Fortnite and the Good Life
tinyletter.com
tinyletter.com
Someone like Prince Harry saying that Fortnite is a waste of time, is seriously damaging to the image someone might have of themselves playing it. I doubt Prince Harry has got the first clue, and his opinion of it being a waste of time is totally subjective.
It took me probably a decade until I realized that the large chunk of my teens I spent logged in to World of Warcraft were not a blemish on my life. The game had so much depth, it was incredibly challenging, and the social aspect was a huge part of it. My family and our societies negative view of the game encouraged a negative view of myself, seeing as I enjoyed it so much.
Of course you should encourage variety, but let your kid play the fuckin game!
It’s also a little dismissive to assume that this is just like every other game. There are so many psychological tricks going on to add a “feeder pellet” aspect to some games today that they are truly designed to be addictive. Games with in app purchases or ads, are usually built for it. Games that have timed reward systems to incentivize you to keep coming back at that same time every day are also part of it. You see these systems with most of the “free” games on touch screens and as a parent I can tell you that my children are significantly different playing them vs playing any other game with their friends (even online). It’s a noticeable enough and shocking enough behavioral change that you have to remove it.
When not having access to a game for a certain period of time creates anger or tears, it’s no longer just a game.
It doesn't even have the MMORPG hook where if you don't play, your character is weaker then of people that play more then you.
Imo the shop isn’t as much of a dark pattern. The game is just constructed in such a way that it’s constantly engaging and fun from beginning to end, and very good at playing with friends.
You're character isn't weaker, but it will have fewer cosmetics. I'm not sure that that's a less harsh incentive, personally.
Apex Legends has re-introduced me to gaming (after being AFK since the Halo 3 days), and I very much appreciate that the only 'perks' of grinding are cosmetic. As an adult with less free time, if I knew that a game would punish me stat-wise for not playing as often as my competition, I probably wouldn't play at all since I wouldn't stand a chance. But cosmetics don't affect gameplay.
Try experiencing what your kids experience and judge for yourself.
Minecraft is the replacement - no IAPs (as far as I know), online community is pretty varied but pretty decent for the most part, and the game is lots of fun even completely offline.
You don't mean Enterprise Resource Planning, do you?
Unfortunately, no. ERP as in erotic role play.
But Roblox is essentially a game development platform. Anyone can build a game on top of Roblox, and that player-created game could have slot machines in it.
So they introduced timed challenges (get so many headshots in one life, get a skin as reward) into BF1 as an update and then expanded that in BFV.
I don't think we're ever going to truly get rid of this sense of "this thing is bad for my kid, we need to get rid of it!" Since ultimately some bad thing happens to a kid/parent and they feel more validated amongst others who feel the same way about that thing. That's an incredibly powerful emotion.
We probably just need to be better at getting people to be generally more open minded and to see the world in less black and white terms.
Statement for the ages right there.+1
Don't forget the late 90s Doom scare, the sole cause of Columbine.
It's real. It's happening.
"I get that these concerns are sometimes misguided and overblown, but I also think that it's bad practice to assume that present fears are wholly illegitimate simply because you can think of analogous concerns in the past that in retrospect appear 'ridiculous' to you."
Its not such a big deal from one person but if it's something that is a significant part of your life and you are constantly bombarded that it is negative then yeah its gonna have a negative effect on you.
Everyone has hobbies that are time-wasters to an extent. It isn't the end of the world if someone has the opinion that this one habit might be addictive.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-harry-takes-quite-a-sh...
Point being it's a generational concern. It isn't something a new generation of parents are concerned about in the same way.
The fact that we care as much about the life and opinions of celebs or nobles is one of the weirdest human traits.
We are not that far from tribal cavemen yet.
You are playing in someone else's sandbox and I have no doubt that it stunts developement in the real world.
-someone who spent far too much time playing these games.
Once the game is gone you will have nothing to show for it. It's worse than any hobby because it demands so much time with so little return.
That's not to deny that you can avoid doing those things, or that many games don't provide those same opportunities, but rather that it's not a fundamental property of games that you gain nothing beyond the game. I gained a lot from my time in WoW.
