[ajmurmann]

There are a ton of low-effort forms of entertainment available today. It's easy for them to dominate choice. If you take those away, other things will emerge and grab your interest. If you are even a remotely interested person you'll find stuff. A few months ago I was at the beach without as much technology access and enjoyed it so much that I put myself on a media diet after. I suddenly felt more excitement about programming projects I had started but not finished, reading books, cello practice, little projects around my house and garden. One thing all these things had in common is that they left be feeling better when I was done with them. That just doesn't happen for me with most video games and movies. But it's just so much easier to fall into the couch and watch Netflix or grab the controller.

[wruza]

I really think this thread has to specify the types of video games it speaks about. Because games range from CoD-like X-to-Win shooters with endless changing backgrounds to something more elaborate and harder than real life activities, while being relatively short.

[ajmurmann]

You are right that this makes a difference. I think the difference might be relatively small though. At best the experience can be comparable to having read a great fiction book (Disco Elysium, Life is Strange) or a good social experience like playing with your friends online while using voice chat. Online games with total strangers can be challenging and fun, but also a blur. I've spent way too much time playing Rocket League for example and my experience in hindsight would have been the same off I had only played for like 5-10 hours. And then there are pretend-work games like Factorio, Kerbal Space Program or even more obvious Zachtronic games like Shenzhen IO. The latter might be great exercise for non-programmers, but you don't actually accomplish anything and still exhausted the same parts of your brain.

[throwaway2037]

I like this post. It rings a bell with me when you wrote: <<But it's just so much easier to fall into the couch and watch Netflix or grab the controller.>>

I cannot put a finger on it, but what is the difference between (a) reading a newspaper, magazine, book (fiction or non-fiction) and (b) playing video games or streaming films / TV shows? I cannot put a finger on it, but (a) reading activates some part of my brain that (b) streaming does not. Why? I'm not sure. I never read any research about it. One thing I can say: Watching documentaries is different than other stuff. Again: Not sure why. It might only be me and my brain that feels this way.

Also, this part: <<I suddenly felt more excitement about programming projects I had started but not finished, reading books, cello practice, little projects around my house and garden.>> Again, I cannot put a finger on it, but what really is the difference between these activities and playing video games or streaming films / TV shows? On the surface, not much, but the emotional satisfaction is so different when finishing a cello piece or novel versus a streamed season of a TV show.

[hydrok9]

Imo most games are simply dopamine-sinks or reflex-based, which is fine, but you are not going to get the same brain activity as doing something which requires deep focus and that can actually be constructive. Games tend to be passive, in that once you understand how to win, you don't need to put in as much active thinking. You just need to know how to respond.

[ajmurmann]

I think some of it might not be about reading activating part of my brain as much as it is about most video games and modern movies and tv shows creating some kind of dopamine feedback loop and dependence that makes other tasks less interesting and even reduces my ability to perform them as well.

[burntoutfire]

Playing a game means mastering skills in a purely fictional world with purely fictional sets of rules and challenges. It doesn't translate into your life, expect in the most abstract way [1]. Whereas reading a newspaper, magazine or a book deepens your understanding of the world you live in.

[1] The flipside is that it can teach you bad habits as well. If the result of the game does not matter in any way, you have no incentive to try hard at it, and can just coast, turn the game off when you're frustrated etc. This is not how real-life is (coasting and difficulty avoidance don't work as well), so games can teach damaging habits. It's better in team multiplayer games, because in-game peer pressure can make you get out of your comfort zone.

[account42]

If you really think that games cannot teach you the same things as purely written words then perhaps you have a very limited view of what kind of games are out there.

[burntoutfire]

Games convey very simplistic ideas compared to the full extent of human thought, expressed in spoken or written form. It's usually way more washed down than cinema, which is already incredibly washed down.

Not to mention the benefit of say reading about your country's history, as opposed to the history of some ficitonal world in a video game - with history books, you're learning about the things which actually happened and have had a direct, large impact on your life and the world around you.

Novels, while being ficitonal, allow you to explore inner worlds of other people and complex interactions between them (and there's nothing more complex in the universe and at the same important to us than humans and interactions between them), something that games are severely lacking (cue in people telling me about Nier Automata and one or two other story-based games which are approaching the level of a bad novel).

Most video games are spatially-oriented and are basically more sophisticated version of children playing tag, football or similar simple games focused around interactions in 3d space. And the ones that are not that, i.e. that try to be about humans and not simple spatial and temporal relationships, basically suck for the most part. It's clear that the medium is not meant for them.

[Vnnwa]

The thing is, Nier Automata doesn't try to be a novel. I mean, it's not even that subtle, game all but tells you that it tries to experiment with storytelling in the medium in the first 30 minutes.

Also, you sound extremely prejudiced and close minded: > Novels, while being ficitonal, allow you to explore inner worlds of other people and complex interactions between them (and there's nothing more complex in the universe and at the same important to us than humans and interactions between them) How do you even argue with that? Can you somehow support this claim? Though from reasoning like this i can deduce that you must hate House of Leaves, and kinda understand why you dislike Nier Automata.

[ajmurmann]

Nier Automata is an interesting example! It touched on a lot of interesting topics and did so in a very creative way. At the same time I also feel that the game wasn't mindful of my time at all. The stretches between the interesting story elements were frequently separated by long, often-repeating stretches of fairly simple hack'n slack gameplay. I'd hold up something like Outer Wilds or Disco Elysium though. But Disco Elysium is pretty close to an amazing book and doesn't do as creative work with the game medium as Nier does.