Ah, the sounds of spring: classes ending, birds chirping, and one Englishman going apeshit on his countrymen. Witness the awesome power of this fully operational Bartle-station in the Guardian.
I've made the same demographic argument in a book chapter before, and tied it to social and cultural trends, but perhaps not quite as color(hmm, make that "colour")fully as Richard's just done.
Still, I think old attitudes die hard on each side of the pond, and I expect the release of GTA IV to lurch our culture wars back into prominence, just in time for elections. Academics, prepare to be quoted! I said no to an interview today because I haven't actually played the dang thing yet--not that that will stop the usual interviewees we'll see over the next few weeks. OK, I'm off to play it!
Oh lord. I had almost forgotten about the ritual Sturm and Drang about videogames. And we have Hillary Clinton running no less. Maybe John McCain can have Lieberman as his VP so we can get it out of both barrels. Makes me ABUNDANTLY glad to not own a television set.
More to the point, I guess, is that the political criticism is SO off base. GTA-3 was an ugly game, but not for the violence or what not. It was ugly because it was a sprawling, open ended racist look at black culture. Intelligent Gamer has the drop on me here (http://www.intelligentgamer.com/news.php?extend.51), but the basic idea is that the attidues and humor that we saw in GTA1 and 2 weren't really all that virulent. We KNEW that not all italians were mafiosos and that not all cubans were Scarface. But we have a serious, endemic problem in this country telling black men apart from our fevered visions of them. So when all the black guys in GTA3 are running around shooting each other and dropping the N-bomb, we aren't living out some sterotype that only exists on TV or the movies. We are busy reinforcing the idea that black men are miscreants and predators. And I'm sure that someone said something about that at the height of outrage, but it wasn't even REMOTELY close to the complaints about a sexually explicit (lol) easter egg.
Maybe the othering of black men isn't so noticeable in video games, as it isn't really a big break from the norm. But when we get down to it, most of the complaints about video games stem from the fact that they become cartoonish examples of pre-existing stereotypes. Oh well.
Posted by: Adam Hyland | Apr 29, 2008 at 20:45
Well, they asked for an opinion piece, so I opined...
The argument that we only have to wait for the older generation to die is one that often works, but not always. If there were large numbers of gamers in their 30s and 40s warning the youth of today about the terrible consequences of playing computer games, and stopping their own children from playing them, then that would be a different story. This is what happens with drug abuse, for example: the old fogeys who warn about the consequences of messing with brain chemistry are replaced by new fogeys who do exactly the same but have the voice of experience, too.
We don't see people who grew up with games begging their own children to "just say no". What we see is them telling their children they can't go on the Playstation until they've finished their homework, much the same as their own parents wouldn't let them watch TV until they'd finished their homework.
I've had it with anti-games people and their selective use of bad research to justify their prejudices. I don't see why we should defer to them any more, knocking down their arguments patiently, one at a time, after the damage has been done. All we have to do is tell them they've lost. It doesn't matter what charts they wheel out, what distressed mothers who lost their children to World of Warcraft they parade, what opinions they state as fact: they've been overtaken by events. They may as well be Zeus-worshippers for all the relevance they have.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Apr 30, 2008 at 03:52
Very true, Richard. I fully agree with you (as, most probably, does everybody else on this blog. :P).
To raise the issue to another level, I'd also dare to disagree with the vast amounts of censure the gaming is receiving. Why do we ban certain games (e.g. Postal and Manhunt) and only sell others in "youth friendly" versions (think about the different AoC versions here), yet allow films like Hostel run on our silver-screens. You might argue that games promote you to perform those actions in real life to a much further extend than films do; though if I remember right, when I first watched Highlander, my friends and I fenced with some sticks in the yard for another week or so. If you release this sort of title, there’s always a chance that some rather unstable individual will try playing it out on his wife and children. As far as Hostel 2 goes, according to Wikipedia this already happened and nobody really seemed to care. Once again, torture films are fine, killer-games aren’t…
Apart from that and completely off-topic, whilst raising an interesting generational issue here, you made me wonder what the next tech-taboo will be. (NB: I’d love to hear your thoughts on this one as well)
Posted by: Nicholas Chambers | Apr 30, 2008 at 05:43
/cheer Richard
"When they have more friends in World of Warcraft than you have in your entire sad little booze-oriented culture of a real life, the most you'll get from them is pity."
