Issues Gamers Should Think About

[Polarity27]

I'm surprised at two things about your article, Dr. Mark. On physical health, I'm surprised you didn't mention eye health. I don't have many problems with the console, but using a PC to game for too long used to really hurt my eyes. My mother used to nag at me when I was a kid about listening to music cranked too loud over earphones, and as much as it stinks to admit it, I'm 43 and I do indeed have some hearing loss now. I wonder in turn about kids who've been PC gaming their whole lives, if they're going to have eye issues and eyestrain related issues when they get older.

Here's a gaming-health connection you may not have thought of-- how is gaming useful to people with disabilities? I have chronic pain. Intense gaming is the only thing that helps me when I have breakthrough pain so severe that not even prescription painkillers can stop it. Here's an even odder one. *Remembering* intense gaming gets me through painful medical procedures that I would otherwise be completely unable to tolerate. If I know the procedure will be painful and the doctor allows it, my husband goes in the room with me. When I had oral surgery, one of the things he did was periodically cue me when I waved in his direction with short comments about mobs. "Three casters and two melee", for instance. I then have to imagine the situation in my mind, seeing the mobs' angle of approach, and figure out how to tactically solve the problem without dying. My dentist said it was one of the most imaginative things he'd ever seen, and that it allowed me to tolerate much more probing on lower doses of painkillers than another patient of his with the same pain condition.

I used to try so many things in the years before I started gaming, usually the things they recommend, meditative visualizations, and nothing ever worked-- I can't "calm myself" when I'm in intense pain. Turns out I *can* keep my brain busy enough that it keeps the pain sensation somewhat at bay. I figure that idea has to have some application to medical care more broadly, the notion that mentally stimulated patients may be calmer patients. Mental chess, for chess-playing patients, fixing a complicated knitting problem, for fiber-crafting patients, remembering a complex hunt or that fish that you just can't quite catch, or perhaps imagining the perfect game of bridge?

BTW, I read a lot of scientific studies because of the job I'm in. I've seen several recently with adapted video games to solve one problem or another-- a memorable one was a "game" that taught a complex procedure to, if memory serves, medical students. It was hard to set up in a lab, so they created a simulation game that helped them learn it faster and better. My mom is in a nursing home. I would love to see video game adaptations for nursing home patients. She has too many eyesight issues and too much hand-arthritis to be able to play a regular video game now, but you'd think something could be implemented that would create the kind of neuro-stimulating factors that doctors recommend for patients with mild cognitive problems-- some sort of changeable puzzle, perhaps? I hope by the time I'm ready for senior living, there's some integration of both internet and gaming. You do accentuate the negative, but I think medical care needs to tap the positive.

 

[Nimzar]

I find that this article confuses cause and effect, such as: Simply because antisocial nerds tend to be drawn to gaming, does not mean by any extent that games turn gamers into antisocial nerds. Meatheads gravitate towards sports, but that does not mean playing soccer will turn a valedictorian into a macho frat boy who hates books. The same principle applies to gaming.

This is a good point, but I don't think the two are views are mutually exclusive.

An "antisocial" nerd may be drawn to gaming as a hobby, but that doesn't mean that this person isn't losing out on social development that comes from practice socializing because instead of dealing with people they were dealing with digital avatars.

Causal relationships are rarely clean cut.

 

[Raioken18]

I found this article to be very informative and thought provoking. Reading it I was reminded of myself on almost every front. But I'd also have to question the antisocial nerd becoming a gamer theory. As a child I always awkward and shy even before I got really into gaming, but I do still feel like gaming has exacerbated the problem.

Also... playing violent games is usually more about competition, there are few online games where you can properly compete with other players on that sort of a level. I also play Minecraft FTB Mind Crack, and I find myself competing in terms of technology, resources and development. Even with co-op modes I often find the issue of discussion turns towards "I'm the best".

 

[Arbi Trax]

I think that it is important to ask questions like these. However, I would make one change to the structure of your experiments to make them more holistic.

Add "...moreso than other solitary activities or hobbies."

My best guess would be that a person spending 20 hours per week building model train sets or restoring an old car by themselves, much to their partner's chagrin, would also cause some developmental, social or relationship issues.

If questions like these are asked in a more holistic context, we can see whether or not we have any game-specific problems to deal with, or if the problem is simply related to a more universal phenomenon, such as isolation from others.

