Interestingly, Jane McGonigal in the TED talks video says her goal is to get people to spend more time playing online games. Her argument is that people do not spend enough time playing these games to solve the most urgent world problems. She explains that her goal is to get more people saving the world in real life as much as they do in games. This sounds ridiculous. My question is: “What kind of game would be beneficial enough to stop world hunger, global climate change, obesity etc.?” World of War craft is Jane’s example. I disagree, these things she says gamers become virtuosos at, apply within the game only. If there was a game that was made that all these billions of gamers could get their minds on, that was actually real life, then perhaps I could agree. Given all of the tools we actually have, all of the information we actually have, and putting into a game to solve an actual problem then maybe it could be beneficial.
I definitely agree with you that playing games can help solve urgent problems in the world. I have a very hard time believing that gamers will save the world. Although I have seen that games were made to train our potential soldiers once first person gamers were created. Along with this, most of my friends that are gamers ( in my own eyes,) are some if the smartest people I know , which helps the argument that gamers would save the world. But id rather not put my reliance on people that play games.
I too thought her idea sounded ridiculous. The motivation to play a game that has such heavy issues would be severely lacking, in my opinion. In regards to your question and Jane’s answer, I disagree with Jane that World of War Craft could be the answer to solving these serious problems, because when it comes down to it World of War Craft is only a game and whatever skills may be accomplished through this game are not always translated into real life and so how are we to suppose they can be transferred to a game that hold more gravity than having the highest score or getting to the next level?
-Michelle
I agree with your opinion that Jane McGonigal had a interesting view on how to some world issue. I found it a little ridiculous that she thought that playing video games could help world problems. I argued against Jane’s opinion by saying that in order to deal with world issues people need to get out side and make a difference instead of sitting down by the TV. By going outside and helping in your surrounding area, you would have a easier time helping the people around you and possible the world.
I was actually incredibly interested in what Jane had to say about video games. She brought up some points that I had never considered before about the gaming world. Why Im very interested in this idea is because it can be altered to fit our worlds problems. Since the gaming world is a huge part of the world around us why not try and use it to educate peoples mind and become great critical thinkers. Almost everyone in a modern society has played a video game at least once in their life. Our world is continuing to become more and more tech savy so I think that this is why Jane believes that gaming could help us save the world. Societies will only continue to revolve around technology more and more as they grow, if we find a way to make these technologies beneficial then why not? Since going outside and being on a team have always been options for people yet they haven’t worked yet, our world is still struggling to survive. However, Jane brings up a new idea that hasn’t been tried before, and who knows the benefits that may come from it.