[JenniferFinelli]

Hi, ebbv! I do want to point out that those are questions, not answers. No one is telling you how to enjoy games--the fundamental question is, is there a way to enjoy games that accesses the deeper human levels of our existence? No where in this article does it say "DAMN YOU FOR NOT FINDING DEEP MEANING IN TETRIS YOU FOOL." That, I agree with you, would be a little over the top. = P

There's another, bigger question to consider: if video games affect your mind so profoundly, it's probably a good idea to think a little before playing. I don't want to rephrase the article to say "think before buying," because that's an obvious part of anything we do--but if your pre-motor cortex actually replicates and primes your motor cortex to perform the Scout's baseball-bashing of Team Fortress 2, don't you at least want to consciously decide on what level it affects you? If you make the conscious decision to transfer TF2 only to area MT--which is essentially what you're arguing--then that decision should be conscious. Rather than just experiencing, isn't it legitimate to consider what your pre-motor cortex is acting out? Is it unreasonable to ask that we be consciencious about the workings of our minds during games?

This isn't to say that EVERY SINGLE TIME you play a game you should write a paper and submit it to a game magazine. I would rather you didn't do that, because I would like to do that, and you would be competing, and, yannow, capitalism.

This is just to say that it's reasonable to become aware of WHICH areas of your brain are affected--because whether you like it or not, your brain ACTIVELY practices killing. I'm not putting a moral label on that. I personally believe that's a good thing sometimes. I'm saying "Know thyself, brain-flesh-meatbag, and have fun playing."

So have fun. BTW, who's your favorite TF2 character? I am pretty much in love with the Scout.

[ebbv]

I think saying that "your brain actively practices killing" is overstating it. It sure sounds good, but it's not even close to reality.

When you see visual stimulus, it causes your brain to simulate that in your mind but it's not true that your brain is "practicing" that behavior. When you see or hear someone playing guitar, the same effect is happening in your brain. That doesn't mean that you can watch Stevie Ray Vaughan play "Rude Mood" 20 times and then play it yourself. Likewise you aren't going to turn into a killer no matter how many hours you spend playing GTA4.

On top of that, I think approaching the issue by telling people "think before you play games" is condescending and ineffective. It's like articles that say "think before you eat." Nobody reads that and says "Oh you're right! I was a mindless eating machine before and now I'm going to be more thoughtful." They think "Who's this jerk telling me what to do? I'm getting a KFC Sadness Bowl with extra bacon!"

You are obviously free to write whatever articles you want, I just found this one a bit condescending and also based on a false premise. It was clearly well intentioned and thoughtful, so I'm not trying to insult you or make you feel bad just express my reaction.

EDIT:

Also I don't play multiplayer FPS of any kind much these days but when I fire up TF2 once in a while I usually play the Soldier because it's most like the old Quake 1 days of rocket battles.

[Lewisham]

> I think saying that "your brain actively practices killing" is overstating it. It sure sounds good, but it's not even close to reality.

To support your point a little bit, some video game scholars, like Espen Aarseth, don't buy into the idea what the representations provide any relevancy:

[1]: "The "royal" theme of the traditional pieces is all but irrelevant to our understanding of chess. Likewise, the dimensions of Lara Croft's body, already analyzed to death by film theorists, are irrelevant to me as a player, because a different-looking body would not make me play differently (see sidebar). When I play, I don't even see her body, but see through it and past it."

While Aarseth has been quite extreme in his rejection of narrative, the main aspect of his argument is that gamers see the underlying constructs of the gameplay systems, and I think gamers choose whether to engage with the dressing that sits on top. Bioshock Infinite tells a story that you can listen to, but when you're playing you're not listening.

This explains the disconnect between players of GTA and observers. Those who observe and go "YOU KILLED THAT PROSTITUTE TO GET YOUR MONEY BACK AND YOU DON'T EVEN CARE" are viewing the game at the narrative level; whereas the gamers who do this are working at the mechanics level. It is a fallacy to then believe that those gamers are more susceptible to perform those actions they see at the narrative level in real life, as they were never there in the first place. The prostitutes aren't people, they're walking wallets. Bioshock tried to play with this idea with the Little Sisters, but I felt it ultimately failed, as the Little Sisters were sufficiently dehumanized that they looked a lot like walking health packs who would be put out of their misery. People who really do see others like this in real life already have a name; they're psychopathic. Fortunately, most people are not psychopathic :)

[1] http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/firstperson/vigil...

