Ive brought this topic up before, but its come to my attention once again through more media coverage. Basically, theres this 'Baroness' - Susan Greenfield - and she's done all this 'research' into gaming and young minds. One of her statements was as follows: "..well when you read a book, you care about the Princess [who you're trying to save], but in a game, you don't care at all, do you?" To which news reporters and talk show hosts ignorantly nod their heads and agree. Um..on behalf of the gaming community, do you have any clue what the hell you're talking about??! What are your thoughts guys, I come here, to you because this is a great forum for gaming discussion, especially of this sort.
Gamers Detriment - Attack of the 'intellectuals'
- Thread starter solidd
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I dunno, I've never been that attached to characters in books.... both mediums are a bit different as books require more imagination, but I definitely feel this is an unfair categorization promoting books over video games.
I may not care about nameless pedestrian #1232 that I run over in Saints Row 2, but I did care about Carlos in the game. It really all depends on how the author develops the character in order for you to care about them, and that applies to both books and games.
I may not care about nameless pedestrian #1232 that I run over in Saints Row 2, but I did care about Carlos in the game. It really all depends on how the author develops the character in order for you to care about them, and that applies to both books and games.
Sounds like News stations doing nothing more than looking for ways to blow a few minutes of their show.
I personally feel attached to characters from all mediums if its done well, books, films, tv, games. If done well i usually feel sad should any characters die but if done badly i will just laugh at the characters.
I hadn't heard about Greenfield getting involved in the whole gaming furore, and if she is then I'm disappointed because at the moment she's a well respected brain scientist (what's the specialist term for that, it's slipped my mind?) who has done a lot of good for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. So if she actually has some real evidence I may be more inclined to listen to her than that imbecilic cretin of an American "doctor" who has set up clinics for gaming "addiction".
If you could link to what she's saying, I'd be very interested to follow it up - I'm a little apprehensive about commenting further until I have all the details. Having said that, from the brief section you quote I can sort of see her point in as far that often "saving the Princess" is just an objective, and I care more about completing the objective than I do about the "Princess" herself (Princess here obviously being a substitute for any generic rescue scenario or whatnot). On the other hand, there are games in which I have felt an attachment to a character in the same way that I feel an attachment to a character in a book. So as I said, I'd like to know more about what she said.
EDIT: SPaG
If you could link to what she's saying, I'd be very interested to follow it up - I'm a little apprehensive about commenting further until I have all the details. Having said that, from the brief section you quote I can sort of see her point in as far that often "saving the Princess" is just an objective, and I care more about completing the objective than I do about the "Princess" herself (Princess here obviously being a substitute for any generic rescue scenario or whatnot). On the other hand, there are games in which I have felt an attachment to a character in the same way that I feel an attachment to a character in a book. So as I said, I'd like to know more about what she said.
EDIT: SPaG
She must be bored because character attachment just seems like a non issue. Honestly, I could care less about the princess in the book or on the screen, in a movie etc. And she seems to apply this logic to everyone.
She needs to get off her dumb ass and study something more worthwhile, like why stupid hag bitchy old intellectual women conduct studies on stupid shit no one cares about.
She needs to get off her dumb ass and study something more worthwhile, like why stupid hag bitchy old intellectual women conduct studies on stupid shit no one cares about.
She's already been attacked for this "assumption"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7909847.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/feb/25/social-networking
TL
R - Carol Vorderman may be good at Countdown, but would you trust her diet book/hair care regime or insurance adverts? Same with Baroness Greenfield, I believe her studies into Parkinson's/Alzheimer's have far more worth than just making up new truths, like "Doctor" Gillian McKeith.
Links: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1153583/Social-websites-harm-childrens-brains-Chilling-warning-parents-neuroscientist.htmlWiki said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7909847.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/feb/25/social-networking
TL
R - Carol Vorderman may be good at Countdown, but would you trust her diet book/hair care regime or insurance adverts? Same with Baroness Greenfield, I believe her studies into Parkinson's/Alzheimer's have far more worth than just making up new truths, like "Doctor" Gillian McKeith.Sounds like she understands games just fine.
Whether the prize at the end is a princess, a prince, delicious and moist cake, "A winner is you" announcement or OMG PONIES, it's pretty much the same thing unless somehow loaded with more significance. Which most games have no need to do.
Whether the prize at the end is a princess, a prince, delicious and moist cake, "A winner is you" announcement or OMG PONIES, it's pretty much the same thing unless somehow loaded with more significance. Which most games have no need to do.
I wonder what research she has done on this. Probably about the same about as the people who booked her to be a talking head on the boob tube. None to very little.
I love a good book, and I love a good game. But generally, I'm more attached to the game characters, because unlike the book, gaming is an interactive medium, where you impact the outcome of events. Books are great, but passive. Gaming is much more active.
I do care about the person i'm trying to save, if a game has a good story to go with it, in a book they make you want to save the princess if it doesn't it's not doing it's job right but in a game it's more than a story it's graphics, gameplay, story and more.
To be honest that has an elemnt of truth in it. But then again, games are made to be played and not perhaps, for some sort of epic story.
There are however, of course games that have a huge emphasis on Story lines.
Obviously I'm not going to get all that attached to Gerneric soldier #1347 in Generic shooter #63. However if we're talking about my dog in Fable II, or Kaim in Lost Odyssey then it's a completley different story !
There are however, of course games that have a huge emphasis on Story lines.
Obviously I'm not going to get all that attached to Gerneric soldier #1347 in Generic shooter #63. However if we're talking about my dog in Fable II, or Kaim in Lost Odyssey then it's a completley different story !
I nuked him the first time I saw him.joystickjunki3 said:
In my opinion, animals and pets(this includes NPCs I have to escort) in games are slightly less worthless than game breaking bugs.
I would also like to suggest Alyx from Half Life 2. Valve has really attempted to get the players emotionally attached to her.[sup](I do hope I got this sentence right)[/sup] She's not some ball&chain you have to carry to the next checkpoint, she has a personality and can defend herself.
