[parasti]

And yet, you are only "getting better" at the game. Your in-game skills don't translate to the real world. Games have psychological and social benefits, but I don't think getting better at a game skillwise has really any transferrable value outside of the game itself. In fact, if you put more effort into improving your in-game skill, your real-world life usually suffers. (In my experience.)

[Joeri]

But to serious gamers, those interactions in and around those games are their real world. Say someone dedicates themselves to learning the piano, a Real World activity, and they enjoy it, and they can entertain others with their skill, why is that any more real than getting deep into a game? In the end we all die and take nothing with us, nor do we leave anything behind which will last all that long. If everything is ultimately futile, why make a distinction between one pursuit and another?

[parasti]

> In the end we all die and take nothing with us, nor do we leave anything behind which will last all that long. If everything is ultimately futile, why make a distinction between one pursuit and another?

This viewpoint is destructive. Your actions affect your future and the futures of the people around you. They are not futile. When someone learns to play the piano, it becomes a tool that can be used in countless applications in a person's life. When you learn to wall jump in Metroid, you learn to wall jump in Metroid and maybe in some other games. The variety of application just isn't there. It's just not comparable.

[newswasboring]

Can you enumerate what tools you gain by learning piano?

[newswasboring]

I second your sentiment, I think this articulates my thinking much better. I see people trying to prove that yes games have "transferrable skills" to "real life" and I am sitting here thinking, why does it matter? It's my hobby!

PS: Used those quotes because I don't think people have clear idea about what they mean by those terms.

[wccrawford]

Actually, a lot of skills used in video games do translate to the real world. Puzzle solving (aka logic), language, map reading, navigation, communication, working with a team, and more. Some games even have a particular bent towards 1 skill, such as programming games and geography games. And that's not even including all the games that are designed to be educational first and fun second.

They are generally soft skills because no games really let you physically do things yet, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful skills.

[Akronymus]

Games have helped me build a network of acquaintances that actually ended up helping my career/life.

[hnfong]

That the "real world" is actually "real" is a big assumption to make.

If that sounds weird, remember that a number people who were considered wise claimed that the "real world" is not as "real" as you'd assume and life is transient. And they'd probably say that it's not worth spending the effort to learn "real life", "productive" skills since they don't translate to the "meta-real-world" anyway, and the more you put effort into improving your "real world" skills, your "meta-new-world" skills suffers.

It feels like I might be paraphrasing some verses of the Bible at this point...

[snowram]

I played a lot of Rocksmith and it helped me a lot to play the guitar. I know personally some people who went from couch potatoes to mildly active thanks to Ring Fit. I met dozens of now long time friends online because we share this common interest in video games. I think you may have a bias against this media.

[parasti]

Both your examples are games that are built on real physical activities. It's no surprise that they teach you skills that are relevant outside of the gaming context. The majority of games aren't like that, which is what I was talking about.

I don't really have a bias against games and it's puzzling to me that most commenters here completely misread my comment to that extent. I used to be an avid gamer, until real life took over. Just speaking from personal experience having logged thousands of hours on and off Steam. It probably helped keep me sane, but I have a real hard time pinpointing how it has affected/improved/touched my current life now that I don't play games as much.

[r3trohack3r]

Love Rocksmith, I own a physical copy! I played a LOT of Guitar Hero as a teenager. Comparing the two: Rocksmith provides compounding returns - my time playing Guitar Hero did not.

I second dota’s take in a sibling comment, it was insightful. Not all games are created equally.

[GoblinSlayer]

You must be one of those people who think they don't need linear algebra in their life.

[newswasboring]

> And yet, you are only "getting better" at the game.

I don't get it, why is that not enough? Why can a hobby not be about only me and my personal growth/goals. Its a hobby, what I am failing to understand is why does it need to be productive? If I stick to playing challenging games, I feel a sense of growth which unfortunately I cannot articulate. That is enough for me, but yeah YMMV.