Whoever said people don’t complain about artists at their art… do you know many obsessive artists personally? I’ve known writers who shirked every other responsibility in their lives to write, letting the cat boxes fill up and the food in the fridge go green and their lives slowly fall apart because all they did was write. Artists are frightening people when they get obsessive.
Competitive Starcraft is a totally different universe from an afternoon of Civ 4, and I personally don’t see much difference between spending a week of evenings playing Mass Effect and spending a week of evenings reading a really good novel… except, of course, that Mass Effect is fully voice acted and you get to fight the battles and choose whether the main character is a dick or a saint, whether he is a he or a she, whether s/he hooks up with the alien or the opposite-gendered human…
Playing games like Mass Effect is not a sport or an art form (though I maintain that gaining all the achievements in, say, Portal is for people with amazing hand-eye coordination), but some strategy games make it into serious business.
I invite Kobal2, Justin_Bailey, Merneith, etc to list the “right” games that you guys/gals consider to be top tier mentally challenging. The list you come up with is not for debate, I’d just like to know what they are.
You’re right. I don’t pretend that reading non-fiction is superior to reading Lord of the Rings. I was just going along with the “trash lit” categorization to not detract from the flow of the argument. Somebody could certainly come along and argue that Stephen King and comic books are just as worthy as “Rise and Fall of Roman Empire.” It’s a pointless debate to try to argue the merits of one vs the other.
My current status of reading 99% non-fiction over fiction is simply a matter of practicality. I earn more $$$ when I know more. When I retire, I’ll probably reverse the priority and read 99% fiction.
Btw, I don’t value knowledge of historical minutiae or remembering dates of wars and kings. The point of history knowledge is to extract previous “patterns” of human behavior and see how they overlay with what’s happening today. History is not about answering A B C D for a multiple choice quiz – that’s what historical trivia (“minutiae”) is for.
I am simply stating what the situation “is”… you are stating what it “ought” to be (you use the words “should”.) The OP asked why the situation is what it is. You can certainly expand on this thread to promote your idea of what the situation ought to be. Be warned that insisting on what things “ought” to be is often like blowing into the wind.
Bridge? Feh! It’s Pinochle with a regular deck and a lot of fancy vocabulary to cover up that you are playing Spades.
ETA: Back to topic
Yeah, gamers are punk-kid losers. When they graduate to old-fart status they can have the honors that come from being old-skool gamers as they toss us who play with real decks or chessboards on the dunghill of history. And they can look down on whatever kids are playing then.
(FTR: Have you seen some serious gamers play? Whoa!)
Are you familiar with the experiment that showed GMs could memorize board positions from real games much better than non-players, while they could only do as well as non-players on boards where the pieces were distributed randomly? The clearly don’t see pieces but rather the state of the board.
The complexity of chess is not important because of the number of moves, but because of the number of possibilities given the limited number of pieces and the small board. If you want more possibilities, all you need to do is make the board 16 x 16. Would it be a better game? I doubt it.
This discussion has been very general. If video games are going to be considered as on the level of chess, you need to come up with a specific classic game. Has there been one? Has any single game survived more than ten years? Tetris might be the closest, but who really plays that any more?
First person shooters and puzzle games are closed. You find the enemies, and weapons, solve the puzzles, reach the end, and then you are done. Maybe it takes a long time, but they are still closed. Arcade style games are closed in the sense that the same kind of screen gets repeated over and over, perhaps with more difficult moves that must be done faster. Each game is similar to the last, unlike chess. A truly classic game won’t get thrown away when the technology improves. People who are champions of a game that has been around 30 years, with a history, might be considered on the level of GMs. I played SpaceWar on the original PDP-1, and Computer Space, Bushnell’s pre-Pong SpaceWar video game, so I’ve been playing, randomly, a long time. Haven’t seen any real classics yet.
Tetris is still widely played today. Not quite as much as its heyday in the late 80s, but Tetris is still a huge name in the gaming world. But I’m not sure I understand the question you’re asking. Dozens (probably hundreds) of games can be said to have “survived” more than ten years.
And if you haven’t seen any real classics, you’re obviously playing the wrong…
I suppose it all depends on what you define as mentally challenging.
