Call of duty does not teach strategy or anything else. You dont need ANY skills to be good at it. Comparing books to games is very silly. You wouldn't go reading a book over and over again. If you do then you have some sort of mental disorder. Reading fantasy and action books doesn't give you any education really, if you know how to read. Sure there might be some 'science' game but they are mostly boring. except for portal 1 and 2. Going outside and doing stuff will guaranteed give you more experience then staying inside and playing video games will ever do. Also, who cares if gaming doesnt get you anywhere in life. It's still fun. We still do it every day. Gaming does more bad things than it does good things, imo.
The reason you don't read books over and over again (which is false, btw, many people do that) is because they don't change. Books are always the same story every time. Now video games can also be like this, you probably wouldn't play the same campaign over again if you've already played it and experienced the story. But other types of games don't ever end, they keep coming out with more content and giving you new things to experience. And it IS a fact that gaming CAN get you somewhere in life, as proven by the thousands of YouTubers who get paid for it.
Oh my fucking god, If you say one more thing about how video games gets your somewhere in life because thousands of youtubers have a SHORT term career currently, then you are VERY wrong. There is many youtubers who have a very good life currently, but they know that one day it will come to an end, also did you know that many youtubers that you think are making a massive amount of money aren't at all. Also if you say one more thing about how the Yogscast supposedly has the their own office to make videos and such, many of us could really careless about the over rated channel.
Even YouTubers do more than game in order to get paid. They are entertainers just like companies that make movies or television shows. If I had to take a guess I'd say most of their work is editing videos and trying to think of something entertaining to do in that episode of something rather than just playing and enjoying the game. As for people reading books over and over again: I have not seen one person finish a book and then read it again once they finish. Yeah, maybe a few years later, but people usually won't continuously read a single book over and over again.
Well yeah, of course they have to edit and produce their videos. I didn't say gaming was all the work they had to do. Dude, calm down.
If we're talking getting somewhere in life by playing games, it's definitely doable, but it's a much risker proposition over something more mundane, like becoming an engineer. If we're asking whether you can learn anything from playing a game, then clearly yes it is possible. It's not hard to learn something new. The problem is that everything that you are spending time on is that there is something else that you are not spending your time on, and you have to find the break even-point. There's no simple rule you can apply to say whether Y person playing games is wasting his or her time or not. The problem here is that everyone on this thread is right in their own respect because no one has defined what exactly "getting somewhere in life" is. Is "somewhere in life" a >$200k/year salary for the next 50 years? Is "somewhere in life" a "comfortable living" where you can eat every day? Is "somewhere in life" being able to travel the world at your leisure with your own private jet? Is "somewhere in life" being able to make any money at all? Everyone is arguing the question "can gaming get you somewhere in life?" while defining "somewhere in life" according to each person's point of view, so no one is making any progress here. Just the same arguments over and over.
1) I can think of many counterexamples to that statement. Myself and all of the people who I play with for one. If you had said Call of Duty does not teach most people something, and that you don't need many skills to be fairly good at it, you would probably be correct. However the use of the definitive qualifiers 'all, does not, and anything else' is fallacious, incorrect and insulting. Also, the burden of proof lies with the claim maker. Statement (1) is a claim. Prove it. 2)Why is it silly? Video games are a new, often disrespected medium while books are a well established medium associated directly with knowledge. 2.5) I reread books all the time, and often get more out of them the second go-through, just as I watch movies over again. I do not have a mental disorder. 3) Reading 1984 by George Orwell (fantasy) or The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein (sci-fi action adventure) does not give you an education? What do you define as 'education'? Yet again, prove it. 4) Why does a game have to be a 'science' game to be worthwhile? 5) Real life does not measure aptitude and intelligence with experience. Learning something from an intellectual medium results in completely different knowledge than learning something from a physical experience. Of course experiences will give you more experience. 6) People who enjoy debate care. Debate for the sake of debate is something I find both useful and enjoyable. 7) That is a claim. Do you have any proof of that? I can instantly think of counterexamples. If you have no support for a claim, than what is the value of stating it in the first place?
I did not mean to imply that any one person here hates games, just that, as a new medium, society has a tendency to devalue gaming as a whole and to see it as unconditionally less than another medium. That can create a bias in even the most hardened gamer, a bias which should be identified and rooted out before it can create a problem. edit- Sorry about the accidental double post.
1) Almost everyone can get good in this game after like an hour of playing. The only skills that it teaches are reflexes and maybe quick thinking. no one really needs insane reflexes. I played these games for 4~ years and I do like them for what they are, a brainless game designed with people who dont want to think a lot in mind. Here's a video that might interest you: (and you really just need to see that video. since all the games are the same game..) 2) It's silly because you play video games over and over again. It's moving figures on a screen. It has sounds. . it has programming. it even sometimes has books inside them. books have non of those 2.5) do you read a book and then pick it up right again and read it? even an hour later. would you pick it up and read it again? I really doubt it, unless you're studying that book. Sure you might read it again after a few months or years, lots of people do that. 3) Alright. I take that back then. Some books give you valuable information about the world and how it works. 4) I never said that. they were talking about learning from games. 5) uh.. Reading a book will also teach you more than games will. you can also look up stuff on the internet and learn that way. 6) k 7) Imo = in my opinion. I just feel that it does bad things. you're welcome to tell me otherwise. eh.. I'm not very good at this, I think. And my view of getting somewhere in life is having enough money to live a comfortable life where you can eat everyday. And I know there are Professional gamers around but I dont think there's that many of them.
It's awesome to see how many people replied long messages! I posted two debates and no one got that amount of really interesting answers!
At 5:23 in that video I feel that the author successfully disproved his point. He went into CoD expecting a brainless game, played quite brainlessly and complained about it. For example -- the shotgun. A truly good CoD player, or even an average one, would have quickly realized that using a shotgun over a long range was not effective. The 'weapon loadout' selection is one of the most basic examples of strategy in the game. A person can only use a certain amount of weapons at a single time, meaning they have to think ahead at what the might be facing in any particular instance, create a 'loadout' that suits that situation, and then attempt to bend the situation even more to their loadout's advantage. This is what is known as strategy. Take a much more educationally respected example, the RTS. A player can only bring a limited amount of resources (or troops, or power) to the fight, so they must make sacrifices. They can only choose to train a certain amount of troops, so they must rely on strategy to maximize their advantages and minimize their disadvantages. Notice that the concepts are the same if instead of saying 'loadout' you say 'troops'. On the comment that "almost everyone can get good at this game after like an hour of playing" I will leave the CoD argument with this video, explaining how games have to have strategies that new players can sometimes use to beat older players. (By the way, its not 45 minutes long). On another note, a medium using moving figures, screens and programming instead of printed words to convey a point does not make it any less of a medium. And what is the problem with playing a game again and again? A person does not become Sun Tzu by playing Starcraft for an hour. Repetition is how humans learn. Replaying a game allows you to squeeze out as much learning from it as you can. Books teach their lesson through a single sitting, a single story, while games teach by having the player do something. Saying "Reading a book will also teach you more than games will." says that unconditionally reading any book will teach you more than playing any game. So here is a counter-example -- I have learned far more playing Spec Ops-The Line than I did reading Great Expectations. My original point was that different mediums teach different things. A good story based game, movie, or book might have a comment on morality and the human condition, things which should not be disregarded. A calculus textbook teaches something else entirely. An RTS or an FPS might teach ways of thought and action. To value one lesson over the other, just because it is more obviously applicable, is fallacious. I feel that I should make a disclaimer -- there are bad games. There are games that are a waste of time and money. There are movies and books, and plays and music that are a waste of time and money. Most art is bad. One can learn from bad art, but that does not make it worthwhile. I am not going to buy BlOps2 or Halo4, as I feel that the franchises are going stale, and that I have learned what I can from them. CoD has lessons it teaches, lessons which are quite valuable. Don't tell me that the nuke scene from CoD4 didn't mean anything to you. If it didn't, you're doing it wrong. Unfortunately, the franchise seems determined to drive itself into the ground. Just because games have value does not mean that they don't have problems.
The limit of hand eye coordination you gain from either playing on a console or keyboard and mouse are limited to minute movements, and only strengthen muscle memory with those particular devices. I'd be hard pressed to believe that argument would hold any weight with anything outside of gaming. Quick thinking, sure. Cant argue that point. Problem solving? From my military experience (since the topic listed was FPS), attempt to apply the problem solving skills from a non simulation FPS to a real life situation and see how far you get. Outside of avoiding a "Fatal funnel" (IE: a hallway or an inlet to an area from a common avenue of approach), or silhouetting yourself in the open or on a crest of a hill or mountain. you're betting your life on a video game skill and not sound tactical assertion, or team based engagement techniques. Considering the ratio and guideline to advance and take any objective requires is 3:1 you'd be SOL if using video game problem solving solutions. One FPS that could (and that is a very small "could") prove to be of some use is ARMA provided it is used as intended and the individuals playing it understand at least the basic concept of maneuvering on an objective, and a how to work as a cohesive unit. The ability for a video game to be a useful teaching tool is dictated by its form of presentation, subject matter, and target audience.. the mass majority of FPS games provide no use to a player other then to kill time and entertain which is why titles such as COD are able to have a plethora of titles within its franchise.
I agree with that, but I was saying that video games CAN get you somewhere in life. Yes, if you play the same game over and over again, you already got the lesson. But same if you read the cat and the hat over again. And re-learning never hurts! And from shooters (and other games) you can get communication skills from working together from over mic or chat. Just reading books, and learning from other people alone will not get you far. Neither will just video games. They will all give you useful skills in the real world, but that doesn't mean that those are the only skills you learn. Lol, if you can learn and understand the ARMA controls, you can do anything! xD
It really depends, playing video games itself won't get you too far in life. Just like watching movies or reading books all day, you won't get too far. What does push you Is if you get invested into things like MLG where you get paid (even then it's very little to live on), or you start to learn the inner-workings of a game and become a developer/beta tester. Other than that, the "it teaches hand eye coordination" crap won't really help you as it's very unlikely that you'll ever come into a real life situation that'll require the kind of coordination a video game teaches. If anything, it screws up your natural coordination.
That doesn't mean that you unlearn other things. The brain is quite tricky. You just get better hand-eye coordination and the ability to make faster decisions.
easy way to end, through playing MMO games like (i will admit) Runescape, WoW, LoL, Eve Online, and Minecraaft, i have three times the typing speed of your average office secretary, video games just got me somewhere in life
