Dallas school district starts video game teams on 64 campuses(dallasnews.com)
dallasnews.com
Dallas school district starts video game teams on 64 campuses
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2019/10/13/friday-night-bytes-dallas-isd-starts-video-game-teams-on-64-campuses/
114 comments
>This solves tons of issues - bad home life
Not at all. It's just more excuse to babysit teens. Bad home life will only be fixed by raising living standards, by reducing number of hours parents need to work, providing vacation time, etc. But that would require redistributing wealth instead of raising property taxes a couple percent.
Not at all. It's just more excuse to babysit teens. Bad home life will only be fixed by raising living standards, by reducing number of hours parents need to work, providing vacation time, etc. But that would require redistributing wealth instead of raising property taxes a couple percent.
It seems like there's an awful lot of useful improvement in the space between "doing nothing" and "redistributing wealth", so I commend the DISD for not letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Hey so I'm all with you on the fact that inequity is the real problem here. But I also volunteer at an after school program at the school my wife teaches at because these kids often don't have a stable home life to go to after school. It does make a difference, and in my experience it's been very effective at helping the kids (elementary age) in this school get their homework done on time, it's reduced behavior problems, and it gives them a reason to like school. Ours is a 2 day per week program where the kids can choose to be in one of about 25 different special interest clubs (I run the computer science club) and the kids get snacks and two extra hours of time they can be safe at school instead of (often) alone at home.
Babysitting does improve home life.
Dallas and most of Texas have some of the highest property taxes in the country. Raising property taxes a couple percent would be... unreasonable.
I really like this idea. I bonded with friends over video games in highschool. I would have probably benefited if a coach were involved - informing and teaching me and my friends about teamwork, strategy, and training skill/tactics.
The competition and comradery of playing against other teams in the area seems to me like it would make for higher stakes (involving pride and an in-person level of gamesmanship). I'd argue these are important skills in living a social life.
I also think that including some level of physical exercise, even if just as an ante to participate under the school's charter of the sport, would make students more healthy. I don't know if any research or statistcs exist correlating cardiovascular health to markers associated with better video game performance. But it would not surprise me if a lap or two around a track before a practice or competitoin would sharpen minds, reflexes, nerves, etc. If nothing else, it would reduce apprehension to adminstrators sactioning kids playing video games.
The competition and comradery of playing against other teams in the area seems to me like it would make for higher stakes (involving pride and an in-person level of gamesmanship). I'd argue these are important skills in living a social life.
I also think that including some level of physical exercise, even if just as an ante to participate under the school's charter of the sport, would make students more healthy. I don't know if any research or statistcs exist correlating cardiovascular health to markers associated with better video game performance. But it would not surprise me if a lap or two around a track before a practice or competitoin would sharpen minds, reflexes, nerves, etc. If nothing else, it would reduce apprehension to adminstrators sactioning kids playing video games.
When I was in the Marine Corps, I developed a "gaming workout routine" to keep in shape and still have time to play video games where I didn't even have to leave the desk, and it worked wonders. I have always thought it would be awesome to somehow make it a more popular thing. For a while I have thought VR might be the killer app that makes it a reality.
For those interested, it was mostly just bodyweight exercises, eg between counter-strike rounds do crunches at desk, pushups, dips, etc. When I finally buy a house I have this idea that I want to design my computer desk to also be a workout desk... pullup bar and everything.
For those interested, it was mostly just bodyweight exercises, eg between counter-strike rounds do crunches at desk, pushups, dips, etc. When I finally buy a house I have this idea that I want to design my computer desk to also be a workout desk... pullup bar and everything.
my friends and i used to play workout games (similar to drinking games) where if you die you do x pushups, if you get a kill everyone else does pushups, if your team loses everyone does pushups, etc
Desk treadmills for office-style work are fairly common (the main downside is the extra background noise from the belt), but I'm not sure how well they work with the twitchier focus of gaming stuff.
I hope this spreads.
Team games---LoL, DotA, Overwatch---have been twisted and distorted by their respective companies to try to fit the wishes of their playerbase, who generally play these games solo. Thus team games steadily become less and less team-oriented, or more team-oriented, at the cost of ham-handed algorithmic authoritarianism (e.g. role queues).
But if stuff like this takes off, maybe companies will be more true to their vision and less pliable.
Team games---LoL, DotA, Overwatch---have been twisted and distorted by their respective companies to try to fit the wishes of their playerbase, who generally play these games solo. Thus team games steadily become less and less team-oriented, or more team-oriented, at the cost of ham-handed algorithmic authoritarianism (e.g. role queues).
But if stuff like this takes off, maybe companies will be more true to their vision and less pliable.
At least in the case of Overwatch, role queue feels more like an attempt to assure a minimum level of viability for each team and less like an authoritarian approach to controlling how the game is played.
Basically this - it reduces variance in the games you play, along with increasing MMR accuracy. There’s some unfortunate side effects (it’s a long wait to solo queue as DPS, some strategy options are reduced), but overall I’m happy with the results.
Sure, it reduces a certain kind of variance for the solo queue experience. It increases it other kinds, though. Removing player choice decreases flexibility and ability to react to changing conditions. So your team is guaranteed to fit a certain design---but it might very well be that that design is ill-fitted to conditions. It's Waterfall for video games. There were other, cleaner ways to work toward the same goal, that didn't violate the core design and cripple player freedom.
I'm a Lisp guy, so you can probably guess my opinions on whether it's "worth it" or not to aim for The Right Thing. And one thing I've found in my career is that the teams and individuals that make the best use of Lisp are fairly disciplined about it---they care a lot about functional purity, documentation, interopability, etc.
In other words, they're still operating under restrictions, but they're self-imposed rather than incidental. This foundation of order lets them do crazier things on top of it.
Reducing variance in one's play is the equivalent of writing code without side-effects---it's the fundamental principle of playing nicely with others in its respective domain.
Just as this is best achieved by developer education and discipline in the programming sphere, there needs to be a player ethic of reducing variance (which is why I'm glad to hear about Dallas). And without that, the problem will persist, showing its face in one form or another.
MMR accuracy is probably true, but sheesh, only in a Goodheart's Law kind of way. If it was inaccurate before, that suggests a problem with the statistic, not the game! In a complex game like OW, MMR was always going to be most accurate when applied to teams rather than individuals.
I'm a Lisp guy, so you can probably guess my opinions on whether it's "worth it" or not to aim for The Right Thing. And one thing I've found in my career is that the teams and individuals that make the best use of Lisp are fairly disciplined about it---they care a lot about functional purity, documentation, interopability, etc.
In other words, they're still operating under restrictions, but they're self-imposed rather than incidental. This foundation of order lets them do crazier things on top of it.
Reducing variance in one's play is the equivalent of writing code without side-effects---it's the fundamental principle of playing nicely with others in its respective domain.
Just as this is best achieved by developer education and discipline in the programming sphere, there needs to be a player ethic of reducing variance (which is why I'm glad to hear about Dallas). And without that, the problem will persist, showing its face in one form or another.
MMR accuracy is probably true, but sheesh, only in a Goodheart's Law kind of way. If it was inaccurate before, that suggests a problem with the statistic, not the game! In a complex game like OW, MMR was always going to be most accurate when applied to teams rather than individuals.
In Overwatch, role queue is such a departure from the original vision of the game that it's hard to argue with a straight face that it's anything other than a ham-fisted attempt at short term solutions to long term problems.
The message a role queue sends is, "Ignore the problems around you and focus on only providing one part of the team's solution" instead of, "Do whatever you can to help the team win." You can't pick up someone else's slack, you can't play unique/innovative styles, you can't adapt to new strategies; it cuts off a huge creative aspect the game used to have.
It's a terrible lesson to teach children.
The message a role queue sends is, "Ignore the problems around you and focus on only providing one part of the team's solution" instead of, "Do whatever you can to help the team win." You can't pick up someone else's slack, you can't play unique/innovative styles, you can't adapt to new strategies; it cuts off a huge creative aspect the game used to have.
It's a terrible lesson to teach children.
I'm curious. Did you have the same reaction when Overwatch removed the ability to play duplicate characters on the same team? If I remember correctly, that change happened between seasons 1 and 2.
To apply your reasoning above, removing that ability was a "short term" (rules based) solution to a "long term" problem (balancing the hero roster to make duplicate heroes work in a competitive environment)
To apply your reasoning above, removing that ability was a "short term" (rules based) solution to a "long term" problem (balancing the hero roster to make duplicate heroes work in a competitive environment)
Yes it was similar, though it was a much more reasonable move. They were two different decisions, with two different sets of consequences, and I don't think generalizing them as the same is accurate.
With a role queue, you are now unable to solve certain categories of problems your team may have. No one character in Overwatch can exclusively solve a category of problems, so being unable to swap to a specific character isn't nearly as prohibitive.
With a role queue, you are now unable to solve certain categories of problems your team may have. No one character in Overwatch can exclusively solve a category of problems, so being unable to swap to a specific character isn't nearly as prohibitive.
Sure, and adding more engineers is an attempt to speed up a project.
Valve has been trying to make Matchmaking a good team experience.It even resulted in some recet outcries.
Well, I suppose they ought to try harder because CSGO MM is absolute ass...
I don't see a problem with this if there is demand. If anything, this is schools catching up with reality. Kids share their gaming experience with one another. It is a social thing, and they've been using Twitch and Youtube to create alternative media choices for some time. Kids even stage up Roblox and Minecraft videos to tell stories and present shows.
Still, I do think it's sad that the bro culture has completely erased every other kind of competitive video games. Most of our top competitive games (particularly those made in the US and Europe) replicate some of the worst aspects of human society. Lethal conflict, industrialized warfare, conflict over scarcity, imperialism simulators, and a view of science as a tech tree with resource unlockables. It's a fairly toxic view of the world and it taints a lot of kid's viewpoint of the world.
