Rewards of Being a Gamer

Caliostro

Headhunter
Jan 23, 2008
3,253
0
0
Phyroxis said:
Caliostro said:
Phyroxis said:
Now, I started playing games extensively when I hit the third grade and my teacher actually rented games out to us! (This was back with Windows 95, when there was no DRM) So I may have grown up in a totally different way were it not for these little gems.
I have to say, I laugh out loud nowadays when I hear people talking about windows 95 as something from the stone age.

When I started gaming These were a novelty. [http://www.crosswaysimages.ca/images/diskette.jpg] This [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_ZX_Spectrum] was my first computer. Lol.
Well, I dont see 95 as ancient.. It was just the first operating system I seriously played games on..
Wasn't taking a shot at you, just thought it was amusing that's all :p
 

Phyroxis

Witty Title Here
Apr 18, 2008
542
0
0
urprobablyright said:
Anyways, this point is one I don't really agree with, as gaming really does degenerate your mind. Now this has been a generalization on my part; I said games are all bad for your mind. I'm trying to, basically, discourage people from playing games any more than they do, since you can get all the benefits of gaming from other, decidedly more healthy (mentally and physically) activities.
I still disagree with your argument. The very nature of "games" implies brain stimulation. Video games, or any game in general, provide challenges. Mental challenges that you must overcome. The very process of overcoming these challenges stimulates the brain, much the same way as any non electronic game.

There are certainly games that aren't as beneficial (Racing games, for example, where you're stuck on a track going in the same general path). But there are plenty of games that are stimulating, like some FPSes (I'll explain), most RTSes, some RPGs, and action/adventure puzzle games (whatever we classify Drake's Fortune as).

FPS first: While generally these games are mind-numbing frag fests, there are still opportunities for players to develop strategies. This process of developing and executing strategies stimulates the mind. By definition to come up with a new tactic or strategy, you must think to do so. Granted, most players just run and shoot, and that is less than beneficial, but for the few that do come up with creative new ways/paths around objectives or that work in teams there are some benefits.

RTS: The very nature of RTS games is strategy. Certainly Zerging is a strategy, but not a very good one against most experienced players. You have to be constantly outsmarting your opponent, in Player vs Player matches. This is a situation similar in nature to a battle commander overseeing a long term war. Its not comparable in casualties and ramifictions, but the mental work is still similar in terms of troop movement and allocation of resources. To say RTSes are not mentally stimulating is to outright lie in the face of facts.

RPGs: Role-Play games are stimulating in a different way, from the mental strategy required in the previous two genres. RPGs provide you with a fantasy world, as you mentioned. The main cognitive benefit of RPGs is actually their storyline.

Now, before you say "but storyline has no effect on the viewer/player, they don't get any positive benefit from it" I am going to cite another article. I have personally read Steven Johnson's Everything Bad is Good For You. [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573223077/qid=1116952114/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7792633-9578536?v=glance&s=books] A book that talks about the cognitive benefits of video games and television, among other things. He has several striking points with comparisons between current day television and television in the past. I will not address his video game points, strangely enough, because I am going to be using his TV storyline examples and apply them to RPGs specifically.

Steven writes about how television, plots specifically, have been growing in complexity over time. Instead of simple plot shows (with one plot line, everything displayed at face value with no information withheld from the viewer; I Love Lucy) we now have shows with multiple plot lines, and tons of facts left out (Lost, you've got a plot line per character and tons of facts left for the viewer to grapple with, Heroes, Grey's Anatomy, the list goes on). What has happened is TV shows are now actively engaging the mind of their viewers. With older shows you're able to sit down mid-season with no previous knowledge and immediately pick up whats going on. Whereas with most of today's shows you sit down mid-season and you'll be lost without any previous knowledge.

The reason? Storylines are so complex that you truly need the previous episodes to make sense of the current ones, in addition to your personal analysis and retention of gained knowledge.

Now, how it applies to RPGS: Some RPGs have similiarly complex storylines and mission trees (some dont, admittedly) and are stimulating in the same way a modern day TV show is.

Finally, A/A Puzzle Platformers: These are easily explained. In a game such as drakes fortune you have a storyline, like the above example, and you also have extensive in game world puzzles to deal with. If you don't cop out and go with GameFAQs, you will be presented with some pretty difficult puzzles and platforming challenges. To overcome these you have to use your brain to find solutions.

So in essence, it is nearly impossible to say video games are degenerating on the mind when they do just the opposite. Anything that causes you to think is stimulating and beneficial for your mind. Once again, however, moderation is key. You also mention better "mental and physical" activities.

If you go with the common "sports are better" and "anything thats not electronic is better" fad, then there are some clear myths there as well. Lets take football as an example. Its publicly accepted as a wonderful use of time. I'd say that there is tons more cognitive benefit from playing video games, or even watching a current day TV show than could be gleaned from being a cog-piece in a football team. As for the physically better argument, yes of course, anything you do physically can trump sitting in a chair, but it also comes with its negative side effects. Everything in moderation.

Is a football player who spends ALL of his (or her) time playing or practicing, to the point of dropping grades, that much better than a gamer who does the same thing? I don't think so. And arguably, gamers when compared side-by-side to a football player in terms of grades/mental alacrity generally come out on top. Do we credit this strange outcome to the football player simply being nails-for-brains retarded and the gamer just average? Or is the gamer doing something that actually stimulates their mind?

Of course the counter is, football player can tackle gamer and win. Yup... but we're talking about mental capabilities here.

Moderation is key. Gamers, in addition to their hobby, should be spending time exercising like EVERYONE ELSE. But.. thats funny. Considering (if we focus this argument in America) 60%+ of Americans are overweight... but I highly doubt 60% of Americans play video games let alone have been playing them long enough to become overweight.

I personally am not terribly physically active yet I remain "on par or above" with my height/weight percentiles.
 

Erana

New member
Feb 28, 2008
8,010
0
0
It opens my mind to art, makes me more unique, and gives me the ability to silence a whole public location with my mere appearance. *makes dramatic pose*
 

Son of Makuta

New member
Nov 4, 2008
117
0
0
Games... Well they've inspired or given me:
- Programming talent
- A career choice
- Massively increased computer graphics creation skills
- Problem solving (and this is not your 'box A to portal B' problem solving - this is game writing :D)
- Improved TTG writing skills (my programming experience made me better at writing tabletop game rules, and vice versa)
- Better reflexes and observation (probably)
- Hours of enjoyment
- Yahtzee...

And this is even though I only started really playing them when I turned 17 (2 years 3 months ago) and bought a laptop; my mother doesn't allow them. I have no consoles. I play on the sly. I've had an interest in them since I was a kid though, as I do anything that inspires me, and have been designing them for years. I taught myself to program in Visual Basic, wrote the early beginnings of my insanely hard space shooter Xenophobia in Year 10, and am starting to learn C++. (The C++ version of Xenophobia may well be its seventh and final complete rewrite.)

I've gotten a fair bit more out of tabletop games than video games, though. (I've written one of those as well, and on top of that I've gained all kinds of modelling, painting and creative writing abilities as well as a ton of new friends.)

urprobablyright said:
"Oh i reckon if i were in battle i'd flit from cover to cover headshotting everyone"
To be fair, when I tried out paintballing I did rather well, considering I'm rather sucky in the physical department and my friends all had a lot more experience than me. Short controlled bursts ftw ;) I also managed to 'kill the VIP' when we played that particular game. Most of what I did was FPS-inspired.
 

Lost In The Void

When in doubt, curl up and cry
Aug 27, 2008
10,128
0
0
geldonyetich said:
Lost In The Void said:
I don't believe games create traits but rather enhance them. An example is having good hand- eye coordination can be enhanced by playing a game where that is required. Bad reflexes are not solved by games.
I find this paragraph interesting. You don't believe games... create... "traits." Traits? Creating them? Like they're things that are poofed into existence? I don't buy that - seems to me a person has the same traits they have when they were born, they just learn to use them. However, this doesn't mean my way is necessarily the only correct way to look at it - why I find that paragraph so interesting is it shows a different way of how another person mentally frames the concept of self-improvement.

