next »

[PenguinHat]

I've been thinking. How can video (or any other) games help the world? Can they help the world a better place in any meaningful way? Right now, the majority of games are focused either on profit by entertaining people, or as an expression by their creators, no one really seems to be trying to use games to help improve the world. Why? Is it impossible, or is there nothing in it?

Games can affect the way people think. Not only that, but we can create games for pretty much nothing, and we can use the internet to send them out all over the world. If you think about it, we (and anyone else with a creative spark and access to the internet) have a lot of power. We can create and propagate data, information and memes around the world. How can we use this to help people?

And what existing games have tried to make the world a better place? I can only think of Freerice, which is a browser based word game. Every time a player gets a question correct, the page is refreshed, changing the ads at the bottom of the page. The site owners uses this advertising revenue to generate money to help end world hunger (they claim that for each question you get right, they are able to donate 20 grains of rice. Notice that they don't say what they do if you get it wrong. Maybe they kick a small child.) Maybe I'll remember another one later.

Any thoughts? Am I just being pretentious, ranting and/or unrealistic? Is this OP just a massive rant that jumps from place to place without thinking about it? Or it is something to think about?

[Cymon]

It's a topic that has been mulled over in the past. Let me apply something I heard this morning when I relistened to Randy Pausch's last speech again.

A head fake, in sports, is when you do a move with your head to make your opponent think your area of focus is somewhere other than it already is. Randy Pausch suggested that many things in life are head fake lessons. Like video games. And don't try to sell me on the whole hand-eye coordination thing, that's weak sauce. How about team work, strategy, logical thinking? Do all video games cover all these topics? No. Some video games so activity based that thinking they are anything other than mental masturbation is an argument you'll have a hard time winning. But even those games can bring people together, even people who are worlds apart. Is it any wonder that multiplayer and online multiplayer is so popular.

For me, the real intellectual pursuit of video games is not to be found in the playing of them, but the making of them, solving the challenges of player interactions in a virtually limited space. That's what Cymon's Games is all about, trying to share that.

Besides, if nothing else video games are the strongest motivation for making computers better and faster, and that will inevitably lead to a better world.

[Arne]

I've already ranted about this. A lot of games are pattern learning and mapping. If the level up aspect is creative and something for the player could look forward to (getting gear and raising stats) then the grind bits could be Edutainment. Yeah I know, edutainment is boring like fuck, but so is grinding and people are willing to put up with a lot of bullshit like that in games anyways.

I worked on this a while ago.
http://androidarts.com/druaga/tower2.htm

[Don Andy]

I may be wrong, but I think games can't help make the world a better place, even if they tried. Sure games can try to help, but I think the gamer demographics just doesn't impact enough to really do anything world-changing.

I mean, let's assume you make the ultimate thought-provoking game. Like, a game that'd make the pope say he's been praying to the wrong God all the time.
The game's available for free on the web, has minimum requirements and works on Windows, Linux and Mac and consoles. Or to say it differently, every gamer who would want to play it could play it.

Now, the first problem would be that only real gamers would actually play it. Even if you could successfully market it, no person who never played a videogame before would note it and say "Oh, that looks thought-provoking, I'll give it a try". They'd either see the game as witchcraft, or dismiss it as boring or too complex since it's not casual.

Now, the other problem would be that of all gamers that'd play it, maybe 30% would understand what you actually tried to get across. The other 70% would give you a weird look, complain that the game was shitty and then go back playing WoW and CS/TF2. And of the 30% that understood it, 20% probably wouldn't agree with you, just because (like, I dunno, Zero Punctuation for example).
(Disclaimer: I'm going with the general "game-kid" clichee here. I'm not implying that WoW, CS and TF2 are shitty games)

With the little amount of people you reached with your game, changing the world wouldn't really be an option.

So, long story short, I think all you really can do with a game is change a few people's way of thinking, but not really for those that matter and not nearly enough.

Although, arguably, the guys that play your game now could be the presidents of tomorrow. So in long-term, there may be a slight chance your game changed something.

[Mentalpatient109]

That's hard to say. They probably have roughly as much potential to change things as other mediums, such as film and literature, but as Don said, the small amount of people you'd reach keeps games from getting to their full potential. That's why Freerice and GWAP do a damn good job. It's more like playing a board game than a video game, so you'll a wider audience.

