There is a young adult who knows what to do, but the topic of youth indulging in games has been discussed. Regarding "How to prohibit kids from playing games", there are different opinions and parents have different experiences. According to the author of this article, the game's addictiveness can be described as “ a ride away ”, many games in the production will consider how to make the player to play more at the same time, the video game does lead to pre-cognition The drop in control efficiency is because the real world is indeed “difficult to raise interest” compared to the game world.
This switched public number & ldquo; Yu Sheng thought & rdquo; (ID: yurii-says), Author: Yu Sheng.
If you have enough friends, you will often see absurd scenes in your friends circle. Take the example I have encountered recently, someday, some human resources are "Young people do not want to be bound by elder's teaching to live out their own wonderful" and arouse the resonance of many people; at the same time, there are people in earnest. Recall that "thanks to the fact that my parents and teachers were in charge of me, I will not be so good today."
What does this mean? This shows that the world is like a kaleidoscope, everyone can see their own vision, at the same time, everyone can not believe that "What I see, what I have experienced is complete and absolutely correct".
Recently, there has been more discussion about the game. There are screams, clamours and sighs. Is the game really a scourge? This issue is worth exploring. The answer is not that simple.
The history of my contact with the game is not too short. In the 1980s, I began to contact the red and white machines and then the arcade machine. In 1995, I bought a computer at home and began playing the Three Kingdoms, the Paladin, DOOM2, and more than one hundred dollars a year. The genuine game also bought several sets of ten games, and then accompanied the magazines such as “VW Software” and “Video Game Software” to play various games. After the rise of eSports, it also studied for a few years. StarCraft …… until now, I also have a desktop computer dedicated to playing games, two icons unchanged on the desktop, a Steam, a battle.net.
Now that I have upgraded to a parent, the identity of the parent gives me a fresh perspective, watching how the game appeals to children and feeling the anxiety and anxiety of many other parents. In addition, many of my friends acquaintances are practitioners of the game industry, so unlike ordinary players, I have a lot of knowledge of the game's behind-the-scenes story.
So, regarding the game, I think I still have a say.
But this time, I intend to talk about it in another way. According to my observations, no matter what the article about the game, the following comments are always a few to come back to the Millennium unchanged. In order to avoid repeating this fate in this article, we first discuss these "classical reviews."
1. "It's not a knife killing, it's a killing, so condemning the game is a wrong target" ”
This is probably the most common comment. It's more common to be a conditioned reflex and doesn't need to go through the brain at all. If this kind of comment can give people a bit of fresh feelings thirty years ago, today its nutrition has long since dried up, and it can only reflect the paleness and lack of commentator's thinking.
Even if "a knife kills people and kills people", it makes sense that people who hold this argument cannot explain the living reality: Why is there a controlled tool? Why do major tools have to be strictly controlled in case of major incidents? There is no way to explain why so many countries banned guns? Why is it that the crime rate of banned guns is lower than that of guns that cannot be controlled by the country (or region) with similar levels of civilization and management?
Yes, in the United States, there have been controversies about the ban on guns and guns. However, if you look closely, you will find that both sides of the dispute are constantly doing a variety of research, put all kinds of evidence, and update the method of argument. Even if there is still no conclusion, at least let us see more complex world.
Instead of providing more facts and reflections to enrich the discussion, we do not get inspired by the fresh discussion. We can only resort to "stick and kill people not killing people." In addition to the lazy nature of thinking, I really want to No other reason.
2. "If you indulge in a game of guilt, indulging in reading and watching movies is not as guilty?" ”
This view seems reasonable, but in fact it can not withstand scrutiny. Because, compared with reading books, watching movies, the game's "absurdity" can be regarded as a ride.
When we think about photography, books, and movies, books and movies are mostly in a passive position during the viewing process. They don’t waste their energy trying to capture the attention of readers and moviegoers. Many creators only emphasize Express yourself. Even if the creator finds that the work can not help the reader's appetite, the boat is ready to go and there is no alternative.
The game is different. Most of the games, especially the games that are easy to make people addicted, must be seriously considered when making the game so that the players can have fun and play well (that is, "full study of the weaknesses of human nature"). Today's game goes even further. Players play games, and games actually play players. What is the player's behavioral pattern? What is the taste preference of the player? For many games, to improve player retention and activity, it is necessary to establish a complete set of mechanisms that analyze player behavior and psychology, and quickly feedback and adjust.