Well, to answer that properly, here's an article where Doctors Use Wii Games for Sports Therapy [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GadgetGuide/wireStory?id=4262970]. Apparently, they believe that bad reflexes can be resolved through gaming. Why not? Games are practice, and practice always helps.
I apoligize i was really tired and sorta rambled on about nothing that was a "my bad"
 

emge

New member
Jun 22, 2008
54
0
0
I think alot of the negative feedback comes from people who are unfamiliar to gaming. Once i mentioned to my parents that my doughter, and she was one and a half years at the time, would make an exellent gamer one day, because she had been toying around with my xbox gamepad. And my father responded with "That sounds like a terrible boring life".
Also my father in law keeps asking me when i'm gonna stop playing these vidogames, "they'r just for kids".
I'm 28 today, and although I don't play as much as I used to it's still my favourite recreational activity and I hope and think it will be for a lot more years to come.

When I, as in those of us who are the first generation of gamers become grandparents ourselfes i doubt you see any such dogmas alot.
 

Phyroxis

Witty Title Here
Apr 18, 2008
542
0
0
Before I start in on this, I want to note that while I said I was considering a topic like this for future research, in no way is this post something I'll submit for grading or other scrutiny.
This is merely a way for me to get my thoughts out on an issue, with a wonderful debate, as opposed to a boring free-write. Anyway, on to the fun!

urprobablyright said:
I don't think I can stick by my initial argument, as it was a generalization said spur-of-the-moment and I don't really support it anyway. But I'll go through your quote being the devil's advocate, putting in some informal counter-arguments.

Phyroxis said:
urprobablyright said:
Anyways, this point is one I don't really agree with, as gaming really does degenerate your mind. Now this has been a generalization on my part; I said games are all bad for your mind. I'm trying to, basically, discourage people from playing games any more than they do, since you can get all the benefits of gaming from other, decidedly more healthy (mentally and physically) activities.
I still disagree with your argument. The very nature of "games" implies brain stimulation. Video games, or any game in general, provide challenges. Mental challenges that you must overcome. The very process of overcoming these challenges stimulates the brain, much the same way as any non electronic game. I disagree. Not all games provide mental challenges, my point is thus: Games are things created and, engine/gameplay wise are more or less always unchanging (SPORE comes to mind as an exception as it goes from pacman to RPG to RTS) and, by definition, are simulations, vis a vis, any decision making one must pursue in a game is by implication unchanging, sure you're trying to think of new ways to beat your opponent, but you're using a laughably narrow set of options. There's nothing educational about doing the same thing over and over other than having a player rote learn information about a game - something which by implication would become useless after a few years... It was stupid of me not to be more clear with my point. I to think that there are some games that are less beneficial (to the point of being totally useleess) than others. I agree that decision making in a single players game, after the first pass in most, becomes repetative and slim with additonal benifit. Playing a game a second or third time is like reading a novel a second or third time, you may still get some additional knowledge out of it but ultimately it'll just be the same thing.

There are certainly games that aren't as beneficial (Racing games, for example, where you're stuck on a track going in the same general path I personally could use that as a metaphor for an RTS, a deathmatch style FPS, a horror game, a survival game, etc etc...). But there are plenty of games that are stimulating, like some FPSes (I'll explain), most RTSes, some RPGs, and action/adventure puzzle games (whatever we classify Drake's Fortune and Zelda -nod- as).

FPS first: While generally these games are mind-numbing frag fests, there are still opportunities for players to develop strategies. This process of developing and executing strategies stimulates the mind. By definition to come up with a new tactic or strategy, you must think to do so. Granted, most players just run and shoot, and that is less than beneficial, but for the few that do come up with creative new ways/paths around objectives or that work in teams there are some benefits. That's true. But being the devil's advocate i'll point out the example of Counter Strike's famous Dust levels. Sure there are multiple ways to attack etc, but there are only so many ways, and one stops learning very quickly - FPS games are more down to hand-eye and reaction time than intelligence -- that said, a while ago there was a reaction time test posted on the forums and I had the fastest reactions so I guess I'm dissing myself out here. I disagree. I think this is a perfect example of continued stimulation. You're discounting the human element here. To play a game like this you have to be constantly adapting to the strategies and tactics of other humans. While I will conceede that on a set map like this (of limited size, with commonly known choke points, cover points, and set objectives) strategy ultimately becomes refined, by the general playerbase, to the same "best" tactics. At this point, I agree, it does become repetitive and the learning aspect stops.

