Having only read the abstract and key points: The question is if video games have a better positive impact on cognitive abilities than other things you could do in the meantime that may also improve other abilities as well.
I write this because I quit video games almost entirely a year ago. I played probably 500-700 hours of video games in 2015. I played occasionally simple games on my phone in 2016.
The major downside for me was that I felt video games only improve my ability to play video games. I favored online games over single player games, but at the same time, I felt the addiction behind it. I can't play video games "for fun". I want to be good and that costs time. Video games have the downside of giving players easy rewards. I think it does something bad to your brain. Not necessarily altering it forever, but at least turning one into a little dopamine junkie.
In 2016, I spend about 40 times 3 hours in a private art school. I improved my drawing and painting skills a lot in merely 120 hours. That was a much better investment of my time than video games and I wonder if the forced concentration of looking at objects and colors for 3 hours straight had comparable improvements of cognitive abilities.
Anyways, what I want to say is this: If you feel that you're wasting too much time on video games, despite what research tries to spin positively about it, try to quit them and see what happens.
If you cannot play games just for fun, then I definitely see how it can feel like a stressful affair and an unhealthy addiction. And if that's your relationship to games, then not playing them does sound like a very reasonable choice.
On the other end of the spectrum, I myself see video games as my big passion and it's a large part of what I do to unwind and have fun. I would estimate that I typically play 10-20 hours of video games a week in my spare time.
In fact, I'm passionate enough about games that I decided from a young age that I wanted to dedicate myself full time to game development and, consequently, that is what I do for a living as a Software Engineer at Ghost Games. So, that is another 40 hours a week that I spend on games.
But I do play games simply to have fun and there is the occasional week when I simply don't feel like it. And then I fill my spare time with other activities I enjoy.
If you cannot play games just for fun, then I definitely see how it can feel like a stressful affair and an unhealthy addiction.
The problem is, that variable schedule of reward and social validation are both very potent means of altering human behavior which can be used to extract money from them. How often do people who play games report, "I don't know why I'm doing this. It's not even fun anymore." The Extra Credits YouTube channel talks about this as well. There is a temptation that must be resisted, where variable schedule of reward addiction can be used to replace fun.
What is the record of companies resisting the temptation to do something unregulated, that they can make money at? Heck, I don't even know if we have a good metric for the degree of use of variable schedule of reward.
This is an important thing, that "games" covers a huge range of things with different levels of "addiction", pricing, playable length, thematic complexity, social relevance, etc. Even more so than saying "TV" or "film".
I don't doubt your integrity and passion, but I couldn't resist mentioning that your comment parallels that of people who work in other industries that produce addictive products. Specifically I was reminded by a quote of an owner of a mid-size tobacco farm. For the record, I also did not doubt the farmer's integrity and passion. It's as if a non-addictive personality, or complete abstinence of the industry's product, is a prerequisite for employment.
I upvoted your comment because I find it genuinely interesting and I do see where you come from, though I didn't see that kind of aspect to it myself when writing my comment. I simply see myself as a gamer who happens to be lucky enough to get to work with something I love.
The addictive nature of games and the tendency of games to be designed to deliberately get you hooked is a very common topic of conversation at work. Especially since several of my coworkers have a background in the development of casino games. I find the ethical aspects of it fascinating and a rather intellectually challenging topic.
When playing games I don't want to feel like I'm consuming a drug engineered solely to be addictive and I certainly don't want to see myself as a developer of such. On the other hand, I want games to feel engaging and entice me to keep playing and come back for more. As such, addictive is often used as a positively loaded word when talking about games. I feel that I have a good sense of what aspects of a game make up the good kind of addictive and what contributes to the bad kind, but I can't quite formulate a general rule to describe it.
The closest I can come is this:
- "Good addiction" is when a game rewards you for actual accomplishments and keeps you coming back because you enjoy playing it.
- "Bad addiction" is when a game rewards you for simply spending time with it and keeps you coming back simply because you feel quitting would mean missing out on more random rewards.
I have at times found myself stuck in one of those bad reward loops, but it usually only takes me a short while to identify it as such. When I do, I quit playing that game. Yes, video game addiction is a serious problem and I do agree that there are very unethical practices going on in parts of the video game industry. But I also feel that this isn't necessarily part of what makes a video game. I'm guessing that's also an argument similar to what a tobacco farmer would say.
I feel like there's less of a spectrum with tobacco: you either smoke enough to get physically addicted or you don't. Some people never do, I guess, but it's not like the tobacco industry is generating cultural and artistic expressions, social commentary, and/or a competitive arena where the most skilled players can rise to the top and even make a career out of their success. In that context I don't really see how games are different from any of the other things that fill those roles besides being displayed on a video screen.
Hell, it's in the winning too. MOBAs are a great example of a game i hate to win or lose, but (not currently) play purely for the rush, teamfights, depth in meta, etc.
No game has made me hate winning more than DoTA. It's quite astounding, really. I can fully not-enjoy a match and turn right around and want to play another to hopefully get a good match. Not one i win, specifically, but one that is enjoyable, even if a loss - which entirely depends on the players.
