
Dallas school district starts video game teams on 64 campuses - danso
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2019/10/13/friday-night-bytes-dallas-isd-starts-video-game-teams-on-64-campuses/
======
soared
Quote pulled for critical context - The schools want everyone involved in an
extracurricular activity. This solves tons of issues - bad home life, gangs,
loneliness/depression, etc.

> Finding a niche for all students to participate in an extracurricular
> activity is one of the DISD’s key goals. Trustees made extracurricular
> participation a major priority in 2017, setting a districtwide goal of 78%
> participation by the 2021-22 school year.

~~~
lotsofpulp
>This solves tons of issues - bad home life

Not at all. It's just more excuse to babysit teens. Bad home life will only be
fixed by raising living standards, by reducing number of hours parents need to
work, providing vacation time, etc. But that would require redistributing
wealth instead of raising property taxes a couple percent.

~~~
jungturk
It seems like there's an awful lot of useful improvement in the space between
"doing nothing" and "redistributing wealth", so I commend the DISD for not
letting perfect be the enemy of good.

------
helloSirMan
I really like this idea. I bonded with friends over video games in highschool.
I would have probably benefited if a coach were involved - informing and
teaching me and my friends about teamwork, strategy, and training
skill/tactics.

The competition and comradery of playing against other teams in the area seems
to me like it would make for higher stakes (involving pride and an in-person
level of gamesmanship). I'd argue these are important skills in living a
social life.

I also think that including some level of physical exercise, even if just as
an ante to participate under the school's charter of the sport, would make
students more healthy. I don't know if any research or statistcs exist
correlating cardiovascular health to markers associated with better video game
performance. But it would not surprise me if a lap or two around a track
before a practice or competitoin would sharpen minds, reflexes, nerves, etc.
If nothing else, it would reduce apprehension to adminstrators sactioning kids
playing video games.

~~~
arminiusreturns
When I was in the Marine Corps, I developed a "gaming workout routine" to keep
in shape and still have time to play video games where I didn't even have to
leave the desk, and it worked wonders. I have always thought it would be
awesome to somehow make it a more popular thing. For a while I have thought VR
might be the killer app that makes it a reality.

For those interested, it was mostly just bodyweight exercises, eg between
counter-strike rounds do crunches at desk, pushups, dips, etc. When I finally
buy a house I have this idea that I want to design my computer desk to also be
a workout desk... pullup bar and everything.

~~~
kbar13
my friends and i used to play workout games (similar to drinking games) where
if you die you do x pushups, if you get a kill everyone else does pushups, if
your team loses everyone does pushups, etc

------
invalidOrTaken
I hope this spreads.

Team games---LoL, DotA, Overwatch---have been twisted and distorted by their
respective companies to try to fit the wishes of their playerbase, who
generally play these games solo. Thus team games steadily become less and less
team-oriented, _or_ more team-oriented, at the cost of ham-handed algorithmic
authoritarianism (e.g. role queues).

But if stuff like this takes off, maybe companies will be more true to their
vision and less pliable.

~~~
JRKrause
At least in the case of Overwatch, role queue feels more like an attempt to
assure a minimum level of viability for each team and less like an
authoritarian approach to controlling how the game is played.

