Computer games
Download 31.77 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Bibliography
- 3 http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,50523,00.html, April 1, 2004.
Computer games,Why do people play? What are the effects? Chrystal Kruszelnicki Art History 352.3 University of Saskatchewan April, 2004 The history of game playing actually began far earlier than most people might expect, and humans did not create the idea of game playing as one may have originally thought. In fact, the earliest games began millions of years ago and ‘original’ game playing can be seen in the zoo—for example, game-playing between lion cubs as they wrestle or playfully chase a butterfly. Game playing has only been observed in mammals and birds, while fish, insects, amphibians and reptiles have not been shown to engage in these activities. Chris Crawford, author of the book The Art of Computer Game Design, argues that the primary motivation for playing games is to learn, a concept that is seen in animals. Crawford uses lion cubs as an example and argues that game playing is essential and a serious necessity for their survival, whether the game involves sneaking up and pouncing on butterflies or wrestling with another cub. Through their play the cubs are learning valuable hunting and survival skills. Crawford argues that, "Games are thus the most ancient and time honoured vehicle for education." Game playing is the natural or original way of learning and thus an important component in the development of many creatures. In this essay I will discuss Chris Crawford’s theories of why people play games, and elaborate on his ideas by providing my own examples, look at some of the positive and negative effects of playing computer games, and I will also give my interpretation of why people choose to play or not to play games. Why do people play computer games? This is a common question held by many, especially those uninterested in these games. As already mentioned, Chris Crawford argues that the fundamental motivation/reason for all game playing—no matter the type—is to learn. To this day, Crawford still believes the original game playing motivation of learning has retained much of its importance. To prove his point Crawford uses the example of humans and food. Humans need food for nourishment but this need has not prevented us from embellishing—and games nourish the brain even though we over indulge. According to Crawford people play games for education, and this motive may be conscious or unconscious. Secondly, there are many other motives for playing games that have little to do with learning. Over time these secondary motives may assume greater importance than the primary motivation of learning. Secondary motivations include: Fantasy/Exploration, Nose-Thumbing, Proving Oneself, Social Lubrication, Exercise, and Need for Acknowledgement. A major reason for playing a computer game is to escape into a Fantasy / Exploration world, a world away from daily stresses. The player can forget his or her problems when playing a game. This idea of escaping can also be seen and verified in other activities such as watching a movie or reading a book. However, one of the differences between playing a game and watching a movie is that the game is participatory, and Crawford states that this makes games superior to these other forms of escapement. There are many games like this—if not all of them—some are just more intense and realistic than others. For example a golf game is not as much of a fantasy world when compared to the games Zelda or Turok. These latter games create a completely different world (other than earth) in which the player can become ‘lost’ in for hours, and obviously a golf game is not as intense. In addition to getting lost in another world, computer games allow a person to become someone else in the fantasy world that otherwise would not be accepted in the real world. Crawford calls this idea Nose-Thumbing. The unacceptable behaviour is made acceptable by the ‘safety of the game.’ Good examples of this concept are arcade games, which almost always contain extreme violence. These arcade games often justify the violence with the theme of the games. For example, the point of a game may be to destroy aliens in order to save earth and all of humanity. The player then takes on the role/mask of the protector of the universe, violence without guilt, and is allowed to shoot guns and kill things without consequence. “The player can thumb his nose at social restrictions and engage in violence and mass murder with out risking censure. The game provides a safe way to thumb ones nose.”1 Another concept Crawford argues that all games sustain on one level or another is the motivation of Proving Oneself. Many games keep track of player scores or have tournaments so that players may compete to be the best player at the particular game. Some game players take certain games more seriously than others, which develops into a feeling of the player not only wanting to beat the game but also to beat somebody else. Chess, strategy, and war games seem to attract more of these types of players. These types of players want to show off their skills and therefore they play games that have more to do with skill than with chance. To be good at these games players must understand all aspects of the game well if they want to beat somebody else. Examples of these types of games include Axis and Allies and Diablo. The board games Sorry and Snakes and Ladders require less skill and have more to do with luck, for example, drawing the right card or receiving lucky numbers on the throw of dice. These last two games are less serious and are more about having fun, playful games; but still have rankings and winners like their more serious counterparts and games in general. Another motivation to play games is what Crawford calls Social Lubrication. For game playing in this sense, the actual game is