I think this also ignores that the alternative for a lot of people would be watching TV or using social media.
It's possible there is a problem with games like Fortnite in that you're communicating almost solely by voice and there's a very limited complexity, but it might just be that there's something about it that I don't get.
By the way, the cost of doing a server first kill is tens of thousands of hours of a person's life. For what? A virtual high score?
Video games are more addictive than TV. It is the evolution of technology to be so.
I remember being so confused with the term rendezvous with 006, ha!
I played a lot of Warcraft 3. It sets you up for strategic thinking, understanding the difference between micro and macro management, creating training schedules to become better.
Like most hobbies: meta skills are transferable.
As for the specifics: games made me realize that computers are amazing machines and gave me good hand eye coordination. When I program something easy, I program like a gamer playing Warcraft 3 because typing and mouse speed are the biggest bottlenecks.
It wasn’t the best use of my time but I can think of worse things.
Judging gaming by WOW is like judging literature by 50 shades of gray.
edit: and I want to say more. WOW is hardly a game, it is more of a reward delivery mechanism to keep you paying that monthly subscription. Nothing with a monthly subscription should be called a game, because it just doesn't match the incentives.
Because that's not what I said and any honest reading of my post would back that up.
I just can't imagine what kind of background you have to think this is an insightful or clever addition to the conversation.
I find this hard to believe. I was 12yo when Carmageddon and Postal came out. Both were widely covered in newspapers and cable news as excessively violent, and bad for kids. I still played the hell out of both. Why would I have cared what Prince Harry thought?
It's rare to see a real impassioned defense of gaming outside of "it's not that bad" but I'd like to go out and say it had a hugely positive impact on my life and I think it's really doubtful I'd be where I am today without gaming. Beyond giving me the foundations of the technical skills I used to become an engineer, gaming gave me tons of social skills as well. As an adolescent I was able to play a ton of different roles in a group in a way that I wasn't able to in real life, even in sports and mock trial and things like that, where other elements of teamwork were present. This prepared me greatly for understanding deep collaboration with teammates at work today. Much more than group projects in school. Like orders of magnitude more so.
It's also important to note that despite being the safest the country has ever been, adolescents are more restricted than ever before. It is extremely rare for them to have places where they can be free, with their friends, and also trying out new social roles. This is an extremely valuable process and it's really difficult to do these days. I don't think there is anything wrong with Fortnite, but I think if you're trying to figure out why people play it and you reduce that down to "bright flashing colors and escapism" you're missing a ton of the context.
And this isn't to rag on sports and say gaming is better (or theater, or woodworking, if those are your things) it's just to say: it's 2019. This gaming thing has been going on for quite some time. It's a real thing with depth, mastery and real benefits that spread into the rest of your life just like playing sports, or chess or however else you think kids should be spending their time. Let's stop tiptoeing around gaming like it's just a vice and start emphasizing the positive things we get out of it.
Sure, that's true, but only for some kids - while for others, games, esp. non-skill ones (say, 100th hour of slashing monsters in Diablo) truly are a distraction and bring nothing in, while they fill the time in child's development that is normally devoted to activities which develop the child in some way. The same thing can be said about other activities, like TV, but I feel like video games may have even less to offer than those. I mean, if you watch sitcoms on TV, you're developing your sense of humor, observe people engaged in funny dialogue etc. I can't see a single valueable thing about that 100th hour of playing Diablo - it's a pure time waster. It's not great for an adult, but especially bad for a child/teenager, which should be growing instead of wasting time.
A second premise I want to address is the idea that using games (or movies or books or whatever) as a mind numbing distraction is a waste of time or the fault of the escape itself. Tons of people are dealing with really intense trauma, and it's not really clear that there really is a better short term alternative for stress management. I think if people are doing things like slashing monsters for 100 hours in Diablo don't look at Diablo, look at what's going on in the rest of their life. Because you can take away Diablo, but you if you aren't fixing what makes them play a shitty game as a distraction for 100 hours you haven't really helped them at all.