~~~
a_t48
Basically this - it reduces variance in the games you play, along with
increasing MMR accuracy. There’s some unfortunate side effects (it’s a long
wait to solo queue as DPS, some strategy options are reduced), but overall I’m
happy with the results.

~~~
invalidOrTaken
Sure, it reduces a _certain kind_ of variance for the solo queue experience.
It increases it other kinds, though. Removing player choice decreases
flexibility and ability to react to changing conditions. So your team is
guaranteed to fit a certain design---but it might very well be that that
design is ill-fitted to conditions. It's Waterfall for video games. There were
other, cleaner ways to work toward the same goal, that didn't violate the core
design and cripple player freedom.

I'm a Lisp guy, so you can probably guess my opinions on whether it's "worth
it" or not to aim for The Right Thing. And one thing I've found in my career
is that the teams and individuals that make the best use of Lisp are fairly
_disciplined_ about it---they care a lot about functional purity,
documentation, interopability, etc.

In other words, they're still operating under restrictions, but they're _self-
imposed_ rather than incidental. This foundation of order lets them do crazier
things on top of it.

Reducing variance in one's play is the equivalent of writing code without
side-effects---it's the fundamental principle of playing nicely with others in
its respective domain.

Just as this is best achieved by developer education and discipline in the
programming sphere, there needs to be a _player ethic_ of reducing variance
(which is why I'm glad to hear about Dallas). And without that, the problem
will persist, showing its face in one form or another.

MMR accuracy is probably true, but sheesh, only in a Goodheart's Law kind of
way. If it was inaccurate before, that suggests a problem with the _statistic_
, not the game! In a complex game like OW, MMR was always going to be most
accurate when applied to teams rather than individuals.

------
KirinDave
I don't see a problem with this if there is demand. If anything, this is
schools catching up with reality. Kids share their gaming experience with one
another. It is a social thing, and they've been using Twitch and Youtube to
create alternative media choices for some time. Kids even stage up Roblox and
Minecraft videos to tell stories and present shows.

Still, I do think it's sad that the bro culture has completely erased every
other kind of competitive video games. Most of our top competitive games
(particularly those made in the US and Europe) replicate some of the worst
aspects of human society. Lethal conflict, industrialized warfare, conflict
over scarcity, imperialism simulators, and a view of science as a tech tree
with resource unlockables. It's a fairly toxic view of the world and it taints
a lot of kid's viewpoint of the world.

~~~
chrisco255
Violence is entertaining on some level. Even cutesy games like Mario have him
stomping on mushrooms and turtles and avoiding deadly obstacles. I've also
heard it said that all good stories involve conflict. It's a part of human
psychology for better or worse. It's why we watch sports. It's why we play
video games. It's why dogs play fight. It's deeply embedded in our chemistry.

~~~
KirinDave
> Violence is entertaining on some level. Even cutesy games like Mario have
> him stomping on mushrooms and turtles and avoiding deadly obstacles.

Sure, but so are lots of things. It's just a cultural artifact of the west's
love and expectation of violent solutions to conflict that we glorify this
activity over others. For example, a game of Go is surely a conflict between
two people, but unlike a game of Overwatch or the like it involves a lot fewer
guns, bombs, and patchy plots about world governments authorizing unilateral
violence.

> I've also heard it said that all good stories involve conflict.

This is a cultural lens. Lots of stories don't have an external conflict and
they can be great. You know what's a great example of this? The Moive Jacob's
Ladder. It was about someone reflecting on their life with pride and regret,
not actual conflict.

People frame this, unsurprisingly, as "Man vs Nature". But we might as well
also define it as "Human Overcomes Hardship." And that line seems much more
natural. Surely much of our hardship is inflicted by our peers, but is it a
deliberate "versus" scenario? I suspect not.

~~~
learc83
>Sure, but so are lots of things. It's just a cultural artifact of the west's
love and expectation of violent solutions to conflict that we glorify this
activity over others. For example, a game of Go is surely a conflict between
two people, but unlike a game of Overwatch or the like it involves a lot fewer
guns, bombs, and patchy plots about world governments authorizing unilateral
violence.

I don't think this really has anything to do with the west. Non western
cultures have been producing violent art before the west even existed, and if
you look at modern non-western movies and games, they aren't less likely to
involve violence.

As for Go, people in countries that play Go also play plenty of games that are
violent, and plenty of people in the west play Checkers.

~~~
KirinDave
I can't work out what this post is saying. What do you mean?

My point about Go was that Go is still a game of conflict, but it's not a game
where we murder one another or try to anthropomorphize the pieces to make it
more like actual killing.