I quit playing DoTA (currently) not because of the feelings, but because of the time investment. Long games mean long iteration cycles on my above "just one more game, i want a good game". At 40m chunks, suddenly you're entire night was gone and all i wanted was one game that didn't make me feel like hell.
Yes, this is all very addiction sounding, and it's likely not wrong.
Have you looked at Battlerite before? I was in the same place as you, except with League of Legends. Loved playing teamfights, tolerated a 15 minute lane phase. But with queue times getting beyond 5 minutes and dodges becoming more common a game could take upwards of an hour from start to finish.
Battlerite fixes these issues (and adds a few of course), but the biggest win for me is that the iteration cycle is extremely short - games only last at max 15 minutes. Queue times are fast with no pick/ban phase. You just get in game and get fighting.
As someone who was finding traditional MOBAs hard to find time for, I recommend at least looking at it. The percentage of good games in my experience is much higher. One final note though: I would stay away from the subreddit. It makes r/leagueoflegends look good.
Yup, i actually own it, it's great! Granted, there is still a fair bit of meta, heroes to learn, etc - something i've been avoiding because i've been busy working on side projects.
These days with very limited time i've been focusing to co-op friendly time, so my wife and i can play together. Even though i enjoy Battlerite/Dota/etc, i need something that gives me my game enjoyment (whatever i want at the time), and also builds relationships with my wife/etc.
That was another bad thing about DoTA, she's not big into PvP games and DoTA is the king of those bad-manner gamers haha. Well, maybe Xbod + CoD holds that record... but imo, DoTA players hurt you more, hah.
Anyway, these days we stick to offline co-op games. Astroneer, Divinity Original Sin, and Pit People. All three are excellent for their respective genres (though, 2 of them are in early access and short on content).
I've found that the shorter the game (or rather the "faster" the game) the more likely I am to not find it inherently stressful for that reason. For example, when I played smash brothers it always felt way worse when you lost compared to street fighter because in smash games can take four minutes to finish. In street fighter it's not uncommon to finish a game in 45 seconds.
I've also migrated to Tetris the grandmaster because I feel that Tetris helps my brain in particular more than other games. And if I'm not having a good game, or a game is stressing me out too much, I can just quit. And since the games are short, at MOST ten minutes (depending on how fast you are) I can still will myself to go to bed reasonably after "just one good one"
Agreed, and this tends to be mostly an aspect of competitive multiplayer gaming. As my spare time for video gaming has diminished, I've been sticking to cooperative online games where all players are on the same team (like Diablo 3), or just playing offline.
Replaying the classics is also fun. Will Super Mario Bros 3 ever cease to be enjoyable? Doesn't seem so.
The idea of unwinding while playing a video game is interesting to me. While I can easily say that I can unwind while playing a video game, I've found that despite my passion for them, when I'm at my most (mentally?) tired they tend to be pretty far down on my list for unwinding. What I've come to realize is that, in general, the games that I personally play are not generally in what I might consider an "unwind" category. I find that it takes actual mental effort to not only start my favorite games, but it takes effort to play them, causing the initial friction in starting them. And since this is all anecdotal based on my own personal experience, I'll add in some examples and explanation for my personal realization:
* Skullgirls: A fighting game I legitimately want to get good at, so time spent playing it is time spent practicing what I'm bad at or just getting certain combos more consistent. Though to be fair, fighting games in general are not put into a category of games to relax with, it's just one of my top played games right now.
* Stardew Valley: I want to play more of this, but there is a LOT going on in this game. Each day the player has to figure out what they're going to focus on for small goals, work toward larger goals, pick from a bunch of different potential activities, etc. And everything done is always time limited both in actual in-game time and stamina, so there's always some kind of pressure to be perfectly efficient. (and I think I've been spoiled in that something happens after a few years in-game, so there's even MORE pressure, gah!)
* The Witness: I really want to finish this game, but it's not something to play casually. The puzzles can get brutally difficult, requiring me to keep relatively extensive notes on some of them, and there are a ton of puzzle types to learn without someone telling you how they work, requiring "debugging" of the rules. Generally with highly complicated rules that might require learning a new subtlety to the rules long after the training area. On top of that, there's the "hidden" content that I need to keep my eye out for.
* Demon's Souls/Dark Souls/Bloodborne: I don't think I need to explain why these require effort to play. They're hard, require memorization, muscle memory, and gitting gud, with failure requiring you to re-do what can be relatively large levels over and over and over again. But when you beat a boss: that dopamine hit is nuts.
* Monster Hunter: Similar category to the Souls games, except there generally aren't large levels, you just have to re-do all the damage you originally did to a monster. Potentially needing to gather more materials for the hunt. Which can take a while. And boy howdy do those monsters NOT want you to hit them in the face with a giant sword.
* ...and there are other games that are just not coming to mind right now, but hopefully some kind of point was made.
With the amount of decision making, pressures on the player to perform, things to learn, etc. in games these days, it honestly feels more relaxing most times to do dishes, edit photographs, write, watch some Netflix with my wife, or whatever else there is to do on any given day. Most times I don't play games unless I'm feeling good enough with enough mental stamina to enjoy the challenges posed, or I'm forcing myself to get better at Skullgirls so I don't get crushed in an upcoming tournament.
