Are You Fond of Old Games Which Is Not Competitive, But All About Achieving Goals?

[squirrel]

I mean, games like Tetris and Bejeweled. I know there is a competitive 2p mode for Tetris, but I mainly played 1p Tetris so I am not sure how 2p Tetris works. All I know is that I have to assign blocks to form horizontal lines to be eliminated so that blocks wouldn't be accumulated to reach the top.

Youths these days are generally smarter. Education is of course one factor, but I believe that another minor factor is video games, which can train up intelligence. What worries me is that games these days are general competitive in nature, they are all about shooting these and magick attack those. Victory is everything and nothing else comes close. Morality doesn't seem to both nowadays youths that much anymore. I am not sure if that is what we want, a more intelligent yet much less moral new generation. Youths who will do anything just to achieve that "victory" they desire.

[Drake Sigar]

The same thing was repeated often twenty years ago during the heavily competitive arcade era because gaming was new and scary. In 'Toys' they use the kids to unknowingly control real robotic death machines via arcade cabinet. (I sincerely apologise to everyone for reminding you of that god awful movie.)

It should be clear by now that any permanent change is brought about by a huge combination of factors. The biggest one? Probably being pressured by our own parents to succeed.

[Heliocentric]

Okay, first I must apologise.
Secondly I assumed this post was a bot.
Finally I realised it's a real post.... But still odd

Many games are not even slightly competitive, all the coop in mmo behaviour, games with dependant cooperation like Trine, Gears of War, Lego [Franchise here] or the the non goal orientation of games like Minecraft or Garrys mod.

I'd like to opine* that games have more supportive of non-competitive behaviour than they have ever been.

*a key bot word

[victory]

Victory is everything and nothing else comes close.

You flatter me, good sir.

Morality doesn't seem to both nowadays youths that much anymore. I am not sure if that is what we want, a more intelligent yet much less moral new generation. Youths who will do anything just to achieve that "victory" they desire.

Intelligent, healthy youths working hard towards their goals? Sounds good.

[Unaco]

Sounds as bad as Susan Greenfield... "Vidya Games are making our children morally bankrupt! Although I have no actual evidence of this, and can not really lay out my theory in a satisfactory manner! But it must be happening because I can give you an anecdote!"

I'll maybe accept the claim that youth these days are generally more intelligent... Sure I have seen evidence showing that trend. But I think it's not as clear cut as that, and there are many factors involved.

Are video games responsible for that increase in intelligence? Has it been shown that they can 'train up intelligence'? I seem to remember some studies debunking the whole Mind Gym efficacy, and some of the things sold to schools. But I do recall some studies on improved hand-eye coordination though, from playing vidya games.

Are games these days competitive in nature? Significantly more so than in the past? And does that eliminate morality from the players perspective/concerns? Are today's youth significantly less moral? And is it vidya games 'fault'? I'm assuming video games are not 100% ubiquitous amongst children, even in this day and age, therefore we should see a significant difference among game playing and non game playing youth, on measures of morality... do you have a source showing this?

This just sounds like absolute hokum.

[Wolfenswan]

goddamn socialism.

[icupnimpn2]

Don't confuse single-player with non-competitive. Strong competition has always taken place indirectly via the score.

The only reason direct competition wasn't more prevalent in the past is because the technology wasn't there or wasn't affordable. So instead, games would have players take turns.

Not all game concepts could easily be modified to allow two players on the same screen at the same time. Take Wolfenstein 3D for example. You couldn't really share the screen with someone without subdividing it, but that takes more resources.

Some simpler games, like Tetris, could function in split-screen and allow direct competition.

Eventually processing power and networking were cheaper and game concepts that previously required single player only could be played in split-screen or over a LAN.

But whether competing on your own screen, sharing a screen, or indirectly via scores, competition has been a strong component of video and computer gaming ever since the earliest arcade and mainframe games.

If you have managed to focus only on self-achievement in Tetris and Bejeweled, that is a reflection of your personality and interests and not necessarily of the nature of those games.

