Games

[dant]

So, the object of gaming (and other distractions) is to direct your attention to
that opposite of knowledge so that in the end, you lose? Perhaps it might be
prudent to forearm yourself with true knowledge in the event should a "REAL
GOBLIN" appear and snatch you unawares?

That is why I do not play games anymore.

 

[j0da]

I agree to that, but why do you guys assume I play hours per day wasting my time and rationalize it?

Monkee, initally, I made this assumption you talk about, but not without a reason. In your first post you stated that you play quite a lot of games, that those fancy toys contain many interesting references and that you suggested that some game series is worth playing. Therefore, don't be surprised by the reaction ;)

j0da it's about as bad as me calling myself "Cassiopaean" in a game, for the same reason. Well at least I'm not the only one that fell into that trap lol (...)

Lol, SAO! In my dreams I wouldn't expect such a TRAVESTY from YOU! However, that doesn't alleviate my own embarrassement... :D

 

[monkee]

I agree to that, but why do you guys assume I play hours per day wasting my time and rationalize it?

Monkee, initally, I made this assumption you talk about, but not without a reason. In your first post you stated that you play quite a lot of games, that those fancy toys contain many interesting references and that you suggested that some game series is worth playing. Therefore, don't be surprised by the reaction ;)

Well, quite a lot is relative ;) When I got the game, I play it to the finish in 5-15 hours. That's quite a lot. Thats about several days and then I wouldn't play for months. I rarely replay adventure games because I already know the story so it's less interesting to play again. I play the game once and it would collect dusk on my shelf. My genre is also very limited.

 

[Peto]

Are you saying that you don't watch tv, movies, listen to music, read or do anything unrelated to the "work"?
I admit that I am unable to focus on the esoteric work all the time without any break. I would research for hours and then waste my time by reading comic or watch tv/movies or listening to music or play video games. Don't assume that every gamer is a stereotype gamer.

Hi Monkee,

Others have said very well what I want to say so I will not repeat them. I admit that I initially made the assumption that you spent a lot of time playing games because it is so easy to get into that trap. For me, I'm still doing things unrelated to the Work, watching occasional movies and TV programs just for fun. But I don't play any more games, period. It's not until after my baby was born that I could shake it off. And it took a huge amount of guilt and will power to do that. So I'm not going back there. As Cyre2067 said, I'm gradually able to substitute the Work for what I did "for fun" and find more fun in the Work. The key is to see the entertainment stuff for what they really are: programming.

J0da and SAO, you gave me a really good laugh. It is actually a relief to me to find out that I'm not the only one having spent so many hours at video games. And don't assume that most games are boring. They are improving very fast. The new ones like World of Warcraft are really captivating because they pitch gamers against gamers. You can be sure that the control system will never overlook such a good opportunity to keep more people in deep sleep.

 

[Serivas]

