yupper: This isn't the YouTube comment boxes, so please try and 'focus.' We are talking about the article you linked, and the author's claim that video games in the future might become 'shorter' because of the 4 reasons he listed (none of which, I argue, are valid). I have pointed out why I find his 'conclusion' to be faulty, and in the process, attempted to address your original question as to whether video game are becoming "shorter" or not.
You've not addressed any of my points (which seems to be an example of "short attention span", I might add). That our attention span is being stretched because various forces and trying to capture it does not mean we are incapable of focusing on something when the situation calls for it or if we choose to (but then again, most daily activities that require focus already involve mastering a range of tasks, think 'driving'). I can go for a walk with a significant other, you can play with you kids, but that has nothing to do with our discussion about video games. Do you really consider playing video games to be "a quality intimate moment" in life? Seriously? You need to get out more.
I've read Plato's Republic. Why would I puke? I am confused.
Well you're missing a main point that you didn't addressed in your initial reply. Even though all your analysis may prove valid you are forgetting one point, or at least you didn't mentioned it: adaptation. In the sense of permanent changes.
Most people prefer to do modern multitasking activities as you so well indicated with your skype/strategy game example than to do other things that allows them to be present more often. Some other people simply have to because of the demands of "modern" life. By the way you're also taking my points out of context to proof your point which leads to my next point. I don't consider playing video games an intimate moment, just another example of those things that require multitasking and put you in your head. Therefore the conclusion given my own experience "too much video games is bad for you, if you wanna learn how to be present".
Here's the conclusion, when you live in an environment that requires you to multitask constantly instead of focus in one thing with all your being your brain adapts, therefore gradually losing the ability to focus for a long period of time. The more you multitask the more you lose your ability to focus as your brain has to reconfigure itself for the new tasks. There is a plethora of actual scientific articles about the issue that you should read. Use google.
You should also never read "just one" article to draw a conclusion on whether or not the points are valid and then dictate "You're wrong and I'm right". That's cheap pseudo science.
I suggest you watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCvmsMzlF7o Regarding the I'm right and you're wrong statements.
and read this:
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2011/07/why-i-hate-scie.php Lastly, try reading The Republic again and tell me how easy it is to read now.
In a different but related subject the only allure The Witcher 2 has for me is Geralt's character. How solid you can chose to be with him. But suddenly I've realized is better to accomplish those things in real life than to go out and "play" to be manly in a simulation. No matter how cool it seems to be or how it can stimulate my imagination. It is NOT real. Gee, the more I think about this game the more I realize I don't need to play video games anymore. The need is gone.
It just became apparent to me that English may not be your primary language, not intending this as an insult, but as an attempt to understand why you seem to consistently miss the point of our conversation.
First, I am not sure why you would think I missed the point about 'brain adaptation.' The whole point I made about 'stretching attention' is to show that our habits, our bodies, can be retrained and reconditioned by (new) media. I think we are in agreement there? But you keep diverting attention away from the original question that yourself had raise din your original post. Are you defending Blake Snow's conclusion in the article you cited? I am unclear on this.
You raised the question whether video games are becoming "shorter" (as in less content to cut down on the amount of time player would spend 'completing' the game--since there is no clear correlation between the rate of game completion and how many copies a game sells--at least I haven't seen any empirical studies that's made this correlation--I don't see why anyone would think that game development would adopt this as a 'industry trend', since we all know game publishers and developers must fundamentally aim to generate profit as their primary motive). You cited -one- CNN article by a freelancer writer who, I contend, has no clue about videos games other than possibly having played some games, to support this claim. When you say "cheap pseudo science", are you critiquing yourself? I am not clear on this.
Then you cite three sources that further elaborate on the argument of 'brain adaption': One from a motivational speaker, one from a random post on some dude's blog titled "Why I Hate Science", and Plato's Republic. Then you tell me to 'Google' for information (about what, exactly?). These are not 'reputable' sources, and this is not 'research.'
My point is that the author of the article you cited in your original post is clueless about new media and video games (do you disagree with this? If so, please explain why). I can provide you with texts from academic, peer-reviewed journals in the discipline of Game Studies or Media Studies regarding the points I raised (specifically around the concept of 'attention' and how it is changing in the new media environment). I am certainly not the originators of these insights.
Lastly, I fail to see how reading Plato's Republic can unveil any new insights in this discussion, since I don't recall that he ever mentioned anything about 'New Media' in the Republic. The closest thing I can recall is Socrates discussing his disdain over the proliferation of 'writing' as a communications medium. But if you can point out the specific passages of the Republic that you think is relevant to our conversation, I am all ears. I have a copy of the Republic on hand and I will certainly look up the passage and engage your interpretation of his work.
