5 ms·

This article is kind of all over the place. On the one hand it is making a sort of "All entertainment we experience affects who we are." argument which is so br

by ebbv 14y ago

This article is kind of all over the place. On the one hand it is making a sort of "All entertainment we experience affects who we are." argument which is so broad as to be meaningless -- change on what level? Watching one episode of Jeopardy doesn't change me in a meaningful way, watching Jeopardy every night for 10 years might. Then it transitions into "Here's a list of questions to help you appreciate games on a deeper level", which is to me, both wrongheaded and insulting. It's wrongheaded because who are you to say how people should enjoy games? People are different, unless someone is harming you, let them do what they want to do. Maybe someone spends all day as an academic educating graduate students about the deeper meaning of 19th century literature. At the end of the day maybe they're ready to just load up Team Fortress 2 and blow up some people with cartoony missiles. To me, telling people "this is how you should enjoy games" is much more condescending than a post saying "these are the games you should enjoy, and these other games are bad." It's moving beyond just matters of taste into telling people how to think and how to behave.

JenniferFinelli 14y ago
Hi, ebbv! I do want to point out that those are questions, not answers. No one is telling you how to enjoy games--the fundamental question is, is there a way to enjoy games that accesses the deeper human levels of our existence? No where in this article does it say "DAMN YOU FOR NOT FINDING DEEP MEANING IN TETRIS YOU FOOL." That, I agree with you, would be a little over the top. = P There's another, bigger question to consider: if video games affect your mind so profoundly, it's probably a good idea to think a little before playing. I don't want to rephrase the article to say "think before buying," because that's an obvious part of anything we do--but if your pre-motor cortex actually replicates and primes your motor cortex to perform the Scout's baseball-bashing of Team Fortress 2, don't you at least want to consciously decide on what level it affects you? If you make the conscious decision to transfer TF2 only to area MT--which is essentially what you're arguing--then that decision should be conscious. Rather than just experiencing, isn't it legitimate to consider what your pre-motor cortex is acting out? Is it unreasonable to ask that we be consciencious about the workings of our minds during games? This isn't to say that EVERY SINGLE TIME you play a game you should write a paper and submit it to a game magazine. I would rather you didn't do that, because I would like to do that, and you would be competing, and, yannow, capitalism. This is just to say that it's reasonable to become aware of WHICH areas of your brain are affected--because whether you like it or not, your brain ACTIVELY practices killing. I'm not putting a moral label on that. I personally believe that's a good thing sometimes. I'm saying "Know thyself, brain-flesh-meatbag, and have fun playing." So have fun. BTW, who's your favorite TF2 character? I am pretty much in love with the Scout.
- ebbv 14y ago
  I think saying that "your brain actively practices killing" is overstating it. It sure sounds good, but it's not even close to reality. When you see visual stimulus, it causes your brain to simulate that in your mind but it's not true that your brain is "practicing" that behavior. When you see or hear someone playing guitar, the same effect is happening in your brain. That doesn't mean that you can watch Stevie Ray Vaughan play "Rude Mood" 20 times and then play it yourself. Likewise you aren't going to turn into a killer no matter how many hours you spend playing GTA4. On top of that, I think approaching the issue by telling people "think before you play games" is condescending and ineffective. It's like articles that say "think before you eat." Nobody reads that and says "Oh you're right! I was a mindless eating machine before and now I'm going to be more thoughtful." They think "Who's this jerk telling me what to do? I'm getting a KFC Sadness Bowl with extra bacon!" You are obviously free to write whatever articles you want, I just found this one a bit condescending and also based on a false premise. It was clearly well intentioned and thoughtful, so I'm not trying to insult you or make you feel bad just express my reaction. EDIT: Also I don't play multiplayer FPS of any kind much these days but when I fire up TF2 once in a while I usually play the Soldier because it's most like the old Quake 1 days of rocket battles.
  - Lewisham 14y ago