I'd like to add that not all games are inherently bad. There are a few games that actually do have some actual value to them. A series that comes to mind is the Civilization series. I've heard it started off as a tabletop game and then a company adapted it for DOS. Sense then it's been a fairly popular series. Probably the most noteworthy was Civilization 2. Pretty much everything in the game had an associated description in the "Civipedia" right down to the land tile. It's been reduced someone in later incarnations, but there still are detailed descriptions of various city improvements and wonders. The downside to the game though is that it takes a long time to play though. You can play for bits and pieces at a time or one large chunk. I remember one playing for a few days trying to do some of my own goals long after the initial time limit has passed. All and all, I think it's one of the more informative games out there.
On the other side of the spectrum is the Postal series. Mindless gameplay, hardly anything of substance. The second game in the series touts the ability to chose if you want to play though peacefully, but they make it incredibly difficult to achieve that goal. Not to mention it is quite vulgar.
generally, games can fall anywhere between mindless and informative. However, in recent times its mostly on the mindless side. In the past, games that had more art in them then anything were common in the DOS days where graphics were limited. You had to make every little bit count to put together a good game so there was a nice variety of styles and genres at the time. As time went on graphics became more and more advanced and games started to become focused. Nowadays games sport highly detailed graphics, and an expectancy to utilize the Latest And Greatest Technology Available. That takes money, you need to use more sophisticated tools for every aspect of graphics design and hire people to develop them exclusively. Because of this, games went from something most anyone can do with a handful of people to a multi-billion dollar industry that is largely done in office buildings. Developers are relegated to what works in the market currently. Unfortunately, this is a narrow genre further limited by what each game can be about. Meaning that you're stuck with all the new games being some sort of FPS thats already been done before a few dozens times and a few strategy games in between that play just like they did a few years ago. I really miss the old days when games were original and the focus was what made games great to play.
Also, games aren't really designed to consume your time. Unless it's a MMO, then their JOB is to make it as much a time-sink as possible to guarantee that next months subscription is paid for. Otherwise, theres really no incentive to keep gamers plying past a certain point.(this point varies depending on the quality of the game, but I think they rarely exceed ~20 hour total play time unless its an RPG)
As to games being addictive, I think its really just a personality issue. I'm not to sure here sense I don't talk to a lot of people. in personal experience, its really not that much an issue for me my average playtime is roughly 60 hours, give or take 20. Most of this is on my computer, so when it breaks for a good week, things got boring fast. Even though I do have 2 consoles that I like to play on I rarely used them I generally resorted to lazing around in the living room instead. The main reason I play games is because I get bored. What would I eventually do if I couldn't play games for a month? I'm not sure, never really thought about it. Perhaps I'd be doing as i am now, just browsing random sites haphazardly. I don't have a job, but currently, its not because of lack of trying, I do have applications out there that currently have gone unanswered and I plan to work full-time. Anyway... back to the question on hand, what would I do without games... well, towards the end of my 1-week vacation I was almost about to consider going out and getting some exorcise. I'd do it indoors, but it's too cramped. Don't have the money to buy books, movies, or other things. So exorcise would be one of the only things to do besides nothing.(I really hate TV, theres hardly anything on but the news, the shows are so dull and non-entertaining.) Like I said, I don't get out much, and in this area I don't want to. Its more of a neighborhood thing there are quite a few unsavory types brought on by reckless apartment policy.(The complex itself has changed hands at least 5 times last year.) So without a car to go places, and being surrounded by people I don't want to be around, there isn't a lot of choice.
I really don't think its fair to call all video-games bad, or "tools of the STS". There are some games that are bad, but there are also good games. The amount of attention you give it is entirely up to you but, I think calling them all addictive or harmful is a little much. Some you really should stay away from, and some are ok. But if you're using recent games as an example, know that it's a trend brought on by the big companies unwillingness to compete with other newer companies or try new areas. New game concepts that stray from the apparent status quo tend to never see the light of day. A nice example of such a new kind of game making it though, is game called Okami they actually make an effort to have a good game, plays a bit like Zelda though, but still. Unfortunately the company that made it was re-absorbed into its parent company soon after the US release, weather this means there wont be a sequel is unknown. There are a few independent developers making a splash, boosted by digital publishing thats becoming more and more popular. So theres still some hope.

 

[Peto]

I'd like to add that not all games are inherently bad. There are a few games that actually do have some actual value to them. A series that comes to mind is the Civilization series. I've heard it started off as a tabletop game and then a company adapted it for DOS. Sense then it's been a fairly popular series. Probably the most noteworthy was Civilization 2. Pretty much everything in the game had an associated description in the "Civipedia" right down to the land tile. It's been reduced someone in later incarnations, but there still are detailed descriptions of various city improvements and wonders. The downside to the game though is that it takes a long time to play though. You can play for bits and pieces at a time or one large chunk. I remember one playing for a few days trying to do some of my own goals long after the initial time limit has passed. All and all, I think it's one of the more informative games out there.

I never played Civilization but a flatmate of mine did and you know what. He spent so much time playing it that in the end, he was both playing and cursing it at the same time. Cursing it because it took so much time and he was so tired but unable to part with it. Talk about a good and informative game!

I really don't think its fair to call all video-games bad, or "tools of the STS". There are some games that are bad, but there are also good games. The amount of attention you give it is entirely up to you but, I think calling them all addictive or harmful is a little much. Some you really should stay away from, and some are ok.

I don't think there's any good games nowadays, just "very bad" and "acceptably bad". Of course, it's entirely up to you how to deal with them.

 

[vinny]

I'd like to add that not all games are inherently bad. There are a few games that actually do have some actual value to them. A series that comes to mind is the Civilization series.

erm, Civilization is basically about building up a self-serving power-hierarchy in order to conquer the world. I'm not judging - I've played it myself, and thoroughly enjoyed it. but, when it comes to analysing what real 'value' it has, it is important to see it for what it is, and not kid oneself.

 

[monkee]

It all depends on what you do with the information. I played Neverwinter Nights and Brokensword 3 in 2002-2003.

Spoiler

Neverwinter Nights deals with a forgotten race of powerful humanoid Lizzards that enslaved the early humans and intended to come back again. The main character is to stop them. Broken Sword 3 deals with 2 main characters trying to unearth the mystery of long forgotten ancient civilizations that utilize global power grid crystals. This does trigger my interest in the occult and ancient civilizations that would lead me to the Cassiopapea site in 2002-2003. These games probably made me easier to accept what was written on the Wave Series.