Finally: tons of people run pathologically. I mean basically anyone who is serious about the sport does more damage to themselves than is necessary, and runs far more than the optimal amount. I don't think running is exactly the same as gaming, but it's worth examining why we as a culture have no problem discussing Larry's second hip replacement from running 10 miles a day but tremble when discussing Larry's son's 10th hour this week playing Fortnite.
Speaking as someone who runs quite a lot, I would be very interested in seeing you quantify this point and cite supporting research.
In particular, I am skeptical you can find a peer reviewed study which suggests there exists a causal link between running n miles per day and requiring hip replacements later in life. Likewise, what is the "optimal amount" of running you speak of? And for what purpose is that amount optimal?
To put it bluntly I think you're choosing the wrong activity for the "you can get addicted to anything" argument. I don't have an issue with that idea in the abstract, but I think you'll have a very difficult time mounting a persuasive argument using the idea that most serious runners are "pathological" - unless, of course, you presuppose the idea that doing things pathologically isn't unhealthy.
EDIT: Here is a study which directly contradicts your claim about excessive running and hip replacement[1]. The ~75,000 respondents under study demonstrated a reduced risk for osteoarthritis and hip replacement.
_____________________
I don't have peer reviewed research about hip replacement and number of miles per day, that comment was a bit more rhetorical than the way you are engaging with it, but I can give you peer reviewed evidence for heart damage: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3119133/
__________
1. https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(16)...
What % of the population can play video games for 16 hours a day?
So again, video game addiction is substantially worse than a running addiction, for the vast majority of people and in far worse ways. You all can play games as you please, the facts are plain.
Honestly not a ton. It's really really difficult. Even pros struggle with substantially fewer hours than this.
> video game addiction is substantially worse than a running addiction
I'm not really convinced that's true. I don't know anyone who has torn a meniscus or developed arthritis playing video games. While mostly people who run don't develop a pathological relationship with running I stand by my argument that it's completely possible, and the effects on your body are comparably damaging, though in different ways. People also don't usually play video games for 16 hours a day, but sure, it happens. I think balance is required no matter what you are doing, even if the raw number of hours may be different.
Let's broaden the discussion a little bit: think about how uncomfortable most adults are right now with e-sports, but glorify regular sports. That's fine, I have no problem with regular sports, but it's far from uncommon to hear something like "I just don't get it: my son actually enjoys watching other people play video games, what is the world coming to?" That same parent will then sit down and watch other people throw a ball around, and then sigh and shake their head as the announcers discuss yet another veteran of the sport who regularly forgets his wife's name or where he is. Being an elite athlete in any sport completely fucks you up, and yet we choose to ignore that and focus on the insane displays of superhuman ability.
The larger point here is that any activity can be done pathologically, even, in some ways especially, the ones we glorify the most. A lot of our choice to focus on the positives of one activity and the negatives of another largely come down to personal taste.
Even people that devote incredible amount of times to single player games, for instance, speed runners, the fact is that there is a community around doing that. Without that community, there would be way less people speedrunning.
> She doesn't realise that without that escape I wasn't far off suicide. That addiction gave me enough time to sort out my life and figure things out.
This is huge! I always think about stuff like this when people dismiss "entertainment."
I wasted a lot of time playing Diablo II in college; but most of that was in a social context; is playing grindy games with friends that bad?
> It's not great for an adult, but especially bad for a child/teenager, which should be growing instead of wasting time.
You can't / shouldn't try to schedule all of a child's time to avoid any waste. For one thing, wasting time is a skill that needs to be developed -- there is so much boredom and drudgery in life that is unavoidable, learning how to deal with that requires practice and doing boring, wasteful things. But also, having some amount of mindless time in your day or week allows you to decompress and relax. Diablo probably isn't the best way, but it's alright. Caveat: I only played a lot of Diablo 1 and 2, maybe 3 was worse; when I tried to play it in Beta, I realized I had no real desire to run around and click on everything anymore.
No, you are not developing your sense of humor. Most of the humor in the "funny dialogue" is conditioned and triggered by the laugh track. Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BFSZ8XzWOM for example.