 

[Undomesticated Equine]

I will respond to the issues raised by article from my point of view.
Gaming as Mental Paralytic
Well if I would stop playing games I could study all day long and have straight A but the question is why would i do that i get average grades with minimum amount of time invested in studying and I like that. I could also get a job but I have enough money so no reason to do that. So i do what i like and that is playing games and then complaining about them on the internet.
Gaming and Pleasure
What other joys?
Gaming and Community
I do not have any friends irl and i have even less of them online. Wrap your head around that dear Dr. Mark. Also most of the people i know or used to know have wildly diverging interests from mine. I used to play lots of football and whatever other GAMES bunch of kids can invent. But as i got older most of my pals took interest in hanging out in smoke filled bars and heavy drinking and less in running around the block and i never was a fan of that and i refuse to do something just because everybody else is doing it.
Gaming and Social Skills
I do not really care about other people as there is only one important person in my life that being me. Others just get in my way. If computers did not exist i would just read more books and watch more TV. Or maybe I would just read bools as i hate adverts of which TV is full.
Gaming and Intimacy
See above.
Gaming and Health
I am fat i admit as much but i started to exercise recently and i do not see how gaming could prevent me from going to the gym. I got fat mainly because of my love of chocolate and from it derived candy and lack of motion. I described reasons for lack of physical activity in Gaming and Community.
Gaming and Mental Health
Do not know anything about that.

P.S. English is no my native language but i typed this rant in it and I hope it is understandable to the people who will maybe read this so you could not say that i gained nothing from playing computer games.

 

[Lovesfool]

I am not sure about how I feel about this article...

What I am sure is that is makes some interesting questions that many of us may be unwilling to strive to answer. Personally, as I grew older, I consciously try to "check" myself in my relationship with video games. Do they make me more distant? Do they make me less social? Do they make me more violent or irritable? Do they affect me in any way that I mind? Do they affect others around me in ways that I don't want to?

I sometimes feel the need to adjust my gaming habits, because I feel that my behavior is affected in ways I don't like.

In any case, I do agree with the main premise. We do have a kneejerk reaction whenever these questions are raised and we shouldn't. We shouldn't be avoiding these questions and we shouldn't let other research them for us. We should actively pursue the answers ourselves, as an industry and as a community of gamers.

 

[Doclector]

The reason that there is such hostility to said studies is twofold.

They are rarely unbiased, for one thing. Any study bought on by the recent media frenzy will almost certainly tell people what they seem to want to know, and that is that videogames are to blame.

Perhaps more importantly, is that we fear the response to such studies. They could choose to wipe out gaming completely, or at least cripple it by not allowing adult content. No art form can progress without being able to push the boundaries, and any more restrictions could cripple gaming as something that evolves and grows in the way that film has.

 

[JudgeGame]

(Caveat: this isn't directed just at you, Groenteman. You just stated this clearly in a way that was quotable.)

Interesting questions indeed, though sadly its allmost impossible to determine where gaming is the cause, the effect or simply not related. Even when asking these question myself I have no sure-fire way to determine which is which.

Actually, researchers do have techniques for distinguishing between correlation and causation. They use control groups, factor in those variables and try to hold them constant, and use a large enough group to be statistically significant. But developing and executing studies that can make any definitive statement is tough, especially if you want longitudinal data to see what happens years later.

Also, claiming that gaming doesn't have some effect on you personally doesn't invalidate a theory. [I'm no longer responding to your comment, Groenteman.] You could say, for example, "I don't have any problems with alcohol!" And you might be right. (Or you might be a raging alcoholic in denial.) But either way, it doesn't invalidate the fact that alcohol has a slew of demonstrated effects on people's physical and mental health. Doesn't mean that it should be illegal, but it means that it should be treated with caution and respect, especially if you or your family has a history of alcoholism, depression, etc.

Personally, I'm glad that gaming is getting some more attention, and hopefully more funding and research on the effects of gaming, especially to young people. Human brains are going through a lot of changes all the way up into the early 20s, so it's not insane to think that intense gaming could have some non-trivial effects. Potentially both positive and negative effects, as a few of you have mentioned.

All in all, I think Dr Mark asks good questions, and it's okay that they don't have clear obvious answers yet. We have more to learn, collectively.

