Online games, nintendo games, computer games, any type of game in which someone is sitting down, staring in front of a screen, has long since been a turn off to me. I grew up playing board games, card games, hide and seek, and tag. My parents never let me get a nintendo or a game boy, even though I begged for one for a number of years. Now that I'm older, I'm so grateful they didn't give in to my pleads. I feel that I would have wasted a lot of time which I instead spent on playing other games which engaged my imagination, developed real life relationships, and was physically good for my body- such as building forts with my sisters, reading books or playing "kick the can" with my neighborhood friends.
It saddens me to hear how kids today spend so much time in front of a screen playing these games. Wouldn't that time be better spent playing games with actual people (as opposed to onscreen "teammates" or "friends") and actively engaging their imagination? Nowadays, kids are spending less and less time reading and more and more time with technology. I would be hard pressed to find someone who can prove that a kid reaps more benefits from playing an online game for an hour than reading a book for an hour.
Jane McGonigal talks about how the average kid will have spent 10,000 hours online by the age of 21- the same amount of time as in school. She doesn't see this as a problem?! She claims that gamers are getting "extraordinarily good at something". What is it? Where is the evidence of this? I have never read of or heard of someone claiming that they were successful at accomplishing something (real and tangible, not virtual) due to their skills they acquired playing an online game.
McGonigal lists four benefits one can reap from being an online gamer. These are:
1. Urgent optimism- desire to act immediately and tackle an obstacle.
2. Weaving a tight social network.
3. When playing a game, players are working hard. Gamers are willing to work hard.
4. Epic meaning. Attached to awe inspiring missions.
According to McGonigal these all add up to: gamers are super empowered, individually capable of changing the world.
I'm sorry, but I find this utterly ridiculous. I cannot argue that the above list displays wonderful attributes for someone to possess. However, I do not think that these are attributes that someone who plays an online game is going to acquire and incorporate into their life apart from the game. Sure, someone playing the game may feel optimistic about the fact that he/she just passed level 4, but this is an optimism they are correlating to this game, their success in this game, not on something they actually did in real life. This is similar to a kid who scores a goal in soccer feeling like he was able to overcome an obstacle. Sure, he's going to feel optimistic for a while, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's going to change his whole perspective in life because of that goal.
McGonigal claims that online gaming is beneficial in that it creates a tight social network, built on trust and bonds. How much of a social network can you really create with people you never see or meet in person? You may be able to speak with them in the game, but that's it, and all you're talking about is the game and the logistics of the game. Virtual relationships cannot replace real relationships with physical human presence and contact. By spending more time online talking with other people you know very little about, you are taking away from time that could be spent building and working on "real" relationships with family and friends. Granted, I understand that nowadays many things are done through the internet, and sometimes social networking can be beneficial for business or work. However, social networking is beneficial when things applicable to real life are discussed, as opposed to discussing which person (which isn't even a real person) to target next in "Halo". What real world knowledge does someone take away with them from their interactions with their gaming network?
McGonigal claims that online players are willing to work hard in order to succeed. I would argue that this "work" isn't real work. I think it's a stretch to say that online gamers continue playing because they want to work harder and harder. I know that when I have played games online, it is not because I want to work hard, but because I want to put off my actual work. I know friends who have problems with procrastination and spending too much time playing games, thereby not getting work done. It is easier in these games to "work hard" and keep going on, because you can never die. You can get killed over and over and start again. In real life this isn't possible, so people are less willing to take so many risks in order to "succeed".
Lastly, McGonigal claims that through gaming, people find epic meaning. I can see that they find meaning in being able to accomplish the game. But, what happens after the game? What applicable skills have they learned and are able to take away with them? How does pursuing this meaning in defeating the game benefit society? How does it benefit your intelligence? I would argue that it doesn't. Studies have found that playing violent video/computer games leads to an increase in violent behavior in kids. ("Studies have shown that pathological involvement with computer or video games is related to excessive gaming binges and aggressive behavior". From the Journal of Youth and Adolescence; v40 n1 p38-47 Jan 2011).
Many computer games encourage violence. It is easy to kill someone on a computer game because it isn't "real", it doesn't mean anything. Kids become de-sensitized to violence, and find it easier to perform violence in real life. In addition, kids who spend a large amount of time online playing games, spend less time developing relationships with friends and family in real life. Playing games is isolating, and takes away from meaningful relationships that need to be developed. Do we really want a generation of kids finding epic meaning in a computer game, or epic meaning in real world events. Wouldn't it be better for a kid to find meaning in helping to feed the homeless in their neighborhood? Which would in actuality benefit society and bring about a sense of belonging?
