Up, Up, Down, Down: Part Three 285
Younger Americans are used to being denounced as ignorant, violent, obsessive, even uncivilized. Increasingly, they don't care; they've stopped paying attention. Involvement in gaming can be seen as both manifestation and cause this schism, a profoundly significant force in culture and society. Gaming has affected almost everyone who grew up with it -- which is to say, just about half of the country.
Adults may quake at the transformation, but kids are completely at home with the joystick, the key to a new kind of civilization. "They take the powerful sensory presence and participatory formats of digital media for granted. They are impatient to see what comes next," writes Janet Murry of MIT.
How is the influence of gamers showing up in society? Hardly anyone has studed that systematically, but a decade of e-mailing, talking with, teaching, visiting and working with gamers has given me some impressions.
We know something about gamers. They're quick decision-makers, sometimes to the point of impulsiveness. Since their virtual lives depend on fast reactions, their real-life decision making processes become visceral, instinctive. Wishy-washy gamers are unsuccessful gamers, so gamers make a lot of quick decisions and feel confident about them. Therefore, gamers grow impatient when real world institutions and situations plod cluelessly along. Delayed decisions are costly.
Social stereotypes aside, gamers are team players, not loners. They may sit along at their consoles, but ultimately few game alone. They share strategies, tricks and accumulated wisdom on sites all over the Web. They learn to work in pairs and groups, anticipating their teammates' or partners' reactions, learning how to move, build, create and hunt in groups and packs, often with total strangers. When they do game with people they know, they can form powerful social bonds; they came to know their friends' intellects and instincts in unusual depth. (Check out this UC Berkeley study of Sims users.)
Gamers become strategic thinkers. Their imaginations have been continuously stretched. In the same way that chess players learn to think many moves ahead, gamers are always anticipating the games, their moves, and the moves of their teammates and opponents, virtual and human. In a way, gamers are more battle-tested in their decision-making than most people get to be.
And gamers are bringing much of what they've learned to the workplace:
Gareth e-mailed this message after Part One of "Up, Down ... appeared: ".. gaming has also inspired me to take ideas to the software engineers within [my] company. There are several increidle advances in game technology that could be directly applied to the corporate environment. For instance MMORPG's (Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games) have provided a system where people can virtualy interact while still mainting the visual cues that are required for large converstations to take place. This is a key component missing from the standard audio conferencing that occurs in the workplace. Visual cues are absolutely important for maintaining a sense of order during meetings, it prevents the vocal 'free for all' that occurs otherwise."
It seems inevitable that similiar kinds of ideas will be brought by gamers to educational environments, perhaps even politics.
Gamers are story-tellers. They inhabit increasingly imaginative virtual environments; they spent a substantial portion of their formative years interacting with stories, graphics and representations on screens that nearly become part of their neural systems. They are always telling tales, to one another and to themselves. In the mid-1990's computing power had become cheap enough so that companies like Silicon Graphics could build enormously powerful machines devoted to computer simulations, including their Reality Engine, which began to approach the long sought figure of 80 million polygons a second. Like the PS 2, the Reality Engine turned out to have a powerful impact on gaming and virtual reality.
Finally, gamers are smart. Again like chess players -- except that many video games are more complex -- gamers are often mentally over-stimulated. They can grow tense, keyed-up and narcissistic. They can also become obsessive (and yes, irritable) from focusing so intently on a narrative, character or conflict. Needless to say, they're competitive, as well as resourceful and extremely determined. Successful gaming requires a level of patience and commitment rarely associated with entertainment or, for that matter, education.
Kids of this generation will be different from any that has preceded them. But whether they will able to bridge the generational chasm that separated them from their elders, whether they apply their strategic thinking, creativity and problem-solving skills to our broken educational and political systems -- it's too soon to say.
The computer is the most powerful representational medium ever conceived. Seers like Murray have argued that computing should be put to the highest tasks of society. We know that gamers are the new prophets and story-tellers of society, that gaming is approaching a universal generational experience. So gamers are important. It seems clear that the future is in their hands.
not another stupid jon katz article (Score:1)
Re:Jon why do you do things like this.. (Score:1)
Yawn: lots of out-of-the-blue statements... (Score:1)
There are few studies of the effects of gaming, but some traits are increasingly obvious: gamers are often independent, strategic-thinkers and problem solvers.
How is this obvious if there are few studies into gamers? And besides, these traits are found often in non-gamers as well. Lets have some statistics here.
Gamers are the new artists, visionaries, and story-tellers of our time, sparked by astonishingly inventive new technologies like the PS 2. Ready or not, they will become increasingly influential.
Why? Show proof, or at least a line of reasoning.
Involvement in gaming can be seen as both manifestation and cause this schism, a profoundly significant force in culture and society. Gaming has affected almost everyone who grew up with it -- which is to say, just about half of the country.
So has frozen food.
Therefore, gamers grow impatient when real world institutions and situations plod cluelessly along.
So do non-gamers. Show some statistics.
In a way, gamers are more battle-tested in their decision-making than most people get to be.
Sure, but in what way?
Gamers are story-tellers. They inhabit increasingly imaginative virtual environments; they spent a substantial portion of their formative years interacting with stories, graphics and representations on screens that nearly become part of their neural systems. They are always telling tales, to one another and to themselves.
No, they like to talk to others about their gaming experience, just like we like to chat about the weather and about how the traffic to work sucks. That's not the same thing as story-telling.
It seems clear that gaming and gamers are influencing our society, and increasingly so, but I'd like to see a good essay or in-depth study on the subject, not this collection of sloppy statements.
Huh? (Score:1)
Also, this is third in a series? Where? Not that I'm complaining that it wasn't on the Front Page (that's fine with me) but if you're going to start posting to Features, then stay there...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:left, right, b, a, select, start (Score:1)
I don't think it was ever unlimited lives, though. (A lot of lives, but not unlimited.)
-- Thrakkerzog
Computer games don't affect kids... ? (Score:1)
I mean if Pacman affected our generation as kids, we'd all run around in a
darkened room munching pills and listening
to repetitive music."
Re:The Pokemon generation (Score:1)
You mention an exception (a 6 year old kid with ADHD playing gameboy pokemon).
