Young Men Are Playing Video Games Instead of Getting Jobs. That's OK. (For Now.)
reason.com
reason.com
> Games, with their endless task lists and character-leveling systems, their choice architectures and mission checklists, are purpose generators. They bring order to gamers' lives.
> Even the most open-ended games tend to offer a sense of progress and direction, completion and commitment. In other words, they make people happy—or at least happier, serving as a buffer between the player and despair. Video games, you might say, offer a sort of universal basic income for the soul.
> What exactly does it mean for a game to be appealing and engaging? What does it mean for games to be fun—so much fun, in some cases, that players will devote hundreds or even thousands of hours a year to playing them? [...] One way to do that, it turns out, is to give people a sense of earned achievement. "What games are good at—what they are designed to do—is simulate being good at something," Wolpaw says.
> "It's a simulation of being an expert," Wolpaw says. "It's a way to fulfill a fantasy." That fantasy, ultimately, is one of work, purpose, and social and professional success.
Or, perhaps more likely, the author is talking about computer games only. Let's assume that. That means that the only difference between a "simulated" game and a "real" game is that one is done on a computer of some sort.
I don't feel any different emotions when I play WoW than when I play chess or football with my friends. To me, they're the same thing, only experienced through different means. The only reason people don't play football for "hundreds or even thousands of hours" every year is because there's a physical limitation to it.
I can only make the assumption that the author of the article is making a jab at computers at it's core, and that's troubling because what would that mean for us developers? I see programming almost as a game, it releases the same kind of feelings of progress, completion and commitment as the author talks about in his article. Does that mean that being good at programming is just a simulation of being good at something?
Similarly for other games. Game combat can be fun and there can be real skills involved, but they are often unrelated to why the ritual is satisfying. It's possible to learn real-world skills from games, but you need to be clear-headed about what those skills actually are and whether they will transfer to anything else.
In comparison, sports provide physical exercise and tend to have a lot less theming. But consider the relationship between martial arts and real fighting. There's often some ritual there, no?
On the other hand, chess is a highly abstracted simulation of battle; other video games are designed to be as realistic as much as entertaining: first-person shooters, racing games, flight simulators. Others simulate concepts, like improving swordplay or archery skills.
I think it's safe to call most modern video games simulations. That doesn't mean they don't have great merit as art or athletic/strategic achievement.
I only play games that are either finite in nature or are unlikely to remain interesting for hours upon hours of gameplay.
regardless, there are many different types of game, and the author makes the claim that young unemployed people play a specific type of game for a specific type of reason. He doesn't make this claim because the evidence is particularly compelling, but because that was the type of game that he played last march. The reason comes second.
How would this article have read differently if he had instead picked up starcraft?
This seems like very poor reasoning to me.
> That's where games come in. They don't put food on the table. But they do provide, at least in the short to medium term, a sense of focus and success, structure and direction, skill development and accomplishment.
I think this is the best prediction of what most people would do with their time if they were on a society-level basic income. The idea that there would be an enormous wellspring of art, culture, and technological progress is not supported by what is happening now.