5 ms·

> This gaming thing has been going on for quite some time. It's a real thing with depth, mastery and real benefits that spread into the rest of your life just l

by badpun 8y ago

> This gaming thing has been going on for quite some time. It's a real thing with depth, mastery and real benefits that spread into the rest of your life just like playing sports, or chess or however else you think kids should be spending their time. Sure, that's true, but only for some kids - while for others, games, esp. non-skill ones (say, 100th hour of slashing monsters in Diablo) truly are a distraction and bring nothing in, while they fill the time in child's development that is normally devoted to activities which develop the child in some way. The same thing can be said about other activities, like TV, but I feel like video games may have even less to offer than those. I mean, if you watch sitcoms on TV, you're developing your sense of humor, observe people engaged in funny dialogue etc. I can't see a single valueable thing about that 100th hour of playing Diablo - it's a pure time waster. It's not great for an adult, but especially bad for a child/teenager, which should be growing instead of wasting time.

fabricexpert 8y ago
Perhaps 100 hours of slaying monsters in Diablo helps prepare a child for 40 hours a week performing menial tasks for the rest of their life?
- Splines 8y ago
  If you made a "office space" kind of game, and it was something you could actually call a game, I wouldn't be surprised to see a community grow up around it as people discussed path prioritization, how to speed run the TPS reports level, and how the recent nerf to casual dress fridays have impacted the meta.
  - viraptor 8y ago
    There's job simulator https://store.steampowered.com/app/448280/Job_Simulator/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/448280/Job_Simulator/
  - Macross8299 8y ago
    Mailroom to CEO Let's Play (speedrun 100% achievement)
wdewind 8y ago
Diablo is orders of magnitude less successful than Fortnite (or even Overwatch, by the same company), and I'd argue the reason is exactly what you are talking about: it's just not a very good game and the things you can get out of it just aren't that valuable. Overwhelmingly people choose more teamwork based, deeply social games. This is what the numbers say. A second premise I want to address is the idea that using games (or movies or books or whatever) as a mind numbing distraction is a waste of time or the fault of the escape itself. Tons of people are dealing with really intense trauma, and it's not really clear that there really is a better short term alternative for stress management. I think if people are doing things like slashing monsters for 100 hours in Diablo don't look at Diablo, look at what's going on in the rest of their life. Because you can take away Diablo, but you if you aren't fixing what makes them play a shitty game as a distraction for 100 hours you haven't really helped them at all. Finally: tons of people run pathologically. I mean basically anyone who is serious about the sport does more damage to themselves than is necessary, and runs far more than the optimal amount. I don't think running is exactly the same as gaming, but it's worth examining why we as a culture have no problem discussing Larry's second hip replacement from running 10 miles a day but tremble when discussing Larry's son's 10th hour this week playing Fortnite.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  > Finally: tons of people run pathologically. I mean basically anyone who is serious about the sport does more damage to themselves than is necessary, and runs far more than the optimal amount. I don't think running is exactly the same as gaming, but it's worth examining why we as a culture have no problem discussing Larry's second hip replacement from running 10 miles a day but tremble when discussing Larry's son's 10th hour this week playing Fortnite. Speaking as someone who runs quite a lot, I would be very interested in seeing you quantify this point and cite supporting research. In particular, I am skeptical you can find a peer reviewed study which suggests there exists a causal link between running n miles per day and requiring hip replacements later in life. Likewise, what is the "optimal amount" of running you speak of? And for what purpose is that amount optimal? To put it bluntly I think you're choosing the wrong activity for the "you can get addicted to anything" argument. I don't have an issue with that idea in the abstract, but I think you'll have a very difficult time mounting a persuasive argument using the idea that most serious runners are "pathological" - unless, of course, you presuppose the idea that doing things pathologically isn't unhealthy. EDIT: Here is a study which directly contradicts your claim about excessive running and hip replacement[1]. The ~75,000 respondents under study demonstrated a reduced risk for osteoarthritis and hip replacement. _____________________ 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23377837/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23377837/
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
toast0 8y ago
> I can't see a single valueable thing about that 100th hour of playing Diablo - it's a pure time waster. I wasted a lot of time playing Diablo II in college; but most of that was in a social context; is playing grindy games with friends that bad? > It's not great for an adult, but especially bad for a child/teenager, which should be growing instead of wasting time. You can't / shouldn't try to schedule all of a child's time to avoid any waste. For one thing, wasting time is a skill that needs to be developed -- there is so much boredom and drudgery in life that is unavoidable, learning how to deal with that requires practice and doing boring, wasteful things. But also, having some amount of mindless time in your day or week allows you to decompress and relax. Diablo probably isn't the best way, but it's alright. Caveat: I only played a lot of Diablo 1 and 2, maybe 3 was worse; when I tried to play it in Beta, I realized I had no real desire to run around and click on everything anymore.
delian66 8y ago
>> I mean, if you watch sitcoms on TV, you're developing your sense of humor, observe people engaged in funny dialogue etc. No, you are not developing your sense of humor. Most of the humor in the "funny dialogue" is conditioned and triggered by the laugh track. Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BFSZ8XzWOM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BFSZ8XzWOM for example.
- rchaud 8y ago
  "Humor" is extremely dependent on culture, which is heavily influenced by TV. Why does every laugh-track sitcom try to model itself on Friends? Because it has the sort of characters and humor that's relatable and funny to Americans. Because Friends is also a global hit, and popular among a generation of teens and 20s, people who weren't born when the show first aired, you can actually learn a lot about the small things about social interactions and conversational arcs watching sitcoms, than you would sitting in a social etiquette class. I've noticed this effect is especially strong among non-native English speakers who watched English sitcoms. Their vocabulary, cadence of speech etc are much more natural sounding compared to others who weren't familiar with any TV shows here beyond news programs.
  - delian66 8y ago
    Yes, you can train your vocabulary and improve your foreign language skills by listening to people talking it. I am not a comedian, so I do not know how exactly you can make yourself funnier, but I have a very strong suspicion that you do not become funnier yourself, by just listening to canned laughter, and that the fact that fake laughter is added to comedy shows is just to make the viewers like the show more. Listening to laughter causes most people to laugh too, even if they do not understand the cause for the laughter. For example https://youtu.be/wgzdb0txR_c?t=281 https://youtu.be/wgzdb0txR_c?t=281 . It works with other emotions also - if someone watches or listens to an angry person, they will become somewhat angry too.
ajscanlan 8y ago
I think you're making a mistake comparing 100 hours of a single game (Diablo) to an entire category of TV. A more apt comparison would be comparing 100th hour of Diablo vs 100th hour of a single sitcom, which by then you may be on your second watchthrough and have already got everything out of it that you could.

by badpun 8y ago

fabricexpert 8y ago

Perhaps 100 hours of slaying monsters in Diablo helps prepare a child for 40 hours a week performing menial tasks for the rest of their life?

Splines 8y ago
If you made a "office space" kind of game, and it was something you could actually call a game, I wouldn't be surprised to see a community grow up around it as people discussed path prioritization, how to speed run the TPS reports level, and how the recent nerf to casual dress fridays have impacted the meta.
- viraptor 8y ago
  There's job simulator https://store.steampowered.com/app/448280/Job_Simulator/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/448280/Job_Simulator/
- Macross8299 8y ago
  Mailroom to CEO Let's Play (speedrun 100% achievement)

wdewind 8y ago

Diablo is orders of magnitude less successful than Fortnite (or even Overwatch, by the same company), and I'd argue the reason is exactly what you are talking about: it's just not a very good game and the things you can get out of it just aren't that valuable. Overwhelmingly people choose more teamwork based, deeply social games. This is what the numbers say. A second premise I want to address is the idea that using games (or movies or books or whatever) as a mind numbing distraction is a waste of time or the fault of the escape itself. Tons of people are dealing with really intense trauma, and it's not really clear that there really is a better short term alternative for stress management. I think if people are doing things like slashing monsters for 100 hours in Diablo don't look at Diablo, look at what's going on in the rest of their life. Because you can take away Diablo, but you if you aren't fixing what makes them play a shitty game as a distraction for 100 hours you haven't really helped them at all. Finally: tons of people run pathologically. I mean basically anyone who is serious about the sport does more damage to themselves than is necessary, and runs far more than the optimal amount. I don't think running is exactly the same as gaming, but it's worth examining why we as a culture have no problem discussing Larry's second hip replacement from running 10 miles a day but tremble when discussing Larry's son's 10th hour this week playing Fortnite.

