9/04/06
The narrow focus the authors take on the central premise that "all differences of the gamer generation are driven by one factor: growing up with video games" (page 2) makes the premise weak and open for attack. The generalization that video games are the *only* factor, not mentioning other huge issues such as there's never been a major war or economic depression in the lifetime of the gamers. Such a lack of major culture-wide events has certainly fostered a difference in outlook, among other things. Or, as children of the "me me me" generation, we've always been the center of the universe and somewhat spoiled You could ask me what kid didn't have soccer, piano, art club, and scouts every week, but perhaps it's a result, that parents who wanted everything great for themselves also used their power to acquire everything great for their kids.
From the authors' word choices, I've gotten the strong impression that the authors are on the "side" of the baby boomers who don't understand what's going on with "them": the far-away gamer generation under the microscope. Ok, I could understand, be honest about where you are coming from and present your information in a way that will be understood by your audience (primarily the boomers who the authors are 'totally going to explain gamers to without boomers having to learn to play)--BUT you don't need to do it in a condescending tone and reinforce the same stereotypes that your content argues is trying to overcome.
The authors describe the gamer youth, but I find it disturbing that they never concede that not all gamers are young. I understand that they are looking only at the people who grew up with games and so focusing on a particular age range, but I really want them to acknowledge who they are looking at as a segment of the actual "gamers" in the world. (Hello? ESA: average gamer age is 33. 25% of gamers are 50+.) The real "gamers" are larger than the "gamer generation," who are the subsegment of "gamers." Frustration due to lack of clarity and acknowledgement. They're misleading: from their text, it sounds like all gamers are part of the gamer generation and the young people make up all gamers.
Back to disagreeing with the authors' word choices: they consistently refer to video games as not being a "real-life experience" (ex. p 11, second bullet). I agree that the technology creates these virtual games, and that the player isn't really in a dungeon swinging a sword in medieval times, but that does not mean that the player's current experience is not a valid real-world experience, as playing the game. Maybe this is where my stripes as being a gamer kid show through to distagree with the authors, where I value the experience, but I think that the authors' demonstrated lack of understanding the value in the game expereince eloquently describes the reality that the authors and the boomers like them do not understand. I was trying to think of a parallel, and the closest I've come is perhaps boomers have memories of being posied in front of the family television as children watching an episode of I Love Lucy (or whatever). The boomer can have a vivid, emotionally charged memory of watching the episode, of the humor or drama experienced, the feeling of being stretched out on the carpet eating a snack during the episode with the rest of the family with tv tray tables... the description can go on. But, the child boomer was still watching a tv image, not actually gobbling chocolates with Lucy and Ethyl from the manufacturing line. The boomer had just as much of a "virtual, non-real-world" experience as a gamer, to be consistent with the authors' view, though it seems like the authors would disagree with that even! The television expierience is a passive experience, whereas the game is at least an interactive media, but I'm not sure if this is arguing apples and oranges in types of experiences being more valid or valuable than others. Both experiences aim for the cathartic experience, just as in drama or art. (Aristotle, rock on.) In the end, my point here is that both the game and the television experiences *are* valid, real-life, cathartic experiences, and the authors are making a bad point in calling video games non-real-life experiences.
There are many issues with some of Box I-2's points. A sampling follows: - Trial-and-error is usually not the best plan, and most games involve some type of strategy or puzzle solving solution, so blindly fumbling around will not help you play a game. - Things are *not* unrealistically simple. Take EverQuest's complex social structure. Let me see the authors or anyone figure that one out entirely and report back. Games are ultimately based on humans and inherit the complexity of humans. While some can be incredibly simple yet fun, even looking at why they are fun reveals inner complexity below the simple surface. - We are *not* all alone. The gaming experience is quite often not solitary, be it with an MMO or at a LAN party. Party of the experience extends out to talking to other gamers about the game experience. The authors are missing a large network of what "playing a game" really can be. - Young people do not rule. The authors picked up some cocky line in the back of their minds about "kids always disrespectin'" or some such garbage. Note the reverential awe a gamer pays to a fellow gamer with impressive skills or acomplishments. Age is does not define the gamer, yet there is attention paid to "elders of experience." Similar argument for the later bullet point on p 14 about ignoring leaders. Why are there even support class characters in RPGs if gamers are incapable of teamwork and leadership? - People are not simple. The authors may as well be reading a quick bulletin sent out from Hillary Clinton's office on "What are video games?" Characters and relationships are complex, evoking catharsis with the best of 'em. Example: ask a gamer how they felt when Aeris died in Final Fantasy 7. Emotion in games has come a long way from pong. - Why is video gaming rebelling? Because the older generation doesn't understand something, it's labelled as a rebellion: a direct attack on the older generation's way of life. Hm, that's been hapening since the dawn of time (as the author's quoting of Socrates also suggested.) Interesting that the authors seems to see that there is a consistency to generation gaps, and yet the authors fail to categorize generation gaps into "issues common to all generation gaps" and "issues unique to the gamer generation gaping the boomers," the latter of which should be the true focus of the book. (Ex. p 19 wher ethe authors' describe "getting it" and generation gaps. They seem to understand the material, and yet they fail to consistently apply their knowledge to the gamers. They keep filtering it through their own "baby boomer" lenses and the result comes out stereotypical and distorted.) - Why is video gaming escaping from something else? It's a valid destination, and is not universally or necessarily a result of avoiding something else.
Near the end of the intro, where the authors openly express their intent of the book to explain the gamer generation and how to deal to other boomers in the audience, the "boomer filter" of the authors is easily seen in their assumption that a boomer professional could "see what it's really like inside the world of video games (without burning hundreds of hours with game controller inhand.)" That assumption, which the authors hold true and I find to be utterly ridiculous, shows the tint of the authors perspective on the gamer generation subject. WHile I think that the authors could do a great job at describing the gamer generation and techniques for interaction, the authors will not be able to relay that experience of being inside without having to play games. It's like taking diet pills and you can still eat all you want but still lose all of that weight, but in the end there's plenty of sh*t that must be dealt with. Gaming is experiential, no easy way around it, but the authors are misguided if they think they're "in on it" either.
And on to the Chapter 1: Lots of history and more stereotypes on behalf of the authors, who try to point out that "this stereotype is totally wrong and here's why," and yet the authors' tone still reinforces boomer misconceptions about gamers.
Oh what crap, that the bubble and ultimate demise of the Dot.Bomb was the fault of the rules and worldview that gamers got from playing games as kids, with the implication that if those signs had happened to us the boomers, that never wouldda happened and we wouldda known the bubble was going to burst! And then the authors are explaining how it all adds up, but in such a snot-filled tone where the actions of the gamer generation are absolutely absurd-why didn't they slow down and pay their dues! the authors seem to ask of gamers. The bullet points of the "principles that gamers really believed in" brings up many of the earlier points I argued with above.
Why is being a gamer such a bad thing? Why are the different values and beliefs so negative? DO the authors and the boomers fear change so greatly that "of course the changing ideas of the next generation ar bad! Humbug!" It happens every generation, and has happened forever, and yet I don't understand hwo the generation can't see "something" coming, if not clearly what "it" is. Universe will change. Prepare to deal with it. The kids after me will send my universe into a spiral years down the road, but need I bash them because of course it's all bad?
Gah. What a frustrating book to read.