4 ms·

Article seems to forget that there are vast swaths of the population that do not play games. They do not have the patience to learn how to play games, not even

Article seems to forget that there are vast swaths of the population that do not play games. They do not have the patience to learn how to play games, not even console games with simpler controls. Even casual games require some level of skill to play, or they're not any fun, and the joy of television is that you do not need any special skill to enjoy it. This isn't even getting into people who view games as a waste of time, worse than television--at least television can sometimes teach you something, most games do not. You could try to argue that because a lot of children play games, future generations will be more game-focused, but I still don't believe that it's even close to a simple majority of children who like playing games as much as watching video content. Video content will always win because they don't take much (or any) energy (physical, mental, or emotional) to enjoy. I think most people find that you reach a point in the day where you're too tired to literally do anything else (no reading, no gaming) but stare at video until you're ready to fall asleep.

sgarman 7y ago
Get in line. People have been making that argument since the dawn of time. Even "writing" was heavily criticized over memorization and oral story telling. Each criticism declaring the end and ruin of civilization. If I had to pick one of them to actually make this complaint against it would be computer (AI) generated content optimized for clicks on video websites (think kids videos on youtube).
- nl 7y ago
  It sounds like you think the OP is making a moral argument against games, but I don't believe they are. I have no moral issue with time spent on games. My son plays quite a lot and I think that's fine. I have zero interest in them though. There are a lot of reasons for this, but they aren't moral reasons - just preferences. I'd note that this also reflect in my lack of interest in board/card games. I know a lot of people like me, from all age groups - they'll watch video content but have no interest in playing games. I think that the article author misses that.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    It's important to think that the moral critique of video games isn't the only one around; it's possible to think that it's moral to play video games[0] but that they have a much lower aesthetic value (inherently or on average) than other artforms. [0] The moral status of people who play games involving killing, rape, etc. may seem irrelevant, but there's a paper I read a while ago[1] which argues that under a deontological system, playing such games may be immoral because of their content - a pro tanto wrong. I suppose the argument has less weight as most lay people are consequentialists or moral relativsits. [1] "This paper is concerned with whether there is a moral difference between simulating wrongdoing and consuming non-simulatory representations of wrongdoing. I argue that simulating wrongdoing is (as such) a pro tanto wrong whose wrongness does not tarnish other cases of consuming representations of wrongdoing. While simulating wrongdoing (as such) constitutes a disrespectful act, consuming representations of wrongdoing (as such) does not." https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-018-9463-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-018-9463-7
    - nl 7y ago
      I don't find video games "less" in anyway, aesthetic or otherwise. The moral argument you point to there seems limited to violent FPS-style games - unless you consider Chess to be deontologically questionable (and surely these concerns are increased in games like poker, where bluffing (lying) to other humans is part of the game). It's an interesting intellectual argument, but not particularly relevant to my point.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > but there's a paper I read a while ago[1] which argues that under a deontological system, playing such games may be immoral because of their content - a pro tanto wrong. I think even most deontologists would consider the deontological status of participation in a game depicting/simulating certain subject matter as at least sometimes significantly different from the deontological status of actually participating in the act, a distinction similar to use/mention distinctions. Sure, a set of moral axioms on which those are categorically equivalent is possible, but I don't think it's common even among deontological frameworks that don't reduce to consequentialism.
- agumonkey 7y ago
  > Even "writing" was heavily criticized over memorization and oral story telling. do you have articles to read about that ?
  - troutwine 7y ago
    https://www.ancientgreekphilosopher.com/tag/critique-of-writing/ https://www.ancientgreekphilosopher.com/tag/critique-of-writ...
    - agumonkey 7y ago
      Surely Socrates would appreciate his critics being passed down in writings
darkwizard42 7y ago
There are a whole new generation of games that are breaking that issue. Overcooked is a coop “cooking” game where you and your friends have to take actions in a kitchen to make orders as they appear on the top of the screen. My 60+ year old parents picked up the 2 button controls with ease. The game is more project management and communication but gamified. There is a huge population of people who are mobile gamers and it’s not the demographic of 10-20 year olds. It’s middle aged folks.
prawn 7y ago
Something I think about is how there have been outstanding games that the majority of people will never play. Just in recent years - Red Dead I and II, Horizon Zero Dawn, Last of Us, etc. These have quality/polish up with Breaking Bad or any acclaimed movie/TV, but no one else in my extended family would have played a second of any of them. How do you bring that experience to people?
- Polylactic_acid 7y ago
  I haven't watched a second of breaking bad or most top rated movies. How do you bring that experience to me? Movies and TV shows are just things I rarely have much interest in.
- watwut 7y ago
  We don't want that experience. You don't bring it to us, you let us enjoy things we want to enjoy.
  - prawn 7y ago
    How were you once exposed to the things you now enjoy? New foods, new media, new books? I'd suggest that many people wouldn't know what some of these games look like, how they play, how detailed the story is. Maybe you personally know and have zero interest - that's fine - but I'm talking about people who don't know and might have interest.
- burntoutfire 7y ago
  Most people just don't seem interested in video games. You don't "bring it" to them, the same way as you don't bring for example fishing to people who have no interest in it.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  In the early days of film there were long running serials played that had such a the investment that it had a limited audience. Film became more mainstream as it's format locked down to 1.5-2hr films that busy people could enjoy. Investing heavily into a long running video game is more intensive than long running film. Finding the right form for those experiences that isn't totalizing in it's presentation could help. A 3hr run and done episode of red dead might be more consumable.