I'm with you. It pains me to see all these comments assuring everybody that the commenter is not negatively affected by videogames when this article isn't about individuals, it isn't about them or you or me, it's supposed to be about the community. Even if you, from your own subjective veiwpoint, think you are fine, you are guaranteed to know somebody who isn't fine. I know adults who neglect their families and responsibilities in favour of online multiplayer death matches. I know kids who spend all evening playing games and come to school, tired and having not done their homework or studied for the exam that day. I know teenagers who excitedly pronounce they are going to "fuck up some sandni**ers" without a hint of shame or sarcasm or basic understanding. Are these things caused by games? I don't know and I don't pretend to know but I think think we NEED, as a society, to know. Because knowing is half the battle.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

When I had really bad depression gaming helped me cope. I probably would be a lot worse off mentally without it. I also don't really understand the stigma people have about people spending time on their own.

That's just my two cent's I can see why they are issue's worth talking about but I think there are arguments to be had from both sides.

 

[Ashoten]

Here is my over critical knee jerk reaction to this article without having read past the second sentence. Whenever anyone starts a conversation with "Gamers are like this" or "Gamers should do that" I have to chuckle. This attitude completely misses the notion that the gamer community has become incredibly diverse.

There are FPS console scrubs, PC indie snobs, Girl gamers who will get mad if I don't mention them specifically, The gamers in the industry that think they know everything but are full of shit(EC), Hard core competitive gamers, Nintendo gamers, Gamers who play games and post videos of them playing on youtube, and the list goes on but I am lazy and out of ideas.

With all these different groups saying anything about gamers in one broad stroke seems pretty presumptuous. Almost as presumptuous as writing a response to an article without reading it.



P.S. Can we please not have 10 people respond to this post pointing out the ironic nature of it? Because that was the entire point of the post to be an asshole and make a point. But please feel free to respond with more gamer types I missed.

 

[BoneDaddy_SK]

I find it interesting that this article mainly points out specific problems within the gaming culture and not the positives.

That might be because gamers never want to talk about the negatives. They never address any problems. They sweep all criticism under the rug on a good day, and harass the critic on a bad day. You're never going to allay any fears or criticisms by insisting on only talking about what you want to talk about.

 

[Kuredan]

That might be because gamers never want to talk about the negatives. They never address any problems. They sweep all criticism under the rug on a good day, and harass the critic on a bad day. You're never going to allay any fears or criticisms by insisting on only talking about what you want to talk about.

Right on!

Dr. Mark,
I really enjoyed your article and I'm a big fan of your work. We don't have too many champions in the mental health field and I'm glad you find value in gaming. I also appreciate the courage you showed in calmly and rationally talking about some possible problems that video games feed into, especially to a group of gamers who may not want to face them. I will admit I did have a knee jerk reaction to the article, but as I read more, I found that I saw a lot of those problems in my own life at one time or in the life of someone I know.

I used to be a WoW addict and so was my ex wife. I really think our problems with the game contributed to the deterioration of our relationship. I won't say "WoW destroyed my marriage." like so many have, but I can see that it wasn't positive and that it fed into a lot of those other problems. I've been clean now for almost 3 years now and don't it feel good! It would be 5 years, but I had some relapses. I noticed when I was playing, I told myself it was to cope with something in my life, escapism at its worst. I withdrew from my friends again as a consequence which cut me off from a powerful avenue for coping with my problems. I hid this playing from my friends who had quit earlier because I didn't want them judging me and when they found out, they called me out on it pretty hard. I got really defensive and angry and didn't want to talk to them. They were right and I didn't want to admit it. Luckily, I have really awesome friends. They persisted and got me to really open up to the problems I was having and we worked through it. I haven't played since, but I will admit there have a been a few times I've been tempted. That's usually when I call a friend and we go do something.

Thanks again for an awesome article!

Captcha: Too many cooks

 

[redknightalex]

I find it interesting that this article mainly points out specific problems within the gaming culture and not the positives.

That might be because gamers never want to talk about the negatives. They never address any problems. They sweep all criticism under the rug on a good day, and harass the critic on a bad day. You're never going to allay any fears or criticisms by insisting on only talking about what you want to talk about.

