Gaming Philosophy: Skinner Boxes & Slot Machines

[Steerpike]

What bothered me about the article was that the two possible conclusions both scared the writer to death, to use his/her own words.  The writer's anxiety seemed to hinge on the idea that games should generate a feeling of pride in the player, that players are always striving to "prove" something (presumably their superiority) by playing, and games that require skill rather than devotion are intrinsically superior to click-fests because the sense of pride they generate is somehow more genuine.  As I read the article, I get the sense that the author believes that the point of games is to make the player feel justifiably superior to others, or at least to hypothetical others in the case of a single player game.

I disagree.  While I completely concede that competition is an integral part of many games (such as Halo, or Starcraft), I find the author's anxiety about the reason behind the good feeling he/she gets when completing a castle in miecraft somewhat absurd.

I think that the best bit of the article comes at the end:

[blockquote=E McNeill]Now we've dug deep enough to reach the really valuable questions. Can there be true meaning in gaming, or is it 'just for fun'? Where does the meaning come from? What do hardcore gamers get out of their hobby that slots players don't? Does Farmville require 'dedication'? Is this dedication something we should value?[/blockquote]
My answers would be:

Can there be true meaning in gaming, or is it 'just for fun'?

Just for fun.

Where does the meaning come from?

From the fun.

What do hardcore gamers get out of their hobby that slots players don't?

Possibly more fun, possibly nothing; it probably depends on the player as an individual more than anything else.  Sometimes (very rarely) money.  Bragging rights.

Does Farmville require 'dedication'?

Yes.

Is this dedication something we should value?

Not on a societal level - but we shouldn't value skill at Halo any more or less on that level, either.  The question is looking for value in the wrong place: in the gamer rather than the game, in results, statistics, and some hypothetical hierarchy of skill/dedication rather than in the experience of playing the game itself.

I will agree that games like Civ are partly educational, and I concede that some games may help someone develop skills applicable outside of gaming, so I'll admit that my comment that all gaming skills are useless skills was partially untrue.  However, I will contend that in my opinion when judging the value of a game as a game, as opposed to as an educational tool or a skill-building simulator, enjoyment should be the chief factor under consideration, not didactic merit.

I do think the article was somewhat interesting even if I disagreed with it - it's spawned a very interesting conversation, if nothing else!