Video Games: Brainfood or Brainf***?

[J-Max]

I was in a heated discussion with a friend a while back regarding this. Some people used to say that "Video game will rot your brain!". What they don't seem to understand is that Video Games can help to stimulate a persons's brain and to help them feel relaxed. Also some Video Games can also be used as a tool to expand on Knowledge and Hand Eye co-ordination.

 

My question to you is simply this Does Video Games hinder or help the community?

 

Feel free to move to Debates if it's a little too closed for General.

[Larxene]

Depends on how addicted to them you are. If you just play them every once in a while to relax, then yeah that's fine. But if you play them as often as I do (Or used to, I mostly just spend time online these days.) then it distracts you from more important things you should be doing.

[Eury]

Food.

 

Pokemanz taught me math.

[Dizzy~]

Depends on what game.

Brainage is Brainfood, while SSBB or Pokemon is Brainf***. Although it is nice to play a few Fighting games every once in a while. But I can every day. eye gawtz teh smawtikls. (I got the smarticles)

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

I'd go with Brainfood.

Some of them are educational

But it really depends on the game itself.

[Lonk]

Actually, video games help develop brain power. Since I cannot do copy & paste URL, I will tell you that the title of the video is called "What video games really teach children". It has all of the information you are looking for (again, don't ask me for a URL since Youtube's renovations removed the only way I can get URLs).

[Gascan]

They are both.

[tommers2008]

Both, most games require learning, common sense, skills and thinking and a few others don't.

[J-Max]

Games like Grand Theft Auto may be controversial but they also supress the Killer instinct of the brain.

[DARKPLANT RISING]

It depends on whether it's a computer site whose initials starts with YC and end with M, or it's something else. The front line is brainf***. The other is brainfood.

[MarbleZone]

Games like Grand Theft Auto may be controversial but they also supress the Killer instinct of the brain.

 

This is by no means true.

 

Anyway; personally, I learned a lot of English playing RPGs, it expanded my vocabulary tremendously, but I'm sure that has been their only positive contribution.

Videogames by themselves do nothing wrong. If you are the type of person to neglect everything else in life, it's your problem, not the game's. If you take GTA, adapt it to real life and start hijacking cars, it's your mentally-impaired brain's fault, not the game's.

If anything, videogames can be regarded as colossal time-wasters, but that's just about the only thing you can point a finger at them for, and even then, it depends entirely on your personal approach to gaming.

[Dark]

You won't believe how many Latin roots and Japanese words I've learned just by looking up Pokemon names' origins on Bulbapedia.

 

You won't believe how much I've gotten better at mental math just by playing competitive battling (eg. Leftover numbers, EV distribution, stat totals, etc.).

 

It really depends on the game, but nothing "rots your brain" unless you extensively play (like Larxene stated) to the point where you are not doing other things. And that isn't rotting your brain, that is just a really bad and time-consuming addiction.

 

My point? Video games are cool beens, as long as you aren't a dumbass who plays Halo 3 22 hours in a day like Larxene.

[Clair]

Video games are beneficial to you because...

 

- They provide help in understanding rhythm and facets of music. (On-beat, off-beat, scales, etc.) [Rhythm Heaven]

 

- They sometimes include brain-bending logical puzzles that stretch the imagination. [Layton]

 

- They sometimes tell a beautiful and heart-wrenching story. [Mother 3]

 

*insert raving about Wii Fit, Brain Age, and Jam Session here*

 

As long as you don't let video games take over your life, your brain should prosper and not rot.

 

*coughcoughCOD4andHaloall-nighters*

[Dark]

Oh, and let's not forget the all important hand-eye coordination and strategy from war games (Fire Emblem, I think it was).

[Dizzy~]

Layton

 

<3

 

... Wait, what were we talking about? Oh yeah!

 

Layton stimulates the brain, or something sientifical like that.

[sbatman505]

i learned from video games that Caeser is king of Greece

[MarbleZone]

i learned from video games that Caeser is king of Greece

 

Never has my opinion been so utterly crushed with so little effort.

[DARKPLANT RISING]

i learned from video games that Caeser is king of Greece

 

Never has my opinion been so utterly crushed with so little effort.

I'm going to crush your opinion even more.

 

I learned from video games that monsters breathe fire.

[Christian Exodia]

Brainfood & F***.

