5 ms·

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 g

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.

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.