[PenguinHat]

IMO, the "hardcore gamers" who constantly buy/pirate games are a lost cause anyway. All they want is the same thing over and over but slightly different, until they get a job, move out and are not able to spend so much money and time on video games. Then they tend to stop, because there is currently next to nothing that fills their market needs. But that's a tangent.

If you want to make a change, you have to target normal people who haven't been playing video games since the cradle. It's not a case of dumbing down an existing game so that you can complete it by pawing at a button every few seconds, you've just got to make something new. If you think about it, it's mainly a user interface issue and a marketing issue. You got to make it accessible, and you got to get the message out that it exists, and is worth playing.

[Don Andy]

If you want to make a change, you have to target normal people who haven't been playing video games since the cradle. It's not a case of dumbing down an existing game so that you can complete it by pawing at a button every few seconds, you've just got to make something new. If you think about it, it's mainly a user interface issue and a marketing issue. You got to make it accessible, and you got to get the message out that it exists, and is worth playing.

Hrm, but all the energy you'd need to get the people that matter to play the game could just as well be put in a medium that reaches them in the first place.
I also fear that some people just can't be "won over" for games, not matter how simple or accessible you make them. My father for example (who is around 50-55) is absolutely dumbfounded by anything gaming related. He just doesn't get it. He has absolutely no clue what I like in all those blurry colours and sounds swooshing around the screen in a manner that makes absolutely no sense to him. The only game I could ever get him to like and play was Brain Age for the DS and that took me about one week of explaining.

Although arguably Nintendo reaches the "normal people" with some Wii games pretty well already, but I also fear that you won't ever get a message across that way. Wii Sports and Wii Fit may be fine and all, but the concept is hard to translate into something with a thought-provoking message.

The media probably makes it hard, too. Games are the current evil, so a lot of people are probably pretty biased against them vidjagames.

[PenguinHat]

Negative media coverage isn't going to last forever, and people are getting used to video games. Already, people that wouldn't normally play games are starting to. Flash gaming has increased massively. The current generation of people are pretty much all used to video games. Yet no one is really using this for good. Why not?

Not only that, but games that aim to do some ethical good towards the world (we need a snappy name for this. I'm thinking of ethical games as a catch all term for any game -video or not - that aims to do good and improve the world. Any more thoughts?) don't have to send a message to people. They could raise money for good causes (like FreeRice) or educate people (like the Tower of Kana game posted below)

In fact, I'm tempted to put Brain Training in the ethical games category (if it works. I'm not sure. Does it really work?)

[Craig Stern]

Third World Farmer. Next!

[PenguinHat]

Third World Farmer. Next!

You can't just post a link without telling us what it did right, what it did wrong and how we can use it to help us improve.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

"The world" is an abstraction, it consists of the sum of all individual people. If you help even one person with a game, you thereby help the world.

[Bree]

Re-Mission is an educational action game meant to teach young cancer patients about cancer and the treatments available for it. If you look on the Wiki page, it cites a research paper that proved that most of the patients who played the game were more willing to receive treatment than otherwise. It's also the only game in which stool softener is a weapon.

[Craig Stern]

Third World Farmer. Next!

You can't just post a link without telling us what it did right, what it did wrong and how we can use it to help us improve.

Oh, but I did. Look, if all we're talking about it using gaming to help people, we could just as easily get results by throwing together a Halo 3 tournament and donating the proceeds to charity. On the other hand, if what you're looking for is something unique to games that makes them a potential tool to help people, I think Third World Farmer kind of hit the nail on the head: use games as a means to make people experience things they've never experienced and become more aware of problems in the world. Third World Farmer is a game that lets you experience the frustration and despair of crushing poverty in the Third World, then exhorts you to act. The only way I can think of that it could be more effective would be to have a donation mechanism built into the game itself.

[Lucaz]

Rinkuhero got it right. Maybe games can't have the same massive effect other media can, yet everything (or almost) reaches just a minority of the population, and they have effects on the people anyway.

The media probably makes it hard, too. Games are the current evil, so a lot of people are probably pretty biased against them vidjagames.

Actually that's a good reason to make games like these, they make gaming look better, considering they get coverage or are known, of course.

[qubodup]

I've been thinking. How can video (or any other) games help the world? Can they help the world a better place in any meaningful way?

Games with people in them can do it in the same way movies or books can (by stimulating self-reflection through a message*), the plot is the carrier of the message.

