Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
THE MYTH OF GAMES AS ESCAPISM
Debunking misunderstandings of the medium and why it's important.
Sagitar- 05/22/2011 01:05 AM
- 30614 views
When attempting to drive forward a medium, it's important to understand the trends and viewpoints that are holding it back. I've already likened games to theater and discussed why people have trouble calling them art, but in this post I'm going to dig a little deeper and attempt to disprove one of the troubling myths surrounding our culture and industry.
Many people think playing games is a form of indulgent escapism. Considering role-playing experiences like Dungeons & Dragons or World of Warcraft, it's easy to assume everyone involved is losing themselves so deeply in the game world to escape problems in the real world. They're called "role-playing games" because players take on the role of someone else—a deadly night elf, an interstellar commander, etc. These roles are so appealing because they give us a break from our responsibilities, right?
Wrong. In fact, they pile more responsibilities on us. Games are not a passive medium like film or literature; players don't have the luxury of watching some other hero save the world.
Games are interactive and engaging, and by definition provide obstacles to overcome. Perhaps gamers are escaping into other worlds, but often those worlds have more problems and challenges than our own. Players are accepting a responsibility in that very act of playing, willingly taking it upon themselves to put down a mutant apocalypse, escort a helpless child out of harm's way, or even just pile heaps of experience onto their avatar to hit that elusive next level.
Okay, so that's fine, but if a gamer's network of real-life relationships is in the crapper and bills are piling up at home, vanishing into that other world is still shirking responsibilities, isn't it? On some level, yes. But if players wanted to escape their problems, it doesn't make sense that they would take on even more in their spare time. They would love to be able to tackle those problems; most just don't know how to go about it. Enemies or obstacles in the game world then become manifestations of real-world challenges, ones with tangible goals and a clear (if not simple) path to victory. That's why overcoming them can feel like such an exhilarating accomplishment, even if it's as simple as beating a level of Angry Birds.
People act differently while they're playing games than they do in the real world. It's similar to internet culture in that regard—we feel safely distanced from ourselves and buffered by the blanket of apparent anonymity. You might think this means we're putting on a mask, but it's actually the opposite. The mask is what we wear every day in social situations where to express oneself honestly isn't always an acceptable option. Our masks actually come off when we play games or go online. This has consequences both bad (think YouTube commenters) and good: while society often demands conformity and cynicism from younger generations especially, games give us a venue where we are instead rewarded for expressing our creative selves with fiery pride and passion.
And therein lies our responsibility as developers. Our games must inspire players to take that pride and passion back into the real world and conquer their problems with the same willingness and vigor they displayed in the game world. It's not as daunting as it sounds! The lines between the physical and digital worlds are blurring more and more each day, with advances in smartphones, social media, augmented reality, etc. Be creative and you'll find getting your players to make that step is really pretty easy.
Once we've done that, we'll have broken the myth that gamer culture is entirely made up of lazy, unproductive basement-dwellers and the only use for our wonderfully powerful medium is to escape the trials of the real world—which is to ignore its abilities to inspire, educate, and unite people all around the globe.
Leave a comment if you agree or disagree!
Many people think playing games is a form of indulgent escapism. Considering role-playing experiences like Dungeons & Dragons or World of Warcraft, it's easy to assume everyone involved is losing themselves so deeply in the game world to escape problems in the real world. They're called "role-playing games" because players take on the role of someone else—a deadly night elf, an interstellar commander, etc. These roles are so appealing because they give us a break from our responsibilities, right?
Wrong. In fact, they pile more responsibilities on us. Games are not a passive medium like film or literature; players don't have the luxury of watching some other hero save the world.
Games are interactive and engaging, and by definition provide obstacles to overcome. Perhaps gamers are escaping into other worlds, but often those worlds have more problems and challenges than our own. Players are accepting a responsibility in that very act of playing, willingly taking it upon themselves to put down a mutant apocalypse, escort a helpless child out of harm's way, or even just pile heaps of experience onto their avatar to hit that elusive next level.
Okay, so that's fine, but if a gamer's network of real-life relationships is in the crapper and bills are piling up at home, vanishing into that other world is still shirking responsibilities, isn't it? On some level, yes. But if players wanted to escape their problems, it doesn't make sense that they would take on even more in their spare time. They would love to be able to tackle those problems; most just don't know how to go about it. Enemies or obstacles in the game world then become manifestations of real-world challenges, ones with tangible goals and a clear (if not simple) path to victory. That's why overcoming them can feel like such an exhilarating accomplishment, even if it's as simple as beating a level of Angry Birds.