Playing Age of Empires series triggered a long lasting interest in history of ancient civilizations and some basic knowledge of them. Games also improved my English and Geography. I can memorize city/place names better in games than from the limited lessons at school. Basic history background are often included in games. I was 13-14 back then. Classic tycoon games is good for improving your logic skill and offer limited informations about economy.
FYI here, I'm talking about old games that won't even run on my current pc. Most new games have limited benefits to me. The number of games I played since my 1st PC is a lot. That's what I meant in my first post.

 

[vinny]

It all depends on what you do with the information. I played Neverwinter Nights and Brokensword 3 in 2002-2003.

Spoiler

Neverwinter Nights deals with a forgotten race of powerful humanoid Lizzards that enslaved the early humans and intended to come back again. The main character is to stop them.

Spoiler

by getting into fights ;)

Broken Sword 3 deals with 2 main characters trying to unearth the mystery of long forgotten ancient civilizations that utilize global power grid crystals. This does trigger my interest in the occult and ancient civilizations that would lead me to the Cassiopapea site in 2002-2003. These games probably made me easier to accept what was written on the Wave Series.

maybe in the same way that good novel might? but it is still fiction, and should be recognised as such.

Playing Age of Empires series triggered a long lasting interest in history of ancient civilizations and some basic knowledge of them.

I also loved Age of Empires. but it's a fictional 'disney-fied' history! and just like Civilization, it is all about building a power network, to feed military might.

Games also improved my English and Geography. I can memorize city/place names better in games than from the limited lessons at school.

well that is great. I learnt a few things from computer games, such as how to operate a computer (!) and how to touch-type. When I was younger I was also a fan of board games such as chess which have some similarity to these PC strategy games, and they allow you to exercise abstract thought and 'mental gymnastics'. perhaps this is useful in learning numeracy/spacial-organisation etc, at a certain point in one's development? but I don't think it is something to become fixated on.

Basic history background are often included in games. I was 13-14 back then. Classic tycoon games is good for improving your logic skill and offer limited informations about economy.

Transport tycoon - great game! and probably pretty good for stretching one's organisation skills, but... I think we all know the real economy doesn't work like that ;)
this game is fiction - it's a shiny computer toy which is a fun distraction, nothing more - like a train set, but without the physical tactile feedback. it is just a fantasy world. playing within fantasy worlds seems to be an important part of any child's natural development - where they can recreate and explore various scenarios, but at some point we need to grow up and face up to reality. This is not so easy.

FYI here, I'm talking about old games that won't even run on my current pc. Most new games have limited benefits to me. The number of games I played since my 1st PC is a lot. That's what I meant in my first post.

Sounds like you need a new older PC!

I agree, modern PC games are absolutely horrific. the older stuff isn't anywhere near as ponerised and is maybe more suitable as a 'toy'. I find it extremely unsettling when I see friends/relatives with children playing ultra-realistic first-person shooters for example.

the whole area of videogames is quite contentious. because they ARE addictive, it is very easy to fall into a 'justifying' reaction, to explain how wonderful they are, and that we are NOT wasting our time! much better to just come to terms with the fact that they are simply an 'entertainment' with no more value than other modern entertainments such as books or movies, and with a potential to be far more distracting because of their addictive and time-sapping qualities.

 

[monkee]

maybe in the same way that good novel might? but it is still fiction, and should be recognised as such.

That's my point. A good novel would take me weeks to read and these games would only take me 3-5 hours to complete. Playing Agatha's Christie: And then there were none, only took me 4-6 hours. That's about 2 long movies and you guys seems to have no problems at all watching movies. But reading the entire book would take much longer. And to me the entertainment value is the same. But that is personal.

And I agree that games are simplified version of the reality when it comes to economy and empire/business building. But management games I got at university were nothing compared to tycoon games for example. As teenager playing, tycoon games was more "educational" than watching MTV all day long as my classmates did back then.

 

[Keit]

I agree, modern PC games are absolutely horrific. the older stuff isn't anywhere near as ponerised and is maybe more suitable as a 'toy'. I find it extremely unsettling when I see friends/relatives with children playing ultra-realistic first-person shooters for example..