    > I think saying that "your brain actively practices killing" is overstating it. It sure sounds good, but it's not even close to reality. To support your point a little bit, some video game scholars, like Espen Aarseth, don't buy into the idea what the representations provide any relevancy: [1]: "The "royal" theme of the traditional pieces is all but irrelevant to our understanding of chess. Likewise, the dimensions of Lara Croft's body, already analyzed to death by film theorists, are irrelevant to me as a player, because a different-looking body would not make me play differently (see sidebar). When I play, I don't even see her body, but see through it and past it." While Aarseth has been quite extreme in his rejection of narrative, the main aspect of his argument is that gamers see the underlying constructs of the gameplay systems, and I think gamers choose whether to engage with the dressing that sits on top. Bioshock Infinite tells a story that you can listen to, but when you're playing you're not listening. This explains the disconnect between players of GTA and observers. Those who observe and go "YOU KILLED THAT PROSTITUTE TO GET YOUR MONEY BACK AND YOU DON'T EVEN CARE" are viewing the game at the narrative level; whereas the gamers who do this are working at the mechanics level. It is a fallacy to then believe that those gamers are more susceptible to perform those actions they see at the narrative level in real life, as they were never there in the first place. The prostitutes aren't people, they're walking wallets. Bioshock tried to play with this idea with the Little Sisters, but I felt it ultimately failed, as the Little Sisters were sufficiently dehumanized that they looked a lot like walking health packs who would be put out of their misery. People who really do see others like this in real life already have a name; they're psychopathic. Fortunately, most people are not psychopathic :) [1] http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/firstperson/vigilant http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/firstperson/vigil...
pharrington 14y ago
Questions to help yourself take games more seriously It's a suggestion. She is sharing an opinion. Nowhere does she cast judgement on how or why you're enjoying your games. She's proposing a way to get a little more intellectual stimulation from games, and you can take it or leave it. While I personally think the specific questions are a bit too broad and shallow, there's no reason for the possibility of an alternative mode of thought to be offend me. Because somebody says "try doing X," does not mean she says "you are bad for not doing X."
- klrr 14y ago
  No but it's written a way that it's easily interpreted like that.
- kabdib 14y ago
  _Where is the artistic value in this game?_ Blowing stuff up is fun? Try Robotron, or Serious Sam. You're saying I need to examine someone's motivation and weigh a game's social conscience before I install the thing, or I'm a bad person? Get real. Blowing stuff up is fun. Once upon a time at Atari, one of the head Marketroids in the home computer division decided "No violent games!" The problem was, all of the non-violent games they were able to come up with _stunk_. They sunk millions into developing titles that didn't sell. I "played" _Dear Esther_ and it was interesting, but I uninstalled it and there's no point in going back; I won't play another game like that. I want to play games with a social conscience as their primary mission about as much as I want to attend another mandatory sensitivity training. [For the record, I only had to do that once, a long time ago. :-) ] For the most part, games are made to make money. This is what companies _do_. If you're saying that _Dear Esther_ is the answer, then the question is very silly indeed; it's not what the market wants. [For the record, I do think that "bikini armor" in RPGs is stupid, and I wish they'd stop. But my Old Fart notions are swamped by the cash represented by a legion of 15 year old boys.]
  - pharrington 14y ago
    "You're saying I need to examine someone's motivation and weigh a game's social conscience before I install the thing, or I'm a bad person?" Well thats the thing... I'm not saying that, and I'm 100% sure the blog author isn't saying that either. Asking yourself what the artistic value in the game is is not the same thing as (yet does often lead to) evaluating the game in a socio-political context. It is examining your responses to the game, be they intellectual or visceral, and asking what elements of the game trigger those responses. Ask yourself how those elements form a coherent experience. I love shmups and action games. Right now I'm trying to get good at Devil May Cry 4, and the newest game I've played though is Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance. These games have a strong focus on enabling creativity by giving the player avatar as much power and control as possible while balancing the enemy scenarios to still provide a challenge. Since stylish gameplay is the core of these games, asking exactly how the game gives the player so much control and creativity is fundamental to examining their artistic value. But they are also games with narratives: MGR:R is about a psychopathic former child soldier who's turned into a cyborg mercenary. He "refuels" by ripping out his enemies' spines and eating them. DMC4 begins with the series' half-demon protagonist crashing into a church and assassinating the pope. They are games with narratives, and whether or not the narratives are good, they impact the player experience and are certainly worth considering. All anyone is saying is to try paying more attention to, and reflecting on, what you're thinking and feeling when playing games. You might enjoy them more. You might not.

