Thursday, July 19, 2012

The Smart Gamer


As a child, my father forbid videogames in our household, which is astonishing if you knew the type of man my father is. My father allowed and at times encouraged the worst behavior in my brother and me. I can remember when I was about ten years old he suggested we set a pile of newspapers ablaze and then to throw an entire packet of bottle rockets into the fire. I will never forget seeing him laughing in the window holding his cup of coffee as we frantically tried to crawl away from the bottle rockets which were whizzing ever so close to our heads. He never fully explained why he was so opposed to videogames. Instead he would simply say, "they're a waste of time," and I have by and large come to the same conclusion as well, which is also astonishing as I have made it my mission in life to defy him in anyway possible.

The TED talk video with Jane McGonigal of course argues strongly the opposite. She claims that skills learned in videogames can be used to solve the largest problems the world currently faces. By making such an outrageous statement that many people would love to be true, she has of course gained a lot of attention. The problem is it is not going to happen. The skills she cites to be strong amongst games, such as epic meaning, are vaguely defined and I can see no way that they will result in tangible results in tackling real-life issues. The games that the vast majority of the world play reward precision of killing on a mass scale. Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto, one of the most popular games of all time, simply rewards random acts of violence for the purpose on entertainment. On the other hand, the peak-oil game that she claims can teach people how to conserve fuel and changes peoples' habits, which I find hard to believe, is virtually unknown. Games that teach useful skills have always been and will always be regarded as a joke. They are the sorts of games only your mother would buy you.

Sure, videogames probably exercise a lot of reasoning, but so do sports and a myriad of other things in life. Videogames, however, exist in a virtual world that has been programmed. There are only a limited number of variables to challenge the player. In real life, there are an infinite number of variables, many of which will never be seen in the games people actually play because they are boring, tedious, or simply no fun.

James Gee highlights some good points about games, but stops from making such outlandish conclusions as McGonigal. He asks why we cannot use the principles of gaming in the field of education. I feel this is rational enough, but difficult to do effectively while still retaining the sense of entertainment.

So until I am presented with the most amazing game in the world that a child plays for a couple of house, sets down, and then go outside and uses that knowledge in the real world, I will remain unconvinced.

5 comments:

  1. I agree with you that McGonigal seems that she's straight outta Hogwarts and doesn't understand real world "muggle" things such as education. I was very much more compelled by Gee's paper than her tall boots and babble about games saving the world. It seems as though she spent too much time in the virtual world. Gee really piqued my interest in the application of games (not just video games) and the tools that these games use to increase interest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it would be really wonderful if McGonigal's assessment of games was correct, but I just do not see any of her predictions for games being revolutionary that compelling. Games are useful and I have had great success making games for my kids while teaching English in Japan. It is a great motivator and easy way to get kids to practice on their own. It requires a lot of work though to make a game that forces the child to practice the material and also to find a game that properly fits with curriculum. In my mind games will always be a good supplement material, but nothing like McGonigal dreams.

      Delete
  2. This was a really interesting take on McGonigal, mostly because I was fascinated by her and thought what she said was really interesting! Granted, I did have my doubts, and at times sort of said to myself "Okay, seriously?" But overall I wasn't necessarily turned off my her ideas. I definitely didn't write them off as crazy and outlandish. This could be due to the fact that she was so organized, well spoken, and entertaining in presenting her ideas, but that is half the battle isn't it? If you take what is going to seem like a completely irrational argument, and break it down in an extremely well put-together argument, then it is going to seem more believable and more rational, and I think McGonigal did an outstanding job at doing just that. She accepted the somewhat "craziness" of what she was saying, and spent her whole talk discussing why it isn't crazy. And it did a great job at reeling me in.

    My thing against the video games, is who is actually going to play that stuff? I thought that her point that video games are a popular activity that invoke reasoning is a true statement. I was fascinated by her argument that they could be used to invoke reasoning that could change the world. However, when I sit down to entertain myself with pictures moving on a screen, I wanna play Mario Golf, and not some kind of oil consuming, save-the-world kind of challenge. I thought her ideas were revolutionary, its just that the issue is going to be making the games available, making them available to the widest possible audience, and then getting people to actually choose these games over all of the amazingly entertaining ones that are out there already. How are we going to take kids away from Grand Theft Auto and convince them that these world-saving ones already? That is where my doubt comes in.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jack I can't get over the fact that your dad did that ... on the one hand it sounds awesome and on the other ... not so much. In terms of your ideas about video games I'm pretty much on board ... I've never seen a video game in which kids (or adults) play for an hour or two and then go outside in the real world and apply the skills learned in the game ... McGonigal tries to claim that they would when she talks about how people who played her enviornmental game actually kept up eco-friendly habits after the game ... but i'm willing to bet that anyone who is interested in playing an enviornmental game is likely to be pretty good about their eco habits in the first place ... like Abby was saying most people though are not gonna want to play an eco game ... The idea sounds nice in theory but I think a lot more needs to be worked out before it would work ...

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete