Fortnite and the Good Life(tinyletter.com)
tinyletter.com
Fortnite and the Good Life
https://tinyletter.com/lmsacasas/letters/the-convivial-society-no-15-fortnite-and-the-good-life
188 comments
Having spent a ton of my teens playing online games, I agree with you to a point.
It’s also a little dismissive to assume that this is just like every other game. There are so many psychological tricks going on to add a “feeder pellet” aspect to some games today that they are truly designed to be addictive. Games with in app purchases or ads, are usually built for it. Games that have timed reward systems to incentivize you to keep coming back at that same time every day are also part of it. You see these systems with most of the “free” games on touch screens and as a parent I can tell you that my children are significantly different playing them vs playing any other game with their friends (even online). It’s a noticeable enough and shocking enough behavioral change that you have to remove it.
When not having access to a game for a certain period of time creates anger or tears, it’s no longer just a game.
It’s also a little dismissive to assume that this is just like every other game. There are so many psychological tricks going on to add a “feeder pellet” aspect to some games today that they are truly designed to be addictive. Games with in app purchases or ads, are usually built for it. Games that have timed reward systems to incentivize you to keep coming back at that same time every day are also part of it. You see these systems with most of the “free” games on touch screens and as a parent I can tell you that my children are significantly different playing them vs playing any other game with their friends (even online). It’s a noticeable enough and shocking enough behavioral change that you have to remove it.
When not having access to a game for a certain period of time creates anger or tears, it’s no longer just a game.
I've seen player bases (or at least parts of them) beg for these systems to be introduced. Battlefield being the most recent example I can think of. They built Battlefield 1 which didn't really have any "feeder pellet" mechanisms then at some point they asked what the community wanted in the game and the response came back "We need daily challenges/rewards to keep us playing." It wasn't enough to just play the game, some particularly large subset of the game needed something to be constantly working towards to keep them playing, they needed a short term goal/reward.
So they introduced timed challenges (get so many headshots in one life, get a skin as reward) into BF1 as an update and then expanded that in BFV.
So they introduced timed challenges (get so many headshots in one life, get a skin as reward) into BF1 as an update and then expanded that in BFV.
That's why I prefer free open source games. Not only the gameplay is not tainted by grey/dark patterns, but also if it is an online game you don't depend on one company running the servers.
Does Fortnite implement any of these dark patterns? I think the only paid purchases in it are cosmetic in nature, no? And the game itself is mostly skill based.
It doesn't even have the MMORPG hook where if you don't play, your character is weaker then of people that play more then you.
It doesn't even have the MMORPG hook where if you don't play, your character is weaker then of people that play more then you.
I haven't played fortnite, but Folding Idea's analysis of Fortnite [0] suggests that it does. As a specific example, it presents only a small subset of the items available to purchase any given day. This allows them to obscure the relative prices in a way that would not be possible with many more viewable for comparison. A microphone hammer is 800v today. How does that price compare to a gold hammer, or what was its price two seasons ago ?
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPHPNgIihR0
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPHPNgIihR0
If I recall correctly, items are priced based on their rarity, which doesn’t change. So an uncommon thing is 800 vbucks (~$8) up to 2000 for a legendary item/skin.
Imo the shop isn’t as much of a dark pattern. The game is just constructed in such a way that it’s constantly engaging and fun from beginning to end, and very good at playing with friends.
Imo the shop isn’t as much of a dark pattern. The game is just constructed in such a way that it’s constantly engaging and fun from beginning to end, and very good at playing with friends.
You can only buy cosmetics, that’s correct. If you buy a battle pass you get extra challenges but you get no in-game advantage for spending money.
Kids love the cosmetics though and it becomes as important to some of then as having real gameplay advantages would be. So it's good for the gameplay but I am not sure it is any less nefarious.
Absolutely; I don’t think this absolves Fortnite or anything, just trying to make the details more clear.
> It doesn't even have the MMORPG hook where if you don't play, your character is weaker then of people that play more then you.
You're character isn't weaker, but it will have fewer cosmetics. I'm not sure that that's a less harsh incentive, personally.
You're character isn't weaker, but it will have fewer cosmetics. I'm not sure that that's a less harsh incentive, personally.
"If you play less, you are less likely to win." is obviously harsher than "If you play less, your character won't look as cool."
Apex Legends has re-introduced me to gaming (after being AFK since the Halo 3 days), and I very much appreciate that the only 'perks' of grinding are cosmetic. As an adult with less free time, if I knew that a game would punish me stat-wise for not playing as often as my competition, I probably wouldn't play at all since I wouldn't stand a chance. But cosmetics don't affect gameplay.
Apex Legends has re-introduced me to gaming (after being AFK since the Halo 3 days), and I very much appreciate that the only 'perks' of grinding are cosmetic. As an adult with less free time, if I knew that a game would punish me stat-wise for not playing as often as my competition, I probably wouldn't play at all since I wouldn't stand a chance. But cosmetics don't affect gameplay.
Fortnite used to have loot boxes and they've changed how they worked to make them less like gambling.
You’re talking about Fortnite Save the World which as far as I know still has loot boxes. Fortnite Battle Royale (i.e. the successful one that actually matters) never had loot boxes.
y, has anyone seen kids playing Roblox? It actually has a slot machine looking mechanic? I'm a fan of Minecraft, Fortnite and PUBG but Roblox just looks like gambling for kids. Any thoughts?
I've played Roblox with my kid. It's actually a bunch of different games, some of which are entertaining and complex.
Try experiencing what your kids experience and judge for yourself.
Try experiencing what your kids experience and judge for yourself.
My girlfriend's sister (was ~10 at the time) is now banned from Roblox because she kept getting sucked into ERP with people in game. Safe to say, the mother wasn't happy when she saw some of those chat logs...
Minecraft is the replacement - no IAPs (as far as I know), online community is pretty varied but pretty decent for the most part, and the game is lots of fun even completely offline.
Minecraft is the replacement - no IAPs (as far as I know), online community is pretty varied but pretty decent for the most part, and the game is lots of fun even completely offline.
Roblox has a nice parental control system, and is totally playable with chat disabled (and the preference password-locked with a special parent-held password).
Modded servers actually have a lot of IAPs and they can be pretty bad. These are really popular with kids.
Yeah I've seen kids at the local library playing Roblox nonstop for hours. I think the library made a special table of computers for them. Didn't know it was addictive, but it would not come as a surprise.
I'm not quite sure how different that is from before. I used to have this Pokemon-themed Tamagotchi ripoff [1] which featured a literal slot machine. I don't think I turned out any worse for it. (Disclaimer: I've never heard of Roblox.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_Pikachu
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_Pikachu
I don't think there's any core slot machine functionality in Roblox.
But Roblox is essentially a game development platform. Anyone can build a game on top of Roblox, and that player-created game could have slot machines in it.
But Roblox is essentially a game development platform. Anyone can build a game on top of Roblox, and that player-created game could have slot machines in it.
Yeah it can be fun. I play it with my daughter, she loves it. And we've started building in it.
Yes, my son keeps asking me Lua programming questions. I don't know Lua, yet.
Roblox is hot garbage and it's stuffed full of really weird IAPs.
Am I the only one who feels like this is another echo of moral panic of the great Dungeons & Dragons scare of the mid eighties, which then morphed into the WoW scare of the early 2000's, which has now morphed into the Fortnite scare of 2019? It seems like every 20ish years there is a new and terrible game for parents, media and establishment to find and reach perfect harmony about that coalesces into a cry of "What about the children?!" all the way t Capital Hill and beyond. Ugh.
Not only are you not the only one to notice this, it's addressed in TFA.
"I get that these concerns are sometimes misguided and overblown, but I also think that it's bad practice to assume that present fears are wholly illegitimate simply because you can think of analogous concerns in the past that in retrospect appear 'ridiculous' to you."
"I get that these concerns are sometimes misguided and overblown, but I also think that it's bad practice to assume that present fears are wholly illegitimate simply because you can think of analogous concerns in the past that in retrospect appear 'ridiculous' to you."
Compared to the D&D scare, this is less of a moral panic of fear of the unknown and more of a panic of lost productivity. D&D's panic, or at least how I understand it, was more like the panic around Harry Potter. Fortnite is more similar to getting mad at your kids for watching too much television or WoW.
The D&D scare seems to at least have benefited from a lot of common misunderstandings and that most people were unwilling to give it a shot. Harry Potter exploded in popularity for the blowback to ever be taken too seriously. Its pretty easy to open up a book and read it vs gathering some people together to try out a somewhat complex and open-ended game.
That's fair. Additionally with D&D, it is what you make of it. The themes and context can very with the group playing, whereas Harry Potter is exactly what it is.
It's not every 20 years, it's pretty much a constant. Some games or trends just happen to get more mainstream attention than others.
I don't think we're ever going to truly get rid of this sense of "this thing is bad for my kid, we need to get rid of it!" Since ultimately some bad thing happens to a kid/parent and they feel more validated amongst others who feel the same way about that thing. That's an incredibly powerful emotion.