Both McGonigal and James Gee feel that online gaming allows people to develop skills that can be applied to real life. However, I would argue that real life is a whole different ball game. Life in the virtual, online world is not REAL. There are no politics, if you die you get another life, and the people in the game are one dimensional. McGonigal claims that people get caught up in playing to escape real world suffering. Is this a good thing? She says that people can learn to solve real world problems through games: make the future, imagine the best case scenario outcome, imagine epic wins and then give people the means to create epic wins. I think this is good in theory, but so far, this has not been the case. People have not taken what they've learned from playing an online game, and from that made significant, beneficial changes to society. People play online games to escape the real world for a while, not learn how to solve world issues whilst shooting the bad guys.
In looking at the article by Gee, he states that a benefit of video games is that they help to put new words into context by giving verbal information either "just in time" or "on demand". He says that textbooks are inefficient as they do not put words into context. I would like to know how much vocabulary is really used in an online game? I would very strongly argue that a kid learns much more vocabulary from reading a book. Reading a book engages both the child's imagination (which virtual images doesn't allow for in video games) as well as brain development, memory, increases tranquility, analytical thinking, improves writing skills, and much more. There is not a doubt in my mind that an hour spent reading is much more beneficial for a child than an hour spent online playing a game. I also believe that a child will learn many more words, in context, through reading a book than listening to an automated voice say a word or two every so often.
While I will definitely not be an advocate for playing more online games- in fact, I am a strong advocate for spending much less time online- I think that if people are going to continue playing such games, ones that can be applied in a beneficial way to real life are the best option. The oil game McGonigal presents shows that players learned how to conserve in real life and have kept up the habits they created for this game. I think the game "Evoke" is good as it brings the virtual world into the real world. McGonigal claims that "games are a powerful platform for change". While I think that they do have the potential to be, because so many people participate in them. I think that there are much better and more efficient ways to bring about change in todays' world, and we should start in the context of the "real" world.
I can sense your passion and am glad you shared it with us. Just wanted to add my 2 cents (cause you know me, I just can't be quiet sometimes)
ReplyDeleteSometimes the real world a person lives in doesn't let them interact with people who are going to be supportive of them. Like the "It Get's Better" project, while not a game, it is a way for people who may never meet in person to be supported by others who may not be collocated, but understand what they are going through.
Or the fund raising I did for LiveSTRONG a few years ago where my 'team' of several hundred people who raised 750k but had never met each other until we did the event, and some of us have never met each other at all. We were brought together by one person online who told a compelling story and gave us a goal to be motivated to and means to reach that goal. While these weren't games, they were ways to connect with people online that might not have been possible in person, which I think is sometimes what people seek through online gaming.
Personally, I know the reason I can read a map and memorize directions and draw maps and logic as well as I can was from online gaming. There was this one game for SNES called Arcana that was levels and levels of dungeon crawling, and with a limited amount of time to do so, meaning you had to be efficient with your time, and had to know where you were, how to get in, and more importantly, how to get out. I'm not sure how else I would have learned those skills at a young age, and kept them without online gaming.
Also, there is a lot of 'real' in the online world. People are people and just because they are online, doesn't mean there personalities and politics don't go with them (even if they decide to create new politics and personalities). Additionally, there are often consequences for their actions online. Many multiplayer games build in consequences for dying, or disobeying social norms, or for cooperation with other players. I think sometimes being online playing games allows us to be a bit more of our hidden selves (as they say, no one knows you are a dog on the internet), but people are people and a game that doesn't let them act like people is not gonna be one that succeeds and becomes popular.
Finally, while there have been studies about video games and violence, there has also been some questions about their methodology and results. As a resource I suggest you check out http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html I think that the media like to have a scapegoat and video games are often easy to blame, when it is rarely one single thing that shapes people's behaviors just as it isn't just a teacher that makes a student succeed or fail.
