h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

thank you Mrs Z, I think this is absolutely true, I didn't know that there are books about it, maybe worth buying and writing an Entry

I think all that outweighs that video games can cause aggressive thought patterns in some people which might lead to violent behaviour.

I came a cross reference to research which says that up to two hours of TV is good for the 2-3 year old age group, in the sense that it broadens their horizons and allows them to access worlds beyond their home life. Did better on tests and such than kids who weren't allowed TV. Had to be TV aimed at their age group and the effects lessened and reversed the older the child got.

Anyway. I thought that was interesting, and vauguely relevant to the topic of hotly debated areas of 'its bad for children'. Two hours is quite a lot, even if you spread it out. Although, of course, does this balance out the other research that says that TV is bad for toddler's eyes - messes with their foucsing muscles or something...

Or the one where TV makes them more agressive, probably in much the same way as one of those sets of study's Z quoted...

If TV makes them aggressive, they've probably been watching Tracy Beaker.

Mol

I've been known to shout at John Humphrys of a morning.

When I was living in a shared house, one of my housemates was a gamer. Some games (golf, especially) I just couldn't see the point of. But I've never seen the point of watching sport either, unless the players are cute. And as for people who play patience on the computer: get yourselves a deck of cards, people! (You can even get quarter-size packs for patience.)

Other games I'm a bit meh about. He was into Call of Duty. I never saw him doing the long campaigns that Hoo talks about, though. Just standard brief shooting. Not my thing. Other games might be, though, if I ever got around to them. Another chap I know online talks a lot about games, especially Mass Effect. And he talks a lot about moral choices, and the effects thereof. He seems to think it's a wonderfully designed game.



So, let's talk about Farmville. It's presented as a game, but it's actually a social obligation. It's not *fun*. Which is, sociologically, quite interesting. I saw an interesting analysis of it once.

I don't play Farmville either.



I don't do gaming and I don't do gadgets. I'm going to have to hand back my geek card, aren't I?

TRiG.

Had an example yesterday of how computer games can help relieve aggressive feelings, rather than causing them. I was rather annoyed by the news coverage of the homophobic Scottish cardinal and instead of kicking off, hurting myself or friends, I decided to boot up Civ 4.

Joao II started getting ideas above his station, threatening my mighty empire, and so I put the preening little princeling in his place (namely my dungeons). The lamentations of his womenfolk was a wonderful antidote to the stupidity on the telly.

Re: Farmville. Never played it, but for a while I was into a free online massively multiplayer strategy game called Travian. At first it was fascinating and stimulating, and I couldn't wait to play it more (it advanced in real time, so you tended to have to play it in spurts of five minutes each spaced hours apart).

I gave up when I found that all the time in between moves was spent calculating the optimum next move. I had spreadsheets going on. It had turned into work. And this for a game with a defined endpoint that I had no realistic prospect of "winning". Never played it since. Enjoyed it for most of the time I was playing it though.

The thing about Farmville is that the more friends you have in the game, the better you do. And that means that when you leave the game, you're hurting your friends chances. That's what makes it a social obligation.

TRiG.

If I want to play patience with cards, I have to clear space on a table first, which is immediately unappealing. And I also don't know that the patience may come out. Patience on the netbook I can do on my lap, and I know that every time I deal it's a winnable game if I do it right. And if I get it wrong, I can deal *exactly the same layout* again, and try another time. Can't do that with a deck of cards.

A deck of cards also doesn't calculate my win rate or keep a record of my highest score.



Mol

Not sure if anyone has covered addiction and gaming. Anyway here is something I have come across. Dr Hussain said: “It is widely accepted that technological addictions exist and can deeply affect people's lives.