We probably just need to be better at getting people to be generally more open minded and to see the world in less black and white terms.
I don't think we're ever going to truly get rid of this sense of "this thing is bad for my kid, we need to get rid of it!" Since ultimately some bad thing happens to a kid/parent and they feel more validated amongst others who feel the same way about that thing. That's an incredibly powerful emotion.
We probably just need to be better at getting people to be generally more open minded and to see the world in less black and white terms.
|We probably just need to be better at getting people to be generally more open minded and to see the world in less black and white terms.|
Statement for the ages right there.+1
Statement for the ages right there.+1
[deleted]
Every GTA release is aimed to chock more than the previous one. I watched store clerks with a long line of kids wanting to buy GTA V, they asked for phone number to parents to ask for permission to sell and informed what type of game it was. Great hype for the game :)
It's all the fault of that devil music those kids are listening to these days.
>Am I the only one who feels like this is another echo of moral panic of the great Dungeons & Dragons scare of the mid eighties, which then morphed into the WoW scare of the early 2000's
Don't forget the late 90s Doom scare, the sole cause of Columbine.
Don't forget the late 90s Doom scare, the sole cause of Columbine.
Folks are being really blase about online gaming addiction.
It's real. It's happening.
It's real. It's happening.
Aww, but mommmm!
I couldn't disagree more. The problem with spending literally thousands of hours in a game is most of what you experience and learn is not transferable to real life.
You are playing in someone else's sandbox and I have no doubt that it stunts developement in the real world.
-someone who spent far too much time playing these games.
Once the game is gone you will have nothing to show for it. It's worse than any hobby because it demands so much time with so little return.
You are playing in someone else's sandbox and I have no doubt that it stunts developement in the real world.
-someone who spent far too much time playing these games.
Once the game is gone you will have nothing to show for it. It's worse than any hobby because it demands so much time with so little return.
Yes, everything in life should be measured by how much applicable it is to the real world.
What point are you trying to make?
Because that's not what I said and any honest reading of my post would back that up.
I just can't imagine what kind of background you have to think this is an insightful or clever addition to the conversation.
Because that's not what I said and any honest reading of my post would back that up.
I just can't imagine what kind of background you have to think this is an insightful or clever addition to the conversation.
> The problem with spending literally thousands of hours in a game is most of what you experience and learn is not transferable to real life.
I largely disagree with this. In WoW I spent a ton of time reading and writing with other people, organizing and recruiting for a bunch of guilds, and making a lot of great long term friends.
That's not to deny that you can avoid doing those things, or that many games don't provide those same opportunities, but rather that it's not a fundamental property of games that you gain nothing beyond the game. I gained a lot from my time in WoW.
I think this also ignores that the alternative for a lot of people would be watching TV or using social media.
It's possible there is a problem with games like Fortnite in that you're communicating almost solely by voice and there's a very limited complexity, but it might just be that there's something about it that I don't get.
That's not to deny that you can avoid doing those things, or that many games don't provide those same opportunities, but rather that it's not a fundamental property of games that you gain nothing beyond the game. I gained a lot from my time in WoW.
I think this also ignores that the alternative for a lot of people would be watching TV or using social media.
It's possible there is a problem with games like Fortnite in that you're communicating almost solely by voice and there's a very limited complexity, but it might just be that there's something about it that I don't get.
That's all good. I lead a guild to a server first, but you know what means today? Nothing. I wish I had gone outside.
By the way, the cost of doing a server first kill is tens of thousands of hours of a person's life. For what? A virtual high score?
Video games are more addictive than TV. It is the evolution of technology to be so.
By the way, the cost of doing a server first kill is tens of thousands of hours of a person's life. For what? A virtual high score?
Video games are more addictive than TV. It is the evolution of technology to be so.
I learned English through video games. When I played Golden Eye on the N64, I was using a dictionary!
I remember being so confused with the term rendezvous with 006, ha!
I played a lot of Warcraft 3. It sets you up for strategic thinking, understanding the difference between micro and macro management, creating training schedules to become better.
Like most hobbies: meta skills are transferable.
As for the specifics: games made me realize that computers are amazing machines and gave me good hand eye coordination. When I program something easy, I program like a gamer playing Warcraft 3 because typing and mouse speed are the biggest bottlenecks.
It wasn’t the best use of my time but I can think of worse things.
I remember being so confused with the term rendezvous with 006, ha!
I played a lot of Warcraft 3. It sets you up for strategic thinking, understanding the difference between micro and macro management, creating training schedules to become better.
Like most hobbies: meta skills are transferable.
As for the specifics: games made me realize that computers are amazing machines and gave me good hand eye coordination. When I program something easy, I program like a gamer playing Warcraft 3 because typing and mouse speed are the biggest bottlenecks.
It wasn’t the best use of my time but I can think of worse things.
You chose (your game) poorly. There are vastly better experiences to be had, and useful lessons to learn. For example, one of the games I play has thought me a lot about feudal times, politics, geography and history.
Judging gaming by WOW is like judging literature by 50 shades of gray.
edit: and I want to say more. WOW is hardly a game, it is more of a reward delivery mechanism to keep you paying that monthly subscription. Nothing with a monthly subscription should be called a game, because it just doesn't match the incentives.
Judging gaming by WOW is like judging literature by 50 shades of gray.
edit: and I want to say more. WOW is hardly a game, it is more of a reward delivery mechanism to keep you paying that monthly subscription. Nothing with a monthly subscription should be called a game, because it just doesn't match the incentives.
The mental fortitude Dota 2 gives...
Prince Harry? The advice of a Royal who will never need to work at anything about what is or isn't a waste of time is about as useful as a codfish's advice about mountain biking.
hear hear ..
The fact that we care as much about the life and opinions of celebs or nobles is one of the weirdest human traits.
We are not that far from tribal cavemen yet.
The fact that we care as much about the life and opinions of celebs or nobles is one of the weirdest human traits.
We are not that far from tribal cavemen yet.
The same activity can be "numbing" (used to escape real problems and responsibilities) for one person, and energizing and truly comforting to someone else. World of Warcraft absolutely had (and has) people who fall on both sides of that divide, and I'm sure the same is true for Fortnite. It can also start as constructive/energizing and become numbing/escapism if you make someone feel ashamed of it, as you say.
I was 33 before I really got over the shame I felt for doing the things I enjoy, like video games. Because of that experience, I hope I will be a better parent in this regard than most. The cries of moral bankruptcy in video games seems to be relegated to a segment of adults that are only getting older, which is as it should be.
I bet Prince Harry doesn't think all those hours at the clubs [1] was a waste of time (trust me they are definitely a giant waste of time too).
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-harry-takes-quite-a-sh...
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-harry-takes-quite-a-sh...
I doubt prince harry spent literally thousands of hours at the club as the majority of WoW players do. If not 10s of thousands of hours.
MMORPGs (like EVE Online) inspired more creativity and entrepreneurial thinking in me than almost anything else I did in my life. I'm kind of glad I don't play them anymore as an adult, since they would likely consume a huge chunk of my time, but they were a very formative experience for me and I don't regret dedicating much of my teenage years to them.
The point is that it's not as simple as "games are good" or "games are bad". Not only is each game different, each person is different, and each combination of the two affects a person on many different dimensions, some good and some bad, and the definition of what it truly means to move in a positive direction of personal growth is multifaceted and nuanced, such that blanket statements can't really be made. An individual (or an individual child's parent) needs to look at their particular case and consider all dimensions of effect, together.
If someone like Prince Harry just sharing his opinion that it's a waste of time is seriously damaging, that to me indicates that he may be hitting a nerve there.
It's hitting a major nerve. Video games are far more dangerous than comic books or movies or TV. Why? Because they're a success surrogate. They take people who may feel disillusioned with the difficulty of making a life and give them an easy fix. It's the number one problem with video games: they hijack the reward mechanisms that are supposed to motivate you to improve your life. This puts them on a level closer to hardcore drugs than to other forms of entertainment.
As someone who's never played Fortnite or WOW, Prince Harry kind of sounds like he's trying to hit a nerve.
It's hitting a nerve because it's not just Prince Harry, its many people, and often times its parents, and friends. It's the collective "your'e doing it wrong" coming from society.
Its not such a big deal from one person but if it's something that is a significant part of your life and you are constantly bombarded that it is negative then yeah its gonna have a negative effect on you.
Its not such a big deal from one person but if it's something that is a significant part of your life and you are constantly bombarded that it is negative then yeah its gonna have a negative effect on you.
So, I share the same opinion as Prince Harry, as a teacher. My students only want to do Fortnite, or Brawlstars, or Apex or whatever the biggest craze is. They're completely addicted to those games, and it's near impossible to get some of the students off their phones. Like, it's definitely impacting these kids at school; I can't imagine what it's doing if they ever get assigned homework (most other teachers I know have just given up because they either don't do it or cheat).
People on HN are not willing to accept that these games are highly tuned psychological products that induce addiction.