Still, I do think it's sad that the bro culture has completely erased every other kind of competitive video games. Most of our top competitive games (particularly those made in the US and Europe) replicate some of the worst aspects of human society. Lethal conflict, industrialized warfare, conflict over scarcity, imperialism simulators, and a view of science as a tech tree with resource unlockables. It's a fairly toxic view of the world and it taints a lot of kid's viewpoint of the world.
And yet, violence in the US started declining right around the same time more realistically violent video games started becoming a thing, like Mortal Kombat. It then continued declining even as we got Doom, and Quake, and Call of Duty.
> it taints a lot of kid's viewpoint of the world.
Is there any actual evidence of this? Because so far based on your comments elsewhere, it sounds like you just have on some rose-tinted glasses about retro games, and harbor some personal antipathy to modern popular competitive PC games.
> it taints a lot of kid's viewpoint of the world.
Is there any actual evidence of this? Because so far based on your comments elsewhere, it sounds like you just have on some rose-tinted glasses about retro games, and harbor some personal antipathy to modern popular competitive PC games.
The mention of Minecraft makes me think that it could be used for artistic competition purposes (not explicitly framed that way, to go easy on the nerves of the kids who are 'bad at art'). Have teams compete to make the most interesting or coolest map, and have teachers sneak in tips on perspective (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr0USak_IB4) or on historical architecture styles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPxcldEDHts).
There are actuall 0 direct conflict Minecraft games. Tons of them.
One of the more interested and open designs is the "Race For The Wool" concept where elaborately constructed obstacle courses are replicated in parallel in a void world and teams navigate their own miniature world using any means necessary to recover several colored wool blocks hidden on the map. Sometimes there even is direct player conflict when the two courses are open, allowing arrow and TNT cannon fire across the gap at one another.
One of the more interested and open designs is the "Race For The Wool" concept where elaborately constructed obstacle courses are replicated in parallel in a void world and teams navigate their own miniature world using any means necessary to recover several colored wool blocks hidden on the map. Sometimes there even is direct player conflict when the two courses are open, allowing arrow and TNT cannon fire across the gap at one another.
> Most of our top competitive games ... replicate some of the worst aspects of human society.
I dunno if it true in every case, current 2 times Dota champions literally built their team upon friendship and support for each other.
So its not all doom and gloom yet. But I can see this type of behaviour fade away as more money and celebrity start pouring in.
I dunno if it true in every case, current 2 times Dota champions literally built their team upon friendship and support for each other.
So its not all doom and gloom yet. But I can see this type of behaviour fade away as more money and celebrity start pouring in.
> I dunno if it true in every case, current 2 times Dota champions literally built their team upon friendship and support for each other.
Dota is a game where folks play avatars that come together to contest a pointless battlefield, murdering each other over and over while also murdering useless "creeps" that have the trappings of anthropomorphism but are explicitly considered value-less by the Heros.
It's not a boring or bad game, but the fundamental principle is "me and my friends murder your face with our amazing tactical teamwork for no special reason while our grunts carry on fighting like robots."
> So its not all doom and gloom yet. But I can see this type of behaviour fade away as more money and celebrity start pouring in.
You're kinda behind on this. It depends a lot on the initial community. An example of a bad community is the Overwatch community. It's toxic even in the competitive place. An example of a community that is struggling to make a nicer and more civil gaming environment is Smash Ultimate, which has kicked people out for excess behavior and started to make outreach for kids and women who are typically excluded from the spaces. Unsurprisingly, the Overwatch community models a convincingly fatal combat scenario much more convincingly than Smash, where you're explicitly pretending cartoony action figures are fighting in a magical arena where the worst that happens is you get bounced off into the distance.
Dota is a game where folks play avatars that come together to contest a pointless battlefield, murdering each other over and over while also murdering useless "creeps" that have the trappings of anthropomorphism but are explicitly considered value-less by the Heros.
It's not a boring or bad game, but the fundamental principle is "me and my friends murder your face with our amazing tactical teamwork for no special reason while our grunts carry on fighting like robots."
> So its not all doom and gloom yet. But I can see this type of behaviour fade away as more money and celebrity start pouring in.
You're kinda behind on this. It depends a lot on the initial community. An example of a bad community is the Overwatch community. It's toxic even in the competitive place. An example of a community that is struggling to make a nicer and more civil gaming environment is Smash Ultimate, which has kicked people out for excess behavior and started to make outreach for kids and women who are typically excluded from the spaces. Unsurprisingly, the Overwatch community models a convincingly fatal combat scenario much more convincingly than Smash, where you're explicitly pretending cartoony action figures are fighting in a magical arena where the worst that happens is you get bounced off into the distance.
> Dota is a game where folks play avatars that come together to contest a pointless battlefield, murdering each other over and over while also murdering useless "creeps" that have the trappings of anthropomorphism but are explicitly considered value-less by the Heros.
It's not a boring or bad game, but the fundamental principle is "me and my friends murder your face with our amazing tactical teamwork for no special reason while our grunts carry on fighting like robots."
I am not sure what you want to convey. Simulated violence is base of any game really.
Heck, chess is literally a battlefield where soldiers are scarified to acheive victory.
Playing chess doesn't make you violent or toxic.
It's not a boring or bad game, but the fundamental principle is "me and my friends murder your face with our amazing tactical teamwork for no special reason while our grunts carry on fighting like robots."
I am not sure what you want to convey. Simulated violence is base of any game really.
Heck, chess is literally a battlefield where soldiers are scarified to acheive victory.
Playing chess doesn't make you violent or toxic.
> I am not sure what you want to convey. Simulated violence is base of any game really.
No, it's not. Simulated hardship is, and that comes in many forms. And this explains many more games than the simulated violence model.
> Heck, chess is literally a battlefield where soldiers are scarified to acheive victory. Playing chess doesn't make you violent or toxic.
Games don't make people like anything. They normalize things and provide frames of reference, though. Choosing what games to encourage and what viewpoints to adopt changes the way we reason about the world, and we should ocnsider that.
No, it's not. Simulated hardship is, and that comes in many forms. And this explains many more games than the simulated violence model.
> Heck, chess is literally a battlefield where soldiers are scarified to acheive victory. Playing chess doesn't make you violent or toxic.
Games don't make people like anything. They normalize things and provide frames of reference, though. Choosing what games to encourage and what viewpoints to adopt changes the way we reason about the world, and we should ocnsider that.
You act like the buyers of video games have no agency. Players gravitate towards gaming experiences they enjoy. You mention Minecraft but what is the Venn diagram overlap between people who enjoy Minecraft and people who enjoy fighting games like Smash or shooters like Fortnite? It's pretty high.
The genres of games that exist are a result of decades of experimentation in the market. They exist because people enjoy them. Not everyone likes the same stuff. Different personality types gravitate towards different gaming experiences. Same with movies, books, podcasts, etc. No reason to believe gaming should be any different.
The genres of games that exist are a result of decades of experimentation in the market. They exist because people enjoy them. Not everyone likes the same stuff. Different personality types gravitate towards different gaming experiences. Same with movies, books, podcasts, etc. No reason to believe gaming should be any different.
Actually, the market overwhelmingly favors non-violent and only loosely competitive games. PUBG is a drop in the bucket compared to mobile gaming. How many daily actives does Candy Crush and Angry Birds have compared to PUBG?
So, simultaneously the market is all about realistic violent FPS games, which is a problem, but also it's not about that at all? Which one is it?
> How many daily actives does Candy Crush and Angry Birds have compared to PUBG?
I'm gonna make your point for you here: 'investment' can vary widely depending on game genre and mechanics and context. People who play Dwarf Fortress are going to be much more 'into it', on average, than people who play Angry Birds or Candy Crush. In practice, this is relevant to both the impact on the people playing, as well as their willingness to spend.
> How many daily actives does Candy Crush and Angry Birds have compared to PUBG?
I'm gonna make your point for you here: 'investment' can vary widely depending on game genre and mechanics and context. People who play Dwarf Fortress are going to be much more 'into it', on average, than people who play Angry Birds or Candy Crush. In practice, this is relevant to both the impact on the people playing, as well as their willingness to spend.
Can't find dailies, but the sources I find say 100+ million MAU for PUBG and 250+ million MAU for Candy Crush.
Angry Birds seems to be well under 100 million MAU, and anyhow isn't nonviolent.
Angry Birds seems to be well under 100 million MAU, and anyhow isn't nonviolent.
I would love to see the demographics on those games. Surely they are different slices of society.
> It's not a boring or bad game, but the fundamental principle is "me and my friends murder your face with our amazing tactical teamwork for no special reason while our grunts carry on fighting like robots."
You could easily make the same sort of criticism about Contra. You're moving down endless waves of mooks with your badass weapons without a thought or care about the morality of it. Mario sure does kill a lot of animals, etc.
You could easily make the same sort of criticism about Contra. You're moving down endless waves of mooks with your badass weapons without a thought or care about the morality of it. Mario sure does kill a lot of animals, etc.
No idea what "bro culture" has to do with what you're listing. All of those game types existed 25+ years ago. One of the first big competitive video games, with large prizes (Carmack's Ferrari), was Quake, which came out in 1996.
Video game culture before FPSs and an anti-woman sentiment in the industry was very different. That's what I grew up in and I miss that generation of games very much.
Even the war games were rich stories with detailed systems. While I respect the tech aspects of what came after, it's well-accepted that game design contracted in on itself as the majority of the money in PC gaming went to FPS games.
Even the war games were rich stories with detailed systems. While I respect the tech aspects of what came after, it's well-accepted that game design contracted in on itself as the majority of the money in PC gaming went to FPS games.
Video games provide an escape hatch to reality. You may have a personality that is attracted to violent mechs and gunslingers, or you may like the whimsy of being a warrior in a MMORPG. This doesn’t mean that you want to bring that into your real life... it’s important to remember that.
