A new longitudinal study suggests that playing online role playing games can help kids prepare for the world of adult responsibility:
Young players who become members of a clan, guild or faction (terminology depends on the game) find they have responsibilities to attend to if they wish to receive any kind of reward, rank advancement or recognition. There are also penalties if they disobey rules or fail to meet commitments. A faction may require the player to participate in missions/quests or other tasks such as mining materials or guarding a prison. Successful missions/quests result in the player gaining either cash or experience or both. Experience points and cash provide the player with new opportunities and even new abilities.
One of the researchers offers the following anecdote as evidence that kids are learning "adult" skills:
A 16 year old girl ... led the game's number one fishing guild. At one point a new guild entered the picture and announced they would undercut her guild prices. Did she panic or sulk? No, she rallied her guild members and blockaded every fishing port in the game. This effectively shut down the rival guild. Impressive leadership from someone so young, wouldn't you say?
Clearly this girl will be prepared for today's dog-eat-dog business world. Perhaps Microsoft ought to consider hiring her for its business strategy unit.
Seriously, though, as games become more and more complex, so too does the impact those games have on players. If someone spends many hours each day at the same activity, there's little doubt that the person will change as a result. While some of those changes may be good, it's also quite possible for other outcomes to occur. Does this mean we should ban or regulate video games? Probably not, but a little more understanding of their impact can't hurt.
(via Rebecca Blood)
In a few months, a game called Spore comes out, which could get kids interested in biology and evolution. It does a really, really good job at playing as a species from multicellular beginnings to space travel, with a massive amount of variability. You can see a trailer and some pictures showing the variety of creatures here: http://www.spore.com/screenshots.php
And a very cool demo video shown at E3 this year here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7568551350470142686&q=spore+e3+…
As the technology improves, I think we can see online gaming as just a valid socialisation experience as face-to-face dealings. That is, at the moment it falls short in physical-reponse recognition (facial expressions, for example), and a lot of communication is still in text, but once those hurdles are leapt online gaming will surely be as valid as any playground for socialisation. In fact, the inherently challenging environment of a game, and the team-work required for success, could actually produce *more* effective social animals.
...which I guess is what the article is saying. Um, way to repeat the story, Me.
What I'm trying to say is: imagine the technology got to the point where it was indistinguishable from reality. We can agree (?) that this is as good as reality - as long as physical needs were also met. It would be, functionally, the reality that healthy, normal people could be expected to be adapted for.
So pull back from that. Strip details and functions from that perfect reality, and see how far you can go for that conclusion to hold. How much "realism" does an online social experience require to be as important as offline social experience?
I don't think we're quite there yet, but we're coming close.
Games have long taught valuable lessons. Tactical battle games played on boards with dice and cards were the precursors of the similar genre of computer games that teach military tactics and strategy. The Internet is helping games expand into teaching social lessons.
OK, I need all you folks to come over to my house and explain this to my husband who just wants our weedy fifteen-year old boy to take the headset off, turn off the computer and get some fresh air!