It wasn't a criticism, more an observation. I believe that to have a good discussion over the pitfalls, and the merits, of video games in general, you need to use information from both sides of the argument. That's pretty much a given in any field were you are looking at a new perspective/change/problem. That's my main critique of the article, that although it does focus on problems we are not addressing when it comes to video games and its culture, it is missing out on the wealth of information and ideas of the good sides of these points/criticisms. And, while this is a more of an editorial, not a scholarly article, I believe that glancing over the good points lessens the point Dr. Mark is making.

It may be my background or my job (in academia), but reading an article or discussion that only takes a few points into the fray, without considering both sides equally, irks me. And when he's trying to present rather clinical, psychological ideas, I expect a bit more and less bias towards one-side of the argument. I'm not saying he is biased, but the article itself was.

As an aside, it's very human to sweep things we don't want to hear, ie the negatives, under the rug. Numerous studies have found that smokers, while knowing the risks and dangers of smoking, will basically hear the information but promptly reject it for reasons no more complex than that they don't want to acknowledge it. The sweeping is not only for gamers.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Gamers admit some people can be made angry or stressed by gaming and take it out on another, or throw a joy pad or even rage quit a game.....but there is a major difference between that and picking up guns and heading to the nearest primary school. This is the same with everything in life, driving can lead to road rage, alcohal can make certain people violent and others not. An look at sports, how many times have people been attacked, killed or property destroyed just because a team lost to another. Even relationships lead to murder when things get out of control. If its linked to mental health then lets sort that out instead of ignoring that over a form of entertainment.

Basically no one says....we must look at driving, sports, relationships or alcohal and blame that for violence. Nope, its only "gaming," and they blanket everybody who enjoys gaming, not the few (and we are talking very, very minor amount of people) that are just inclined to cause harm to another or can not handle stress. If its mental health, then hell a dog could have told him to do it, not just gaming. An as with most murders in this world there are always reasons or links to child hood injuries bad experiences.

My other comment is no one has ever said "Drinking can make a person shoot a class full of children" so why is gaming the only thing targeted when mass shootings happen? I just dont get why governments just concentrate on the gaming aspect and not on the person that did the crime in the first place.

 

[BoneDaddy_SK]

It wasn't a criticism, more an observation. I believe that to have a good discussion over the pitfalls, and the merits, of video games in general, you need to use information from both sides of the argument.

That's not accomplished by attempting to make the conversation all about what you want to talk about first. People are not going to listen to the positives that you want to talk about until you address the negatives that they are concerned about.

it is missing out on the wealth of information and ideas of the good sides of these points/criticisms.

Because that wasn't his point.

And, while this is a more of an editorial, not a scholarly article, I believe that glancing over the good points lessens the point Dr. Mark is making.

No. No it doesn't, because that wasn't his point.

As an aside, it's very human to sweep things we don't want to hear, ie the negatives, under the rug. Numerous studies have found that smokers, while knowing the risks and dangers of smoking, will basically hear the information but promptly reject it for reasons no more complex than that they don't want to acknowledge it. The sweeping is not only for gamers.

And this is relevant to my point, how?

Here's the simple truth of the matter: the criticism against gaming as a hobby/pastime/passion/etc is so firmly entrenched that you and I don't get to talk about the positives until we have addressed the negatives. Dr. Mark's column was illustrating several points that gamers have routinely failed to address when they should have gotten to them already. So accusing him of being too negative and not objective enough is missing his point. In fact, you're only reinforcing his point. You don't want to talk about the problems he named. You want us to talk about what you want to talk about.

To repeat, this is not an article meant to talk about the good and bad parts of gaming. Never was. The article is talking about the criticisms that we as gamers regularly fail to address and we need to start addressing them if we expect any progress to occur. By not addressing that point and insisting on telling everyone about learning a new language through imports or whatever you're only proving how bad we are at this.

 

[redknightalex]

It wasn't a criticism, more an observation. I believe that to have a good discussion over the pitfalls, and the merits, of video games in general, you need to use information from both sides of the argument.

That's not accomplished by attempting to make the conversation all about what you want to talk about first. People are not going to listen to the positives that you want to talk about until you address the negatives that they are concerned about.

I'm not saying that we only talk about what "I" (using "I" loosely here because that's not what I'm trying to say, nor am I on one side or the other and never want to talk about the negatives of gaming) want to talk about, but both sides of the argument. I don't understand why a column cannot address, or at least present, both sides of the equation.