Most kids who play Pokemon, (THE CARD GAME, not the Gameboy one) are older than 6 years old and don't have ADHD. At that same age I read tons Disney comic books, which are clearly much more interesting, imaginative, informative and fun.
I could be wrong, but I believe that "everything has its place" is too idealistic. Some things are just crap and don't deserve the merit that's attributed to them.
Flavio
Re:The Pokemon generation (Score:1)
Aside from the fact you blew all your money and time on a really bad game, not much.
Magic is very time consuming, like pretty much every RPG/Pseudo-RPG card game. You could've spent your time/money on something better.
My objective wasn't to offend you, though. If I did, I'm sorry. I've played magic 3 or 4 times with friends (I've never bought cards myself) and don't like it very much. I also know some people who played Magic (they've outgrown it
I worry about the Pokemon obsession, because it is... well... an obsession. Magic was never like that.
Flavio
Re:The Pokemon generation (Score:1)
The problem is I'm not used to seeing "little kids who are (...)" playing Pokemon. I see 8, 9, 10 year old kids playing it. That's probably because I'm not in the US and Pokemon was marketed differently here.
See what I worry about?
So what do you do as a parent, allow your kids to take part in the hype, or make them feel terrible for not having the same toys as the other kids?
I'd try to show my kids something that would make them think "damn, Pokemon sucks!" (not with those actual words
From when I was 7 years old on I read Disney comics like crazy, and there was no way I'd change such activities to watching the Pokemon cartoon or playing the Pokemon card game. I'd play other card games and certainly other video games, but not Pokemon.
But you see, your kids are not like yourself. I don't know what would happen, since I don't have any. I won't have to worry about that in a while. Isn't unmarried life bliss? =)
Flavio
The Pokemon generation (Score:1)
You can say that again. What will become of the Pokemon generation? Kids that were brought up playing probably the stupidest card games around, dealing with even less strategy than "Magic: the Gathering" players did a short time before them.
It's interesting to see that while thinking/feeling games like Metal Gear Solid 2, Deus Ex, System Shock 2 are released and become quite successful (with the exception, alas, of Looking Glass Studios), we have another contemporary generation obsessed with the dumbest game ever.
Flavio
paid (Score:1)
Gamers are not visionaries at all. (Score:1)
But some kid who gets RSI by age 15 from playing too much Playstation after school is hardly a "visionary".
Granted I didn't read the entire Katz article, but then how many people here did?
Do you remember... (Score:1)
The media seems to be denouncing video games for all that is wrong with kids these days. Maybe this is true. Maybe it's not.
Reading over what JonKatz has written here... I have heard every bonus that people get from video games before. In relation to other sorts of games.
Anyone here remember Avalon Hill board games? Especially Third Reich, Russian Campaign, or Panzerblitz?
For those of you who don't know, Avalon Hill was a company that made board games -- in particular, war games. These didn't just encourage independent thinking on the tactical or strategic level -- they required it to win!
Now, I've never heard anyone blame Avalon Hill games for anything...
The other category... Talking about controversial...
Dungeons and Dragons in particular. A discussion on why the media has always disliked it should not be necessary.
Role-playing games with people encourage the same thinking and independence as video games. This was actually proved in a study at some point, but I've forgotten most of the details. (What do you want from me? That was four and a half years ago that I looked it up...)
But the video games are lacking in one aspect.
Wargames and role-playing games also encourage social interaction. You have to have a live opponent in Russian Campaign, or three for Stellar Conquest. And role-playing games have to involve a small group of people. Video games support no such interaction for the most part. Your exceptions tend to be deathmatches in Quake or the like.
Yes, video games are nice. And Squaresoft's stuff is just awesome to behold. ("They can do that?") But give me the interaction in RPGs any day.
And, if you need me, I'll be planning next semester's Amber campaign. --CAE
Re:Sad, really... (Score:1)
Books are wonderful, and I love to read. Kids should read, but to be honest, books are pretty easy. They don't require you much beyond comphrension. You don't make decisions while reading a book, your actions are not relevant.
Learning the cause and effect of actions is a good thing, and one of the strongs points of gameplay, be it electronic or a traditional board games.
// EJ
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:1)
Jon Katz, your assertion that gamers become impatient is not entirely true. Patience is something gaming can teach you. I'm overly patient with everything as a result. From the days of trying to dial up to the local l33t BBS to get the newest update for Doom (1.666 is still the coolest version) and sitting in front of the computer, praying to your modem that it will connect and not get a busy signal, patience is forced upon you, or you will go mad.
Fighting games in their early stages were a lot more quick decision oriented, but now all the Tekken Tag crap requires upmost patience and timing. Trust me, thats how all those Asian kids kick my ass all the time. I've got patience, but the timing is awkward and I'm use to old school fighters where as soon as you press an attack button, they actually attack.
Hardcore gamers are better off for being gamers. Perhaps we are a bit unhealthy with our need to play for hours a day, but not only do we have the sweested hand-eye coordination
-=Gargoyle_sNake
-=-=-=-
It's a generation gap thing.. (Score:1)
Everthing I Ever Needed to Know... (Score:1)
Finally. (Score:1)
Re:Watch out Lara, you aren't a healthy stereotype (Score:1)
I also take exception to the idea that 1/3 of gamers are women. In my gaming experience (roughly 15 years) i have met maybe a dozen women gamers. contrast that to hundreds of men and i would put percentages more around 5-10 percent. As such games are designed for men. or rather for young men. beautiful women are what young men enjoy looking at.
Too bad we can't moderate articles (Score:1)
Katz recipe for writing an article:
1) Pick a topic that involves a lot of the slashdot readership (e.g. gaming, high schools)
2) Dream up some profound societal issue related to 1), and fire up the katzian bullshit generator to write an article about it
3) Hope troll article successfully generates lots of responses and big
Playing by the rules (Score:1)
The definition of "gamer" needs to be clarfied before we start going overboard with any future predictions about their behavior. The vast majority of those who play console and PC games are likely to be casual users, participating in game playing activity for less than an hour a day.
The type of game skills that various different types of games develop are highly varied (strategy versus sports versus action, for example).
Video games (like all programs) rely on hard-and-fast rules. How will those hard-core gamers (with the highest levels of game "training") handle real-life situations where the rules are not clearly stated, leave a lot of room for interpretation and don't clearly distiguish a "winner." I fear they will handle it poorly.
