I will add, in my best movie-phone-moderator-man voice, that there is no such thing as "the average book" or "the average video game". They by definition must be evaluated on their own merits unless you generalize by category.
For example I'd agree with the statement "most war novels are more [insert good-for-your-brain descriptor here] than most war video games where you run around blowing people's brains out."
And with: "most video games or web site apps involving math or legitimate problem solving are more [insert good-for-your-brain descriptor] than most salacious smut novels, political hatchet jobs, and alien conspiracy theory books."
Clans suck, because they take their **** way too seriously.
I was a freak in Modern Warfare II, and I was playing on a particular server because they had some very stingy rules about tubing and camping. They asked me to join them, then harassed me to join them until I caved.
These guys threw "practices" 3 times a week, including Saturday mornings (a day for sleep) and I got out of there pretty quickly.
Clans suck, because they take their **** way too seriously.
I was a freak in Modern Warfare II, and I was playing on a particular server because they had some very stingy rules about tubing and camping. They asked me to join them, then harassed me to join them until I caved.
These guys threw "practices" 3 times a week, including Saturday mornings (a day for sleep) and I got out of there pretty quickly.
Clans suck, because they take their **** way too seriously.
I was a freak in Modern Warfare II, and I was playing on a particular server because they had some very stingy rules about tubing and camping. They asked me to join them, then harassed me to join them until I caved.
These guys threw "practices" 3 times a week, including Saturday mornings (a day for sleep) and I got out of there pretty quickly.
This PS3 or 360? i played cod 4 for the PC competitivly (atleast scrims) in promod for years. I HATE clans, too many people. I need a small 5-6 man team, max. Small, gain good chemistry. I didn't play for fun, i played to win. I don't play cod4 anymore, i'm done...nothing out so i waste my time playing guildwars 2 now. Might get into WoW. Only shooters that fit my liking is super fast games like Quake. Either Quake 3 Arena, or Quake Live (Mostly QL) but it takes forever to get movement down...i'm too old now, and i don't wanna waste all day everyday playing it.
This PS3 or 360? i played cod 4 for the PC competitivly (atleast scrims) in promod for years. I HATE clans, too many people. I need a small 5-6 man team, max. Small, gain good chemistry. I didn't play for fun, i played to win. I don't play cod4 anymore, i'm done...nothing out so i waste my time playing guildwars 2 now. Might get into WoW. Only shooters that fit my liking is super fast games like Quake. Either Quake 3 Arena, or Quake Live (Mostly QL) but it takes forever to get movement down...i'm too old now, and i don't wanna waste all day everyday playing it.
On PC. I was on the :]Go[: clan.
I admit it was fun, especially playing against other clans, but it was all the in between stuff that was too much for me.
don't worry, you don't come across as pompous. You come across as ignorant.
lots of video games involve reading. its a bit less work on the imagination due to the graphics, but the reading is still there. This part does seem to be going away as voice acting is becoming more and more prevalent
video game improve the following skills
problem solving
critical thinking
visual awareness
multitasking
dexterity
reaction time
social skills
creativity
teamwork
obviously not every game is great for these things. but then again, Twilight and fifty shades of grey exist.
seriously, video games are tremendous tools when used properly.
ps: reading a book is worse for your eyes than playing a computer game
Thanks for clearing this out. Now I know. I was trying to be polite. It should have been worse.
In all seriousnes trying to justify or add value to playing video games, I will not be able to understand: social skills???problem solving, critical thinking.
I guess I'll just have to disagree, keep limiting my teenage kids to 1/2 hour a day, and make sure they develop their social skils, their problem solving abilities and their creativity through other means.
Thanks for clearing this out. Now I know. I was trying to be polite. It should have been worse.
In all seriousnes trying to justify or add value to playing video games, I will not be able to understand: social skills???problem solving, critical thinking.
I guess I'll just have to disagree, keep limiting my teenage kids to 1/2 hour a day, and make sure they develop their social skils, their problem solving abilities and their creativity through other means.
yeah im with you.
i dont agree that video games have a tangible effect on social skills.
i read a recent article about playing chess becoming more popular (and even mandatory in one nation's schools) as an educational tool in europe, iirc. that's the sort of non-reading task that develops problem solving and critical thinking skills. i think something like that is much superior to video games for development of kids.
I was in a HUGE clan on COD4, but some of use started to get effed over. So, a bunch of us made a mass exit.