[eurleif]

If that were true, why would gamers prefer games with better graphics? Why does Valve make a fortune selling virtual hats if no one cares how their character looks?

[Lewisham]

Graphical representations are there to draw you in, but once you are there, the representation isn't as meaningful. Tetris remains a wonderful game whether you play it on a Game Boy or on hardware today.

The hats thing is about people meeting certain status motivational needs. Reiss' 16 Desires indicates that people seek status, and hats confer it. There's also a desire for collection, which hats also offer. You'll find many people who go "why do you care about hats? They don't change the game." For them, their desire for how they look or what they have isn't as meaningful. I'm hesitant to say "Reiss' 16 Desires is definitely correct" as all psychology is essentially pretty soft, but it does provide a useful framework for games motivation analysis, which is what I am currently supposed to be writing my PhD thesis on instead of procrastinating on HN :)

Some skins do confer gameplay bonus, even if they don't do it mechanically. League of Legends sells skins, and when you see someone with a champion with a skin on, you know they like that champion. It provides "skintimidation" to the other team.

I don't go as far as Aarseth in terms of rejecting aesthetics or narratives. I like that we have these things, and I like that they are better than they once were. I think most people feel that way. However, it's not a be-all-and-end-all proposition if you play a game that doesn't have a great story or stretches your moral compass. Those games could be wonderful games. There are plenty of great narratives with terrible games attached, like Heavy Rain.

There's room for everything, and I don't think pointing and saying "You're a bad game because of your narrative" is helpful. A better issue is "You're a bad game because of your ludonarrative dissonance" (such as Bioshock Infinite, where the character is trying to escape the ghosts of his past, but ends up murdering hundreds of people anyway) or "You're a bad game because your system simulation is completely screwed up" (imagine a SimCity where you were taught that people loved it if you polluted everything as long as there were low taxes). These are bad designs because they teach the wrong lessons. GTA is a wonderful marriage of design and story: the insanity that the players' are allowed to wreak fits in with the world created. The only way to play GTA subversively is to actually attempt to follow the law except when instructed not to (something Pippin Barr tried in [1]).

[1 pg. 200] http://www.pippinbarr.com/academic/Pippin_Barr_PhD_Thesis.pd...

[gknoy]

We like looking at pretty things. Well-rendered scenes in games let me more easily imagine myself in a different scenario -- whether that is rappelling down the side of a skyscraper to rescue hostages, or flying an X-wing through a canyon.

I'm not going to play Bioshock or Dishonored or Call of Duty 42 simply because of "ooh, shiny!", but at the same time we won't complain if it's there. If all else is equal, we often go with the newer one. If I were to buy Bioshock Infinite (or the new Tomb Raider, etc), it would be because I'm interested in the story and the experience, of which the graphics are just part. Perhaps that's because graphics in PC games have been already Pretty Awesome for longer than I've been able to afford the hardware?

[papsosouid]

>Why does Valve make a fortune selling virtual hats

Because of the perceived social status conferred on them for having a rare or "cool" hat. It has nothing to do with the narrative vs mechanic question.

[JenniferFinelli]

Hmm, the premise is scientific, if you want to check my sources. I think you're misunderstanding the difference between the pre-motor cortex and sensory cortex. You're right, the sensory cortex is the part of the brain that just "simulates" what you see. The pre-motor cortex, however, actually "primes" your motor cortex for action. Your brain is actually practicing actions you see. That's new research, but totally verifiable if you take an intro-level college neurobiology class. The idea isn't "think before you play games" so much as, "whoa, new research suggest games affect our brains like this--let's think about that!" It's a celebration, not a condemnation. No one's saying TF2 is evil: people are saying, "hey, let's use other parts of our brains and see if that affects us differently," because we tend to use certain parts more than others. That's me as much as you.

Besides, what's wrong with thinking before we eat? As the old Chinese proverb says, "let your food be your medicine." In both gaming and eating, science shows that it's legit to pay attention, to be "mindful" of what we're doing. That's okay. I mean, what's the counter-argument? Don't pay attention to what you eat? = P