Psychologist Pete Etchells chats with Ars about his first book, <em>Lost in a Good Game</em>.
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
Beyond the moral panic: Video games can help us deal with grief, depression
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Video games are an effective form of stimulus, and they can be a safe outlet, just be courteous and mute your mic when playing angry, there's a difference between angry trash talk and fun trash talk and fellow gamers can tell, angry trash talk impinges on everyone else's fun. Sandbox games are great for creativity, by design almost, and beyond things like legos that have traditionally been associated with creativity, the active environment of a video game can introduce more problem solving challenges- i haven't read the Minecraft article yet but being familiar with the redstone community, and the incredible machines they make in game, it seems obvious to me. IMO the kinds of people who say video games are all bad, are the kinds of people whom are ultimately just afraid of the cultural change they represent. The biggest downside is that it is difficult to incorporate physical exercise into them and still keep them entertaining,
While AR may help, environment recognition and keeping the ability to account for weather that conventional videogames don't have to deal with has to improve
While AR may help, environment recognition and keeping the ability to account for weather that conventional videogames don't have to deal with has to improve
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Excellent article and not a topic I have seen much about. This is one of the reasons I read Ars every day.
Upvote
24
(24
/
0)
From the article:
“they have kids who start playing the original Donkey Kong and absolutely hate it, because it's a really hard game and very few people get past the first level.”
This brings a wave of nostalgia (and also a bit of nausea). It was really exciting to finish a level in Donkey Kong, and just sickening to screw up and die a horrible pixelated death.
“they have kids who start playing the original Donkey Kong and absolutely hate it, because it's a really hard game and very few people get past the first level.”
This brings a wave of nostalgia (and also a bit of nausea). It was really exciting to finish a level in Donkey Kong, and just sickening to screw up and die a horrible pixelated death.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
What I'm looking forward to in "video games" - especially AR - is the notion of creativity on the part of the user, versus just following a game.
VR unlocks all the restrictions on normally creative endeavors. People who can't draw well, or have this killer idea that can't be made because reasons. But in AR, those reasons are moot. Given the right tools and AR interface, someone can create things, and then work out how to make it - be it more traditionally, through CNC or 3D printing.
Better, they can share their designs with others in ways that can't be done today. AR allows one to omit information critical to the actual building, but allowing one to see the end project in a virtual way, while retaining the knowledge of how it's built, thus making marketing easier.
Top be honest, I don't have a lot of interest in experiencing real world things in a virtual manner through AR. I get how useful it would be in training and teaching, and all that, and I don't think that's a waste by any stretch of he imagination. Nor do I think that gaming will be that much better in a virtual world (not that I won't try it when I get the chance).
It's the potential for unlocking the creative side of people that appeals to me the most. And I can imagine how beneficial AR will be for people psychologically (and potentially crippling, too). Think about how aversion therapy works, apply that to AR. That's just one example that doesn't require actual spiders or airplane rides (as two methods involve).
It's nice to see the nail driven in on the "video games are bad" coffin. Like anything else in life, they can be beneficial, or abused. Anything to excess is always bad. That doesn't mean banning those things is necessary, unless any amount no matter how small is bad.
It's an exciting future for new experiences. What I wouldn't give to be 30 or 40 years younger.
VR unlocks all the restrictions on normally creative endeavors. People who can't draw well, or have this killer idea that can't be made because reasons. But in AR, those reasons are moot. Given the right tools and AR interface, someone can create things, and then work out how to make it - be it more traditionally, through CNC or 3D printing.
Better, they can share their designs with others in ways that can't be done today. AR allows one to omit information critical to the actual building, but allowing one to see the end project in a virtual way, while retaining the knowledge of how it's built, thus making marketing easier.
Top be honest, I don't have a lot of interest in experiencing real world things in a virtual manner through AR. I get how useful it would be in training and teaching, and all that, and I don't think that's a waste by any stretch of he imagination. Nor do I think that gaming will be that much better in a virtual world (not that I won't try it when I get the chance).