I hold the opposite view to yours on this subject. By allowing an escape hatch, video games are allowing kids to live out their wild fantasies in the digital world. And doing this socially makes it a more socially acceptable activity and a way to bond with other kids who are attracted to similar things.
I hold the opposite view to yours on this subject. By allowing an escape hatch, video games are allowing kids to live out their wild fantasies in the digital world. And doing this socially makes it a more socially acceptable activity and a way to bond with other kids who are attracted to similar things.
You fundamentally misunderstand my argument if you think that I'm saying video games are causal. I think they're a symptom and they help normalize ideas, but causal? No.
That's the argument people are used to having, so I can see how you might be eager to address it. But I'm not interested.
That's the argument people are used to having, so I can see how you might be eager to address it. But I'm not interested.
I understand your point, do you understand mine? I’m not describing a causal relationship but addressing your disappointment at the themes that modern video games choose to address.
Violence and dystopian themes are prevalent in video games for a reason. Living as we are in a time of Global Peace never seen before in history, human minds are instinctively attracted to the opposite experience of a total war, desolation and misery. Which is why these themes retain their allure and continue to attract the strong following that they do.
Violence and dystopian themes are prevalent in video games for a reason. Living as we are in a time of Global Peace never seen before in history, human minds are instinctively attracted to the opposite experience of a total war, desolation and misery. Which is why these themes retain their allure and continue to attract the strong following that they do.
maybe, maybe not. other animal species use play as a way to simulate potentially dangerous scenarios in order to learn certain behaviors. i think it's naive to assume that there's nothing instructive happening within core video game experiences.
Those simulations are almost entirely about developing muscle memory.
If you're talking driving or flying games with appropriate controllers, then they might provide some useful instruction. But first person shooters played with a controller or a keyboard and mouse are so disconnected from the reality of combat, that I can't imagine any kind of instruction that is applicable to the real world could possibly apply (actual training sims do exist and they work nothing like popular video games).
Militaries around the world learned decades ago that the only way to desensitize troops to shooting to actually kill another human (as opposed to just firing in the general direction) was by developing the muscle memory through repeated exercises of actually firing a rifle at a man shaped target.
I've seen no evidence of increased propensity to violence, or increased skill at violence over the last 30 years. If anything violent crime rates have dropped drastically, and recruits are worse performing because they are more likely to be out of shape, and less likely to have actually fired a gun.
If you're talking driving or flying games with appropriate controllers, then they might provide some useful instruction. But first person shooters played with a controller or a keyboard and mouse are so disconnected from the reality of combat, that I can't imagine any kind of instruction that is applicable to the real world could possibly apply (actual training sims do exist and they work nothing like popular video games).
Militaries around the world learned decades ago that the only way to desensitize troops to shooting to actually kill another human (as opposed to just firing in the general direction) was by developing the muscle memory through repeated exercises of actually firing a rifle at a man shaped target.
I've seen no evidence of increased propensity to violence, or increased skill at violence over the last 30 years. If anything violent crime rates have dropped drastically, and recruits are worse performing because they are more likely to be out of shape, and less likely to have actually fired a gun.
you're mostly arguing against a straw man, so i won't address those points, but there are still some interesting things you're wrong about.
so even if you take away the controllers completely, decades of marketing industry research teaches us that you can train certain behaviors among media consumers. for example, chomsky talks about how the marketing industry targeted children's nagging behavior so that they will pester their parents to buy them products. and we all know about how bernays coopted feminist symbolism to sell cigarettes to women.
video games are a lot more dynamic than traditional media, and it's harder to control and harder to analyze, so i would never say something so stupid as "video games cause gun violence," but a video game is not some kind of a magical medium that's exempt from the basic geometries of human psychology. part of the frustration is that we have no idea what the hell new media is doing to us.
so even if you take away the controllers completely, decades of marketing industry research teaches us that you can train certain behaviors among media consumers. for example, chomsky talks about how the marketing industry targeted children's nagging behavior so that they will pester their parents to buy them products. and we all know about how bernays coopted feminist symbolism to sell cigarettes to women.
video games are a lot more dynamic than traditional media, and it's harder to control and harder to analyze, so i would never say something so stupid as "video games cause gun violence," but a video game is not some kind of a magical medium that's exempt from the basic geometries of human psychology. part of the frustration is that we have no idea what the hell new media is doing to us.
>you're mostly arguing against a straw man, so i won't address those points, but there are still some interesting things you're wrong about.
So you're going to ignore basically my entire point.
This:
>other animal species use play as a way to simulate potentially dangerous scenarios in order to learn certain behaviors.
Carries much stronger implications than--to paraphrase your new argument--video games can be used as an advertising medium. It may not have been your intention, but your first argument is the same argument that pundits use to argue that video games "train people to be killers."
Even assuming that wasn't your intent, that animals use play to train for for combat is completely unrelated to a person on TV telling children to ask their parents for something. That's just a human using their persuasive abilities, it has nothing to do with simulated combat.
So you're going to ignore basically my entire point.
This:
>other animal species use play as a way to simulate potentially dangerous scenarios in order to learn certain behaviors.
Carries much stronger implications than--to paraphrase your new argument--video games can be used as an advertising medium. It may not have been your intention, but your first argument is the same argument that pundits use to argue that video games "train people to be killers."
Even assuming that wasn't your intent, that animals use play to train for for combat is completely unrelated to a person on TV telling children to ask their parents for something. That's just a human using their persuasive abilities, it has nothing to do with simulated combat.
> i think it's naive to assume that there's nothing instructive happening within core video game experiences
If you're talking about increased aggression, then I'd argue it's naive to believe the opposite. Scientific studies have shown no long-term impact on aggressive behavior from violent games.
Now, that they might teach you a thing or two about guns, and even basic military tactics in some cases, sure. But by itself, that's not really a bad thing.
If you're talking about increased aggression, then I'd argue it's naive to believe the opposite. Scientific studies have shown no long-term impact on aggressive behavior from violent games.
Now, that they might teach you a thing or two about guns, and even basic military tactics in some cases, sure. But by itself, that's not really a bad thing.
Violence is entertaining on some level. Even cutesy games like Mario have him stomping on mushrooms and turtles and avoiding deadly obstacles. I've also heard it said that all good stories involve conflict. It's a part of human psychology for better or worse. It's why we watch sports. It's why we play video games. It's why dogs play fight. It's deeply embedded in our chemistry.
> Violence is entertaining on some level. Even cutesy games like Mario have him stomping on mushrooms and turtles and avoiding deadly obstacles.
Sure, but so are lots of things. It's just a cultural artifact of the west's love and expectation of violent solutions to conflict that we glorify this activity over others. For example, a game of Go is surely a conflict between two people, but unlike a game of Overwatch or the like it involves a lot fewer guns, bombs, and patchy plots about world governments authorizing unilateral violence.
> I've also heard it said that all good stories involve conflict.
This is a cultural lens. Lots of stories don't have an external conflict and they can be great. You know what's a great example of this? The Moive Jacob's Ladder. It was about someone reflecting on their life with pride and regret, not actual conflict.
People frame this, unsurprisingly, as "Man vs Nature". But we might as well also define it as "Human Overcomes Hardship." And that line seems much more natural. Surely much of our hardship is inflicted by our peers, but is it a deliberate "versus" scenario? I suspect not.
Sure, but so are lots of things. It's just a cultural artifact of the west's love and expectation of violent solutions to conflict that we glorify this activity over others. For example, a game of Go is surely a conflict between two people, but unlike a game of Overwatch or the like it involves a lot fewer guns, bombs, and patchy plots about world governments authorizing unilateral violence.
> I've also heard it said that all good stories involve conflict.
This is a cultural lens. Lots of stories don't have an external conflict and they can be great. You know what's a great example of this? The Moive Jacob's Ladder. It was about someone reflecting on their life with pride and regret, not actual conflict.
People frame this, unsurprisingly, as "Man vs Nature". But we might as well also define it as "Human Overcomes Hardship." And that line seems much more natural. Surely much of our hardship is inflicted by our peers, but is it a deliberate "versus" scenario? I suspect not.
>Sure, but so are lots of things. It's just a cultural artifact of the west's love and expectation of violent solutions to conflict that we glorify this activity over others. For example, a game of Go is surely a conflict between two people, but unlike a game of Overwatch or the like it involves a lot fewer guns, bombs, and patchy plots about world governments authorizing unilateral violence.
I don't think this really has anything to do with the west. Non western cultures have been producing violent art before the west even existed, and if you look at modern non-western movies and games, they aren't less likely to involve violence.
As for Go, people in countries that play Go also play plenty of games that are violent, and plenty of people in the west play Checkers.
I don't think this really has anything to do with the west. Non western cultures have been producing violent art before the west even existed, and if you look at modern non-western movies and games, they aren't less likely to involve violence.
As for Go, people in countries that play Go also play plenty of games that are violent, and plenty of people in the west play Checkers.
I can't work out what this post is saying. What do you mean?
My point about Go was that Go is still a game of conflict, but it's not a game where we murder one another or try to anthropomorphize the pieces to make it more like actual killing.
My point about Go was that Go is still a game of conflict, but it's not a game where we murder one another or try to anthropomorphize the pieces to make it more like actual killing.
> It's just a cultural artifact of the west's love and expectation of violent solutions to conflict that we glorify this activity over others.
The implication to this sentence is that the west is unique in this regard. The only non-violent exemplar game you presented being a non-western game strengthens this implication.
The point of my post was to make an argument against that suggestion. If you didn't mean to imply that, then it really has no point.
However, if that was the case why mention the west at all? Particularly when the OP gave a non-western example (Mario) in the first place.
The implication to this sentence is that the west is unique in this regard. The only non-violent exemplar game you presented being a non-western game strengthens this implication.
The point of my post was to make an argument against that suggestion. If you didn't mean to imply that, then it really has no point.
