesn't it work pretty differently? With books, you're just given words and your brain has to fill in the gaps and actually do some work. With video games and movies, your brain is directly stimulated; shown what to see and hear.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  I know this is the common argument, but I'm not entirely convinced. when I was a kid, the graphics were quite primitive by today's standards, but playing the games at that age felt like stepping into a vivid other world. playing as an adult, I just see a bunch of geometry with shitty lighting while I run around clicking on HP sponges. I wouldn't say that video games are quite as stimulating as reading a good book, but I think we underestimate how much our imagination works to "fill in the gaps" to make games feel real and rewarding.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - dkersten 8y ago
    And how we used to think whatever the latest in graphics was, was oh so realistic and amazing! I played MUD’s for a few years when I was younger and in hindsight it was amazing: while the writing wasn’t typically as good as a book, you still filled in the world and characters with your imagination and it was both interactive and social. I still have some vivid memories of it that are as clear as if it had been a modern game or movie, despite that in reality I was reading text.
    - bitexploder 8y ago
      Some MUDs back in the day had combat and skill systems as complex as any modern MMOs. They were the precursor to MMORPG.
      - dkersten 8y ago
        Absolutely. They were mechanically quite advanced in some cases and the roleplay heavy ones had some of the most immersive experiences I’ve had in any game.
      - taborj 8y ago
        We're off topic here, but there are still plenty of MUDs around, and they're still as good or better. Check out https://www.mudconnect.com/index.html https://www.mudconnect.com/index.html
    - JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
      It's interesting, but I think games have taken a significant backstep over the past few years in terms of RPG's in many ways. The issue for me nowadays is that AAA studios seem to demand certain things. One of which, is fully voiced dialogue. This sounds good, people talking lines to me is great right? But the problem is, each of those lines costs time and money, and adds rigidity around what can be changed as you need to get voice actors in and pay money, take time to record the lines, sequence the lips, etc. etc. Having a purely text based experience (see the character, but have the conversation be purely in text) allows for better variability, imagination on your behalf and way more dialogue because they aren't constrained by time and money as much. I can't remember who said it, but It puts me in mind of the concept that sometimes the most creative things happen when given the least tools to work with - if you give an artist all the tools to work with in the world, they can often find it harder to focus. Give constraints and creativity is given bounds and scope to work with. It's a bit counter-intuitive but I really think it can be true.
      - zimpenfish 8y ago
        > fully voiced dialogue Yeah, I 99% hate this[1]. Doubly if it's from the person I'm supposed to be playing - let me have my own thoughts about what's going on! [1] There are some games which have excellent voiced dialogue as part of the world building, e.g. Albino Lullaby
        dkersten 8y ago
        I love fully voiced dialogue in some games, if it’s done well it can really help with telling a story, but in more freeform roleplaying games it definitely detracts from the fantasy that’s playing out in my imagination as it means I can’t imprint my own feelings of what characters are feeling. MUDs were definitely the pinnacle of that for me, especially when you played with people who took their fictitious roles seriously and added freeform scenarios that weren’t hard coded into the game, through a shared acknowledgement that what other players invented became a real part of the fiction even though it wasn’t recognised by the software simulation.
        8y ago
  - agumonkey 8y ago
    Games used to need your mind to fill in gaps too. Crude limited capabilities of pre 16 bit era made it somehow impressionist and symbolic. Today it's all faux-reality. Amazing technically really.. but not so on the other side of the paddle. Also the pacing. There are games that weren't action based, and required contemplation (shadow of colossus for instance, there were a few others). There were also sim city like games, or flight simulators that required some focus. Even games like Resident Evil, they did capture your mind like a book a bit. That said a book requires a lot more than a game.
  - celticninja 8y ago
    A book makes you use your own imagination. Video games take the bulk of that work away from you so it's easier initially but imagination can easily outdo the games in the medium to long term (if you persevere)
- FPGAhacker 8y ago
  This is true, it takes effort to visualize, but it becomes automatic over time. You don't think about everyday language. You just use it. Same with books. Take the time to develop this skill when you aren't in need of escapism and you can reap the benefit when you are in dire need. There are other benefits as well. Developing your visualization skill is one that benefits pretty much everything in life. Visualization greatly aids learning and understanding.
- pizza234 8y ago
  This reminds me of the very typical discussion about the value of mathematics and the "descendants": physics, chemistry etc. :-) If the ultimate purpose is to "do some work", movies and videogames definitely do: - movies require (in theory) around 90 minutes of undivided attention, which is definitely "work" (how many people can watch an entire movie without peeking at the phone?); additionally, they can be intellectually and/or emotionally stimulating - videogames are essentially, in general, structured challenges, which is "work" again: analytical, creative, reactive... I'd say that quality of an escape, if we want to set this concept, could be better defined by the human experience added by it. Alcohol doesn't really add any valuable experience (assuming one even remembers it). Books, in average, may give the most valuable experience because they may be the most selective medium (due to the attention required). TV, in average, may give the least, for the opposite reason. Movies are definitely an infinite human capital. There's lots of garbage, of course. I find hard to make any generalization about video games, as it's a very diverse medium. Farmville and co. "fare" in the ranks of trash TV, however, games like "Papers, Please" make a very significant experience.
  - shrimp_emoji 8y ago
    Where do games like Screeps, Dwarf Fortress, RimWorld, Factorio, or Minecraft feature? Leveraging (or demanding) the user's creativity and construction to meaningfully drive gameplay (though how meaningfully varies) is like opening an extra dimension compared to games where you're only meant to respond to stimuli relatively simply, like Papers, Please.
    - voidpointercast 8y ago
      Dwarf Fortress is a helluva thing, good reference. I'd argue that's just as demanding as any IRL project and it requires planning, forethought, and myriad other detail and macro oriented skills.
    - pizza234 8y ago
      "Papers, Please" has a significant intellectual (/moral) meaning; it's extremely reductive to characterize it as a game "where you're only meant to respond to stimuli relatively simply".
- slipperymate 8y ago
  With video games you at least develop hand-held coordination, and in some, tactical skills. As for movies I'm not so sure, but for people who critique or study them it's at least beneficial. hand-eye
- nine_k 8y ago
  Crucially, books are non-interactive, they don't give you feedback. Books are in the same class as movies and TV. Games are a different class.
- hrktb 8y ago
  I think it’s more a question of in which direction you do the work. Reading a book is a bottom up process. A movie/comic is top bottom: from visual/sound info you parse what’s happening, characters motives, what direction everything is going. People argue the top-> down approach is “lazier”, but hearig from viewers who couldn’t understand the point of even simple movies, I don’t think it’s true, it’s just that people who don’t “get it” are left on their own as there is a forced timeline. In that sense, video games bring two major mechanics to the table: - interactivity: you need to understand what’s going on and take action to move forward. Also you can assume your choices. - retryability: you can redo any part you didn’t get, the mechanic is baked into the game where for a movie it’s a PITA. I see my kid playing RPG and asking again and again NPC for info, because he didn’t get it the first time. It’s a very powerful mechanism.
ohaideredevs 8y ago
I agree with you entirely - books are escapism. But there are levels of escapism - you would agree that a book is better than heroin, right? If so, you agree that there is a hierarchy. Reading teaches a lot of useful skills, such as, you know, reading. Then there is the fact that both video games and books can teach, but there are diminishing returns. When I first read Snow Crash and Neuromancer, they taught me a lot of things. Now there is virtually nothing I can draw from most sci-fi.
- HNLurker2 8y ago
  Rationally, fictional evidence is useless. Imaginatively, fiction and imagination are the only things that stimulate to push the boundaries in science and tech.
  - nybble41 8y ago
    Fiction isn't evidence (except, perhaps, of basic plausibility, which is a pretty low standard). It does, however, contribute to hypothesis generation; the hypotheses thus inspired by fictional sources can then be tested out in the real world.
agumonkey 8y ago
Books are so low on addiction and very high on interesting stimuli. for some reason, solid matter full of glyphs in our hands captivate the mind differently than other medium / formats. I tried a lot of things, every time I get a book I feel different and most importantly better. Coming from a not avid reader. #2cents
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  Do reading books on e-readers, tablets, and phones have the same effect? How about static websites with long-form text?
  - PascLeRasc 8y ago
    I'm not the parent, but I agree with him completely and for me books on a screen and web articles don't have the same effect, even if it's great writing. For me nothing can beat a paperback.
  - agumonkey 8y ago
    That's what I cryptically meant by 'lots of things'. As an ex-abstractophile-nerd I used to think that information is information, whether it's on paper, lcd or e-ink.... I read GNU manuals in emacs or in terminal so I'm not craving for aesthetics or high res. Turns out all mediums have subtle contexts that change the experience (at least personally [thus anecdotally]). LCD: fatigue, luminosity, potential for distraction because you're using a machine, battery, other apps Tablet: similar to above although maybe less so (bought a kindle 7, sadly the sub-HD resolution was another flaw) e-ink: never tried, I wish I could but never did so far. I expect it to be a bit better than the rest A book is dead. It requires nothing beside a bit of light. Maybe the physicality of pages make my brain focus differently, maybe touching, maybe the fact that it's dead and it won't move weirdly, change. The very high resolution helps. All of this is super fluffy, but I value my opinion (I was surprised by it too) just enough to say it out loud. It doesn't imply you can't enjoy and learn efficiently with a digital machine but I'm sure it won't be the same as reading a book.
celticninja 8y ago
Yup and I frequently used them as such. Of course these days that seems tame, but there was a time when the printed word probably spelled the downfall of society for some group too.
magpi3 8y ago
As was poetry. All storytelling can be viewed as an escape. But it can also be viewed as a powerful way to reimagine the world.
toasterlovin 8y ago
It is the dose, not the substance, that makes the poison.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  It's actually both. And also whether intake is repeated. The platitude is completely wrong.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    Fine. But we're both saying the person I was responding to is wrong. Which was the actual point.

