The Mad Monkey Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 You sad bastards, watching such tubbish when there was awesome TV on ITV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 ITV doesn't do 'awesome'. It may aspire to do 'abysmal' one day, but even then, that day is far far away. Apart from Harry Hill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcj metroid Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 You sad bastards, watching such tubbish when there was awesome TV on ITV. There is never awesome TV On ITV( or UTV as it's called over in this dive). It's by far your shittiest channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flameboy Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 I've never heard of anyone addicted to TV. Nowhere near the degree that these people play games. South Korea wasn't a bad example since they pointed out that people who become addicted tend to have underlying social problems. Even the case with the woman who let her child starve, they quite clearly pointed out she appeared to have mental problems. I think it balanced for the most part. For a 30 minute program. Their focus on online games was weird. Panaroma did a show about it back in the 90's my mum made me watch it. As a kid I had my TV viewing limited to an hour an day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Monkey Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 ITV doesn't do 'awesome'. It may aspire to do 'abysmal' one day, but even then, that day is far far away. Apart from Harry Hill. There is never awesome TV On ITV( or UTV as it's called over in this dive). It's by far your shittiest channel. You didn't see the tram crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 You didn't see the tram crash. I take it back. What tram crash?! Panaroma did a show about it back in the 90's my mum made me watch it. As a kid I had my TV viewing limited to an hour an day. So you're citing the show you're now slamming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintendohnut Posted December 6, 2010 Author Share Posted December 6, 2010 It was certainly interesting. They seemed to focus entirely on WoW which I thought was odd with so many reports in the US of people playing GTA and COD and being trained to kill etc. I suppose it was focusing more on addiction... I think, while they did offer some alternative views (brief sentences giving the benefits of games or a person saying 'the majority aren't addicted, but some are') wasn't quite enough. Indeed, the fact that at the end of the program they had to say 'if your child gets angry when you stop him playing games it doesn't mean they're addicted' should show you that perhaps it wasn't entirely fair. When I heard that all I could think was 'if a parent doesn't understand that then they're not fit to be a parent' It was a useful tool for warning parents about addiction like that, but I imagine a lot of overreactions will take place because of the program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Monkey Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 I take it back. What tram crash?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganepark32 Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 I'm pretty sure game addiction is simply a transference of feelings of alienation. Alienation not caused by games. This is a very good point and something, should the program have been longer, that they should have discussed more. A lot of the media is quick to assume that gaming is primarily to blame for these 'addictions' but it was nice that they brought up, briefly, signs that pointed to things other than simply games being the issue. Social and family issues, for example, were mentioned and are clearly things which do influence how involved someone gets in something, as there have been studies looking at and showing a causal link between things like mental health disorders and drug usage and these social instabilities/issues. Anyway, pretty much what I expected from it. A heavier focus on the negative elements with a brief mention of the positive aspects of games, and WoW being the main game of discussion. Given how they were saying in the adverts they were going to look more at the psychology of gaming, I was expecting a little more on that side but then it is a general TV program and the BBC has some policy of making its science accessible for all when watching (I know this for a fact having spoken at length with someone who has worked with the BBC on psychology stuff for TV or in TV programs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintendohnut Posted December 6, 2010 Author Share Posted December 6, 2010 I didn't realise trams travelled that fast/were that flammable. Goes to show what I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 I take back what I took back about ITV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flameboy Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 So you're citing the show you're now slamming? I'm just saying ,your saying that TV addiction isn't as big a problem, when the same show thats highlighted the problem your saying that had a balanced arguement about gaming addiction also cited similar things about tv over a decade ago. I even remember them saying about people getting aggressive when they weren't allowed to TV, a similar thing that was said for videogames. As the levels of literacy rose back in the day they used to say that novels were a evil to society and that they would bring about its downfall. Movies became a scapegoat for many a year, theres no doubt in my mind that things like tonights show don't come out of a genuine concern for videogames but from this mentatily that something has to be blamed. What's to say these social inept people wouldn't still be that way without games? Or abusive parents wouldn't still neglect their child? I think it comes down to the individual and if it wasn't one thing it would be another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxigen_Waste Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 In an era where games can offer just as rich experiences as books and movies Okay, I (obviously) love games, but that's a ridiculous overstatement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flameboy Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Okay, I (obviously) love games, but that's a ridiculous overstatement. I think I meant rewarding. Although I dO think there are games that narratively do offer experiences that are rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcj metroid Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Okay, I (obviously) love games, but that's a ridiculous overstatement. Sure NOW that's an overstatement. It's mainly because we're still in the Bmovie quality of storytelling. The potential for games as storytelling tools in the future is overwhelming though. It IS closing the gap on what's left for the reader/viewer and in this case player's imagination though compared to what books offer if you get me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxigen_Waste Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 I think I meant rewarding. Although I dO think there are games that narratively do offer experiences that are rich. I wouldn't go for rewarding either, I don't get as much from VG as I do from books/music/films/etc but they're definitely just as entertaining and engaging. But yes, some games are indeed "art" (whatever you want to call it). Which reminds me I must do