- Joined
- May 14, 2019
I had this awful realization one day: playing video games is basically the same thing as playing with action figures, except for some reason we look down on grown men (even boys past a certain age) who do the latter, but we don't look down on people who do the former.
Now, sure, it doesn't seem that way since it has a formal structure and generally some sort of story. But does anybody really give a shit? When you go on a shooting rampage and hour-long car chase in GTA, are you actually experiencing some sort of narrative equivalent to a play or movie, or are you just playing with... like a toy? After all, we call them sandbox games for a reason, but this goes for multiplayer too. Some people take competitive multiplayer really seriously, but most people, I think, care less about the competitive aspect of it and more about the feeling the multiplayer scenario creates. Something like Battlefield, basically, is the equivalent of when you play soldier as children. Then, of course, you have people like reenactors who essentially do play make-believe, but it's given social acceptance, even some prestige, because it's presented as being educational in nature.
We can also draw some other distinctions. Video games' formal structure makes it so you have obstacles to overcome, whereas toys and playing make-believe are driven more by imagination. It just seems odd to me that there's this disconnect. Traditionally, adults moved away from playing make-believe and playing with toys to hobbies which involve doing something with some real-world implication, goal. Often something productive, but not necessarily.
Just seems odd to me how it feels unnatural/wrong for an adult to play soldier/cop/whatever (unless he's doing it with a kid, for the kid's entertainment), but it's considered normal for the adult to play soldier/cop as long as it's in front of a computer screen.
Now, sure, it doesn't seem that way since it has a formal structure and generally some sort of story. But does anybody really give a shit? When you go on a shooting rampage and hour-long car chase in GTA, are you actually experiencing some sort of narrative equivalent to a play or movie, or are you just playing with... like a toy? After all, we call them sandbox games for a reason, but this goes for multiplayer too. Some people take competitive multiplayer really seriously, but most people, I think, care less about the competitive aspect of it and more about the feeling the multiplayer scenario creates. Something like Battlefield, basically, is the equivalent of when you play soldier as children. Then, of course, you have people like reenactors who essentially do play make-believe, but it's given social acceptance, even some prestige, because it's presented as being educational in nature.
We can also draw some other distinctions. Video games' formal structure makes it so you have obstacles to overcome, whereas toys and playing make-believe are driven more by imagination. It just seems odd to me that there's this disconnect. Traditionally, adults moved away from playing make-believe and playing with toys to hobbies which involve doing something with some real-world implication, goal. Often something productive, but not necessarily.
Just seems odd to me how it feels unnatural/wrong for an adult to play soldier/cop/whatever (unless he's doing it with a kid, for the kid's entertainment), but it's considered normal for the adult to play soldier/cop as long as it's in front of a computer screen.