PS 2 innovation (Score:1)
"sparked by astonishingly inventive new technologies like the PS 2."
I thought that the PS/2 croaked in the '80's. Good keyboard/mouse connector, though...
Re:It's a generation gap thing.. (Score:1)
And I can kick the crap out of %80 of those I find online in UT, Q2 and Half-life. At LAN parties I'm even better.
Sorry, but learned skills just don't work that way.
Re:Games influencing generations (Score:1)
Re:Could you lay it on any thicker? (Score:1)
virtual vs. reality (Score:1)
These are the people who claim that by playing computer games, youths lose their grasp on reality and become insane, acting out game scenarios, and racking up frags in the school cafeteria. However, those accusations are completely unfounded. Most gamers are very stable people, and probably have a better grip on reality than most, which is why they play games, to clear their minds of the awful junk they've had to put up with that day.
The only people who go nuts, and act out games in real life are people who had no grip on reality in the first place. They are people to probably spent the first five years of their lives in front of a TV. These are the people who may ultimately ruin gaming for the rest of us.
Re:Watch out Lara, you aren't a healthy stereotype (Score:1)
Re:Watch out Lara, you aren't a healthy stereotype (Score:1)
True, most of the men in the marketing and design departments don?t want to deal with the fact that ugly, small breasted or even (oh my god?) fat people exist. Rather we live with the images these men believe the average Joe (or Jane) want to see. While I?d rather we have a society that believes in judging people by what?s on the inside, we currently get to enjoy (or hate) a world where, if any visual clue is given, man and women are immediately compared with the standards set up by men who have to pay for their
I'm not so sure about creativity... (Score:1)
Another reason that I eventually gave up on gaming was because there was very little reward, in my opinion. Sure, you could beat the game or find all of the secrets and then brag to your friends...but somehow that just wasn't satisfying. When I program, I create something that serves a purpose. For me, the ultimate satisfaction comes from sitting back and looking at a finished program and saying, "Yeah, I did that. The computer now does this-and-such because I told it how."
Re:Jon why do you do things like this.. (Score:1)
The Konami Code (Score:1)
Contra- [at title] thirty lives for both players (though I think the B, A bit had to be done twice to do that, otherwise it was 30 for the first guy).
Super C- [at title] eight lives. A measly EIGHT.
Gradius (NES) [in game, paused] - options, missiles, laser, shield- can only be used once.
Gradius (SNES) [in game, paused] - blows up the ship. Use the shoulder buttons instead of the control pad left and right and you bag a full power up suite that can be used, if I remember correctly, either three times in the game, or a couple of times per level.
The code also does something for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtes, but I forget what. If you have a NES game made by Konami, try it!
I think that would be great (Score:2)
The nearest thing I can think of that's like gaming but encourages creativity is social MUDding- the text-based virtual world socialising in which you build an identity and seek friends, sex, whatever. In this arena, creative and expressive abilities are everything and define attractiveness and influence- yet still, people seem to end up with the abilities they bring to the game, they typically don't learn or change from it. And that's in the sort of game _most_ directly rewarding of creative abilities.
Gamers are... (Score:2)
I found a copy of Civilization the other day. I played continously when it first came out. I haven't touched it in years... but the first time I did, I went straight from 9pm to 5am on a work night. For several days I couldn't stop.
In recent years, I had this with Quake 2. We installed it on the computers at work to help us get through all nighters. Eventually we were all playing for hours against each other at the end of every day.
It's bad. You wake up in the morning wanting a game. You get your fix. You then spend the rest of the day getting less and less productive, and more and more restless. Games start earlier each day, when possible. Then you play forgetting to eat, blink, stretch, etc. You feel good until you stop playing. Then you get up and it hits you. You can hardly see, you can hardly walk, and you're ravenously hungry.
Jon, in amongst all those BS unsubstanciated stereotypes, you forgot to mention that there could be a physiological reason. I normally don't have a very addictive personality. But, certain games will have me playing to the detriment of my health and other priorities. Trying to fight it leaves me strung out, just like a heroin junky. I'm not the only one either: I've seen other people in just the same state. Perhaps dopamine product is a more accurate characteristic of gamers. This is probably more an explanation why people play for more than 49 mins per day. I bet you'll find that males play more video games than females, which falls in line with dopamine.
I see no support for assertion of "creativity" (Score:2)
Don't get this.. (Score:2)
I'm not getting your squawk Squadboy. Of course that's an average. Thats what an average means. What's your point? Of course some kids play less, some more. Personally, I'd be embarrassed to comment on something I had read, and to do so publically and enthusiastically. Takes much gall.
Cheating?... (Score:2)
Interesting topic..I'd be interested to read more about that, but I've never writtena bout cheating..
Gaming and Republicans (Score:2)
I like the connection between non-gamers and anal retentiveness, though from some of the posts here, you might not want to take it too far. But I think this is a very smart post. One of the interesting things about gaming is that repetition becomes satisfying, even sometimes obsessive. Have to think about the connection to Republicans, thought.
Excellent question (Score:2)
Off-hand, some universal generational experiences: TV, movies, shopping (non-cultural). Book were a universal experience among educated elites, but less so these days, as many well educated people choose other forms of entertainment and information (like gaming) although book readership remains high. TV is probably the best contemporary American example of a previous generational experience, though remember it was passively consumed -- until the switcher people could only watch, not control or participate.
Technology vs. Virtual Basic (Score:2)
I'm not sure I disagree, or that this is an extreme viewpoint. And you can just read Threads to see that smart people can be thugs as well. But you can't consider who these gamers are -- technologically empowered kids in the millions, and not, in my opinion, believe they will be shaping society in the future. But sure, a lot of them are jerks, as you can gleam from reading any Threads on any topic. Doesn't mean they aren't smart or won't be influential, tho. Or that they won't grow up and find better use of their time than writing hostile posts...
Games and IQ (Score:2)
If you read Playfful World or Trigger Happy by Stephen Poole, there are some interesting studies from the Pentagon and Harvard Medical School about how gamers often have high (higher) IQ's in comparison to the general population because of the stimulation . Reading the studies, I honestly couldn't figure out if because gamers are apt to be relatively intelligent and educated, or if games make them that way. Gaming, it seems to me, would have at least as much impact on a mind as chess or othe pursuits society deems worthwhile..
Round and round.. (Score:2)
Is the poster saying the Columbine posters have to have used Linux to be worth of posting to Slashdot. Yuk.
A brand new gamer (Score:2)
Got Starcraft and Diablo last month and have begun playing them (very happily). I've played some games briefly, but no, I'm not much of a gamer at all. Maybe that will change.
He's serious (Score:2)
Yes, definitely I'm serious. In five years, society at large will be taking gaming very seriously as a culture. Make sure to e-mail me when you see it. (I'll be cleaningsomebody's floors)
Does it have to be written for you? (Score:2)
I'm not sure that I have to write every article for you. I've gotten about 600 e-mails so far about this article, and people seem to find it plenty interesting and relevant to them. I'm thrilled that you kayak, but is that written for me? The notion that "WE" know everything about stuff like this is just elitist. Gaming is a huge subject and a lot of people are eager to talk about it. If you know it all, then skip it.
Wrong assumptions (Score:2)
Be careful about gauging slashdot from the disprorportionately hostile group of people who monopolize Threads. Not typical. As I said earlier I've gotten well over 600 e-mails about this column, almost all from Slashdot readers, many apologizing for the tone of many of the comments here. The e-mail is by no means all praise, but invariably thoughtful and interesting. Sorry they won't post publically, as should be the case.
But you misjudge slashdot by assuming what the audience is or isn't. The audience is very diverse and mixed and lots of people are very interesting in this subject...The idea that people might find the subject of gaming "scary" is...well, scary.
What is? (Score:2)
...the physical side of life? Sounds highly metaphysical..
What connection? (Score:2)
...are you making between gaming and social skills? I'd be curious to know what you mean..
Good reason for Katz bashing (Score:2)
I'd definitely bash Katz if I thought he were real, rather than a figment of Jeff and Rob's imagination..
Good Point.. (Score:2)
The purpose of writing a column or series like this isn't to be as definitive as that, but to raise a subject and an issue and let people talk about it. I'm glad to see that's happening.
A finger-wagging explanation.. (Score:2)
As to being self-appointed, I've never been dumb enough to hire me. Somebody else always has, though they usually get over it and come to their senses.
But you can moderate articles, silly! (Score:2)
You can block them, ignore them, or criticize them. Jeez, how many choices do you want? As to the Katzian bullshit generator, it triggers many responses..the big paycheck is another question..
Enough of this, already! (Score:2)
The assertion that gamers are, as a group, any smarter or more logical than any other group of people picked at random is utter bull, and I wish Katz would get off of it. Gaming gave me better eye-hand coordination and a lot of fun hours in the process, but I can't say it affected my real-world problem-solving skills. Programming sure did, as did the formal logic courses I took in college, but Quake? Pfaw.
--
My reaction. Part III (Score:2)
"No, no, nooooooo. Not Katz again!.."
At end:
I should have done this Part I. And really stop here. You made some points. They are discussable but real. Yes, in fact games give a good push. But that also depends on what games kids play. And at what level. And it also depends on many things sorrounding them. Even Quake has its positive points not matter the raw violence of the subject. I saw teenagers developing real good skills with this game. They become aware of decision making tasks. Under the stressful conditions of the game this produces a series of interesting moments. For example, a 16 year old kid commanding a whole bunch of sysadmins. They are older, more experienced in real life, they feel superior to this guy who just learned to tie his boots. But in the virtuality of the game, this youngster was marvelous. Specially on things like CTF or Arena. He was somehow authoritarian and maximalist. However, this was seen more as a secondary drawback, as he managed to divide team's tasks, take decisions in the appropriate moment, measure the risks. Somehow his authoritarism was useful with some kamikadze "frag" hotheads. There was always the problem of getting weaponery, ammunitions, health and other stuff and he managed all this quite well.
Later at his 18-19 he started to show in real life some of these qualities (and defects also!). But the fact is that the boy, overall got a good push commanding the most anarchic team I ever knew. In fact it his a HELL to hold up anyone of us... We are all natural born deathmatchers
Read Stephenson's _The Diamond Age_ (Score:2)
technology isn't a creativity enabler (Score:2)
The PS2's technology doesn't spark imagination. It is an incredibly difficult-to-program machine, and if anything, inhibits creative game design. Publishers will take less risks since just getting the game out the door is risk enough. If you want real storytelling, go to www.ifarchive.org and play some interactive fiction.
John, just stop it (Score:2)
If kids ever cared, they stopped when Elvis went on TV and started twisting his hips. Remember, it was rock'n'roll that destroyed our youth. No, it was comic books...Wait, no it was...
The point being...'gaming' is just GAMES!!! Doom is only mildly seperated from 'cowboys'n'indians' with your finger as a gun, which is only mildly seperated from 'kill the sabertooth tiger' with pretend spears. About the only difference being that Doom doesn't allow for actual physical exercise.
Gaming has affected almost everyone who grew up with it -- which is to say, just about half of the country.
So has cottage cheese. When can we expect to see an expose on the dramatic influence that cottage cheese has on young people.
Adults may quake at the transformation, but kids are completely at home with the joystick, the key to a new kind of civilization.
Damn!! I waisted my time in college when all I had to do was learn the JOYSTICK!! Damn! Damn! Triple DAMN!!
We know something about gamers. They're quick decision-makers, sometimes to the point of impulsiveness. Since their virtual lives depend on
fast reactions, their real-life decision making processes become visceral, instinctive.
,and since they rarely give themselves time to truly consider the consequences of their actions, the real-life decisions are wrong.
Wishy-washy gamers are unsuccessful gamers, so gamers make a lot of quick decisions and feel confident about them.
no matter how completely duffle-headed those decisions may be.
Gamers are story-tellers. They inhabit increasingly imaginative virtual environments; they spent a substantial portion of their formative years interacting with stories, graphics and representations on screens that nearly become part of their neural systems. They are always telling tales, to one another and to themselves.