Shadow of the colossus again someday soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcj metroid Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 I wouldn't go for rewarding either, I don't get as much from VG as I do from books/music/films/etc but they're definitely just as entertaining and engaging. . I agree again. You should have more incentive to continue playing into a game rather than 1)Unlocking everything in a game, 2)completing it 100%, 3)beating other player's scores etc. I said it has POTENTIAL but the way it's looking, it's gonna to be more multi-player focused in the future......which bites. I wouldn't say it has a BRILLIANT storyline but when I younger I LOVED playing the original metal gear solid to find out what happens next in the story. It was an experience I get a lot of the time from books but rarely in movies. ME OPINION Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnas Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Okay, I (obviously) love games, but that's a ridiculous overstatement. Not too long ago, I would've agreed with you, but then I played a game that strongly resembled a good book. The potential is there and, as you admitted, games can be very engaging. Rich experiences can be had, though I don't think we're quite at that point yet, industry-wise. As for the topic at hand, videogames are as addictive or engaging as any other medium. Nothing abnormal about that. Internet addiction, now that is the real evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxigen_Waste Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 The potential is there and, as you admitted, games can be very engaging. Rich experiences can be had, though I don't think we're quite at that point yet, industry-wise. This is pretty much it. I would say that the "problem" stems from the fact that the richness of the experiment derives itself mostly from the narrative and setting (as in any of the more traditional means such as books) as opposed to the gaming itself. Which makes perfect sense, but will always result in a majority of the video game industry being artistically hindered, as most narrative geniuses tend to shy away from the medium, in favour of more versatile industries. But yeah, you're spot on, there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwarf Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 ITV doesn't do 'awesome'. It may aspire to do 'abysmal' one day, but even then, that day is far far away. Apart from Harry Hill. LOLLL I despise Harry Hill now, he used to be OK, and then he turned his show into a catch-phrase contest. It was good when the majority of the show was just awesome observational work. Desperate. Songs are the shittest part! And he makes a fucking CD out of them?! Who the fuck buys this wank?! Hayte. --- Videogames ....I wouldn't say they're captivating enough for me to be fully addicted. That said, over the years I have wasted too much time on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnas Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 This is pretty much it. I would say that the "problem" stems from the fact that the richness of the experiment derives itself mostly from the narrative and setting (as in any of the more traditional means such as books) as opposed to the gaming itself. Which makes perfect sense, but will always result in a majority of the video game industry being artistically hindered, as most narrative geniuses tend to shy away from the medium, in favour of more versatile industries. But yeah, you're spot on, there. I mostly agree with you, except I don't think gameplay necessarily acts as a hindrance to the narrative, or make the medium less versatile. On the contrary, it can greatly immerse players into the narrative/setting in ways that films or books couldn't. It's just that it's misused so very often, that's the impression most people get. And I do believe that the geniuses will stop shying away from videogames soon enough. Just don't ask for anything more specific than that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Isn't one of the 'benchmarks' of emotional entaglement the ability for the piece of art to make the audience cry? Gaming has a few moments in its history that hold a claim to this potential - aeris dying in FFVII for example, but in general it isn't able to manipulate the subtler emotions as well as music or film. I think this is primarily because of the game's deep level of interaction! A gamer is constantly aware that they are simply a gamer with their controller in hand. Gaming requires too much non-trivial action for the user's emotions to overcome their rational thinking. Gaming is about carving ones own path through a universe, while watching a movie or experiencing a book or an album is an act of following, of pursuit; such linearity gives the author a greater control of how we can possibly react. Computer games are primarily puzzles to solve. Narrative is generally just a mere tool to prompt us to continue with the puzzle. With other forms of entertainment, narrative tends to be the whole reason we choose to experience it - unless you count technological gimmicks that offer a novel experience altogether (3D cinema, etc). Personally, I think games can be a form of art without needing to try and be grand puppeteers of our sensitivities. There is art in their construction, and that is enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwarf Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Point and click games are possibly the closest thing to being near the mediums, however, there's always stupid jarring things that take you away from any momentary belief that games are showcasing some sort of reality. You just don't get caught up in them in the same way as books and films. Do you want them to offer this though? I mean, point and click games don't really count as proper games anyway (if ya get me), and you're going to have to get rid of that damned controller if it's gonna work. And if you take that away then... Well shit. You're left with Kinect. Which is never gonna produce anything serious. At all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 (edited) I wouldn't go for rewarding either, I don't get as much from VG as I do from books/music/films/etc but they're definitely just as entertaining and engaging. Which is the bit that's missing for you? On the whole, I find games more rewarding than films/books/music personally. Even though you pay for all the content in a game you still have to work to advance to experience it all. A film, you just sit and watch. Music, you sit and listen (dance if you really want). Try to unravel hidden conceptions etc if you like, but (and this is just me) but knocking the living fuck out of some boss is more rewarding than knowing movie X was having a sly dig at socialism (or what have you) I despise Harry Hill now, he used to be OK, and then he turned his show into a catch-phrase contest. It was good when the majority of the show was just awesome observational work. He's a poor mans Charlie Brooker. Simple as. Edited December 7, 2010 by EEVILMURRAY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxigen_Waste Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 I don't think gameplay necessarily acts as a hindrance to the narrative, or make the medium less versatile. Neither do I, and sorry if I made it seem like I did. Which is the bit that's missing for you? Emotional attachment, mostly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts