Viewing Thread:
"Socio-Gaming"

People used to play outside. People even used to play jacks or conkers. People now play proper games. Usually played without fear of losing anything, including face. These games are often criticised along with television for keeping children inside and fattening them up, raising the national obese rating. I Torticollis, shall once again, plunge into the dark depths of mysteriosity and explore what tradition has labelled computer games as and why.

I wonder how many of you have experienced this scenario. You are playing a video game/watching T.V and one of your parents will tell you that you have been playing for too long: fair enough if you have epilepsy and don't want to die, but for the common person who enjoys gaming, this makes no sense. Gaming used to be going to the arcades with a friend to play a few games, an activity much similar to going bowling, so it had more value, but there was also a controversial side to it, (mortal kombat imitates real life ripping multiple limbs). The way society has been run for the last few centuries dictates our attitude to new things, and new things are scary. The internet will never succeed, said a few, some said that in 2002, people wouldn't move out of their house because they could walk their dog on the internet or something. With a fear of progress, we are digging our own hole and keeping the traditions of society that aren't efficient or don't make sense.

Playing computer games are not going to make you kill people or kill yourself, unless they give good enough reason to do so, in which case, everyone should kill each other. Gaming is a revolution, which promotes a million times more interactivity and independent thought, than say, monopoly. Why then, does it have the connotations of influencing children to be wrongdoers?

The answer lies in misunderstanding. Your parents will have grown up playing monopoly and probably enjoying it, whereas if Jesus played monopoly, he'd probably think that it promotes reckless spending and sin, worshipping false metallic idols. I have no problem with killing people (in games of course). Infact, I enjoy the screams I recieve when I kill someone. I'll play a game if I like it and not think about wanting to chainsaw a random person in the street, but gaming allows you to do things that society won't let you do, or is impossible (e.g. human Tetris). A law still exists that it is illegal to blaspheme against the "Christian God" in public places. It's a relic of a law, yet it still exists, because England is afraid to move away from its traditional beliefs and set of rules. A similar but unspoken law applies to gaming, even though times are changing, other people are not, and therefore the attitudes to games like the SUN's will stay the same. Why can't people accept what has now almost officially thrown over traditional games? This interaction has come to fast, for society to grasp or understand. What we don't understand, we fear. What we fear, we outcast. And what we outcast, becomes a taboo. It's a vicious sequence, and computer games are victims to it.

Though computer games have a massive following, it is only young children, who are really expected to play them. Some people are even against updating graphics to realism, because of the influence it would have.

Computer Games aren't a danger to society. They're just games (as the name suggests) but games that are complex, and actually have been proven to improve hand-eye co-ordination. If you kill yourself from playing games for 40 hours non-stop from dehydration, that's your own fault.

In the end, we (adolescent gamers) will have to accept the fact that gaming isn't accepted and even feared.

But my friends, I suppose we are the ones who play these games, and we do have, the last laugh.

Torticollis

People used to play outside. People even used to play jacks or conkers. People now play proper games. Usually played without fear of losing anything, including face. These games are often criticised along with television for keeping children inside and fattening them up, raising the national obese rating. I Torticollis, shall once again, plunge into the dark depths of mysteriosity and explore what tradition has labelled computer games as and why.

I wonder how many of you have experienced this scenario. You are playing a video game/watching T.V and one of your parents will tell you that you have been playing for too long: fair enough if you have epilepsy and don't want to die, but for the common person who enjoys gaming, this makes no sense. Gaming used to be going to the arcades with a friend to play a few games, an activity much similar to going bowling, so it had more value, but there was also a controversial side to it, (mortal kombat imitates real life ripping multiple limbs). The way society has been run for the last few centuries dictates our attitude to new things, and new things are scary. The internet will never succeed, said a few, some said that in 2002, people wouldn't move out of their house because they could walk their dog on the internet or something. With a fear of progress, we are digging our own hole and keeping the traditions of society that aren't efficient or don't make sense.

Playing computer games are not going to make you kill people or kill yourself, unless they give good enough reason to do so, in which case, everyone should kill each other. Gaming is a revolution, which promotes a million times more interactivity and independent thought, than say, monopoly. Why then, does it have the connotations of influencing children to be wrongdoers?

The answer lies in misunderstanding. Your parents will have grown up playing monopoly and probably enjoying it, whereas if Jesus played monopoly, he'd probably think that it promotes reckless spending and sin, worshipping false metallic idols. I have no problem with killing people (in games of course). Infact, I enjoy the screams I recieve when I kill someone. I'll play a game if I like it and not think about wanting to chainsaw a random person in the street, but gaming allows you to do things that society won't let you do, or is impossible (e.g. human Tetris). A law still exists that it is illegal to blaspheme against the "Christian God" in public places. It's a relic of a law, yet it still exists, because England is afraid to move away from its traditional beliefs and set of rules. A similar but unspoken law applies to gaming, even though times are changing, other people are not, and therefore the attitudes to games like the SUN's will stay the same. Why can't people accept what has now almost officially thrown over traditional games? This interaction has come to fast, for society to grasp or understand. What we don't understand, we fear. What we fear, we outcast. And what we outcast, becomes a taboo. It's a vicious sequence, and computer games are victims to it.

Though computer games have a massive following, it is only young children, who are really expected to play them. Some people are even against updating graphics to realism, because of the influence it would have.

Computer Games aren't a danger to society. They're just games (as the name suggests) but games that are complex, and actually have been proven to improve hand-eye co-ordination. If you kill yourself from playing games for 40 hours non-stop from dehydration, that's your own fault.

In the end, we (adolescent gamers) will have to accept the fact that gaming isn't accepted and even feared.

But my friends, I suppose we are the ones who play these games, and we do have, the last laugh.

Torticollis

I ask you, constructive critiscm please.

i hate people who think were all becoming fat and lazy because of things like t.v and computor games. im like the biggest computor game fan in my area and im also the person who does the most abseiling in my area! and like tortcullis said they improve hand 2 eye co-ordination, and think about all the times you use that during the day (and night:P)

torticollis wrote:
> I ask you, constructive critiscm please.

Why not put stuff like this in the first post rather than replying like a billion times with "reply plz".

I asked once.

Woah, scatty.

You started off saying how parents tell their kids not to spend too much time playing games. This is for the same reason they say not to watch TV for hours on end, or surf the net. Not because gaming is eeeeeeeevil. It's not particularly good for your eyes (hence why I wear glasses). Then you speed into how we don't kill people because we play violent video games. Which is true. Things like films and games are just lazy excuses for psychos.

And as I said to you in MSN, there's quite a few people in this forum in their twenties, some older than that. And also, gaming isn't for young children anymore. For further thoughts on gaming's image, check my 'grow up' post in Prime [/cheap plug]...the average gamer age isn't just nine year olds, Sony has made gaming cool. With high-brow 'game literature' like Edge on the shelves, it's serious stuff. Not mind-raping war mongering. Speaking of which, there's a Sony ad floating around on the net with all their characters putting their guns away. It's an anti-war ad. Haha.

And I said YOUR post was scatty. Well, blah.

The point is, the Sony advert gives no reason why there shold be no war, it's just a semi-clever marketing scam.

"No war please"

"Now that'll make our games sell. We care... ABOUT MONEY!!!! MULTITAP!!!!"

Maybe because there IS no reason for war. Just oil. If the US took Sadam seriously in all this time they could easily have infiltrated Iraq and taken him and his close associates out. Meanwhile North Korea rubs nukes in our faces and nobody cares. But let's not carry this on here. Take it to Life.

it isnt just sadam and his mates, the world has to be disarmed! for christ sake hes been told to disarm for 12 years action has to be taken at some point or people will think were too frightened to do anything, those who take a back seat in the un are equally threatened, terrorists are oparating in france as well as britian

El Blokey wrote:

> Take it to Life.

This is not a war post.