It's the potential for unlocking the creative side of people that appeals to me the most. And I can imagine how beneficial AR will be for people psychologically (and potentially crippling, too). Think about how aversion therapy works, apply that to AR. That's just one example that doesn't require actual spiders or airplane rides (as two methods involve).
It's nice to see the nail driven in on the "video games are bad" coffin. Like anything else in life, they can be beneficial, or abused. Anything to excess is always bad. That doesn't mean banning those things is necessary, unless any amount no matter how small is bad.
It's an exciting future for new experiences. What I wouldn't give to be 30 or 40 years younger.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
The first question pretty much nails it. While games are entertainment, like everything else it can be used as a tool. Unlike most tools though, games are as much the responsibility of the creator as the one using it.
On the side of developers, it's a tricky issue. It's one thing to give someone an environment that allows them to vent real life frustrations on virtual beings via a murder simulator, it's another to train and brainwash people into being murder machines in the real world. It's a bit of a fuzzy line because intent plays a big role in whether the dev went too far or not and intent is often a matter of interpretation. While most find the idea outright offensive, even a rape and/or torture simulators could be a useful tools for either teaching or therapy (we're likely talking special cases, not the masses.) Of course, this leads things to the other side.
On the side of the players, how you use the tool is equally important. Even a game made with the best intentions can be perverted by a depraved player. If someone wanted, they could take a game designed to help players cope with depression as a tool to create depression in others. Anyone who disagrees hasn't played any online games. Meanwhile, even a game made with ill intent can be used in a positive way, by a player that is creative enough to find a positive use for it.
As a fictional example, let's say someone made a game specifically to torture the player by rewarding them just enough to keep them playing while slowly eroding their self esteem and coaching them to gain pleasure from doing things they would normally find vile. While most players would fall victim to the experience, a few might be able to use it to learn about pitfalls to avoid in real life and to strengthen their own defenses. Ultimately, someone might play the game and create a game to counter it, by creating experiences that boost self esteem and show what's wrong with doing the vile things the other game tried to incentivize. So, objectively it's likely a bad game, yet it could still be used for good. The question then becomes, did the good out weigh the bad?
So, you have two ways to judge a game. Was it designed with good/ill intent and was it used with good/ill intent? What if the game was designed with a neutral intent? Often, the answer isn't so clear cut. There can be things about a game that impact one group of people positively, while impacting another group negatively. The same game could have other elements that effect those same groups in an opposing way. In the end, everyone has to reach their own conclusion about each game they play. No game is good or bad for everyone, even when the divide is 99%/1% either in favor or against. I would have an equally difficult time making a game that is 100% bad for everyone as I would in creating a game that is 100% good for everyone. That said, it'd probably be a lot easier to reach 99% bad than it would be to reach 99% good.
On the side of developers, it's a tricky issue. It's one thing to give someone an environment that allows them to vent real life frustrations on virtual beings via a murder simulator, it's another to train and brainwash people into being murder machines in the real world. It's a bit of a fuzzy line because intent plays a big role in whether the dev went too far or not and intent is often a matter of interpretation. While most find the idea outright offensive, even a rape and/or torture simulators could be a useful tools for either teaching or therapy (we're likely talking special cases, not the masses.) Of course, this leads things to the other side.
On the side of the players, how you use the tool is equally important. Even a game made with the best intentions can be perverted by a depraved player. If someone wanted, they could take a game designed to help players cope with depression as a tool to create depression in others. Anyone who disagrees hasn't played any online games. Meanwhile, even a game made with ill intent can be used in a positive way, by a player that is creative enough to find a positive use for it.
As a fictional example, let's say someone made a game specifically to torture the player by rewarding them just enough to keep them playing while slowly eroding their self esteem and coaching them to gain pleasure from doing things they would normally find vile. While most players would fall victim to the experience, a few might be able to use it to learn about pitfalls to avoid in real life and to strengthen their own defenses. Ultimately, someone might play the game and create a game to counter it, by creating experiences that boost self esteem and show what's wrong with doing the vile things the other game tried to incentivize. So, objectively it's likely a bad game, yet it could still be used for good. The question then becomes, did the good out weigh the bad?
So, you have two ways to judge a game. Was it designed with good/ill intent and was it used with good/ill intent? What if the game was designed with a neutral intent? Often, the answer isn't so clear cut. There can be things about a game that impact one group of people positively, while impacting another group negatively. The same game could have other elements that effect those same groups in an opposing way. In the end, everyone has to reach their own conclusion about each game they play. No game is good or bad for everyone, even when the divide is 99%/1% either in favor or against. I would have an equally difficult time making a game that is 100% bad for everyone as I would in creating a game that is 100% good for everyone. That said, it'd probably be a lot easier to reach 99% bad than it would be to reach 99% good.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Don't get me wrong, I love games as much/more than most. However, the things that excite me the most about AR are the practical applications of it. AR can both help many people overcome disabilities and enhance the daily lives of all people. Most people realize by now how powerful a real life navigator and HUD can be. It's a feature in so many games; the corner map, navigation markers and even virtual paths drawn as an overlay to the real world. Status indicators floating around telling you important things you may not notice on your own. That's just the tip of the iceberg really. It could easily teach people to do things in the real world, keep track of things, have automated timers to assist you in say not burning your food and so on. Sure, some of this will take quite a while to properly develop but they're all at least theoretically possible without requiring some kind of super computer these days.
While there's certainly some bugs to work out, I don't think we're too far off from a universal translator. To a degree, google already has one that mostly works.
I think games will favor VR more than AR. The sad truth is you can do a lot more with a completely virtual environment. That said, AR is where the exercise and educational focused games will be.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Yesterday my son waited for me to get off work as we had planned to play MineCraft for the first time together. He was so excited because we usually play sports games together. I built an overly sized castle and had a blast bonding with my son.
Thanks, Video Games!
Thanks, Video Games!
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
One of the things I feel like video games have negatively taught players is a rejection of failure. If you mess up in a video game, at worst you try the task again and again until you can do it perfectly - even spend as much time on it as you'd like. There's less appreciation for the existence of tasks you'll only have so many chances at, combined with the fact that most people are going to fail at those tasks.
I noticed this with Spec Ops: The Line, a game that to me was largely about accepting flaws/failure, since each decision forcefully made in the game *has some logic to it* at the time it's pursued; certainly at least as much as most standard action games do. Players played the scene The Gate, and said online "I didn't want to do that. I want a do-over. There's no other option? Well, then I can't believe the game forced me into that."
I can empathize with players who were actually able to tell the consequences ahead of time, but most other players were very likely totally unaware what their actions might result in. In a comparable real situation, what ensues would just be an accident; a mistake - but many gamers are used to never accepting fault because fault makes you a terrible person who needs to git gud and can never reach the top of the high score boards, and won't see the True Ending.
And I see the effects of this in some online discussions. Very rarely are people able to appreciate flaws in others or themselves. Maybe this has always been human psychology, but it seems pretty magnified now. Some people seem to dread accepting that they made a mistake, and when analyzing others they're unwilling to accept the slightest misstep or poor planning as a perfectly human thing.
I noticed this with Spec Ops: The Line, a game that to me was largely about accepting flaws/failure, since each decision forcefully made in the game *has some logic to it* at the time it's pursued; certainly at least as much as most standard action games do. Players played the scene The Gate, and said online "I didn't want to do that. I want a do-over. There's no other option? Well, then I can't believe the game forced me into that."
I can empathize with players who were actually able to tell the consequences ahead of time, but most other players were very likely totally unaware what their actions might result in. In a comparable real situation, what ensues would just be an accident; a mistake - but many gamers are used to never accepting fault because fault makes you a terrible person who needs to git gud and can never reach the top of the high score boards, and won't see the True Ending.