You mentionned earlier that you would rather have people reading “trash” lit than play video games, and to that I’ll answer : Planescape Torment. Rather bland AD&D game mechanics, but absolutely marvelous storytelling and thought-provoking philosophical questions. What indeed can change the nature of a man ?
But if you’re asking for exercises in situational analysis, complex and far-reaching decision making, gestion etc… let’s see. There’s the obvious 4X* games like Civilization 2, Europa Universalis or Heroes of Might & Magic 3. Capitalism+ is one of the most frighteningly detailed economical sims out there (or at least used to be, I admit this type of game isn’t my bag at all. It may well have been dethroned since). Managing a business, working the stock market etc… Silent Hunter III, a WW2 sub simulation, has one performing real-time, on the fly trigonometry in order to intercept ships in a timely fashion and accurately hit them with torpedoes - all the while trying to avoid detection. Giving the slip to a buzzing swarm of destroyers is a pretty challenging proposition as well. In the same vein, accurate flying sims like Falcon 4.0 and IL2-Sturmovik combine needs for good mission planning, reflexes, situational awareness, lightning quick thinking and understanding of modern avionics & flight physics. Harpoonand Combat Mission, while operating on very different scales, are both very intricate wargames that are challenging enough against the computer, and downright devious should you play against a competent human player (or more).
Once you’ve developped and optimized city block patterns, the various Caesar games become quite easy - but coming up with said blocks, and their optimal placement with regards to the geography and specific challenges of a given scenario is interesting. The best is probably Emperor, because it adds yet another layer of complexity with the Feng-Shui mechanic. Of course, one can build successful cities with crummy Feng Shui, but a dedicated (or obsessive-compulsive :)) builder will not be satisfied with anything short of perfect harmony AND efficiency.
The Total War series combines complex empire building and real time strategy (with a dose of history). Now if only the diplomacy was up to scratch… Or one can go for the opposite : real time strategy, turn-based tactics, as in the incredible X-Com, a personnal favorite of mine even though it’s terribly outdated graphically. World of Goo recently took the world by surprise - part physics puzzle, part quick-thinking and reflexes, incredibly fun and stimulating. Beating the game is somewhat trivial, but beating each level in an optimal fashion ? Not so much :). The same is true of Fantastic Contraption, a free flash physics game beloved by many a Doper.
I think that’s about enough
Understood. I apologize for my hair-trigger, then.
All right then. You state that gamers are looked down upon because they don’t contribute to society nor entertain the masses.
But that is not true : many gamers like watching videos of gaming “gurus”, and there are TV channels dedicated to just that : video game news, tests, and gaming videos. Just as there are gaming championships, and pro gamers who live off their skills. They don’t make 10 million dollars a year, that much is true, but they’re reasonably well off. They’d make a lot more if gamers’d rather watch them than, y’know, play :).
Yet to the mainstream world, earning money by playing Quake seems aberrant, and those who do still are considered like hopeless geeks who “don’t have a life”. Of course they spend much of their time practicing, of course it becomes more work than play - but is it any different from the life of a sports player or a musician ? Nope.
I also provided you with a good example of non-useful, non-entertaining crowd : music listeners, who are not disrespected, no matter how avid they may be. For some people, listening to music is serious business - but no one considers them unhealthy for it, at most they’re “eccentric”, or “passionate”. Never “nerds” or “addicts”. Nor are people who spend most of their idle time reading - the closest equivalent would be watching TV a lot, and does that still carry a social stigma anymore ?
My point is that there is no *rational *reason for the double standard, other than ignorance and knee-jerk reaction against a relatively recent pastime. Which is sadly not confined to “old farts who just don’t get it, duuuude”, BTW, if YouTube comments of video game overachievers are any indication :rolleyes:.
That’s OK though - pro chess players can still make fun of SCA members. Who can disrespect cosplayers. Who can ridicule furries. Who can… hmmm. Nope, that’s the bottom of the geek barrel
dude what kind of fps are you playing? the whole point of 99% of them is the multiplayershootyourfriendintheface mode. a good fps has one of the highest replay values of any kind of video game on the market. and again chess, 1v1, Cod4 its you and your team vrs however many the other guys have, with voice chat you can use teamwork to meet objectives, with a good team or group of friends you have dozens of options while the map is still loading. again, its not simple in any way shape or form.