From what I've seen of my nephews who 'game' constantly, gamers like to be told tales. These guys spend very little time creating or adding to content. It's all about buying a game that someone else created. What time I've tried to spend with them explaining how a computer works is totally ignored. Any book that I've given them on how computers work have gone unread. Of course, they want to know about any neat hack I can tell them about, as long as I can give step by step instructions. They don't want to spend a second trying to grok the internals, they just want to know the sequence of up-down-left-right-etc. One even asked me to teach him to be a hacker; of course, he only had about 15 minutes to spend on the lesson, and he didn't want to waste time learning to count in binary. I don't think we're going to see these types replacing the intelligentsia any time soon.
Kids of this generation will be different from any that has preceded them.
Only in the same way that every generation has been different from every preceding generation, which is to say, "Bullshit, John. Take your head out of your rectum long enough to get a perception of things past your bedroom door." People are always the same. Most are lazy and want to be entertained and coddled. Games are just the latest incarnation of the circus. As for fixing political problems, the only thing most gamers will do is vote for someone that will guarantee them bread.
No different from earlier gamer generations. (Score:2)
Before computers it was D&D. Before D&D it was cowboys and indians, football and little league baseball. Before that, youths played word games in Victorian england. Card games throughout the 19th century. During feudal history it was play swordfighting. Hopscotch, mumbleypeg, caber tossing. Olympic contests in greco-roman times. Lacrosse was played by amerinds thousands of years ago. Even cavemen probably had contests of strength, coordination and wit.
Young people have always played games of one sort or another. That they're now doing it with a computer, and with a wider assortment of people throughout the world, will have an effect on their skills and worldview. But 90% of the things mentioned in the above article apply to the gamers of every generation for thousands of years into the past.
We are not that different.
The voice of reason. (Score:2)
What on earth is Katz thinking when he fluffs up this geek ideal which involves not coding, not activism, not creation of any sort, but passive activities like Napstering, DVD ripping and gaming?
There's a great big difference between actual action and a couch-potato "Yeah, I'm cool" attitude. Major props to you for being so articulate about it.
grendel drago
Generalizations. (Score:2)
Please, if you're going to try to categorize people, please put some science and logic behind it.
----------------------------------
Gamers are gamers (Score:2)
Re:The Pokemon generation (Score:2)
You sound exactly like my wife when she complains about my videogame playing. Then she turns around and plops down in front of the TV for 3 hours.
If it's something someone truly enjoys, how can it be said to be a waste of anything? I'd gladly spend a few bucks and invest some time in having fun, purely for it's own sake. Not everything has to be productive. But in a way, even having fun can be (clear your mind, relax your body, etc.).
Superficial and misguided portrait of gamers (Score:2)
At the moment, there is a schism in gaming. The traditional hardcore players are becoming more and more inbred and negative, while being almost entirely separated from the surge in video game popularity. On the web you see ravings from people who seem obsessed with aliasing and polygon throughput and so on, as if this is somehow related to fun. At the same time, hardcore gamers are hugely conservative. If you develop an RPG or FPS that at all deviates from the norm, then you take heavy flak for it. Heck, you can't even get away from gothic, sci fi, or midieval settings, because no one will stand for it. Or try to do a first person shooter that doesn't include a rocket launcher, and you get grilled.
So I'd consider most people who consider themselves gamers to be behind the curve in a big way, in that they're handicapped with a narrow view. There's no reason to call them any kind of cultural force, any more than people who think that Lethal Weapon 4 is, like, the most awesome movie ever.
Katz is jerking us off... (Score:2)
--Brogdon
Re:Jon why do you do things like this.. (Score:2)
Katz quoted a figure of 49 minutes (presumably a mean, the average time for which US children game) and described it as if it were the median (the time for which an "average child" games). There's a difference, and it's a significant difference as this article was concerned.
This sort of slapdash inaccuracy is something of a Katz trademark, and it's why he has a poor reputation with many Slashdot readers. In some ways he's the Germaine Greer of /. -- He's often absolutely right, but he argues the case so badly that you begin to disbelieve him anyway.
Sad, really... (Score:2)
How sad. It would be much better for all concerned if they'd use that time to read a book.
No wonder many young people are semi-literate.
Re:Enough Already! (Score:2)
Does anyone else think that it's high time that /. got an actual journalist on staff? Just because you can hack the slashdot code doesn't mean that you should be editting articles. Or adding your own bit of bias to every banner headline.
Katz Irony of the day! (Score:2)
Logged into one of my boxes at work, and got this fortune:
And of course Jon Katz posts one of his silly articles today. Very amusing!
I have to wonder if the two are related. If so, I don't think that Jon got the sarcasm gene.
Short attention span summary (Score:2)
That's as much of the article as you need to read to understand just how messed up Jon Katz is. I know no such thing--in fact, it's one of the stupidest suppositions I've ever read, and here he is trying to state it as fact.
Honestly
More stereotypes... (Score:2)
Gamers are story-tellers...
Who you are is not defined by what you do for fun (or for work, for that matter).
Our 7 year old is smitten with realMyst this week, but that doesn't change who he is -- he's always been inquisitive -- this is just an outlet for him to express that part of himself.
That said, we do limit how long he can be at the computer because there is I think a danger that kids can get a little to involved in one thing and miss out on other important parts of childhood -- but games, sports, books, etc, etc, are all capable of this effect.
Reading Alot != Being Smarter (Score:2)
How sad. It would be much better for all concerned if they'd use that time to read a book.
No wonder many young people are semi-literate.
What utter drivel. Once again we return to the outdated idea that because something is printed on a dead tree that automatically gives it a status above everything else. Reading, in and of itself, is no better than playing video games or watching television. Just because someone is a "reader" doesn't make them smarter or better equipped for society.
The key here is that its about what you read, what you play, or what you watch. If reading was the key to being smarter then why aren't disgruntled housewives who bury themselves in romance novels considered the smartest humans on Earth? If I turn on the Discovery Channel or the History Channel and watch it all day, I can assure you I'll be much better off than them.
Now is there more "quality" material out there in book form than in television or video games? Sure. Remember though that books have had a few thousand years head start. Given how far the electronic medium has come in less than a hundred years, that gap is going to be erased quickly.
Its time everyone got over this outdated idea that books are just plain "better" than anything else. In a hundred years or so we won't print books anymore. Do we all think the population will be a herd of illiterate drones?