So yeah, games as a leisure activity is an interesting concept to me ;) I also recommend not taking what I wrote as some kind of negative. I love games! I love playing them, I love talking about them and analyzing them, and someday I'm hoping I can love making them full time like you instead of occasionally working on a side project in my spare time. I just believe they offer more cognitive load in general than seems to get addressed.
I definitely understand where you're coming from. I love Bloodborne, but it's really demanding. Which is why I don't play it when I want to relax after work. I play it in the weekend if I feel well rested and up for a challenge.
To unwind after work I gravitate towards RPG:s which let me get lost in the fantasy and forget about this world or FPS games which let me empty my mind and just focus on reflexes and simple tactics. Mario games are also an amazing way to unwind because they let me put intense focus into it without requiring much thought. The repetition of trying to reach the toughest secrets and attempting the same run time and time again for an hour or so feels very therapeutic.
On the other hand, I do play Magic: The Gathering at work during lunch. It may require a lot of thought, but it lets me drop work stuff entirely for an hour so I can come back to it with fresh eyes and new energy after lunch.
This is completely off the original topic but: by any chance do you use a Japanese-layout keyboard? The colon used in place of the apostrophe indicates you might be doing that. If so: I'm curious as to why. I used to live in Japan and ended up naturally getting used to it when using a laptop bought there, so the colon stuck out to me.
A little more on-topic: Playing MtG during lunch would be nice because it gets you away from a screen for a bit. I find the most refreshing way I can take a break is with a book or some other non-computer related activity. I find that there's something about staring at a screen for a long period of time that seems to take away some ability to focus or something. I can note a clear difference in taking a break between using a phone/computer and not.
I don't use a Japanese keyboard, only a Swedish and sometimes French (Belgium). The colon in "RPG:s" was actually a simple mistake because I'm Swedish[1]
> Having only read the abstract and key points: The question is if video games have a better positive impact on cognitive abilities than other things you could do in the meantime that may also improve other abilities as well.
You're right that this is a good question. My guess is that compared to other common activities and hobbies, the answer is yes.
Most people aren't spending the bulk of their free time solving mathematical riddles, after all, they're hanging out with friends, they're shopping, watching TV, playing sports, etc. And those are all fine things, but given the purely mental challenge involved in video games, the cognitive benefits there are probably relatively high.
There are undoubtedly more efficient ways to improve your brain, but they're probably a lot less fun than video games.
I would def. disagree with your analysis on the mental challenges involved with free time activities, other than video games.
There's a huge mental part of sports in re: to strategy and team playing. Even solitary sports requires a huge mental effort under duress. Think about a rock climb - or trying to PR in a foot race - your brain is firing nonstop to analysis your surroundings to not fall/go as fast as possible.
Other people like to take things apart and put them together again, like a car, or a motorcycle.
Other people write fiction - are you saying that weaving a complicated plot isn't a mental challenge?
> There's a huge mental part of sports in re: to strategy and team playing.
I've played sports competitively too, while you're right there's a large mental component, it's nevertheless smaller than video games, since physicality/muscle memory tends to be the dominant factor. It doesn't matter if you're a strategic genius and your opponent is a moron in tennis if their core skills are flat out superior to yours or you're terribly out of shape.
> Other people like to take things apart and put them together again, like a car, or a motorcycle.
> Other people write fiction - are you saying that weaving a complicated plot isn't a mental challenge?
These hobbies aren't exactly rare, but they're not really competitors to gaming, either, in terms of time consumed. Gaming is unusual in that it's mentally demanding and also super popular and widespread. Yeah learning languages or musical instruments undoubtedly improves cognitive function as well, but collectively people don't spend nearly as much time on those things as video games.
> I think it does something bad to your brain. Not necessarily altering it forever, but at least turning one into a little dopamine junkie.
Arguably we are inherently dopamine junkies and gaming is just one way to feed that addiction, learning other skills — like painting, playing an instrument, etc. — is another.
Upvote but I think games can make the patience for gratification be too low. So we only become capable of doing things which gives instant gratification.
I would say that depends entirely on the game itself. I agree that a lot of games are guilty of serving lots of cheap dopamine fixes. In fact, that is the business model of a large portion of the mobile gaming industry.
As an avid gamer, I find this sad and I do my best to stay clear of those games.
One of my favourite games is the antithesis of this, at least the way I play it. Namely Hitman: Blood Money, where I spent countless hours trying to complete every mission without hurting anyone other than the targets and without ever being detected. Without checkpoints, of course. That requires a lot of patience and leads to hours of tension and suspense culminating in a few intense bursts of excitement and satisfaction.
* What was missing, what did you end up doing instead?
* Was the gaming you did social or not, challenging or not?
That you made the right choice for yourself is great, but without any context, no one else can understand why it was good for you. It is likely not a universal truth.
Great point, which hits on the problem of trying to extrapolate from anecdote. In retrospect, I should have clarified more so others can see if their circumstances approximated my own, and if they could then draw similar conclusions (full well recognizing the reliance upon anecdotal evidence to begin with).
