This Christmas, Protect Your Loved One From Games

Brett Arends of the Wall Street Journal offers ten reasons why he does NOT want an iPad for Christmas. Reason number 7: The games. Writes Arends:

"Yes, they're great. But that's the problem. Computer games are as addictive as cigarettes. And this is a habit everyone is taking up, not quitting. This is why I dumped my iPod Touch. Am I alone? Maybe. But I don't think so. I know lots of people with horror stories about addiction to immersive games. Someone I know—now, as it happens, a British member of parliament—once sat down to play Civilization, a role-playing game, on a PC one Saturday evening and didn't finish until three o'clock ... Thursday morning. (He stopped when he ran out of cigarettes.) And that was on an old PC. Games on the iPad are more intense than ever. A friend recently showed me some of the serious news apps on his iPad. I noticed that to get to them he first had to "wave" us past several screens of games. Is he really using his iPad to read that article about the Indonesian economy, or is he playing Angry Birds? Hmmm. You make the call."

Comments

[jake]

1.

Civ has always been my favorite role-playing game, too. . .

[Sousily]

2.

I actually believe that the first reason is still the best, and I'm glad Arends list it in the right order.

iPad v2 will be out probably first quarter 2011 with the rumoured camera. Buying one now at this price point is just cheating yourself and your friends.

Now back to games and virtual worlds - I've always saw games and virtual worlds as alternative forms of entertainment (used to be TV, but for me now it could also easily be "web"). Definitely far cheaper than out drinking and partying. Probably not as healthy as a gym membership.

If you don't want them to play games - what do you want your loved ones to be doing? Learn piano? Join a community volunteers group? Is this for entertainment and relaxation, or is this going to be "yet another work"?

In my opinion, games are just fine, Many of us have grown up playing games that we know how to balance this already (no time for TV, work/family/shopping first). The people crying foul about how addictive games are - are the same people who are glued to TVs in the past and now suddenly got into games.

And suddenly, oh my god the game are so addictive and the developers are so evil. Truthfully, if the TV series doesn't stop and just keep going - I think the same people will watch a show like Heros or Lost all the way until 3AM the next morning.

Perhaps the friend was stuck in CIV because finally, his choices in the game matters (unlike TV where really you have no choice over what the actors do), and the game challenges him in return, and he could not wait to see what the computer does after he press

[Sousily]

3.

*end turn*

(angle-tags eaten by typepad)

[Sir Knight]

4.

Once we finally get over the games are addictive and violent and evil mantra, what's going to be the next generational bogeyman.

[Richard]

5.

Sir Knight>Once we finally get over the games are addictive and violent and evil mantra, what's going to be the next generational bogeyman.

There are already 3 bogeymen:
1) They are so addictive we will even give up watching TV to play them.
2) They turn us all into psychopaths.
3) Think of the children!

This last one is the most valid point, but no more valid than for any other art form. If you don't want your 8-year-old watching The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or reading Lady Chatterley's Lover, you don't want them playing an 18-rated game either.

Richard

[Siveambrai]

6.

I think part of the problem is that other forms of entertainment have built in breaks (like commercials or sponsored tv commercials) which will break people out of their zone. People who are used to having these cues to control their use of entertainment will find themselves playing uncontrollably.

[jocuri noi]

7.

I post much. we back. Hope we review judicious posts then. Will pity knowledge friends !

[Carolyn]

8.

But what do you give your 11-year-old niece that will actually make her smile and thank you? A Nexon card, apparently.

I guess that makes me a bad aunt. ;)

[Richard]

9.

Siveambrai>I think part of the problem is that other forms of entertainment have built in breaks (like commercials or sponsored tv commercials)

Not on the BBC!

>which will break people out of their zone.

On this basis, we should ban books, too, then. My wife has just spent 3 hours reading one, and only hunger has made her put it down.

Richard

[greglas]

10.

Well, currently, not to name names, but there are some people out there saying: "To get people who don't want to do X to do X, just turn X into a game. Games are great at motivating people to do things they wouldn't normally want to do."
If that's true, then I suppose we can't complain when that premise is accepted and the next shoe falls: if a game can motivate me to do something I wouldn't normally do, then perhaps I better stay away from games if I want to remain in control of my agenda.
I sort of think the first premise is overstated, which means the corollary is also a bit overblown.

[Richard]

11.

greglas>I sort of think the first premise is overstated

I agree, for three main reasons:

1) When people "turn it into a game" they typically "turn it into a bad game". Turning it into a game that people will actually want to play is non-trivial.

2) People are not stupid, and if they're exposed to shallow gamified content often enough they will eventually grok it and want more sophisticated games (a point I touched on in a talk I gave at the BrowserGames forum last month).

3) The contradiction at the heart of this can only be resolved by recognising that games are good at teaching or encouraging some things but bad at others (which we discussed on TN back in 2005).

Eventually, academics will be able to get funding to study how to make games fun, and then we might see progress. At the moment, if they want to study games they have to pretend they're doing it for noble purposes (eg. educational ones), which is why we're not really getting anywhere in that field.

Richard