By making a game linear you can connect decisions (which the player doesn't make) with reactions/results. This way you can 'teach' the player.

By making a game flexible, you can try to make the player find connections between decisions (which he made) and reactions/results. This way you can 'teach' the player.

Abstract games can use personifications. For example cultivation.

Games also can promote creativity. You can package content-creation tools as a game. For example the Sauerbraten-based Sandbox is supposed to be a game-maker tool for children.

*simplified truth

[Cymon]

I've already ranted about this. A lot of games are pattern learning and mapping. If the level up aspect is creative and something for the player could look forward to (getting gear and raising stats) then the grind bits could be Edutainment. Yeah I know, edutainment is boring like fuck, but so is grinding and people are willing to put up with a lot of bullshit like that in games anyways.

I worked on this a while ago.
http://androidarts.com/druaga/tower2.htm

I want. Arne, if I bone up on my programming skills, you promise to do the art for this? (Which would fulfill a fantasy of mine to work on a project with Arne.)

I work for an educational software company. Our software is somewhat unique but we use a lot of those "edutainment" tricks of juxtaposing blatant lessons with in-game rewards. And it works. Unfortunately the website doesn't offer much in the way of a preview of the product, so I don't know if it'd do any good to link to it, bu if you care PM me.

One thing about those juxtaposing activities is that they can often times be equally well applied to math, science, reading, or whatever. This is both a strength and weakness because while it would allow for greater flexibility on the side of a software developer, the greater the disjoint the more obvious it becomes.

I remember a series of games called the Super Solvers that came out in the late-80s and were revived for CD-Rom in the mid-90s. Their solution to the disjointedness was to make the passages and questions presented relevant to the world of the game. It worked especially well in "Midnight Rescue," tho my favorite of the series was "Treasure MathStorm."

They probably have roughly as much potential to change things as other mediums, such as film and literature, but as Don said, the small amount of people you'd reach keeps games from getting to their full potential.

Heh, if only Solitaire would use it's powers for good and not evil.

[agj]

All of you negative people are just... enumerating obstacles. Are you trying to be apologetic with the medium? Are you trying to excuse yourselves for not trying to make games that matter? I don't get it. Games can be something; the fact that they are not, yet, is no reason to ignore that potential and pretend that it is unattainable. Again: it's hard, not impossible, to make a game that will make a difference. We have to try first.

I worked on this a while ago.
http://androidarts.com/druaga/tower2.htm

This is intensely interesting and I will totally read it soon.

Third World Farmer. Next!

Without having played it yet... Most condescending game ever?

[Movius]

All of you negative people are just... enumerating obstacles. Are you trying to be apologetic with the medium? Are you trying to excuse yourselves for not trying to make games that matter? I don't get it. Games can be something; the fact that they are not, yet, is no reason to ignore that potential and pretend that it is unattainable. Again: it's hard, not impossible, to make a game that will make a difference. We have to try first.

This post was all good until it got to the blanket statements and the "We have to..."

The main 'problem' I see is the endless repetition (amongst supposed serious game developers/journalists... mostly the journalists/bloggers/random internet writers,) of "we need more XXXX..." or "If the medium is to mature then YYYY..."

This treats the 'interactive medium' as if it is some sort of amorphous interlinked blob, where the lack of quality in 'Generic Sportan 2010' somehow negatively affects 'Serious Joe Presents: Interactive Masterpiece.' Even though the two games are completely unrelated.

Conversely there is very little in the way of treating good games as good and bad games as bad and judging individual games on their own merits.

Third World Farmer. Next!

Without having played it yet... Most condescending game ever?

It's no McVideogame in terms of condescension, but it's close.

[Cymon]

Third World Farmer. Next!

Without having played it yet... Most condescending game ever?

It's no McVideogame in terms of condescension, but it's close.

Next up it's Bum Tycoon. End up on the streets, make your own cardboard pity signs, and battle other bums for the best handout spots. Gather gossip or sabotage their chances in the soup kitchen. Become a part of the underground that exists under your nose.

[Dacke]

0rel: Your prediction is pretty attractive, and possibly quite accurate. What is important to remember is that no matter how powerful computers we get we will never be able to simulate the real world perfectly and there will always be improvements to be made. What we might hope for is that the general quality of such simulations will be good enough for the general user, making further improvements a weak sales-trick.

Also: physics/graphics engines aren't that hard to use, though filling worlds with content might require a lot of work.