> We may actually need to change our terminology because many new digital games are different from how we might traditionally define and imagine video games — t

> We may actually need to change our terminology because many new digital games are different from how we might traditionally define and imagine video games — those cinematic worlds of PlayStation or Xbox. The "we" here seems to only apply to the author, and people to whom "my own avid video game playing ended in the era of BrickBreaker for the Blackberry". This is not to judge/gatekeep the author, but they're talking about something they don't know. > Pokémon Go, Fortnite and Among Us are video games, but they are also hangouts for friends, pop culture moments, opportunities for political organizing and more. So was Call of Duty 10 years ago, MMOs 20 years ago, etc. There's nothing new here, apart from games getting more popular (and thus being considered "pop" culture). > I know that games aren’t all stimulating paragons of human social connection, but it feels as if something exciting is happening. I wouldn't agree here. I have fond memories of moments shared with friends on games, it feels a bit like we lived our own adventure, not unlike a trip really. For example, let's take Minecraft. Sure, our minecraft server doesn't "exists" in physical space the way a city exists. But we lived here. Real people spent real time and had real interactions, that left "physical" traces. The article should be something like "I discovered that my views of video games was really limited and incomplete compared to what's really happening", or something like that. There's no shame in not knowing everything, and sometimes a new way of looking at things from the outside can be precious. But for that, you have to recognize your own limits, instead of pretending to be seeing a new social phenomenon.