All good

-i'd say they all have their benefits. Online gaming can be a lot of fun but is about as addictive as crack. also, Chinese gold-diggers and 12 year old pubecents are abundant and can be pretty annoying. I play World of Warcraft which i think is a phenomenal game once you find the right guild with the right maturity level. unlike straight PC games it doesn't require a large block of time to play... you can log on, do a couple quests, and get on with your life. the problem is when people take it too seriously.

PC games can be fun too if you have the time to devout to them. I like the Neverwinter Nights series because they actually use 3.5 rules in the game mechanics and it makes you more familiar with the rules to the pen and paper game. They have gotten VERY advanced as well.

of course, i prefer pen and paper games to all others because your imagination and options are not limited. especially when you find a good group with social graces, imagination, and some life experience, the game can be incredible.

-----"Z"

Games are social affairs

Online gaming is addictive as crack....agreed. I go on "vacations" or a long hiatus on these games, so I don't get too hooked on them. Computer games also allows hardcore gamers, the former me, that chance to create a "perfect" character.

F2F gaming is better because it's more fun to be around people. Games are supposed to be social affairs not detached systems you play through network wires. I don't even know half the people I meet online. They're cool sometimes, but they can snap easily. The problem lies in finding time to meetup with everyone's busy lives. Throw in spouses and you're screwed. I lost several buddies to fiancees and girlfriends. My girlfriend is cooler about it because we see each other all the time at school. This arrangement can't last forever though, eventually we'll have to graduate. :(

-Yi-Hsiao

No computers for me

At one time I really enjoyed computer games, but then I came to the point where I felt like they had shown me everything they could show me. At one time I thought they were pretty exciting because there were so many things in the realm of fantasy which had never been seen or visualized. Now that technology has broken through this barrier, I'm drawn back to the earlier icons of the genre because these rely on your imagination, but also because they stir vague memories in me.

At one point I started rationalizing and questioning what games were all about. Without dragging you through my train of thought, I came to think that games must sell something, because we as consumers are buying something. Computer games sell something. They sell validation. If a player does what he's supposed to do and if he's "smart enough" the game rewards you with validation. (Wouldn't it be nice if life always worked like that. You just accomplish simple objectives and you get power.) Super Tetris is the best example of this, because that game boiled all the bullshit out of the gaming experience. (I wasted a lot of time playing that game.) Everquest is opium, but Tetris is heroin. Tetris doesn't waste a single line of code on unnecessary pretense. It reduces the computer game experience to nothing more than "Push the right buttons and I'll play music for you. Music means you're 'good'."

If you can't tell, many years ago I wasted a lot of time playing Tetris. Even while I was addicted to Tetris, I kept wondering why I was addicted to Tetris. So for me, after I'd worked through my Tetris addiction, I came to realize that every computer game is just Tetris, with more blocks, or bigger blocks, or more colors. If you're "good", then a computer game will reward you with power. The game will convince you, "You're smart."

The trouble is, no matter what game you play, at some point you will meet the idiots and social retards who are so much better at the game than you and you start to wonder ... maybe the game isn't the best source of validation there is out there.

I also don't like the fact that the most exciting thing you can possibly do or imagine in a computer game is something that some programmer has already thought of or imagined. Creativity isn't really an option in a computer world.

Another thing I don't like is the missing "quantum factor". One can't really change reality in a computer game. The best you can hope for is to advance in a maze and thus scroll to another predetermined reality. Which is another reason why I liked Tetris. If it's not about creativity, why have a pretense of creativity or imagination?

What I most dislike about computer games is that in my mind I've come to the point I put computer gaming and recreational drug use in a very similar category. Neither one will kill you. Both will eat your time and neither will make you a better person for the experience.

So, ultimately I don't like computer games because I feel like they eat my time, and they really give me much in return. They don't make me smarter. They don't make friends for me. They don't increase my social ability. They don't empower my imagination. In fact, they're more likely to take all these things from me.

On the other hand, what I like about face-to-face gaming is that they keep me involved with humanity. They make friends. I think they make me smarter and they don't limit my imagination. I love watching the interaction between players. I love when people come up with creative and unique solutions to difficult problems. I like the feeling of team work. I like that when we finish playing, I've added one more leaf to my own personal Niggle tree. (If Niggle sounds familiar, here's a clue: it's a Tolkein reference.)

Will