Gamers are device operators. (Score:2)
If gamers were the ones developing these new paradigms, I would be much more impressed, but the PS2 was the product of trained electrical engineers (among other professionals), very few of whom, I imagine, were making trips to the mall to buy 12 sided dice ten years ago. The kids in my classes who were really really smart, the kind of people who are media innovators, were bored by games. That's why they became innovators.
In my experience, gamers are largely responsible for highly derivative output, which is not necesarilly their fault- There are maybe five different types of games (when you really get down to it), and this is because this is what the market demand is. Wildly divergent games are not made. Those who would really challenge the gaming industry (and for that matter the music, or publishing industry) to create a more interesting product don't make up enough of the market to warrant it.
Basically, gamers (definitions vary, but just playing video games does not make you a gamer) are the future plumbers of tommorow- Only they'll be installing routers in people's houses and making sure port xxxx is open so Bob and Tammy can configure/inventory their fridge from work.
Quick Thinking in a Slow World (Score:2)
I don't mean to be modest when I say that I am a good example of this statement. Beginning at about the age of three, with my dad's Atari ___ [insert number, I forgot], I was destined to be somewhat of a gamer for a large part of my youth. I've spent a limited amount of time studying the effects of childhood gaming habits, and the result that seems to echo everywhere is that spatial abilities are discovered and developed through playing video games.
Taking this a step further, in general more boys than girls make it a habit to play video games. More boys than girls also tend to excel in mathematics. Many studies have concluded that the skills developed in video game environments and mathematics are closely linked, and therefore ... to make a very long shory incredibly short, probably confusing the hell out of you ... video games help to develop our intelligence. I say everyone play video games, but not too much...
games (Score:2)
--
Mary Poppins? (Score:2)
If all I got to watch on TV was "something wholesome like Mary Poppins," I'd probably be shooting up schools too.
Earth to AC: your kids are going to grow up to be dorks and losers and they won't be respected by ANYBODY.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
Re:The future is NOT in their hands. (Score:2)
Did I say I didn't grow up enjoying video games more than was good for me, or become a successful consultant? No. Do I know people who devoted their lives to a game or two, to the exclusion of all else, who now pack groceries? Yes.
Be yourself. Don't worry about the bell curve: it's a measurement of the world, not of you.
John
Re:The future is NOT in their hands. (Score:2)
I even said " other than in the extreme cases, I suspect that video game experience doesn't relate to real life at all." So, do you consider yourself an extreme case? I believe you implied you were a 1*x-2*x game player: do I need to go back and write a general case that doesn't exclude you, too?
<SARCASM>Quit spending your time worrying about people making meaningless generalizations on Slashdot that don't even apply to you, and get back to work.</SARCASM> :-)
John
whatever you say... (Score:2)
Re:Watch out Lara, you aren't a healthy stereotype (Score:2)
Re:The Pokemon generation (Score:2)
1. Learn to read (he had been having trouble before)
2. Learn to use what he was reading to solve problems
3. Learn how to keep focused on one thing for more then a minute (he has ADHD)
4. Keep his mother from going insane (see #3).
Everything has it's place. Even pure crap like Barney. It's up to the parents to make sure that what the kids are doing is appropriate and useful.
omg, is there such a thing as a sarcasm troll?! (Score:2)
Re:For those who have been having problems (Score:2)
---
yes, but... (Score:2)
However, the same has also been said years ago about the television and we yet have to agree on a gamer : do you mean any sofa potato that'll just undergo a digital experience or some more active fellow that'll keep puzzle himself trying to overtake the game possibilities ?
It is a matter of effort, whatever we speak about : gaming, watching tv or even listening to music which will (without too much brain passivity) respectively bring their addicts reflexes, culture or an accute sense of observation.
--
Influential? (Score:2)
Umm... Is this because you, Mr. Katz, are a gamer and see "artists, visionaries and story-tellers" as the type of people that you admire? Personally, I'd like to be a gamer. I've got a PIII 933MHZ and a Prophet II Ultra for those blazingly fast frame rates. Unfortunately, I'm too damn busy to play any games. Between the MASSIVE amount of reading required to remain current in this field, plus the work itself, any free time left is taken up by my family.
Of course, I'm not a kid, but when I was, I was much more interested in WRITING software than playing it. Personally, I think the new generation of artists, visionaries and story-tellers will be busy testing their talents and creatively stretching themselves than spending large amounts of time playing video games.
Re:The future is NOT in their hands. (Score:2)
Both views have a point, and of course both simplify the question of success. The point is that there are lots of things that are important to success. Analytical skills can be honed by some games, and socialization skills can be honed by spending time away from the console. Katz' article makes the point that there are some good analytical attitudes developed by game playing (which goes for board games as well as vids, to a certain extent) and the idea that you should think about behavior in a way that optimizes something (points, dollars, happiness) is a good attitude to develop. It is not the extreme gamers who will succeed necessarily, and is not that people who totally avoid games will succeed necessarily. As usual, the optimum is somewhere in the middle...
Katz 3 : The Search for a Point (Score:2)
Yes, people play them for 49 minutes a day (I love the way Katz always has to reach for a Believe-it-or-Not! style stat before he makes one of his trite observations).
No, you are never going to really understand why people make or play games Jon. Your articles continue to put me in mind of a middle-aged Dad trying to be cool in front of his children's friends. You're not documenting anything that isn't glaringly obvious to the average person. In fact, you're pidgeonholing gamers (a monolithic entity to you - just as you claim "outcasts/geeks" are to the Oppressive School System) in a rather unhelpful way.
NEWSFLASH : Most gamers are not children. "Gamers are the new story tellers" WTF? It's a romantic statement that simply doesn't reflect the real situation. And I suppose people that don't play games are incapable of strategic thought? Jesus, any more unfounded sweeping generalisations you want to make?
And before I forget, the repeated trumpeting of Sony's PS2 as the Second Coming is simply embarrassing. Woo, a box that can't begin to compete (either on visuals or quality and diversity of games) with the PC, and even seems to struggle head-to-head with the 18-month old Dreamcast.
Go find someone else's hobby to ruminate about!
What do games really teach you? (Score:2)
Gaming, like gambling, is an elaborate form of masturbation. Yes, it develops an extensive set of responses -- which, guess what, don't translate too well into the real world. (Remember how the narrator of Snow Crash had the coolest hangout possible in cyberspace but lived in a U-Stor-It in real life?)