 

Some, like Pokemon, can teach skills.

 

Some are even all educational.

 

Others, I say a monkey typed them up, they have NO education at all.

 

And the others, well, I just say you need puberty behind you to play.

[2sick4u]

Games like Grand Theft Auto may be controversial but they also supress the Killer instinct of the brain.

 

This is by no means true.

 

Actually' date=' I disagree. Whilst J-max could not of worded his argument worse [referring to a 'killer instinct''], video games along the scale of Grand Theft Auto, whilst not being known to trigger violence, have been known to attract those who are more naturally aggressive. Most people take the perspective that this natural aggressive state is heightened by violent games, when in all actuality, the consistent violence in the game desensitizes the individual to violence itself. It is by no means the sole responsibility of the game, as it is not entirely negligent in producing violence. The individuals contributory negligence, consenting to the use of the game for large periods of time, is. That being said, don't disagree with someone if only to leave it there, and say "Anyways". It makes you look like a tool.

 

Anyway; personally, I learned a lot of English playing RPGs, it expanded my vocabulary tremendously, but I'm sure that has been their only positive contribution.

 

Just because you can articulate one of the results of playing the game, doesn't mean it's the only result of playing the game.

 

Videogames by themselves do nothing wrong. If you are the type of person to neglect everything else in life, it's your problem, not the game's. If you take GTA, adapt it to real life and start hijacking cars, it's your mentally-impaired brain's fault, not the game's.

 

I don't see why people only take the two extremities of this into consideration. Yes, responsibility rests somewhat upon the individual. Yes, using a game as motivation to steal isn't mentally sound. Your hypothetical situation though, implies the game being capable of influencing people into replicated it's content, because the individual allowed it to. Which is like saying, if an adult film were to be played in a public location, it's obviously the child's fault for playing witness to it, and not that of the movie itself. So no, the responsibility for any adaptation from a violent game is not rested solely on the individual.

 

If anything, videogames can be regarded as colossal time-wasters, but that's just about the only thing you can point a finger at them for, and even then, it depends entirely on your personal approach to gaming.

 

Regarding something interactive as being void of influence whatsoever, eh? Yeah, that sounds good to me too.

 

Sanctioning violent stimulants into your life is sanctioning violent stimulants into your life, regardless of personal approach.

 

Response in italics. Note, these aren't all my personal opinions, you just seem to be confident in this area and I felt like debating.

[MarbleZone]

How do I reply to your "post" in an aesthetically functional manner? :P

 

Actually' date=' I disagree. Whilst J-max could not of worded his argument worse [referring to a 'killer instinct''], video games along the scale of Grand Theft Auto, whilst not being known to trigger violence, have been known to attract those who are more naturally aggressive. Most people take the perspective that this natural aggressive state is heightened by violent games, when in all actuality, the consistent violence in the game desensitizes the individual to violence itself. It is by no means the sole responsibility of the game, as it is not entirely negligent in producing violence. The individuals contributory negligence, consenting to the use of the game for large periods of time, is. That being said, don't disagree with someone if only to leave it there, and say "Anyways". It makes you look like a tool.

 

What you said is entirely different from what J-Max said. I'm not a fan of "citation please" replies, but we're debating a point where some sort of study would be helpful. I firmly believe a game's violent content won't ease someone's need for violence in a significant manner. Violent people may enjoy it, but it won't make them any less violent in real life, because there is no logical reason for that to happen. I love tennis, and playing Virtua Tennis doesn't desensitize me to the point where I don't feel the need to play it in real life. As a side note, "desensitizing" someone to violence doesn't mean their need for violence is sated, it means they won't be able to tell that it's wrong.

The opposite does happen, as we know, because the game stimulates a person to look for experiences in real life similar to those he went through while playing, and that generally involves some impairment.

Also, the way I replied to J-Max's post was intentional - I don't like opinions passed as facts without any sort of development to back it up. :/

 

Just because you can articulate one of the results of playing the game' date=' doesn't mean it's the only result of playing the game.[/i']

 

That was a personal perspective. My own experience of playing games had that positive effect on my life, I'm not applying it to the general population on that one. ;)

 

I don't see why people only take the two extremities of this into consideration. Yes' date=' responsibility rests somewhat upon the individual. Yes, using a game as motivation to steal isn't mentally sound. Your hypothetical situation though, implies the game being capable of influencing people into replicated it's content, because the individual allowed it to. Which is like saying, if an adult film were to be played in a public location, it's obviously the child's fault for playing witness to it, and not that of the movie itself. So no, the responsibility for any adaptation from a violent game is not rested solely on the individual. [/i']

 

It is if the person can be legally held responsible for his/her actions. This naturally excludes young children and psychiatric cases - these being the most frequent situations, and a minority.