I can definitely see where you are coming from in your blog post. Some of the points I do agree with, like the point you make about computer games and violence. However, as someone who has not played many online games, I feel I can't really discount or support its potential benefits. Maybe I will try out some games so that I can make my own conclusions.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting and engaging to read your post because it challenges my own initially very positive reaction to both the article and the video. I have to say I was relatively skeptical of the TED talk as well, but by the end I figured, she's right! Gamers are someone convinced to spend all of this time and energy on games. Wouldn't it be great if we harnessed that for social good? I think you're right - it hasn't been done yet and hasn't made a difference. But it does seem to be an emerging phenomenon. Take free rice for example.
ReplyDeleteI think Gee is making a similar point. Gamers spend all this energy - why not re-shape schooling in a way that gets students energized as well?
I agree that reading is important, but I don't think gaming and reading are exclusive. I read voraciously as a child. But, I also loved playing video games! I think it's difficult to compare them because they require very different sorts of attention and performance. Reading is about absorbing / creating meaning from a pre-created text. There is no choice about where to go next, just in how the work is interpreted. But gaming is often about strategy, figuring out a next move. You're right, it's not about vocab and I'm not convinced that gamers are learning new words from games all of the time. But I think gaming can engage different parts of the brain and be a valuable learning experience too.
I think it is extremely important to dream about the big and impossible. Then, humans, when allowed to be creative, figure out a way to bridge the gap between current reality and that big idea. Think about what it must have been like to contemplate flying. No way! And now it is normal part of life. I say, let McGonigal dream bit about solving world problems via games. I am cheering for her and her staff that she represents!
ReplyDeleteFirst off, thanks for the thoughtful and detailed post. I'm glad to see you pushing back with regard to what both James Gee and Jane McGonigal are saying. Though I can't pretend to be able to answer McGonigal's question about what people who play games are getting good at, I have to say that I believe that it IS something, and perhaps several things. I think that the question of figuring out what that might be is actually a process rich with possibility. Maybe, as you suggest in your later post, kids should be writing about how to play a particular game or level. I have to think that there are possibilities for empowering students and for getting to know them better.
ReplyDeleteIn the final section of the podcast interview that I posted on CTools, Gee raises a question that has stuck with me. Someone asks him about Video game addiction and, as we might hope, he states that it is a serious problem. With that as a starting point, though, he inverts a related question about kids spending so much time gaming, asking what it is about their lives (in school and elsewhere) that are unsatisfying enough that they would play VGs so much? He also talks about the fact that a LOT of working people are doing work that doesn't challenge them very much...perhaps there are questions there that bear further thought.
As I say all of this, know that I applaud your skeptical "show me" stance. I just feel that there are things here that we need to think about carefully, lest we miss opportunities.
Yo. Meeker.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to argue any of your points. I am going to try something new. I am going to ask you a question:
What would you say to a child with a severe physical disability and plays online video games to substitute experiences he/she cannot have normally? They can run, jump, and fight online. They can make friends with people who might otherwise be uncomfortable encountering their disability in person. Would these virtual experiences be valid? Or is this just a form of escapism?
Miss you.
Yo, Quiambao,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting question indeed. Let me see if I can give you a satisfactory answer.
To begin with, I will return your question with a question: Wouldn't this situation you presented concerning a child with a physical disability just be an extension of what current video games already do? Or even a book for that matter?
Let's take for example a sci-fi book. When we read this, we are in a sense "escaping" into a different form of reality. A reality in which spaceships are the norm, and the characters have the ability to fly around with jet packs or something. Or when we play a video game, we are taking on a different character. One who can fly, or jump high, or run around and get killed then pop back up to life. So, in essence, a video game for a severely disabled person creates the same non-reality for an abled person, in that they are both taking on personalities and forms that allow them to do something they cannot really do in life. So, what is the real difference?
I think that these types of games aren't necessarily harmful or bad, it is rather how we use them and how often. I wouldn't recommend people to read books all the time if they feel the need to escape their reality. I think if people are doing this, there is a deeper issue that they need help with, so I would suggest getting help and weening them off of their fantasy world they feel the need to engage in. The same goes with people using video games. If people are using it too much, and become obsessed with the physical abilities they can have in these games, it can lead to more and more dissatisfaction in real life. A lot of people with disabilities are still able to do other things, including holding a job. It's not like there is nothing for them to do with their life just because they are disabled.
So, I think it is fine if people want to engage in video games every once in a while, while keeping a healthy perspective on it, and don't use it as a way to escape. Same goes with reading.
Thanks for the question.Does this answer it?
I miss you too.