COD is my one video game weakness. I have COD 4 (Mac/PC), which is actually the older game from about 4 years ago and it still kicks ass. The "new" Black Ops for Mac (PC earlier but basically same) is crap comparatively speaking on multiplayer. Laggy, limited number of maps, and on Mac side Aspyr set up all the servers and runs it through the stupid-ass GameCenter service so that bogs it down even more. FUBAR.
I admit it was fun, especially playing against other clans, but it was all the in between stuff that was too much for me.
Ya, we didn't do any of the extra stuff. We would play with the "competition" rules and numbers occasionally, but we didn't schedule practice or anything like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Til the End of Time
yeah im with you.
i dont agree that video games have a tangible effect on social skills.
i read a recent article about playing chess becoming more popular (and even mandatory in one nation's schools) as an educational tool in europe, iirc. that's the sort of non-reading task that develops problem solving and critical thinking skills. i think something like that is much superior to video games for development of kids.
books>all.
what about chess is better than what can be done in a video game? again, not dissing chess. I like chess. But Chess doesn't do a single thing that can't be done in a video game. What do you think of video game versions of chess? There is literally nothing that can be done with a chess board that can't be done with a video game version of Chess. They are the exact same game. In fact, the video game has the clear advantage because you can play with other people online when there is nobody to play in person. I can't think of a single advantage to "real" chess over video game chess. Not one.
And ya, video games are becoming a very social activity. Certainly more-so than reading a book. And again, I'm not dissing books. They obviously have a lot of value. I will fully encourage my kids to read. But I don't think books or video games are "better" or "worse" than one another because they each have very different strengths and weaknesses. I also think reading doesn't have to be limited to books. I don't read many books, but I spend an awful lot of time reading on this site every day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vodeni
Thanks for clearing this out. Now I know. I was trying to be polite. It should have been worse.
In all seriousnes trying to justify or add value to playing video games, I will not be able to understand: social skills???problem solving, critical thinking.
I guess I'll just have to disagree, keep limiting my teenage kids to 1/2 hour a day, and make sure they develop their social skils, their problem solving abilities and their creativity through other means.
That's fine. Kids obviously don't need video games to develop or anything. Just like they don't need books. We can just agree to disagree on the value or lack-there-of of video games I suppose. I grew up playing video games and not reading books and I have done just fine. Somehow I have still become a good reader and writer. Probably because I still read all the time; just not books. Back when I was growing up, video games included a LOT of reading.
Ya, we didn't do any of the extra stuff. We would play with the "competition" rules and numbers occasionally, but we didn't schedule practice or anything like that.
what about chess is better than what can be done in a video game? again, not dissing chess. I like chess. But Chess doesn't do a single thing that can't be done in a video game. What do you think of video game versions of chess? There is literally nothing that can be done with a chess board that can't be done with a video game version of Chess. They are the exact same game. In fact, the video game has the clear advantage because you can play with other people online when there is nobody to play in person. I can't think of a single advantage to "real" chess over video game chess. Not one.
And ya, video games are becoming a very social activity. Certainly more-so than reading a book. And again, I'm not dissing books. They obviously have a lot of value. I will fully encourage my kids to read. But I don't think books or video games are "better" or "worse" than one another because they each have very different strengths and weaknesses. I also think reading doesn't have to be limited to books. I don't read many books, but I spend an awful lot of time reading on this site every day.
That's fine. Kids obviously don't need video games to develop or anything. Just like they don't need books. We can just agree to disagree on the value or lack-there-of of video games I suppose. I grew up playing video games and not reading books and I have done just fine. Somehow I have still become a good reader and writer. Probably because I still read all the time; just not books. Back when I was growing up, video games included a LOT of reading.
will respond to rest of post soon, but this part is weird.
books are a fundamental component to the development of kids. a kid growing up without books is deprived. the childrens hospital of philadelphia, considering by most to be the number one childrens hospital in the world, has a program where every single child coming in for a routine well-child visit is given a book, with several minutes of a doctor's valuable time being spent on counseling the parents on the importance of reading to the child multiple times per week and then subsequently encouraging the child to read books on their own when age appropriate. they do the same thing at harvard. numerous studies have shown improved outcomes in standardized test scores and academic achievement in kids whose parents read them books from a very early age, before the kids can even speak (indepedent of other factors). they wouldnt waste their time and money on such programs if there wasnt hard data to back it up.