Drawing and painting help you look at things differently; it improves motor skills (probably most important for young and old, but has some value for everyone), etc.
> In the same way I could say that drawing and painting only makes you better at drawing and painting.
Absolutely and it's highly subjective. For years, I prefered playing video games to everything else. But now I'd rather see myself as a painter than a gamer.
This is not a question of things being better or worse generally speaking. It's a question what's good for oneself.
When I noticed my nice guitar and really good equipment was going unused so I could spend more time in Half-Life / Adrenaline Gamer / CS, which at the end of the day produced nothing really of worth I could trade in real life (a few online friendships evolved I know), it was time to hang up the serious gaming.
No more desktop. Barely any console time. I'm perfectly happy with older Angry Birds games and trying to get 3 stars without any gimmicks. That's my fix...well, okay I'll probably get some Forza VW Herbie action in, but the time I don't spend on games is, I like to think, used productively elsewhere (chores, cooking, etc).
I think it's worth reading the "Declaration of Conflicting Interests" as that gives you a good insight into the angle this article is coming from and the message of which they want to purvey/push. Based on the abstract, the key points, the conclusion and the Declaration of Conflicting Interests, I feel I have read enough to discard this as some kind of propaganda.
They seem to think that gaming is pervasive without going into hardly any detail about why they feel it is pervasive. I mean I'm from Britain and I don't feel video gaming is pervasive in any considerable degree. Maybe the US has a different take on this...
Maybe you are paying the wrong kind of games?
I think online competitive games, like esports, only make you better at playing games, but other single player games are comparable artforms and only nominally "pointless wastes if time".
I'd guess it's the opposite. Competitive games probably have a stronger positive effect on cognition because of the level and variety of challenge involved. Single player games are frequently (although not always) less challenging, and even when they are challenging, they can often be beaten via rote memorization.
People have a tendency to apply a Puritan-esque attitude to games, assuming that less 'productive' (read: violent) games must also be less useful, and games that are more artsy, or revolve or around building (Minecraft), or are more abstract/less gamey (brain training games) must be more useful.
The reality is that people improve their cognitive abilities more when under more stress, when they're challenging themselves, not because the activity is more of an 'art form'. Repeatedly going to the opera may have other benefits, but it isn't going to make your brain compute any faster.
I had a few hours of single player games. The advantage is that they're over and get boring after a while. At least in story mode. I played Super Mario on iOS. It's a neat game and indeed, it got boring after I got all green coins and all characters. Games getting boring is a good thing!
But the real good ones keep you engaged forever. That's the problem ;)
I'll pinch my two cents into JetSpiegel's bowl when s/he suggests that "maybe you are paying the wrong kind of games? [...] other single player games are comparable artforms and only nominally 'pointless wastes if time'". Here are some games I enjoyed in 2016:
#1. The Witness, The Talos Principle, Her Story, Inside, Firewatch, Near Death, Event[0].
#2. Alien Isolation, SOMA, Grow Up.
#3. Furi, Thumper, DOOM 2016.
Why do I group them this way? #1 is "story/thinking", #3 is "immersion", #3 is "hard". I like games when they tell me stories (#1), much like a good movie. I enjoy the fact that being active in them contributes to making them sometimes even more immersive than a good movie (#2), and finally (and maybe this one is a bit closer to your feelings) I enjoy when they're so stupidly hard they make your heart pound when you've almost beaten this boss and gaaaaah no, dead again, retry (#3).
I'm not in any way trying to make you adhere to these categories (to each his own), just showing that games only have to be brainless dopamine-hit-based time-wasters if your let your choice of games make them so. The Witness is a remarkable adventure in learning and witnessing (gah) your own errors. Alien Isolation is the best Alien I've ever experienced in my body, regardless of medium. Firewatch is a human tale. Etc.
Remains the "they waste time" point. True, and so is watching a season of Black Mirror. On my side, I've
1. Come to peace with the fact that I'm not going to be 100% "productive" 100% of the time. All the time I played Witness was not spent learning Rust or taking an art course like yours. Alright.
2. Learned to consider what a game might bring to me and take from me before buying. I remain below a waste threshold (a. Bring/Take ratio too low, or b. Take obscenely high) by fleeing MMOs and CandyCrushes and rogue-likes and loot simulators like plague, and never ever chase coins/characters/achievements.
Can you expand on the kind of games you tried and why/how you consider single-player games boring?
Seconding the suggestion for The Witness. Going through that now (almost got to the first ending but not quite), and it's really a game about learning how to see things differently in the world around you, and learning how to solve problems, which is primarily what programmers do anyway. It was definitely not a waste of time.
The Witness is also having a huge influence on how I approach design, since pretty much everything communicated in the game is nonverbal.
Good ones for you or the publisher?
Good games in single player mode are like good movie or tv show: no matter how good you might probably watch it once a year, and maybe inspire you to do other things. E.g. Tomb Raider (the 2013 version) was such a great game that inspired me to travel more.
I'm in the process of quitting right now. I've taken up violin and weight-lifting, after being inconsistent for some years. Glad to see someone of the same mindset!