by ebbv 14y ago

JenniferFinelli 14y ago

Hi, ebbv! I do want to point out that those are questions, not answers. No one is telling you how to enjoy games--the fundamental question is, is there a way to enjoy games that accesses the deeper human levels of our existence? No where in this article does it say "DAMN YOU FOR NOT FINDING DEEP MEANING IN TETRIS YOU FOOL." That, I agree with you, would be a little over the top. = P There's another, bigger question to consider: if video games affect your mind so profoundly, it's probably a good idea to think a little before playing. I don't want to rephrase the article to say "think before buying," because that's an obvious part of anything we do--but if your pre-motor cortex actually replicates and primes your motor cortex to perform the Scout's baseball-bashing of Team Fortress 2, don't you at least want to consciously decide on what level it affects you? If you make the conscious decision to transfer TF2 only to area MT--which is essentially what you're arguing--then that decision should be conscious. Rather than just experiencing, isn't it legitimate to consider what your pre-motor cortex is acting out? Is it unreasonable to ask that we be consciencious about the workings of our minds during games? This isn't to say that EVERY SINGLE TIME you play a game you should write a paper and submit it to a game magazine. I would rather you didn't do that, because I would like to do that, and you would be competing, and, yannow, capitalism. This is just to say that it's reasonable to become aware of WHICH areas of your brain are affected--because whether you like it or not, your brain ACTIVELY practices killing. I'm not putting a moral label on that. I personally believe that's a good thing sometimes. I'm saying "Know thyself, brain-flesh-meatbag, and have fun playing." So have fun. BTW, who's your favorite TF2 character? I am pretty much in love with the Scout.

ebbv 14y ago
I think saying that "your brain actively practices killing" is overstating it. It sure sounds good, but it's not even close to reality. When you see visual stimulus, it causes your brain to simulate that in your mind but it's not true that your brain is "practicing" that behavior. When you see or hear someone playing guitar, the same effect is happening in your brain. That doesn't mean that you can watch Stevie Ray Vaughan play "Rude Mood" 20 times and then play it yourself. Likewise you aren't going to turn into a killer no matter how many hours you spend playing GTA4. On top of that, I think approaching the issue by telling people "think before you play games" is condescending and ineffective. It's like articles that say "think before you eat." Nobody reads that and says "Oh you're right! I was a mindless eating machine before and now I'm going to be more thoughtful." They think "Who's this jerk telling me what to do? I'm getting a KFC Sadness Bowl with extra bacon!" You are obviously free to write whatever articles you want, I just found this one a bit condescending and also based on a false premise. It was clearly well intentioned and thoughtful, so I'm not trying to insult you or make you feel bad just express my reaction. EDIT: Also I don't play multiplayer FPS of any kind much these days but when I fire up TF2 once in a while I usually play the Soldier because it's most like the old Quake 1 days of rocket battles.
- Lewisham 14y ago
  > I think saying that "your brain actively practices killing" is overstating it. It sure sounds good, but it's not even close to reality. To support your point a little bit, some video game scholars, like Espen Aarseth, don't buy into the idea what the representations provide any relevancy: [1]: "The "royal" theme of the traditional pieces is all but irrelevant to our understanding of chess. Likewise, the dimensions of Lara Croft's body, already analyzed to death by film theorists, are irrelevant to me as a player, because a different-looking body would not make me play differently (see sidebar). When I play, I don't even see her body, but see through it and past it." While Aarseth has been quite extreme in his rejection of narrative, the main aspect of his argument is that gamers see the underlying constructs of the gameplay systems, and I think gamers choose whether to engage with the dressing that sits on top. Bioshock Infinite tells a story that you can listen to, but when you're playing you're not listening. This explains the disconnect between players of GTA and observers. Those who observe and go "YOU KILLED THAT PROSTITUTE TO GET YOUR MONEY BACK AND YOU DON'T EVEN CARE" are viewing the game at the narrative level; whereas the gamers who do this are working at the mechanics level. It is a fallacy to then believe that those gamers are more susceptible to perform those actions they see at the narrative level in real life, as they were never there in the first place. The prostitutes aren't people, they're walking wallets. Bioshock tried to play with this idea with the Little Sisters, but I felt it ultimately failed, as the Little Sisters were sufficiently dehumanized that they looked a lot like walking health packs who would be put out of their misery. People who really do see others like this in real life already have a name; they're psychopathic. Fortunately, most people are not psychopathic :) [1] http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/firstperson/vigilant http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/firstperson/vigil...