bottom line reading books to kids leads to improved academic outcomes. no studies have shown that video games do that.
i dont know what kind of video games you played that had such a large amount of reading, so i cant comment.
forgive me if incorrect, but are you a teacher? i seem to recall that vaguely.
also reading on this site pales in comparison to reading an actual decent book. if you consider this any sort of intellectual stimulation that i must disagree.
will respond to rest of post soon, but this part is weird.
books are a fundamental component to the development of kids. a kid growing up without books is deprived. the childrens hospital of philadelphia, considering by most to be the number one childrens hospital in the world, has a program where every single child coming in for a routine well-child visit is given a book, with several minutes of a doctor's valuable time being spent on counseling the parents on the importance of reading to the child multiple times per week and then subsequently encouraging the child to read books on their own when age appropriate. they do the same thing at harvard. numerous studies have shown improved outcomes in standardized test scores and academic achievement in kids whose parents read them books from a very early age, before the kids can even speak (indepedent of other factors). they wouldnt waste their time and money on such programs if there wasnt hard data to back it up.
bottom line reading books to kids leads to improved academic outcomes. no studies have shown that video games do that.
i dont know what kind of video games you played that had such a large amount of reading, so i cant comment.
forgive me if incorrect, but are you a teacher? i seem to recall that vaguely.
also reading on this site pales in comparison to reading an actual decent book. if you consider this any sort of intellectual stimulation that i must disagree.
I agree with this, especially in early development stages (which is what you are referring to). I DO think video games have some merit, but they don't hold a candle to books.
And, as far as chess is concerned (you and Ogre brought this up earlier), the real version is superior to video game IMO because face to face interaction is much more important to developing lasting, real life social skills to that of virtual or social interaction on the internet. I know that communication in our world is changing and non face to face interaction will continue to increase. However, I think an emotional and social connection can be lost when children have most of their interaction through some online gaming chat room. So, with that in mind, board games that force face to face interaction are superior to online gaming IMO (at least in that respect).
will respond to rest of post soon, but this part is weird.
books are a fundamental component to the development of kids. a kid growing up without books is deprived. the childrens hospital of philadelphia, considering by most to be the number one childrens hospital in the world, has a program where every single child coming in for a routine well-child visit is given a book, with several minutes of a doctor's valuable time being spent on counseling the parents on the importance of reading to the child multiple times per week and then subsequently encouraging the child to read books on their own when age appropriate. they do the same thing at harvard. numerous studies have shown improved outcomes in standardized test scores and academic achievement in kids whose parents read them books from a very early age, before the kids can even speak (indepedent of other factors). they wouldnt waste their time and money on such programs if there wasnt hard data to back it up.
bottom line reading books to kids leads to improved academic outcomes. no studies have shown that video games do that.
i dont know what kind of video games you played that had such a large amount of reading, so i cant comment.
forgive me if incorrect, but are you a teacher? i seem to recall that vaguely.
also reading on this site pales in comparison to reading an actual decent book. if you consider this any sort of intellectual stimulation that i must disagree.
I guess I was talking more about books at a bit of an older age. I was certainly read to as a child, and I did my readings in school. But reading Harry Potter as a teenager isn't much different than playing Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment. In general though, I am in no way saying video games should replace books. Just that they do indeed have their own advantages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady Machine
I agree with this, especially in early development stages (which is what you are referring to). I DO think video games have some merit, but they don't hold a candle to books.
And, as far as chess is concerned (you and Ogre brought this up earlier), the real version is superior to video game IMO because face to face interaction is much more important to developing lasting, real life social skills to that of virtual or social interaction on the internet. I know that communication in our world is changing and non face to face interaction will continue to increase. However, I think an emotional and social connection can be lost when children have most of their interaction through some online gaming chat room. So, with that in mind, board games that force face to face interaction are superior to online gaming IMO (at least in that respect).
I guess I was talking more about books at a bit of an older age. I was certainly read to as a child, and I did my readings in school. But reading Harry Potter as a teenager isn't much different than playing Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment. In general though, I am in no way saying video games should replace books. Just that they do indeed have their own advantages.
fair enough.
i just disagree. i really think reading HP is better for a kids development than playing BG.
you said you had kids, right? if you somehow could decide where your kids interests lie, would you choose to have them read HP in their rooms for ~ 2 hours a night, or have them playing balder's gate? my preference would be obvious.
I was trying to be polite. It should have been worse.