Because Friends is also a global hit, and popular among a generation of teens and 20s, people who weren't born when the show first aired, you can actually learn a lot about the small things about social interactions and conversational arcs watching sitcoms, than you would sitting in a social etiquette class.
I've noticed this effect is especially strong among non-native English speakers who watched English sitcoms. Their vocabulary, cadence of speech etc are much more natural sounding compared to others who weren't familiar with any TV shows here beyond news programs.
I am not a comedian, so I do not know how exactly you can make yourself funnier, but I have a very strong suspicion that you do not become funnier yourself, by just listening to canned laughter, and that the fact that fake laughter is added to comedy shows is just to make the viewers like the show more. Listening to laughter causes most people to laugh too, even if they do not understand the cause for the laughter. For example https://youtu.be/wgzdb0txR_c?t=281 . It works with other emotions also - if someone watches or listens to an angry person, they will become somewhat angry too.
A more apt comparison would be comparing 100th hour of Diablo vs 100th hour of a single sitcom, which by then you may be on your second watchthrough and have already got everything out of it that you could.
Maybe I'm just a curmudgeoney old man (though I'm only 26), but older games just have this more genuine feel. They play the way they play, and while they often have rough edges, I don't get the same sense that they're trying hard to keep the player engaged. I get this nagging feeling that modern "games as a service" have this relationship with the player where they keep them engaged enough to be sucked in but refuse to have a cathartic conclusion. I've grown to appreciate games that end and say "that's all folks".
However, let's not put every game in the same bag. A shootout to all indie games that simply make games that start and end.
If you are interested in game design and more on what makes a great “that’s all folks” game, check out “Theory of Fun” by Raph Koster.
"That 100th canoe stroke was such a waste, he could have been {0}ing." - Person who judges what other people want to do
"I don't like games" to me now sounds a lot like when people say "I don't like music" or "I don't like books". You may not like specific genres but not liking an entire medium is often just a sign of miseducation.
I would challenge the most dedicated of programmers to build an efficient factory in Factorio or an adventure buff to see what it feels like to beat a monster like in Sekiro or Dark Souls. The Witness, Baba is you, Crusader Kings 2 etc.
Please play any of those games and tell me that gaming is a passive activity.
There’s games all around us if you look. I like to play the “I broke my kernel and my entire system is fucked and now I gotta repair it” game or the “write a driver for some obscure hardware” game or even “demonstrate a vulnerability exploit on a live system” game, all which lead to greater value creation and self fulfillment superior to defeating some imaginary creature.
That is 100% subjective.
For instance, I can easily argue that breaking kernels and writing drivers for obscure hardware does not add any real value for society as a whole.
However, playing and socializing with people does create value for society, specially in this day and age where people is evermore alone, if only in reduction of antidepressants ;)
Right, but there are instances where you can train for that live demonstration, like CTFs in self-contained environments like virtual machines.
Seems pretty similar in scope to a video game to me. I think you're more accurately complaining about games that provide little value beyond the skinner box. What about stuff like Shenzhen I/O, Factorio, etc? You could even make strong case for RTS games teaching transferable skills.
I owe my entire career to gaming. Shadowrun on the Sega Genesis made me want to be a hacker, EverQuest hacking turned me from a mediocre (at best) web dev to a competent reverse-engineer, and my first serious startup came about because I wanted to play Oblivion on OS X. Every huge leap in my technical abilities came about because of games; I wouldn't be anywhere near where I am today without the pushes that these amazing works of art gave me.
Whenever I mention it these days people think of the FPS.
> So, I'd suggest re-framing the question. "Will playing Fortnite cause my child (or me) quantifiable harm?" is not the only question we should be asking. Given what is usually meant by that question, the answer is almost always "no." But, in addition to that question, we might also ask how playing Fortnite figures into our pursuit of the good life, individually and as members of distinct moral communities. Answers will vary, of course, and they will most likely be conveyed by narratives rather than statistics. I suspect they will also be less sensational and more nuanced than the answers the first question tends to get. Moreover, the latter question and the answers that follow will not elicit simple and programmatic action points, rather they will elicit the deployment of practical wisdom.
