Do Video Games Contribute to Social Isolation?

A stereotypical young gamer sits alone in a dark room, staring at a computer. His hands furiously type on the keyboard, and he mumbles occasionally into his headset. Some may worry that this child has difficulty interacting with others, or making and keeping friends. These people would be, in almost all circumstances, wrong. While this person may not outwardly appear sociable, they are likely conversing with online friends, and may be strengthening bonds made with people in the real world.

Online games have the unique benefit of allowing you to gain friends in a rather different way. Because everyone you meet in the game shares at least one interest with you, the game itself, it is very easy to initiate a conversation with the other players. This, and continuing to play together allows trust to build up, and a friendship to form. Having played games with friends myself, I find that it is much more satisfying when you share your victory with another person. Data collected in a study led by Dr. Daniel Johnson of the Queensland University of Technology found that many younger gamers find their online friends to be easily comparable to their offline friends, and sometimes even better (Australia 6). Having friends who you have no physical contact with can actually be a relief. Because there is likely little to no overlap with the friends you met online and your real life friends, you can easily relieve stress, or vent some complaints about recent events without the fear of them coming back to you. People with introverted tendencies may feel more comfortable talking to a small group of people from the comfort of their home, rather than going to a large dance, or sporting event. Finally, online friends can be nice, reliable sources of advice, allowing for comfortable dialogue where you can get perspectives from people potentially hundreds of miles away.

Gamers maintain and build these relationships. Often when one of these online friendships begin to form, you place them on a friends list, or similar system. Later on this allows easy communication and the ability to work together further. The collaboration and quick decisions you make while playing a game with another person allows you to see how they think, and how they cover and assist you helps greatly to build a feeling of trust. A study printed in the American Psychology Association magazine mentioned that in addition to strengthening current bonds through playing with one another, it becomes easier to function socially in real life (Granic 73). I believe this is because the quick judgments of trust you have to make while gaming allow you to better judge the trustworthiness of people in reality.

Dr. Johnson’s team also found that as pre-existing friends (such as a friend you have in school) play games together, it strengthens their friendship. (Australia 6). Fighting a monster with someone, or working together as part of an assault team in an FPS, even if it is entirely fake, undeniably creates a bond between the members, often in the form of shared experiences, inside jokes, and the like. Planning for these missions requires a degree of teamwork and responsibility, and the collaboration allows for deeper understanding of your friends. Additionally, as previously mentioned, you often begin to trust them more, because of how they helped you during the session of play.

You can also play online games with friends hundreds of miles away, allowing you to maintain your relationship in ways few other things allow through constructive interactivity. A personal friend of mine regularly plays the popular MOBA League of Legends with friends he knew, but that moved to distant states. He plays very frequently, but also manages to balance his offline friends, clubs, and grades. He is far from dysfunctional. The study conducted by Dr. Johnson’s team also suggests that gamers as a whole have better attachment to school, a closer connection with their family, and more comfortable friendship than non-gamers (Australia 6).             

The biggest dissenters of this idea point out that excessive gameplay will prevent social interaction, particularly through taking up time and preventing normal face to face interaction, and may eventually lead to depression or the like. This is true. The study led by Johnson previously also showed that excessive gamers show an increase in social dysfunction, and general mental health status, as well as some specific problems like anxiety and insomnia. However, it also found that non-gamers as a whole have the poorest mental health (Australia 5).  This negates the argument against moderate play, and the positive points given above would offset any negative effects obtained even in extreme play.

Given these examples, and the fact that non-gamers can suffer health issues, it is clear that gaming does not increase social isolation, with it actually encouraging and facilitating further interaction among friends, and potentially creating new bonds with other players they meet along the way. Next time you think of the teen sitting in front of a computer, apparently alone, remember that there is likely a whole different social environment they are immersed in, one not immediately visible to the outside observer.

Australia. Young and Well Cooperative Research Center. Videogames and Wellbeing. By Dr. Daniel Johnson, Associate Proffesor Christian Jones, Dr. Laura Scholes, and Michelle Colder Carras. N.p., 2013. Web. 15 Feb. 2014

Granic, Isabela, PhD, Adam Lobel, PhD, and Rutger C. M. E. Engels, PhD. "The Benefits of Playing Video Games." American Psychologist 69 (2014): 66-78. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.

 

I wrote this as a persuasive essay for my A.P. Lang class, hence the long and developed writing. Thanks for reading!

Gaming Classification Debate

Today I address  something commonly argued about, especially on forums. What is the best way to classify a gamer? Casual to hardcore? Using Bartle's theories? Or the Markzewski type pioneered off of Bartles version? First, though, I answer the question of a poster on the IGN boards.

Can't I just be a gamer?

Yes, yes you can. This person brings attention to the fact that, however we classify ourselves, we are all still gamers. Therefore, this is nothing to fight with other people about violently.  "Casual" should not be used as and insult, and a "Hardcore" person shouldn't assume they are better than others. This applies to other classifications as well.