However, if that was the case why mention the west at all? Particularly when the OP gave a non-western example (Mario) in the first place.
> The implication to this sentence is that the west is unique in this regard. The only non-violent exemplar game you presented being a non-western game strengthens this implication.
Unique? No. Distinct in character, yes.
> The only non-violent exemplar game you presented being a non-western game strengthens this implication.
Minecraft. Night in the Woods. Slenderman. Kerbal Space Program. SpaceChem, TIS-80, InfiniMiner, InfiniFactory, a huge portion of Stellaris's gameplay. Untitled Goose Game. Online Go. Candy Crush. Many many subgames in Roblox.
Can you stop this line of questioning now? It's boring.
Unique? No. Distinct in character, yes.
> The only non-violent exemplar game you presented being a non-western game strengthens this implication.
Minecraft. Night in the Woods. Slenderman. Kerbal Space Program. SpaceChem, TIS-80, InfiniMiner, InfiniFactory, a huge portion of Stellaris's gameplay. Untitled Goose Game. Online Go. Candy Crush. Many many subgames in Roblox.
Can you stop this line of questioning now? It's boring.
>Unique? No. Distinct in character, yes.
So not unique. But actually unique?
>Minecraft. Night in the Woods. Slenderman. Kerbal Space Program. SpaceChem, TIS-80, InfiniMiner, InfiniFactory, a huge portion of Stellaris's gameplay. Untitled Goose Game. Online Go. Candy Crush. Many many subgames in Roblox.
Had you used those examples in your original post, then it would have had less of that implication.
>Can you stop this line of questioning now? It's boring.
If you weren't implying that the west has a "love and expectation of violent solutions" while the rest of the world does not, or that the west has more of a "love and expectation of violent solutions" than the rest of the world, then just say so.
Or you are free to stop responding if you're bored. I won't be offended.
So not unique. But actually unique?
>Minecraft. Night in the Woods. Slenderman. Kerbal Space Program. SpaceChem, TIS-80, InfiniMiner, InfiniFactory, a huge portion of Stellaris's gameplay. Untitled Goose Game. Online Go. Candy Crush. Many many subgames in Roblox.
Had you used those examples in your original post, then it would have had less of that implication.
>Can you stop this line of questioning now? It's boring.
If you weren't implying that the west has a "love and expectation of violent solutions" while the rest of the world does not, or that the west has more of a "love and expectation of violent solutions" than the rest of the world, then just say so.
Or you are free to stop responding if you're bored. I won't be offended.
> >Unique? No. Distinct in character, yes.
> So not unique. But actually unique?
I don't know what you think "distinct" means but it's obviously different from the sense I'm using.
> Had you used those examples in your original post, then it would have had less of that implication.
I've had several threads about this. Sorry I don't replicated every aspect of the entire conversation for your convenience. Most folks aren't bringing the "aren't you a japanophile insulting my gloriously progressive culture" angle to the table, so I haven't felt the need to specifically defend against that ridiculous argument in every post.
> If you weren't implying that the west has a "love and expectation of violent solutions" while the rest of the world does not, or that the west has more of a "love and expectation of violent solutions" than the rest of the world, then just say so.
Perhaps being less defensive would be more productive in the future. Sadly, I'm taking your offer to ignore you from here on out. Thanks for reminding me why this place is such a waste of time.
> So not unique. But actually unique?
I don't know what you think "distinct" means but it's obviously different from the sense I'm using.
> Had you used those examples in your original post, then it would have had less of that implication.
I've had several threads about this. Sorry I don't replicated every aspect of the entire conversation for your convenience. Most folks aren't bringing the "aren't you a japanophile insulting my gloriously progressive culture" angle to the table, so I haven't felt the need to specifically defend against that ridiculous argument in every post.
> If you weren't implying that the west has a "love and expectation of violent solutions" while the rest of the world does not, or that the west has more of a "love and expectation of violent solutions" than the rest of the world, then just say so.
Perhaps being less defensive would be more productive in the future. Sadly, I'm taking your offer to ignore you from here on out. Thanks for reminding me why this place is such a waste of time.
>Most folks aren't bringing the "aren't you a japanophile insulting my gloriously progressive culture" angle to the table.
Wow maybe you should tone it down a bit. You've actually manage to use an ad hominem in an attempt to accuse me of the of the same. Also notice that there's another person who had the same impression I did, so if you didn't mean to leave that impression, you should probably edit your post. If you did, then you shouldn't be upset when someone offers a counterpoint.
>Perhaps being less defensive would be more productive in the future. Sadly, I'm taking your offer to ignore you from here on out.
Except for this one last attempt to get the final word in right? If you're going to ignore me, ignore me, you don't need to keep making one last reply telling me that you're going to do it.
Wow maybe you should tone it down a bit. You've actually manage to use an ad hominem in an attempt to accuse me of the of the same. Also notice that there's another person who had the same impression I did, so if you didn't mean to leave that impression, you should probably edit your post. If you did, then you shouldn't be upset when someone offers a counterpoint.
>Perhaps being less defensive would be more productive in the future. Sadly, I'm taking your offer to ignore you from here on out.
Except for this one last attempt to get the final word in right? If you're going to ignore me, ignore me, you don't need to keep making one last reply telling me that you're going to do it.
So? There are more abstract Western games like checkers, and plenty of Chinese games and media that's violent.
The idea that this is specific to the West just comes across as remarkably naive. Do you really need someone to list all the examples of violent Eastern media and games?
The idea that this is specific to the West just comes across as remarkably naive. Do you really need someone to list all the examples of violent Eastern media and games?
It's not suggesting that western culture is unique in glorifying specific types of violence. It's distinct in how it presents it and normalizes it to children.
> It's distinct in how it presents it and normalizes it to children.
Bullshit. You think other cultures don't normalize violence? Please, violence has been normalized since there were people.
Certainly since we've had states, those states have had an interest in promoting the glory of fighting, indoctrinating the youth and such. The West is no outlier in this regard.
Bullshit. You think other cultures don't normalize violence? Please, violence has been normalized since there were people.
Certainly since we've had states, those states have had an interest in promoting the glory of fighting, indoctrinating the youth and such. The West is no outlier in this regard.
> Bullshit. You think other cultures don't normalize violence? Please, violence has been normalized since there were people.
Really? Are you American? Are you aware about how much of the entertainment you consumed as a child is forbidden for children in other countries? Specifically because of violence?
If not, you should consider investigating.
Really? Are you American? Are you aware about how much of the entertainment you consumed as a child is forbidden for children in other countries? Specifically because of violence?
If not, you should consider investigating.
Perhaps you should consider investigating some other cultures. So far in your responses to me, to gird your argument that the West is unique, you compared America to...the UK. Which is, last I checked, also part of the West.
Are you not aware that anime for boys in Japan is frequently censored when it comes stateside? Like the infamous 'finger guns' from Yugioh? Is Japan another culture that uniquely indoctrinates its children with violence then? A whole lot of those 80's and 90's violent video games were from Japan, after all. I blew up a lot of people and/or robots playing Megaman and Contra.
Are you not aware that anime for boys in Japan is frequently censored when it comes stateside? Like the infamous 'finger guns' from Yugioh? Is Japan another culture that uniquely indoctrinates its children with violence then? A whole lot of those 80's and 90's violent video games were from Japan, after all. I blew up a lot of people and/or robots playing Megaman and Contra.
>> It's just a cultural artifact of the west's love and expectation of violent solutions
> I don't think this really has anything to do with the west.
I grew up (in the West) watching HK action films and samurai movies, so I hear you.
It's exasperating to have to continually point out that fantasy and reality are different things when others stubbornly refuse to accept that. Exemplified by Tarantino losing it after probably the millionth time he was grilled about violence in media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7k4GQSGvx8
> I don't think this really has anything to do with the west.
I grew up (in the West) watching HK action films and samurai movies, so I hear you.
It's exasperating to have to continually point out that fantasy and reality are different things when others stubbornly refuse to accept that. Exemplified by Tarantino losing it after probably the millionth time he was grilled about violence in media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7k4GQSGvx8
Why do you think this is exclusively about the west? I pointed to my culture's unique flavor of violence loving, but I didn't suggest that video games were causal nor did I suggest that we were unique, merely distinct.
Go is a great game but you have to admit that certain personality types gravitate to strategy and logic based games and large swaths of the population are not interested at all in Go. If Go were inherently more interesting to most of the population, we would spectate on matches with larger audiences than UFC fights or football games.
Chess is another great game but it uses medieval battlefield as an analogy to explain the pieces and their different capabilities.
When you look at ancient myths and legends, violence is often part of the story. This is not a modern creation. This is cross-cultural and deeply woven in our psyche.
What you described with Jacob's Ladder sounds like internal conflict. It's not violent conflict, but the conflict is always there in any interesting story. Even romance novels are often about conflicted feelings or the decision between one romantic partner or another.
If you think of your top 10 favorite movies I think its likely violent conflict is a key plot device in most of them.
It's gripping. There's more on the line. When survival is at stake, you're more invested in the characters.
Chess is another great game but it uses medieval battlefield as an analogy to explain the pieces and their different capabilities.
When you look at ancient myths and legends, violence is often part of the story. This is not a modern creation. This is cross-cultural and deeply woven in our psyche.
What you described with Jacob's Ladder sounds like internal conflict. It's not violent conflict, but the conflict is always there in any interesting story. Even romance novels are often about conflicted feelings or the decision between one romantic partner or another.
If you think of your top 10 favorite movies I think its likely violent conflict is a key plot device in most of them.
It's gripping. There's more on the line. When survival is at stake, you're more invested in the characters.
Conflict and violence are distinct things. I'm arguing that specifically realistic PvP violence is a regrettable focus of modern competitive gaming, and it didn't used to be that way.
So you're suggesting that 'realistic PvP violence' in video games is specific to the West? You know this is an incredibly easy claim to disprove, right?