D&D games are also ponerised, probably from the beginning. Take NWN for example. Even if you choose to be lawful good or neutral good, it is not possible to go through the game without avoiding killing in the end of dialogs. Developers plan story line in such way, that there are plenty reasons for killing and still remaining "good".
The most disgusted (in my opinion) class is Paladin. Those have not only a justification, but also a duty to kill anything with the name "rouge", "thug", "thief" on it, or anyone who isn’t really good (according to game standarts). If Paladins refuse, they lose their "lawful good" aliment and can't advance or use full abilities of this class. It is so ridiculous and highly ponerized, I suspect that D&D was invented for those exact purposes

 

[Iconoclast]

i'm so glad i got all my gaming out of the way in my youth. i wasted a good deal of it playing stuff like 'California Games' on the C64 or the 'Monkey Island' series on the Amiga.

these days i don't play at all and even if i wanted to, there just isn't enough time! games have become so complex that you have to invest several hours each time you play.


and ScioAgapeOmnis - i agree, those 64K intros/demos are absolutely incredible... in an age where you need several gigabytes of RAM to run your OS, these programmers show what is possible if you try to optimize your resources.

back in the days i was fascinated by the whole demo-scene on the C64, and it is the reason why i am a graphics designer today. (inspired me to learn about creating graphics on a computer)
while computer games prevented me from finishing school, they indirectly provided me with an alternate career opportunity.
and i've never regretted not completing school.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Even though I do have 2 consoles that I like to play on I rarely used them I generally resorted to lazing around in the living room instead. The main reason I play games is because I get bored. What would I eventually do if I couldn't play games for a month? I'm not sure, never really thought about it. Perhaps I'd be doing as i am now, just browsing random sites haphazardly.

Not to single you out because it applies to all of us here, but Laura has suggested before that perhaps playing engrossing games like World of Warcraft and other MMO games where you live in a different world and spend countless hours in it etc could be an indication of a lack of an "inner world" or "inner development" (I dunno exact words she used). The question is, what is "boredom" and where does it come from? Can we analyze this condition and perhaps find a root cause? The C's said that everything is fun from a proper perspective. There's definitely truth to that statement because what some people find excruciatingly boring others can't get enough of. So it seems the cause of boredom is definitely subjective. The C's also said learning is fun. I have a hypothesis that the only true cure for boredom lies in the same place as "true" happiness lies. In other words, everything else is a fake substitute, a cheap and temporary patch. The C's had some advice to offer in this regard:

Q: (L) So we just have to stay on our toes at all times?
A: Absolutely don't let others distract you. You have suffered many attempts at distraction away from truth. Now follow some proclamations: Pause. All there is is lessons. This is one infinite school. There is no other reason for anything to exist. Even inanimate matter learns it is all an "Illusion." Each individual possesses all of creation within their minds. Now, contemplate for a moment. Each soul is all powerful and can create or destroy all existence if know how. You and us and all others are interconnected by our mutual possession of all there is. You may create alternative universes if you wish and dwell within. You are all a duplicate of the universe within which you dwell. Your mind represents all that exists.
It is "fun" to see how much you can access.
Q: (L) It's fun for who to see how much we can access?
A: All. Challenges are fun. Where do you think the limit of your mind is?
Q: (L) Where?
A: We asked you.
Q: (L) Well, I guess there is no limit.
A: If there is no limit, then what is the difference between your own mind and everything else?
Q: (L) Well, I guess there is no difference if all is ultimately one.
A: Right. And when two things each have absolutely no limits, they are precisely the same thing.

That description sure sounds like the "ultimate" videogame doesn't it? The only one of its kind, infinite - real. You just cannot beat infinity with limitation. And no matter how fast your xbox or computer is, it ain't gonna be infinite - but your mind is, reality is. As Ark has mentioned before, it is amazing how reality can process itself in zero time, effortlessly. We have infinite fractals in reality - things that would bring any computer processor to a complete halt no matter how powerful - and yet reality processes all this without so much as a quirk. And certainly, compared to something that's infinite, nothing that is finite can ever come close. My reason for playing games is the same as yours - boredom, and I bet that's probably universal. But why are we so bored? How can we possibly be bored with infinity defining our very being if we only bothered to look and access it? Something seems seriously wrong with this picture.

I really don't think its fair to call all video-games bad, or "tools of the STS". There are some games that are bad, but there are also good games. The amount of attention you give it is entirely up to you but, I think calling them all addictive or harmful is a little much.

But that's the thing - it's illusion, it is a substitute for reality. And I don't mean games (yet, anyway lol) try to pretend to be reality itself (although for many massive-multiplayer-online-game addicts they already are), I just mean that they want to "entertain" us. But why do we need an artificial and severely limited source of entertainment when we have a REAL and absolutely infinite, limitless source - reality? Learning - accessing knowledge and growing our awareness and being able to DO and SEE what was unimaginable before, sure sounds like the ultimate "fun" to me. Is this not what games try to pretend they do on a very very small level? It seems that this is, even without conspiracy to program us, already reason enough to call them STS tools that limit our progress and delay our learning and increasingly greater access and ability to consciously interact with the one true "game" - reality itself. There is simply no substitute. I mean just read and re-read the quote by the C's above a few times, and reallllly think about what they're saying and the implications. I know I am.

