The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Over many years of gaming and some years of heavy PC use at work, I've developed the skill to seamlessly integrate my thoughts with whichever computer/console I'm using. I'm sure that you all do it too, as gamers. When playing games, you're interfacing with your console/PC, using thought, reflex, hand-eye coordination and a huge amount of mental multi-tasking. Chances are that you (and most of the rest of our generation) aren't even aware by now of that man-machine interface. But think for a moment about how much of a skill that really is. Touch typing is a great example of a transparent man-machine interface. As I sit here typing this, I'm thinking about the words I'm typing, but I'm not thinking about what buttons to press to make the words appear on the screen. To all intents and purposes, I think of the words, my hindbrain sub-consciously does the rest, and the words appear on the screen. Playing GTA works on the same level. We don't think about pressing X to make the little man on the screen shoot his gun. We think about shooting the gun, and it happens. In between those two things, the brain has responded to the training it received when we first picked up the game, and commanded the finger to press the X button.
Once we reach this level of mental abstracting the machine away (let's call it cyberability), the ease of use of the machine increases hugely, as we no longer consciously think about how to achieve the goal, we focus 100% on the goal itself, and our highly-trained hindbrain takes care of the mechanics of how we do it.
While this cyberability is commonplace to us lot, it's certainly not commonplace to previous generations, hence the stereotype of parents not being able to program their video, while their 5 year old child can. If cyberability continues to grow in importance, as technology becomes more widespread, and more powerful, it's conceivable that in the near future, people who don't have this ability will suffer on a personal and proffessional level. It's not too far removed from Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' - the people with the better cyberability will get ahead in life faster and further than those without.
Of course, the flip side of the coin is that huge leaps forward have been and are still being made in interface design. Compare a 1980 command-line driven computer with Windows. Windows provides an interface that is much easier to learn, and eventually ignore - it's a more 'naturally transparent interface'. Who's to say that if leaps forward in interface design overtake leaps forward in technology power and/or spread, that this 'cyberability' will begin to become less important again, as the interfaces become more naturally transparent.
If it's the case that cyberability does continue to grow in importance - then a supposedly misspent youth gaming will stand us in good stead for the future, and may even give us a leg-up over our peers. I'll certainly be giving my kids a head-start in life - start them playing games at an early age.
Once we reach this level of mental abstracting the machine away (let's call it cyberability), the ease of use of the machine increases hugely, as we no longer consciously think about how to achieve the goal, we focus 100% on the goal itself, and our highly-trained hindbrain takes care of the mechanics of how we do it.
While this cyberability is commonplace to us lot, it's certainly not commonplace to previous generations, hence the stereotype of parents not being able to program their video, while their 5 year old child can. If cyberability continues to grow in importance, as technology becomes more widespread, and more powerful, it's conceivable that in the near future, people who don't have this ability will suffer on a personal and proffessional level. It's not too far removed from Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' - the people with the better cyberability will get ahead in life faster and further than those without.
Of course, the flip side of the coin is that huge leaps forward have been and are still being made in interface design. Compare a 1980 command-line driven computer with Windows. Windows provides an interface that is much easier to learn, and eventually ignore - it's a more 'naturally transparent interface'. Who's to say that if leaps forward in interface design overtake leaps forward in technology power and/or spread, that this 'cyberability' will begin to become less important again, as the interfaces become more naturally transparent.
If it's the case that cyberability does continue to grow in importance - then a supposedly misspent youth gaming will stand us in good stead for the future, and may even give us a leg-up over our peers. I'll certainly be giving my kids a head-start in life - start them playing games at an early age.
Over many years of gaming and some years of heavy PC use at work, I've developed the skill to seamlessly integrate my thoughts with whichever computer/console I'm using. I'm sure that you all do it too, as gamers. When playing games, you're interfacing with your console/PC, using thought, reflex, hand-eye coordination and a huge amount of mental multi-tasking. Chances are that you (and most of the rest of our generation) aren't even aware by now of that man-machine interface. But think for a moment about how much of a skill that really is. Touch typing is a great example of a transparent man-machine interface. As I sit here typing this, I'm thinking about the words I'm typing, but I'm not thinking about what buttons to press to make the words appear on the screen. To all intents and purposes, I think of the words, my hindbrain sub-consciously does the rest, and the words appear on the screen. Playing GTA works on the same level. We don't think about pressing X to make the little man on the screen shoot his gun. We think about shooting the gun, and it happens. In between those two things, the brain has responded to the training it received when we first picked up the game, and commanded the finger to press the X button.
Once we reach this level of mental abstracting the machine away (let's call it cyberability), the ease of use of the machine increases hugely, as we no longer consciously think about how to achieve the goal, we focus 100% on the goal itself, and our highly-trained hindbrain takes care of the mechanics of how we do it.
While this cyberability is commonplace to us lot, it's certainly not commonplace to previous generations, hence the stereotype of parents not being able to program their video, while their 5 year old child can. If cyberability continues to grow in importance, as technology becomes more widespread, and more powerful, it's conceivable that in the near future, people who don't have this ability will suffer on a personal and proffessional level. It's not too far removed from Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' - the people with the better cyberability will get ahead in life faster and further than those without.