People act differently while they're playing games than they do in the real world. It's similar to internet culture in that regard—we feel safely distanced from ourselves and buffered by the blanket of apparent anonymity. You might think this means we're putting on a mask, but it's actually the opposite. The mask is what we wear every day in social situations where to express oneself honestly isn't always an acceptable option. Our masks actually come off when we play games or go online. This has consequences both bad (think YouTube commenters) and good: while society often demands conformity and cynicism from younger generations especially, games give us a venue where we are instead rewarded for expressing our creative selves with fiery pride and passion.
And therein lies our responsibility as developers. Our games must inspire players to take that pride and passion back into the real world and conquer their problems with the same willingness and vigor they displayed in the game world. It's not as daunting as it sounds! The lines between the physical and digital worlds are blurring more and more each day, with advances in smartphones, social media, augmented reality, etc. Be creative and you'll find getting your players to make that step is really pretty easy.
Once we've done that, we'll have broken the myth that gamer culture is entirely made up of lazy, unproductive basement-dwellers and the only use for our wonderfully powerful medium is to escape the trials of the real world—which is to ignore its abilities to inspire, educate, and unite people all around the globe.
Leave a comment if you agree or disagree!
Posts 
TheNecromancer
3160
View playlists
CloseHmm, I kind of disagree.
Even if video games have responsibilities they don't compare to those in the real world. So giving up the responsibility of your job doesn't make it any more acceptable if you are trading it for the responsibility of healing your party during a raid(which, depending on your job, can be much harder :3). Not paying bills can get you evicted and make you homeless; not feeding your Chocobo and letting it die is meaningless. Any responsibility online can be neglected with no real consequence. That's the big difference, consequences.
I would say the myth is that all gamers in MMO's are playing in extreme amounts to escapte reality, but really it's only some.
I have a friend who has played an MMO online everyday(just about) for like 5+ years. He has a shitty life, has dropped out of college/university several times, and has never held a job for more than a few months. I don't think he's playing to escape his responsibility, I would say he plays so that he has a more meaningful purpose in life, even if it's just an online life. He has a distant gf he met through the game and that in itself is probably a big reason he still plays. I would say that when your achievements online surpass what you accomplish in real life then you are escaping the reality of the real world or you have just given up on life.
For the most part, the reasons why some people choose to escape into online worlds are much more complicated than a blanket statement saying all gamers are trying to escape the responsibilities of life.
Even if video games have responsibilities they don't compare to those in the real world. So giving up the responsibility of your job doesn't make it any more acceptable if you are trading it for the responsibility of healing your party during a raid(which, depending on your job, can be much harder :3). Not paying bills can get you evicted and make you homeless; not feeding your Chocobo and letting it die is meaningless. Any responsibility online can be neglected with no real consequence. That's the big difference, consequences.
I would say the myth is that all gamers in MMO's are playing in extreme amounts to escapte reality, but really it's only some.
I have a friend who has played an MMO online everyday(just about) for like 5+ years. He has a shitty life, has dropped out of college/university several times, and has never held a job for more than a few months. I don't think he's playing to escape his responsibility, I would say he plays so that he has a more meaningful purpose in life, even if it's just an online life. He has a distant gf he met through the game and that in itself is probably a big reason he still plays. I would say that when your achievements online surpass what you accomplish in real life then you are escaping the reality of the real world or you have just given up on life.
For the most part, the reasons why some people choose to escape into online worlds are much more complicated than a blanket statement saying all gamers are trying to escape the responsibilities of life.
This is one of the craziest articles about games I've ever read, and I disagree with pretty much everything. If I understand correctly, you're saying that people don't escape from reality and from responsibilities and roleplay a character when playing videogames; they escape from themselves wearing a mask when they're living "real life"?
Uhh...
I agree that there is some degree of responsibility on games. Some people (not many) take it too seriously, and they stress over gaming stuff. Some have committed suicide because of MMORPG stuff. But usually, people take those responsibilites in an engaging, fun way. Dealing with a dungeon boss is nothing like dealing with an office boss. Chasing a goal (like gaining levels) in a game because YOU WANT TO and YOU'RE HAVING FUN DOING IT is not directly comparable to goals like studying for a test.
I don't think playing games is escapism from reality in any other way that sleeping is escapism, or watching tv is. It IS a way of temporarily avoiding problems and having fun despite your piling problems, but it's not a psychotic state of reality avoidance, or something for "lazy, unproductive basement-dwellers", and no one ever said that.
I also hate this "mask" talk. It just expresses utter lack of understanding of human personality and behavior.
Crazy, man. Crazy.
Uhh...
I agree that there is some degree of responsibility on games. Some people (not many) take it too seriously, and they stress over gaming stuff. Some have committed suicide because of MMORPG stuff. But usually, people take those responsibilites in an engaging, fun way. Dealing with a dungeon boss is nothing like dealing with an office boss. Chasing a goal (like gaining levels) in a game because YOU WANT TO and YOU'RE HAVING FUN DOING IT is not directly comparable to goals like studying for a test.
I don't think playing games is escapism from reality in any other way that sleeping is escapism, or watching tv is. It IS a way of temporarily avoiding problems and having fun despite your piling problems, but it's not a psychotic state of reality avoidance, or something for "lazy, unproductive basement-dwellers", and no one ever said that.
I also hate this "mask" talk. It just expresses utter lack of understanding of human personality and behavior.
"And therein lies our responsibility as developers (...) our masks actually come off when we play games or go online. (...) (game) worlds have more problems and challenges than our own."
Crazy, man. Crazy.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
When it comes down to it, the only solid truths in this article that is supposed to debunk the myth surrounding playing games for any period of time that could have been spent elsewhere are that video games can inspire, educate and perhaps even unite people around the globe under a similar community. Unfortunately, most gamers aren't going to purchase Dead Space 2 seeking inspiration in the realms of art, music or theater; and even fewer desire a solid educational experience unless it's something they have to learn anyway and this medium would make it a little more tolerable.
I would like dearly to think that video games hold some greater purpose than entertainment and a possible hand-eye coordination trainer, but then again, gaming (although becoming more "mainstream" and less "nerdy") could be equated to self-sexual gratification in at least two ways: leisurely pleasure and that while many people in all walks of life perform it regularly, no one really needs to know how often or for how long you take time out of your day to do it. That's essentially where the similarities stop.
As a last note, but if for whatever reason someone should feel the line between the digital and the living worlds beginning to blur, that would seem more a mental illness than an actuality. No matter how close we are to our cellular phones or our handheld computers, the division between simulation and reality will forever be a solid, impermeable boundary.
I would like dearly to think that video games hold some greater purpose than entertainment and a possible hand-eye coordination trainer, but then again, gaming (although becoming more "mainstream" and less "nerdy") could be equated to self-sexual gratification in at least two ways: leisurely pleasure and that while many people in all walks of life perform it regularly, no one really needs to know how often or for how long you take time out of your day to do it. That's essentially where the similarities stop.
As a last note, but if for whatever reason someone should feel the line between the digital and the living worlds beginning to blur, that would seem more a mental illness than an actuality. No matter how close we are to our cellular phones or our handheld computers, the division between simulation and reality will forever be a solid, impermeable boundary.
Crystalgate
694
The only thing video games ever inspired me to is to make games. A lot of videogames teach about value of life, the importance of friendship and whatever. Despite those subjects existing in real life as well, they rarely if ever translate well from fiction to reality. That's is even if the writer deal with those subjects competently, something that's usually not the case. However, I can look at various design choices and figure out why they worked or didn't work. Then I can apply that knowledge to my own creations.
Games teach and inspire mainly about games, not real life. Inspiring people to conquer their real life problems sounds very hard. Inspiring them to do that with the same vigor as they conquer videogame problems is almost impossible.
Games teach and inspire mainly about games, not real life. Inspiring people to conquer their real life problems sounds very hard. Inspiring them to do that with the same vigor as they conquer videogame problems is almost impossible.
Well, as for how personal experiences go...
Videogames have inspired me and taught me a lot, not just in terms of making another games.
I also noticed that when my life is more interesting, I have less interest in playing RPGs (table-top, in this case). When it's more boring, I feel like playing RPGs more.
Videogames have inspired me and taught me a lot, not just in terms of making another games.
I also noticed that when my life is more interesting, I have less interest in playing RPGs (table-top, in this case). When it's more boring, I feel like playing RPGs more.
Sagitar
1926
Thanks for all your responses! I think I should clarify a few things...
First, here's the definition of "escapism" as given by Webster:
: habitual diversion of the mind to purely imaginative activity or entertainment as an escape from reality or routine.
Games are so much more than that. Games have been central to our culture, lifestyle, and ability to interact with each other going back to the very origins of humanity. Look at ancient Aztec sports, or gladiator fights, or dice games, or the early Olympics... would anyone really argue that all those competitions were about escaping reality?
Adding "video" to the front of "game" does not change that. Being able to develop and share games using digital technology does not change what games intrinsically are, or what they have the potential to be. What it DOES do is give developers an infinite canvas, a global audience, and an even more central role in society.
See, but this is such a narrow-minded example. Sure feeding your Chocobo has no real consequence, but the responsibility you feel to do so is based on those same principals that govern real-world responsibilities. And as that blurring between the physical and digital worlds grows wider and stronger, those in-game responsibilities will completely have real-world impact.
Already pervasive games call for players around the world to meet physically and form relationships they would have otherwise missed out on. In some Xbox games, players bet Microsoft points (real world money, mind you!) on the outcome of a digital game. One of the lines being blurred is the line between in-game consequences and real-world consequences.
Ah, but you can't really say things like "most gamers" anymore! As the range of people who play games is growing wider and more varied every day, trying to define us all is impossible. You mentioned Dead Space 2, which sold roughly 1.5 million copies, fairly substantial when compared to games or similar scope and style. And yet the puzzle game Bejeweled, which has been proven to improve mood and heart rhythms, hit the 50 million sales mark over a year ago.
Between simulation and reality, yes. But that's different between the digital and physical worlds.
I disagree completely that this blurring is a mental illness, as you put it, but instead an inarguable reality neither good nor bad. The fact that we can access the internet anywhere from our phones is a perfect, simple example. We no longer have to sit down and make the conscious decision to enter the digital world -- it's always there at our fingertips, and we can access it in any "real-world" moment. Anyone who calls that a bad thing is ignoring the tremendous potential it has for good, as well.
The only difference between studying for a test and studying histories of character, or between an office boss or a dungeon boss, is that one we volunteer to tackle and one we are forced into. Is it really "fun" to be chasing that next level in WoW, to see your numbers go up ever so slowly while you click the same buttons and kill the same monsters over and over? That's not much different from office work, is it? Games can often be stressful and terrifying and weigh on our minds just as heavily as "real-world" problems. To say that games are simply fun is just not true. They can be a hell of a lot of work.
The rest of your argument I can at least take as healthy debate. It's difficult not to take offense at this, however. You don't believe people wear masks in their everyday lives?
I'm not sure this argument is as crazy as you seem to think, or my opinion as rare... Jane McGonigal is one example of a high-profile name (named one of Oprah's 20 most important women in 2010) who shares similar views on the issue. In fact, she's made it her life's goal to see a game developer win the Nobel Prize by 2023, a feat only possible if we accept that games are closely tied to our real lives, and we can translate the heavy responsibilities we accept as a part of playing games into real-world good.
I don't believe this, and would be surprised if many people here did, honestly. One of the links I gave in the article was to OCRemix.org, as an example. All those amazing compositions were inspired by games. And there have been tons of studies to show that kids are often more receptive to real-life lessons if they are able to interact with the information through games. The entire educational games market wouldn't exist if your statement was true.
I wasn't able to respond to everything, but I hope this helps clear some of my points up. Games are incredibly powerful, and it's important to understand how deep their roots go in our culture and "real" world. They are not, and SHOULD not be an escape from the world, but rather a colorful, infinite extension of it.
First, here's the definition of "escapism" as given by Webster:
: habitual diversion of the mind to purely imaginative activity or entertainment as an escape from reality or routine.
Games are so much more than that. Games have been central to our culture, lifestyle, and ability to interact with each other going back to the very origins of humanity. Look at ancient Aztec sports, or gladiator fights, or dice games, or the early Olympics... would anyone really argue that all those competitions were about escaping reality?
Adding "video" to the front of "game" does not change that. Being able to develop and share games using digital technology does not change what games intrinsically are, or what they have the potential to be. What it DOES do is give developers an infinite canvas, a global audience, and an even more central role in society.
author=Link_2112
Even if video games have responsibilities they don't compare to those in the real world. So giving up the responsibility of your job doesn't make it any more acceptable if you are trading it for the responsibility of healing your party during a raid(which, depending on your job, can be much harder :3). Not paying bills can get you evicted and make you homeless; not feeding your Chocobo and letting it die is meaningless. Any responsibility online can be neglected with no real consequence. That's the big difference, consequences.
See, but this is such a narrow-minded example. Sure feeding your Chocobo has no real consequence, but the responsibility you feel to do so is based on those same principals that govern real-world responsibilities. And as that blurring between the physical and digital worlds grows wider and stronger, those in-game responsibilities will completely have real-world impact.
Already pervasive games call for players around the world to meet physically and form relationships they would have otherwise missed out on. In some Xbox games, players bet Microsoft points (real world money, mind you!) on the outcome of a digital game. One of the lines being blurred is the line between in-game consequences and real-world consequences.
author=Corfaisus
Unfortunately, most gamers aren't going to purchase Dead Space 2 seeking inspiration in the realms of art, music or theater; and even fewer desire a solid educational experience unless it's something they have to learn anyway and this medium would make it a little more tolerable.
Ah, but you can't really say things like "most gamers" anymore! As the range of people who play games is growing wider and more varied every day, trying to define us all is impossible. You mentioned Dead Space 2, which sold roughly 1.5 million copies, fairly substantial when compared to games or similar scope and style. And yet the puzzle game Bejeweled, which has been proven to improve mood and heart rhythms, hit the 50 million sales mark over a year ago.
author=Corfaisus
As a last note, but if for whatever reason someone should feel the line between the digital and the living worlds beginning to blur, that would seem more a mental illness than an actuality. No matter how close we are to our cellular phones or our handheld computers, the division between simulation and reality will forever be a solid, impermeable boundary.
Between simulation and reality, yes. But that's different between the digital and physical worlds.
I disagree completely that this blurring is a mental illness, as you put it, but instead an inarguable reality neither good nor bad. The fact that we can access the internet anywhere from our phones is a perfect, simple example. We no longer have to sit down and make the conscious decision to enter the digital world -- it's always there at our fingertips, and we can access it in any "real-world" moment. Anyone who calls that a bad thing is ignoring the tremendous potential it has for good, as well.
author=calunio
I agree that there is some degree of responsibility on games. Some people (not many) take it too seriously, and they stress over gaming stuff. Some have committed suicide because of MMORPG stuff. But usually, people take those responsibilites in an engaging, fun way. Dealing with a dungeon boss is nothing like dealing with an office boss. Chasing a goal (like gaining levels) in a game because YOU WANT TO and YOU'RE HAVING FUN DOING IT is not directly comparable to goals like studying for a test.
The only difference between studying for a test and studying histories of character, or between an office boss or a dungeon boss, is that one we volunteer to tackle and one we are forced into. Is it really "fun" to be chasing that next level in WoW, to see your numbers go up ever so slowly while you click the same buttons and kill the same monsters over and over? That's not much different from office work, is it? Games can often be stressful and terrifying and weigh on our minds just as heavily as "real-world" problems. To say that games are simply fun is just not true. They can be a hell of a lot of work.
author=calunio
I also hate this "mask" talk. It just expresses utter lack of understanding of human personality and behavior.
The rest of your argument I can at least take as healthy debate. It's difficult not to take offense at this, however. You don't believe people wear masks in their everyday lives?
author=calunio
Crazy, man. Crazy.
I'm not sure this argument is as crazy as you seem to think, or my opinion as rare... Jane McGonigal is one example of a high-profile name (named one of Oprah's 20 most important women in 2010) who shares similar views on the issue. In fact, she's made it her life's goal to see a game developer win the Nobel Prize by 2023, a feat only possible if we accept that games are closely tied to our real lives, and we can translate the heavy responsibilities we accept as a part of playing games into real-world good.
author=Crystalgate
Games teach and inspire mainly about games, not real life.
I don't believe this, and would be surprised if many people here did, honestly. One of the links I gave in the article was to OCRemix.org, as an example. All those amazing compositions were inspired by games. And there have been tons of studies to show that kids are often more receptive to real-life lessons if they are able to interact with the information through games. The entire educational games market wouldn't exist if your statement was true.
I wasn't able to respond to everything, but I hope this helps clear some of my points up. Games are incredibly powerful, and it's important to understand how deep their roots go in our culture and "real" world. They are not, and SHOULD not be an escape from the world, but rather a colorful, infinite extension of it.
cho
0
author=Sagitar
First, here's the definition of "escapism" as given by Webster:
: habitual diversion of the mind to purely imaginative activity or entertainment as an escape from reality or routine.
and here's the definition for "game" as given by Webster:
: activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.
1. escapism is implicit. if escapism is habitual diversion, and you play games habitually, that's escapism.
2. games are for amusement. if a game "feels like work," that's poor game design.
p.s. games aren't art
Sagitar
1926
Or you could look at the other definitions it gives for games:
: a procedure or strategy for gaining an end
: a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other
Developers and historians have long debated on a true definition for "games" and "play". What is agreed upon is that it's a vital human element (there has never been a time where we didn't play games), and that it must provide some type of obstacle to overcome.
I was playing Super Smash Bros. with my roommates the other night, in tournament mode. When we finally faced each other, I felt tension, fear, stress, my heart rate quickened noticeably... You call that "poor game design" because it wasn't simple amusement? I'd say the opposite.
: a procedure or strategy for gaining an end
: a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other
Developers and historians have long debated on a true definition for "games" and "play". What is agreed upon is that it's a vital human element (there has never been a time where we didn't play games), and that it must provide some type of obstacle to overcome.
I was playing Super Smash Bros. with my roommates the other night, in tournament mode. When we finally faced each other, I felt tension, fear, stress, my heart rate quickened noticeably... You call that "poor game design" because it wasn't simple amusement? I'd say the opposite.
author=choOuch. I didn't think to see this here... But to try to prove the point either way would first require a definition for art, which has proven to be even more difficult than pinning one down for games. We'll have to leave it be.
p.s. games aren't art
cho
0
author=Sagitarnone of those words imply anything about the game feeling "like work" though
I felt tension, fear, stress, my heart rate quickened noticeably... You call that "poor game design" because it wasn't simple amusement? I'd say the opposite.
oh and this is just a thing re: your previous post, i think it's more valid to say that OCRemix's compositions were inspired by music, not games
Irili
3198
As always, personal opinion will offer a variety of sides to an argument.
I see games as escapism. But I also see reading, movies, and anything someone enjoys as entertainment as escapism. It's not like escapism is inherently bad though.
However, too much of a good thing is a bad thing (I hate using the words good and bad). I'm not even talking about video games or chocolate though. If you were to spend all of your time doing something "constructive" like working, reading, etc., you'd find yourself stressed out and probably a little ill (and if you're reading all day 24/7, you can kiss your good eye-sight goodbye).
I see games as escapism. But I also see reading, movies, and anything someone enjoys as entertainment as escapism. It's not like escapism is inherently bad though.
However, too much of a good thing is a bad thing (I hate using the words good and bad). I'm not even talking about video games or chocolate though. If you were to spend all of your time doing something "constructive" like working, reading, etc., you'd find yourself stressed out and probably a little ill (and if you're reading all day 24/7, you can kiss your good eye-sight goodbye).
WolfCoder
3554
Oh, it's totally not escapism when I assume the role of an overly powered kemonomimi with a giant claymore in some Korean MMORPG at all.
But the very ironic thing about using an MMO in my sarcasm is that multiplayer games are much more real because you have to deal and work with actual people. It's still escapism even though I hate the term altogether.
I'd rather just call it entertainment for whatever reason, because then there's applications such as the crowd-sourced MMO they're going to release. It's actual wargames where players take on the role of defenders and pirates, and the battle data will reveal ideal tactics when dealing with real pirates. Can't wait for it to come out.
But the very ironic thing about using an MMO in my sarcasm is that multiplayer games are much more real because you have to deal and work with actual people. It's still escapism even though I hate the term altogether.
I'd rather just call it entertainment for whatever reason, because then there's applications such as the crowd-sourced MMO they're going to release. It's actual wargames where players take on the role of defenders and pirates, and the battle data will reveal ideal tactics when dealing with real pirates. Can't wait for it to come out.
Crystalgate
694
I don't believe this, and would be surprised if many people here did, honestly. One of the links I gave in the article was to OCRemix.org, as an example. All those amazing compositions were inspired by games. And there have been tons of studies to show that kids are often more receptive to real-life lessons if they are able to interact with the information through games. The entire educational games market wouldn't exist if your statement was true.
I remember playing an educational game where at one page I got the task of choosing the adjectives among a lot of words. This happened before I learned that at school. Fortunately, the game gave me a short description of what an adjective is. However, I ended up paying no heed whatsoever to the fact that the game asked me to pick an adjective and instead focused on the description the game gave me. Every time I got to that page I would skip the headline that said adjective, skip the first sentence that said "On this page you must pick the adjective" and jump straight to the description of what I was supposed to pick. Reason being that the fact these words are adjectives was irrelevant to beating the challenges while the description I was given helped me.
Later when I was learning grammar at school, I didn't made the connection between that educational game and what I was currently learning. The only reason I even know the educational game asked me to pick adjectives on that certain page is, because a few years later, I looked back at the game. Then I went "oh right, I was supposed to learn what an adjective is!"
That said, I admit I was exaggerating when I said that games only inspired me to make games. Still, I don't think I'm wrong when I say that games mainly teach about games. For example, I think soccer teach you more about soccer than it teaches about diligence or whatever else you think the game could teach you that isn't strictly soccer.
eplipswich
2728
@Sagitar: Nope. Not exactly correct. Games can or can not be a form of escapism. There are people who play games so as to escape from their problems and stress, without them even knowing that they actually are escaping from problems and stress by doing so. They play games so as to temporarily escape from their problems and not to think of them. Games are also a form where gamers can achieve things they cannot achieve in real life, for example, wheel-chaired.
You should consider watching the anime ".hack//SIGN", and you'll understand what I mean. The moral of the story of that anime does tell how games can be a form of escapism and how one can use games to escape from the harsh facts of real life.
And this is where escapism can come in. If you're not bold enough to shed off the mask in real life, but only able to do so in game life, that's basically escaping from real life. Computer game life is NOT Real Life, so to speak. In a computer game life, the only thing that's within the game is your brain/mind, but not your body. In real life, however, both body and mind come into play. Escapism will play a great role when one is obsessed with a computer game, but not so much when one isn't. There still is escapism though.
So saying that games as escapism are a "myth" is not correct, because clearly, escapism exists in it, be it big or small. And like what Irili said, escapism isn't necessarily a bad thing.
You should consider watching the anime ".hack//SIGN", and you'll understand what I mean. The moral of the story of that anime does tell how games can be a form of escapism and how one can use games to escape from the harsh facts of real life.
The mask is what we wear every day in social situations where to express oneself honestly isn't always an acceptable option. Our masks actually come off when we play games or go online. This has consequences both bad (think YouTube commenters) and good: while society often demands conformity and cynicism from younger generations especially, games give us a venue where we are instead rewarded for expressing our creative selves with fiery pride and passion.
And this is where escapism can come in. If you're not bold enough to shed off the mask in real life, but only able to do so in game life, that's basically escaping from real life. Computer game life is NOT Real Life, so to speak. In a computer game life, the only thing that's within the game is your brain/mind, but not your body. In real life, however, both body and mind come into play. Escapism will play a great role when one is obsessed with a computer game, but not so much when one isn't. There still is escapism though.
So saying that games as escapism are a "myth" is not correct, because clearly, escapism exists in it, be it big or small. And like what Irili said, escapism isn't necessarily a bad thing.
...Say, anyone else remember the days when the goal of games was to, y'know, have fun? When they didn't have anything to do with pretentious cockery and everything to do with, y'know, having fun?
Let's take a look at these potholes. "Inspire" is just video game music remixes. Not anything deep or groundbreaking, just remixes of songs in video games. "Educate" is just that fad with Dance Dance Revolution in schools, but with Minecraft. What, you don't remember that? Exactly. And as for "unite"...well, someone clearly never heard of Heroes of Newerth. Or every other online community in the world now and forever. It all looks like flimsy padding for the argument that "games are art", which is total crap. You can't judge the entire medium based on ICO or Braid, because 98% of video games are just video games. It's like declaring movies are art, then ignoring the latest Michael Bay movie.
And I really gotta ask, why is a shot of this guy's profile in this, for apparently no other reason than to stroke his own ego? The World of Warcraft pic is relevent, 'cus he brings up World of Warcraft, but then the only other picture in the article is a picture of his profile, where he's tooting his own horn way the hell too loud.
Seriously, man. You're just making RPG Maker games. You're not that special.
-Tabris
Let's take a look at these potholes. "Inspire" is just video game music remixes. Not anything deep or groundbreaking, just remixes of songs in video games. "Educate" is just that fad with Dance Dance Revolution in schools, but with Minecraft. What, you don't remember that? Exactly. And as for "unite"...well, someone clearly never heard of Heroes of Newerth. Or every other online community in the world now and forever. It all looks like flimsy padding for the argument that "games are art", which is total crap. You can't judge the entire medium based on ICO or Braid, because 98% of video games are just video games. It's like declaring movies are art, then ignoring the latest Michael Bay movie.
And I really gotta ask, why is a shot of this guy's profile in this, for apparently no other reason than to stroke his own ego? The World of Warcraft pic is relevent, 'cus he brings up World of Warcraft, but then the only other picture in the article is a picture of his profile, where he's tooting his own horn way the hell too loud.
Seriously, man. You're just making RPG Maker games. You're not that special.
-Tabris
WolfCoder
3554
You can't judge the entire medium based on ICO or Braid, because 98% of video games are just video games. It's like declaring movies are art, then ignoring the latest Michael Bay movie.
Glad someone stepped on the "are video games art?" landmine.