sgarman 7y ago

Get in line. People have been making that argument since the dawn of time. Even "writing" was heavily criticized over memorization and oral story telling. Each criticism declaring the end and ruin of civilization. If I had to pick one of them to actually make this complaint against it would be computer (AI) generated content optimized for clicks on video websites (think kids videos on youtube).

nl 7y ago
It sounds like you think the OP is making a moral argument against games, but I don't believe they are. I have no moral issue with time spent on games. My son plays quite a lot and I think that's fine. I have zero interest in them though. There are a lot of reasons for this, but they aren't moral reasons - just preferences. I'd note that this also reflect in my lack of interest in board/card games. I know a lot of people like me, from all age groups - they'll watch video content but have no interest in playing games. I think that the article author misses that.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  It's important to think that the moral critique of video games isn't the only one around; it's possible to think that it's moral to play video games[0] but that they have a much lower aesthetic value (inherently or on average) than other artforms. [0] The moral status of people who play games involving killing, rape, etc. may seem irrelevant, but there's a paper I read a while ago[1] which argues that under a deontological system, playing such games may be immoral because of their content - a pro tanto wrong. I suppose the argument has less weight as most lay people are consequentialists or moral relativsits. [1] "This paper is concerned with whether there is a moral difference between simulating wrongdoing and consuming non-simulatory representations of wrongdoing. I argue that simulating wrongdoing is (as such) a pro tanto wrong whose wrongness does not tarnish other cases of consuming representations of wrongdoing. While simulating wrongdoing (as such) constitutes a disrespectful act, consuming representations of wrongdoing (as such) does not." https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-018-9463-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-018-9463-7
  - nl 7y ago
    I don't find video games "less" in anyway, aesthetic or otherwise. The moral argument you point to there seems limited to violent FPS-style games - unless you consider Chess to be deontologically questionable (and surely these concerns are increased in games like poker, where bluffing (lying) to other humans is part of the game). It's an interesting intellectual argument, but not particularly relevant to my point.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > but there's a paper I read a while ago[1] which argues that under a deontological system, playing such games may be immoral because of their content - a pro tanto wrong. I think even most deontologists would consider the deontological status of participation in a game depicting/simulating certain subject matter as at least sometimes significantly different from the deontological status of actually participating in the act, a distinction similar to use/mention distinctions. Sure, a set of moral axioms on which those are categorically equivalent is possible, but I don't think it's common even among deontological frameworks that don't reduce to consequentialism.
agumonkey 7y ago
> Even "writing" was heavily criticized over memorization and oral story telling. do you have articles to read about that ?
- troutwine 7y ago
  https://www.ancientgreekphilosopher.com/tag/critique-of-writing/ https://www.ancientgreekphilosopher.com/tag/critique-of-writ...
  - agumonkey 7y ago
    Surely Socrates would appreciate his critics being passed down in writings

darkwizard42 7y ago

There are a whole new generation of games that are breaking that issue. Overcooked is a coop “cooking” game where you and your friends have to take actions in a kitchen to make orders as they appear on the top of the screen. My 60+ year old parents picked up the 2 button controls with ease. The game is more project management and communication but gamified. There is a huge population of people who are mobile gamers and it’s not the demographic of 10-20 year olds. It’s middle aged folks.

prawn 7y ago

Something I think about is how there have been outstanding games that the majority of people will never play. Just in recent years - Red Dead I and II, Horizon Zero Dawn, Last of Us, etc. These have quality/polish up with Breaking Bad or any acclaimed movie/TV, but no one else in my extended family would have played a second of any of them. How do you bring that experience to people?

Polylactic_acid 7y ago
I haven't watched a second of breaking bad or most top rated movies. How do you bring that experience to me? Movies and TV shows are just things I rarely have much interest in.
watwut 7y ago
We don't want that experience. You don't bring it to us, you let us enjoy things we want to enjoy.
- prawn 7y ago
  How were you once exposed to the things you now enjoy? New foods, new media, new books? I'd suggest that many people wouldn't know what some of these games look like, how they play, how detailed the story is. Maybe you personally know and have zero interest - that's fine - but I'm talking about people who don't know and might have interest.
burntoutfire 7y ago
Most people just don't seem interested in video games. You don't "bring it" to them, the same way as you don't bring for example fishing to people who have no interest in it.
friendlybus 7y ago
In the early days of film there were long running serials played that had such a the investment that it had a limited audience. Film became more mainstream as it's format locked down to 1.5-2hr films that busy people could enjoy. Investing heavily into a long running video game is more intensive than long running film. Finding the right form for those experiences that isn't totalizing in it's presentation could help. A 3hr run and done episode of red dead might be more consumable.