Sure, but doesn't it work pretty differently? With books, you're just given words and your brain has to fill in the gaps and actually do some work. With video games and movies, your brain is directly stimulated; shown what to see and hear.

leetcrew 8y ago
I know this is the common argument, but I'm not entirely convinced. when I was a kid, the graphics were quite primitive by today's standards, but playing the games at that age felt like stepping into a vivid other world. playing as an adult, I just see a bunch of geometry with shitty lighting while I run around clicking on HP sponges. I wouldn't say that video games are quite as stimulating as reading a good book, but I think we underestimate how much our imagination works to "fill in the gaps" to make games feel real and rewarding.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dkersten 8y ago
  And how we used to think whatever the latest in graphics was, was oh so realistic and amazing! I played MUD’s for a few years when I was younger and in hindsight it was amazing: while the writing wasn’t typically as good as a book, you still filled in the world and characters with your imagination and it was both interactive and social. I still have some vivid memories of it that are as clear as if it had been a modern game or movie, despite that in reality I was reading text.
  - bitexploder 8y ago
    Some MUDs back in the day had combat and skill systems as complex as any modern MMOs. They were the precursor to MMORPG.
    - dkersten 8y ago
      Absolutely. They were mechanically quite advanced in some cases and the roleplay heavy ones had some of the most immersive experiences I’ve had in any game.
    - taborj 8y ago
      We're off topic here, but there are still plenty of MUDs around, and they're still as good or better. Check out https://www.mudconnect.com/index.html https://www.mudconnect.com/index.html
  - JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
    It's interesting, but I think games have taken a significant backstep over the past few years in terms of RPG's in many ways. The issue for me nowadays is that AAA studios seem to demand certain things. One of which, is fully voiced dialogue. This sounds good, people talking lines to me is great right? But the problem is, each of those lines costs time and money, and adds rigidity around what can be changed as you need to get voice actors in and pay money, take time to record the lines, sequence the lips, etc. etc. Having a purely text based experience (see the character, but have the conversation be purely in text) allows for better variability, imagination on your behalf and way more dialogue because they aren't constrained by time and money as much. I can't remember who said it, but It puts me in mind of the concept that sometimes the most creative things happen when given the least tools to work with - if you give an artist all the tools to work with in the world, they can often find it harder to focus. Give constraints and creativity is given bounds and scope to work with. It's a bit counter-intuitive but I really think it can be true.
    - zimpenfish 8y ago
      > fully voiced dialogue Yeah, I 99% hate this[1]. Doubly if it's from the person I'm supposed to be playing - let me have my own thoughts about what's going on! [1] There are some games which have excellent voiced dialogue as part of the world building, e.g. Albino Lullaby
      - dkersten 8y ago
        I love fully voiced dialogue in some games, if it’s done well it can really help with telling a story, but in more freeform roleplaying games it definitely detracts from the fantasy that’s playing out in my imagination as it means I can’t imprint my own feelings of what characters are feeling. MUDs were definitely the pinnacle of that for me, especially when you played with people who took their fictitious roles seriously and added freeform scenarios that weren’t hard coded into the game, through a shared acknowledgement that what other players invented became a real part of the fiction even though it wasn’t recognised by the software simulation.
        8y ago
- agumonkey 8y ago
  Games used to need your mind to fill in gaps too. Crude limited capabilities of pre 16 bit era made it somehow impressionist and symbolic. Today it's all faux-reality. Amazing technically really.. but not so on the other side of the paddle. Also the pacing. There are games that weren't action based, and required contemplation (shadow of colossus for instance, there were a few others). There were also sim city like games, or flight simulators that required some focus. Even games like Resident Evil, they did capture your mind like a book a bit. That said a book requires a lot more than a game.
