(Untitled)

[amzrigh]

Okay, just copy/pasting this from an e-mail I just received:

PLAY! A Video Game Symphony
Saturday January 19, 2008 8 p.m.
Fort Worth Symphony Orchestra
Miguel Harth-Bedoya, Conductor

PLAY! A Video Game Symphony features award-winning music from titles such as Final Fantasy ®, Silent Hill ®, Battlefield 1942 ™, World of Warcraft ® and The Elder

Comments

[phoenix_seraph]

 
It is a relief that you are not disagreeing with me on that point in the slightest.

I should think it's obvious that I do not blame video music.   If you read my posts, you will note that I acknowledge the pleasures of certain video game pieces several times.

What I find of concern is that growing part of adolescent culture which lionizes video game music disproportionately.   (The metaphor of cancer keeps coming to mind when I think about it.)

I welcome and embrace breadth and depth of tastes, as I've mentioned several times, but I am horrified by individuals who self-limit their capacity to be human as part of their allegiance to that culture which has lost the capacity to understand art of any depth -- and in doing so, has lost the ability to understand anything beyond the surface, including humanity.

I study culture as part of my profession, and almost all evidence indicates that the video game culture has done more to encourage such a blinded, superficial culture than has television, RPGs, movies, rock music, comic books, or intimate modern dance.   There is also solid evidence that our society's approach to the internet is responsible for the degradation of the ability to comprehend basic body language in a significant portion of the population: we are losing our ability to recognize the humanity of others, and our way of using the internet is demonstrably responsible for this.

Put bluntly, the average video game music is markedly inferior to the average classical music, and repeated exposure only to video game music dulls the ability of the individual to comprehend and appreciate the greater depth and sophistication of even average classical music -- and therein removes his/her ability to develop the appreciations of depth and of humanity which can be found in most classical music but only in the best of video game music.

Crippling people -- whether by poking out their eyes with hot iron rods or limiting their musical exposure to video games -- horrifies the part of me which loves humanity.   I teach, I volunteer frequently for charities such as soup kitchens, I have worked with literacy volunteer work: I feel deeply for people.   That same desire to help and to make this world a better place motivates my concerns about anything which might promote that blinded, superficial culture, however unintentionally.

I do not fear for my friend Amzrigh when he goes to such a concert (well, not much *grin*).   I had originally made the comment entirely to tease him, without expecting any response beyond a snappy comeback from him.   Since I have found myself asked to explain such concerns, however, I do so, and I hope I have not offended.
 

[afe_coda]

You haven't offended me at all, and I hope I haven't offended you, either. I've found this to be an interesting discussion. (I also apologize for having done most of this without my glasses, so I did miss a couple points along the way.) Overall I think we essentially agree.

I am surprised that you've found video games to be MORE harmful than television. I've always felt the opposite, but of course I'm no scholar in the matter. With the exception of RPGs, where the music changes every few steps when you're not in a significant plot point (*curses at many overzealous encounter randomizers*), I've consistently found that video games put MORE emphasis on the arts than the typical television program, which tries to avoid holding a camera shot longer than about 15-20 seconds and tends to use a shallow focus field, meaning it's nearly impossible to appreciate anything visually... and I don't remember the last time I heard music on TV that I said "wow, that's good music" if it wasn't part of a movie.

I know this wasn't always the case, because the technology for putting good music with video games really didn't come into play until the 16-bit era. But at least comparing video games to television over the last couple of years... I've seen FAR more worthy art in video games than I have on TV, visually, dramatically, and of course musically.

(Speaking of dramatically, though, I do mourn the fact that the video game culture in general places such a low importance on a good storyline. As an interactive medium, video games have the potential to produce the most immersive plots, and very few actually put effort into it, and many gamers don't even care about the story when they're playing through it.)

[phoenix_seraph]

 
If I understand the research correctly, yes, video games are more harmful than television in most cases.

It's not the medium but the cultural treatment surrounding it.   Historically, television has been a social medium.   Especially when there were only three networks, people watched television in part to give them something to discuss with neighbors, fellow students, co-workers, etc.   Furthermore, even now, significant percentages of adolescents watch televsion in groups rather than alone.   Thus, despite the seeming passivity of television, it has helped individuals develop the social skills necessary for both a functioning society and for an ability to appreciate artistic commentary on human nature.

In addition to that, certain forms of television actually motivate viewers to look beneath the surface, rewarding them with an increased enjoyment of the storyline (this was one of the appeals of the geek favorite Babylon 5).   For example, psychologists have found that requiring patients to watch certain soap operas has actually helped them in their recovery from those mental illnesses which involve a loss of human connection: apparently, the better soap operas replicate (in larger than life form) sophisticated interactive skills, and the larger than life aspects make those skills easier to recognize among the mentally ill.
 

[phoenix_seraph]

 
On the other hand, video games are not a social medium.   In general, a person plays a video game alone, and there are such a wide number that most video games fail to function as social lubricants.   Even in MMORPGs, until recently the communication was textual, which does nothing whatsoever to help people develop their talents at interacting with other human beings.

In addition to this, although video games often appear to offer a level of freedom which television stories do not, this is a false appearance.   Video games with storylines still force those storylines.   The false appearance of freedom makes their training towards obedience more insidious, whereas the overt nature of the lack of narrative freedom in television actually diminishes any ill effects from that lack of freedom.   Video game players often lose the ability to master the cognitive interaction necessary to understand books, short stories, and poems -- not a majority, no, but enough to be a reason for concern.

Furthermore, we have yet to develop any video game which truly replicates human body language, human gestures, and human facial expressions.   Constant exposure to video games has dulled the ability of a significant portion of people to read human behavior.

What is that mental illness found in Japan involving video game/online addiction?   It is appearing in the United States as well.

A major frustration of mine is that I have met too many 20somethings who can not be bothered to interact with human beings if a video game is present.   I have a couple of friends who contact me on AIM while still playing a game, then can not understand why I am annoyed by their devoting almost all their energies to the game and not to our conversation -- if they had wanted to play a game not be with human beings, why open their AIM door and why contact me in the first place?

The day Amzrigh's post appeared, a friend of mine here began to whimper when we refused to let him turn on the video game while we were all involved in an intense, deep topic.   Finally, he fled the room to his bedroom to turn on his private computer.   He wanted to participate, he wanted to be a friend for a friend in need, but his addiction was stronger.

If you do not think such behavior is the norm among video gamers, you are mistaken.

It is not the norm among any of the other media which have been similarly castigated, such as television, tabletop RPGs, comic books (in the 1950s thanks to Wertham), etc.
 

[amzrigh]

(Really, FFXI isn't so absorbing that I can't both AIM and play it at the same time...I frequently do. But when there's a lot of downtime between each response, I'll forget that AIM's even there. >.> That's why I'd invite you over even if I was playing it -- I enjoy our conversations, and it's a lot easier to talk with someone right in front of you than across a digital plane when you're playing a game. Heck, it's frequently easier, period.)

Some of the old "interactive movie" games were right on the ball with body-language communication -- the good ones, at least -- because they had real actors in all the roles. For a good example of this, you should check out the last three games in the old Tex Murphy game series. They even had famous actors in them, though none in recurring roles: Under A Killing Moon had Margot Kidder, Russel Means and James Earl Jones; The Pandora Directive had Barry Corbin and Kevin McCarthy; Overseer had Michael York. They also had a lot of actors who most people wouldn't know by name, but have been in so many films and TV shows you'd probably still recognize them. Hell, they even have relatives of famous actors: Joe Estevez, brother of Martin Sheen, and Sterling Brimley, brother of Wilford Brimley.

And, more recently, there's been at least one game that, at least for part of it, qualifies for the "interactive movie" title, as the character interaction scenes are both cinematic and dynamic. I wish I could remember its name, though...I think Ryan knows what it's called, I'll ask him about it. But my exposure to more recent games is somewhat limited, so it's entirely possible that this one is indicative of many more.

And as for topics of conversation, being a video game geek, I can tell you that we talk about video games with each other. As you said, there are so many games out there, a lot of the conversations consist of reasons supporting why everyone else should play said game. But there are also some games that gain exposure to a much larger group of people, and thus can be more thoroughly discussed or analyzed.

[phoenix_seraph]

 
I actually thought about including references to some of the games involving live action segments with real actors.   However, in explaining my position, I'm trying to write about general trends across the nation, and according to what I've read, those games with live action are just too uncommon and have too little cultural influence to make a significant dent in the national statistics.

A very recent game would be too recent for study, by the way, so it's unlikely I would find much on it in the research literature.

The problem with video geek game discussions is that they tend to be cliquish.   As an example, look at you and me.   You and I have both played video games, yet we had to struggle to find any we had both played.

More importantly, video game discussions reinforce cliquishness.   Television discussions used to cut across social boundaries and social divides.   A rich man, a poor man, and a middle class man could all bond by way of discussing their favorite television program.   A caucasian, an African-American, and an Asian-American could all bond through enjoying the same television episode.   The research makes it clear that such boundaries-crossing bonding does not occur with video gaming at anywhere near such frequency (thus far, at least).

Also, no offense Amzrigh, but you are not the average person!