Gaming is not about making you a better person, or even building a community -- the community thing happens by itself whenever a bunch of people get interested in the same thing. This is why you have a Linux community, a C community, a Sega community, a Nader community, a neighborhood community, a drug community, an HO scale train community, even a Lesbian S&M community.
Gaming itself is about pleasure. People play games because the games are simpler and make more sense and reward you more reliably for your effort than real life. As other people have pointed out here, the responses appropriate in a game environment -- make snap decisions, take risks, shoot at anything that moves, go for the reset button, cheat when necessary -- will get you into big trouble if you attempt to apply them in real life.
I'd say the #1 problem caused by games (but not just by games, also by other electronic media) is that they do not teach patience or perseverence or an extended span of attention. How many games reward you for sitting still for hours, being alert to your environment, and then acting on short notice with little warning when something unexpected happens? How many teach you that the sum of a thousand seemingly pointless boring tasks can be a single achievement, preceeded by no other reward at all, but making the whole effort worthwhile?
I grew up with computers and TV too, in an age when Jerry Mander was moved to write Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television (all of which also apply to video games FWIW); in an age when the things Mander complained about were far milder than they are today, it took me years to unlearn a bunch of unhealthy patterns of behavior, and there are some impulses I doubt I'll ever shake.
Back in the dark ages when our parents had to walk to school in the snow (uphill both ways, remember) kids learned patience the hard way -- by being patient. There were long periods of time when there was no entertainment (or none of interest, e.g. nothing but soap operas on TV during summer afternoons), no companions, nothing structured to do; and you learned to deal with those times the way humans learn to deal with everything, by going through them and surviving. Some would turn to reading, some to working out, some to quiet inner contemplation, but most would figure out something interesting to do with a rainy afternoon. But now it seems like every waking moment can be engaged by some electronic companion. While this is a great convenience when we want it, it seems to me that the mental electric wheelchairs have taken over and people are forgetting that they have mental legs, too.
But I don't mean this to be a diatribe against games per se; they are now part of our environment and we will either adapt to their presence or (cough)fail to adapt(cough). It's just that the electronic / computer / gaming world needs its Pat Califia. This was just another tireless but tired advocacy job from the Marquis de Sade.
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:2)
Of course, on slashdot I suppose there are a few people, maybe more than a few, that are similar enough to him that his writings strike a chord that makes a lot of heads nod up and down. Unfortunately, I think that he is way too obsessed with telling "computer people" that "computer people" are the most important people ever, are the smartest people ver, are the most insightful people ever, are the most imaginative people ever, are the most misunderstood people ever, are the most underrated people ever, are the most wonderful people ever...
Katz is obsessed with stroking his own ego, and hopefully in the process making us poor, poor misunderstood "computer people" feel that we are just as important as the Roman Empire, the greatest thinkers of all time, the great politically shaping wars of history, and the development of the human race all put together. It just isn't so people. We are just another section of humanity, and while we all "see" how important the Internet, and computing in general, has become to us, we sometimes fail to understand that computers are not the only thing that matters. There is an entire world out there beyond your screens. Jon Katz tries to make you believe that those people that exist outside of computerdom do not matter, that we are more important than them. It isn't true. We are all a part of humanity, each of us just as important, or as worthless, as the next.
I'm sorry to sound so harsh, but I do not believe all of this ooey-gooey "We are kewl" type of ego stroking is good for people. If you actually start to believe you are a part of the most important thing ever, you fail to complete anything that could be important. You begin to spend more time stroking your ego than completing work that could make an important impact. It isn't healthy, mentally or historically.
Not to say that computer people are bad, but we are not the most important creatures to ever inhabit the Earth. Please, let's try to keep some perspective here people.
Yes! VIOLENT games. Blood, gore (bush,) mayhem... (Score:3)
Fact is the more you play (with words, with toys, with props, with yourself,) the smarter you are because play is learning.
Gifted children are recognizable as gifted adults because the one who managed to survive the educational system still exhibit almost childish delight in learning. New sh*t is "kewl".
Sadly, (for them,) a lot of people young or old, feel that play isn't worthwhile or take their play entirely too seriously to gain any cognitive benefit.
It becomes rote, repetition and drill instead of wonder and enlightenment. And they become Republicans or merely anal-retentive.
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:3)
Re:Games and IQ (Score:3)
Let's start with selection bias. I think if you have a game that requires fast spatial manipulations and logical problem solving, people who just aren't good at that sort of thing aren't going to get hooked -- there has to be a balance between effort and reward.
On the other hand, you can improve abilities by practice, and this certainly can improve your ability to perform on tests. I recently have begun to study fine art when I realized my GUIs and web pages really sucked aesthetically. I don't know yet whether its going to make me a better designer, but I definitely can see things in dimensions I did not before, and expect that I will be able to use these new abilities in my work.
Taking the practice makes perfect position to its absurd extreme, if you measured spatial and logical reasoning using the game as a test, clearly practicing on the game would make you operationally "smarter". To the degree that IQ tests measure skills that are in common with the games, then it seems to me that your IQ scores will very likely rise when you play games repeatedly.
That this will make gamers more effective people seems rather unlikely to me. I think that people who will be the visionaries and leaders will take skills they learn from the games and put them to good use, but that they probably have done the same from ham radio, team sports, etc. Maybe Winston Churchill would have been a gamer -- probably would have been given what I've read of him -- he liked guns and danger, and had a highly addictive personality. He might even have attributed his leadership to what he learned in Quake; except we know he managed to become what he was without computer games.
Perhaps a more interesting question is how the leaders and visionaries of tommorow are going to be different because of their exposure to games.
By the way, Jon, I was a bit harsh; I think you're raising some interesting questions, its just that the way you express yourself can get so breathlessly utopian it cries out for counterpoint.
Gaming, it seems to me, would have at least as much impact on a mind as chess or othe pursuits society deems worthwhile.
Probably so, but my point is to hell with society. Getting back to my martial arts analogy, I do find spiritual values in my martial art, but only when I am not looking for them. The pursuit of spirital development for its own sake is full of pitfalls -- self delusion and wishful thinking. I believe the true path is to do a thing that is hard for its own sake, even if it may be frowned upon or perhaps be a bit "bad" for you.