I really don't know about that. Defining "The good life as a member of a distinct moral community" has lead to all sorts of sensational moral panics of the past. i.e. "what kind of good Christian plays D&D"?
What I came to realise, however, (after reading about Self Determination Theory) was that I likely spent so much of my time playing games because it was the only way for me to experience autonomy and competency as a young adult. I had no other way of meeting those needs.
Games taught me that if I practice at something, I can get better. They gave me a world I could exercise control over when everything else in my life was determined by school and my parents.
If you know someone who you think plays too many games, look to see if they have any other ways of meeting those basic human needs for autonomy, competence, and social interaction. If their lives are deficient in one or all of those areas, games can be a lifesaver.
"Screens bad! Go outside and play!"
The child might be doing something mindless, or might be involved in something fascinating - creating or participating in elaborate and vibrant virtual worlds.
I think parents should seek a healthy balance for their children. But that means understanding what's happening and what it means and not trying to promote activities because of how they look on the outside. A child riding his bike around the neighborhood probably looks better to modern sensibilities than one staring at a screen, but I don't know why bike riding should be considered superior to building a world in Minecraft as an example.
Nothing against fortnite, but we are animals with bodies, not brains in a jar.
This is why I'd say that riding a bike around¹ is more valuable than playing fortnite.
1: And bike riding can be a group thing as well. When I was a kid,we dirt jumped and mountain biked on the local trails a lot, which was immensely fun.
Speak (emphasize?) for yourself; I'm software that happens to be installed on a meat-puppet.
If you truly believe that, then quit your office job and take a more physical, human occupation.
I used to work farm labour when I was younger, never slept so well in my life.
The key seems to be catching a view of someone at a computer or in front of a TV or whatever but not also being able to see what's on the screen. It's chilling and creepy for reasons I can't quite put my finger on. Maybe it is just the "zombie" factor, I dunno.
Staring at someone staring at a screen? Yelling at someone staring at a screen?
Neither of those are technically alone, but that's the point: Bothering someone else is infinitely worse than... you know... not.
[EDIT] I think "using a computer" posture especially is the worst. Something about sitting upright at a desk or table using a computer is really weird. Like the person's body's subservient to the activity, while also being kind of absent from the whole thing. It's much worse than bending-neck-to-use-a-cellphone or slouching-on-couch-playing-console-games look.
There is not much positive to say about sitting in front of a screen all day as a person, less so as a child.
For example, when you start playing World of Warcraft again, and a week later it feels like you are a crack addict who needs 10+ hours every day. But the game feels great. It feels great until you hit a wall either in-game or in real life.
And the younger you are, the more difficult it is to hit either of those walls. Last year I hit a bit of a slump in my life and had a few 'dark' months, so I downloaded WoW right around the time of when the new expansion was coming out.
Not only did I realize that Blizzard has surgically removed the "soul" of the game (for whatever reason), I also realized that my conscience can't really keep up with the game for that long.
My parents didn't really care what media I consumed but cared more about how I consumed it. Plenty of games have the potential to explore and foster interesting experiences. I've learned a lot through games. In fact I'd say that two of the most important things I've learned I've learned through games: the importance of a strong work ethic, and discovering my passing for computer technology (which later led to a career in software development). Games can be mindless and intellectually numb. But the same could be said of any other piece of media.
Granted I am of the opinion that battle Royale games provide less than strategy games, and most RPGs but I am not nearly experienced enough in the BR genre to have much conviction in this opinion.
There are "action" games (high twitch) that have very high strategic content. The kicker is that sometimes twitch can serve as a ceiling for strategy. That is, below a certain twitch level, some strategies are not viable or available. Games with very low twitch minimize this, like turn-based RPGs and strategy games. But even StarCraft requires high twitch (aka unit micro) to execute some strategies!
I think that there are valid concerns to the high potential for passive time-sinking in these modern games which exist with an entire ecosystem of a competitive scene, streaming personalities, skins, friends, and more. There are healthy ways to engage with each of the elements of these ecosystems, but it is something that should be discussed and monitored.
With video games, while we minimize the importance of geography due to virtualization, geographically located communities seems to be the most beneficial for our social wellbeing. From a purely evolutionary viewpoint, we cannot reproduce virtually (yet!). Sinking all of one's time into online games and relationships will diminish our ability to develop geographical communities.
On the other hand, it's wrong to write off video games altogether. As an artistic medium, they are pretty unique and their true potential has yet to be realized. I think the indie scene is great in this regard. And exposure to great art is essential for human flourishing.
Sperm donation and IVF is quite virtual already.
People like listening to guitar, but there are also a lot of people who love watching others play videogames on sites like Twitch. Of course both playing videogames and playing guitar professionally aren't a realistic goal for most people.
I understand very few people get to be professional guitarists or gamers. However, after that there are rapidly decreasing returns for video games. Guitar can be a source of pleasure for people you meet. It's a far more interesting skill than playing video games decently well. Guitar challenges the brain more; its learning curve extends farther than any video game. Guitar opens up a world of creativity and improvisation, name me a video game that can provide something at that scale (I'm an avid gamer so I'm sure there are none). Plus, it can get you laid.
I just don't buy that playing video games can provide much benefit. It seems like a meager reason to justify a questionable habit.
We can probably agree the type of game matter. To me the skill that people display when expertly playing a real-time strategy game is really interesting and takes a certain kind of tactical/strategic genius to do well. It is basically speed chess with a lot more rules and space for creativity.
You've definitely got a point that guitar probably is a better way to impress most of the ladies.
I just want to make the additional point that video games are how a lot of us began our interest in computers that later turned into a fulfilling career. Many people first experienced a command line while installing DOS games. The modern equivalent is probably modding PC games, which can take a lot of technical literacy depending on the game.
Is it because he makes you feel bad that you wasted your time playing video games instead of learning the real guitar?
Unless you go pro, these are all leisure activities. Some are older than others and some get more traditional respect, but why is that important? I choose to learn an instrument, but I don't see an inherent reason why learning an instrument is better or worse than video games.
It's not about feeling bad or jealous. It's that playing a guitar in a room full of uninterested gamers would be as awkward as playing guitar hero in a party where nobody enjoys casual games.
There is a similar attitude when folks insist that robotic embodiment is required for AI, or that AI structures must mimic the human brain to achieve "real" intelligence. I think these attitudes, by trying to draw a bright line, lead people to consistently underestimate how powerful new media can be.
I played a lot of Street Figher on the SNES, always loved it, always played or some time with friend and then do something else. I don't think it was bad?
I believe there is value in gaming. There's value in storytelling, in mastering small skills, and in the positive feedback of progression. There's value in shared experiences and in the communities that spring up within and around games.
My own struggle is with the diminishing returns. The "danger" of games to me, such as they are, is not in the value-per-unit-of-time ratio, but rather in the total amount of time that they can suck up. It's not hard at all to spend hundreds of hours in games. For me, if I take any given hour of gaming and compare it to an hour of something else I could have been doing, I'm quite happy to have spent it gaming. But when I take the sum of that time over a year, or a lifetime, and compare it to other pursuits, that's when I start to question it in my own life.
tl;dr: the "danger" of gaming to me is not in the content of games, or in gaming not having anything to add to someone's life, but rather in the fact that, for many people, gaming seems uniquely able to suck up so much time -- much more so than what it ultimately adds.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/opinion/sunday/fortnite-s...
What, specifically, should the kids playing too much Fortnite be doing more of? Encourage them to do that.
- I have adult customers who like playing/talking with someone who makes what they buy.
- I have former colleagues I talk to and catch up with.
- I have gaming friends who want someone whose competitive to play with.
- I use it to decompress for the day... or add a ton of stress, depending on whether I can "edit my builds" fast enough for the dub.
tl;dr: From my perspective, Fortnite is a social network.
I run a support bot business.