~~~
learc83
> It's just a cultural artifact of the west's love and expectation of violent
> solutions to conflict that we glorify this activity over others.

The implication to this sentence is that the west is unique in this regard.
The only non-violent exemplar game you presented being a non-western game
strengthens this implication.

The point of my post was to make an argument against that suggestion. If you
didn't mean to imply that, then it really has no point.

However, if that was the case why mention the west at all? Particularly when
the OP gave a non-western example (Mario) in the first place.

~~~
KirinDave
> The implication to this sentence is that the west is unique in this regard.
> The only non-violent exemplar game you presented being a non-western game
> strengthens this implication.

Unique? No. Distinct in character, yes.

> The only non-violent exemplar game you presented being a non-western game
> strengthens this implication.

Minecraft. Night in the Woods. Slenderman. Kerbal Space Program. SpaceChem,
TIS-80, InfiniMiner, InfiniFactory, a huge portion of Stellaris's gameplay.
Untitled Goose Game. Online Go. Candy Crush. Many many subgames in Roblox.

Can you stop this line of questioning now? It's boring.

~~~
learc83
>Unique? No. Distinct in character, yes.

So not unique. But actually unique?

>Minecraft. Night in the Woods. Slenderman. Kerbal Space Program. SpaceChem,
TIS-80, InfiniMiner, InfiniFactory, a huge portion of Stellaris's gameplay.
Untitled Goose Game. Online Go. Candy Crush. Many many subgames in Roblox.

Had you used those examples in your original post, then it would have had less
of that implication.

>Can you stop this line of questioning now? It's boring.

If you weren't implying that the west has a "love and expectation of violent
solutions" while the rest of the world does not, or that the west has more of
a "love and expectation of violent solutions" than the rest of the world, then
just say so.

Or you are free to stop responding if you're bored. I won't be offended.

~~~
KirinDave
> >Unique? No. Distinct in character, yes.

> So not unique. But actually unique?

I don't know what you think "distinct" means but it's obviously different from
the sense I'm using.

> Had you used those examples in your original post, then it would have had
> less of that implication.

I've had several threads about this. Sorry I don't replicated every aspect of
the entire conversation for your convenience. Most folks aren't bringing the
"aren't you a japanophile insulting my gloriously progressive culture" angle
to the table, so I haven't felt the need to specifically defend against that
ridiculous argument in every post.

> If you weren't implying that the west has a "love and expectation of violent
> solutions" while the rest of the world does not, or that the west has more
> of a "love and expectation of violent solutions" than the rest of the world,
> then just say so.

Perhaps being less defensive would be more productive in the future. Sadly,
I'm taking your offer to ignore you from here on out. Thanks for reminding me
why this place is such a waste of time.

~~~
learc83
>Most folks aren't bringing the "aren't you a japanophile insulting my
gloriously progressive culture" angle to the table.

Wow maybe you should tone it down a bit. You've actually manage to use an ad
hominem in an attempt to accuse me of the of the same. Also notice that
there's another person who had the same impression I did, so if you didn't
mean to leave that impression, you should probably edit your post. If you did,
then you shouldn't be upset when someone offers a counterpoint.

>Perhaps being less defensive would be more productive in the future. Sadly,
I'm taking your offer to ignore you from here on out.

Except for this one last attempt to get the final word in right? If you're
going to ignore me, ignore me, you don't need to keep making one last reply
telling me that you're going to do it.

------
wgerard
This is a really interesting phenomenon we noticed as started doing some
research into esports: There's a ton of interest in organized game teams as
perhaps an alternative to traditional sports for students with different
proclivities.

This is just one example, but I suppose what I'm trying to say is that this
will likely become the norm not the exception.

------
duxup
I would really like to see them emphasize sportsmanship and in a small way
help try to make the gaming related community on the internet a bit nicer.