I'm in the same boat as you, video games are a competitive thing for me. I've been a CounterStrike junkie since CS became a thing in the 90's? I don't remember the year but I've probably spent more than a thousand hours playing that game. I have to win, and I can't stop until I've destroyed my competition. I'm finally at a point in life where I can just let the computer sit and not play, though I haven't quit entirely. I can honestly say that if I'd spent a thousand hours playing guitar instead of CS I'm sure I'd be a lot better off.
I noted the same pattern in myself and the affects it had on my ability to concentrate and my desire to work for long periods of time to achieve a goal. However I still play games, just specifically games that are slower paced, more story focussed normally puzzle based. Think Myst, Obduction, Deponia, things of that nature.
I found after so long playing quick reward cycle action packed shooters that I couldn't enjoy games like that anymore, and I really wanted to be able to. So it was a conscious decision to try and extend my focus and reward cycle so that I could again. It helped immensely with other things as well. Spending an hour or more to work on my car no longer gets passed over in favour of a few rounds of counter strike for but one example.
Overall I agree with your findings and found just being aware of them has helped me get more out of my brain.
1) I don't understand why improving your drawing and painting ability is intrinsically more valuable than improving your video game playing ability.
2) At the beginning of learning any skill, you will make great strides at first before diminishing returns come into play. "Noob gains" (as it is called in the fitness world) are what you experienced in those 120 hours of practicing drawing / painting. Slowly but surely your improvements will grind to a crawl, some days it will even feel as if you are going backwards. It is like this for pretty much all skills.
I do agree if you feel your time is being wasted while playing video games, then by all means stop. It is your free time and you shouldn't waste it. On the other hand, don't feel bad that you're "wasting time" because someone else things painting is more valuable than playing video games.
1) It's not more valuable generally speaking. For me personally, drawing and painting were things I always wanted to get better at, but didn't want to put too much time into it. I actually never made time for these activities. Now I have more time.
Painting seems to be healthier for me, because it requires me to concentrate. Gratification is slow. I get a flow feeling from it but without the addictiveness of games.
2) Right, but once I'm better, I can decide whether to learn a new skill or to keep going with painting.
My point isn't about one activity being superior over another one. My point is: Gaming is highly addictive for me and other activities aren't that addictive. Overall, I feel more balanced with no gaming. But is the same true for you? Maybe, maybe not.
TV/Netflix: Occasionally, but I'm not much of a movie watcher anymore. I think most shows are quite bad and predictable. I can see how they're designed to hit the same dopamine triggers. I binge-watched a few things on Netflix recently, but then I go weeks without watching anything.
I spend more time with my son. I spend time in the evening to code or write. I also waste more time on HN. It's certainly not that I put all 380-580 hours into something "better". At least half of that time is similar to video games and I could play video games as well instead.
But for me, this isn't about optimizing my time to squeeze out more productivity. It's a subjective impression that games were unhealthy for me, because they require too much attention.
> I can't play video games "for fun". I want to be good and that costs time. Video games have the downside of giving players easy rewards. I think it does something bad to your brain. Not necessarily altering it forever, but at least turning one into a little dopamine junkie.
I'm not sure this adds up. I think I get a dopamine fix when I play simple, relaxing games or games with the difficulty set too low, but not when playing to win. Getting better at StarCraft, for example, requires you practice the same openings over and over while focusing on things that aren't particularly fun. You discover just how lazy the human mind is and then feel bad about it :)
Are there ANY games which improve real-life skills? Games are often said to improve you in some way, to up-skill you, but I'm not sure I've ever seen evidence.
I think you could make the case for multiple online games to have the ability to improve a few skills.
Mainly games where you are teamed with random players (especially MOBAs) and must communicate and use teamwork. Games like Scrabble might improve your vocabulary.
Communication is just as much a skill as any and useful in the real world.
That's not to say that it's going to help if nobody has the mechanical skills or if your characters/items are inferior but dealing with defeat could help strengthen your coping skills or you can go back and analyze it and find more efficient plays (analytical skills).
Not saying that even a small fraction of people do any of this. Most people probably play games (especially mobile) for just a little break in the monotony of life and put them down when they are done.
I like to believe that Starcraft has improved my ability to multitask. Also, resource management. I'm able to apply delayed gratification to my army by building stronger units that cost more later by investing more heavily in economy/upgrades/technology early on based on the state of my opponent.
Also, Ultima Online has a bunch of player-run servers. Someone came out with a client that injects packets to the Ultima Online servers, so I was able to learn to write "fault tolerant" programs. It was a huge motivator for me to learn to be a better programmer.
But surely looking at your paintings would be a waste of time that would be better spent learning to paint. No I don't mean that - I don't know your paintings. But supposedly they are works of art, like computer games. What is the justification for their existence, if there are so many more useful things to do? What is the justification for reading a novel? Or watching a movie?
I often think about turning my game time into productive time, but my game time is right before bed as de-stresser. I play to relax, socialize, and have fun. I need this time everyday.
I'm not sure your advice applies to most adult gamers. College students and kids addicted to MMO's and pay-to-win garbage, certainly.
This really resonated with me to the point where I had to stop lurking.