And I see the effects of this in some online discussions. Very rarely are people able to appreciate flaws in others or themselves. Maybe this has always been human psychology, but it seems pretty magnified now. Some people seem to dread accepting that they made a mistake, and when analyzing others they're unwilling to accept the slightest misstep or poor planning as a perfectly human thing.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
I wish there were more questions in this about what the negative effects of games can be.
I have certainly experienced some of the positives. My reaction time improved after a couple years of Counter-Strike. When driving I occasionally see some of the real world benefits that provides. Decades of dabbling in StarCraft have made me better at strategizing, not just in games but life strategies as well. Side-effects like that have improved me.
I am certain there have been downsides too. I would love more honest research into what those are, from someone who isn't out to prove that videogames are the root of evil.
I have certainly experienced some of the positives. My reaction time improved after a couple years of Counter-Strike. When driving I occasionally see some of the real world benefits that provides. Decades of dabbling in StarCraft have made me better at strategizing, not just in games but life strategies as well. Side-effects like that have improved me.
I am certain there have been downsides too. I would love more honest research into what those are, from someone who isn't out to prove that videogames are the root of evil.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
yes, this was interesting! my son is a game dev, and i will be sharing this article with him.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
*cough* and perhaps more importantly the collecting of quarters. Let's not forget that aspect of arcade game difficulty!
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
It'd be nice to see but it can be hard to get funding for research that isn't popular.
I've noticed a tendency for kids to want to "ghost" people for literally any reason at all. No one wants to talk about or call people out on their bs. It's going to stunt the growth of those who choose to run away, rather than face things. While it's true that people should pick and choose their battles, I've seen people ghost others for really minor things that mostly would be like a 2 second conversation to resolve.
Another obvious downside is stuff directly related to being sedentary, staring at monitors too long and using keyboard, mouse, gamepads, etc. for too long at a time. That's not even talking about extreme cases of shut-ins that literally starve themselves and skip sleep to play games.
Of the two types of downsides, the social/emotional/mental downsides will be the hardest to study. It's hard to just compare a group not playing games to a group that plays games because there's always going to be outside factors in any long term study, which is the kind that's needed to identify these kinds of things.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
August of 2017, my kitteh of 19 years crossed the Rainbow Bridge, a day or so after I started playing Rime. The game helped me deal with the loss of Roswell NewMexico (That was his name.)
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
Arguably, arcade game payments were the original micro-transactions. The difference, of course, being that manufacturing, setting up, and maintaining custom hardware was far more cost-intensive than uploading a game to an App Store – so much more, actually, that releasing "pay once, play forever" ports for consoles and home computers was a viable source of additional revenue.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Glad that they released a Bedrock server for Minecraft Pocket Edition. It was easy to copy worlds created on an old tablet, to a new tablet, but hosting the world never worked. So the Bedrock solved this problem by hosting the Java/PocketEdition world, instead of having one of the tablets do it.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I don't have any time or computing capability to play video games any more, but I did play them regularly growing up on the commodore 64 and atari 2600 before they were popular. They formed a way to escape from daily life or concentrate on a singular task. Sometimes I remember playing certain games to get my mind set in a concentrating mode.
When I read a review on Last Day of June, it sounded like a perfect way to explain one of the most painful things in life through a game--loss and our inability to change that loss no matter what we did. It explores the concept of regret that many of us has and the fantasy that we could have changed the outcome, when there's a strong chance that we never would have. It's games like this that make me want to pick up gaming again--not for the same reasons as in my youth, but to explore concepts of life as an adult that you can't in any other medium.
I like the future idea of the 'video game karoke bar' where you rent a private room to play with your friend. That would be an interesting business to own.