------
shawndumas
“Interscholastic sports spread rapidly from the 1930s through the 1950s, at a
time when the medical and physical education communities were opposed to
competitive sports for elementary and junior high, and occasionally high
school, students.” — [https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2443/Sports-
Scho...](https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2443/Sports-School.html)

------
huherto
I rather have my kids play sports outside. But I guess this is a case of "if
you can't beat them join them"

~~~
mensetmanusman
Best e-competitors need body training, this could be motivating.

------
tpmx
The headline made me think it was about creating some kind of competition to
_create_ video games, rather than _playing_ them. Alas, not.

I still think that could have been an exciting idea.

------
point78
Something that makes you think "Why the hell didn't we have this 30 years
ago!"

------
markus_zhang
I'd say it might be more educational if they are on C64 machines.

------
baby
Finally a college team I can get behind!

------
chess93
Hopefully this helps make video gaming a more community oriented activity
instead of something done at home alone.

------
mensetmanusman
Competition of the mind, yes!

~~~
KirinDave
I get the sentiment, but I don't think video game competition isn't deeply
physical in nature. Sure, experience and kinetic intelligence matter a lot in
video games, but as any fighting game player can tell you: some folks just
have fast reflexes and can train their bodies to react to even your best
setup. Games build in cooldowns, frame locks and combos to help smooth out
these ability curves but there is a lot of raw physical ability in pro gaming.

But I have to ask, isn't the pointless, manufactured competition actually the
worst part of all this?

Games could recreate any universe we can imagine. Worlds without scarcity,
worlds without conflict, worlds deeply simulating fantastical aspects of an
alternative universe where any experience is possible. Weirdly, all those
games end up with people pointing guns at one another.

Even a lot of AR games try to recreate all the "fun" of urban warfare by
manufacturing. It's pretty depressing, if you ask me.

~~~
CDSlice
> Games could recreate any universe we can imagine. Worlds without scarcity,
> worlds without conflict,

The thing is, all that is _boring_. If there is no scarcity, there is no
progression. This can be OK if there is other sources of conflict like in
Kerbal Space Program sandbox mode where you have an unlimited amount of parts
and Kerbals to build with but you have to overcome environmental challenges
inherent in flying a ship to another planet and back. Even so there are people
(like me) that find sandbox KSP not very fun because there is no
progression/scarcity.

If there is no conflict of any kind there is nothing preventing you from
achieving your goal immediately without having to do much of anything, which
isn't exactly very fun.

> worlds deeply simulating fantastical aspects of an alternative universe
> where any experience is possible.

This is a description of the environment of a game, not a game itself. Very
few people want to play "games" that are solely experiencing the environment
with no real goals. The only games I can think of that are like that are
sandbox games like Minecraft, and TBH I don't think sandbox Minecraft really
counts as a game anymore than building a stick fort does in real life. (Also,
survival mode in Minecraft is very popular. And guess what it has? Conflict
with the environment and players)

> Weirdly, all those games end up with people pointing guns at one another.

Because (most) people need to have goals to work towards both in real life and
in games. If you don't give a player goals, they will make their own, often
being "make the most money" or "be the best at combat." Combat as a game is
far from modern, the only modern thing we've added is making it virtual
combat.

~~~
KirinDave
> The thing is, all that is _boring_. If there is no scarcity, there is no
> progression.

That's just false. One of the most popular games in human history, Minecraft,
completely destroys this notion. Every resource is infinitely renewable and
available in great supply.

> This can be OK if there is other sources of conflict like in Kerbal Space
> Program sandbox mode where you have an unlimited amount of parts and Kerbals
> to build with but you have to overcome environmental challenges inherent in
> flying a ship to another planet and back.

This sentence seems contradictory. The challenge is in the doing of a thing.
That's not conflict OR scarcity, it's simply your experience. And it's a fun
and famous game with a huge following.

> If there is no conflict of any kind there is nothing preventing you from
> achieving your goal immediately without having to do much of anything, which
> isn't exactly very fun.

This is that "cultural lens" thing I've referred to in other posts. You're
defining this as conflict, but it's not really conflict. It's overcoming
hardship. The way you define this matters for how you think about it.

> Very few people want to play "games" that are solely experiencing the
> environment with no real goals.

So I submit the majority of gaming time on the most popular gaming platforms
(mobile) are in fact exactly like this. There is no forced conflict in Neko
Atsume or Candy Crush Saga. Roguelike games do model violence conflict, but
largely do away with specific goals and simply let you revel in an environment
that is new and surprising each time.

> Because (most) people need to have goals to work towards both in real life
> and in games.

Why does this _require_ repeated and somewhat authentic modeling of fatal
violence?

> If you don't give a player goals

I'm trying to work out how you're immediately equating "slaughter each other
in PUBG while rolling around in a jeep for now reason" is "goals" but "build a
pyramid with your friends in minecraft" is not. In terms of hours and copies
sold, the later absolutely annihilates the former, and yet here you are
arguing that the former is the only fun option.

~~~
CDSlice
> That's just false. One of the most popular games in human history,
> Minecraft, completely destroys this notion. Every resource is infinitely
> renewable and available in great supply.

You completely ignored this:

> Very few people want to play "games" that are solely experiencing the
> environment with no real goals. The only games I can think of that are like
> that are sandbox games like Minecraft, and TBH I don't think sandbox
> Minecraft really counts as a game anymore than building a stick fort does in
> real life.

I don't really consider sandbox Minecraft a game any more than building
something out of Legos or a stick fort in the woods is a game. Is it fun? Yes!
Is it creative? Yes! Is it a game? I would say no.

>> This can be OK if there is other sources of conflict like in Kerbal Space
Program sandbox mode where you have an unlimited amount of parts and Kerbals
to build with but you have to overcome environmental challenges inherent in
flying a ship to another planet and back.

> This sentence seems contradictory. The challenge is in the doing of a thing.
> That's not conflict OR scarcity, it's simply your experience. And it's a fun
> and famous game with a huge following.

The challenge is the conflict with the environment. Maybe you don't view this
as conflict, but the prevalence of "Man vs. Nature" as a kind of conflict is
huge in Western culture.

The scarcity in KSP only comes into play in science mode (science points that
you need to unlock technology is a scarce resource) and career mode (science
points + money to build your rockets is a scarce resource)

>> Very few people want to play "games" that are solely experiencing the
environment with no real goals.

> So I submit the majority of gaming time on the most popular gaming platforms
> (mobile) are in fact exactly like this. There is no forced conflict in Neko
> Atsume or Candy Crush Saga. Roguelike games do model violence conflict, but
> largely do away with specific goals and simply let you revel in an
> environment that is new and surprising each time.

Goals != person on person conflict. In Candy Crush you are trying to complete
a level that is designed to make that a hard task (Man vs Nature where the
level is the "nature"). I haven't heard of Neko Atsume so I can't comment on
that.

For rougelikes, isn't the goal often to beat the end boss? Obviously the
journey has to be fun or people won't play, but they still have a goal or give
you enough space and tools to let you define your own.

>> Because (most) people need to have goals to work towards both in real life
and in games.

>Why does this require repeated and somewhat authentic modeling of fatal
violence?

Again, goals != person on person conflict. Conflict != person on person
conflict. I personally can't stand games with authentic person on person
violence, but I love games like Celeste where the goal is to climb the
mountain and you have to face many kinds of conflict (Man vs themself, Man vs
Man, and Man vs Nature)

>> If you don't give a player goals

> I'm trying to work out how you're immediately equating "slaughter each other
> in PUBG while rolling around in a jeep for now reason" is "goals" but "build
> a pyramid with your friends in minecraft" is not. In terms of hours and
> copies sold, the later absolutely annihilates the former, and yet here you
> are arguing that the former is the only fun option.

PUBG has a very clear goal: Be the last person alive by any means necessary.
You may not find that fun. I know I don't. But it is still a goal, and
considering how popular it is a goal that many people find fun to achieve.

Building a pyramid in Minecraft is a self imposed goal, there is nothing about
Minecraft that says "you must build a pyramid to win." Again, I view sandbox
Minecraft as a building toy like a box of Lego bricks, not a game in the
traditional sense. Also, you are completely ignoring survival mode which hey
what a surprise features conflict between the player and the environment
(creatures that want to kill you) and sometimes conflict between players.

I'm not saying that the former is the only fun option. I'm just saying that
for a game to be fun it needs to let the player have goals to work towards and
some kind of conflict (NOT necessary person on person conflict) that makes the
player work to achieve their goals. Would Mario Bros. be fun if there was no
enemies to avoid or defeat and the level was just a strait line from the start
to the goal with no obstacles in between?