Of course, the flip side of the coin is that huge leaps forward have been and are still being made in interface design. Compare a 1980 command-line driven computer with Windows. Windows provides an interface that is much easier to learn, and eventually ignore - it's a more 'naturally transparent interface'. Who's to say that if leaps forward in interface design overtake leaps forward in technology power and/or spread, that this 'cyberability' will begin to become less important again, as the interfaces become more naturally transparent.
If it's the case that cyberability does continue to grow in importance - then a supposedly misspent youth gaming will stand us in good stead for the future, and may even give us a leg-up over our peers. I'll certainly be giving my kids a head-start in life - start them playing games at an early age.
Once we reach this level of mental abstracting the machine away (let's call it cyberability), the ease of use of the machine increases hugely, as we no longer consciously think about how to achieve the goal, we focus 100% on the goal itself, and our highly-trained hindbrain takes care of the mechanics of how we do it.
While this cyberability is commonplace to us lot, it's certainly not commonplace to previous generations, hence the stereotype of parents not being able to program their video, while their 5 year old child can. If cyberability continues to grow in importance, as technology becomes more widespread, and more powerful, it's conceivable that in the near future, people who don't have this ability will suffer on a personal and proffessional level. It's not too far removed from Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' - the people with the better cyberability will get ahead in life faster and further than those without.
Of course, the flip side of the coin is that huge leaps forward have been and are still being made in interface design. Compare a 1980 command-line driven computer with Windows. Windows provides an interface that is much easier to learn, and eventually ignore - it's a more 'naturally transparent interface'. Who's to say that if leaps forward in interface design overtake leaps forward in technology power and/or spread, that this 'cyberability' will begin to become less important again, as the interfaces become more naturally transparent.
If it's the case that cyberability does continue to grow in importance - then a supposedly misspent youth gaming will stand us in good stead for the future, and may even give us a leg-up over our peers. I'll certainly be giving my kids a head-start in life - start them playing games at an early age.
Interesting idea...but also, one that makes a heck of a lot of sense.
I can't think of the last time an advancement as huge as computing was introduced. Just about every other job these days requires computing knowledge...still, I'm not sure if UT2003 deathmatches stand me in good stead for employment :-D
Good post.
I can't think of the last time an advancement as huge as computing was introduced. Just about every other job these days requires computing knowledge...still, I'm not sure if UT2003 deathmatches stand me in good stead for employment :-D
Good post.
With new technology comes new problems though. Look at Windows, the interface uses far more power than is good for it, especially when you compare it to MAC OS, the whole thing is flawed. Yet, there are good intentions behind it and as you say, each step further brings us closer to interacting with our machines on another level.
Technology can only be driven by either a great need for it's use (i.e. something that brings in huge sums of cash) or something so revolutionary that it will change the way we think about using machines like our computer. When these large changes do take place, it may be us that feel the same way our parents and grandparents feel now, left out.
Technology can only be driven by either a great need for it's use (i.e. something that brings in huge sums of cash) or something so revolutionary that it will change the way we think about using machines like our computer. When these large changes do take place, it may be us that feel the same way our parents and grandparents feel now, left out.
Jonman wrote:
>the people with the better
> cyberability will get ahead in life faster and further than those
> without.
Yes, and they shall call them... SECRETARIES.
>the people with the better
> cyberability will get ahead in life faster and further than those
> without.
Yes, and they shall call them... SECRETARIES.
pb wrote:
> With new technology comes new problems though. Look at Windows, the
> interface uses far more power than is good for it, especially when you
> compare it to MAC OS, the whole thing is flawed. Yet, there are good
> intentions behind it and as you say, each step further brings us
> closer to interacting with our machines on another level.
I absolutely agree that the Windows interface is far from perfect, and sure, it uses a lot of resources, but look at what an inexpert user can achieve with it. It allows the average non-computing specialist to perform complex tasks without too much difficulty. To the novice user, that's worth the use of processing power.
> Technology can only be driven by either a great need for it's use
> (i.e. something that brings in huge sums of cash) or something so
> revolutionary that it will change the way we think about using
> machines like our computer. When these large changes do take place,
> it may be us that feel the same way our parents and grandparents feel
> now, left out.
See, but that's my point. We've all grown up with these large, technological step-changes going on, and we're totally accustomed to quickly adapting from one to the other - another facet of the cyberability I was talking about. So, hopefully, we won't get to the same stage of being mentally obsolete.
> With new technology comes new problems though. Look at Windows, the
> interface uses far more power than is good for it, especially when you
> compare it to MAC OS, the whole thing is flawed. Yet, there are good
> intentions behind it and as you say, each step further brings us
> closer to interacting with our machines on another level.
I absolutely agree that the Windows interface is far from perfect, and sure, it uses a lot of resources, but look at what an inexpert user can achieve with it. It allows the average non-computing specialist to perform complex tasks without too much difficulty. To the novice user, that's worth the use of processing power.
> Technology can only be driven by either a great need for it's use
> (i.e. something that brings in huge sums of cash) or something so
> revolutionary that it will change the way we think about using
> machines like our computer. When these large changes do take place,
> it may be us that feel the same way our parents and grandparents feel
> now, left out.
See, but that's my point. We've all grown up with these large, technological step-changes going on, and we're totally accustomed to quickly adapting from one to the other - another facet of the cyberability I was talking about. So, hopefully, we won't get to the same stage of being mentally obsolete.