RTS: The very nature of RTS games is strategy. Certainly Zerging is a strategy, but not a very good one against most experienced players. You have to be constantly outsmarting your opponent, in Player vs Player matches. This is a situation similar in nature to a battle commander overseeing a long term war. Here I refer to my earlier comment; strategy is technically not an academic skill. People have known strategy (which is a pretentious word for problem solving) for centuries, chimpanzees use it when fishing ants out with reeds. What's more; strategy games only simulate strategy - that's like saying Chess fully prepares you for commanding troops in battle. When were we confining the benefits of videogames to purely defined academic skills? Its not comparable in casualties and ramifictions, but the mental work is still similar in terms of troop movement and allocation of resources. To say RTSes are not mentally stimulating you might get in trouble with your paper if you use a term as vague as 'mentally stimulating'; RTS games could be seen as a method of climatising oneself with a narrow range of problem solving solutions, yeah. is to outright lie in the face of facts. This post will never be submitted as a "for review" paper.

RPGs: Role-Play games are stimulating in a different way, from the mental strategy required in the previous two genres. RPGs provide you with a fantasy world, as you mentioned. The main cognitive benefit of RPGs is actually their storyline.

Now, before you say "but storyline has no effect on the viewer/player, they don't get any positive benefit from it" I am going to cite another article. I have personally read Steven Johnson's Everything Bad is Good For You. A book that talks about the cognitive benefits of video games and television, among other things. He has several striking points with comparisons between current day television and television in the past. I will not address his video game points, strangely enough, because I am going to be using his TV storyline examples and apply them to RPGs specifically.

Steven writes about how television, plots specifically, have been growing in complexity over time. On the same coin; they have done nothing diverse - that's another subject, though Instead of simple plot shows (with one plot line, everything displayed at face value with no information withheld from the viewer; I Love Lucy) we now have shows with multiple plot lines, and tons of facts left out (Lost, you've got a plot line per character and tons of facts left for the viewer to grapple with, Heroes, Grey's Anatomy, the sadly cliche list goes on). What has happened is TV shows are now actively engaging the mind of their viewers. With older shows you're able to sit down mid-season with no previous knowledge and immediately pick up whats going on. Whereas with most of today's shows you sit down mid-season and you'll be lost without any previous knowledge. Un deniable. To be fair you've picked a pretty vague topic. Might I suggest "Do video games positively and noticeably (you could make surveys) augment every day life skills?" that would be a doosey of a question, because you'd have to decide, for one thing, whether or not knowing how to survive on an island (with hidden bunkers full of supplies) or how you can tell ailments that, by the house implication, are excruciatingly obscure, have infected your buddy. Fun Fact: Hugh Laurie is British and his best roles, in my opinion, were his George parts in the Blackadder series. To continue being fair, you picked the topic initially ;) As far as your suggestion, though its certainly something I'll keep in mind.

The reason? Storylines are so complex that you truly need the previous episodes to make sense of the current ones, in addition to your personal analysis and retention of gained knowledge. I'm being the DA here but this argument is quite weak, for the simple reason that every tv show starts with a 'what happened last time' montage and lost, for one thing, resolves everything in one episode (one character story-line an episode) I agree that this argument is quite weak, mostly because its not mine. It's a poor rewording of Steven's argument (cited above). He has an entire book to illustrate his points, while I'm just spewing things on a forum post.