Also, is that PvP in the conventional gaming sense, or in the sense of attacking human characters in games in general (i.e. including single-player games with human on human violence)?
Also, is that PvP in the conventional gaming sense, or in the sense of attacking human characters in games in general (i.e. including single-player games with human on human violence)?
No. I never did. Please stop.
Wow, you keep moving those goalposts. So what exactly is unique to the West that you find regrettable?
Please be specific, because so far you've been awfully vague, almost like you don't want to be specific enough to where someone could falsify what you've said.
Please be specific, because so far you've been awfully vague, almost like you don't want to be specific enough to where someone could falsify what you've said.
Isn’t the film very much exactly about man vs. God? More or less explained explicitly when the chiropractor paraphrases Meister Eckhart and tells Jacob that he’s clinging to his mortal life while God is trying to pull him away from it.
> Violence is entertaining on some level
Maybe more generally, I learned through improv training that changes in relative status are entertaining to humans. It's interesting when a peasant pulls one over on a king.
Maybe we are inherently interested in things that threaten to change social hierarchy. Observing changes in it is important!
Maybe more generally, I learned through improv training that changes in relative status are entertaining to humans. It's interesting when a peasant pulls one over on a king.
Maybe we are inherently interested in things that threaten to change social hierarchy. Observing changes in it is important!
Psychologically, I think this boils down to the fact that our brains like novelty and surprise. A King punching down on a subject isn't novel, but a subject punching up on the King (and living to tell about it!) is.
>Violence is entertaining on some level... a part of human psychology
So is sex, but I'd wager there are people who would be against schoolkids playing video games simulating it. I think that's the same sort of argument that HN user 'kirindave' is making with respect to violence.
I make video games. Violent ones. But it's fair for people to question whether we, as an industry, can come up with something other than death as a metaphor for success. Particularly as we try to grow the tent and move games from being just video games to more, sort of, cultural artifacts.
So is sex, but I'd wager there are people who would be against schoolkids playing video games simulating it. I think that's the same sort of argument that HN user 'kirindave' is making with respect to violence.
I make video games. Violent ones. But it's fair for people to question whether we, as an industry, can come up with something other than death as a metaphor for success. Particularly as we try to grow the tent and move games from being just video games to more, sort of, cultural artifacts.
There are absolutely many video games that are non-violent. But yes, people do like violence too. And that's okay.
> Particularly as we try to grow the tent and move games from being just video games to more, sort of, cultural artifacts.
I don't want to be a dick, but, like, do you not read books or watch TV or movies or anything? Because those areas are all chock full of violence. Particularly if you look at movies, what are the biggest hits? Action-adventure flicks, like the Marvel movies, right? And yet nobody says "well if movies want to be cultural artifacts, they really have to move on past this sort of thing..." with a straight face.
As I was working on my computer tonight my wife was watching Good Omens on TV, nice little miniseries, and while I wouldn't normally categorize it as a particularly violent show, there's still kids stabbing dudes with a flaming sword, demons murdering other demons, etc.
Like, I just don't know how someone can be aware of the fact that violence is pervasive in all sorts of media, and then seriously suggest that video games have to somehow move past that to match those forms of media. Because they already have non-violent games as well, so you can't actually be asking for that, that would make even less sense.
> Particularly as we try to grow the tent and move games from being just video games to more, sort of, cultural artifacts.
I don't want to be a dick, but, like, do you not read books or watch TV or movies or anything? Because those areas are all chock full of violence. Particularly if you look at movies, what are the biggest hits? Action-adventure flicks, like the Marvel movies, right? And yet nobody says "well if movies want to be cultural artifacts, they really have to move on past this sort of thing..." with a straight face.
As I was working on my computer tonight my wife was watching Good Omens on TV, nice little miniseries, and while I wouldn't normally categorize it as a particularly violent show, there's still kids stabbing dudes with a flaming sword, demons murdering other demons, etc.
Like, I just don't know how someone can be aware of the fact that violence is pervasive in all sorts of media, and then seriously suggest that video games have to somehow move past that to match those forms of media. Because they already have non-violent games as well, so you can't actually be asking for that, that would make even less sense.
> I think that's the same sort of argument that HN user 'kirindave' is making with respect to violence.
Not quite, but it is an interesting one. Folks are very comfortable with games depicting repeated fatal violence. Would they feel the same way about a game involving repeated rape? Surely not, at least in the US, surely?! But then again, Pick Up Artist games that evaluate your ability to emotionally manipulate people into sex are popular enough that they've broken into the world of big youtubers and
The reason these are different is because of the way our culture normalizes conflict and normalizes different kinds of dominance.
We've seen games that challenge this (even when they're by people who clearly aren't). Night in the Woods, Slenderman, Minecraft & Roblox, every racing game, Kerbal Space Program and Untitled Goose Game? All of these games are famous and made a major impact on the gaming social structure and they don't focus on pulling triggers or capturing points.
Not quite, but it is an interesting one. Folks are very comfortable with games depicting repeated fatal violence. Would they feel the same way about a game involving repeated rape? Surely not, at least in the US, surely?! But then again, Pick Up Artist games that evaluate your ability to emotionally manipulate people into sex are popular enough that they've broken into the world of big youtubers and
The reason these are different is because of the way our culture normalizes conflict and normalizes different kinds of dominance.
We've seen games that challenge this (even when they're by people who clearly aren't). Night in the Woods, Slenderman, Minecraft & Roblox, every racing game, Kerbal Space Program and Untitled Goose Game? All of these games are famous and made a major impact on the gaming social structure and they don't focus on pulling triggers or capturing points.
Minecraft involves hiding from things trying to kill you at night. Roblox has guns and violence, it's just not bloody or realistically depicted. It's cartoonist violence. Slenderman is a survival horror game so by definition it's violent. Mario Kart takes the fun of racing games to a higher level by enabling you to attack other racers with weapons.
Kerbal Space Program is a good counter example. It's a sim game. I think sim games are fun. But if I'm with a large group of friends I'd pick Smash Bros. over Kerbal.
Kerbal Space Program is a good counter example. It's a sim game. I think sim games are fun. But if I'm with a large group of friends I'd pick Smash Bros. over Kerbal.
> Minecraft involves hiding from things trying to kill you at night.
The most popular version is on peaceful by default.
> Roblox has guns and violence, it's just not bloody or realistically depicted. It's cartoonist violence.
Sure, but for every conflict minigame there is a game where you ride a dragon collecting rainbows. The first goal is to build and explore; physical conflict exists as a consequence of other decisions, not as a foregone conclusion.
> Slenderman is a survival horror game so by definition it's violent.
Not really, it's a game about terror. There is very little human-vs-human commentary.
> Kerbal Space Program is a good counter example. It's a sim game. I think sim games are fun. But if I'm with a large group of friends I'd pick Smash Bros. over Kerbal.
Sure, but even Smash is such a watered down experience of violence. And it feels like that shows in its community which is MUCH less awful than more realistic and serious fighting options.
The most popular version is on peaceful by default.
> Roblox has guns and violence, it's just not bloody or realistically depicted. It's cartoonist violence.
Sure, but for every conflict minigame there is a game where you ride a dragon collecting rainbows. The first goal is to build and explore; physical conflict exists as a consequence of other decisions, not as a foregone conclusion.
> Slenderman is a survival horror game so by definition it's violent.
Not really, it's a game about terror. There is very little human-vs-human commentary.
> Kerbal Space Program is a good counter example. It's a sim game. I think sim games are fun. But if I'm with a large group of friends I'd pick Smash Bros. over Kerbal.
Sure, but even Smash is such a watered down experience of violence. And it feels like that shows in its community which is MUCH less awful than more realistic and serious fighting options.
Conflict doesn't require violence though. It's just that physical conflict is the easiest kind of conflict to represent.
It's also the easiest to fund, what with several western governments funding games that train basic tactical skills that mimic modern urban small-scale warfare.
The games you're talking about aren't particularly useful for training, their only real use if for recruiting. And the number of games being funded by militaries is so small compared to the size of the market, that it basically has no impact as far as ease of funding goes.
That's not to say that violent games aren't easier to fund. As I said, they are certainly easier to make, easier to market etc...
That's not to say that violent games aren't easier to fund. As I said, they are certainly easier to make, easier to market etc...
This is a really interesting phenomenon we noticed as started doing some research into esports: There's a ton of interest in organized game teams as perhaps an alternative to traditional sports for students with different proclivities.
This is just one example, but I suppose what I'm trying to say is that this will likely become the norm not the exception.
This is just one example, but I suppose what I'm trying to say is that this will likely become the norm not the exception.
I would really like to see them emphasize sportsmanship and in a small way help try to make the gaming related community on the internet a bit nicer.
“Interscholastic sports spread rapidly from the 1930s through the 1950s, at a time when the medical and physical education communities were opposed to competitive sports for elementary and junior high, and occasionally high school, students.” — https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2443/Sports-Scho...
I rather have my kids play sports outside. But I guess this is a case of "if you can't beat them join them"
considering that this is organized, I would think you'd get the best of both.
Where kids will learn about rsi and how to mitigate, also how to keep their body in peak condition, etc. Much better than just gaming at home without guidance.
Where kids will learn about rsi and how to mitigate, also how to keep their body in peak condition, etc. Much better than just gaming at home without guidance.
Why not both?
Best e-competitors need body training, this could be motivating.
The headline made me think it was about creating some kind of competition to create video games, rather than playing them. Alas, not.
I still think that could have been an exciting idea.
I still think that could have been an exciting idea.
Something that makes you think "Why the hell didn't we have this 30 years ago!"
I'd say it might be more educational if they are on C64 machines.
Finally a college team I can get behind!
Hopefully this helps make video gaming a more community oriented activity instead of something done at home alone.
Competition of the mind, yes!