My point is, gaming companies shouldn't be held responsible for situations where someone blew everything out of proportion and did something based on what they saw in a game. Holding them accountable for these incidents is like blaming a doctor that correctly prescribes medication for a patient that overdoses because he felt the recommended dosage wasn't being effective.

 

Regarding something interactive as being void of influence whatsoever' date=' eh? Yeah, that sounds good to me too.[/i']

 

No - delegating the responsibility of controlling that influence on the person that plays the game. Either he can, or he can't. If he can and doesn't, it's his responsibility. Maybe I didn't get your point on this one :/

 

Sanctioning violent stimulants into your life is sanctioning violent stimulants into your life' date=' regardless of personal approach.[/i']

 

Sanctioning is not the same as imposing. And for the average person, there is no problem with sanctioning those stimulants; I find it much more abhorrent to censor them because a minority might take it the wrong way. This applies to videogames the same way it applies to anything else that might eventually be a stimulus to a crime. If we criticize portrayed violence, we have to criticize portrayed sexual content, religious content, religious indifference, rebellious behaviour, extreme sports and anything else that might be influential or offensive, and that's just not reasonable in today's society.

 

Sorry if I missed some of your points or didn't provide as good a counter-argument as you expected - the language barrier sometimes makes it difficult, but that aside, I'm really not used to debating either.

[2sick4u]

How do I reply to your "post" in an aesthetically functional manner? :P

 

I considered mine to be aesthetically functional' date=' but each to their own. :P.

 

What you said is entirely different from what J-Max said.

 

Haha, I realized after I went to bed that night, hence some of my out-of-place wording. But yes, it was a parallax error of excessive skim reading, and I thought suppress was a different word. >_>". Which is awkward for the sake of my rebuttal and that we might come into agreement, but eh.

 

I'm not a fan of "citation please" replies' date=' but we're debating a point where some sort of study would be helpful.

[/quote']

 

I'd do the same thing.

 

I firmly believe a game's violent content won't ease someone's need for violence in a significant manner.

 

According to the supplied source' date=' violence in video games doesn't act as an outlet for a person's need for violence in real life. It in-fact, acts as a way of desensitizing an individual to violent acts. As in, making them less hesitant to perform them.

 

Violent people may enjoy it, but it won't make them any less violent in real life, because there is no logical reason for that to happen.

 

It has been documented multiple times, I believe, that violent people are the main causes of real violence as a result of video games. When one is already prone to aggression, video game violence (Also in the source, I'm not too sure) heightens this aggression to at-least some degree. I'm not saying other external factors don't also contribute to this aggression, I'm merely saying the video games do indeed play a role.

 

I love tennis' date=' and playing Virtua Tennis doesn't desensitize me to the point where I don't feel the need to play it in real life.

[/quote']

 

Tennis isn't morally frowned upon. The argument in point is violent video games. So I'm not really sure what how this is analogous to the topic at hand.

 

As a side note' date=' "desensitizing" someone to violence doesn't mean their need for violence is sated, it means they won't be able to tell that it's wrong.

[/quote']

 

Which, in turn makes them more likely and willing to commit the act, no?

 

The opposite does happen' date=' as we know, because the game stimulates a person to look for experiences in real life similar to those he went through while playing, and that generally involves some impairment.

[/quote']

 

Define "impairment" in this context?

 

Also' date=' the way I replied to J-Max's post was intentional - I don't like opinions passed as facts without any sort of development to back it up. :/

[/quote']

 

I knew we'd agree somewhere. :|. I share the dislike. However, though I don't mind J-max so much, I have rarely seen him be thorough. After 10,000 posts or something, I probably wouldn't be either.

 

That was a personal perspective. My own experience of playing games had that positive effect on my life' date=' I'm not applying it to the general population on that one. ;)

[/quote']

 

Whether you were applying it to a mass or a sample doesn't disprove my point. Kind of. ;). I was more saying that what you perceive the game's impact on you to be, isn't the only impact it can have. As, it in all likelihood, can take subconscious effects.

