This class brought out a lot of things that I had not considered, nor ever thought I would consider in the area of gaming. I am not a gamer so I do not have any authority on the topic at all, but it is still curious to me how people would be enticed to play “real world” scenarios instead of imaginative scenarios. I’m thinking there has to be some way to reach the line of being real world enough to help fix problems but also being imaginative enough to keep players attention. Also, once you have all these millions of people playing the game, how exactly is the problem solved in “real life” where you have all these millions of people not playing the game and potentially not understanding or not accepting the results?
It is true that gaming can be as anti-social as reading a book or watching TV and yet there is some kind of stigma attached to gamers. Perhaps it’s that those of us reading and watching TV can more easily hide the parts that aren’t socially acceptable – like the gruesome violent chapters of the book or the sexual scenes that might go into “too much detail” for some. Is it better because when you see someone reading a book with a blue cover you don’t KNOW that they are reading about killing off millions of people? (For example! I don’t actually know of a book that discusses that but I’m sure there is somewhere.) Whereas in a game, you can see it, hear it, read about it, or get some sensationalized news story about the game? I’m not sure exactly what my thoughts are on this except to say that I’ll be interested to find out if and when these real world games provide real world solutions that are actually implemented.
Our blogger following discussion was a lot of fun and I came away with a list of bloggers/ideas I want to learn more about. Much of the time though, it felt like this, albeit with more analysis and synthesis of what we read: