I just read through my classmate Marshall's blog post and something he said spurred a thought. He said that he thought the author was doing a great job of arguing for her theory. My thoughts exactly! Whereas Marshall loves games and is reading this book from a gamers perspective, I on the other hand am on the opposite end of the spectrum.
When I was a young kid in school, I can actually remember when the first gaming systems came out, or at least the first few video games. A lot of my friends had the Atari, but my parents couldn't really afford the Atari, so instead my brother and I got the knock off-ColecoVision. And man was it cool. We played on occasion and after school, but playing too much was never a problem then. I then got the original Nintendo 64 when it came out, and that was just as cool. The best part was learning that there were secret codes to games, which is what the majority of out break time at school was spent discussing. I especially remember when the code was leaked for how to beat the main boxer in Mike Tyson, and how to beat the last level of Super Mario Brothers. Those were the days...
And I can honestly say that that was the last time I owned any game system. Sure, I have played games since a few times, and have lots of friends who are like Marshall, but I honestly could take them or leave them. Which is what brings me to my next point about the author and something else Marshall said. She really does seem biased and almost annoying in her way of trying to prove to us that there are more intelligent reasons for gaming than it's just something to pass the time by with. I do like the real world statistics and examples she gives us (innovation strategy, real world examples and statistics of gamers usage). And especially going into the 2nd section of the book, she really transitions into intelligent arguments for her beliefs and theory. Her alternative theories on the benefits are great reading.
But let me finish with this. I actually liked and enjoyed reading these couple of sections. I think the author is extremely intelligent, makes wonderful points and somehow managed to keep my attention on a topic that I honestly have no knowledge of. But, I don't think it's an exit from reality. I think it is the users attempt at trying to incorporate a hobby into their current reality and writing it off as such. But then again, what do I know. The last system I owned was Nintendo 64. However, if games aren't a part of ones life and an existence is made without games, how does that fit into the argument? I don't think reality is broken, I think the definition of reality is broken. Games don't need fixing, the actual real world does.