Why gaming is good for you
Yes, that’s right; computer gaming is actually good for you. How can this be? It’s easy to dismiss games as just “how to blow up aliens,” but this is a mindset that is terribly uninformed about the medium, focusing instead on the subject matter. An apt comparison to books would be the charge that a reader of a particular text is learning only about that particular made-up world, which obviously doesn’t exist in “real life.” But this is just as wrongheaded; we all know that reading is good for you–it opens up your mind, it excites your imagination, it gives you an appreciation for the power of the written word, it teaches you to dream your own worlds.
These facts are self-evident to readers. However, those who have never picked up a book in their life might well disagree–or at least, fail to see the truth.
The same is accurate of gaming. Their loudest critics are those who have never played them in any significant capacity, especially newer ones. However, games do have skills to teach us–skills that are more relevant today than ever before. You see, games teach computer skills, and not just computer literacy–games teach computer mastery. The 35 and older crowd often wonders just what it is that makes us whippersnappers so good at computers. I think I have the answer: games. Here are some common types and what they teach.
Twitch games
This category encompasses first-person shooters, action/adventure games, and anything where skill at the game’s controls greatly determines the player’s success. Those who master said controls through the speed and coordination of their reflexes and knowledge of efficiency-boosting shortcuts will best players who have not. These skills directly translate to the desktop; players of twitch games internalize the desire for efficiency, and actively seek out ways to maximize their ability to accomplish repetitive actions. Twitch gamers are more likely than non-gamers and even other kinds of gamers to know keyboard shortcuts and fast ways of doing things.
Role-Playing games
This category encompasses games where the player takes on the role of one or more characters exploring a virtual world. Because of the limited nature of how much can reasonably be shown, these virtual worlds always have set limits and boundaries, which distinguishes them from the real world, which goes on for miles and miles. Therefore, those who play these types of games learn probing–the skill of testing the limits of a finite space with concrete but hidden boundaries. This skill is immensely useful on the desktop, which is also a world unto itself with limits and boundaries which must be discovered. RPG players learn to explore the nooks and crannies of their computer systems to find hidden secrets.
Real-Time Strategy games
In the average real-time strategy game, players must balance the tasks of building their base with building enough military units with building the right type of military units with gathering enough resources to sustain both an expanding base and a growing military with upgrading their military units with probing their enemy’s forces with correctly timing an assault with making use of their military units’ particular special capabilities…
RTS games teach multitasking, and not just any multitasking–they teach extreme multitasking! Your average RTS consists of dozens if not hundreds of time-sensitive tasks that must all be harmoniously balanced to achieve victory. Those who play RTS games will often be the most extreme multitaskers on the desktop, often keeping 10 or more of windows open at once and working on half a dozen tasks at a time, rapidly switching between them to work a little on each one. Because of the nature of computers’ ability to facilitate multitasking, this particular use of them meshes very well with the most efficient way to use modern computers.
Puzzle games
Puzzle games involve figuring out an intentionally obfuscated or muddled problem or situation through experimentation, intuition, or trial and error. Puzzle gamers learn patience with confusing problems and learn to approach them methodically and patiently. Puzzle games can be thought of as the ultimate “bad interfaces” because they often seem to have been thought up specifically to challenge the player’s ability to decipher them. Sadly, this often happens unintentionally in computer software as a result of poor design or planning. Those well schooled in puzzle gaming are far more likely to respond to these challenges with patience and determination rather than frustration and concession.
Categorised as: Uncategorized
Interesting post, but it misses the main issues.
The reason that games are attacked is two-fold. One, it doesn’t teach much that can be used anywhere else. There is a theory in psychology, which I will not go into here, known as the Theory of Formal Discipline. This theory argues that it doesn’t matter what you teach people, as long as you teach them something hard and challenging their mental ability will increase. This is the reason that latin and ancient greek were taught in schools, it was thought that this would make people “smarter” which would then transfer onto other areas, such as maths or English.
Unfortunately, there is no support for this theory (after decades of research). How does this relate to games? Well, it means that video games make you good at video games. That’s it. They won’t make you better at analytic thinking. They won’t make you better at maths, english, physics, etc.
You talk about the traits of puzzle gamers (being calm and patient), rts gamers (multitaskers), etc. The problem with that is that we don’t know why they exhibit these traits. It is the classic problem of correlation =! causation. Are puzzle gamers patient and determined because they have been playing puzzle games for years? Or do they play puzzle games because they are patient and determined?
