Installer Steam
Logg inn
|
språk
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (tradisjonell kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tsjekkisk)
Dansk (dansk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spania)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latin-Amerika)
Ελληνικά (gresk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (nederlandsk)
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasil)
Română (rumensk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et problem med oversettelse
Dette emnet er blitt låst 
Diskusjonsregler og retningslinjer
Rapporter dette innlegget
It could be a variety of things, poor self-control, lack of time management, or inability to conceptualize consequences. It could be a coping mechanism to avoid something or simply a means of escapism. Or it could be that gaming puts the person in an altered state of consciousness (zoning out) and they just lose track of time. If I had to stake an explanation on it, I'd say video game 'addicts' are not keenly aware of how much time they are investing, coupled with the belief that they can procrastinate all other obligations without consequences.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-skinner-box
If video game adiction even exists, then I'd probably bet it results from playing an MMORPG. That need to make your ingame character stronger, smarter etc. is pretty intense and a good reason to log on every single day. The more time you spend, the better your second life will be.
I feel like I'm talking out my ass and it's all jumbled, but yeah.. I've given you my jumbled opinion.
Games themselves can hook you simply by providing a sense of accomplishment (like Super Mario Brothers with the flags and fireworks), others by repetitition (classic arcade games such as Space Invaders), and RPGs have a special place due to their massive reward systems (XP is a perfect scaling reward mechanism, and RPGs by definition encourage emotional attachment to the game, more than any other genre). Modern games have upped the scales on addiction with unlocks and achievements...now there are constant bonuses and improvements you can earn in most games they give you incentive to keep playing.
MMORPGs are the worst at these behaviors. The concept of grinding has no fun value, it's more like working...but by encouraging repetitive and pointless kills of specific monsters through quests or unlocking titles and traits, the boring gameplay becomes a compulsion to receieve a mental reward. The games are heavily padded with things like escort quests, in order to make you spend a long time in game so you become more attached to it, and more accustomed to it. The truth about MMOs is they are massive experiments in behavior modification for profit.
There is no difference in the brain between a physical reward (like earning money or eating chocolate) and a game reward (gaining a level, earning an achievement), and so when you earn a game-related reward, your brain adapts itself to increase the likelihood of receiving that reward. At the same time, your brain can become satiated with rewards, and stop craving them if they become too common. So games begin with a massive shower of rewards, then become harder to attain rewards with longterm play. For instance, Civilization V has achievements for building a city or finding ruins...you'll do those in the first few turns of the first game. Then some achievements can take months or longer to unlock and require extreme dedication...after awhile, there will be a period of no achievements. Diablo II had a leveling system where you could reach level 8 in one casual session. Later in the game, it could take days of casual playing to level up. This is intentional.
Steam itself is built on these methods. There's a reason for everything here...the achievements are listed prominently for a reason. The screenshots are used like advertising, to plant the concept of the game in your mind before you play. You are notified when your friends play a game in order to trigger a "my friends do this, I should too" response. You are also notified with every achievement your friends earn, in order to inspire competitive behavior. Even the hours counted adds to compulsive behavior, by reminding you that you've contributed 1000 hours to a game, you are more likely to feel attached to a game. Everything about Steam is meant to make you want to play games and buy new games. And it's very effective.
I'm actually very concerned about the modern state of gaming. Less emphasis is made on compelling game play, and more on behavior modification to encourage you to play the game...but I'm not under any illusions. Donkey Kong was behavioral modification as well, one of the most effective games at this was Tetris. It's not a new situation, it's just changing in the pervasiveness of the methods.
But one thing that sets gaming apart from other compulsive behaviors, is a gamer can stop.
In cases of neglect, it doesn't matter if you're talking about alcohol, soap operas, gambling, or World of Warcraft, you have a duty to attend to regardless of habit or addiction. So I hold that person responsible for neglect, not the game itself. Of those habits, only alcohol is a physical dependency.
In the end, we are creatures of familiarity and repetition, we crave what's comfortable, and provides us with good stimuli. Perhaps the strongest argument against gaming is that people will go for a more pleasurable, rewarding stimuli given a choice...and gaming is preferable to work, school, parenting, many other tasks. If you become comfortable with one of those tasks, they will reward you instead, and you're less likely to be hooked on games.