I get the sentiment, but I don't think video game competition isn't deeply physical in nature. Sure, experience and kinetic intelligence matter a lot in video games, but as any fighting game player can tell you: some folks just have fast reflexes and can train their bodies to react to even your best setup. Games build in cooldowns, frame locks and combos to help smooth out these ability curves but there is a lot of raw physical ability in pro gaming.
But I have to ask, isn't the pointless, manufactured competition actually the worst part of all this?
Games could recreate any universe we can imagine. Worlds without scarcity, worlds without conflict, worlds deeply simulating fantastical aspects of an alternative universe where any experience is possible. Weirdly, all those games end up with people pointing guns at one another.
Even a lot of AR games try to recreate all the "fun" of urban warfare by manufacturing. It's pretty depressing, if you ask me.
But I have to ask, isn't the pointless, manufactured competition actually the worst part of all this?
Games could recreate any universe we can imagine. Worlds without scarcity, worlds without conflict, worlds deeply simulating fantastical aspects of an alternative universe where any experience is possible. Weirdly, all those games end up with people pointing guns at one another.
Even a lot of AR games try to recreate all the "fun" of urban warfare by manufacturing. It's pretty depressing, if you ask me.
> Games could recreate any universe we can imagine. Worlds without scarcity, worlds without conflict,
The thing is, all that is _boring_. If there is no scarcity, there is no progression. This can be OK if there is other sources of conflict like in Kerbal Space Program sandbox mode where you have an unlimited amount of parts and Kerbals to build with but you have to overcome environmental challenges inherent in flying a ship to another planet and back. Even so there are people (like me) that find sandbox KSP not very fun because there is no progression/scarcity.
If there is no conflict of any kind there is nothing preventing you from achieving your goal immediately without having to do much of anything, which isn't exactly very fun.
> worlds deeply simulating fantastical aspects of an alternative universe where any experience is possible.
This is a description of the environment of a game, not a game itself. Very few people want to play "games" that are solely experiencing the environment with no real goals. The only games I can think of that are like that are sandbox games like Minecraft, and TBH I don't think sandbox Minecraft really counts as a game anymore than building a stick fort does in real life. (Also, survival mode in Minecraft is very popular. And guess what it has? Conflict with the environment and players)
> Weirdly, all those games end up with people pointing guns at one another.
Because (most) people need to have goals to work towards both in real life and in games. If you don't give a player goals, they will make their own, often being "make the most money" or "be the best at combat." Combat as a game is far from modern, the only modern thing we've added is making it virtual combat.
The thing is, all that is _boring_. If there is no scarcity, there is no progression. This can be OK if there is other sources of conflict like in Kerbal Space Program sandbox mode where you have an unlimited amount of parts and Kerbals to build with but you have to overcome environmental challenges inherent in flying a ship to another planet and back. Even so there are people (like me) that find sandbox KSP not very fun because there is no progression/scarcity.
If there is no conflict of any kind there is nothing preventing you from achieving your goal immediately without having to do much of anything, which isn't exactly very fun.
> worlds deeply simulating fantastical aspects of an alternative universe where any experience is possible.
This is a description of the environment of a game, not a game itself. Very few people want to play "games" that are solely experiencing the environment with no real goals. The only games I can think of that are like that are sandbox games like Minecraft, and TBH I don't think sandbox Minecraft really counts as a game anymore than building a stick fort does in real life. (Also, survival mode in Minecraft is very popular. And guess what it has? Conflict with the environment and players)
> Weirdly, all those games end up with people pointing guns at one another.
Because (most) people need to have goals to work towards both in real life and in games. If you don't give a player goals, they will make their own, often being "make the most money" or "be the best at combat." Combat as a game is far from modern, the only modern thing we've added is making it virtual combat.
> The thing is, all that is _boring_. If there is no scarcity, there is no progression.
That's just false. One of the most popular games in human history, Minecraft, completely destroys this notion. Every resource is infinitely renewable and available in great supply.
> This can be OK if there is other sources of conflict like in Kerbal Space Program sandbox mode where you have an unlimited amount of parts and Kerbals to build with but you have to overcome environmental challenges inherent in flying a ship to another planet and back.
This sentence seems contradictory. The challenge is in the doing of a thing. That's not conflict OR scarcity, it's simply your experience. And it's a fun and famous game with a huge following.
> If there is no conflict of any kind there is nothing preventing you from achieving your goal immediately without having to do much of anything, which isn't exactly very fun.
This is that "cultural lens" thing I've referred to in other posts. You're defining this as conflict, but it's not really conflict. It's overcoming hardship. The way you define this matters for how you think about it.
> Very few people want to play "games" that are solely experiencing the environment with no real goals.
So I submit the majority of gaming time on the most popular gaming platforms (mobile) are in fact exactly like this. There is no forced conflict in Neko Atsume or Candy Crush Saga. Roguelike games do model violence conflict, but largely do away with specific goals and simply let you revel in an environment that is new and surprising each time.
> Because (most) people need to have goals to work towards both in real life and in games.
Why does this require repeated and somewhat authentic modeling of fatal violence?
> If you don't give a player goals
I'm trying to work out how you're immediately equating "slaughter each other in PUBG while rolling around in a jeep for now reason" is "goals" but "build a pyramid with your friends in minecraft" is not. In terms of hours and copies sold, the later absolutely annihilates the former, and yet here you are arguing that the former is the only fun option.
That's just false. One of the most popular games in human history, Minecraft, completely destroys this notion. Every resource is infinitely renewable and available in great supply.
> This can be OK if there is other sources of conflict like in Kerbal Space Program sandbox mode where you have an unlimited amount of parts and Kerbals to build with but you have to overcome environmental challenges inherent in flying a ship to another planet and back.
This sentence seems contradictory. The challenge is in the doing of a thing. That's not conflict OR scarcity, it's simply your experience. And it's a fun and famous game with a huge following.
> If there is no conflict of any kind there is nothing preventing you from achieving your goal immediately without having to do much of anything, which isn't exactly very fun.
This is that "cultural lens" thing I've referred to in other posts. You're defining this as conflict, but it's not really conflict. It's overcoming hardship. The way you define this matters for how you think about it.
> Very few people want to play "games" that are solely experiencing the environment with no real goals.
So I submit the majority of gaming time on the most popular gaming platforms (mobile) are in fact exactly like this. There is no forced conflict in Neko Atsume or Candy Crush Saga. Roguelike games do model violence conflict, but largely do away with specific goals and simply let you revel in an environment that is new and surprising each time.
> Because (most) people need to have goals to work towards both in real life and in games.
Why does this require repeated and somewhat authentic modeling of fatal violence?
> If you don't give a player goals
I'm trying to work out how you're immediately equating "slaughter each other in PUBG while rolling around in a jeep for now reason" is "goals" but "build a pyramid with your friends in minecraft" is not. In terms of hours and copies sold, the later absolutely annihilates the former, and yet here you are arguing that the former is the only fun option.
>That's just false. One of the most popular games in human history, Minecraft, completely destroys this notion. Every resource is infinitely renewable and available in great supply.
One of, if not the, most popular modes in Minecraft involves scarcity, rare materials being found near monsters, and requiring you go to what is basically the christian idea of Hell to retrieve them.
One of, if not the, most popular modes in Minecraft involves scarcity, rare materials being found near monsters, and requiring you go to what is basically the christian idea of Hell to retrieve them.
> One of, if not the, most popular modes in Minecraft involves scarcity, rare materials being found near monsters, and requiring you go to what is basically the christian idea of Hell to retrieve them.
So, I've logged thousands of hours of Minecraft and recorded and sold hundreds of hours. Everything in Minecraft is trivially renewable. It's easy to get. The core resource scarcity of minecraft is an hour of so of gating. People's predilections towards activity have way more to do than any scarcity.
There are robotic antagonists, but they're clearly not human. There is PvP, but it's window dressing to the building. And uh, I don't think the Nether is very much like Hell at all.
There is a difference between Overwatch or Dota2 and Minecraft. In Minecraft, you do something else and sometimes fight others. In the others, you fight others and might occasionally do something else.
So, I've logged thousands of hours of Minecraft and recorded and sold hundreds of hours. Everything in Minecraft is trivially renewable. It's easy to get. The core resource scarcity of minecraft is an hour of so of gating. People's predilections towards activity have way more to do than any scarcity.
There are robotic antagonists, but they're clearly not human. There is PvP, but it's window dressing to the building. And uh, I don't think the Nether is very much like Hell at all.
There is a difference between Overwatch or Dota2 and Minecraft. In Minecraft, you do something else and sometimes fight others. In the others, you fight others and might occasionally do something else.
> That's just false. One of the most popular games in human history, Minecraft, completely destroys this notion. Every resource is infinitely renewable and available in great supply.
You completely ignored this:
> Very few people want to play "games" that are solely experiencing the environment with no real goals. The only games I can think of that are like that are sandbox games like Minecraft, and TBH I don't think sandbox Minecraft really counts as a game anymore than building a stick fort does in real life.
I don't really consider sandbox Minecraft a game any more than building something out of Legos or a stick fort in the woods is a game. Is it fun? Yes! Is it creative? Yes! Is it a game? I would say no.
>> This can be OK if there is other sources of conflict like in Kerbal Space Program sandbox mode where you have an unlimited amount of parts and Kerbals to build with but you have to overcome environmental challenges inherent in flying a ship to another planet and back.
> This sentence seems contradictory. The challenge is in the doing of a thing. That's not conflict OR scarcity, it's simply your experience. And it's a fun and famous game with a huge following.
The challenge is the conflict with the environment. Maybe you don't view this as conflict, but the prevalence of "Man vs. Nature" as a kind of conflict is huge in Western culture.
The scarcity in KSP only comes into play in science mode (science points that you need to unlock technology is a scarce resource) and career mode (science points + money to build your rockets is a scarce resource)
>> Very few people want to play "games" that are solely experiencing the environment with no real goals.
> So I submit the majority of gaming time on the most popular gaming platforms (mobile) are in fact exactly like this. There is no forced conflict in Neko Atsume or Candy Crush Saga. Roguelike games do model violence conflict, but largely do away with specific goals and simply let you revel in an environment that is new and surprising each time.
Goals != person on person conflict. In Candy Crush you are trying to complete a level that is designed to make that a hard task (Man vs Nature where the level is the "nature"). I haven't heard of Neko Atsume so I can't comment on that.
For rougelikes, isn't the goal often to beat the end boss? Obviously the journey has to be fun or people won't play, but they still have a goal or give you enough space and tools to let you define your own.
>> Because (most) people need to have goals to work towards both in real life and in games.
>Why does this require repeated and somewhat authentic modeling of fatal violence?
Again, goals != person on person conflict. Conflict != person on person conflict. I personally can't stand games with authentic person on person violence, but I love games like Celeste where the goal is to climb the mountain and you have to face many kinds of conflict (Man vs themself, Man vs Man, and Man vs Nature)
>> If you don't give a player goals
> I'm trying to work out how you're immediately equating "slaughter each other in PUBG while rolling around in a jeep for now reason" is "goals" but "build a pyramid with your friends in minecraft" is not. In terms of hours and copies sold, the later absolutely annihilates the former, and yet here you are arguing that the former is the only fun option.
PUBG has a very clear goal: Be the last person alive by any means necessary. You may not find that fun. I know I don't. But it is still a goal, and considering how popular it is a goal that many people find fun to achieve.
Building a pyramid in Minecraft is a self imposed goal, there is nothing about Minecraft that says "you must build a pyramid to win." Again, I view sandbox Minecraft as a building toy like a box of Lego bricks, not a game in the traditional sense. Also, you are completely ignoring survival mode which hey what a surprise features conflict between the player and the environment (creatures that want to kill you) and sometimes conflict between players.
I'm not saying that the former is the only fun option. I'm just saying that for a game to be fun it needs to let the player have goals to work towards and some kind of conflict (NOT necessary person on person conflict) that makes the player work to achieve their goals. Would Mario Bros. be fun if there was no enemies to avoid or defeat and the level was just a strait line from the start to the goal with no obstacles in between?
You completely ignored this:
> Very few people want to play "games" that are solely experiencing the environment with no real goals. The only games I can think of that are like that are sandbox games like Minecraft, and TBH I don't think sandbox Minecraft really counts as a game anymore than building a stick fort does in real life.
I don't really consider sandbox Minecraft a game any more than building something out of Legos or a stick fort in the woods is a game. Is it fun? Yes! Is it creative? Yes! Is it a game? I would say no.
>> This can be OK if there is other sources of conflict like in Kerbal Space Program sandbox mode where you have an unlimited amount of parts and Kerbals to build with but you have to overcome environmental challenges inherent in flying a ship to another planet and back.
> This sentence seems contradictory. The challenge is in the doing of a thing. That's not conflict OR scarcity, it's simply your experience. And it's a fun and famous game with a huge following.
The challenge is the conflict with the environment. Maybe you don't view this as conflict, but the prevalence of "Man vs. Nature" as a kind of conflict is huge in Western culture.
The scarcity in KSP only comes into play in science mode (science points that you need to unlock technology is a scarce resource) and career mode (science points + money to build your rockets is a scarce resource)
>> Very few people want to play "games" that are solely experiencing the environment with no real goals.
> So I submit the majority of gaming time on the most popular gaming platforms (mobile) are in fact exactly like this. There is no forced conflict in Neko Atsume or Candy Crush Saga. Roguelike games do model violence conflict, but largely do away with specific goals and simply let you revel in an environment that is new and surprising each time.
Goals != person on person conflict. In Candy Crush you are trying to complete a level that is designed to make that a hard task (Man vs Nature where the level is the "nature"). I haven't heard of Neko Atsume so I can't comment on that.
For rougelikes, isn't the goal often to beat the end boss? Obviously the journey has to be fun or people won't play, but they still have a goal or give you enough space and tools to let you define your own.
>> Because (most) people need to have goals to work towards both in real life and in games.
>Why does this require repeated and somewhat authentic modeling of fatal violence?
Again, goals != person on person conflict. Conflict != person on person conflict. I personally can't stand games with authentic person on person violence, but I love games like Celeste where the goal is to climb the mountain and you have to face many kinds of conflict (Man vs themself, Man vs Man, and Man vs Nature)
>> If you don't give a player goals
> I'm trying to work out how you're immediately equating "slaughter each other in PUBG while rolling around in a jeep for now reason" is "goals" but "build a pyramid with your friends in minecraft" is not. In terms of hours and copies sold, the later absolutely annihilates the former, and yet here you are arguing that the former is the only fun option.
PUBG has a very clear goal: Be the last person alive by any means necessary. You may not find that fun. I know I don't. But it is still a goal, and considering how popular it is a goal that many people find fun to achieve.
Building a pyramid in Minecraft is a self imposed goal, there is nothing about Minecraft that says "you must build a pyramid to win." Again, I view sandbox Minecraft as a building toy like a box of Lego bricks, not a game in the traditional sense. Also, you are completely ignoring survival mode which hey what a surprise features conflict between the player and the environment (creatures that want to kill you) and sometimes conflict between players.
I'm not saying that the former is the only fun option. I'm just saying that for a game to be fun it needs to let the player have goals to work towards and some kind of conflict (NOT necessary person on person conflict) that makes the player work to achieve their goals. Would Mario Bros. be fun if there was no enemies to avoid or defeat and the level was just a strait line from the start to the goal with no obstacles in between?
>I don't really consider sandbox Minecraft a game any more than building something out of Legos or a stick fort in the woods is a game. Is it fun? Yes! Is it creative? Yes! Is it a game? I would say no.
The definition of a game isn't easy. Academics have struggled with it for a while now.
Some people would call Minecraft a game. While other people would say it's more a system for developing your own games.
The definition of a game isn't easy. Academics have struggled with it for a while now.
Some people would call Minecraft a game. While other people would say it's more a system for developing your own games.
> I don't really consider sandbox Minecraft a game any more than building something out of Legos or a stick fort in the woods is a game. Is it fun? Yes! Is it creative? Yes! Is it a game? I would say no.
So now kids playing with legos isn't a game becuase it lacks conflict? ... That's... not a very realistic definition in my book.
> The scarcity in KSP only comes into play in science mode (science points that you need to unlock technology is a scarce resource) and career mode (science points + money to build your rockets is a scarce resource)
There is a scarcity mode if you want it, yes. But it's not exactly actual scarcity. It's more like, "You just need to wait longer to do action X." There aren't hard choices to be made nor are there ever dead ends from those choices.
> Goals != person on person conflict. In Candy Crush you are trying to complete a level that is designed to make that a hard task (Man vs Nature where the level is the "nature"). I haven't heard of Neko Atsume so I can't comment on that.
Even the words you're using are begging the question. Is that lens of "man vs ____" actually a valid one? Why? The designer isn't trying to actually be in conflict with users. Candy Crush isn't trying to make levels hard. They're trying to make them fun.
> For rougelikes, isn't the goal often to beat the end boss? Obviously the journey has to be fun or people won't play, but they still have a goal or give you enough space and tools to let you define your own.
Not really? Lost of the famous ones have a goal that is not "kill a thing" but rather "escape with an object" which is always harder. Rogue never had an end. Nethack has you escape with an item; actually fighting the Wizard of Yendor is a waste of resources. Dead Cells has tons of endings and a few don't even involve final bosses.
> Building a pyramid in Minecraft is a self imposed goal, there is nothing about Minecraft that says "you must build a pyramid to win." Again, I view sandbox Minecraft as a building toy like a box of Lego bricks, not a game in the traditional sense. Also, you are completely ignoring survival mode which hey what a surprise features conflict between the player and the environment (creatures that want to kill you) and sometimes conflict between players.
Well this is another subtle cultural perspective, isn't it? Success, PUBG and Fortnite's Battle Royale posit, come from external validation. You have to want both the validation and agree that getting it is an accomplishment. I can see how folks like trying to make this perspective appealing to kids, but it's not really a reflection of reality nor the human psyche. There are an unlimited number of kinds of external validation we all ignore.
> . I'm just saying that for a game to be fun it needs to let the player have goals to work towards and some kind of conflict (NOT necessary person on person conflict) that makes the player work to achieve their goals
With all respect: I think you want to say this but in fact your words betray you. Your first instinct for game conflict is violence. I somewhat agree with the point you've made, but I want to point out how your worldview undermines that point.
So now kids playing with legos isn't a game becuase it lacks conflict? ... That's... not a very realistic definition in my book.
> The scarcity in KSP only comes into play in science mode (science points that you need to unlock technology is a scarce resource) and career mode (science points + money to build your rockets is a scarce resource)
There is a scarcity mode if you want it, yes. But it's not exactly actual scarcity. It's more like, "You just need to wait longer to do action X." There aren't hard choices to be made nor are there ever dead ends from those choices.
> Goals != person on person conflict. In Candy Crush you are trying to complete a level that is designed to make that a hard task (Man vs Nature where the level is the "nature"). I haven't heard of Neko Atsume so I can't comment on that.
Even the words you're using are begging the question. Is that lens of "man vs ____" actually a valid one? Why? The designer isn't trying to actually be in conflict with users. Candy Crush isn't trying to make levels hard. They're trying to make them fun.
> For rougelikes, isn't the goal often to beat the end boss? Obviously the journey has to be fun or people won't play, but they still have a goal or give you enough space and tools to let you define your own.
Not really? Lost of the famous ones have a goal that is not "kill a thing" but rather "escape with an object" which is always harder. Rogue never had an end. Nethack has you escape with an item; actually fighting the Wizard of Yendor is a waste of resources. Dead Cells has tons of endings and a few don't even involve final bosses.
