In case anyone takes up my offer in this question to join chat for some discussion, I'll throw this thought out there:
When considering the impact of video game playing on the development of social skills, many people point out (rightly so) that modern video games tend to put much more emphasis on social interaction and multiplayer aspects in general than the games of the past
This is generally cited as a counter to the claim that it is desirable to limit children's time in front of a computer to encourage them to develop more social skills.
However, are the semi-anonymous to fully-anonymous social aspects of online gaming comparable to "real life" social interactions, or do they operate by such different sets of rules and guidelines as to qualify as a wholly distinct set of skills?
and good morning/afternoon @TorbenGundtofteBruun :)
Hello! I just popped in during a small break. What good timing :-)
You say "you can learn relatively little from gaming" but I'm not sure that's true. Worst case I can imagine: If a kid plays only Halo or Quake 3 or some such multiplayer killing game, they still learn real tactics and thinking ahead (that is, assuming they're halfway good at it -- which I'm not).
Given the wealth and breadth of computer games, there's a good chance kids will learn a lot from them though -- from logical thinking, over math skills, analytical, geospatial awareness, in-game timing (=deadlines!), and so on.
Books can give you the ideas and spur your imagination. I am all for books because of this. But it won't give you actual practise.
@TorbenGundtofteBruun However, how effective is the "actual practice" in video games? The vast majority of games are designed primarily to be fun. This is typically accomplished at the expense of major elements of realism
I learned flying a small aircraft from MS Flight Simulator as a young teen. One day I found myself in one such cockpit, for real, and I was allowed to fly it -- successfully, I might add. Reading piloting books would not have given me that skill -- but likely a deeper understanding.
using Halo/Quake/whatever as an example, many of the tactics in those games rely upon the ability of players to soak up some amount of damage, whereas in real life, a soldier who gets shot once is usually out of commision
I agree that casual games and computer games of our youth happily sacrifice realism for playability. But these days, games are getting ever more advanced and realistic, even to the point that the military is using them for troops training...
There's a world of difference between the original DOOM game and something like, I don't know what today's titles are, but e.g. America's Army, where a single bullet can disable you. So things have become more realistic = better learning effect. But also, less fun perhaps.
however, we are still a long way from the amount of learning material available in game form being comparable to the volume of learning material available in book form
- but digital learning is on a fantastic rise. Think of the Khan Academy, or all the e-learning that's become so cost-efficient popular in business these days.
@TorbenGundtofteBruun I'm not a FPS player, but my understanding is that the people who enjoy America's Army are very few compared to, say, MW3, because America's Army emphasizes realism vs. "fun" (America's Army is supposed to be a "real" military training simulator)
I think books was the best available medium for a long time -- millenia! -- but we are beginning to see what simulations and 3D and augmented reality etc etc can really do for us.
@Beofett I'm not sure ... all these mass-player shooting games require amazing skill to handle. I don't think there's much difference in the players of the different flavors.
@Beofett I am perhaps taking a wider view of this definition. I see that video games and computer-assisted reality is growing ever closer and is already overlapping considerably, just look at iPhone games these days. Stunning.
@TorbenGundtofteBruun Oh, I'm not saying they don't require skill. Far from it. I'm not saying they don't offer some real-life benefit to learning those skills, either. Just that the emphasis on "fun", and what most people define as "fun", limits the real-world skill learning
@Beofett It has been named a "simulator" since the mid-80's. it's not a game, it never was. But for me, as a 12 year old kid, it was a game like any other. Same with submarine "simulator" computer "games" -- they all claim to be simulators, but really you only do it for fun so it is a game.
@TorbenGundtofteBruun I agree that the gap between the two mediums (video games vs. books) is dwindling rapidly, and eventually there is likely to be no gap
The Playground
The Playground