Is gaming the active ingredient for a panacea?
y suspicion of Jane McGonigal and her electro-recreational Coueism deserves a more thorough explanation, but suffice to say the latest appearance of the thumbstick evangelist — on no less than The Colbert Report — moved me to comment.
McGonigal, who has fused a resume of game design with the obscure pursuit of "games research" and an office in the equally abstract Institute for the Future, maintains that video games are so beneficial that through simple exposure to — or collectivist management of — the medium, world-spanning scientific, medical and political problems often defying even categorization can otherwise be solved.
The premise from which she travels to here, however, is not as innocuous: McGonigal counts hours played, then considers how much more productive that investment could be were it directed in some way, implying that gamers presently contribute nothing of significance when they pull the plug. Is she so certain that none are entrepreneurs, scientists, teachers, artists, soldiers or sailors, cops or firemen, or even local volunteers? Must they be shepherded for their work to count? For that matter, how does her claim of confidence-building projection square with online multiplayer's better-known exploitation of anonymity?
Won't heroes be heroes and cowards be cowards? The answer, for me, is that life — real life — is the first and most important factor in character, which video games may magnify or multiply, but only ever reflect. What do you think?
© 2011 Game and Player. All rights reserved.