The other reason that games are attacked is because they are said, by some critics, to make the gamer more prone to violence. Because I don’t live in the USA, I have no idea exactly how insane the raving video games critics are, but there is some evidence that does suggest that this is correct. This evidence, however, is somewhat mixed and it is still too early to conclude anything from it.
Sorry about the info overload, but it was a truly interesting post to read, and it piqued my interest enough to comment (which rarely happens).
Well, by that logic, can’t the same be said of any form of entertainment, whether from the creative side or the experiential side? What real-world skills do chess masters gain from this most revered of games? What do olympic athletes gain besides being good at their sport? After all, their respective talents made them predisposed to succeed in their chosen form of entertainment, and their subsequent training just made them better at it. But the talent was already there, right? The games haven’t taught the players anything new “that can be used anywhere else.”
Prone to violence? What about rugby and American football players, and professional boxers? Their games actually require them to pummel others, and yet these games are totally socially acceptable! Can’t it also be said that chess makes its players more prone to social isolation, football (soccer) making its players more prone to be whiny and immature, etc.?
And what about other forms of entertainment/art, like music, sculpture, painting? If I were to say the study and practice of music doesn’t add anything useful to the person, and universally makes musicians prone to immorality, I would be the laughingstock of the world. People would rightfully object that I can’t make such preposterous claims about an entire medium as a whole, and that music does so enrich people and everyone knows it.
Why then is it considered valid for people to make the same ignorant, over-simplified, sweeping accusations of an equally complex, diverse, and arguably more productive art medium and entertainment pastime? Just because it’s the youngest doesn’t mean it doesn’t merit the same consideration as its artistic and diversionary relatives.
And to respond to Nate, perhaps the solution to dealing with Windows is to spend more time playing Myst or Puzzle Pirates instead of Command and Conquer. Maybe then you won’t get as worked up about Microsoftian shod, eh?
Yes, you certainly can say the same thing of other forms of entertainment. But you miss the point that it is being sold as purely that, entertainment. The poster tried to make it out as if gaming does teach you something useful or that it builds useful skills, which I don’t think it is.
Don’t misunderstand me, I think that gaming deserves the same level of “respect” as other forms of entertainment, but it is fundamentally different.
There is a difference between watching violent movies and boxing, and playing a violent game. The difference is that you are in charge of what happens in the video game. It has been long known that violent TV shows lead to violent behaviour in children, and this is generally accepted. However, the gaming community is not ready to accept the same conclusion.
I think the difference between art and music and gaming is that art and music are scholarly pursuits and it takes a level of learning and time to properly understand and appreciate them (this, of course, doesn’t apply to all music and art). Video games, however, are perceived as either child’s play, or something that can be relatively quickly adopted by anyone willing to try.
More violent pursuits out there than violent video games (such as rugby and boxing), changes nothing for video games. Just because everyone cheats on their taxes, it does not mean that you should too (tu quoque).
Just to reiterate, I do think that video games should enjoy the same level of protection as other forms of entertainment (movies, television, music), and should be restricted and controlled in the same way (as they more or less are now).
Alf,
As far as games and violence are concerned, the most reasonable study I’ve yet to see claims that games have pretty much the same effect that’s already well-known in other forms of violent media: that exposure to it has little effect effect on those with stable personalities, but all bets are off for others.
But the effect of violence in video games wasn’t really my point. I was simply making the claim that video games teach a mindset that makes the player better suited to being computer-literate.
The chess analogy that the good captain mentioned is particularly apt, I think. Chess doesn’t teach any “useful” skills at all inasmuch as you’re probably never going to be called on to play chess during your job, but nonetheless, chess teaches a particular mindset: it teaches players to think logically, analyze the future, and divine the psychology of their opponent. While chess itself won’t be useful in the boardroom, these skills one can gain by playing it certainly will. The same can be said of art or music. Becoming a music lover is unlikely to directly advance your career (unless said career is creating or reviewing it), but it certainly contributes to making you a more cultured, well-rounded person; the same is true of art.2
Games are exactly the same. As with chess, it’s unlikely your workplace will be invaded by soviets/terrorists/aliens/the Mafia/the CIA/LBJ/castro/teamsters/freemasons and you’ll be the only one prepared. What is far more likely is that you’ll internalize the skills required to excel at those games and use the computer assigned to you far more productively than your co-workers, and accomplish more in the same time.
Games–like all other mentally-stimulating activities–alter the ways in which your brain processes challenges and tasks, and makes you more capable at those which require you to think in a similar way to the mentally-stimulating activity itself. Nothing more, nothing less. If you deny this, then you’re essentially denying that one can learn anything at all from activities not explicitly designed to teach, and you’re also denying the feasibility of the Dewey Decimal system or any method of learning besides sitting down in class with a textbook. Out brains are complex organs, constantly reconfiguring themselves based on available stimuli. It’s how we learn not to touch hot stoves, where nearby landmarks are, and how to become better lovers.
To alf:
I brought up boxing and football with the intention of comparing the boxers and the football players to the video gamers, not the audiences. Like video gamers playing a game, a boxer is playing a game. Except his game requires him to beat the shit out of another human being, a task he’s been trained to do for years. A video gamer isn’t actually hurting anybody, and is probably not a walking weapon due to his video game training. My point was that society’s acceptance of a sport that 1) encourages actual physical violence and 2) does not encourage mental exercises is hypocritical to society’s general uncertainty towards video games, that 1) don’t require actual physical violence to be proficient and 2) often require players to think tactically, strategically, logistically, and in the case of highbrow video games, politically, ethically, and emotionally. It’s just downright hypocrisy to accept the former and disregard the latter for the traits the former possesses!
Then again, there is a major difference between gaming and most other forms of entertainment. Like film, it is often a narrative and pictorial art form. Like sports, its a dynamic spectatorial and participatory experience. It is at once a sport and an art form; it should not be considered as either/or. That’s one of the big problems, I think, with how VGs are regarded.
“As far as games and violence are concerned, the most reasonable study I’ve yet to see claims that games have pretty much the same effect that’s already well-known in other forms of violent media: that exposure to it has little effect effect on those with stable personalities, but all bets are off for others.”
Once recent study found a stronger effect for games, the authors hypothesised that this may be because when it comes to video games, you are in control of what happens, whilst in movies you are a passive observe.
“I was simply making the claim that video games teach a mindset that makes the player better suited to being computer-literate.”
I agree with you there, but I think this only really applies to PC games, and not to all gamers. Again, the problem of the direction of causality exists (are gamers more likely to be interested in computers because they play games, or are they more likely to play games because of their interest in computers?).
“chess teaches a particular mindset: it teaches players to think logically, analyze the future, and divine the psychology of their opponent.”
The difference between chess experts and novices is that they remember more chess board positions, and are able to “chunk” larger positions than novices. In a study comparing psychology, chemistry, medicine, and law students, the transfer of skill from one are to another (from logical thinking to statistical methodological thinking) was extremely small.
“If you deny this, then you’re essentially denying that one can learn anything at all from activities not explicitly designed to teach, and you’re also denying the feasibility of the Dewey Decimal system or any method of learning besides sitting down in class with a textbook.”
I am denying it. There is very little support of the Doctrine of Formal Discipline, the theory that argues that if you teach people will be able to transfer the skills they learn in one area to another. Chess experts gain a lot of chess skills, and these generally don’t help them in any other area (remembering more chess board positions and having larger chunks for these isn’t going to help you in anything other than chess).
“Out (sic) brains are complex organs”
You don’t have to tell me (I’m a neuropsychologist)
Well firstly, I’d like to point out that any argument that says gaming is not productive and therefore is a time waster/burner is crap.
Why should anyone care about time anyway? What difference does it make if you don’t game, make $500,000 a year and have your life consumed by work when you compare it to a Gamer who earns $50,000 and his/her life is consumed by gaming, to your overall happiness? I know, that after you die, it doesn’t matter how productive you have been in life, you are still dead so you might have spent all that time you used to make money on having fun.
Noone who critiques people who game ever considers how pointless life is and how pointless it is to be rich when you can be poor, gaming and quite happy with your life.
Gaming, is really like a sport. And “wastes” time in exactly the same way that playing a game of soccer does, and it can be far more fun, as you have less to lose physically, and it doesn’t matter if you are physically fit or not.
When you look at the world, in the long run, anything you do doesn’t count for jack, so you might as well have fun.
The only way the world can be given meaning is if you turn to religion.