Margaret Robertson: Why I play games

[Leon Retro]

Margaret Robertson worked for EDGE magazine. In her time at the mag, she was a staff writer, games editor, and in 2006, she became the editor.

In 2007 she stepped down as editor and left the publication.

I was browsing google for info on EDGE magazine, when I came across a BBC webpage, which had an article written by Margaret, entitled: " Why I play games "

Here are some quotes:

I've been in love with games for half my life. In the time it's taken me to get from a swotty kid to a professional journalist, they've been a hobby and a job, a distraction and an inspiration. They've made me friends, taught me Chinese history, and helped me conquer my phobia of slugs. But the more I play, the more I'm struck by an unavoidable realisation. Games are rubbish. Really, dismally, rubbish.
They're expensive. Extraordinarily expensive, once you factor in the hardware you need to play them.
They're massively - and awkwardly - time consuming. There are games with 24 hour day/night cycles which you may need to play at particular times.

Very interesting. Now she unveils the reason why she plays "rubbish" videogames.

It's that games are educational.

Go here for the full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6932785.stm



An interesting read. What do you think?

[BaudAttitude]

I like the "spectator in your own head" thing, because that's the best description I've heard yet of what it's like to be "in the zone" on something like Geometry Wars, Ikaruga, Space Giraffe, really any game where actually thinking out your actions is counterproductive to success.

[Malc]

Oh, she stood down recently this year... That must be why EDGE have got some better magazines out recently and i've started buying them again.

[capcom_suicide]

I agree to an extent, but I feel games (Like film) also offer emotional stimulation.

This could be seen in 3 forms:

Single Player: - A great story and emotional bond with character.

Coop: - Working with friends to accomplish something you can't do alone.

Versus: - Competative instinct cultivation and satisfaction.

These three are not about learning. These are about feeling.

[Riskbreaker]

I did enjoy the article, but I disagree with a few of the points she made. One of which:

They're designed to make you feel like a failure.

There's a very good chance - a certainty in most games - that there will come a point where the game will beat you. Where you'll sit in your own house while a bit of software you paid big money for, and devoted hours to, calls you a loser.

Very much depends on whether you look at it glass half empty/half full. You can sit there and feel like a failure after something in the game kicks your arse a few times. Or you can take the challenege head on, beat it and punch your fist in the air saying "**** you (insert dev name, creature, challenge here)" and feel satisified that you overcame the obstacle in front of you.

At the end of the article she indicates that she enjoys games as a sort of test of her brain's abilities. Good tests aren't designed to make you feel like a failure, they're designed to allow you demonstrate what you've learnt and show where you need to improve your knowledge.

In this respect, you could look at games as the developers giving you a system to learn and methods with which to develop your knowledge which lead up to the test. The old gaming cliche's of end level bosses could be viewed as an example of them saying "Okay, show us what you've learnt".

[Jebus]

Not a bad article but I did find the last section about her brain to be just plain stupid. Don't get me wrong, I understood what she meant but it just seemed stupid

[Dogg Thang]

I completely disagree with the idea that games are designed to make you feel like a failure.

Sure, back with Space Invaders and Pac-Man and games that just went on and on until you were eventually beaten, that may have been the case. But those days are long gone.

Now I think it's the exact opposite - unlike life, most games are designed to present you with a challenge but, ultimately, let you win.

[SUMIRE]

Yeah its a weird thing to say that considering most modern games can be beat pretty easy.

I mean saying **** like;

"They're expensive. Extraordinarily expensive, once you factor in the hardware you need to play them."

Not really, you can buy "used" and they become very affordable. There is plenty of bargains on Ebay and the like.

"They're massively - and awkwardly - time consuming. There are games with 24 hour day/night cycles which you may need to play at particular times."

Not really, you make the choice how long you want to put into the game. What games force you to do anything, and how many games have a 24 hour day/night cycle?

Why call something rubbish and still play them? Maybe shes going through her gaming midlife crisis.