I will point out that a version of Tetris for the Nintendo DS was one of the stars for the launch of the system. Tetris, in my opinion, is one of the few ‘perfect games’ that will probably live forever, much like Chess, and the first computer game to be added to the pantheon.
Well, hardly any software dies, strictly speaking. I have a little joystick with a batch of the Atari 2600 games I played when I was 30, and Adventure is still around, no doubt. (I’ve won it so who cares about playing it again.) But Tetris is more or less like solitaire - endless and mindless fun, but hardly good enough to inspire the kind of study that chess has. (Compare the number of chess books in your local bookstore to the number of Tetris books.) There are indeed classic games, like Tetris, Zork, Adventure, Space Invaders, and PacMan, which changed the industry, but they are loved more as memories than as actual games.
So, the game I should be playing is…?
An athlete is in top physical condition. Playing sports improves your health, strength, stamina and is generally good for you. Team sports teach you how to work with others to achieve a common goal. Just about everyone can appreciate displays of the highest levels of athleticism, regardless if they have any athletic ability or even any interest.
Society praises great art. The artists, however, often wallow in obscurity for years. Sometimes well after their death. Artists, however, have a creative gift that most people don’t have.
Videogames, for 99% of the people out there, are probably the most boring thing to watch someone else do . People who dedicate their lives to gaming often ARE antisocial losers. For the most part, it’s an isolating activity (sorry, game chatrooms do not count). It’s also not that great for you physically to be sitting in place for hours exercising nothing but your thumbs and eye muscles.
There are many more games on that site with similarly good writing. I highly, highly recommend the Civ4 playthrough, even though the author didn’t quite finish it.
I agree that Tetris has been around for decades, and the Civilization series is also quite popular, and has been for about 13 years.
And Kobal, I am one gamer who would rather watch than play. Partially because I pretty much suck at every game I’ve found so far, just in varying degrees.
I have to agree with a few points you have made. Granted, some games fit your description. However, some multiplayer games require great teamwork. Example: Halo. It takes cooperation and skill, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of others, and teamwork in general.
Also, in regards to your statement about the creative gift of art that some have and others don’t; Some people have a knack for certain games that others don’t. For those who watch and understand, they appreciate it. I have a friend who is exceptionally good at Guitar Hero, and I admire the ability with which he plays. To you it may seem unimpressive, but it all depends on perspective. I don’t think that fact that more people appreciate athleticism makes it any better, I just think that that shows that more people understand athleticism.
As to your third point… I think you are misusing anti-social. As I understand it, being anti-social means actively avoiding contact with anyone, preferring to stay by yourself and not talk to anyone. And I don’t see why game chatrooms and the like don’t count. I’ve met great people online, and I talk to them regularly. Anyways, I do not know a single person who loves games but NOT the internet, which is the single largest hub of communication I know of. Also, gamers like to get together at LAN parties or gaming centers, and hang out doing what we love to do. If games were completely anti-social, I don’t think we’d have so much of a gaming community, not to mention so many multiplayer games. As for many people not enjoying watching video games… you would be surprised. Many of my friends enjoy watching people play, so it might not be as uncommon as you think. Even if it is, there is a massive group of people who don’t enjoy watching sports. So it isn’t a one way thing in that regards.
Voyager, let me repeat. Nintendo DS. One of the biggest near-launch games for the Nintendo DS, the latest and greatest portable system was Tetris DS.
It’s still selling in new versions.
… admittedly, I like playing Asteroids on my DS, but that was hardly the A1 title Tetris DS was.
Aaaah, such a great pile of bull to tackle with. I love bullcrap. Err… that sounded wrong.
Have you watched that insane Tetris video ? Top physical condition doesn’t even begin to describe it.
On a casual basis ? Sure. Professionals are complete wrecks by the time they hit 30, and that’s even without factoring the nasty effects of performance enhancing drugs.
So do team games. Ask any serious Counterstrike or Team Fortress player out there, and 99% of the time the answer will be “be a teamplayer, or GTFO”. Same goes for RTS games, 4X games… you get the point.
