Game researchers point of view: Playing games can help foster moral values?

Magniggel, an associate professor of telecommunications at Indiana University and Edward Caster (Edward Castronova), and the author of Exodus to the Virtual World (Palgrave, 2007), said this week that "video games are really good for players." was debated. Castronova says that while the game has its benefits, how to measure happiness is a question to explore, and even if the game can make people "happy", it is necessary to spend a lot of time on the game?　　Magniggel against this: since the game can indeed heal the heart, the benefit of society, then why should be entangled in other insignificant problems? In fact, most game researchers believe that the game should be integrated into life in the right way. Now, many television, film, internet or media researchers, even writers, believe that people are either too addicted to the game or know little about the game. We seem to foresee a future in which people who play games will perform better in adulthood than those who spend their childhood watching "Midnight Barcelona".　　This is not to call for less contact with the media such as film and television, but let people first have a deep understanding of the virtues, and then the media content selectively absorbed. Medal of the Honor Allied assault game can help people establish virtue? This issue has even led to the emergence of related disciplines. For years, there has been a strong protest against game violence, and it seems that the elements of violence in any situation are very bad things. The soldiers who landed at Omaha Beach in the Battle of Normandy were all violent, but that was not a bad thing Omaha. Take the game Medal of Honor: The Joint attack (Medal of Honor:allied Assault), for example, when players attack the beach alone, it's best to believe that you are a brutal person and enjoy it.　　The use of violence does not mean killing, but only in the context of the situation, the elimination of the local enemy is a lofty, beyond the day-to-day trivial activities. The game teaches you how treats the good person and the bad person the player's hands is stained with the fictitious blood? Yes. But the sacrifice of these virtual blood is to reproduce the story, bring the past to the present, deepen its meaning, praise the departed warriors, and let the world know the significance of their sacrifices. In the game, it has become a practice to burst into violence, but it makes the player feel good. The game academic article is just beginning to discuss the situation of violence, there is no clear conclusion. And I'd rather sit with the kids and play the so-called violent games and guide them on what they should do.　　If you are not sure that the person is good or bad, then do not care about him, and if it is bad, kill him, the action must be fast. Magniggel a lot of examples to show that the game is good for the players, here is a focus on how the game helps players to improve the ability to distinguish, to form a philosophy. American Psychologist Philippe Zimbardo (PhIlip Zimbardo wrote, "to see whether a person can become a hero, you have to give him the opportunity to show, and then see his performance." A recent article points out that a researcher has received a huge amount of money for using games to teach teens to make safe choices. In fact, however, the "game" does not have a choice, more like a cramming repetitive indoctrination: In the 3D screen, there is a boy near the player to play the girl, the boy said "hey, want to have sex, there is no security measures oh?" After that, the girl in the game had to answer No! Unprotected sex is bad, for a lot of reasons, I'll tell you one by one now. If I were to design this game: First, the boy should be handsome and charming, the girl should take root cigarette, make different choice will get different results. In the game, if you choose to have a relationship with boys can get a lot of happiness points, but the consequences of having sex is that girls will be tied to a 10-pound creature, want to survive, 20 hours a day to work (of course, the boy left her). Moral education should allow people to choose to do something harmful.　　People can't choose between books or movies, but in games. The study of the relationship between morality and the game is just beginning, but I believe that even playing the villain in the game can also learn to distinguish between good and evil. Of course, people want to learn to distinguish between good and evil in school, but this is the United States, now is the 2011, good and bad such words still make many people feel uneasy, more or less can not understand the true meaning.　　But in any case, if the world loses its concept of good and evil, it will become uninteresting. Let's assume a "Empty Quest" game. In the game, the player kills the dragon, save the princess, but by the king is also the father of the princess told that different people have different understanding of heroism, and all points of view need to be respected, so in view of this society to protect the dragon or criticize the Princess doctrine, the King has no right to determine what is noble behavior, the end player did not receive any Not to mention the marriage. At the same time, the monks of the Temple of Sinners-burn-in-hell also told the Warriors that because he did not kill the dragon according to the procedure, it is not a noble act. Each character in the Empty Quest may have different values, and such a game is really bad. But if it is so bad, in this real postmodern society, why do we play this game every day? What virtues have we learned from the game? Aristotle taught us to do more good deeds in order to become a virtuous man. If he is still alive today, he may also participate in the game, take up arms and slaughter the enemy. (Edit/Xu Mingming)