> Building a pyramid in Minecraft is a self imposed goal, there is nothing about Minecraft that says "you must build a pyramid to win." Again, I view sandbox Minecraft as a building toy like a box of Lego bricks, not a game in the traditional sense. Also, you are completely ignoring survival mode which hey what a surprise features conflict between the player and the environment (creatures that want to kill you) and sometimes conflict between players.
Well this is another subtle cultural perspective, isn't it? Success, PUBG and Fortnite's Battle Royale posit, come from external validation. You have to want both the validation and agree that getting it is an accomplishment. I can see how folks like trying to make this perspective appealing to kids, but it's not really a reflection of reality nor the human psyche. There are an unlimited number of kinds of external validation we all ignore.
> . I'm just saying that for a game to be fun it needs to let the player have goals to work towards and some kind of conflict (NOT necessary person on person conflict) that makes the player work to achieve their goals
With all respect: I think you want to say this but in fact your words betray you. Your first instinct for game conflict is violence. I somewhat agree with the point you've made, but I want to point out how your worldview undermines that point.
>> I don't really consider sandbox Minecraft a game any more than building something out of Legos or a stick fort in the woods is a game. Is it fun? Yes! Is it creative? Yes! Is it a game? I would say no.
>So now kids playing with legos isn't a game becuase it lacks conflict? ... That's... not a very realistic definition in my book.
I have _never_ heard anyone call building with Legos a game. Heck, Lego themselves made a theme called "Lego Games" where you built games to play with out of Legos! This wouldn't make very much sense if they considered Legos themselves to be a game. So yes, I wouldn't call building with Legos a game, I would say that it is playing with a toy. In the same spirit I would say playing sandbox Minecraft is playing with a virtual toy.
> There is a scarcity mode if you want it, yes. But it's not exactly actual scarcity. It's more like, "You just need to wait longer to do action X." There aren't hard choices to be made nor are there ever dead ends from those choices.
OK, I must have misunderstood what you meant by scarcity. I took it to mean that you have no limits on your resources, not that it had to be very difficult to obtain those resources and that there had to be a finite amount of them to allow dead ends.
>> For rougelikes, isn't the goal often to beat the end boss? Obviously the journey has to be fun or people won't play, but they still have a goal or give you enough space and tools to let you define your own.
> Not really? Lost of the famous ones have a goal that is not "kill a thing" but rather "escape with an object" which is always harder. Rogue never had an end. Nethack has you escape with an item; actually fighting the Wizard of Yendor is a waste of resources. Dead Cells has tons of endings and a few don't even involve final bosses.
As you can probably tell I haven't played many rougelikes so thanks for showing me that they are a lot more diverse than I thought. However, I would still say that they all have conflict, just not always violent conflict.
> Well this is another subtle cultural perspective, isn't it? Success, PUBG and Fortnite's Battle Royale posit, come from external validation. You have to want both the validation and agree that getting it is an accomplishment.
Not really? Success is winning a round. There is nothing external in that. _Wanting_ to win a round of PUBG can be external (although I wouldn't agree that it has to be, lots of people just find that kind of game fun) but actually winning a round of PUBG isn't.
>> . I'm just saying that for a game to be fun it needs to let the player have goals to work towards and some kind of conflict (NOT necessary person on person conflict) that makes the player work to achieve their goals
>With all respect: I think you want to say this but in fact your words betray you. Your first instinct for game conflict is violence. I somewhat agree with the point you've made, but I want to point out how your worldview undermines that point.
Wow, I guess I've been lying to myself all these years about how I don't like graphic violence or gore in games or movies. Thanks for telling me my true self internet stranger! /s
But seriously, I've said multiple times that I don't like those kind of games. Battlefield, PubG, Fortnight, and all the other person on person combat/battle games could have never been made and I would be perfectly happy. If you think I'm lying that's fine, but I'm not going to continue to discuss this if that's the case.
>So now kids playing with legos isn't a game becuase it lacks conflict? ... That's... not a very realistic definition in my book.
I have _never_ heard anyone call building with Legos a game. Heck, Lego themselves made a theme called "Lego Games" where you built games to play with out of Legos! This wouldn't make very much sense if they considered Legos themselves to be a game. So yes, I wouldn't call building with Legos a game, I would say that it is playing with a toy. In the same spirit I would say playing sandbox Minecraft is playing with a virtual toy.
> There is a scarcity mode if you want it, yes. But it's not exactly actual scarcity. It's more like, "You just need to wait longer to do action X." There aren't hard choices to be made nor are there ever dead ends from those choices.
OK, I must have misunderstood what you meant by scarcity. I took it to mean that you have no limits on your resources, not that it had to be very difficult to obtain those resources and that there had to be a finite amount of them to allow dead ends.
>> For rougelikes, isn't the goal often to beat the end boss? Obviously the journey has to be fun or people won't play, but they still have a goal or give you enough space and tools to let you define your own.
> Not really? Lost of the famous ones have a goal that is not "kill a thing" but rather "escape with an object" which is always harder. Rogue never had an end. Nethack has you escape with an item; actually fighting the Wizard of Yendor is a waste of resources. Dead Cells has tons of endings and a few don't even involve final bosses.
As you can probably tell I haven't played many rougelikes so thanks for showing me that they are a lot more diverse than I thought. However, I would still say that they all have conflict, just not always violent conflict.
> Well this is another subtle cultural perspective, isn't it? Success, PUBG and Fortnite's Battle Royale posit, come from external validation. You have to want both the validation and agree that getting it is an accomplishment.
Not really? Success is winning a round. There is nothing external in that. _Wanting_ to win a round of PUBG can be external (although I wouldn't agree that it has to be, lots of people just find that kind of game fun) but actually winning a round of PUBG isn't.
>> . I'm just saying that for a game to be fun it needs to let the player have goals to work towards and some kind of conflict (NOT necessary person on person conflict) that makes the player work to achieve their goals
>With all respect: I think you want to say this but in fact your words betray you. Your first instinct for game conflict is violence. I somewhat agree with the point you've made, but I want to point out how your worldview undermines that point.
Wow, I guess I've been lying to myself all these years about how I don't like graphic violence or gore in games or movies. Thanks for telling me my true self internet stranger! /s
But seriously, I've said multiple times that I don't like those kind of games. Battlefield, PubG, Fortnight, and all the other person on person combat/battle games could have never been made and I would be perfectly happy. If you think I'm lying that's fine, but I'm not going to continue to discuss this if that's the case.
Nah, that's still Model UN and Math Olympiad. Video games goes more under "sports".
This should not be something cash-strapped schools are spending $450,000 on. This is just public-private transfer into the coffers of Blizzard, Nintendo et al.
If it has merit, it has merit with free software.
If it has merit, it has merit with free software.
At just ~$7,000 per campus for an after school program that likely requires staffing, some equipment, software, etc. I don't see it as a ridiculous thing for them to justify. It provides a community like any other sports program would, at a significantly lower cost, and to a completely different audience, who wasn't participating in the other extracurricular offerings.
This is meant to be a way to keep kids out of trouble, not teach them physics. The goal is to keep them in a controlled and safe setting until their parents are home and able to pick them up, rather than unsupervised for hours at a time.
Kids don't want to play Tux Racer, they want to play Fortnite. There isn't any free software games out there that are going to attract the attention of these kids the way the AAA titles like Fortnite, World of Warcraft, and League of Legends do, and that means that without having access to those titles, the kids aren't going to join the club, and aren't going to be in that controlled and safe setting.
Kids don't want to play Tux Racer, they want to play Fortnite. There isn't any free software games out there that are going to attract the attention of these kids the way the AAA titles like Fortnite, World of Warcraft, and League of Legends do, and that means that without having access to those titles, the kids aren't going to join the club, and aren't going to be in that controlled and safe setting.
There is no mention of being cash-strapped in the article, unless I missed it?
Public schools in the US are almost universally cash-strapped. Regardless, my point stands: no school should be spending a half million in tax money on corporate video games.
There are plenty of cheap/free games that could serve the purpose just fine, if indeed there is any educational merit whatsoever to this initiative (which I highly doubt).
There are plenty of cheap/free games that could serve the purpose just fine, if indeed there is any educational merit whatsoever to this initiative (which I highly doubt).
How is this any different than public schools buying baseballs from Rawlings (co-owned by the MLB). Or football pads, basketball goals etc... I guarantee that the district in question spends far more than $450k purchasing sports equipment from corporations.
And since public schools are mostly locally funded, some districts aren't cash strapped.
>my point stands: no school should be spending a half million in tax money on corporate video games.
This decision is made at the district level, if the people don't like it, they can very easily vote in a different school board. The local voters are the ones who get to decide what they "should" spend their tax money on.
> if indeed there is any educational merit whatsoever to this initiative (which I highly doubt).
Participation in after school activities has been shown to positively impact educational performance.
And since public schools are mostly locally funded, some districts aren't cash strapped.
>my point stands: no school should be spending a half million in tax money on corporate video games.
This decision is made at the district level, if the people don't like it, they can very easily vote in a different school board. The local voters are the ones who get to decide what they "should" spend their tax money on.
> if indeed there is any educational merit whatsoever to this initiative (which I highly doubt).
Participation in after school activities has been shown to positively impact educational performance.
Are there cheap/free games that kids actually want to play? It's not like this is a mandatory class, it is an elective like joining the football team. If the kids don't want to play the games the team competes in they won't join in the first place.
View this more like schools spending lots of money on football teams, not as an educational experiment.
View this more like schools spending lots of money on football teams, not as an educational experiment.
Madden is cheaper in terms of liability, game day costs, and grades than real football. I don't buy the cost argument.
> Finding a niche for all students to participate in an extracurricular activity is one of the DISD’s key goals. Trustees made extracurricular participation a major priority in 2017, setting a districtwide goal of 78% participation by the 2021-22 school year.