I'm 100% willing to accept it. I feel like the people who aren't are the types who get extremely defensive about gaming in general. Imagine feeling so attacked that you have to try to claim that DoTA taught you "entrepreneurial skills".
Everyone has hobbies that are time-wasters to an extent. It isn't the end of the world if someone has the opinion that this one habit might be addictive.
Everyone has hobbies that are time-wasters to an extent. It isn't the end of the world if someone has the opinion that this one habit might be addictive.
Vitalik Buterin played it so much that he named his startup after a race of evil elves, the Ethereum. Now Ethereum is one of the most successful online games around, with some “whales” dumping tens of millions of dollars into it.
How productive for society.
It is indeed mean to shame people for their counter-productive lifestyle choices but if it warns off others from going down the same path maybe it’s worth the cost on a societal level.
> Someone like Prince Harry saying that Fortnite is a waste of time, is seriously damaging to the image someone might have of themselves playing it.
I find this hard to believe. I was 12yo when Carmageddon and Postal came out. Both were widely covered in newspapers and cable news as excessively violent, and bad for kids. I still played the hell out of both. Why would I have cared what Prince Harry thought?
I find this hard to believe. I was 12yo when Carmageddon and Postal came out. Both were widely covered in newspapers and cable news as excessively violent, and bad for kids. I still played the hell out of both. Why would I have cared what Prince Harry thought?
[deleted]
Uh good for you. I still think it’s a waste of time, glad you feel better about something you invested so much time into.
This article addresses moral panic and so it may seem like it is not an extension of it, but I think it basically still is. People have tried for decades, through scientific research, to quantify harm caused by video games and have failed over and over again. Can people become "addicted" to them and use them as escape mechanisms? Sure, But that happens with all kinds of things, from chess to reading to running.
It's rare to see a real impassioned defense of gaming outside of "it's not that bad" but I'd like to go out and say it had a hugely positive impact on my life and I think it's really doubtful I'd be where I am today without gaming. Beyond giving me the foundations of the technical skills I used to become an engineer, gaming gave me tons of social skills as well. As an adolescent I was able to play a ton of different roles in a group in a way that I wasn't able to in real life, even in sports and mock trial and things like that, where other elements of teamwork were present. This prepared me greatly for understanding deep collaboration with teammates at work today. Much more than group projects in school. Like orders of magnitude more so.
It's also important to note that despite being the safest the country has ever been, adolescents are more restricted than ever before. It is extremely rare for them to have places where they can be free, with their friends, and also trying out new social roles. This is an extremely valuable process and it's really difficult to do these days. I don't think there is anything wrong with Fortnite, but I think if you're trying to figure out why people play it and you reduce that down to "bright flashing colors and escapism" you're missing a ton of the context.
And this isn't to rag on sports and say gaming is better (or theater, or woodworking, if those are your things) it's just to say: it's 2019. This gaming thing has been going on for quite some time. It's a real thing with depth, mastery and real benefits that spread into the rest of your life just like playing sports, or chess or however else you think kids should be spending their time. Let's stop tiptoeing around gaming like it's just a vice and start emphasizing the positive things we get out of it.
It's rare to see a real impassioned defense of gaming outside of "it's not that bad" but I'd like to go out and say it had a hugely positive impact on my life and I think it's really doubtful I'd be where I am today without gaming. Beyond giving me the foundations of the technical skills I used to become an engineer, gaming gave me tons of social skills as well. As an adolescent I was able to play a ton of different roles in a group in a way that I wasn't able to in real life, even in sports and mock trial and things like that, where other elements of teamwork were present. This prepared me greatly for understanding deep collaboration with teammates at work today. Much more than group projects in school. Like orders of magnitude more so.
It's also important to note that despite being the safest the country has ever been, adolescents are more restricted than ever before. It is extremely rare for them to have places where they can be free, with their friends, and also trying out new social roles. This is an extremely valuable process and it's really difficult to do these days. I don't think there is anything wrong with Fortnite, but I think if you're trying to figure out why people play it and you reduce that down to "bright flashing colors and escapism" you're missing a ton of the context.
And this isn't to rag on sports and say gaming is better (or theater, or woodworking, if those are your things) it's just to say: it's 2019. This gaming thing has been going on for quite some time. It's a real thing with depth, mastery and real benefits that spread into the rest of your life just like playing sports, or chess or however else you think kids should be spending their time. Let's stop tiptoeing around gaming like it's just a vice and start emphasizing the positive things we get out of it.
Judgments about wasted time are incredibly subjective and prone to errors, not to mention unclear in relation to what might be the ultimate nature of a human's existence and life. I know some people that love woodworking for example, to me it's a waste of time. I've enjoyed hiking and going in a canoe somewhere, to someone else that'd be a waste of time they could be building a startup. That in turn could be a waste of time for someone who finds spending time with family more important. Anyway, not saying I haven't called things a waste of time, just when I'm honest about it it's really just what I think, not the universal truth.
"That 100th canoe stroke was such a waste, he could have been {0}ing." - Person who judges what other people want to do
"That 100th canoe stroke was such a waste, he could have been {0}ing." - Person who judges what other people want to do
When I was a teenager I used to play chess competitively and when I mention this to people, they look at me all impressed. When I mention that I now play Dota competitively, I get an "oh I hear that game is really addictive" or "I'm not a video game person". And since I've played both for quite some time now I can promise you that playing any interesting game is not a passive experience and is in fact pretty brain melting if you get into it.
"I don't like games" to me now sounds a lot like when people say "I don't like music" or "I don't like books". You may not like specific genres but not liking an entire medium is often just a sign of miseducation.
I would challenge the most dedicated of programmers to build an efficient factory in Factorio or an adventure buff to see what it feels like to beat a monster like in Sekiro or Dark Souls. The Witness, Baba is you, Crusader Kings 2 etc.
Please play any of those games and tell me that gaming is a passive activity.
"I don't like games" to me now sounds a lot like when people say "I don't like music" or "I don't like books". You may not like specific genres but not liking an entire medium is often just a sign of miseducation.
I would challenge the most dedicated of programmers to build an efficient factory in Factorio or an adventure buff to see what it feels like to beat a monster like in Sekiro or Dark Souls. The Witness, Baba is you, Crusader Kings 2 etc.
Please play any of those games and tell me that gaming is a passive activity.
I doubt few would argue that gaming is a passive activity. What they seem to argue is that any gaming experience specifically designed for entertainment is ultimately worthless.
There’s games all around us if you look. I like to play the “I broke my kernel and my entire system is fucked and now I gotta repair it” game or the “write a driver for some obscure hardware” game or even “demonstrate a vulnerability exploit on a live system” game, all which lead to greater value creation and self fulfillment superior to defeating some imaginary creature.
There’s games all around us if you look. I like to play the “I broke my kernel and my entire system is fucked and now I gotta repair it” game or the “write a driver for some obscure hardware” game or even “demonstrate a vulnerability exploit on a live system” game, all which lead to greater value creation and self fulfillment superior to defeating some imaginary creature.
> all which lead to greater value creation and self fulfillment superior to defeating some imaginary creature
That is 100% subjective.
For instance, I can easily argue that breaking kernels and writing drivers for obscure hardware does not add any real value for society as a whole.
However, playing and socializing with people does create value for society, specially in this day and age where people is evermore alone, if only in reduction of antidepressants ;)
That is 100% subjective.
For instance, I can easily argue that breaking kernels and writing drivers for obscure hardware does not add any real value for society as a whole.
However, playing and socializing with people does create value for society, specially in this day and age where people is evermore alone, if only in reduction of antidepressants ;)
veryworried(1)
>the "demonstrate a vulnerability exploit on a live system" game creates greater value than a video game
Right, but there are instances where you can train for that live demonstration, like CTFs in self-contained environments like virtual machines.
Seems pretty similar in scope to a video game to me. I think you're more accurately complaining about games that provide little value beyond the skinner box. What about stuff like Shenzhen I/O, Factorio, etc? You could even make strong case for RTS games teaching transferable skills.
Right, but there are instances where you can train for that live demonstration, like CTFs in self-contained environments like virtual machines.
Seems pretty similar in scope to a video game to me. I think you're more accurately complaining about games that provide little value beyond the skinner box. What about stuff like Shenzhen I/O, Factorio, etc? You could even make strong case for RTS games teaching transferable skills.
[deleted]
They train different skills; for example, I wasn't a very well coordinated kid, and I attribute my driving skills to years of FPS gaming, which trained me to operate controls while paying full attention to my environment. Writing drivers doesn't help with that.
> This gaming thing has been going on for quite some time. It's a real thing with depth, mastery and real benefits that spread into the rest of your life just like playing sports, or chess or however else you think kids should be spending their time.
Sure, that's true, but only for some kids - while for others, games, esp. non-skill ones (say, 100th hour of slashing monsters in Diablo) truly are a distraction and bring nothing in, while they fill the time in child's development that is normally devoted to activities which develop the child in some way. The same thing can be said about other activities, like TV, but I feel like video games may have even less to offer than those. I mean, if you watch sitcoms on TV, you're developing your sense of humor, observe people engaged in funny dialogue etc. I can't see a single valueable thing about that 100th hour of playing Diablo - it's a pure time waster. It's not great for an adult, but especially bad for a child/teenager, which should be growing instead of wasting time.
