The article is really a muddle and captain obvious could have penned a lot of this. I still found it enjoyable to read because it touches on a lot of things that interest me.
Couple of thoughts:
I think the money lines are at the end here:.
“But what does seem clear is that the choices we make in life are shaped by the options available to us. A society that dislikes the idea of young men gaming their days away should perhaps invest in more dynamic difficulty adjustment in real life.”
Of course the how and who determines the “options” and the how and who “invest” belong in the P&R forum.
I do like the “rigged” bit at the end but frankly all of life is like that. It’s actually what humans do best as social creatures operating in social networks.
TLDR for the article. Life is hard. People who don’t work or have a tough time finding suitable work like to do other things
Subtext: Maybe somebody should do something to either find them productive things to do or prevent them from doing unproductive things…maybe I’m taking that too far?
My observation: Gaming is much better for you than heroine.
I just want to know who are all these parents letting their “kid” sit at home playing video games 8 hrs a day instead of looking for a job/training/self improvement etc.
I think everyone is giving the article from the Economists “lifestyle” magazine a bit too much credit. Pointing and laughing at it is a more sensible response.
One thing that always gets me about this debate though is the assumption that there is always something better people can be doing than, in this case, playing games. No one ever really defines what that thing is, though, beyond some general platitudes which usually end up being a list of other hobbies or activities that are different from video gaming in some ways but, ultimately, aren’t immediately obviously “better.” Or, to put it another way, the real complaint is that these people who are supposedly wasting their lives playing video games should be doing something deemed more productive by the people writing the articles; that is, the complaint is about not meeting a set of expected norms held by the author.
Sometimes these norms can be defined and justified in terms of social good, and objective value, but often times, it boils down to “I think it’s better that you work at McDonald’s than play video games.” Is there an objective, universal benefit to, say, puttering in your garden, reading romance novels, or building a bookcase, that is inherently superior to lounging around doing nothing, if that’s what you choose? I mean, tons of people do stuff I think is dumb and self-limiting, if not self-destructive, but I’m usually not arrogant enough to tell them “:hey, you’re not living like I think you should, so shape up!”
I do agree that video games are sui generis in that they are pretty damn unique in their incredible addictive potential, and I do think there are many cases where people faced with poor circumstances or opportunities make what I would consider bad choices partly because the lure of escape via gaming is so strong. Hell, as a college teacher I’ve seen people flunk out because they played WoW 20 hours a day, or drag into class half awake after marathon Mindcraft sessions, again and again. But I’ve also seen people drag in after partying, flunk out over D&D playing, or become nearly addicted to anime, so gaming is not totally unique.
I think often it’s a case of “the devil you know” with people. The other thing that goes hand in hand with painting the evils of video-gaming with a broad brush; be it ‘violence’ or ‘sloth’; is it typically comes from someone in an ‘adult’ or ‘authority’ position talking down to or about children or people they feel superior to. And sometimes it just comes down to “my vices are vastly superior to yours” but other times it’s an unhealthy dose of “get off my lawn”. Those who did not grow up with and around video games where that was a popular pursuit are much more likely to seize upon the bad aspects, often ascribing them to the gaming population as a whole, than any positive ones.
It’s times like these that I like to reference how historians found graffiti in ancient Roman cities which read, in essence, “kids these days have no respect”. What goes around comes around and today we frown upon graffiti in most circumstances. So clearly what they wrote cannot be taken seriously.
Because the article didn’t do a good job laying out a theme and then arguing for it.
If you want to have the other discussion, go have the other discussion. Why on earth do you want go give the author credit for anything? It wasn’t even a good try.
That article is so true, and it is a huge issue with the American economy as a whole. We are celebrating people working themselves to death, while CEO’s make millions upon millions more than the hard working class folk that don’t get benefits and don’t have the stability of a 9 to 5 job.
The reason why so many young people can’t find work isn’t video games, it is that the system is fucked up.
The difference between watching tv, a movie, listening to music, etc. and videogames is one of active participation. I have always been able to have something on in the “background” and phase in and out of it, concentrating on other things like working, building, crafts, eating, etc. Videogames (and smartphones, to a degree) demand your constant attention and interaction. Thus they a completely modal. I can’t really do anything else when I’m doing them.
I think that’s really the big difference. But I do get the author’s point about the ease modern games have of immersing you. I’ve actually avoided some games (mostly MMOs) because I know it’d be a huge time sink for me personally.