- celticninja 8y ago
  A book makes you use your own imagination. Video games take the bulk of that work away from you so it's easier initially but imagination can easily outdo the games in the medium to long term (if you persevere)
FPGAhacker 8y ago
This is true, it takes effort to visualize, but it becomes automatic over time. You don't think about everyday language. You just use it. Same with books. Take the time to develop this skill when you aren't in need of escapism and you can reap the benefit when you are in dire need. There are other benefits as well. Developing your visualization skill is one that benefits pretty much everything in life. Visualization greatly aids learning and understanding.
pizza234 8y ago
This reminds me of the very typical discussion about the value of mathematics and the "descendants": physics, chemistry etc. :-) If the ultimate purpose is to "do some work", movies and videogames definitely do: - movies require (in theory) around 90 minutes of undivided attention, which is definitely "work" (how many people can watch an entire movie without peeking at the phone?); additionally, they can be intellectually and/or emotionally stimulating - videogames are essentially, in general, structured challenges, which is "work" again: analytical, creative, reactive... I'd say that quality of an escape, if we want to set this concept, could be better defined by the human experience added by it. Alcohol doesn't really add any valuable experience (assuming one even remembers it). Books, in average, may give the most valuable experience because they may be the most selective medium (due to the attention required). TV, in average, may give the least, for the opposite reason. Movies are definitely an infinite human capital. There's lots of garbage, of course. I find hard to make any generalization about video games, as it's a very diverse medium. Farmville and co. "fare" in the ranks of trash TV, however, games like "Papers, Please" make a very significant experience.
- shrimp_emoji 8y ago
  Where do games like Screeps, Dwarf Fortress, RimWorld, Factorio, or Minecraft feature? Leveraging (or demanding) the user's creativity and construction to meaningfully drive gameplay (though how meaningfully varies) is like opening an extra dimension compared to games where you're only meant to respond to stimuli relatively simply, like Papers, Please.
  - voidpointercast 8y ago
    Dwarf Fortress is a helluva thing, good reference. I'd argue that's just as demanding as any IRL project and it requires planning, forethought, and myriad other detail and macro oriented skills.
  - pizza234 8y ago
    "Papers, Please" has a significant intellectual (/moral) meaning; it's extremely reductive to characterize it as a game "where you're only meant to respond to stimuli relatively simply".
slipperymate 8y ago
With video games you at least develop hand-held coordination, and in some, tactical skills. As for movies I'm not so sure, but for people who critique or study them it's at least beneficial. hand-eye
nine_k 8y ago
Crucially, books are non-interactive, they don't give you feedback. Books are in the same class as movies and TV. Games are a different class.
hrktb 8y ago
I think it’s more a question of in which direction you do the work. Reading a book is a bottom up process. A movie/comic is top bottom: from visual/sound info you parse what’s happening, characters motives, what direction everything is going. People argue the top-> down approach is “lazier”, but hearig from viewers who couldn’t understand the point of even simple movies, I don’t think it’s true, it’s just that people who don’t “get it” are left on their own as there is a forced timeline. In that sense, video games bring two major mechanics to the table: - interactivity: you need to understand what’s going on and take action to move forward. Also you can assume your choices. - retryability: you can redo any part you didn’t get, the mechanic is baked into the game where for a movie it’s a PITA. I see my kid playing RPG and asking again and again NPC for info, because he didn’t get it the first time. It’s a very powerful mechanism.