pharrington 14y ago

Questions to help yourself take games more seriously It's a suggestion. She is sharing an opinion. Nowhere does she cast judgement on how or why you're enjoying your games. She's proposing a way to get a little more intellectual stimulation from games, and you can take it or leave it. While I personally think the specific questions are a bit too broad and shallow, there's no reason for the possibility of an alternative mode of thought to be offend me. Because somebody says "try doing X," does not mean she says "you are bad for not doing X."

klrr 14y ago
No but it's written a way that it's easily interpreted like that.
kabdib 14y ago
_Where is the artistic value in this game?_ Blowing stuff up is fun? Try Robotron, or Serious Sam. You're saying I need to examine someone's motivation and weigh a game's social conscience before I install the thing, or I'm a bad person? Get real. Blowing stuff up is fun. Once upon a time at Atari, one of the head Marketroids in the home computer division decided "No violent games!" The problem was, all of the non-violent games they were able to come up with _stunk_. They sunk millions into developing titles that didn't sell. I "played" _Dear Esther_ and it was interesting, but I uninstalled it and there's no point in going back; I won't play another game like that. I want to play games with a social conscience as their primary mission about as much as I want to attend another mandatory sensitivity training. [For the record, I only had to do that once, a long time ago. :-) ] For the most part, games are made to make money. This is what companies _do_. If you're saying that _Dear Esther_ is the answer, then the question is very silly indeed; it's not what the market wants. [For the record, I do think that "bikini armor" in RPGs is stupid, and I wish they'd stop. But my Old Fart notions are swamped by the cash represented by a legion of 15 year old boys.]
- pharrington 14y ago
  "You're saying I need to examine someone's motivation and weigh a game's social conscience before I install the thing, or I'm a bad person?" Well thats the thing... I'm not saying that, and I'm 100% sure the blog author isn't saying that either. Asking yourself what the artistic value in the game is is not the same thing as (yet does often lead to) evaluating the game in a socio-political context. It is examining your responses to the game, be they intellectual or visceral, and asking what elements of the game trigger those responses. Ask yourself how those elements form a coherent experience. I love shmups and action games. Right now I'm trying to get good at Devil May Cry 4, and the newest game I've played though is Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance. These games have a strong focus on enabling creativity by giving the player avatar as much power and control as possible while balancing the enemy scenarios to still provide a challenge. Since stylish gameplay is the core of these games, asking exactly how the game gives the player so much control and creativity is fundamental to examining their artistic value. But they are also games with narratives: MGR:R is about a psychopathic former child soldier who's turned into a cyborg mercenary. He "refuels" by ripping out his enemies' spines and eating them. DMC4 begins with the series' half-demon protagonist crashing into a church and assassinating the pope. They are games with narratives, and whether or not the narratives are good, they impact the player experience and are certainly worth considering. All anyone is saying is to try paying more attention to, and reflecting on, what you're thinking and feeling when playing games. You might enjoy them more. You might not.