This piece in @bopinion that came out today argues that games are not culture because they are a closed system that is more about "participating in an event than watching an event." (Umm.. @Twitch anyone?)
Games are not and have never been closed systems. They are, by definition, GAMING CULTURES.
Generally speaking, facets of culture include behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular group. The major elements being symbols, language, norms, values, and artifacts.
Gaming cultures have all of these:
✅ symbols (e.g., triforce)
✅ language (e.g., noob)
✅ norms (e.g., how to act in a PUG)
✅ values (e.g., cheating is looked down upon)
✅ artifacts (e.g., Commodore 64 anyone?)
Not to mention there are entire disciplines of study that have examined and discussed games as culture.
Games are not - nor have they ever been - closed systems detached from other aspects of culture.
(wasn't sure what example to give here, but Timothy Olyphant from Hitman will suffice)
To say that #videogames are not only NOT part of our culture, but "eroding culture" is factually incorrect and completely ignorant to the role that games, gaming, and digital games specifically, hold in society... globally.
For more, here is one of my favorite papers by one of my favorite authors on the topic:
A NYT article today outlined how a 12 year old was targeted by a hate group online within an online game.
Alt-right recruitment, hate and harassment surely exists *in* games...but it doesn't exist ONLY in games ...which you wouldn't know from this article.
I give you a lighting round of QUOTE/FACT CHECK
"Hate speech and online abuse have been pervasive in digital spaces for many years, but the use of gaming and messaging platforms by extremists and the alt-right to target younger users is increasing as more children play online."
Despite my concerns that all measures of well being were collated in to a single score of overall wellbeing... (that's a different thread) ...they report an overall effect size between gaming and well being a -.12 with a p value of .07.
Early this week I ranted about a @nytimes editorial misrepresenting the scientific literature around video game uses and effects.
It's one thing for an editorial piece to mishandle scientific information, but it is another when an “educational” organization does it.
A thread.
A new training from @childrenscreens was announced called BLOOD, SWEAT, and FEARS: Understanding the Psychological Effects of Graphic and Violent Media on Children and Teens.
An article was published in the @nytimes today entitled "Children’s Screen Time Has Soared in the Pandemic, Alarming Parents and Researchers" and I have thoughts.
As expected of mainstream journalism it is far more moral panic than actual information.
It’s a lot to digest and for the sake of brevity, I’m going to just hit the major points here 👇
I think the part that got edited out was how much parents appreciate that their children have the privilege of technology to stay connected, educated, and informed.
There was an article posted yesterday on @medium called “Playing Video Games Is Killing You” that outlines the opinions, experiences, and inferences of a single individual about the impact of video games on well-being. A thread.
There are so many scientific inaccuracies in this article it is hard to know where to start. In fact the first time I read it I felt overwhelmed by the amount of time it would take me to remedy that I walked away. But I’ve caught my breath now and ready to give it a go.
It is important to point out this article is based on a single persons experience which they then take and broadly assume to be the same experience for others. One’s person experience is NOT the same as others even if the experience seems objectively the same.