Children are by nature impulsive, inquisitive, absorb new information, adapt to new situations, and require lots of reward, so gaming is much more serious to a child than an adult. It can affect grades if not balanced with other activities. It can also boost intelligence, in my opinion, so it shouldn't be kept from children, but it should be moderated.
People who lack social skills, have social anxiety, or other problems naturall attempt to withdraw from uncomfortable situations. Games provide this oppotunity for people...so does TV, comics, and books, any single-person activity you can do at home. My grandfather used tools and machinery to keep people out, things are no different now, it's only more accessible and acceptable.
I think the problem with school is not a lack of rewards, but the addition of a number of stress factors not present in gaming or fun activities. No one enjoys school, and there's a social stigma against overachieving. Good grades are celebrated by everyone except peers, who are the most influencial group. The problem of grades is more complicated than just saying "video games are ruining our children". It's a sociological matter beyond the scope of this discussion, games are just the scapegoat here.
So it's not games itself that are the blame, but how people use them, and what behavior they are replacing by gaming.
"It is a lovely language, but it takes a very long time to say anything in it, because we do not say anything in it, unless it is worth taking a long time to say, and to listen to." -Treebeard
Amazing. : )
This thread reminded me of one thing I've been thinking about, which is: how do people balance gaming with being a busy, functional person?
I do know gamers who have busy schedules, demanding jobs, and young families. They play sometimes, but they can clearly discipline themselves to start gaming only once in a while. Otherwise they wouldn't have enough hours in the day.
But modern games are intensely "involving". There were some great posts above about how games leverage educational psychology and behavioural conditioning to make people play more. Games are also marketed very well. (I think EA have the best marketing at the moment.)
Let's do some maths (because time is money). Many games are designed to have a pretty long play time. Take Assassin's Creed. AC2 took me 31 hours to complete the main story. I paid about £10 for it in a sale. Taking a working day of 9-5, with one hour for lunch, I spend seven hours out of 24 working. In any 31 hour period I'd therefore spend between seven and 13 hours working (depending when you put the start). Say my salary is £10 an hour.
7*10 = 70 OR 13*10 = 130 + the cost of the game (£10) means that:
HappyBunny spent between £80 and £140 on Assassin's Creed 2. That's $160-280. Was it worth it?
Personally I have some double feelings right now about gaming. People definitely have the ability to stop playing altogether. But I agree that games rewire the brain in favour of short-term rewards. Compare the time it takes to score a kill in a multiplayer game to the 6 months or more it takes to set up a profitable business, the years it takes to write a book or the lifetime's hard work and happiness of starting a family.
One argument I have heard is that video materials (games, YouTube, movies, TV programmes) make the brain very passive. So the bits of the brain which are involved in planning, breaking a task down into parts and carrying it out, are kind of asleep. That might make sense as playing too long does make you feel kind of fuzzy.
Activities which do the opposite - stimulate these bits of the brain - are said to include active reading, making schedules, drawing up budgets and business plans (even dummy ones which are not intended to be carried out) and religious observance.
So what do you guys think? Looked at from a productivity perspective, are games worth the time we put into them? And has anyone ever felt that gaming has made them less functional?
Thank you for reading these thoughts, and I'm sorry if anyone is insulted by them.
HB
edit: besides, the work ethic is an artificial construction dating from the industrial revolution, when the proles worked 14 hour days for peanuts, constantly dodging workplace fires and maiming machinery. True freedom, 21st century freedom, is the ability to be a slacker. To not have to waste your life with drudgery like that.
Technically, I disagree with this. TV and movies are definitely a passive experience, but to an extent, so is reading (something to think about, it is only the last century that reading is promoted as beneficial and an alternative to other forms of entertainment, people used to consider it like we consider TV now, something that rotted your brain). A passive task essentially means you are entirely on the receiving end of the stimuli. Everything is done for you. Books have an advantage in that you are required to use imagination to fill in the gaps.
Video games are not passive. They require problem solving and learning skills, at least in the early stages. You are actively part of the stimuli, it responds to your actions. The most addictive games are the most interactive ones.
But it is not totally activity...only certain areas are exercised with games. Certainly, physical activity is more healthy...but I do believe games can exercise some brain functions not normally used, which is why simulations are used in training.