 

It is if the person can be legally held responsible for his/her actions. This naturally excludes young children and psychiatric cases - these being the most frequent situations' date=' and a minority.

[/quote']

 

Simply because the justice system 'is', doesn't mean it isn't flawed. Legal responsibility is often partial, as almost all crimes have a counter-acting defense. Murder without intention, intoxication, provocation. There are numerous examples of real-life crimes that are similar to video games. As such, are you saying these 'minorities' who have been directly influenced by video gaming culture are somehow irrelevant? Is society meant to correspond with video gaming influence, and not naming it as partial to any crime at all? Note, again. Not my opinion, I'm just intrigued in yours.

 

My point is' date=' gaming companies shouldn't be held responsible for situations where someone blew everything out of proportion and did something based on what they saw in a game. Holding them accountable for these incidents is like blaming a doctor that correctly prescribes medication for a patient that overdoses because he felt the recommended dosage wasn't being effective.

[/quote']

 

So although the game explicitly outlines the experience of violent acts, it has no responsibility for the replication of which? A game is still an interactive object, designed to immerse the user into it's gameplay, after all. Whilst not all are effected, mowing down an airport full of unarmed civilians in the likes of one of the highest grossing games (Modern Warfare 2, that is) would surely affect the moral obligation of those who oppose violence. Yes, acts where it's exactly replicated are rare to non-existent. But the familiarity the game gives the user to violence must contribute to the surges to be violent in modern times? Unless you disagree, of course.

 

As for your analogy, video games are far more easier to obtain than any individual prescription. Nor do you have to be in any altered state to get it.

 

 

No - delegating the responsibility of controlling that influence on the person that plays the game. Either he can' date=' or he can't. If he can and doesn't, it's his responsibility. Maybe I didn't get your point on this one :/

[/quote']

 

Giving an individual the choice as to whether or not he commits a violent act, so long as he accepts responsibility, is asinine. Why avoid prevention, when it is indeed possible? Why merely consider the murdered from school killings and such an 'individuals' responsibility?

 

You got my point, I'm just exploiting yours. (:

 

 

Sanctioning is not the same as imposing. And for the average person' date=' there is no problem with sanctioning those stimulants; I find it much more abhorrent to [i']censor[/i] them because a minority might take it the wrong way. This applies to videogames the same way it applies to anything else that might eventually be a stimulus to a crime. If we criticize portrayed violence, we have to criticize portrayed sexual content, religious content, religious indifference, rebellious behaviour, extreme sports and anything else that might be influential or offensive, and that's just not reasonable in today's society.

 

This is decent. Very decent. My argument is similar, that there is no foundation to support commercial censorship. However, some of the things you mentioned are already critically censored. Fundamentalist content outside of jurisdiction, to the extent of my knowledge, is censored. If not, frowned upon heavily. Political correctness is abundant to the point of obsession in modern society. As such, if it's so common, and so much is being restricted in content and influence, then how can video games be secluded? Surely, with the appropriate occurrences and heavy debate, there's enough controversy over the issue to allow censorship into reason.

 

Point being, plenty has been censored in the past for being offensive or influential, whilst plenty hasn't. Applying such censorship to video games would not, in my opinion, give cause to apply it on a mass standard.

 

Sorry if I missed some of your points or didn't provide as good a counter-argument as you expected - the language barrier sometimes makes it difficult' date=' but that aside, I'm really not used to debating either.

[/quote']

 

Language barrier? If English isn't your first language, I'm pretty impressed. As I am with your counter-arguments. You're smarter than most of the people on this site, comrade.

[Βyakuya]

Video games itself are still good. Too Much video games are bad for you.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

The effect can't be generalized, since like one's opinion on a game it varies based on the actual content and the person playing.

[2sick4u]

Video games itself are still good. Too Much video games are bad for you.

 

UUUURRRRRRR.

 

The effect can't be generalized' date=' since like one's opinion on a game it varies based on the actual content and the person playing.

[/quote']

 

I'm sorry, what?

 

Of course it does. The argument is whether or not the minority of people that are effected is sufficient enough, based upon the content of specific games, for their to be censorship.