"A behavioural addiction, like that to online computer games, is characterised not only by excessive game play but also compulsive or uncontrollable dependence on playing the game, to the degree that trying to stop can cause a person to experience severe psychological withdrawal reactions."
http://www.ntu.ac.uk/apps/News/116873-4/Study_finds_worrying_levels_of_gaming_addiction_worldwide.aspx

Well, to repeat my previous point about addiction. 'Addictiveness' is generally thought of as being a property of a substance or an activity which will potentially affect anyone regardless of who they are. That's clearly not the case with computer games. If they are addictive, then why aren't more people addicted? And by 'addicted' I don't just mean 'enjoy'. We don't normally talk of the soap opera fan as being addicted, or the football fan who watches five live matches or more of the course of a weekend.

I think the NTU research has to be understood in context. I'm sure it's good quality research, the conclusions are interesting, and the researchers' comments seem sensible.

However, it needs interpreting.

Firstly, it's about 'World of Warcraft', and only about WoW. WoW is an MMORPG, which means it's played online with others. In those types of games, players join together to form guilds/corporations to play together and coordinate activities. If an event is organised, there's social pressure to participate, to be there. Same as if you're in sports team and there's a match. Among MMORPGs, WoW is particularly adapt at producing 'winners' and progression and success, which partly explains its success. It's not for nothing that some players call it 'Warcrack'.

However.... it's the extreme example. No other MMORPG that I'm aware of produces winners and progression and feelings of accomplishment with very few losers in the way that WoW does. The other two MMORPGs I've played tend to have as many losers as winners. And not all computer games are MMORPGs. The games mentioned in this thread that aren't are generally single player experience. You log off and come back in a week, and nothing has changed, and you pick up where you left off.

Secondly.... they've recruited people from gaming forums. This will skew their sample (probably intentionally) towards serious, hardcore gamers, as casual gamers will tend not to frequent such forums regularly (or even at all) and probably won't be motivated to take part in the research.

Thirdly.... the questions mentioned in the article could equally well be posed to fans of soap opera and football.
"Have you become angry when you have been unable to play?"
"Do you fight with others (e.g. family) over the time spent playing on games?"
"Do you play games to forget about real life?"

A good article in today's Grauniad mag about 'Grand Theft Auto'. A couple of points:

Violence. NYPD officer on what he thinks of a game in which people drive around shooting cops. 'Well, some people do that in real life. We'd much rather they did it in computer games'.

Near the end of the article: the best games do storytelling - but they still do it very badly. We're still in the stone ages. They are *not* like Scorsese.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/mar/09/grand-theft-auto-bang-bang-youre-dead?INTCMP=SRCH

You'd say that. You've not just seen the best goddamn scientist in the whole galaxy sacrifice himself for the greater good. While there's nothing you can do to prevent it.

For the record, that's a Mass Effect 3 reference. It's not Scorsese. It's a space opera. Which puts it up against Star Wars.

Is the Mass Effect as good as the original trilogy? Probably not. Is it better than the Star Wars prequels at telling a story, teaching you about characters that you care about, and keeping you hooked? Undoubtedly.

Computer gaming is a 'new' medium for storytelling. It's alright saying it's been around for decades, but Pong, Mario, etc aren't stories. They're games.

Writing it off as a story telling medium would be like writing off cinema on the basis that Charlie Chaplain's work would never be as cerebral as Crime and Punishment.

Hey - I was just quoting the article. I don't have the experience to say whether it's accurate or relevant.

I'm just playing Donkey Kong 64 and it tells me the story of a monkey who tries to get back his stolen bananas... but no, really, some games are very good in telling a story. Other games don't have to tell stories, they're just fun.

I still don't understand the Angry Birds.
Some pigs stole their eggs so they commit
suicide by hurling themselves at the pig
fort, destroying the eggs in the process.
Is this an educational game offering insight
into the fruitlessness of suicide bombing?

~jwf~

Have you ever heard of 'The Willing Suspension of Disbelief'?

I'm not having anyone staring in disbelief at my willy suspension!

http://annarbor.com/news/crime/man-sent-to-hospital-after-being-punched-during-argument-about-books/

Yeah, it's games that cause violence.