When I read a review on Last Day of June, it sounded like a perfect way to explain one of the most painful things in life through a game--loss and our inability to change that loss no matter what we did. It explores the concept of regret that many of us has and the fantasy that we could have changed the outcome, when there's a strong chance that we never would have. It's games like this that make me want to pick up gaming again--not for the same reasons as in my youth, but to explore concepts of life as an adult that you can't in any other medium.
I like the future idea of the 'video game karoke bar' where you rent a private room to play with your friend. That would be an interesting business to own.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
We should be proud and vocal about the positives, but also concern and adamant to adress the negatives ( being natural of the medium and/or self-created by the medium), this in order to improve it and to have a better future.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Since they brought up WOW...
Now that we have the "classic" releasing next month, could it be used for research without the fear of losing corporate data/secrets?
I understand that some companies invest a great deal in better understanding their player base and consider that very valuable info, but with classic WOW would that really be a concern?
Now that we have the "classic" releasing next month, could it be used for research without the fear of losing corporate data/secrets?
I understand that some companies invest a great deal in better understanding their player base and consider that very valuable info, but with classic WOW would that really be a concern?
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
password123
Ars Scholae Palatinae
You can get lost in a book, so why not get lost in slightly different type of virtual world, i.e. a video game?
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Speaking of the sedentary issue, I can say without a doubt that were I not spending my time gaming, I'd be spending it doing more reading or consuming other entertainment such as TV. The gaming doesn't cause me to be any less active; but it does allow me to be physically inactive while also being able to interact with people from all over the world.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Fantastic interview! A lot of great insights from Pete Etchells. The tone is definitely optimistic which makes the whole writ particularly enjoyable. Too many such articles I've seen focused mainly on the negatives. Those are there of course, but bringing light to the best aspects can help promote a positive outlook on the future of gaming.
I do want to home in on this excerpt:
I am unsure what Etchells is referring to, but even in his own provided example - making a quest for developers to implement and then collect results - wouldn't necessarily open anything up to anyone. There is corporate data and then there is research data. I'd imagine that Activision-Blizzard wouldn't be required to release anything from their game outside of the data collected from those quests, which can be relatively non-technical. Both the programming aspect and information relay can happen in a curated fashion where code portions are sanitized.
Maybe Etchells is referring to the actual research data gathered? Why would that be something that the competitors are interested in? They can already play WoW and judging by the amount of those failed clones, they have no idea idea why it's so popular.
I do want to home in on this excerpt:
I am unsure what Etchells is referring to, but even in his own provided example - making a quest for developers to implement and then collect results - wouldn't necessarily open anything up to anyone. There is corporate data and then there is research data. I'd imagine that Activision-Blizzard wouldn't be required to release anything from their game outside of the data collected from those quests, which can be relatively non-technical. Both the programming aspect and information relay can happen in a curated fashion where code portions are sanitized.
Maybe Etchells is referring to the actual research data gathered? Why would that be something that the competitors are interested in? They can already play WoW and judging by the amount of those failed clones, they have no idea idea why it's so popular.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Not quite related to mental health, but psychology nonetheless:
The creators of X-Com – the game that lets you control a team of action figures laser-tagging extraterrestrials – have introduced an achievement called Bubonic Plague which you can contract from other players.
Patient zero was a game dev himself, revealing that contagious Steam achievement four days before the release, in a preview. The first to subsequently get it have been a subset players who have pre-ordered the game (and played a match together). Then the general public/playerbase.
The creators of X-Com – the game that lets you control a team of action figures laser-tagging extraterrestrials – have introduced an achievement called Bubonic Plague which you can contract from other players.
Patient zero was a game dev himself, revealing that contagious Steam achievement four days before the release, in a preview. The first to subsequently get it have been a subset players who have pre-ordered the game (and played a match together). Then the general public/playerbase.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Buy one and get Vulcan Love Slave II: Ears We Go Again! with the Tellarite Castle DLC included for free!
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Competition always an enemy of collaboration, and we are at heart a collaborative species. We've broken ourselves with our idiotic worship of worthless competition
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)