Now, how it applies to RPGS: Some RPGs have similiarly complex storylines and mission trees (some dont, admittedly) and are stimulating in the same way a modern day TV show is. It's not a strong enough point, because there's easy-to-get intelligence right at your fingertips. I think the only directly beneficial educational thing I can think of right now is the Civilopedia or Civilization games, as learning from that is voluntary. We can use this in terms of television shows, too. Theres easy-to-get intelligence available as you watch whatever show, the internet. You seem to be classifying anything beneficial from a game as something that has to be academic knowledge. I see it differently. In my experience, games provide an opportunity to think critically, analyze situations and scenarios and come up with solutions. Problem solving. As we agreed above, this only happens so much but it does happen.

Finally, A/A Puzzle Platformers: These are easily explained. In a game such as drakes fortune you have a storyline, like the above example, and you also have extensive in game world puzzles to deal with. If you don't cop out and go with GameFAQs, you will be presented with some pretty difficult puzzles and platforming challenges. To overcome these you have to use your brain to find solutions. I agree there, Zelda is another example. DA might say: There are walkthroughs but in that situation the DA would be nit-picking I referenced GameFAQs as being a cop out.

So in essence, it is nearly impossible Okay, I've had top draw international education my whole life (IB, top university in Australia, Singapore and Beijing), and to add anything emotional/vague like 'really' or 'nearly' or, indeed, 'impossible' is academic, essay-writer's suicide.Luckily this is a web forum, and a debate that is never going to reach an editors desk. ;) to say video games are degenerating on the mind when they do just the opposite Examples of degeneration: World of Warcraft (and any game that gives item information - essentially every game with items) takes away the need for mid-term memory.[/b]I totally agree. I never said ALL video games are very beneficial (in fact I don't think I ever definied "beneficial" for the context of this argumet... whoops. Any death-match style shooter (TF, counter strike) presents no variation, I addressed this above. I agree, to an extent. Yes, after a while,once all strategies have been exhausted and the player base resorts to "the best known tactic" then I totally agree that there is no variation. But there is always that initial learning curve that players must get over in this sort of multiplayer game. and rote-teaches people absolutely useless skills - if one will sit and happily say "I'm learning how to direct troops around a battlefield" with a straight face, then one is a bit kooky, in my opinion.I agree, but I'm not saying videogames teach you how to direct troops around a field. (Though its an argument I'm sure you've seen, as have I) What I'm saying is in directing these ficticious forces, you learn how to solve problems with given resources. This is something that can be adapted and applied in a multitude of "real world" scenarios. No it doesn't give you directly-applicable knowledge, but it does give you the opportunity to practice problem solving and adaptation skills. . Anything that causes you to think is stimulating and beneficial for your mind. Once again, however, moderation is key. You also mention better "mental and physical" activities.

If you go with the common "sports are better" and "anything thats not electronic is better" fad, then there are some clear myths there as well. Lets take football as an example. Its publicly accepted as a wonderful use of time. I'd say that there is tons more cognitive benefit from playing video games, or even watching a current day TV show than could be gleaned from being a cog-piece in a football team. Metal exercise comes second to physical exercise in all sports. That's why everyone thinks sports are better than games, because game are meant to be emulations of sports with the added bonus of not requiring that we get out of our seats. As for the physically better argument, yes of course, anything you do physically can trump sitting in a chair, but it also comes with its negative side effects. Everything in moderation. Varsity Rugby/Soccer/Basketball player saying: Not if you stretch and drink water. That's like saying "Breathing eventually kills us" of course free radicals are what age us but that doesn't mean it can be used as an argument against sport.