James Gee (who was also at Wisconsin-Madison for a time) has written a fair bit, mostly positive, on learning and games. Here's one of his positive early pieces [1].
But I have a cautionary take which is very similar in spirit to yours. I loved video games as a kid - Double Dragon, Zelda, Mario Kart.. I lost my mom early and in adult retrospect one likely consequence was becoming OCD about save-scumming, because you could go back in time and make things perfect. I'd play Starcraft story-mode until I made it through without losing a single unit. I'd savescum ADOM at a pool until I got enough wishes and all the resistances to feel satisfied. Or Civ to build all the wonders I cared about. Too bad you can't go back in time to get your mom to have a checkup before metastasis. Just need to have enough save states right?
So I continued min-maxing, building optimization functions against built environments and pvping in MUDs, Goldeneye, MMORPGs, Diablos, Hearthstone, and F2P styled mobile games, competing against other players for virtual bits of nothingness, going with the meta or trying to craft counter-metas, making in-game friends and playing with IRL friends and generally having a good time or so I thought.
I finally tossed my gaming baggage while taking my first ever vacation in France with my family last year. I'd recognized the psychological hooks embedded in games for some time but finally realized how ridiculous it was to be conditioned to wake up at 2 AM in the morning (due to timezone differences) to earn timer-based rewards and complete dailies in a mobile app. I was trading off life experiences in a beautiful country with amazing food (and counter to typical stereotypes, very friendly people) for virtual something or others, and enough was enough.
Since going cold turkey, the amount of free time opened up has been an eye-opening. I spend much more quality time with my family without being tired from staying up late. I'm playing music again with friends and in a local community symphony, playing ice hockey and working on skills I'd left behind since high school, reading more books, and in general feeling much more fulfilled.
This isn't a judgement on those who still love and live & breathe games and there are definitely games breathtaking in their imagination and execution. I still thoroughly enjoy Mario Kart with the kids and could easily drop days into Civ 6 if I had the spare time. But I'd like to level up my physical skills for a while. Climb a 5.12, skate like Sid, play and express Brahms, Beethoven, Chopin and (maybe some day) Rachmaninoff like I wish I could.
Some goals in life have a physical timer on them, don't let it run out and lead to regret. There's beauty to be had and made and to be sure, virtual or not, it is fleeting. Yet some skills remain when the power goes out.
Summary:
... we need more research... existing studies have flaws... guidelines for kids aren't even based on research... what gov't agency should regulate games? ... some agency should regulate brain-training games.
Here's the gem:
When it comes to surgeons, "cross-sectional research shows action video game experience is a better predictor of positive surgical outcomes than years of training or number of surgeries performed."
I expected studies like "Does playing video games improve laparoscopic skills?" but not "Impact of Super Monkey Ball and Underground video games on basic and advanced laparoscopic skill training."
It would be more interesting to compare playing video games to other pastimes such as golf, coding, reading, watching tv...
I'm surprised no one else noticed the conflict of interest disclaimer:
A. R. Seitz is a founder and stakeholder in Carrot
Neurotechnology, a company that sells a vision brain game called
ULTIMEYES. Carrot, and Seitz as an individual, are involved in a
case with the FTC regarding advertising claims that Carrot made
based upon Seitz’s University based research.
Before I started working in AAA game development I spent a few years working in the field of virtual training simulators for laparoscopic surgery.
In that context there were several similar studies. We mainly focused on those performed in order to validate skill transfer from our own training simulation to the operating room.[1][2][3]
However, there were also studies which showed that doctors who had spent a lot of time playing video games in their spare time performed better in the operating room, as well.[4]
[1] Skills acquired on LapSim transfer into the operating room, Gunnar Ahlberg et al., The American Journal of Surgery, 2007:193, p797
[2] Novice performance level bypassed by VR simulation training, Christian Rifbjerg Larsen et al., British Medical Journal, 2009:338, p1802
[3] VR laparoscopic training outperforms traditional curriculum, Vanessa Palter et al., Annals of Surgery, 2013:257, p 224
There are genres of video games much more deserving of strict regulation than "brain-training" games which may or may not be backed by science.
Way too many mobile games I've played function like casinos. Their goal is to make players spend as much money as possible and the game design reinforces such behavior and also keeps the player coming back like an addict attempting to avoid the negative symptoms of withdrawal.
When it comes to the safety of players, I think these money sinks are a much bigger concern than games that may or may not enhance cognitive abilities.
My experience after over 35 years of hardcore gaming (since I first saw pong).
Largely, video games are about linear optimizations with multiple complex variables in a highly dynamic (borderline chaotic) environment. This approaches the complexity of day to day life, as many people can understand their situation in life. Unlike life, there are known bounds for most games or it takes a finite amount of time to explore these bounds to sufficient understanding to progress in some metric (usually winning ratio, but also APM or K/D ratio).
