The debate "Video games can teach us as much as books." was started by
February 27, 2015, 2:50 am.
64 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 83 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Preploukus posted 1 argument, I_Voyager posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 6 arguments, Getmurked posted 1 argument, unfitzangetsu posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
I_Voyager posted 6 arguments, Iq posted 1 argument, yg posted 1 argument, frozen_emily posted 1 argument, evamara posted 1 argument, LucyTheDebatorQueen posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
PsychDave, Satvik_Soni, ameliajane, sonaybitch, Preploukus, Hollister_boy, werdninja, godizzle, olilongboat, shinywhale, liamjosephcash, LDebatorChamp, LeaderOfDiscussion, Egert_Clueless, ThyDarkest, Getmurked, bobbybill, misfitcarrot, ItsMateo, ms_open_mind, PathwayHomeFan, ArsonLarson, transfanboy, toughgamerjerry, unfitzangetsu, soullesschicken, GetRekt, WordSpeller, jedty, PlatypusParty, Freyja, ReedMurphy, MlgLeprechaun69, Nemiroff, JDAWG9693, MagicMicah, killer and 27 visitors agree.
Haelaeif, llthslvtr, BabyT14, sickboyblonde, I_Voyager, Mr_Anonymous, MOSKAU, Iq, Superr1fifty, wmd, Seraph, TmlxIss2cool, yg, priyanshukedia, kennediharris515, Carina, taigaaisaka, Kirito, elisete, mdavis1309, danielle, frozen_emily, Amirah_Husna, futurelawyer192, gtomk, AdamChase, SmileCookie, Gabrielle, sdiop, evamara, Jamison, WesleySr, BookBunny, Anas, AngryBlogger, Gandalf, zackslay, LucyTheDebatorQueen, awenajeremy, YaBoyPatches and 43 visitors disagree.
this is incorrect. there are many games that are heavy on dialogue and text. skyrim has many books and scrolls scattered throughout the world that give players a deeper look at the worlds role.
other games like being human are deeply narrative driven and use complex language, concepts, and philosophies.
and if you claim that those are just a minority of games, well most books are trashy romance novels and the few good examples are accumulated across centuries of forgotten garbage.
quality depends less on the medium and more on the author's skill.
Ignore the skills.
Action games do actually improve concentration, eye sight and memory skills. However, reading books expands your vocabulary, improves both your reading and writing skills and benefits more in the long run.
And upon rereading my post from 2 month ago, I notice a glaring typo from autocorrect. My post should have encouraged people to look into gamification (turning tasks into a game) rather than gasification.
Find me a book that teaches children as well as Where in "insert theme here" is Carmen Sandiago. This series taught many children geography and history, and did so in a way that made learning fun and interesting. I haven't played it in years and still remember it.
Turning learning into a game makes it fun, which means people will pay attention longer and return to it more readily than written words.
As it has been stated, not every game is educational, and some topics lend themselves better than others, but there is a great deal of research showing that gamification helps motivate and can improve results.
of course you can as long as the game is done correctly and is enjoyable enough to keep the students attention in fact for some people they may learn better through a game as it feels more hands on than just reading through a text book
oh please what kind of perso thinks that??? im ashamed
obtaining knowledge is all varying. it depends on each selective individual. some people are kinisthetic learners( doing it) some visual, some adapt and learn better with audio and listening. if a person is text book smart, then they will learn more from readinf a textbook then a hands on. on the other end, a hands on person may benefit from a video game. however, thats stating they both teach the same thing. if your saying as a general topic that video games can teach more, then although the possibility may be true, at this moment most people wont play factual games on thier own, so i would disagree. however, if a learning game was used in the classroom it could provide just as much education as a book, but again everyone learns differently.
It may interest people who have commented on this subject to look into gasification. It is turning regular things, like learning, working, exercising, etc I to a form of role playing game. Not all of these are video games, but there are people out there working to turn many things into games that provide educational benefits as well as the entertainment of gaming.
Fifa may not teach you how to kick a ball, but it will teach you plays and positions, rules, and information about the current players numbers and skill levels (as defined by the game designers). By contrast, a book that went over that information would be a fairly dry list of diagrams, stats sheets and rules that would be hard to read for pleasure for most people.
Sonic I have trouble finding a lot other than reaction speed and dissociation of hand action to result (which is useful for things like othroscopic surgery or manipulation of robotics. I would expect that the game would still be more educational than a book about Sonic.
oh yeah have Fifa this will teach you how to kick a ball! oh yeah here's sonic it will teach you how to run round a loop the loop road... I disagree with your statement
what one can learn from games cannot be learned from books and vice versa. In my opinion both are essential to understand several aspects of life.
Btw the academic study would study video games and books side by side and compare the individual units of learning and just evaluate whether a video game has more or less to teach than a book.