ohaideredevs 8y ago

I agree with you entirely - books are escapism. But there are levels of escapism - you would agree that a book is better than heroin, right? If so, you agree that there is a hierarchy. Reading teaches a lot of useful skills, such as, you know, reading. Then there is the fact that both video games and books can teach, but there are diminishing returns. When I first read Snow Crash and Neuromancer, they taught me a lot of things. Now there is virtually nothing I can draw from most sci-fi.

HNLurker2 8y ago
Rationally, fictional evidence is useless. Imaginatively, fiction and imagination are the only things that stimulate to push the boundaries in science and tech.
- nybble41 8y ago
  Fiction isn't evidence (except, perhaps, of basic plausibility, which is a pretty low standard). It does, however, contribute to hypothesis generation; the hypotheses thus inspired by fictional sources can then be tested out in the real world.

agumonkey 8y ago

Books are so low on addiction and very high on interesting stimuli. for some reason, solid matter full of glyphs in our hands captivate the mind differently than other medium / formats. I tried a lot of things, every time I get a book I feel different and most importantly better. Coming from a not avid reader. #2cents

Apocryphon 8y ago
Do reading books on e-readers, tablets, and phones have the same effect? How about static websites with long-form text?
- PascLeRasc 8y ago
  I'm not the parent, but I agree with him completely and for me books on a screen and web articles don't have the same effect, even if it's great writing. For me nothing can beat a paperback.
- agumonkey 8y ago
  That's what I cryptically meant by 'lots of things'. As an ex-abstractophile-nerd I used to think that information is information, whether it's on paper, lcd or e-ink.... I read GNU manuals in emacs or in terminal so I'm not craving for aesthetics or high res. Turns out all mediums have subtle contexts that change the experience (at least personally [thus anecdotally]). LCD: fatigue, luminosity, potential for distraction because you're using a machine, battery, other apps Tablet: similar to above although maybe less so (bought a kindle 7, sadly the sub-HD resolution was another flaw) e-ink: never tried, I wish I could but never did so far. I expect it to be a bit better than the rest A book is dead. It requires nothing beside a bit of light. Maybe the physicality of pages make my brain focus differently, maybe touching, maybe the fact that it's dead and it won't move weirdly, change. The very high resolution helps. All of this is super fluffy, but I value my opinion (I was surprised by it too) just enough to say it out loud. It doesn't imply you can't enjoy and learn efficiently with a digital machine but I'm sure it won't be the same as reading a book.

celticninja 8y ago

Yup and I frequently used them as such. Of course these days that seems tame, but there was a time when the printed word probably spelled the downfall of society for some group too.

magpi3 8y ago

As was poetry. All storytelling can be viewed as an escape. But it can also be viewed as a powerful way to reimagine the world.

toasterlovin 8y ago

It is the dose, not the substance, that makes the poison.

AstralStorm 8y ago
It's actually both. And also whether intake is repeated. The platitude is completely wrong.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  Fine. But we're both saying the person I was responding to is wrong. Which was the actual point.