Video-games: a first world obsession

This is a worthwhile look a #FullMcIntosh from someone outside the whole gaming debacle that’s enveloped a chunk of the internet for the past 3 months.

Claire Lehmann

Video-games are a leisure activity, played by kids, sometimes adults. When they are played by adults, they’re generally played for enjoyment, not unlike having a cold drink after a hard day’s work.

Games in general are a release from the monotony and frustrations of real life. Their primary function is to provide psychological escapism, within a safe space. People buy them, and play them for the purposes of pleasure. And like all pleasurable pastimes, they are probably best enjoyed in moderation. Like the Japanese Otaku who sacrifice the real world for their online obsessions, critics of video-games can sacrifice their grounding in reality too.

Their obsession can sometimes lead them into the land of the bizarre –

Thanks to a new cohort of culture warriors, today video-games aren’t just a leisure activity. They are now a battleground of abstract theories and warring ideologies. Critics want games to be viewed as…

View original post 835 more words

2 responses to “Video-games: a first world obsession

  1. I was reading along the article, kind of casually noting points where I disagreed with the writer, when I hit an “ah-ha” moment here:

    “Culture warriors need to realise […] they are talking about a hobby which requires significant resources and time to pursue and is a sign of first-world privilege by definition.”

    Put another way, “the majority of people playing video games are people who _can_ play video games, meaning those people with leisure time, and the resources, and the inclination to play video games.”

    So affluent, educated people are in the majority of video-game players. Not ALL gamers (lol, pun), just the _majority_ of gamers. Okay.

    I guess I already knew that but it was good to hear it from someone else.


    • Yeah. It’s sort of one of those ironies where people focus on only the most first world of first world problems and only use real world problems as strawmen when challenged on why their focusing on first world problems. You end up with some really bizarre arguments (on both sides). “The world needs feminism because of Mrs. Pacman.” “You’re worried about Mrs. Pacman when women in Saudi Arabia can’t legally drive?” “Well, Mrs. Pacman is something we think we can do something about.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s