Actually, this is a testable hypothesis isn't it? You could conduct two studies... One academic, and one psychological. In both cases you would take a list of books and games. To prove the hypothesis "Video games can teach us as much as books", you would take a list of top video games with intelligently written stories, and a list of intelligent books as well, and have three control groups consume the media. One would only read the books, one would read the books and play the video games, and one would play the video games. Each participant would then write an essay given a number of general questions to see how the media has impacted the individual, if it's taught the person something about life or society or whatever. We can then have a number of professors grade the essays and see if the group which played video games, the group which read the books or the group which consumed both get higher grades on their essays. More studies could be constructed around this idea, and if you could run five or six studies and came to a qualitative result you could construct a theory of knowledge quality between the two kinds of media.
(I should add I have no belief in the pseudo-spirituality I cited, even though this is a relatively popular view. See "The Celestine Prophecy", which follows "Synchronicity" and precedes "The Secret"; all bullshit you can thank Carl Jung for starting).
I don't really agree that that the popularity of a medium also means it'll teach as much to a person that a book will. Let's make an unrealistic scenario as a metaphor. Let's say the universe had knowledge in it ambiently and in order to access that knowledge you had to use a deliberate and time consuming meditative approach to unlocking that knowledge. Unfortunately, the typical method of determining knowledge - science - is more prevalent and stops people from unlocking this knowledge. Method B will never teach you more than than method A, even if it'll teach more people. The popularity is meaningless to the context of "which has more to teach". Literacy could be forgotten, and that wouldn't mean books don't have more to teach, it would just mean people have no means to learn that knowledge.
Bertrand Russel did point out that informational methods were variable, and that people were invested in being creative in the method of their day. Epics were once popular he said, and in the seventeenth century poetry was popular, and in his time screenplays would be popular. But this doesn't mean any single screen play would have more to teach than his brilliant A History of Western Politics.
To go back to the polling idea, I was part of a large group of gamers for years. Most of them were absolutely uninvested in a game's story. They didn't want to learn shit; they wanted to blow shit up.
When I was taking highschool english class I recall reading Ray Bradbury's "Farenheit 451" which was pretty good. I was influenced by it, but I was also an idiot child and couldn't come to appreciate a thing like I can now. I make connections I'd never have made in things now, and I push myself to read more and more because the more I read the more knowledge I unlock. But I had to come to a realization first. When I was about 24 I noticed there was a psychological reaction to reading large blocks of text, something akin to boredom, which I think most people experience giving my analysis of many people. I realized then that this was a weakness and I needed to discipline myself to consume that much stuff at once. Years later I don't find it difficult to follow two speakers debate an advanced topic for three hours, I don't find most intellectual topics challenging at all. I find most video games (intellectually) boring. I'd rather play a CoD because I get more from the improvement of my reaction time. FFVII moved me when I was 12, and bores me now.
The flaw there is that you are choosing one example that is pure knowledge with no entertainment, and one that is pure entertainment with no knowledge. Comparing CoD to a textbook is as unfair as comparing Europa Universalis to Twilight. By that comparison, games teach tactics, international politics, multitasking and attention to details, while books teach that you can stalk someone until they love you.
While i do agree that there is few things to learn in video games (moral values, history etc)...it is hardly comparable than the amount of information that books give us. Take for example, playing CoD and reading an actual history textbook. The information you get from the books is so much more. Dates, significance of WW2, expert opinions, the events that triggered another event to occur to say a few. The reason a lot of people argue that they learn more from video games is that they simply never take the time to read from a 300-paged book. Let's face it, who will choose black printed text over the HD visuals from the game. Thus, making us trying to justify our actions by saying we do learn as much from video games. We chose not to read, we chose not to sink in the info we got from textbooks.
p.s. I am a gamer myself
An interesting argument, but take a poll of people you know. How many have read the Iliad? How many have read 1984 recently enough to remember anything about it (many people read it in school)? Video games cam provide thought provoking ideas and make people think about the world we live in and where it is going, but they do so with a great deal more mass market appeal than classic literature. I am not saying don't read. Reading opens a window into worlds that people could otherwise never see. But games can do the same, and can do it to an audience that otherwise would not be exposed to such things because they do not read. Books having more depth and detail doesn't help if people aren't reading them.
Consider the game Deus Ex for the PS3, released in 2009. By all accounts it's an intellectual game. It sacrifices some of the visceral action CoD might have to criticize the advancement of technology and Objectivism to depict a dystopia. But reading the 2001-2005 story Accelerando achieves this muvh better and on many levels. You'll get a better critique of the technological change from just one person, and it'll blow your mind. But 1984 and A Brave New World together will teach ou more about this world by predicting in the former case how language trends, and in the latter case hoe social trends will result in THIS dystopia. Then read the Iliad and listen to a lecture series and tell me that you've learned more playing Starcraft, FF7-10, Deus Ez, Mass Effect and Halflife.
This argument presumes knowledge of what you can learn through books. I was a life-long gamer. I played all the important games and was mostly concerned with gaming from 4 to 24. I now spend a lot of time reading. Uou'll never learn about the way language frames the han experience by hearing characters talking about the arbitrary thing Sephiroth did this time with the black materia. It's all very entertaining, sometimes beautiful, inspiring or educating. But books can be so much more.
Someone name a game you can't learn anything from