Wow. Just...wow.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Apr 30, 2008 at 08:35
Outstanding. I just showed this to one of my lecturer colleagues who I know is having trouble grappling with his children's seeming "obsession" with MSN messenger, Facebook, computer games, etc. and he laughed heartily at it.
"Yes, I feel like I dinosaur, now I have someone pointing it out to me that *I am* a dinosaur!"
Posted by: David Grundy | Apr 30, 2008 at 09:20
Bravo Sir!!! Bravo!!!
That piece gets funnier each time I read it. I e-mailed a copy to my 60-something parents; they didn't find it amusing though.
I see that your blood still hasn't cooled off either, judging by your post here. I especially like this line: "They may as well be Zeus-worshippers for all the relevance they have"
May I have your permission to spread that one around a bit please? I love that line.
Posted by: SVgr | Apr 30, 2008 at 11:22
/me looks over his shoulder for lightning bolts and sees none
Posted by: SVgr | Apr 30, 2008 at 11:24
3 Cheers for Richard. Like Tom that "booze soaked culture" comment really struck me (and I live in Wisconsin!). The cultural critique of the boomers on the gamers really does seem to fall on deaf ears.
Anyway, great intro, Dmitri, great comments. Great to see you all.
You go girl(s).
Posted by: kurt | Apr 30, 2008 at 12:02
Ah, but if a generational zerg is futile to resist, what, one might wonder, happens to the hero?
Posted by: dmyers | Apr 30, 2008 at 13:20
Bravo.
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Apr 30, 2008 at 14:38
SVgr>I e-mailed a copy to my 60-something parents; they didn't find it amusing though.
Well, get them a Wii and ask again in 6 months.
I haven't shown it to my own parents, mainly because it's a bit, er, strident. My dad would approve of the sentiment as he's a gamer, but he might not like the somewhat impolite language.
>I see that your blood still hasn't cooled off either, judging by your post here.
You noticed huh?
>May I have your permission to spread that one around a bit please? I love that line.
Feel free!
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Apr 30, 2008 at 15:24
Preach it, Richard.
All love to ya on this one.
Posted by: Andy Havens | Apr 30, 2008 at 19:13
Amen, Richard.
I had a conversation with a seven-year-old yesterday about WoW...his parents are using it as a teaching tool to help him learn to type while they play. (They text/chat to him even though they're in the same room.) They also give him some gold so he can learn about statistics and economics by using the Auction House...
Quite a brave new world!
Posted by: Tripp | May 01, 2008 at 12:01
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/newsletter/weekly_20080501134016
An echo from the games press. One wonders if they read Richard's post, though there are some additional insights here. I find these guys to be a constantly good source of info and thinking.
Posted by: Dmitri Williams | May 01, 2008 at 15:16
News Flash - academics who research and participate in virtual worlds defend their existence. It's not the games they say - it's the parents.
Stay tuned after the break for a story on the adult film industry and their attempt to show X rated movies on cable channels 24 hours a day. If the parents don't want their kids to watch they should get rid of the tv.
Posted by: thoreau | May 01, 2008 at 20:21
@Thoreau: There's a fallacious assumption in your News Flash. -What's "it" in the second sentence? Some insidious side effect of game playing? It turns players into violent criminals? It makes them fat (in which case they could be playing DDR or get a Wii...) ? It lowers their scores on standardized tests?
I don't think there's any evidence of causal links to any of these things. You're missing the point, it seems.
(On a side note, I would really be curious to know what, if any, causal links HAVE been found for video and computer games.)
Posted by: Tripp | May 02, 2008 at 02:28
thoreau>academics who research and participate in virtual worlds defend their existence. It's not the games they say - it's the parents.
Give it your best shot, thoreau. Didn't you read the article? We've ALREADY WON.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | May 02, 2008 at 03:32
Trying hard not to drop too far into much rehashed A -word debate,
Not all video games are created equal.
Not all games have the same claim on a players psyche. Games hold on to players dreams and aspirations in different degrees for different lengths of time and different percentages of a players time. And not all players become as immersed in a substitute realities as others.
Lumping all games together doesn't make sense whether you love the genre or hate it. You can love sports and loathe boxing. You can admire gymnastics but find the time and emotional commitment undertaken by children at age 7 exploitive.
You are right to take on people who feel that games are evil in themselves. Even though television has become acceptable there are many health advocates raising ruckus on the dangers of watching tv to the exclusion of other types of activities. More often than not in my community, the idea of limiting 'screen time' is more prevalent than damming the games themselves.
For adults the duration of play that games inspire is often an issue, and again not all games hold on to players as deep or as long. Game playing is likely no better from bowling, perhaps a bit better. But if someone went bowling 6 or 7 nights a week for 4 hours or more, people might be painting bowling as a risky activity...especially if a fair percentage of people who liked bowling a game or two found themselves playing to that level.
Video games aren't bad in themselves. But people aren't being reactionary criticizing those games which they feel promote huge time commitment and life focus relative to other activities. And television is a bit of a straw man because health advocates don't like the idea of huge hours in front of the tv either and certain games hold the focus of players like TV on steroids.
Posted by: shander | May 02, 2008 at 15:16
Richard Bartle > "When they have more friends in World of Warcraft than you have in your entire sad little booze-oriented culture of a real life, the most you'll get from them is pity."
Now, with the hype cooling down slowly, I somewhat disagree here. Before I go into the matter, yes, I'm nitpicking, and yes, I agree with the statement as it was intended and with the article in its entirety. This really is a question rather than a critique:
Do "MMO-gamers" really have more "friends" than the non-gamers? Of course, the word friend is relative to every person. One would call a guy he drank a pint with "his friend", another would only refer to his best buddies as "friends". As we know, individuals can develop friendships/affection in VW environments, just as they can experience happiness or sorrow (e.g. A Story About A Tree). My matter of doubt is whether a player can develop the level depth in a VW friendship which they can reach in their "booze-oriented culture". I may be misunderstanding, but your statement seems to be provoking the thought that the VWs, at their current stage, can offer a full-scale substitute for RL social interactions. Logically, this could simply be a matter of raising the conditions to an absolute for the sake of the argument, yet nevertheless, I feel that the issue has to be addressed. In my regard, it seems that VWs can -currently- work as an addition to the existing social network of an individual, yet they can never replace its depth and complexity. Things might change as the VWs become more personal though (yay for emotiv).
Once again, great article, yet being somewhat less experienced in the field than you are, I’d dare to question the much acclaimed line.
Posted by: Nicholas Chambers | May 05, 2008 at 06:14
Nicholas Chambers>My matter of doubt is whether a player can develop the level depth in a VW friendship which they can reach in their "booze-oriented culture"
Well, there are many examples of people who have met in a virtual world and subsequently married. Would that count?
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | May 05, 2008 at 10:21
To be fair though Richard, that's not a VW friendship/marriage anymore than a couple who meets in a hardware store and goes on to get married had a "hardware store relationship" past the point that they left the hardware store.
If the couple actually went and got (actually) married without ever meeting f2f it'd certainly count, but there's a reason that people choose to leave the virtual space to continue their relationship: deeper relationships are possible out of virtual space than in, for now at least.
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | May 05, 2008 at 15:27
I think that marriages are a bad example. As Matt has already said, people go beyond VW and only then choose to propose. Even though you could say that VWs take it somewhat beyond social networking sites (in regards of couple-matching), the difference isn't terrific.
On the other hand, friendships are a totally different thing. Though I'd have to see the bride before marrying here, I don't necessarily have to see a friend to declare him as such. In the extreme case though, I would most certainly value a friend in the RL much more than those from the VWs. Just my thoughts.
~~ Nicholas
Posted by: Nicholas Chambers | May 07, 2008 at 04:30
Completely OT but what I find really funny is that both the PS3 and Xbox 360 have parent locks. Our children could all be saved if only parents paid the slightest bit of attention to what their children do.
Posted by: Cunzy1 1 | May 15, 2008 at 09:13
Not everyone like the sims online but it serves as an escape to many. I personally played and have recently joined a movement called playercampaigns.com that is trying to save the game. Its a great idea, gamers who invest a lot of time making friends shouldnt be cast out.
Posted by: Andrew | May 30, 2008 at 03:46
Bravo, Dmitri Williams!
Posted by: Serg | Aug 28, 2008 at 15:04