Sure, that's true, but only for some kids - while for others, games, esp. non-skill ones (say, 100th hour of slashing monsters in Diablo) truly are a distraction and bring nothing in, while they fill the time in child's development that is normally devoted to activities which develop the child in some way. The same thing can be said about other activities, like TV, but I feel like video games may have even less to offer than those. I mean, if you watch sitcoms on TV, you're developing your sense of humor, observe people engaged in funny dialogue etc. I can't see a single valueable thing about that 100th hour of playing Diablo - it's a pure time waster. It's not great for an adult, but especially bad for a child/teenager, which should be growing instead of wasting time.
>> I mean, if you watch sitcoms on TV, you're developing your sense of humor, observe people engaged in funny dialogue etc.
No, you are not developing your sense of humor. Most of the humor in the "funny dialogue" is conditioned and triggered by the laugh track. Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BFSZ8XzWOM for example.
No, you are not developing your sense of humor. Most of the humor in the "funny dialogue" is conditioned and triggered by the laugh track. Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BFSZ8XzWOM for example.
"Humor" is extremely dependent on culture, which is heavily influenced by TV. Why does every laugh-track sitcom try to model itself on Friends? Because it has the sort of characters and humor that's relatable and funny to Americans.
Because Friends is also a global hit, and popular among a generation of teens and 20s, people who weren't born when the show first aired, you can actually learn a lot about the small things about social interactions and conversational arcs watching sitcoms, than you would sitting in a social etiquette class.
I've noticed this effect is especially strong among non-native English speakers who watched English sitcoms. Their vocabulary, cadence of speech etc are much more natural sounding compared to others who weren't familiar with any TV shows here beyond news programs.
Because Friends is also a global hit, and popular among a generation of teens and 20s, people who weren't born when the show first aired, you can actually learn a lot about the small things about social interactions and conversational arcs watching sitcoms, than you would sitting in a social etiquette class.
I've noticed this effect is especially strong among non-native English speakers who watched English sitcoms. Their vocabulary, cadence of speech etc are much more natural sounding compared to others who weren't familiar with any TV shows here beyond news programs.
Yes, you can train your vocabulary and improve your foreign language skills by listening to people talking it.
I am not a comedian, so I do not know how exactly you can make yourself funnier, but I have a very strong suspicion that you do not become funnier yourself, by just listening to canned laughter, and that the fact that fake laughter is added to comedy shows is just to make the viewers like the show more. Listening to laughter causes most people to laugh too, even if they do not understand the cause for the laughter. For example https://youtu.be/wgzdb0txR_c?t=281 . It works with other emotions also - if someone watches or listens to an angry person, they will become somewhat angry too.
I am not a comedian, so I do not know how exactly you can make yourself funnier, but I have a very strong suspicion that you do not become funnier yourself, by just listening to canned laughter, and that the fact that fake laughter is added to comedy shows is just to make the viewers like the show more. Listening to laughter causes most people to laugh too, even if they do not understand the cause for the laughter. For example https://youtu.be/wgzdb0txR_c?t=281 . It works with other emotions also - if someone watches or listens to an angry person, they will become somewhat angry too.
I think you're making a mistake comparing 100 hours of a single game (Diablo) to an entire category of TV.
A more apt comparison would be comparing 100th hour of Diablo vs 100th hour of a single sitcom, which by then you may be on your second watchthrough and have already got everything out of it that you could.
A more apt comparison would be comparing 100th hour of Diablo vs 100th hour of a single sitcom, which by then you may be on your second watchthrough and have already got everything out of it that you could.
Perhaps 100 hours of slaying monsters in Diablo helps prepare a child for 40 hours a week performing menial tasks for the rest of their life?
If you made a "office space" kind of game, and it was something you could actually call a game, I wouldn't be surprised to see a community grow up around it as people discussed path prioritization, how to speed run the TPS reports level, and how the recent nerf to casual dress fridays have impacted the meta.
There's job simulator https://store.steampowered.com/app/448280/Job_Simulator/
Mailroom to CEO Let's Play (speedrun 100% achievement)
Diablo is orders of magnitude less successful than Fortnite (or even Overwatch, by the same company), and I'd argue the reason is exactly what you are talking about: it's just not a very good game and the things you can get out of it just aren't that valuable. Overwhelmingly people choose more teamwork based, deeply social games. This is what the numbers say.
A second premise I want to address is the idea that using games (or movies or books or whatever) as a mind numbing distraction is a waste of time or the fault of the escape itself. Tons of people are dealing with really intense trauma, and it's not really clear that there really is a better short term alternative for stress management. I think if people are doing things like slashing monsters for 100 hours in Diablo don't look at Diablo, look at what's going on in the rest of their life. Because you can take away Diablo, but you if you aren't fixing what makes them play a shitty game as a distraction for 100 hours you haven't really helped them at all.
Finally: tons of people run pathologically. I mean basically anyone who is serious about the sport does more damage to themselves than is necessary, and runs far more than the optimal amount. I don't think running is exactly the same as gaming, but it's worth examining why we as a culture have no problem discussing Larry's second hip replacement from running 10 miles a day but tremble when discussing Larry's son's 10th hour this week playing Fortnite.
A second premise I want to address is the idea that using games (or movies or books or whatever) as a mind numbing distraction is a waste of time or the fault of the escape itself. Tons of people are dealing with really intense trauma, and it's not really clear that there really is a better short term alternative for stress management. I think if people are doing things like slashing monsters for 100 hours in Diablo don't look at Diablo, look at what's going on in the rest of their life. Because you can take away Diablo, but you if you aren't fixing what makes them play a shitty game as a distraction for 100 hours you haven't really helped them at all.
Finally: tons of people run pathologically. I mean basically anyone who is serious about the sport does more damage to themselves than is necessary, and runs far more than the optimal amount. I don't think running is exactly the same as gaming, but it's worth examining why we as a culture have no problem discussing Larry's second hip replacement from running 10 miles a day but tremble when discussing Larry's son's 10th hour this week playing Fortnite.
I lost around 2.5 years to World of Warcraft, I'm talking 12-14 hours per day over that period. This is over a decade ago and my mum still talks about the wasted time and she hates the name of that game. She doesn't realise that without that escape I wasn't far off suicide. That addiction gave me enough time to sort out my life and figure things out. I'm in my 30's now and I truly love my life and I have for a number of years.
Thanks for sharing and glad to hear you're doing better now.
> She doesn't realise that without that escape I wasn't far off suicide. That addiction gave me enough time to sort out my life and figure things out.
This is huge! I always think about stuff like this when people dismiss "entertainment."
> She doesn't realise that without that escape I wasn't far off suicide. That addiction gave me enough time to sort out my life and figure things out.
This is huge! I always think about stuff like this when people dismiss "entertainment."
No worries, I feel it's important to talk about mental health issues. You never know what others are dealing with and sharing might make them see that things can get better.
> Finally: tons of people run pathologically. I mean basically anyone who is serious about the sport does more damage to themselves than is necessary, and runs far more than the optimal amount. I don't think running is exactly the same as gaming, but it's worth examining why we as a culture have no problem discussing Larry's second hip replacement from running 10 miles a day but tremble when discussing Larry's son's 10th hour this week playing Fortnite.
Speaking as someone who runs quite a lot, I would be very interested in seeing you quantify this point and cite supporting research.
In particular, I am skeptical you can find a peer reviewed study which suggests there exists a causal link between running n miles per day and requiring hip replacements later in life. Likewise, what is the "optimal amount" of running you speak of? And for what purpose is that amount optimal?
To put it bluntly I think you're choosing the wrong activity for the "you can get addicted to anything" argument. I don't have an issue with that idea in the abstract, but I think you'll have a very difficult time mounting a persuasive argument using the idea that most serious runners are "pathological" - unless, of course, you presuppose the idea that doing things pathologically isn't unhealthy.
EDIT: Here is a study which directly contradicts your claim about excessive running and hip replacement[1]. The ~75,000 respondents under study demonstrated a reduced risk for osteoarthritis and hip replacement.
_____________________
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23377837/
Speaking as someone who runs quite a lot, I would be very interested in seeing you quantify this point and cite supporting research.
In particular, I am skeptical you can find a peer reviewed study which suggests there exists a causal link between running n miles per day and requiring hip replacements later in life. Likewise, what is the "optimal amount" of running you speak of? And for what purpose is that amount optimal?
To put it bluntly I think you're choosing the wrong activity for the "you can get addicted to anything" argument. I don't have an issue with that idea in the abstract, but I think you'll have a very difficult time mounting a persuasive argument using the idea that most serious runners are "pathological" - unless, of course, you presuppose the idea that doing things pathologically isn't unhealthy.
EDIT: Here is a study which directly contradicts your claim about excessive running and hip replacement[1]. The ~75,000 respondents under study demonstrated a reduced risk for osteoarthritis and hip replacement.
_____________________
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23377837/
I mean pathological from a death avoidance stand point. For instance, if you are a marathon runner you are running far more than is necessary to contribute to a longer life span. I'm not a runner, but as a weight lifter I lift far more weight than is necessary to contribute to injury or death avoidance. That is the nature of sport. I don't know any old athletes who don't have pretty banged up bodies.
I don't have peer reviewed research about hip replacement and number of miles per day, that comment was a bit more rhetorical than the way you are engaging with it, but I can give you peer reviewed evidence for heart damage: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3119133/
I don't have peer reviewed research about hip replacement and number of miles per day, that comment was a bit more rhetorical than the way you are engaging with it, but I can give you peer reviewed evidence for heart damage: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3119133/
That's a fair citation, however it comes with a caveat: while myocardial fibrosis (MF) is traditionally associated with an increased risk for arrhythmia and cardiac arrest due to muscle stiffness, this association is less clear in runners. The overall relationship between running and cardiac health is extremely positive, and more recent[1] research from the Mayo Clinic does not make the claim that MF incidence in high endurance athletes specifically indicates the same danger it does in non-active individuals. It treats it as an under-studied phenomenon to be sure, but calling it "damage" is not nuanced enough given the available data.
__________
1. https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(16)...
__________
1. https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(16)...
Sure I can buy all that, but It's Complicated, and I'm sure you know some runners who are running when they shouldn't be. For instance, I know of someone who had both hips replaced at the age of 25. This was probably primarily due to a genetic predisposition to developing OA, but the earliness and extremity of the onset were obviously impacted by excessive (5-10 miles 2x a day) running, which she continued against doctors orders. I'm not trying to damn an entire hobby: my point is exactly the opposite. People cope with being alive in a variety of ways, and most of those ways hurt you if not kept in balance. We shouldn't vilify video games just like we shouldn't vilify running.
Playing video games for 16 hours a day will have substantially more health detriments than anything a runner will do.
I have a hard time thinking of anything you can do for 16 hours a day without having detriments to your health. If you think about it this is probably at least one big contributing factor to the evolutionary benefit of sleeping 1/3 of our lives.
So will running 16 hours a day.
How many people can run for 16 hours a day? What % of the population? .00000000000000001%?
What % of the population can play video games for 16 hours a day?
So again, video game addiction is substantially worse than a running addiction, for the vast majority of people and in far worse ways. You all can play games as you please, the facts are plain.
What % of the population can play video games for 16 hours a day?
So again, video game addiction is substantially worse than a running addiction, for the vast majority of people and in far worse ways. You all can play games as you please, the facts are plain.
> What % of the population can play video games for 16 hours a day?
Honestly not a ton. It's really really difficult. Even pros struggle with substantially fewer hours than this.
> video game addiction is substantially worse than a running addiction
I'm not really convinced that's true. I don't know anyone who has torn a meniscus or developed arthritis playing video games. While mostly people who run don't develop a pathological relationship with running I stand by my argument that it's completely possible, and the effects on your body are comparably damaging, though in different ways. People also don't usually play video games for 16 hours a day, but sure, it happens. I think balance is required no matter what you are doing, even if the raw number of hours may be different.
Let's broaden the discussion a little bit: think about how uncomfortable most adults are right now with e-sports, but glorify regular sports. That's fine, I have no problem with regular sports, but it's far from uncommon to hear something like "I just don't get it: my son actually enjoys watching other people play video games, what is the world coming to?" That same parent will then sit down and watch other people throw a ball around, and then sigh and shake their head as the announcers discuss yet another veteran of the sport who regularly forgets his wife's name or where he is. Being an elite athlete in any sport completely fucks you up, and yet we choose to ignore that and focus on the insane displays of superhuman ability.
The larger point here is that any activity can be done pathologically, even, in some ways especially, the ones we glorify the most. A lot of our choice to focus on the positives of one activity and the negatives of another largely come down to personal taste.
Honestly not a ton. It's really really difficult. Even pros struggle with substantially fewer hours than this.
> video game addiction is substantially worse than a running addiction
I'm not really convinced that's true. I don't know anyone who has torn a meniscus or developed arthritis playing video games. While mostly people who run don't develop a pathological relationship with running I stand by my argument that it's completely possible, and the effects on your body are comparably damaging, though in different ways. People also don't usually play video games for 16 hours a day, but sure, it happens. I think balance is required no matter what you are doing, even if the raw number of hours may be different.
Let's broaden the discussion a little bit: think about how uncomfortable most adults are right now with e-sports, but glorify regular sports. That's fine, I have no problem with regular sports, but it's far from uncommon to hear something like "I just don't get it: my son actually enjoys watching other people play video games, what is the world coming to?" That same parent will then sit down and watch other people throw a ball around, and then sigh and shake their head as the announcers discuss yet another veteran of the sport who regularly forgets his wife's name or where he is. Being an elite athlete in any sport completely fucks you up, and yet we choose to ignore that and focus on the insane displays of superhuman ability.
The larger point here is that any activity can be done pathologically, even, in some ways especially, the ones we glorify the most. A lot of our choice to focus on the positives of one activity and the negatives of another largely come down to personal taste.
You are 100% right in that it is the social aspects of games is where people spend most of their time. When I decided to slow down the amount of time playing games, by restricting myself to either single player games (that once you are finished you are done with it) or multiplayer games where I wouldn't communicate with other people, I just don't have as much of an urge to play as I used to.
Even people that devote incredible amount of times to single player games, for instance, speed runners, the fact is that there is a community around doing that. Without that community, there would be way less people speedrunning.
Even people that devote incredible amount of times to single player games, for instance, speed runners, the fact is that there is a community around doing that. Without that community, there would be way less people speedrunning.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> I can't see a single valueable thing about that 100th hour of playing Diablo - it's a pure time waster.
I wasted a lot of time playing Diablo II in college; but most of that was in a social context; is playing grindy games with friends that bad?
> It's not great for an adult, but especially bad for a child/teenager, which should be growing instead of wasting time.
You can't / shouldn't try to schedule all of a child's time to avoid any waste. For one thing, wasting time is a skill that needs to be developed -- there is so much boredom and drudgery in life that is unavoidable, learning how to deal with that requires practice and doing boring, wasteful things. But also, having some amount of mindless time in your day or week allows you to decompress and relax. Diablo probably isn't the best way, but it's alright. Caveat: I only played a lot of Diablo 1 and 2, maybe 3 was worse; when I tried to play it in Beta, I realized I had no real desire to run around and click on everything anymore.
I wasted a lot of time playing Diablo II in college; but most of that was in a social context; is playing grindy games with friends that bad?
> It's not great for an adult, but especially bad for a child/teenager, which should be growing instead of wasting time.
You can't / shouldn't try to schedule all of a child's time to avoid any waste. For one thing, wasting time is a skill that needs to be developed -- there is so much boredom and drudgery in life that is unavoidable, learning how to deal with that requires practice and doing boring, wasteful things. But also, having some amount of mindless time in your day or week allows you to decompress and relax. Diablo probably isn't the best way, but it's alright. Caveat: I only played a lot of Diablo 1 and 2, maybe 3 was worse; when I tried to play it in Beta, I realized I had no real desire to run around and click on everything anymore.
> It's rare to see a real impassioned defense of gaming outside of "it's not that bad" but I'd like to go out and say it had a hugely positive impact on my life and I think it's really doubtful I'd be where I am today without gaming.
I owe my entire career to gaming. Shadowrun on the Sega Genesis made me want to be a hacker, EverQuest hacking turned me from a mediocre (at best) web dev to a competent reverse-engineer, and my first serious startup came about because I wanted to play Oblivion on OS X. Every huge leap in my technical abilities came about because of games; I wouldn't be anywhere near where I am today without the pushes that these amazing works of art gave me.
I owe my entire career to gaming. Shadowrun on the Sega Genesis made me want to be a hacker, EverQuest hacking turned me from a mediocre (at best) web dev to a competent reverse-engineer, and my first serious startup came about because I wanted to play Oblivion on OS X. Every huge leap in my technical abilities came about because of games; I wouldn't be anywhere near where I am today without the pushes that these amazing works of art gave me.
Out of curiosity, what was the startup doing and did you ever get Oblivion running at a 100% similar experience to native? (Bethesda bugs and all)
I created a system to convert Windows binaries to native Linux/OS X binaries and wrote my own implementation of a ton of Win32 APIs. Never did get Oblivion running, but did run several other games, most notably Prey. Eventually pivoted to implementing DX10 for Linux/Mac/Windows XP (back when Vista was the only one with it), and then the company died a little while later for unrelated reasons. You can read a postmortem here: https://daeken.dev/blog/2009-12-27_Alky_Postmortem.html
Shadowrun was an amazing game.
Whenever I mention it these days people think of the FPS.
Whenever I mention it these days people think of the FPS.