of less importance. People—more generally adults—play games that are more about getting a group of people together to socialize. The actual type of game is less important than the act of socializing (social interaction), and a perfect example is card games such as Bridge or Canasta. Exercise can also be a motivation to play games, either mentally or physically. Cognitive skills, intuition, or athletic skills are often needed while game playing is taking place. Crawford indicates that players have to exercise their skills at the appropriate level, for instance a chess player will get little exercise out of a game of “X’s and O’s.” The same theory can be applied to computer games as teenagers will likely not be challenged by games targeted at preschool children. I believe that players need to exercise by playing games they are good at so they do not lose their skills by forgetting how to play, in other words, practicing. The final motivation for game playing according to Crawford is the Need for Acknowledgement. By playing a game players can acknowledge one another, and because of this they will spend effort to obtain acknowledgement. Crawford also wrote that in the process of playing a game with an opponent, you will get to know the opponent’s personality, therefore playing a game with someone is a way to get to know them. An example of acknowledgement is the popular golf game called Golden Tee. This game is in restaurants and pubs all around Canada. Golden Tee keeps track of all the players’ scores and stats, and players are encouraged to enter tournaments and win prizes. Players choosing to compete like this have a special card that they put into the machine each time they play. This creates a game playing community and a sense of a bigger social group with the same interests and competitive nature as the individual player. In this type of community one can prove that they are a good player—through their scores and stats that are viewable by others—and therefore be acknowledged. Since they are relatively new, the study of computer games is an on-going topic that needs further investigation. While researching for reasons as to why people play computer games I discovered that the majority of information was more about computer game design and the history of computer games than anything else. However, when looking for positive issues around computer games I stumbled upon one web page that contained an article titled Learning to Play; Playing to Learn: Lessons learned from computer games, by Marshall Jones. The discussion in the article was based on a study conducted to find out exactly how computer games engaged players, in the hopes that the same concept could be applied to create more engaging ‘computer-based learning environments.’2 Researchers and others are realizing that some children, more and more with every few years, spend massive amounts of time playing games or doing various other things on computers. The future is computers. People are realizing that children prefer to learn from games because they are fun and make learning more interesting and enjoyable. Many youths spend hours playing technologically based games—video games—and researchers are learning how games work so they can be incorporated into teaching-type games for students. This type of learning will create a different atmosphere for students and a new way of learning that may engage more of their attention, thus providing a better method of learning. Despite this research, not everyone believes computer games are beneficial. Some people argue that games promote hatred or cause addictive behaviour that negatively affects ones life. Many computer game players can play one particular game for hours upon hours at a time, sometimes forgetting their other responsibilities and duties. Once players do quit the game for the day, some continue to think about the game even when they have turned it off. Jeffrey Russel Stark believes and confessed on a web page that playing computer games has ruined his life. Stark believes that because of playing computer games he never learned how to interact and communicate with others. Stark also said that he skipped over forty classes to play computer games and as a result it cost him his grade 12 diploma. Computer games can clearly have a negative effect on their players, I am sure that everyone knows someone who spends to much time playing a particular game. Stark believes that parents should regulate all computer game playing, as he feels that his situation could have been prevented if his parents would have destroyed his game. I somewhat disagree with this statement as Stark could have easily purchased another game, played at a friend’s house or somewhere else he could access a computer. If computer games are an addiction, then players have to admit there is a problem and then want to remedy it themselves, as it is difficult to force someone into rehab for addictions they do not admit to. For younger children, say under ten years old, it may be easier to regulate their game playing habits because they most likely still listen to their parents and the parents likely have far more control than over a rebellious teenager. Currently there are many critical issues pertaining to computer games. While I was researching the effects of computer games there seemed to be only two opinions which were at opposite ends of the spectrum; those who truly believe that computer games are the future learning tool and those people who focus solely on negative aspects of computer games. There seems to be no in-between. During my research I came across a web page that caught my eye because it read, Games Elevate Hate to the Next Level. To my shock and dismay the web page spoke of games that are using racism as their theme, also known as “white power games.” The objectives of the games are to kill non-whites. One game discussed is called Ethic Cleansing and was produced by National Alliance. One of the disturbing things about this game and the people who produced it is that they used sophisticated modern technology as a way of seducing kids to play a game with horrible themes. Kids are motivated to play games for their superior graphics. Ethic Cleansing is sold for under $15 and other games like this can be downloaded or bought on-line. One of the main attractions to this game is that is so unacceptable (rebellious) that kids want to get their hands on it. If a parent says you cannot have or do something, most kids immediately want to do it, and therefore Ethnic Cleansing is popular and being spread among kids. The marketing group knows this and actually promotes it as “the most politically incorrect video game ever made.”3 The game itself plays racist music for the soundtrack and the hate (music) groups URL is displayed for the players to see. Thus computer games can provide a way for hate groups to spread their message to younger children who may be easily influenced and persuaded, giving computer games a bad rap. Personally, I can never really understand why people would choose to play a computer game over socializing the traditional way of talking. I find it rather boring to go to someone’s house and watch them play games (like many people do), but on the other hand I can rationalize this behaviour by viewing them having fun and that the people playing the games are competitive people. Those people who choose not to play may make their choice for several different reasons. For example, they may have a fear of losing, find the games boring and a waste of time, or they simply do not see any benefits from playing, so they do not even try the computer games out. I believe that there exist basically three types of people when it comes to playing computer games: those people who never play any type of technological games, those who play them once in a while or regularly but purely for fun, and finally those who play quite frequently and take games a bit more seriously. Each of these categories also has players within the category who have different motives and reasons for being in the category they are in. As well, there are some people who may flip-flop between categories from time to time. In addition to each person’s individual reasons for their views on computer games, I also think that how people took to and were presented to games as a child determines how often and much they enjoy playing games. If you played video games a lot as a child then you probably play them more in adult life than someone who rarely if ever played them as a child. A person’s skill at the games will also determine whether or not they like games, nobody has fun doing something they are not good at. For example, when I was younger I did not play Nintendo games that often but when I did I found them really hard, therefore I did not enjoy playing them on a regular basis because I got frustrated and lost interest right away. At one end of the spectrum there are those people who will not even go near games, simply because they fear them and fear losing (as I did), or computer games are a totally foreign concept to them so they do not care to try, an example would be my grandparents. Other people who are not gamers are aware of games, but I believe they feel there is no point to playing a computer game because they get no real benefit out of them. On the other hand there are people who feel satisfied by finishing a game. Those people who like playing games, I will call game players; think totally different from those who have minimal or no interest in playing games. For example, game players can play a certain game in which they die, but may view this death as a learning process, whereas someone with little interest in computer games is likely to quit after dieing for the first time. Each time game players die and get further in the game, they feel like they are getting better at the game and actually accomplishing something. Those people with little interest in games find the death frustrating and see it as a waste of their time.
As previously mentioned, interest in computer games and often games in general seems to stem from childhood, as all the people I know who like to play computer games most often also played them a lot as a child. I would have thought that as people grew older they would have grown out of playing computer games, but I still see Nintendos and Play Stations connected to TV’s in houses where only adults live. I just cannot seem to wrap my mind around the reason why people play computer games so much, giving me the impression that others think this way. But at the same time I understand that serious game players enjoy what they do and cannot reason why non-players are so against computer games. I guess that if Crawford is correct in saying that computer games are ultimately for learning and key to survival (conscious or unconscious), then I can understand why computer games are so popular and such a huge part of today’s society. BibliographyDarley, Andrew. Visual Digital Culture Surface Play and Spectacle In New Media Genres. Routledge, London and New York, 2000. Myers, David. The Nature of Computer Games Play as Semiosis. Peter Lang, New York, 2003. http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/mjgames/, March 20, 2004 http://www.nestafuturelab.org/research/discuss/02discuss01.htm, March 31, 2004 http://www.selfpsychology.org/_forum/0000014b.htm, April3, 2004. http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/gamebook/Chapter2.html, March 17, 2004 http://www.wired.com/news/cul ture/0,1284,50523,00.html, April 1, 2004 1 http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Chapter2.html 2 http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/mjgames/, March 20, 2004. 3 http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,50523,00.html, April 1, 2004.Download 31.77 Kb. Share with your friends:
|