~~~
KirinDave
> I don't really consider sandbox Minecraft a game any more than building
> something out of Legos or a stick fort in the woods is a game. Is it fun?
> Yes! Is it creative? Yes! Is it a game? I would say no.

So now kids playing with legos isn't a game becuase it lacks conflict? ...
That's... not a very realistic definition in my book.

> The scarcity in KSP only comes into play in science mode (science points
> that you need to unlock technology is a scarce resource) and career mode
> (science points + money to build your rockets is a scarce resource)

There is a scarcity mode if you want it, yes. But it's not exactly actual
scarcity. It's more like, "You just need to wait longer to do action X." There
aren't hard choices to be made nor are there ever dead ends from those
choices.

> Goals != person on person conflict. In Candy Crush you are trying to
> complete a level that is designed to make that a hard task (Man vs Nature
> where the level is the "nature"). I haven't heard of Neko Atsume so I can't
> comment on that.

Even the words you're using are begging the question. Is that lens of "man vs
____" actually a valid one? Why? The designer isn't trying to actually be in
conflict with users. Candy Crush isn't trying to make levels hard. They're
trying to make them fun.

> For rougelikes, isn't the goal often to beat the end boss? Obviously the
> journey has to be fun or people won't play, but they still have a goal or
> give you enough space and tools to let you define your own.

Not really? Lost of the famous ones have a goal that is not "kill a thing" but
rather "escape with an object" which is always harder. Rogue never had an end.
Nethack has you escape with an item; actually fighting the Wizard of Yendor is
a waste of resources. Dead Cells has tons of endings and a few don't even
involve final bosses.

> Building a pyramid in Minecraft is a self imposed goal, there is nothing
> about Minecraft that says "you must build a pyramid to win." Again, I view
> sandbox Minecraft as a building toy like a box of Lego bricks, not a game in
> the traditional sense. Also, you are completely ignoring survival mode which
> hey what a surprise features conflict between the player and the environment
> (creatures that want to kill you) and sometimes conflict between players.

Well this is another subtle cultural perspective, isn't it? Success, PUBG and
Fortnite's Battle Royale posit, come from external validation. You have to
want both the validation and agree that getting it is an accomplishment. I can
see how folks like trying to make this perspective appealing to kids, but it's
not really a reflection of reality nor the human psyche. There are an
unlimited number of kinds of external validation we all ignore.

> . I'm just saying that for a game to be fun it needs to let the player have
> goals to work towards and some kind of conflict (NOT necessary person on
> person conflict) that makes the player work to achieve their goals

With all respect: I think you want to say this but in fact your words betray
you. Your first instinct for game conflict is violence. I somewhat agree with
the point you've made, but I want to point out how your worldview undermines
that point.

~~~
CDSlice
>> I don't really consider sandbox Minecraft a game any more than building
something out of Legos or a stick fort in the woods is a game. Is it fun? Yes!
Is it creative? Yes! Is it a game? I would say no.

>So now kids playing with legos isn't a game becuase it lacks conflict? ...
That's... not a very realistic definition in my book.

I have _never_ heard anyone call building with Legos a game. Heck, Lego
themselves made a theme called "Lego Games" where you built games to play with
out of Legos! This wouldn't make very much sense if they considered Legos
themselves to be a game. So yes, I wouldn't call building with Legos a game, I
would say that it is playing with a toy. In the same spirit I would say
playing sandbox Minecraft is playing with a virtual toy.

> There is a scarcity mode if you want it, yes. But it's not exactly actual
> scarcity. It's more like, "You just need to wait longer to do action X."
> There aren't hard choices to be made nor are there ever dead ends from those
> choices.

OK, I must have misunderstood what you meant by scarcity. I took it to mean
that you have no limits on your resources, not that it had to be very
difficult to obtain those resources and that there had to be a finite amount
of them to allow dead ends.

>> For rougelikes, isn't the goal often to beat the end boss? Obviously the
journey has to be fun or people won't play, but they still have a goal or give
you enough space and tools to let you define your own.

> Not really? Lost of the famous ones have a goal that is not "kill a thing"
> but rather "escape with an object" which is always harder. Rogue never had
> an end. Nethack has you escape with an item; actually fighting the Wizard of
> Yendor is a waste of resources. Dead Cells has tons of endings and a few
> don't even involve final bosses.

As you can probably tell I haven't played many rougelikes so thanks for
showing me that they are a lot more diverse than I thought. However, I would
still say that they all have conflict, just not always violent conflict.

> Well this is another subtle cultural perspective, isn't it? Success, PUBG
> and Fortnite's Battle Royale posit, come from external validation. You have
> to want both the validation and agree that getting it is an accomplishment.

Not really? Success is winning a round. There is nothing external in that.
_Wanting_ to win a round of PUBG can be external (although I wouldn't agree
that it has to be, lots of people just find that kind of game fun) but
actually winning a round of PUBG isn't.

>> . I'm just saying that for a game to be fun it needs to let the player have
goals to work towards and some kind of conflict (NOT necessary person on
person conflict) that makes the player work to achieve their goals

>With all respect: I think you want to say this but in fact your words betray
you. Your first instinct for game conflict is violence. I somewhat agree with
the point you've made, but I want to point out how your worldview undermines
that point.

Wow, I guess I've been lying to myself all these years about how I don't like
graphic violence or gore in games or movies. Thanks for telling me my true
self internet stranger! /s

But seriously, I've said multiple times that I don't like those kind of games.
Battlefield, PubG, Fortnight, and all the other person on person combat/battle
games could have never been made and I would be perfectly happy. If you think
I'm lying that's fine, but I'm not going to continue to discuss this if that's
the case.

------
sneak
This should not be something cash-strapped schools are spending $450,000 on.
This is just public-private transfer into the coffers of Blizzard, Nintendo et
al.

If it has merit, it has merit with free software.

~~~
soared
There is no mention of being cash-strapped in the article, unless I missed it?

~~~
sneak
Public schools in the US are almost universally cash-strapped. Regardless, my
point stands: no school should be spending a half million in tax money on
corporate video games.

There are plenty of cheap/free games that could serve the purpose just fine,
if indeed there is any educational merit whatsoever to this initiative (which
I highly doubt).

~~~
learc83
How is this any different than public schools buying baseballs from Rawlings
(co-owned by the MLB). Or football pads, basketball goals etc... I guarantee
that the district in question spends far more than $450k purchasing sports
equipment from corporations.

And since public schools are mostly locally funded, some districts aren't cash
strapped.

>my point stands: no school should be spending a half million in tax money on
corporate video games.

This decision is made at the district level, if the people don't like it, they
can very easily vote in a different school board. The local voters are the
ones who get to decide what they "should" spend their tax money on.

> if indeed there is any educational merit whatsoever to this initiative
> (which I highly doubt).

Participation in after school activities has been shown to positively impact
educational performance.