[angelx]

I dont think I have played a game with a literal 24 hour cycle and I doubt that is in our near future as its pretty ridiculous. Also games that punish you may be out there but I prefer not to play those and rather ones I enjoy.

[Leon Retro]

Why call something rubbish and still play them? Maybe shes going through her gaming midlife crisis.

I hope it's a crisis, because it seems very strange that a person with a career such as hers, would call videogames "rubbish".

Maybe she is expressing how she has always felt. If so, I can assume from the article, that she is talking about the more traditional style of games: platformers, shooters, run&gun etc...

I get the impression that she likes story driven titles; games that teach you something, such as Guitar Hero; and new genres, such as brain training type experiences.

I think EDGE has been a bit depressing over the past few years. The focus had moved away from the 'fun aspect' of gaming, and got caught-up in too many intellectual musings.

I think the magazine has improved recently. There is definitely a return to the 'enthusiasm' ... that it used to have in the 90s.

I often get a bit tired of gaming, but I'd never be depressed enough to brand games "rubbish".

[J0e Musashi]

I agree with her. I consider myself an antigamer. I wish I could stop buying and playing the damned things, but I can't.

[Bada Bing!]

She's trying to be clever like biffo by calling games rubbish.

And Edge has always been high brow. That's just Edge. It's been the same since day one and it always will be.

Games are a constant let down, as much as they are a triumph and a joy. Take the wankers in Gears of War for example. I don't want to play as those fannies (one of them is even called Baird FFS!). I want to be a normal guy with a sense of humour and a bit of healthy fear. Being John Rambo Clone #334 just isn't fun.

[Leon Retro]

I agree with her. I consider myself an antigamer. I wish I could stop buying and playing the damned things, but I can't.

I hope you're joking.

She's trying to be clever like biffo by calling games rubbish.

And Edge has always been high brow. That's just Edge. It's been the same since day one and it always will be.

Games are a constant let down, as much as they are a triumph and a joy. Take the wankers in Gears of War for example. I don't want to play as those fannies (one of them is even called Baird FFS!). I want to be a normal guy with a sense of humour and a bit of healthy fear. Being John Rambo Clone #334 just isn't fun.

I wouldn't say EDGE was highbrow; though it did become that way. It was simply created to appeal to the more 'serious' gamer'. There has always been a focus on tech, what makes a game, and other issues away from simply giving games 10/10 and proclaiming them " The best thing ever! "

I wouldn't say good games are a let-down. In fact.... games worth playing should be the opposite of a let-down.

With Gears Of War, if you don't like the settings, characters, then there is little point in playing it. I didn't like the style of the game, so I sold it pretty quickly.

I think Margaret is trying to be clever. A lot of serious gamers, obviously feel a bit geeky and sad at times. I guess.... she's just being a normal female gamer, who away from gamers, probably doesn't shout about her love of games, and probably claims that she only likes games that are good ( i.e ones that teach you something ) ... not stupid arcadey stuff. With the Wii etc... I think a lot of gamers have decided to latch on to this new style of gaming, and deny their past love for classic style experiences, because saying you used to play SonicTheHedgehog for hours, isn't seen as cool.

I personally like games for the rush they give me. The genres I like happen to be racers, action, football etc.... I like to experience a rush and do things I can't do in real life.

That's why I play games; because they stimulate my mind and adrenaline.

[J0e Musashi]

I hope you're joking.

I'm deadly serious. I think I stopped enjoying games about 10 years back. Buying them is habit more than anything nowadays.

[Spatial]

Uh oh.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6943835.stm

Say anything bad about her and she'll cut you up real pretty like.

Say what you will about her at least she's writing something a bit more interesting than that bloke who does their reviews.

And he's up for an award for writing such utter bilge - proof that they really will give awards out to just about anyone these days!

Not that I don't think what's she writing isn't rubbish though. It's just not the usual type of rubbish.

Phew I actually got the whole way through that without saying New Video Games Journalism... oh ****!