This subject has been in the news on a weekly basis for at least the last 2 years. Every one has to say something about it. Addiction experts and gaming experts, Social workers, psychology professors etc etc. Once in a while there's an article that appears to be written by someone who knows what he/she is writing about. Unfortunately those articles aren't very interesting as well, since they too, involve the experts from all kinds of professions. The thing with most of those experts is this: they are all at least older than 40 and have been doing their profession for at least 20 years.
Sure, there were games in the seventies and eighties. But let's be honest here: although some games were extremely good and could be played for hours and hours, they looked like crap and except for being rewarded with infinate glory and fame by achieving the highest score ever, there was not much to it. What made it fun was that you'd go out, meet your friends in an arcade, spent your guilders on the games and have an evening of fun. Sounds different from the consoles and networked games that kids are playing today isn't it?
My first "console" is something I remember as a black thing that had about 8 switches. Flip a switch and you'd be playing pong in some form. It had 2 "joysticks" that were nothing more than a small box with a little wheel on it (it looked more than a button that you could turn).
I've played on several Atari machines, an MSX, about every Nintendo and Sega system ever. Sony's playstations, Xboxes... Played on PC's from the moment we had one at home (in '91) and I still have my old Commodore 64 that loaded games from audio cassettes.
And yes, I have missed/failed finals at school/uni because I preferred gaming above learning. Playing for more than 8 hours a day... But was it because I was addicted to it? I believe not.
I believe that one can not get addicted to "gaming". There are games that you'd like to play more than "normal". But once it's finished, it's finished. Play it again, with friends... good fun, but there always comes a time you're done with it. Therefore I think that when someone shows signs of "addiction" there is no reason to worry, there is always that moment the game is finished.
Then there is a differnt genre of games. This is the area where I am less sure about the "addiction" factor. These are the "games" that offer a virtual life. Im talking about certain Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games.
A game like EVE-Online offers an environment where you are free to do what ever you want. It offers an environment in where you can do stuff that you would never do in real life. And it doesn't have an end, it doesn't finish.
Isn't that one of the essential elements of a game? An end? Either after a period of time, by reaching a score, finishing the levels or beating your opponent. This is what makes it fun: direct competition or achieving something (and in some case fame and glory).
But a "game" like some MMORPG's that do not have a rewarding system can therefore never be finished. Sure you can achieve certain things but there is so much more to achieve without it ever ending... example: Becoming very powerfull can be a goal, but when achieved the game doesn't end - probably exploiting that power will be the next step.
I don't think this can be called a "game". It's more a simulation of social structures. fictional or not.
Simulations like that are I think addictive in the way that a participant invests all his time into this virtual life instead of his real life. But can that be called an addiction? I don't know.
There is however a big difference between playing a game and participating in a virtual world. I for one think it's more interesting to look at the (external) factors that make people choose to start playing games (a lot) or enter a virtual world.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Is gaming addictive or not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 reacties:
I think MMORPG’s and non-MMORPG’s do not differ that much from each other, really. The only big difference is that MMORPG’s have a big social aspect to them, made possible by the persistence of the virtual worlds in which they take place, while the social elements of other games are often confined to a living room.
As far as the rewards go: MMORPG’s actually do have a rewarding system, very similar to ‘regular’ games. In ‘regular’ games, the goals that will lead to the rewards are mainly set by the game designers (kill end boss, finish level), whereas in a lot of MMORPG’s, with EVE Online being a good example, the game designers leave it up to the player to set their own goals, and therefor their own ways in achieving the satisfaction, the rewards.
I believe the ‘mechanics’ behind achieving these goals and associated rewards are identical. People have evolved to get satisfaction out of learning, progressing. The feeling of satisfaction (the reward) you get from achieving a learning goal is the genes’ way of saying ‘thank you’. (Obviously, genes promoting their owner to learn and progress will have spread more widely in the population than genes not promoting this.)
So as far as addiction goes, is there that much difference between a ‘regular’ gamer getting sucked in a game until he finishes it, then goes out and buys a new game starting the whole process over, and a MMORPG-player, who gets and stays sucked into one game, setting new goals whenever an old one is reached or abandoned? The satisfaction gained from reaching goals in either situation is based on the same internal chemical reactions inside our bodies.
And whether this is a real addiction or not depends on how you define addiction I guess. “Physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects”, is what my dictionary says. If you stick to that (classical) view, a gaming addiction is not a real addiction.
For me though the threshold is lower. When playing games disables you from functioning in a reasonable way in society and poses a danger to your physical and / or mental well-being, that’s when I start calling it an addiction.
BTW, you make it sound like a ‘simulation of social structures’ is a bad thing. I don’t think they are ‘simulations’: it’s real people interacting after all, so the structures are real as well. And compared to ‘regular’ games which lack those social structures, you could argue that MMORPG’s are actually less bad–in MMORPG’s you still have a social life, albeit in a virtual environment.
Kewl, my first comment. Thanks Bas!
But ehm.... I disagree with you ;)
I see two game types:
1. with a definitive rewarding system and with an ending.
2. without a definitive rewarding system that does not have an ending.
Type nr.1 I see as the usual games like a platform, a shooter or a racing game. Also good old board games belong into this category.
The thing with these games is that you either finish a level, beat the best time or killed the most enemies. The hardest level has been played or the story finishes and the game is over. Play it again or with friends etc, but there will be a time a player is done with the game. This is one of the reasons why there are so many extensions to a game like counterstrike: otherwise people would get bored with it. Or in a more positive way: to keep it challanging :)
Type nr.2 are most of the time simulations - and when I say a simulation of a social structure I do not mean this is a negative way. It's a very exciting concept but I think many of those games lack a clear rewarding system in the sense that something has been finished. Sure you can achieve things and for a certain task you're being rewarded via satisfaction (and you can see if others have that achievement as well), but by far not as clear as in type 1 games. Mainly because type 2 games do not end - the satisfaction of finishing a game is the biggest reward you can get.
My main point is that type 1 games have a clear ending and rewarding system and type 2 games have not.
When a game is finished and you're done with it, you must first find a new game that you would like to play and pay a lot of money for it.
This is not the case in type 2 games. You will always stay in that rush. There is always something to achieve, therefore a steady delivery of satisfaction, but not a clear rewarding system. Therefore a player is continuously challenged and stays engaged which (I believe) creates a form of addiction.
Post a Comment