Or think about the analogy of the child. As a young child we have such a huge blast playing with your plastic toys. But when we grow up a bit you grow out of it, we find absolutely no more fun in those toys because we now understand just how primitive and limited they are in terms of what can be done with them and we want something a bit more sophisticated and "interesting", the old simple/primitive stuff can no longer cut it. So we seek new toys to replace the old toys. We do this many times - although some of us never grow out of a certain toy. But how many times are we going to be seeking new toys? Is there a time when we stop and no longer seek any more toys, when we've had enough with sugar substitutes? I think it's very similar to how people seek "happiness" in religions and other spiritual beliefs and practices, to fill that big hole inside of them that they don't know what to do with. But it's all just cheap and false substitutes, like a band-aid that covers up a gunshot wound to pretend it's not there. In this group most of us have grown out of religion and realize just how primitive and unfulfilling it is, in fact, how NO belief/assumption no matter how "complex" cuts it anymore, we want nothing less than the objective reality, period. But then, why are we still stuck on the old primitive substitute level when it comes to entertainment?

It seems that a part of us has developed enough to grow out of assumptions, sacred cows, and religions and that's good - but another part of us has NOT developed, a part that continues to seek entertainment and "fun" as it always has. But what part is that? We're lopsided now - those 2 parts worked well together, but when one part grows up and the other is stuck in old illusions and substitutes for reality, it's holding us back, like a wagon that has no wheels and holds the whole freight train back because of that. So I think the key issue is to identify what is not developed and work on it. The C's have a knack for words (as seen above), let them serve as inspiration as we do the Work and hopefully get ourselves out of this gutter, open ourselves to REAL "fun" and never look back.

 

[Rich]

Just reading Gnosis II: part III chapter XV. It seems relevant to add to

another part of us has NOT developed, a part that continues to seek entertainment and "fun" as it always has. But what part is that? We're lopsided now - those 2 parts worked well together, but when one part grows up and the other is stuck in old illusions and substitutes for reality, it's holding us back, like a wagon that has no wheels and holds the whole freight train back because of that. So I think the key issue is to identify what is not developed and work on it.

Mouravieff discusses how most of us are Chimeric personalities: lions head (developed intellectual centre), dragons tail (developed motor centre) but the body of a goat (poorly developed emotional centres, the spiritual part).

Chimeric minds sustain themselves on illusions:

Due to education and training, oriented in our civilization towards the intensive training of the negative part of the motor centre and towards an intellecutal culture[...]the activity of the emotional centre is forced even further into the background, to fall into sleep bordering on lethargy.
[...]
How can we awaken the emotional centre and then develop it? The answer is simple: by mastering negative emotions and transmuting them into positve emotions.

 

[dant]

SOA, you added a lot more details and it is really good! But I wanted
to add something that might be a little bit more sinister. In another
thread I think, I mentioned that these games might be cleverly setup
to program the gamer by taking advantage of all the human senses
(and substituting in it's place, a pseudo-reality) and in ways not readily
obvious to the gamer before realizing they might have been programmed.

Over time, I found that as I became more and more hooked into the
games, I ended up in some sort of a "feedback loop" and it caused me
to go into a violent vertigos - much to the point that I was throwing up
and grabbing the carpet on my floor, anything to try to break that
"feedback loop" and to regain my sense of normalcy. The only solution
for recovery for me was to go to bed and to try to sleep it off, but not
without struggling to hold off that nausea throughout the hours and
I had to be completely still that the slightest movement would set it
off again. I was completely and throughly overtaken, throughly lost
my senses, and my thoughts.

As I write this, I can recall these horrible events that I can quickly sense
it, nausea starts creeping into the pit of my stomach, my "spiderman senses"
starts kicking in, and automatically reacts to "short circuit" that experience.
Let me tell you, it is a very frightening experience. In a sense, I may have been
programmed, and now hypersensitive to this sort of thing, so now refuse to play
these games at all costs.

The worst games I have encountered was that of full-movement games, the
kind of which you wear gloves with sensors, glasses with the video screens
in them, and on a platform that senses your 3D movements. It takes a mere
seconds for me to completely "lose it".

That is why I do not play games anymore. I think there is no better way to
program a gamer by taking advantage of all the human senses in order to
download these (sinister) programs, to take over a victim in the guise of "fun
and games". I guess this is part of the lesson for me and I wonder how many
others have experienced the same.