The thing that sets video games (and social media) apart from these other things that you mention is that they are far more updatable, and not surprisingly this attribute is taken advantage of for good and for ill. The ill of course being that they are able to be updated in such a way that they hack your attention / biology ever more efficiently over time. This doesn't happen with chess, reading, or running. At least, not without these activities becoming intermediated by updatable technology. Which IS happening, but still, not as much.
I think this may be one of the reasons why I've trended away from many internet-connected games as of late. I get the feeling that they're really just Skinner boxes under the hood.
Maybe I'm just a curmudgeoney old man (though I'm only 26), but older games just have this more genuine feel. They play the way they play, and while they often have rough edges, I don't get the same sense that they're trying hard to keep the player engaged. I get this nagging feeling that modern "games as a service" have this relationship with the player where they keep them engaged enough to be sucked in but refuse to have a cathartic conclusion. I've grown to appreciate games that end and say "that's all folks".
Maybe I'm just a curmudgeoney old man (though I'm only 26), but older games just have this more genuine feel. They play the way they play, and while they often have rough edges, I don't get the same sense that they're trying hard to keep the player engaged. I get this nagging feeling that modern "games as a service" have this relationship with the player where they keep them engaged enough to be sucked in but refuse to have a cathartic conclusion. I've grown to appreciate games that end and say "that's all folks".
I’ve felt the same and I grew up with those older games (I’m 35). There are still some greats coming out but you have to seek them out and filter out a lot of games these days to find them.
If you are interested in game design and more on what makes a great “that’s all folks” game, check out “Theory of Fun” by Raph Koster.
If you are interested in game design and more on what makes a great “that’s all folks” game, check out “Theory of Fun” by Raph Koster.
Indeed, AAA games are designed like you explained on purpose.
However, let's not put every game in the same bag. A shootout to all indie games that simply make games that start and end.
However, let's not put every game in the same bag. A shootout to all indie games that simply make games that start and end.
From the OP itself:
> So, I'd suggest re-framing the question. "Will playing Fortnite cause my child (or me) quantifiable harm?" is not the only question we should be asking. Given what is usually meant by that question, the answer is almost always "no." But, in addition to that question, we might also ask how playing Fortnite figures into our pursuit of the good life, individually and as members of distinct moral communities. Answers will vary, of course, and they will most likely be conveyed by narratives rather than statistics. I suspect they will also be less sensational and more nuanced than the answers the first question tends to get. Moreover, the latter question and the answers that follow will not elicit simple and programmatic action points, rather they will elicit the deployment of practical wisdom.
> So, I'd suggest re-framing the question. "Will playing Fortnite cause my child (or me) quantifiable harm?" is not the only question we should be asking. Given what is usually meant by that question, the answer is almost always "no." But, in addition to that question, we might also ask how playing Fortnite figures into our pursuit of the good life, individually and as members of distinct moral communities. Answers will vary, of course, and they will most likely be conveyed by narratives rather than statistics. I suspect they will also be less sensational and more nuanced than the answers the first question tends to get. Moreover, the latter question and the answers that follow will not elicit simple and programmatic action points, rather they will elicit the deployment of practical wisdom.
>The good life as members of distinct moral communities ... I suspect [answers] will also be less sensational and more nuanced
I really don't know about that. Defining "The good life as a member of a distinct moral community" has lead to all sorts of sensational moral panics of the past. i.e. "what kind of good Christian plays D&D"?
I really don't know about that. Defining "The good life as a member of a distinct moral community" has lead to all sorts of sensational moral panics of the past. i.e. "what kind of good Christian plays D&D"?
I went through something similar to the author once, where I looked back on all the time I spent playing games in my youth and thought “wow, what a waste!”
What I came to realise, however, (after reading about Self Determination Theory) was that I likely spent so much of my time playing games because it was the only way for me to experience autonomy and competency as a young adult. I had no other way of meeting those needs.
Games taught me that if I practice at something, I can get better. They gave me a world I could exercise control over when everything else in my life was determined by school and my parents.
If you know someone who you think plays too many games, look to see if they have any other ways of meeting those basic human needs for autonomy, competence, and social interaction. If their lives are deficient in one or all of those areas, games can be a lifesaver.
What I came to realise, however, (after reading about Self Determination Theory) was that I likely spent so much of my time playing games because it was the only way for me to experience autonomy and competency as a young adult. I had no other way of meeting those needs.
Games taught me that if I practice at something, I can get better. They gave me a world I could exercise control over when everything else in my life was determined by school and my parents.
If you know someone who you think plays too many games, look to see if they have any other ways of meeting those basic human needs for autonomy, competence, and social interaction. If their lives are deficient in one or all of those areas, games can be a lifesaver.
This essay spends a bit of time trying to figure out whether we should discuss how "harmful" video games are vs. "how virtuous" they make us. The "opportunity cost" approach my parents had seems much more effective to me--"alright, you need to turn that off now. There are so many other interesting things you could be doing right now."
I think people are heavily biased towards what looks interesting to an outside observer. A child sat at a desk all day starting at a glowing screen looks like some kind of soulless zombie.
"Screens bad! Go outside and play!"
The child might be doing something mindless, or might be involved in something fascinating - creating or participating in elaborate and vibrant virtual worlds.
I think parents should seek a healthy balance for their children. But that means understanding what's happening and what it means and not trying to promote activities because of how they look on the outside. A child riding his bike around the neighborhood probably looks better to modern sensibilities than one staring at a screen, but I don't know why bike riding should be considered superior to building a world in Minecraft as an example.
"Screens bad! Go outside and play!"
The child might be doing something mindless, or might be involved in something fascinating - creating or participating in elaborate and vibrant virtual worlds.
I think parents should seek a healthy balance for their children. But that means understanding what's happening and what it means and not trying to promote activities because of how they look on the outside. A child riding his bike around the neighborhood probably looks better to modern sensibilities than one staring at a screen, but I don't know why bike riding should be considered superior to building a world in Minecraft as an example.
> I don't know why bike riding should be considered superior to building a world in Minecraft as an example.
Nothing against fortnite, but we are animals with bodies, not brains in a jar.
This is why I'd say that riding a bike around¹ is more valuable than playing fortnite.
1: And bike riding can be a group thing as well. When I was a kid,we dirt jumped and mountain biked on the local trails a lot, which was immensely fun.
Nothing against fortnite, but we are animals with bodies, not brains in a jar.
This is why I'd say that riding a bike around¹ is more valuable than playing fortnite.
1: And bike riding can be a group thing as well. When I was a kid,we dirt jumped and mountain biked on the local trails a lot, which was immensely fun.
> Nothing against fortnite, but we are animals with bodies, not brains in a jar.
If you truly believe that, then quit your office job and take a more physical, human occupation.
If you truly believe that, then quit your office job and take a more physical, human occupation.
I don't have a physical occupation now,but every other waking minute I do physical things as much as I can.
I used to work farm labour when I was younger, never slept so well in my life.
I used to work farm labour when I was younger, never slept so well in my life.
> we are animals with bodies, not brains in a jar.
Speak (emphasize?) for yourself; I'm software that happens to be installed on a meat-puppet.
Speak (emphasize?) for yourself; I'm software that happens to be installed on a meat-puppet.
As much as we might like it to be different, the condition we keep our meat-puppets in and how vigorously we use them has great effects on the performance of our software.
The problem isn't so much the game itself, but the negative health effects from being sedentary and/or evading actual life responsibilities to play games (ie. choosing to not work and play games if playing games isn't providing income).
Also, there's the question of whether playing games provides any long term, useful skills which I'd argue they really don't. But I guess it depends on whether your career path is in gaming or not.
There aren't a lot of activities a person could, theoretically, engage in in public view without getting in some kind of trouble, that look as gross as staring at a screen alone. Any time I catch a glimpse of myself doing it, in a mirror in a video or whatever, I cringe. There's something really icky about it.
The key seems to be catching a view of someone at a computer or in front of a TV or whatever but not also being able to see what's on the screen. It's chilling and creepy for reasons I can't quite put my finger on. Maybe it is just the "zombie" factor, I dunno.
The key seems to be catching a view of someone at a computer or in front of a TV or whatever but not also being able to see what's on the screen. It's chilling and creepy for reasons I can't quite put my finger on. Maybe it is just the "zombie" factor, I dunno.
That just sounds like you've internalized some amount of the shame without knowing it.
Dunno, I've seen the same reaction from a lot of people seeing themselves at a computer for the first time. A kind of frowny "ew." Those of us who use webcams a lot are probably getting over it, but I bet it's still a normal sentiment for everyone else.
> There aren't a lot of activities a person could, theoretically, engage in in public view without getting in some kind of trouble, that look as gross as staring at a screen alone.
Staring at someone staring at a screen? Yelling at someone staring at a screen?
Neither of those are technically alone, but that's the point: Bothering someone else is infinitely worse than... you know... not.
Staring at someone staring at a screen? Yelling at someone staring at a screen?
Neither of those are technically alone, but that's the point: Bothering someone else is infinitely worse than... you know... not.