Sagitar
1926
author=Tabris_MacbethWhy is it "pretentious cockery" to say that games have been around as long as humans have, and they've had meaningful uses throughout history that have had nothing to do with fun? If you think fun is all games are and all they should be, that's fine. I'm not going to attack your opinion. But creating games is something that is deeply important to me, something I've done my entire life and will continue to do until I die. It's currently how I make my living. Don't tell me your tragically simplified view of games should govern my life as well, and don't call me pretentious for having a more complex one.
...Say, anyone else remember the days when the goal of games was to, y'know, have fun? When they didn't have anything to do with pretentious cockery and everything to do with, y'know, having fun?
As I said, I'm not going to get into the games as art debate. But as someone who makes his professional living as a game artist, I find it ludicrous that there's some magical moment where my environments cease to be art just because they're put into an interactive medium.
author=Tabris_MacbethWere the personal attacks really necessary? Grow up.
And I really gotta ask, why is a shot of this guy's profile in this, for apparently no other reason than to stroke his own ego? The World of Warcraft pic is relevent, 'cus he brings up World of Warcraft, but then the only other picture in the article is a picture of his profile, where he's tooting his own horn way the hell too loud.
Seriously, man. You're just making RPG Maker games. You're not that special.
I included the picture of my profile as a relevant example of the different personas people adopt in games and on the internet versus in real life. I could have used anyone's profile, I honestly didn't think there would be such a gross misconstruction of my intent. You don't have to make childish accusations about my ego just because you disagree with my opinions. Your arguments lose a lot of credibility that way.
And no, for me this isn't just about making RPG Maker games. If games are simply a casual hobby for you, I have no problem with that, I never attempted to shove my opinions down your throat and never would. But there are millions of people out there who agree with me that games are currently and historically an immensely powerful tool for inspiring, educating, and uniting, and adding "video" in front of them doesn't change that.
To everyone else, I'd love to respond to your comments and will try to get to it when I have a little more time. Thanks for your interest in the subject, even if you disagree with the article! And I appreciate most of you keeping your arguments civil.
Sagitar
1926
One more thing, to prevent anyone from just reading the title of the article and disagreeing right away...
I know that games provide other worlds for us to explore and "escape" into. I wasn't intending to disprove that. But the idea of escapism, as it was explored in early fiction and personified in Great Depression-era cinema, suggests a detachment from problems. Everyone saying that escapism can be good or bad, I suppose that's true, but I only meant to explore the bad side -- the one that victimizes gaming in story after tragic story.
Games are an interactive medium that by definition force us to confront problems. Yes, those problems are often different than the real-world problems we're facing, but again, lines between those digital and physical responsibilities and consequences are blurring.
Lastly, you can't compare games to film or novels or any other form of passive fictional media (in this discussion) because games rely on player input... And as long as the audience are actively confronting problems and willingly overcoming challenges, that's not escapism in the traditional sense and negative connotation of the word.
I know that games provide other worlds for us to explore and "escape" into. I wasn't intending to disprove that. But the idea of escapism, as it was explored in early fiction and personified in Great Depression-era cinema, suggests a detachment from problems. Everyone saying that escapism can be good or bad, I suppose that's true, but I only meant to explore the bad side -- the one that victimizes gaming in story after tragic story.
Games are an interactive medium that by definition force us to confront problems. Yes, those problems are often different than the real-world problems we're facing, but again, lines between those digital and physical responsibilities and consequences are blurring.
Lastly, you can't compare games to film or novels or any other form of passive fictional media (in this discussion) because games rely on player input... And as long as the audience are actively confronting problems and willingly overcoming challenges, that's not escapism in the traditional sense and negative connotation of the word.
BareGamer
562
The article was pretty interesting to read. I don't think escapism HAS to exist in games or any sort of entertainment. It's a matter of personal opinion. That's all.
It seems that most people here disagree with the article. I think that games sometimes can provide more responsibilities to a person than some "real-life" situations. And I think that most people online, whether it's a game or the internet, wear some kind of mask. Though, I have my own opinions and don't intend to shove them down someone else's throat.
It seems that most people here disagree with the article. I think that games sometimes can provide more responsibilities to a person than some "real-life" situations. And I think that most people online, whether it's a game or the internet, wear some kind of mask. Though, I have my own opinions and don't intend to shove them down someone else's throat.
cho
0
author=Sagitarenvironments created for game =/= the game itself
I find it ludicrous that there's some magical moment where my environments cease to be art just because they're put into an interactive medium.
if you want to claim that games are a new interactive frontier of art, or whatever, at least claim that the interactive parts are the art.