Frustration is largely a result of RNG punishment (that can FAIL? Why did my mats disappear after my 4 hours of grinding? etc) or participation failure (there were 3 of you and you couldn't handle 1?) or mechanics failure (imba <mechanic> just wrecks everyone) which includes nerfing a mechanic a player relies on. Every now and then you will also see player frustration related to a lack of dextrous skill (bullet hell shooters, fps games, rts apm, etc) or understanding (this game's <x> is just broken! - even though the game is founded around that mechanic being the strongest - i.e. Chess/Queen, Counter Strike/CT pistols > glock).
Like text puzzles or mindgames, video games allow for people to constantly develop strategies and exercise them for a complexity level that is uncommon in human experience. In group settings, the gamers generally come up with solutions to problems (of various quality) quickly and decisively, then will later discuss deeper strategy. Video game trial-and-error trains for that kind of approach and lots of playtime tends to treat indecisiveness as disadvantageous.
Does it make you smarter? Not that I have seen. Does it make you faster? Yes, it trains you to optimize your reaction time at a moment's notice and there is a dopamine feedback loop, even if you are a poor performer. Does it help you long-term in staving off cognitive decline? Probably not directly, but there was a study about constantly challenging your mind to combat decline, iirc.
It's funny, because we'll talk all day long about how (physical) play is so important to a child's cognitive development, never considering that maybe mentally-focused play is also beneficial. The very fact that video games are so compelling/addictive has given them the reputation of being nonproductive, so we tend to assume that they must give little or no benefit to the individual player.
Games are quite passive in the grand scheme of things and do little to actually challenge cognition. Compared to other basic toys / learning devices, video games don't have compelling research because I don't think it'll work out. There's no 3 dimensional space to work through (Legos), no emotional play (dolls, action figures), visual imagination time (crayons, Play Doh)...on and on and on with better examples that don't need batteries and are more stimulating than being a button mashing monkey.
These do not even require puzzle/building games, most video games that require the player to move trough a 3D virtual environment train the players ability to "mentally rotate objects" and for "visual imagination" (gotta build a map in your head of that virtual place), in this case the games world.
Many people who regularly play games don't realize this, but keeping oriented in a virtual space is not something many people are good with by nature. It only feels natural to many gamers because they are used to it.
And I'd say anything that involves some kind of "multiplayer" can add emotional play, even more so in games that require coordination between several players on a bigger scale, like MMORPGs. The social drama I've witnessed in games like WoW is some of the worst drama I've ever seen ;)
> Games are quite passive in the grand scheme of things and do little to actually challenge cognition.
1. Sure they do, although I admit it depends on the game. I'd say video games are more mentally challenging than school, most of the time. I remember most of grade school being kind of a walkover, whereas the games I played were much more consistently challenging, especially when against other people.
2. If what you say is true, why does the research show cognitive improvements from some types of games?
> Compared to other basic toys / learning devices, video games don't have compelling research
What research they do have has shown improvements, though (did you not even read the pdf this thread is based on?). You're not even attempting to refute this, instead you're just ignoring it. Why?
> There's no 3 dimensional space to work through (Legos), no emotional play (dolls, action figures), visual imagination time (crayons, Play Doh)...on and on and on with better examples that don't need batteries and are more stimulating than being a button mashing monkey.
It sounds like you're just not very experienced with video games. I'd take competitive Starcraft as a beneficial cognitive toy over Legos any day of the week.
Here's a question for you: how many more traditional toys involve strategy? Board games do, obviously, they're also games. But other toys rarely do, and that's one thing video games have in spades. Even visceral, run-and-gun action games usually involve a fair bit of strategizing, even if it's just "what's the optimal path to kill these zombies?"
Heck, what parts of school teach any kind of strategic thinking? I struggle to think of anything part of a standard curriculum.
Yes, I believe video games like all interactions with modern _consumer_ electronics have the potential to make you passive, lacking in drive or addicted and jade you emotionally _if you overuse them_. This is becoming increasingly clear to me having spent 10,000+ hours playing video games.
They're insidious in the sense that there's not necessarily anything wrong with the themes on display or that they could not be considered complex, strategic, realistic, imaginative or <insert desirable attribute> _in the world they portray_.
It's more the superficial, that is audiovisual via unnatural interfaces, mode of interaction with them that slowly deprives you of the sense of what "the real world" feels like (smell/taste, heat/cold, tactile features, real three-dimensional sight/hearing) if there is or has been no strong counterbalance, i.e. "going outside/into nature", "real socialisation", that could (have) give(n) rise to the meaning or "flavor" of objects and interactions in virtual worlds in the first place. Smartphones are easily one of the worst offenders when it comes to the artificiality and shallowness of the interaction with them and - not owning one - I can only imagine what they do to the young generation...
Additionally they also diminish or at least they don't promote a certain kind of imaginativeness, which is more a flaw of any visual medium: Because everything is laid out for you, there's no need to exert yourself with trying to form mental images in your head or fill in the gaps, especially with modern audio-visuals. This'll become clear whenever you read a book. I'll admit that books are also passive in the sense that you never have to come up with original ideas pertaining to the flow or outcome of the story, but you get the point.
I know that not all games are created equal and several promote the idea of "being creative", "open world", etc, and they're probably less bad in this area, as is evidenced by huge modding communities although it remains unclear to me if those are lead by a tiny percentage of very productive members or if there's a widespread participation.
The epitome of all this are the hugely popular "Let's plays" where you now not even need to play games yourself, but are presented a "performance" by mostly uninteresting/unskilled individuals (my verdict), which seems like something that should never even exist outside maybe game reviews or other, more purposeful activity [1].
The above said, movies and videos are even worse offenders in essentially all of those areas, I suppose, but those were usually of short duration or limited availability, which is not so true anymore either, so a lot of what I wrote applies more strongly to them actually.
I'd even claim that with the non-ending, because largely archived, supply of virtual distractions and increasing consumption of those there's no wonder that, as is my impression (I don't want to go hunting for sources now, but I can speak from experience and refer to plausibility), attention spans are decreasing, as is the capability to for example write clearly and concisely, which would admittedly be a symptom of the former, nor that there's a growing NEET population without drive or goals: The machines and a highly productive creative industry think for you now in more and more areas of living.
[1] Interestingly the most widely watched and subscribed to (and insufferable) YouTuber in that area, PewDiePie, seems to be coming around to the ideas presented in this comment as well: https://youtu.be/osPKCm7jmeQ?t=6m14s
Using Visual Studio is kind of like a simple video game. Make the red underlined errors go away! Pew! Pew! Select the right intellisense on the fly to complete the puzzle! Deploy the right code snippet for the situation!
Pretty sure it's enhancing my cognitive abilities too.
Hah! Yes, and there's a lot to be said for actual games which require problem solving in order to progress. And even more those which result in something unique being created as the outcome.
In fact, your comment has made me thought of an educational type game which when completed results in a 3D model file produced, which when printed, can be manipulated a certain way to provide access to the next stage in the game.
Right.. I'm gonna think some more about this. Meanwhile, someone else reading this can steal the idea, it's all good, I'll probably never do it anyway 'cos I'm too busy playing games every single day.
I wonder what the impact of pay to win type games?
Had an interesting discussion with my bro who is into gaming he says most of his peers are playing "pay to win" the games are only superficially based on skill and the only way to progress, compete and win is buying upgrades.
I stopped playing games seriously a while back so a bit out of the loop.
The games are rewarding $$$ over putting in the effort/time to learn.
I'm curious about a few things:
What are the effects of these types of games?
Could it discourage effort, make people believe they can buy their way to skills without effort?
What are the impacts of constant gamification? The app stores are filled with toddler games heavily gamified. Are we creating a generation of people that will be purely extrinsically motivated?
F2P is a different approach to gaming where you play the game for Free so no monthly fees and most of the time no need to buy the game, this way you can attract even more player.
Here's a quick example for an F2P MMO with PVP and the difference between both models :
You can have F2P (free to play) games where there's no P2W, meaning
the progression is EQUAL for paying and non paying players, the only difference is that you can buy aesthetic items which change how you look, buy extra storage space,etc but give no real advantage other than looking cool or giving you very small benefits.
In P2W model, the way to progress through the game is that you can purchase in-game currency with real money and unlock special items , stronger powers, blessed items (if you die in PVP you won't lose everything), experience booster while leveling your character,etc these items give you an edge over non paying players, so if you stack all the paying items you basically win every fights against non paying players. Therefore no matter what you do in this game you MUST pay to compete.
I was a severe world of warcraft addict and I'm pretty sure it had a permanent effect on my cognition, whether that effect was 'bad' is an open question but there's no doubt in my mind that video games have an enormous effect on your way of thinking.
Your comment needs elaboration. Claims of "permanent cognitive effects" and "enormous effect on way of thinking" surely can be supported with examples.
If you can't describe those enormous effects, there's a good chance you simply missed out on social occasions and a bunch of things happening around you outside in your community while you played games, and that void of reality is enough to warrant claims of "enormous effects". In other words, lifestyle disruption and reality substitution. Just a theory I'm putting out there!
Tbh I didn't want to say too much about myself but it's sort of useless info anyway.
Mostly it's about the emotional connections I made with people many times my age (at the time), the fact that I was treated based on the way I communicated and prejudice was completely arbitrary (gnomes suck etc.) Basically a lot of intangibles in my way of thinking that developed during that time which would have been significantly different if I had spent that formative time in the physical realm with kids from the same cultural bubble and in the same place mentally.
I write this because I quit video games almost entirely a year ago. I played probably 500-700 hours of video games in 2015. I played occasionally simple games on my phone in 2016.
The major downside for me was that I felt video games only improve my ability to play video games. I favored online games over single player games, but at the same time, I felt the addiction behind it. I can't play video games "for fun". I want to be good and that costs time. Video games have the downside of giving players easy rewards. I think it does something bad to your brain. Not necessarily altering it forever, but at least turning one into a little dopamine junkie.
In 2016, I spend about 40 times 3 hours in a private art school. I improved my drawing and painting skills a lot in merely 120 hours. That was a much better investment of my time than video games and I wonder if the forced concentration of looking at objects and colors for 3 hours straight had comparable improvements of cognitive abilities.
Anyways, what I want to say is this: If you feel that you're wasting too much time on video games, despite what research tries to spin positively about it, try to quit them and see what happens.