What? I'm considering why we find "screen time" especially distasteful. It just looks bad, for some reason. Worse than someone lounging and reading, worse than a person running or playing a sport, and so on. It's an unsettling activity to watch, and catching a glimpse of oneself doing it is particularly creepy. I don't think I wrote anything about yelling at people. Did I?
[EDIT] I think "using a computer" posture especially is the worst. Something about sitting upright at a desk or table using a computer is really weird. Like the person's body's subservient to the activity, while also being kind of absent from the whole thing. It's much worse than bending-neck-to-use-a-cellphone or slouching-on-couch-playing-console-games look.
[EDIT] I think "using a computer" posture especially is the worst. Something about sitting upright at a desk or table using a computer is really weird. Like the person's body's subservient to the activity, while also being kind of absent from the whole thing. It's much worse than bending-neck-to-use-a-cellphone or slouching-on-couch-playing-console-games look.
You're basing your argument on a false premise: Staring at a screen isn't uniquely terrible.
Macular degeration is associated with staring at computer screens excessively.
"Stop that or you'll go blind!" is a common refrain from the people scared of anything other people like.
The studies are real, your snide comment aside. Blue light is damaging and a causal relationship with macular degneration is well established.
Well, there is the physical health aspect, though the gradually increasing popularity of VR may help somewhat with that. Beatsaber is a heck of an arm workout, and VR shooty games involve a lot of squats to stay behind imaginary cover.
Sitting and staring at a screen all day is unquestionable bad for your health, from damage to your sight, to damage to your body, to hormone interference.
There is not much positive to say about sitting in front of a screen all day as a person, less so as a child.
There is not much positive to say about sitting in front of a screen all day as a person, less so as a child.
Yeah, I realised that a big problem is that for a person next to me, I look the same whether I play a game, read a book, learn something, chat with someone... I'm pretty sure what looks like a generic "spends time on the phone" is not a great idea for kids. When I have mine, I'm going to have to make an effort to go back to physical books at least and do things like learning something on a big visible screen, rather than privately on a mobile.
+1 as with most things, the dose makes the poison.
In my experience, there are either two parts of the brain or two personalities within you that constantly feed on one another.
For example, when you start playing World of Warcraft again, and a week later it feels like you are a crack addict who needs 10+ hours every day. But the game feels great. It feels great until you hit a wall either in-game or in real life.
And the younger you are, the more difficult it is to hit either of those walls. Last year I hit a bit of a slump in my life and had a few 'dark' months, so I downloaded WoW right around the time of when the new expansion was coming out.
Not only did I realize that Blizzard has surgically removed the "soul" of the game (for whatever reason), I also realized that my conscience can't really keep up with the game for that long.
For example, when you start playing World of Warcraft again, and a week later it feels like you are a crack addict who needs 10+ hours every day. But the game feels great. It feels great until you hit a wall either in-game or in real life.
And the younger you are, the more difficult it is to hit either of those walls. Last year I hit a bit of a slump in my life and had a few 'dark' months, so I downloaded WoW right around the time of when the new expansion was coming out.
Not only did I realize that Blizzard has surgically removed the "soul" of the game (for whatever reason), I also realized that my conscience can't really keep up with the game for that long.
As we've worked on Hubs at Mozilla it's beginning to feel like we're one of what will become several key mechanisms for introducing avatar embodiment into our lives. There are a number of trends (VR, gaming, etc) pointing in this direction so it seems like wrangling with the moral questions around remote embodiment will become more and more prevalent.
Really, games are like any other piece of media. Engage with them passively, and uncritically and one won't get much value out of it. Engage with them actively and they can have a positive impact.
My parents didn't really care what media I consumed but cared more about how I consumed it. Plenty of games have the potential to explore and foster interesting experiences. I've learned a lot through games. In fact I'd say that two of the most important things I've learned I've learned through games: the importance of a strong work ethic, and discovering my passing for computer technology (which later led to a career in software development). Games can be mindless and intellectually numb. But the same could be said of any other piece of media.
Granted I am of the opinion that battle Royale games provide less than strategy games, and most RPGs but I am not nearly experienced enough in the BR genre to have much conviction in this opinion.
My parents didn't really care what media I consumed but cared more about how I consumed it. Plenty of games have the potential to explore and foster interesting experiences. I've learned a lot through games. In fact I'd say that two of the most important things I've learned I've learned through games: the importance of a strong work ethic, and discovering my passing for computer technology (which later led to a career in software development). Games can be mindless and intellectually numb. But the same could be said of any other piece of media.
Granted I am of the opinion that battle Royale games provide less than strategy games, and most RPGs but I am not nearly experienced enough in the BR genre to have much conviction in this opinion.
I think this comment is right on the mark. The core question parents should be asking is, how is my child engaging with the game? If it's a few hours of spending time with friends, great. Even if it's many more hours and they are engaging in a competitive manner that can be a rewarding experience. However I suspect that the much more common modality is a mixture of active and passive consumption, which can quickly become passive due to some elements of the current gaming environment. My personal experience with ~3K hours of Dota throughout high school and early college was highly mixed, with periods of intense engagement and many many more of mindless playing or watching twitch (outside of the 3K in-game hours).
I think that there are valid concerns to the high potential for passive time-sinking in these modern games which exist with an entire ecosystem of a competitive scene, streaming personalities, skins, friends, and more. There are healthy ways to engage with each of the elements of these ecosystems, but it is something that should be discussed and monitored.
I think that there are valid concerns to the high potential for passive time-sinking in these modern games which exist with an entire ecosystem of a competitive scene, streaming personalities, skins, friends, and more. There are healthy ways to engage with each of the elements of these ecosystems, but it is something that should be discussed and monitored.
I think most games have orthogonal twitch and strategy components. All games of course have some strategy -- even decided games like Checkers have the optimal strategy, along side unoptimal ones.
There are "action" games (high twitch) that have very high strategic content. The kicker is that sometimes twitch can serve as a ceiling for strategy. That is, below a certain twitch level, some strategies are not viable or available. Games with very low twitch minimize this, like turn-based RPGs and strategy games. But even StarCraft requires high twitch (aka unit micro) to execute some strategies!
There are "action" games (high twitch) that have very high strategic content. The kicker is that sometimes twitch can serve as a ceiling for strategy. That is, below a certain twitch level, some strategies are not viable or available. Games with very low twitch minimize this, like turn-based RPGs and strategy games. But even StarCraft requires high twitch (aka unit micro) to execute some strategies!
Even ostensibly twitch based games have a lot of strategy. 2D fighters have tons of strategy, so do games like * Souls. Stealth games also require good strategy and spacial reasoning coupled with strong execution.
There seems to be at least some objective criteria for good and bad uses of time. In general, almost everyone has the same set of needs in order to flourish, and the same requirements to meet those needs. So, uses of time that better fit the general requirements for flourishing are objectively better. For example, everyone needs to be healthy, and subsisting on a diet consisting entirely of candy is unlikely to be healthy for the general population (although I did hear about a guy living only on Mars bars).
With video games, while we minimize the importance of geography due to virtualization, geographically located communities seems to be the most beneficial for our social wellbeing. From a purely evolutionary viewpoint, we cannot reproduce virtually (yet!). Sinking all of one's time into online games and relationships will diminish our ability to develop geographical communities.
On the other hand, it's wrong to write off video games altogether. As an artistic medium, they are pretty unique and their true potential has yet to be realized. I think the indie scene is great in this regard. And exposure to great art is essential for human flourishing.
With video games, while we minimize the importance of geography due to virtualization, geographically located communities seems to be the most beneficial for our social wellbeing. From a purely evolutionary viewpoint, we cannot reproduce virtually (yet!). Sinking all of one's time into online games and relationships will diminish our ability to develop geographical communities.
On the other hand, it's wrong to write off video games altogether. As an artistic medium, they are pretty unique and their true potential has yet to be realized. I think the indie scene is great in this regard. And exposure to great art is essential for human flourishing.
> From a purely evolutionary viewpoint, we cannot reproduce virtually (yet!)
Sperm donation and IVF is quite virtual already.
Sperm donation and IVF is quite virtual already.
The worst part about playing video games is you get a brain full of lots of totally useless video game trivia. When I realized that programming was almost as fun as playing video games I just did that instead. Even the most aimless screwing around programming will have a better long term impact on one's life than videogaming IMHO.
Video games are fine, but as I tell my sons, there's a huge difference between learning how to play guitar and learning how to play Guitar Hero. Virtual worlds are fine to engage with, but those accomplishments are virtual and ephemeral, while real world skills remain with you.
I'm sure you're well-intentioned and want what's best for your kids, but I'm going to push back a bit. My ability to play video games in general has improved over the years, and for me it's a source of pleasure. It's not ephemeral because many of the games I play now have the same mechanics as the ones I played when I was a kid.
People like listening to guitar, but there are also a lot of people who love watching others play videogames on sites like Twitch. Of course both playing videogames and playing guitar professionally aren't a realistic goal for most people.
