The Utility of Computer Games

Years ago, when I still wanted to become a computer games journalist, I wrote a couple short essays about the utility of computer games. Tonight I want to write my final conclusions, now that I only use games to socialize and maintain my Spanish comprehension.

First then -- what are computer games definitely good for?

1) Maintaining comprehension of a foreign language (especially for the taciturn). Many of today's big budget games come with full voice work in a language you're probably studying; and in the future, this fact will probably be even more so, as budgets and audiences get bigger. 

Computer game characters often give you hints and directions; if you're playing the game in a different language, and you want to win, chances are you'll listen carefully to what those computer people say.

2) Socializing. As they are games. This may be hard for many to believe (especially considering the 80+ hour, single-player, role-playing game), but games which have or often produce dramatic stories can be fun to watch & share. 

Games have such a long history of promoting solidarity that I'll end this self-evident point here.

3) A novel experience. If you've never played a first-person shooter, then, if you want to see all that life has to offer, you should check out a good one if you can. Play Portal. Play Left 4 Dead 2 on your PC or Mac or Linux-based computer, and make sure you have Skype, a mic, and a few good friends. And I could list other genres and their games, but I won't because the point's simple: some computer games offer something vivid and unique; they are an amalgamation of film, music, sculpture, architecture, literature, painting, drawing, game design, and simulation. With exposure to the best of this fairly new art form, you'll be a more rounded person (unless you play too many of them, of course). Also, remember that most sequels exist only to please shareholders and make corporations richer.

And that's basically it. Everything else that it's purportedly good for are petty. 

Let's go through them.

For example: mapping a space (or to be more precise, being able to map an environment efficiently and accurately, and thus navigate it well without help). There's been plenty of research over the years showing this; but really, who cares? You're going to develop this skill simply by doing it in real life, starting when you're a child. And although I'm sure there are people with special needs for whom games can give them that extra skill-boost, that special needs group is minuscule.

What about fun? Sure, some games are fun, a lot of fun, even. But fun isn't a good argument because a lot of things that are even funner and cheaper than computer games are fun, such as friends. Indeed, my experience has shown that friends generally are the funnest part of a game experience, and in life in general. Plus life for many was quite fun (game experience-wise) before computer games took off. 

Not to say the fun argument is totally empty. Rather, I think that THAT they can be fun is a quality that embeds itself into those first three things above that games are definitely good for.

What about problem-solving skills? The argument against this is the same as the space-mapping one. Chances are you'll take many math classes, up through calculus if you expect to get into or through a good four-year university/college. Also in school, you'll do extra-curricular activities and whatnot (if you expect to compete with your peers). Plus you'll play (non-computer game) games that practice your problem-solving. Plus most days you solve manifold problems while not playing games. So, no. Problem solving doesn't cut it.

Concomitant to problem solving: creativity and intelligence? To the creativity argument: if you can't make a living by playing computer games (which is most of us), then you're better off becoming more creative by creating something for which people will pay you a living wage. And as for intelligence? Well, reading, exercise, socializing, and being healthy in general are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better at boosting your intelligence than computer games are (and, statistically-speaking, are lacking in most people's lives, especially those of most computer gamers'). Not to say that computer games can't boost these things (or that there aren't people with special needs for whom computer games aren't especially useful), but, if you look at the most important 20-30 somethings in the world, you'll notice that they've spent way more time reading and being-healthy-in-general than they have playing computer games; in fact, chances are you'll find that computer games have composed little (if any) of their spare time.

Also, I should mention: simulation. Computer games can simulate things that are too expensive or dangerous to practice in the real world. But currently this only affects a very small portion of us, so I don't include this as an apology for gaming as a hobby.

AAAAAAAND that's pretty much it. In short, computer games DO have a place. It's just important (if we actually value our lives) that we accept what those places are. Too often I hear gamers say that "It's just my personal preference and....I play computer games therefore I am," and similar nonsense that science refuted decades ago. 

In the meantime, I'm excited about the indie game Mewgenics, and today I'll play a little bit of the indie game Surgeon Simulator 2013.

Not Going to be a Games Critic

I just realized that I can't become a games journalist because my opinions on games are too unorthodox and I don't have anything sexy to offer the gaming readership. So it makes no sense, in every sense, to become a games critic.

This also means I cannot become a professional games journalist, as reviewing takes up a good third (or more) of their work.

So goodbye again.

Extra Note to "I Might Return"

There might be better work out there for me that I'm just unaware of. This sounds terrible, of course. I'm 25 and should know about all the things I can do and what of those I'd care about. But I admit that I might not.

And so I'll pursue this other thing for now, and in my spare time (of which there'll be little) I will do curious things.

If I fail at what I'm doing, or if I can't find anything else, I might return.

I'm trying to become an occupational therapist. I will look into playing piano, singing, acting, maybe even dancing, and definitely humor writing.

I Might Return

I can't stop thinking about computer games, and I can't stop wanting to talk about them.

I don't like reviewing most games because I don't care about most games. But isn't that natural? Can anyone find a games journalist who cares about most games?

Now I'm starting to think that I abandoned games journalism because, and really only because, I was afraid that I'd never get a job in it.

That's not a small thing. The pragmatic person in me says I should take time to make sure I can do something else, something I enjoy, even if I don't care about it nearly as much as I do computer gaming. At least I'll have an enjoyable job, and I'll be able to pay my bills.

But I do have TO CARE about the bill-payer, otherwise I'm just waiting to die, experiencing, now and then, some of the cool works of games-makers.

I will pursue these other things for now. If time permits, or if I simply fail at this other thing, I might return to games journalism.

The Binding of Isaac (Wrath of the Lamb) is better than Super Meat Boy

I found out why The Binding of Isaac (TWoTL) felt repetive: it was because I was playing it tooooo muuuch.

And now to the main topic. Why's  The BoI (TWoTL) better than Super Meat Boy?

Simple: The Binding of Isaac gives you a lot more interesting stuff to see and do. There are thousands of combinations of items (and looks for your naked Bible children); there are many different bosses (which ones will you fight this round? Who knows?); there's even a more interesting story (for an arcade-style computer game, that is).

Super Meat Boy, meanwhile, has this for its story: rescue your girlfriend. And many of the levels feature, basically, the same exact stuff, just arranged differently.

This isn't to say that SMB isn't worth 15 dollars. But having said that, there's no need to finish the game because once you've played enough of it, you've played enough of it; there's really nothing more to see. And based on my experience I'm not even sure if it gets more challenging near the end, if that's what you're into.

The Binding of Isaac (with The Wrath of the Lamb DLC), on the otherhand, is nine dollars.