As an aside, it's very human to sweep things we don't want to hear, ie the negatives, under the rug. Numerous studies have found that smokers, while knowing the risks and dangers of smoking, will basically hear the information but promptly reject it for reasons no more complex than that they don't want to acknowledge it. The sweeping is not only for gamers.

And this is relevant to my point, how?

Here's the simple truth of the matter: the criticism against gaming as a hobby/pastime/passion/etc is so firmly entrenched that you and I don't get to talk about the positives until we have addressed the negatives. Dr. Mark's column was illustrating several points that gamers have routinely failed to address when they should have gotten to them already. So accusing him of being too negative and not objective enough is missing his point. In fact, you're only reinforcing his point. You don't want to talk about the problems he named. You want us to talk about what you want to talk about.

To repeat, this is not an article meant to talk about the good and bad parts of gaming. Never was. The article is talking about the criticisms that we as gamers regularly fail to address and we need to start addressing them if we expect any progress to occur. By not addressing that point and insisting on telling everyone about learning a new language through imports or whatever you're only proving how bad we are at this.

I brought up the smoking because you talked about sweeping things under a rug. I'm only pointing out that we, as humans, do it regularly. Also a form of procrastination. It may not be relevant to the entire article but it was to our discussion at the moment.

I do want to talk about the points he brought up, and never have I said that I didn't, I only want a clearer view of the field which address both the problems in video games but also the potential positives. They may not have any positives, for all I know, but TV may not either (from some people's POV). As I alluded to above, I fail to see why we cannot discuss both the positives and negatives at the same time. Why must the negatives be brought first before positives are even mentioned? If a serious discussion is to be made out of this topic, saying only the negatives for an extended period of time only flames the fire of the anti-video games group/lobby/movement. It's also a poor way to start an experiment or study. Saying you see the faults, and acknowledge them, while at the same time providing counter-arguments is much more efficient than focusing on the negatives alone.

I do admit that I went past the scope of the column. I find that, although Dr. Mark is well versed and writes well, he typically disappoints me as I expect more than just the general overview. Perhaps I'm not his intended audience but I came here to make a point about what I felt was missing. Never was I saying that the negatives should be ignored (they need to be studied and looked at, that I do agree with), I was only pointing out that negatives do not live in a vacuum.

 

[BoneDaddy_SK]

I don't understand why a column cannot address, or at least present, both sides of the equation.

Because that wasn't the point. Dr. Mark wasn't interested in preaching to the choir by presenting the positives to us, the gamers. He was highlighting the side of the equation that we have almost unanimously failed to address.

I brought up the smoking because you talked about sweeping things under a rug. I'm only pointing out that we, as humans, do it regularly. Also a form of procrastination. It may not be relevant to the entire article but it was to our discussion at the moment.

No, it wasn't relevant at all. This is a basic facet of human nature. Why then would I bring it up unless there was a specific point to be made? Or did you really assume I was just that stupid?

I do want to talk about the points he brought up, and never have I said that I didn't, I only want a clearer view of the field which address both the problems in video games but also the potential positives.

So you do want to, you just don't.

You're still missing the point. The critics aren't interested in hearing you talk about the positives. They want us to address the concerns they have first. By insisting on crowbarring in the positives, you are failing to do that.

As I alluded to above, I fail to see why we cannot discuss both the positives and negatives at the same time. Why must the negatives be brought first before positives are even mentioned?

Because people came forward with a concern. They don't want to hear your feel-good stories. They want you to answer the questions they have.

If a serious discussion is to be made out of this topic, saying only the negatives for an extended period of time only flames the fire of the anti-video games group/lobby/movement. It's also a poor way to start an experiment or study. Saying you see the faults, and acknowledge them, while at the same time providing counter-arguments is much more efficient than focusing on the negatives alone.

I would take that more seriously if you or other gamers made any move to address the negatives. But you don't. You just complain about how unfair it is.

I'm not pulling this out of my ass. I speak from experience. When talking to non-gamers about their concerns, the most effective approach was always to address their concerns first and only then when they were less ambivalent about games did I have the opportunity to talk about the positives. Sorry, but you don't get to vote on the most effective way to do this. There is a right way and a wrong way.

I was only pointing out that negatives do not live in a vacuum.

Name three people who have said that they do.

Upon reflection, I haven't addressed anything Dr. Mark brought up either. Which puts me in a bit of a glass house. Obviously I'm not a doctor, but I'll be back this evening and relate what's worked for me in addressing some of these concerns so you can all see I'm not just blowing smoke.

 

[Callate]

I'm not necessarily averse to having these questions asked or explored (or at least, I try not to be.) But I find it both strange and frustrating that there doesn't seem to be much of a "in comparison to what" consideration when these issues are brought up outside of relatively limited circles of gaming media and fandom. Is your child really any more violent, aggressive, paranoid or afraid for playing Call of Duty than they are for watching a show like 24? Is it fair to point out shooters who play video games while cities that riot after major sports events slip out of the news scarce days later? Is obsessive video-game playing any worse for social skills than obsessive model-airplane making, or baseball card collecting, or, well, any obsessive pursuit? And should we perhaps be more aware of obsessive personalities than focusing what they fixate upon?

And, yes, some of these subjects have gone through their own trials-by-fire in the media and public eye, either in the past or cyclically. But the particular fixations we see focused on "our" medium can't help but make me wonder if it's really even a tiny bit as bad/dangerous/harmful as some would make it out to be, or if it doesn't just happen to be the jazz/comic books/movies/rock music/television/rap music of the current age.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

The article is talking about the criticisms that we as gamers regularly fail to address and we need to start addressing them if we expect any progress to occur.

Actually, the article seems more about things Dr Mark thinks the gaming community should be asking itself, not as a response to criticism but as people who want the best for their hobby.

as per the article's last paragraph:

gamers should not be afraid to ask serious and thoughtful questions about their hobby.

also:

If we let them frame the debate, we can't be surprised if there is a narrow focus on violence.

Hell, if we discuss and study things that might be problems within gaming, we'll either get told "Nah, 'sall good" and we can keep on doing what we're doing or find out that there are problems, discuss them and discuss possible approaches to minimising their effects rather than ignoring everything and suddenly finding some elected fuckhead using one of these 'problems' as their new Issue and trying to enforce their own idiotic solutions on us by law.

 

[Marowit]

These are all really interesting questions that you pose. I know for myself when I get done with a day of studying, I'm in medical school training to become a Physician as well, there are very few things quite as relaxing is opening a beer and loading up a video game. Sure, exercise or spending time with my significant other can also provide that outlet, but that's not what this forum is about.

However, as I was reading these questions, I couldn't help but ask myself, "are these not emotions and feelings others experience for their preferred hobby?" To me it would seem to be the point of having a hobby, a guilty pleasure, a release whether it be woodworking, knitting, reading, bird watching, etc...

There are two reasons, in my mind, for our preferred hobby to be so criticized. One, we isolate ourselves from mainstream culture. Yes, videogames are becoming much more mainstream, but look at the titles that sit on top: CoD, Gears of War, Halo, etc.. Games that are so easily misinterpreted, maybe, as violence-simulators by those who doesn't participate in this medium. This niche, clicky, pigeon-hole we put ourselves in, as "gamers," does such a disservice to ourselves. It cheapens the medium, and it marginalizes us. The second reason is the 1st-person aspect. Yes, books and movies have been depicting much more violent and more difficult material (rape, incest, etc.) for a much longer time, but they do so in a more passive manner. I believe this is what can make videogames a much more powerful storytelling-medium: Who doesn't remember the Airport-Level? But, as part of being a 'marginalized' group of people participating in a 'cheapened' medium how is it hard to see how this can be misconstrued as nothing more than mind-numbing violence-training?

So, what do I think we should do? For one, I don't thing stereotyping yourself as a gamer does any good. Yes, I understand that it's a sub-culture and there are others one can point to such as knitting circles, book-clubs, marathoners, but when was the last time you had someone self-identify as a Knitting circler? Sure it's part of their life, but it's exactly that part. I never understood why we had to wear it as a badge of honor. The more normal we make it to come home and relax playing a videogame, not as a 5-16 year-old boy, but as an successful adult/young adult/parent/grandparent the more we'll expand our medium and move away from this marginalized-group of people we find ourselves as now. Of course there will still be controversy, but I'd venture to say we'd see our medium start tackling even more interesting, difficult, fun, material in the way that books, movies, & TV do at the moment (I realize there is a cost difference, but let a man be optimistic).