The Social Impact of Gaming 465
"The Bart, The" writes "The Economist weekly is carrying a well considered special report on the current debate regarding morality and gaming." From the article: "Like rock and roll in the 1950s, games have been accepted by the young and largely rejected by the old. Once the young are old, and the old are dead, games will be regarded as just another medium and the debate will have moved on. Critics of gaming do not just have the facts against them; they have history against them, too."
So does Slashdot have the same issue? (Score:3, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I'm an "old-fart" - had my 40th birthday [komar.org] two years ago ... ;-)
Does this mean civilization will ... (Score:2, Interesting)
I finally have an identity! (Score:5, Interesting)
Youth violence at an all time low (Score:5, Interesting)
The correlation that the "think of the children" groups talk about is that...it just runs the opposite way.
but... (Score:5, Interesting)
John Carmack will never, ever be regaurded the same way that John Lennon is.
Games, while becoming more acceptable socially, are never going to be regaurded as "cool" like rock.
But... (Score:3, Interesting)
Happens all the time. (Score:2, Interesting)
As a gross generalization, slashdot has people belonging to two crowds that frequently overlap: 1) technically proficient (relatively), and 2) young, very "liberal", and occasionally anarchist.
I predict that a lot of the slashdot crowd is against things like corporations, money, etc because they're still in college and don't have money or employment. I predict that, like the 60's flower children who turned into the 80's "Me generation," as soon as the money's there, their tune will change. They will become more conservative, it happens with every batch of college kids. Remember, the "old people" we're talking about being conservative used to march in peace rallys, throw rocks at cops, burn bras, etc. Now they fight the first amendment. It's almost ironic if it weren't sad.
As far as technology, some will keep up with the "new thing," some won't.
Regardless, the next gen of young people won't espouse slashdot, because they'll make/find their own thing. I predict that slashdot's membership will grow older, and much of it will move on.
Social Evolution (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't this like how our generation was labelled X, yet we got some leftover values of the more conservative (not in a political sense) previous generation by reflection, parenting, education and what a certain society considers acceptable. (peer influence; you always adjust to your environment or get in an isolated position. Not all are as determined to remain the isolated position or just don't realize they're flocking as it's a normal process)
Yet, limits are constantly pushed. Remember the 'Rock and Roll' in the 50s,'60s,... It has affected how our society looks, as that yought has grown to be now the 'controlers of this society' (being parents, politicians, artists, idols, lawyers, directors, writers, as anyone else who is part of a society)
It seems that each generations' concept of which is considered normal, acceptable its limits are being pushed and people get numbed down for what previously was.
Now I do wonder wherever this is a good thing, as I see the kids these day walking around and idealizing the whole ghetto culture, reflecting of f the media which tries to profit and does so with drawing people to them with "shock value" and probes how far it can go. (turns out.. each time you can go a bit further once people are used to it)
Yet, each generations' conceptions of what is acceptable will be challenged when they grow older and look behind who's going to follow them up.
40 or under? Of course! (Score:3, Interesting)
This rings true for me. I'll be 39 this year, and what makes that significant dates all the way back to high school. During my last year or so in HS in 1983/1984, computers were finally introduced to the students (Radio Shack Model III's, Atari 800's and a couple of Apple II's).
If I were a year older and went to school a year earlier I never would have been exposed to computers. The school at that time had them readily available to play with and my folks would never buy such an expensive "toy". I would have went on through life doing something else.
So I can easily see why the "over 40" crowd would not understand. That group would have had to wait until college for an opportunity to see a computer and probably only would if they were in the appropriate majors.
Those couple years were also the years that brought out the home computer revolution. The people who used them extensively were the kids at the time and they used them for games. Those kids would be 40 or under now.
Re:Does this mean civilization will ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Prior to that, it was jazz music, extra-marital sex, alcohol, and so on.
Now it's rap, games, and homosexuality. It's the same story over and over and over again. Trust me, your kids and grandkids aren't likely to see what the big deal is.
That's not to say there's a unidirectional element here. Things can happen to turn a society more conservative (usually some calamity). The depression, Second World War, and Cold Wor accomplished an interesting trifecta of pushing back on the more liberal attitudes that had started to emerge about sex, women, alcohol/drugs, and culture in the 20s in North America. 9/11 effectively brought religion back into the field, reversing a rather secular trend.
In the early 70s you had women wearing jeans studying engineering in Afghanistan. The country became ravaged by war and poverty, and...well...you know how that turned out.
I'm using very recent examples here, you can study this stuff WAY back.
I think the overal direction is that when society feels threatened, less will be tolerated, and there will be more conservative pressures. When the society thrives and is prosperous, though, it becomes more liberal.
Your second question; will society accept things that are not beneficial because youth do? Part of that depends on what you consider "not beneficial" (ie. harmful). If you still hold that rock is harmful, then the answer is yes.
If you have (sorry to say it) less of an agenda to push, then the answer is no, not really. Drugs never became culturally acceptable just because the youth accepted them. Drugs can be harmful, and so were rejected. Some drugs that were not so obviously detrimental (ie. marijuana) are still the subject of debate.
You'd never know it to look at them, but people can be remarkably sane, given enough opportunity.
Re:An observation (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be more worried about what kinds of people a kid might come into contact with while playing the game. I joined a clan while playing Lineage 2- one of the members was 12 or 13- seemed like a nice kid. Several others (much older) acted like complete dipshits most of the time, setting an oh-so-wonderful example for any younger members. Over time, I began to notice this kid picking up the same kinds of behavior. It was unfortunate, to say the least, and is a strong indication that parents need to keep a close eye not only on what kinds of games their kids are playing, but who they're playing them with. The internet and Teamspeak make it possible for all kinds of nasty combinations- and oddly, I've never heard this mentioned in the news.
Re:Latest in the series of manufactured menaces (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't know where this "kids can't tell between reality and fantasy" thing has come from, but I'm not seeing any evidence to support it.
Re:Youth violence at an all time low (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:time out (Score:2, Interesting)
That leads to a big productivity time drain. Now, the argument could be said that that time substitutes other equally unproductive time, but for me thats not the case.
JOhn
Re:Active v Passive (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess programming takes the ability to think logically though, and that seems to be in really short supply these days. Gaming probably helps though.
Re:Youth violence at an all time low (Score:1, Interesting)
I would argue that the statistics used in the articles were quite appropriate for what the author was atttempting to point out.
If the casual reader had drawn a distinction between games with explicitly violent content and other games (such as sport games, puzzle games etc... ) and even violent games that offer the player a chance to investigate the moral implications of their actions (such as Black & White), the author was using the table to segue into that discussion and define distinction. Central to making that point is that there is no credible connection between playing video games and societal violence.
I do agree that there is only a correlative relationship between game sales and violent crime. However, the point of using the statistics was not to support the arguement that playing video games has reduced crime. I am fairly certain that was never the author's argument either. Instead it is used to undermine and show the absurdity of the assertion that playing video games is a Bad Thing (TM).