throwawaymath 8y ago
> Finally: tons of people run pathologically. I mean basically anyone who is serious about the sport does more damage to themselves than is necessary, and runs far more than the optimal amount. I don't think running is exactly the same as gaming, but it's worth examining why we as a culture have no problem discussing Larry's second hip replacement from running 10 miles a day but tremble when discussing Larry's son's 10th hour this week playing Fortnite. Speaking as someone who runs quite a lot, I would be very interested in seeing you quantify this point and cite supporting research. In particular, I am skeptical you can find a peer reviewed study which suggests there exists a causal link between running n miles per day and requiring hip replacements later in life. Likewise, what is the "optimal amount" of running you speak of? And for what purpose is that amount optimal? To put it bluntly I think you're choosing the wrong activity for the "you can get addicted to anything" argument. I don't have an issue with that idea in the abstract, but I think you'll have a very difficult time mounting a persuasive argument using the idea that most serious runners are "pathological" - unless, of course, you presuppose the idea that doing things pathologically isn't unhealthy. EDIT: Here is a study which directly contradicts your claim about excessive running and hip replacement[1]. The ~75,000 respondents under study demonstrated a reduced risk for osteoarthritis and hip replacement. _____________________ 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23377837/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23377837/

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

toast0 8y ago

> I can't see a single valueable thing about that 100th hour of playing Diablo - it's a pure time waster. I wasted a lot of time playing Diablo II in college; but most of that was in a social context; is playing grindy games with friends that bad? > It's not great for an adult, but especially bad for a child/teenager, which should be growing instead of wasting time. You can't / shouldn't try to schedule all of a child's time to avoid any waste. For one thing, wasting time is a skill that needs to be developed -- there is so much boredom and drudgery in life that is unavoidable, learning how to deal with that requires practice and doing boring, wasteful things. But also, having some amount of mindless time in your day or week allows you to decompress and relax. Diablo probably isn't the best way, but it's alright. Caveat: I only played a lot of Diablo 1 and 2, maybe 3 was worse; when I tried to play it in Beta, I realized I had no real desire to run around and click on everything anymore.

delian66 8y ago

>> I mean, if you watch sitcoms on TV, you're developing your sense of humor, observe people engaged in funny dialogue etc. No, you are not developing your sense of humor. Most of the humor in the "funny dialogue" is conditioned and triggered by the laugh track. Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BFSZ8XzWOM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BFSZ8XzWOM for example.

rchaud 8y ago
"Humor" is extremely dependent on culture, which is heavily influenced by TV. Why does every laugh-track sitcom try to model itself on Friends? Because it has the sort of characters and humor that's relatable and funny to Americans. Because Friends is also a global hit, and popular among a generation of teens and 20s, people who weren't born when the show first aired, you can actually learn a lot about the small things about social interactions and conversational arcs watching sitcoms, than you would sitting in a social etiquette class. I've noticed this effect is especially strong among non-native English speakers who watched English sitcoms. Their vocabulary, cadence of speech etc are much more natural sounding compared to others who weren't familiar with any TV shows here beyond news programs.
- delian66 8y ago
  Yes, you can train your vocabulary and improve your foreign language skills by listening to people talking it. I am not a comedian, so I do not know how exactly you can make yourself funnier, but I have a very strong suspicion that you do not become funnier yourself, by just listening to canned laughter, and that the fact that fake laughter is added to comedy shows is just to make the viewers like the show more. Listening to laughter causes most people to laugh too, even if they do not understand the cause for the laughter. For example https://youtu.be/wgzdb0txR_c?t=281 https://youtu.be/wgzdb0txR_c?t=281 . It works with other emotions also - if someone watches or listens to an angry person, they will become somewhat angry too.

ajscanlan 8y ago

I think you're making a mistake comparing 100 hours of a single game (Diablo) to an entire category of TV. A more apt comparison would be comparing 100th hour of Diablo vs 100th hour of a single sitcom, which by then you may be on your second watchthrough and have already got everything out of it that you could.