Is a football player who spends ALL of his (or her) time playing or practicing, to the point of dropping grades, that much better than a gamer who does the same thing? Varsity athletes, at least, are required to keep acceptable grades. They are stopped playing if their grades get low, in my experience I don't think so. An argument that says sports is the lesser of two evils, with the second evil being gaming, should be re-thought. You never hear stories about a kid who played sports (something natural that humans have done since before they were humans) for 24 hours straight dying I've never heard a story about someone playing a sport for 24 hours straight, period. One would think physical exhaustion would step in at some point and suggest a break. This is an issue with video games, however. There is nothing, for some people, to suggest a break and change in activity. And arguably, gamers when compared side-by-side to a football player in terms of grades/mental alacrity generally come out on top. Show me proof of that; secondly, show me proof that is equally generalized -- make sure that all the people Ever do is play games, so we don't get smart jocks, or science nerds who like their WoWNoted through casual observation in every highschool class I was in. This wasn't intended to be an "end all" argument, simply an illustration of stereotypes. Yes, I know, bad move, but it still serves a point. There are too many variables to make it a viable argument. Do we credit this strange outcome to the football player simply being nails-for-brains retarded amazingly biased, you should question your own motives for arguing about this if they are to prove that you're smarter than some jock - for the record I gamed, played varsity sports and got a masters in architecture.I blame my upbringing. But in all seriousness, this sentence was more of an amusing summary for the previous sentences. I never considered this article for academic review, so I felt like putting something that amused me. and the gamer just average? Or is the gamer doing something that actually stimulates their mind? Sports, especially lame [imho] sports like American Football, have the same basic tactics elements as games - games are just a more concentrated versions of sports, in the end.Yes, they have basic tactics, but these tactics are predetermined (if we use the football example). There is little thinking on the part of the individual player executing their assigned task. Quite similiar to the Terran Marine in a Starcraft match. He does what he is told.

Of course the counter is, football player can tackle gamer and win. Yup... but we're talking about mental capabilities here. one final dig at this; you're generalizing and biased, and in danger of low marks Good thing I'm not being graded, neh?

Moderation is key. Gamers, in addition to their hobby I have argued that it's a clinical addictionAnd others wiser than me have argued 90% of those "addicted" really are just "obsessed." Its something I hope to research on down the road, as all of the evidence on it right now is really subjective and the study as a whole is still underdeveloped., should be spending time exercising like EVERYONE ELSE. But.. thats funny. Considering (if we focus this argument in America) 60%+ of Americans are overweight... but I highly doubt 60% of Americans play video games let alone have been playing them long enough to become overweight. Yeah, the majority of them spend most of their time at work/watching tv/in cars/eating fast food - games are just another american slothfest.

I personally am not terribly physically active yet I remain "on par or above" with my height/weight percentiles. forgive me, but 'en par or above' means you're either average or over the average. Anyways, you might have a high metabolism, and you might not game as much as you think you doPoint is, I'm lighter in weight than the majority of people in my bracket. I credit it ot a high metabolism, as it can't be that I don't game as much.. Average day: I get up in the morning, go to school, come home and am working on my computer (working or gaming, or school work) until I go to bed.. breaking for meals, of course. Terrible, I know. I'll be changing it up soon enough.
That was all done in the spirit of mutual benefit and good natured arguing/advice.

My closing statement: You appear to have a bit of a bias, and you desperately need to narrow down your research question. Look on IB websites for essay structure advice, essay structure is good not just for essays but for arguments etc as well. If I were you I'd question my own knowledge and impartially single out the many facets of it which are bias/vague, and address them.

I wanna concede here that in essence you were right; I was too general in saying games have zero mental benefit. That said, it's very hard for you to not be right when you use a statement as vague as 'games stimulate the brain' - since everything within the ranges of human perception can stimulate the brain.
For fear of beating the dead horse some more, this argument will never be submitted for review. Pieces of it may be used in future, legitimate, essays, but for right now its just a pleasant mind game.

I do appreciate your advice, though.

Perhaps we should structure a prompt and actually write on it? The initial "prompt" (video games degenerate the mind) is pretty vague, as we've both agreed. Set some ground rules. I am biased in forum posts, because its a place to share opinions, but if you want to have a "fact fight" I'm more than game. =D

Cheers! I'm really enjoying this. I wasn't expecting to find such a stimulating debate in my first topic here at the escapist. =P
 

jamesc

New member
Jul 30, 2008
223
0
0
I also hate the social stigmas that are assosiated with video games. They have, however, taught me to hate and ignore anyone that is below 16 and talks. Seriously though, I have gotten less quesy around blood which is good because I want to be a doctor. Also I now choose my words more carfully after playing through fallout three and mass effect. Oh yeah, and I'm immidiatly suspisious of anyone offering me cake.