Likewise, I think its futile to think that any program can turn a person into leader, make him creative. You train faculties that they will need -- a capacity for independence, the ability to work with others, a good database of factual, practical and aesthetic knowledge. Then you have to let nature take its course.
old media (Score:3)
Can anybody thing of any other universal generational experiences? I know I can - and ones that are far more universal. But no one ever equates them with the future of society.
I mean, what about books? what about TV? what about mass-brand shops?
I'd be more likely to pay attention to a thesis on the power of the universal Starbucks experience, or the way half the under-twelves of the Western World have all read Harry Potter, or how every one in the UK can sing the theme tune to the Bodyform advert despite the fact it hasn't run on TV for three years.
I know computer games are close to many
Re:Sad, really... (Score:3)
can you use them to kill things with?
------------------------------------------
nope (Score:3)
Concerned parents who take an active interested in their children's wellbeing and letting them only watch Mary Poppins don't exactly go hand-in-hand.
Yes, I do believe nowadays that crappy parenting is a problem. Neglect is a problem.
No, I don't have any children. And I'm glad I don't, and I'm not going to have any for some time now because I know I'm not suitable for being a parent at the age of 21.
Let me see here, out of about 10 of my close friends, 8 of them are married. 6 of them have kids. 4 of them have more than one kid. And NONE of them are above the age of 23.
I'm sure that you want the absolute best for your kids, and I'm not questioning that, I'm simply questioning what's the best way to go about it?
I do believe that it's extremely important for kids to find out for themselves what is right and wrong, what they should do and what they shouldn't. And I also believe it is extremely important for kids to be respected. It's also extremely important for them to respect you.
I don't think that sheltering your kids from TV or society in general is the way to go about it.
I respect my parents, I love em, I think I had the greatest upbringing. I have respect for just about every individual I run across. I'm generally a nice guy.
It really disgusts me to run across kids who have lived a really sheltered life. In general, they are more shy, they don't have fun with the other kids, and they are generally confused most of the time.
Case in point, my cousin Mason. I'm the oldest in my family, and I have around 30 cousins. Mason is around 13 years old now. His parents are the sort that don't have cable on their TV, they don't have a computer, they don't have any video games. They generally try to keep the rest of society out of their children's lives.
Now, when we all meet for family gatherings, he never plays with the other kids his age. In fact, he doesn't play with any of the other kids. He's extremely shy, he doesn't talk to people, he generally stays by himself. Same goes with his sister Tracie.
I mean, I really do think it is important for kids to be respected by their peers and by other people. And I think it's important that they have respect for you.
I hope to be a great parent one of these days, whenever I'm through with being a kid.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
The future is NOT in their hands. (Score:3)
The kids who spend 0 minutes playing them are usually motivated by other things, such as reality. THESE are the kids who will run the world. They're the ones who have learned the necessary social and leadership skills. The kids who spend x*6 minutes playing the games will spend the next 40 years of their lives shoveling the 21st century equivalent of coal, mad at the unfairness of the world that lets "suits" who make all the money.
Sure, these are rather extreme viewpoints. Certainly there are good, smart kids who play video games, and there are also slugs who probably aren't smart enough to figure out video games. As a matter of fact, other than in the extreme cases, I suspect that video game experience doesn't relate to real life at all. But the kids who get no exposure to life outside of a PlayStation are quite ill prepared to be kicked out of Mommy & Daddy's basement. Don't raise them up on some kind of virtual pedestal -- you're looking in the wrong direction.
John
Watch out Lara, you aren't a healthy stereotype!!! (Score:3)
Now, I don't game, so I can't really say much about this. But I sure as hell don't know any women who look like Lara or Johanna Dark in real life. And I am not sure that adult fantasy figures are a good thing for young minds. Just a thought.
Jon why do you do things like this.. (Score:3)
From my own research (Score:4)
Here's a bit of my own, totally non-scientific, research:
Kids don't care if the games are full of the latest 3D-mega-graphic technologies or not. The games I've seen kids play are very often old platform games on the Nintendo emulator (the old 8 bit NES). OK, the graphics and sound aren't up to par with the newest games, but the gameplay keeps the kids involved for hours and hours, month after month.
Don't forget, gamers also... (Score:5)
This is fun? (Score:5)
Bah. Sounds way to serious to me to be fun.
This is just like the cant you get from athletic "supporters" about football turning kids into leaders.
My hobby is martial arts, and we're totally infected by the ego tripping idea that just participating makes us better/more spiritual/more disciplined people. The fact is that plenty of us are short sighted, mean spirited and impulsive. The really important things -- leadership, creativity, spiritual development don't come from our hobbies -- they're more a matter of character. Sure there are a rare few in the martial arts world who do find a kind of transcendence in the practice, but I expect that it has more to do with who they are than anything else. Perhaps they'd find a kind of spiritual transcendence in philately. Frankly these people aren't the crashing bores who are droning on and on about their terrific spiritual development or superhuman discipline.
I expect that there's been too much hype about how video games rot your brain and degrade your morals. The answer to that isn't counterhype, just the recognition that sometimes you just need to have some fun, even if it isn't completely wholesome. I'm not going to stop eating chocolate because it has saturated fats and refined sugar, I just don't make it my total diet.
Freud said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; sometimes a game is just a game. Even nascent ubermen to be need to take a break now and then.
Back to self-esteem camp.. (Score:5)
Uh, no. Game developers are, maybe. And I'll include gamers who make levels or skins. But players? They're at best the new audience for artists and story-tellers.
Anyone else get the impression that Slashdot now functions largely as a self-esteem booster for teenagers? First, everyone here was made out to be an "open-source hacker". As the site filled with readers who can't compile, let alone code, everyone with a Red Hat CD he may or may not have installed became a "member of The Community".
Then the Columbine stuff drew a crowd that a) couldn't care less about Linux and b) craves flattery even more than the old gang did. Jon Katz steps forward with article after article about how Napster kiddiez, game console owners and pompous, disgruntled teenagers are "geeks", "visionaries", "artists", "revolutionaries"...
Come on, kids. If you're not willing to go outdoors or to talk to girls, at least learn to use your computer. Read this [slashdot.org] largely unnoticed Ask Slashdot and see what being a geek is really about.