I’ve known of one person who got hired into a managing gig because of her experience leading a World of Warcraft guild. How’s *that *for working with others to achieve a common goal ?
:dubious: It’s a circular argument : “people respect professional sportsmen because anyone can respect professional sportsmen”. And again : Tetris video. If you can’t appreciate the level of quickthinking, coordination, speed and reflexes that guy has…
So are artists. Picasso was a fucking jerkass. Van Gogh died alone and utterly insane - there is a reason for that. Mozart was a… well, it’s hard to decide whether the guy was a coprophiliac hedonist, or had Tourette’s and some weird Freudian disorder. And the list goes on…
I know (and care) much less about the details of the lives of sports icons outside the court, but I doubt most of them “have a life” either. No matter the field of expertise, perfection requires nothing short of complete dedication.
Nevermind the flaming strawman : why ? How is speaking over the 'net any less real than talking across a couch ? Do you consider your writing on the SDMB “not real” or isolating ?
But who cares, I’ll say it again : complete strawman. Gamers meet over LANs. They organise meetings. Romances bloom. Believe it or not, life happens, even across a pair of screens. If anything… Ah fuck, that’s going to start a massive hijack. I’ll leave it at that.
You mean, like reading ? Watching TV ? Fingering a minor… chord ? (sorry :))
It’s like that Southpark episode where the mom tells the kids that with the amount of time they spend playing Guitar Hero, they could learn how to play an actual guitar.
The reason they don’t count is because it is a highly filtered (or not), superficial form of communication. Something like 90% of communication is non-verbal - tone, inflection, body language and whatnot. You don’t get any of that with IM, email, and other forms of electronic communication.
It’s an amusing diversion, but it does not take the place of actual social contact.
Yeah, and Klondike has been on every Windows computer I’ve ever owned. If Klondike fits your definition of a classic, then I agree.
BTW, I have absolutely nothing against videogames. I don’t have the time or the coordination for complicated ones any more. Someday there might be a real classic (and I think it is going to have the openness of GTA) but we don’t have one yet. Not really surprising how young the genre is.
I’ve seen my kids play Civ, but each version changes. Civ I is 10 years old, true, but it can be found in the bargain bins like early Leisure Suit Larry’s. You don’t need to rev true classics except superficially.
I think for someone to be well respected because of their performance in a game or sport, that game or sport has to represent the pinnacle of some form of human achievement.
If you’re the world chess champion, people take that as evidence that you are exceedingly brilliant. That is impressive, and therefore such people get accolades. Checkers champions, not so much.
If you’re a top professional golfer, people recognize qualities in you that are very special, because golf has a long history, and the general public has a sense of what makes a great golfer great and how rare it is. Notice that top bowlers don’t get quite the same respect.
The problem with video games is that they don’t exist long enough for the specific game to become part of the culture and widely experienced by many people, so that the general public has an idea of what it means to be a top performer, or what it says about the innate abilities of the player.
If I see Clapton play a great solo on guitar, I can recognize the talent. Even non-musicians have heard enough average musicians to know a great one when they see one, and to be in awe of that person. Maybe they had a few years of band in school, so they understand how high the level is that they are listening to.
Clapton doesn’t get told that he wasted his life learning guitar. But your friend who dropped out of school to be a musician and now plays mediocre guitar and busks on the street corner for spending money? Most people would consider that a waste.
If you see a person five-star “Bodhisattva” in Rock Band, what does that mean to you? How special is this person? Is he doing something anyone could do if they just put in the time? Or are they watching something special?
Poker is an interesting comparison. Not too long ago, nobody cared if you played poker at a high level. Now, enough people have played poker and understand the game that they’re willing to watch the World Series of Poker on TV by the millions, and some of the top players are becoming very well known and get sponsorship deals, paid appearances at various events, etc.
as mentioned above, this also applies to reading books, listening to music etc. yet people who love books or music do not usually face the inexplicable attitude dished out on gamers.
When they graduate to old-fart status they can have the honors that come from being old-skool gamers as they toss us who play with real decks or chessboards on the dunghill of history. And they can look down on whatever kids are playing then.