To fully understand this debate, you need to understand these systems. Allow me to explain them.

First, there is the "Casual-Hardcore" axis, between casual, hardcore, and intermediate players. This defines players by the games they play. It's generally agreed that games that provide a one-time disposable experience are casual games. By this I refer to games like Bejeweled, where you play one game with little or no bearing on the rest of the game and few dynamic options with one goal. Casual gamers would then be people who would play these games. Here the quality (how casual the game is) of the game is worth more than the quantity of time playing the game for judging purposes. Some one may play seven hours of bejeweled a day and still be a casual gamer. Now a "hardcore game." Hardcore games are significantly harder to define. Generally games that require fast reactions, adaptive strategies, and/or large amounts of time to complete or master. At least two of these categories should be met to consider it a hardcore game. Hardcore gamers are people that play these games, but there are more restrictions on being hardcore than casual. Hardcore gamers must both play hardcore games, and play them much and frequently. An intermediate (sometimes called "avid") player would be between the two, playing a mix of the types.

Secondly, their is Bartle's game classification. Here there are four basic types, an achiever, killer, socializer, and explorer. An achiever is a player who hopes to master the game, or get the most awards. There is some relation here with the hardcore gamers of the previous model. A killer is a player out to kill things, generally other players, but it may be expanded to include other destroyable or killable things or NPC's as well. A socializer is someone who plays the game to talk to people, and generally participates in MMO's or the like. Finally, the explore tries to find the secrets of the game. Contrary to the achiever, their goals are created by themselves, as opposed to given to them by the game.

Third, and last among the choices I give, are Marczewski's user types, which will be abbreviated to MUT. MUT is similar to Bartles, and was formed as a response to the previous. Here there are socializers and achievers that function as Bartles do. Then he has free spirits, whose goal is to create and explore, similar to Bartle's explorers. There are then players, people motivated by rewards. There are philanthropists, players motivated by improving the lives of others. Disruptors are people who want to change the system, either by introducing unknown elements, or doing unexpected things, slightly similar to a killer. The final two, as well as the socializers, primarily inhabit online multiplayer games.

First, I believe that the Casual-Hardcore model does not work. It is far too narrow and does not account for players behaviors. Additionally, people often form stereotypes from the terms, and may use the term "casual" in an insulting manner. The self diagnosed hardcore players become rude, and tend to develop a sense of entitlement and superiority. This system would work best as part of another, as in a "hardcore explorer" or a "casual achiever."

That brings me to the Bartle system. Bartles system is good, but is limited. It does not cover mischievous people whose focus is not necessarily the other players, but the designer, or the world itself. It also does not apply to people who play only for the satisfaction of continuing on, not for achievements, but because the game rewards you for it. It attempts to cover all, but falls slightly short, which is where the MUT system falls in.

In my opinion the MUT system is the best of the classifications. It takes Bartle's system and adds some essential missing parts. In addition to the gaps mentioned in the above paragraph, it also provides the position of Philanthropist, which covers a small but important group that many would easily overlook. Needless to say, MUT provides all the key parts. All that is, but one I believe is necessary.

 There are some people who play games more for the story for anything else. So a story driven type is necessary. An argument could be made that this is a reward driven view (play the game for the reward of finding the story) but I believe that it falls distinctly separate, and is large enough to warrant it's own group. I myself have found the story the strongest reason to continuously play a frustrating game.

Given the above examples and explanations, I stand firmly on the side of MUT, with Bartle's version too narrow, and the hardcore-casual axis too vague and controversial. MUT manages to fit all foreseeable types, with a notable exception above, and still make sense and provide a grouping that is not offensive or vague. The MUT system is clearly the most sophisticated and advanced, and applies to the current times more than the others.

The following are solely for me and my work on making this into a full paper for citation reasons. My information was gathered from the below variably. Due to the nature of the topic, most are expert opinions, or hypothesis/theories formed by experts.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/11/29/246747168/hard-core-and-casual-gamers-play-in-different-worlds

http://ask.metafilter.com/108110/Casual-vs-Avid-vs-Hardcore

 http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131397/from_casual_to_core_a_statistical_.php?print=1

 http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

http://marczewski.me.uk/user-types/#.UvbIbPs3lC8

 http://voices.yahoo.com/why-hardcore-casual-game-labels-worthless-6447066.html

 http://gamestudies.org/1102/articles/woods

Hating to Hate

When a gamer doesn’t like a game, they quite often use the same excuse – “It’s been done before” or “It’s not innovative” or more often “It’s just a copy.” This is rarely true – virtually every created game brings something new to the table. It is that these people refuse to see this, often because they dislike the game being discussed.