People like listening to guitar, but there are also a lot of people who love watching others play videogames on sites like Twitch. Of course both playing videogames and playing guitar professionally aren't a realistic goal for most people.
I don't think the amount of utility for guitar is the same as for video games.
I understand very few people get to be professional guitarists or gamers. However, after that there are rapidly decreasing returns for video games. Guitar can be a source of pleasure for people you meet. It's a far more interesting skill than playing video games decently well. Guitar challenges the brain more; its learning curve extends farther than any video game. Guitar opens up a world of creativity and improvisation, name me a video game that can provide something at that scale (I'm an avid gamer so I'm sure there are none). Plus, it can get you laid.
I just don't buy that playing video games can provide much benefit. It seems like a meager reason to justify a questionable habit.
I understand very few people get to be professional guitarists or gamers. However, after that there are rapidly decreasing returns for video games. Guitar can be a source of pleasure for people you meet. It's a far more interesting skill than playing video games decently well. Guitar challenges the brain more; its learning curve extends farther than any video game. Guitar opens up a world of creativity and improvisation, name me a video game that can provide something at that scale (I'm an avid gamer so I'm sure there are none). Plus, it can get you laid.
I just don't buy that playing video games can provide much benefit. It seems like a meager reason to justify a questionable habit.
Personally I would much rather watch someone play videogames than listen to someone play guitar, but that might be an unpopular opinion and I agree with you that actually writing music is more artistically creative than what you can do with the vast majority of videogames.
We can probably agree the type of game matter. To me the skill that people display when expertly playing a real-time strategy game is really interesting and takes a certain kind of tactical/strategic genius to do well. It is basically speed chess with a lot more rules and space for creativity.
You've definitely got a point that guitar probably is a better way to impress most of the ladies.
I just want to make the additional point that video games are how a lot of us began our interest in computers that later turned into a fulfilling career. Many people first experienced a command line while installing DOS games. The modern equivalent is probably modding PC games, which can take a lot of technical literacy depending on the game.
We can probably agree the type of game matter. To me the skill that people display when expertly playing a real-time strategy game is really interesting and takes a certain kind of tactical/strategic genius to do well. It is basically speed chess with a lot more rules and space for creativity.
You've definitely got a point that guitar probably is a better way to impress most of the ladies.
I just want to make the additional point that video games are how a lot of us began our interest in computers that later turned into a fulfilling career. Many people first experienced a command line while installing DOS games. The modern equivalent is probably modding PC games, which can take a lot of technical literacy depending on the game.
I'm not really a fan of that guy at the party who pulls out a guitar, but I'm always down to play some Guitar Hero with other skilled rhythm gamers.
Why? I love listening people play guitar live.
Is it because he makes you feel bad that you wasted your time playing video games instead of learning the real guitar?
Is it because he makes you feel bad that you wasted your time playing video games instead of learning the real guitar?
I'll try: it depends on the environment. With some people, grabbing a guitar and singing is an interactive time. With others, it's playing a game together. Sometimes they like only one side of that.
It's not about feeling bad or jealous. It's that playing a guitar in a room full of uninterested gamers would be as awkward as playing guitar hero in a party where nobody enjoys casual games.
It's not about feeling bad or jealous. It's that playing a guitar in a room full of uninterested gamers would be as awkward as playing guitar hero in a party where nobody enjoys casual games.
Why waste time with guitar when you can learn accordion like me? :-)
Unless you go pro, these are all leisure activities. Some are older than others and some get more traditional respect, but why is that important? I choose to learn an instrument, but I don't see an inherent reason why learning an instrument is better or worse than video games.
Unless you go pro, these are all leisure activities. Some are older than others and some get more traditional respect, but why is that important? I choose to learn an instrument, but I don't see an inherent reason why learning an instrument is better or worse than video games.
I play guitar and I'm similarly not a fan (most of the time). Someone drunkenly fumbling through wonderwall or whatever in an attempt to impress is not interesting.
I used to play MMORPGs in high school. You learn a lot about business, focus, and prioritization with video games. Sure, these are ephemeral worlds, but you are still learning and things you learn stick with you.
And what if you spent your life learning in other venues, could not still learn these things?
Sure, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Either way, you'll know how to skin a cat.
Love this article but take issue with this statement: "The experience of place is an irreducibly embodied experience.". The author moderates it by pointing out that there is a physical experience of gaming, but I think this misses the point that we don't yet know the limits of virtual experiences.
There is a similar attitude when folks insist that robotic embodiment is required for AI, or that AI structures must mimic the human brain to achieve "real" intelligence. I think these attitudes, by trying to draw a bright line, lead people to consistently underestimate how powerful new media can be.
There is a similar attitude when folks insist that robotic embodiment is required for AI, or that AI structures must mimic the human brain to achieve "real" intelligence. I think these attitudes, by trying to draw a bright line, lead people to consistently underestimate how powerful new media can be.
Maybe we should just tell kids to watch TV. Wait...
How is TV a defense of videogames?
"I can't quite claim that playing hours of Mortal Kombat, most of those socializing with friends, was good."
I played a lot of Street Figher on the SNES, always loved it, always played or some time with friend and then do something else. I don't think it was bad?
I played a lot of Street Figher on the SNES, always loved it, always played or some time with friend and then do something else. I don't think it was bad?
Interesting article. I like the re-framing of questioning gaming (and other uses of technology) from the basis of what it adds rather than what it subtracts.
I believe there is value in gaming. There's value in storytelling, in mastering small skills, and in the positive feedback of progression. There's value in shared experiences and in the communities that spring up within and around games.
My own struggle is with the diminishing returns. The "danger" of games to me, such as they are, is not in the value-per-unit-of-time ratio, but rather in the total amount of time that they can suck up. It's not hard at all to spend hundreds of hours in games. For me, if I take any given hour of gaming and compare it to an hour of something else I could have been doing, I'm quite happy to have spent it gaming. But when I take the sum of that time over a year, or a lifetime, and compare it to other pursuits, that's when I start to question it in my own life.
tl;dr: the "danger" of gaming to me is not in the content of games, or in gaming not having anything to add to someone's life, but rather in the fact that, for many people, gaming seems uniquely able to suck up so much time -- much more so than what it ultimately adds.
I believe there is value in gaming. There's value in storytelling, in mastering small skills, and in the positive feedback of progression. There's value in shared experiences and in the communities that spring up within and around games.
My own struggle is with the diminishing returns. The "danger" of games to me, such as they are, is not in the value-per-unit-of-time ratio, but rather in the total amount of time that they can suck up. It's not hard at all to spend hundreds of hours in games. For me, if I take any given hour of gaming and compare it to an hour of something else I could have been doing, I'm quite happy to have spent it gaming. But when I take the sum of that time over a year, or a lifetime, and compare it to other pursuits, that's when I start to question it in my own life.
tl;dr: the "danger" of gaming to me is not in the content of games, or in gaming not having anything to add to someone's life, but rather in the fact that, for many people, gaming seems uniquely able to suck up so much time -- much more so than what it ultimately adds.
The point about Fortnite basically being a real place is very astute.
This is just some guy commenting on a New York Times article. The actual article is better.[1]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/opinion/sunday/fortnite-s...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/opinion/sunday/fortnite-s...
There may be opportunity cost, but you can't beat something with nothing. Whatever activity you think is a "waste of time" needs to be compared with something specific that's allegedly better.
What, specifically, should the kids playing too much Fortnite be doing more of? Encourage them to do that.
What, specifically, should the kids playing too much Fortnite be doing more of? Encourage them to do that.
I play Fortnite almost every day for varying reasons:
- I have adult customers who like playing/talking with someone who makes what they buy.
- I have former colleagues I talk to and catch up with.
- I have gaming friends who want someone whose competitive to play with.
- I use it to decompress for the day... or add a ton of stress, depending on whether I can "edit my builds" fast enough for the dub.
tl;dr: From my perspective, Fortnite is a social network.
- I have adult customers who like playing/talking with someone who makes what they buy.
- I have former colleagues I talk to and catch up with.
- I have gaming friends who want someone whose competitive to play with.
- I use it to decompress for the day... or add a ton of stress, depending on whether I can "edit my builds" fast enough for the dub.
tl;dr: From my perspective, Fortnite is a social network.
I'm curious what kind of business do you do where Fortnite is a significant way to interact with your customers?
I wouldn't say it's significant. It's a handful of customers who play occasionally. No where near as much as I do.
I run a support bot business.
I run a support bot business.
Weird flex, but ok.
Someone like Prince Harry saying that Fortnite is a waste of time, is seriously damaging to the image someone might have of themselves playing it. I doubt Prince Harry has got the first clue, and his opinion of it being a waste of time is totally subjective.
It took me probably a decade until I realized that the large chunk of my teens I spent logged in to World of Warcraft were not a blemish on my life. The game had so much depth, it was incredibly challenging, and the social aspect was a huge part of it. My family and our societies negative view of the game encouraged a negative view of myself, seeing as I enjoyed it so much.
Of course you should encourage variety, but let your kid play the fuckin game!