Friends of the game industry have told me many examples: After the game is launched, it collects data and analyzes immediately. At what points in time, players can easily exit the game. Under certain circumstances, it is easier to obtain frustration. After finding it, it is easier to withdraw. At this point in time, giving you a little extra reward, a scene that is easier to frustrate, and giving you a bit of unexpected comfort, these have long been common practice in the industry.
Probably it can be said that books, movies are probably still in the Stone Age, and the game has already entered the information age, and is being coached in big data and AI, in terms of continuous adjustment, attention-grabbing, and initiative. Under the rapid evolution.
3. "Playing Games Can Increase Knowledge" “
Yes, playing games can increase knowledge. This is my own way of saying. Playing “The Age of Great Navigation” and “Order and Conquer” increased my understanding of geography. Playing “The Three Kingdoms” and “The Nobunaga's Ambition” let me know a lot of historical figures, and I’m playing “Simky City” for me to understand In business, I knew the relationship between different factors. In order to understand the Galaxy Fighters and the Pride and Eagles many years ago, I hard-coded a whole manual and I learned it. Less English words.
However, I still want to say that people can "grow knowledge" games, after all, too little. And I believe this is not my own judgment. Do not believe that you look at the article that claims that "playing games can increase knowledge" and the games involved are nothing more than a few examples. (The example of "Simulated City" is almost being abused). If "game play can increase knowledge" is a common phenomenon, then such examples must not be limited to a few games, but full of pitfalls? But what about reality?
We should admit that "adding players' knowledge" has never been the target identified by most game makers. Even if the game actually increases the player's knowledge, it is probably not the result of the conscious pursuit of production, but the embodiment of their professional ethics, work attitude, and moral pursuit.
If a game is not designed to allow players to devote themselves to relaxation, but to "educate players" for the purpose of its market performance is not hard to imagine. If you can't increase your knowledge by playing "your game," blame the game makers, you can imagine that their first reaction is mostly "Please, I'm just a game."
A more accurate representation is probably like this: Logically speaking, playing a game can indeed increase player knowledge; in reality, only a few games can do this.
4. “Playing Games Doesn't Affect Talents ”
This is also a fairly common view. Each time you discuss the impact of the game on young people, many people will rush out to say that playing games does not affect the talents. You see xxx. You have also played games since childhood, and you are very successful today.
This argument reminded me of this year's college entrance examination essay title: In order to avoid the aircraft was shot down, to investigate the site of the return aircraft the most scars, do targeted reinforcement, but this direction is wrong. Statistically, this is a "survival deviation". We only saw the wounds on the return plane but did not see the aircraft that failed to return, but thought it was the whole picture.
The same reasoning applies to the argument that "playing games does not affect talents." What everyone likes to see and see is the example of “playing a game with talents”. The less often seen examples of “playing games without talent” seem to be stories that do not usually cause too many descriptions and reports. interest.
Since the game is a product for the general public, as long as the player base is large enough, we can certainly find examples of both "playing games" and "growth," and also being able to find both "playing games" and "never". Examples of successful ” If there is no sample survey, there is no chance to compare, and the arguments for each of them will never result.
According to my personal observation, "playing games does not affect many talented people". Playing games does not affect their talents. In fact, many people who are dragged by the game "have no games, maybe they themselves." It will not be affected so much. The so-called “ not obsessed game, will indulge other & rdquo; more purely logical analysis. What's more, as I said before, the game is "embarrassingly" in terms of evolution, far exceeding most of the "others".
5. “Roughly forbidding children to play games, parents who do not learn how to deal with games are unqualified“
I fully agree that if parents can go deep into the world of games with their children, they can truly understand the children’s experience in the game. The children’s feelings about the game can indeed lead the children to reasonable and correct playing games.
However, I disagree with the "did not learn how to deal with the parents of the game is not qualified", especially those who oppose the game industry.
It's understandable that game makers are so foolish to make games fun and make players play cool and playful. However, the premise of all this is that I believe players have basic judgment, self-control, and can be responsible for their actions. However, many children cannot completely self-control, and they can not even be responsible for their own behavior.
At the most basic level, children lack self-control and cannot be completely responsible for their actions. Since children’s equipment and funds for playing games come from parents, children’s indulging in games is not what parents want to see. From the perspective of parents, the simplest and most direct reaction is of course to ban the game. Yes, learning how to understand the game and getting along with the game is a reasonable approach, but the cost is high enough. Now that many parents are under great pressure, they don't necessarily have time to play games. Of course, you can identify these parents as "unqualified" but starting from their guardian status and reality, they have full rights and motivation to do so.
In my opinion, game makers are doing their best to make the players play cool and entertaining. While dumping their responsibility to prevent their children from indulging, parents are rather unwise. "Let the players become obsessed with", has accumulated a lot of practical and effective universal experience, and is constantly evolving; "" to prevent children from indulging "", can only rely on individual experience, there is almost no universally effective approach.
In other words, in the game of this matter, parents are often on their own to fight the power of the entire game industry. Strong parents certainly have no problems, but ordinary parents find it hard to be excused. In the face of this reality, blindly blaming “children for failing to manage their children”, “Parents don’t understand the game” will only add fuel and make the problem worse.
Perhaps for game makers, instead of accusing them of “did not knowing the game”, parents should be close to their parents, be calm and listen to their worries and appeals, and tell parents how to identify games suitable for different ages. How to distinguish between good and bad games. Blindly accusing “Parents do not learn to understand the game” & ldquo; & ldquo;The parents who don’t understand the game are old and can only be eliminated by the times “,” is completely “Mars hits the earth”-style communication.
My opinion of the game
I must admit that, as an old player, I also enjoy the kind of hearty, full-hearted feeling I play when I play games. I can make people forget all the real problems, and can break through the constraints of reality and get rid of all kinds of reality. Frustration, freedom of experience, freedom, and a great sense of accomplishment. I guess this is probably the common reason why all players like games.
At the same time, I must also admit that even if I feel that my self-control is not too bad, I often become obsessed with the game and can't extricate myself. Turning off the game, I discovered that "I wasted so much time." I was deeply guilty. In the emptiness.
So what I can do is often remind myself to control the game. In particular, for some of the games that are particularly fascinating, only resolutely not touching can completely avoid “from fascination to indulging,” even if insulated from the game, they will not be able to experience the fun of these games or even lose. Less social topics. Because I clearly know that once I open these games, I will not be able to "taste nothing".
In addition to "playing addiction", does the game have other side effects? I think it is. Some time ago in the "News Lab" public's number to see "electronic games make us stupid or smart", I agree with the article's point of view, here is a brief retelling as follows:
That's right, playing video games can significantly improve the efficiency of "spotting attention." Players must invest heavily to play games well. Distraction can often lead to game failure.
But at the same time, video games can lead to a decline in the efficiency of pre-cognitive control. If what is done is not so attractive, participants may not be able to focus their attention to accomplish what they have to do. In other words, the ability to play video games to improve is only suitable for those activities that have continuous input stimuli. Once the stimuli disappear, the game player's attention will begin to diminish.
Frankly, this is exactly what I feel and worry about. Compared with the real world dullness, the game is obviously more stimulating, and it is better to use stimuli to mobilize the player's attention and keep the player's attention. Players are accustomed to the world of games, and the real world will not be able to provide so many kinds of rhythmic stimulation.
The reason why many serious players appear to be apathetic is not simply because playing games consumes too much energy, but also because for them, compared to the wonderful world of games, the real world is really hard to raise interest.
It is precisely because of this that I advocate that parents should strictly control the time children play games, even if the game can give children a lot of knowledge. Of course, the real nature does not have such a glamorous game, then the intensive sound and light stimulation requires patience to discover the beauty. If you play more games, you may lose interest in nature.
There are also views that the game mechanism itself is not guilty, education and learning should learn from the game, provide feedback at high frequency, clear rewards and punishments, and enable children to truly love learning and education. Frankly, I can hardly agree with this view.
Based on my experience and the experiences of friends around me, quality learning cannot be separated from perseverance. Before finally understanding, only patience and perseverance can lead to prolonged depression and contemplation. Many people have forwarded a comic book. People must read many books before they can see the sun and see different scenery. Before that, only black ones can be seen. This is also the reason.
Therefore, for education and learning, the practice of "learning to provide a bit of positive feedback" is too idealistic. It may only be suitable for certain types of learning. If the entire learning process must follow this rhythm, I am afraid that learning will already be possible. Fragmented.
If one carefully reads psychology, one will know that simply relying on rewards and punishments to change and shape children is a “behaviorism” school of thought. In addressing many specific issues, the behaviorist approach is indeed effective. However, modern psychology also believes that the view of behaviorism on the important environmental impact is too limited. It exaggerates the impact of immediate reinforcement and punishment on the complex physical and social characteristics of man, and also ignores the contribution of man to his own development.
As a parent, if I was asked, my child's behavior does not rely on rewards and punishments, and what is it? My answer is: Belief, belief built in the process of cognitive world & mdash;— this is right, even if we can't see the reward, we should do it too; it would be wrong, even if not Incurring punishment, we should not do that either.