I admit, I myself have been guilty of this in the past, especially regarding Call of Duty and Pokemon (neither of which I particularly like, but am now at least willing to try), of which I considered each iteration of the game to pointless, and mostly the same. Having read some peoples zen gaming views, worked through my own gaming philosophy, and actually approached first-person shooters myself (I haven’t played Pokemon yet, but Emerald is definitely on my bucket list), I know this not to be true.

When gamers don’t like a game, we are all too quick to blame the game for being unoriginal, or not innovative enough, at least if we haven’t played the game. If we have played it, people have a tendency to blame controls, graphics (way too often graphics), and other features. However, many people look at a game, particularly any first person war game and see it as the same. I often do so myself, and force myself to look beyond the obvious.

This is why I always try to be objective in my reviews, even though they are games I have played and especially like, I try to recognize their faults as well. I would do the same with games I didn’t like, mentioning all their weaknesses, but pointing out their strengths as well.

Basically, every game introduces something, whether it's a character, or a place, anything new can be considered "innovative." Literally every game, except for a straight copy brings something innovative. No game with new content can be considered a copy.

In conclusion, I believe that if you are trying to denounce a game, come up with something more original than "it's been done before," because very likely, not all of it has.


On a side note, thanks to all the viewers that brought my page views over 1000! I'll go for 10000 next, however long it may take.

Persona 5 Information and Further Speculation

 More information about Persona 5 has been released, in the form of a Famitsu Interview. I advise you read before continuing.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/f33c29464b0fb7de992bce35ae19e45c/tumblr_n0euiuNHXd1rlc5f9o3_1280.jpg
 For information on what I'm responding too, read my first prediction post here.


First, I'd like to point out that I'm right about the theme color. Red it is. I guess that is kind of an obvious connection, but one I doubt many people made immediately.  Also, I was correct in that "the school is a prison" is not the feel they are going for.

The return to darker themes does not necessarily feel correct anymore, as the interviewee of this article (Katsura Hashino, director of Persona series) states that they want to make it even more "thematically approachable," which could mean backing off of more controversial stuff.

Hashino also says, "People who have played Persona 3 and 4 should feel right at home in 5 as well." As 3 and 4 both featured social links, protagonists of the Fool arcana, and the velvet room, I'm keeping those on my list of likely stuff for the game.

On to the analysis of the new stuff. 

Hashino states that "this is a game about freedom, the kind that those sorts of people haven't had living in the real world." Here he is referring specifically to people stuck in "dead ends," or those "bored and discontent with their lives." Each character may be more lonely, or have more basic problems to work through, or multiple problems (not that Persona 4 had a lack of problems among the characters),  before they can attain freedom (Perhaps individually this would be max social link, and unlock of ultimate persona, or for the group it would be resolution of game).

I am especially interested in how Hashino wants this game to impact it's players ("We want them to play our game and come away feeling like they've found a renewed sense of self."). I think that is a good thing to see in a designer, that, not only are they telling a story and making a fun game, that they want it to affect the people who have played it, or made them think about things in different lights. God knows,  Persona 4 Arena had me question what is humanity, Persona 4 the meaning and attainability of truth, and Persona 3 the inevitability of death. 3 and 4 also caused me to question what society as a whole sees. I won't tell you my answers here, because that would take up to much space, but I may write about my personal experiences at another time.

These are my specific views, and may be discounted by later trailers. I will continue to post on Persona 5 news as more information is released. Keep in mind that this is (currently) a Japanese only game, and I do not truly understand Japanese.

Persona 5 comes to the Playstation 3 Winter 2014 (in Japan).

Indie Games

Indie, or independent games are rising in popularity. Now is as good a time as any to jump on the bandwagon and try them.

For those not aware of what Indie games are, the definition depends mostly on the person. Technically, it refers to any game created by an independent developer, but their is a certain feeling that accompanies indies as a whole. Many indie games are made with pixel graphics reminiscent of NES games. Others feature strange storylines, or take risks large companies couldn't make. Their are also many indie games that satirize parts of other games, such as Achievement Unlocked, and it's tongue-in-cheek criticism of the importance of achievements in games.

Indies as a genre appeal to a specific audience, especially those who grew up in the times of the NES and such. Many people play indie games and greatly enjoy them without realizing they are indie. Many small online games are indie games, but their are specific ones that rise above the others. Their are also some large downloadable indie games, such as Cave Story, that feature lots of interesting and engaging content.

Indies as a whole are very much worth checking out, espescially Cave Story, Passage, and Pathways, some of my favorites. The latter two are somber, and make point about life, and I reccomend them heartily (although they aren't so much fun as reflective). The first is a classic indie game originally known as Dokutsu Monogatari, and you must download a patch on the link above. It tells the story of a cave dwelling society of rabbit people. I have not yet completed it, but it is very entertaining and famous in the indie world. Darkfate is another interesting one, and also has an interesting minimalistic storyline.  If you have a Vita check out Super Crate Box and Rock Boshers, both of which are also available online.

I implore you to try any of the above.