[Voon]

I always thought that games come in either one of these: 1) competitive or 2) pure entertainment

They have always been one of these since mankind got bored and started doing stupid stuff just to escape from said boredom. Usually, competitive games was about teamwork and coordination; or skill and efficiency when players compete individually. Being in the winning team/player is, of course, a hell lot more fun than the losers. But, sometimes both teams/all players can find pleasure in outclassing each other after a long stalemate, finally broken when some guy messed up. And all the players strive to better themselves afterwards, so they could play again and being much better at it. Hence, more fun for them. Unfortunately, some people are just those "tourney guys", "power players" that are too obsessive in winning everything they play. They don't play for fun, they're just in to prove that they've got a bigger stick. Just that. So, yeah. Some competitive games weren't games anymore. They're just another sport without a soul.

To answer your question, yes. I do love playing games that are all about achieving goals. They're fun. Okay, not just that. They tend to be my favourite thing to do as a massive time sink. Playing games like Fallout, Deus Ex, Half-Life. "Get the Water Chip", "Save the World from MJ12", "Get out of Black Mesa", all these objectives drive me to complete the game though some amazing setpieces, witty scripting or general openness of the two of these three games. And simpler games like Tetris or Plants vs. Zombies are just fun because hey, what's not to like about stacking up blocks or repelling zombies with weaponized plants to protect your garden? They're fun.

[archonsod]

I'll maybe accept the claim that youth these days are generally more intelligent...

Trend is actually the other way. Theory currently blames either less intelligent women having babies, or too little sea proteins/mercury contamination of said sea protein.

Personally I put it down to the warnings they're forced to put on bottles of detergent and the like.

[icupnimpn2]

Trend is actually the other way. Theory currently blames either less intelligent women having babies, or too little sea proteins/mercury contamination of said sea protein.

Personally I put it down to the warnings they're forced to put on bottles of detergent and the like.

I put it down to a reliance on daycare and public school to raise children. I'm not making any judgments along with that.

[victory]

And all the players strive to better themselves afterwards, so they could play again and being much better at it. Hence, more fun for them. Unfortunately, some people are just those "tourney guys", "power players" that are too obsessive in winning everything they play. They don't play for fun, they're just in to prove that they've got a bigger stick. Just that. So, yeah. Some competitive games weren't games anymore. They're just another sport without a soul.

What is this I don't even. The higher up the skill ladder you go, the harder it gets and the less you win. Unless you find fun in the game itself, where would your motivation come from to push further? People who only care about winning almost never rise to the top. Good competitive game is distinguished precisely by its being able to still be fun at the highest levels of skill.

[MrN]

I don't like competitive gaming in general so I'm a-okay with achievements. Competitive gaming has never been my thing having come across way too many people that take that sort of thing waaaaay to seriously. Attracts to much of the "gaming is serious business!" crowd for my taste. :\

[Voon]

What is this I don't even. The higher up the skill ladder you go, the harder it gets and the less you win. Unless you find fun in the game itself, where would your motivation come from to push further? People who only care about winning almost never rise to the top. Good competitive game is distinguished precisely by its being able to still be fun at the highest levels of skill.

My point, exactly. I refered to the players who have the skills at playing the game and having fun with it to have such motivations on my last post, not all the players. And dude, I never said that those gamers who only care about winning and only winning are the ones who are rising to the top. I said that they are what's giving competitive gaming a bad name.

[Unaco]

Trend is actually the other way. Theory currently blames either less intelligent women having babies, or too little sea proteins/mercury contamination of said sea protein.

Got a source on that? I was under the impression that the Flynn effect* was still present in most (if not all) developed countries, and, although it may have been arrested in the last decade, it has NOT started to reverse significantly. Lots of studies such as THIS ONE. I don't see how a lack of Mercury contamination (and other heavy metals, lead for example) would be causing a decrease in IQ... surely the reduction of damage from environmental neurotoxins is going to lead to an increase in IQ (or, rather, it's going to lead to the elimination of the decrease in IQ caused by these toxins).

Interesting topic though this is, it's still kind of moot until the OP provides something to back up his (quite disturbing) claim that competitive gaming (and competition in general) turns our children in morally bankrupt monsters. This is, with even less credible science and evidence, very similar to what Susan Greenfield was excoriated for several months ago.

To Squirrel: Please provide some sort of evidence that competitive games lead to fewer morals in youths. That todays youth do not care about morals, and that this has changed over time. Also that non-competitive games don't lead to reduced morals. In other words, back your claims up, please.

*Flynn Effect: Average IQ rises by 3 - 5 points every decade in the developed world, due to improved nutrition, more stimulation in our environments, less environmental toxicity and infectious disease, and better education. Similar increases in semantic/episodic memory, and a vast swathe of other cognitive measures are reported.