Comments on: Not playing is for dumb people

By: Impikmin

Impikmin — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:17:03 +0000

The other day I went to get a flu shot and there were a bunch of childrens toys in the waiting room. Whenever I am presented with a situation like this, I begin to play with the toys. I hope this means I’m smart, and not just childish.

By: The Square Octopus » To play ‘with’

The Square Octopus » To play ‘with’ — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:20:02 +0000

[...] one: himself. He creates thousands of games and has all the fun in the world playing them. Also, he learns a [...]

By: PabloW

PabloW — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:28:47 +0000

My English is a litle rusty, so youre warned.

I ever wonder that, when I’m aplying for a job, never nobody use a game to evaluate the people, instead of the Roch tests or the draw-a-man-in-the-rain tests. I think you can have a richest perspective of a person that is, absort, playing a game (like a fps that involves teamplay and strategy).

Ever more, why we don’t play games in the college? the technology is just there! IE. if you want that somebody lear to program, you can use someting like ROBOCODE, where the people play programming in Java.

I think that we are loosing something very important in that areas don’t using serious games.

By: Veronica Zammitto

Veronica Zammitto — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 01:35:18 +0000

This is a very important point to rise. As previous comments mention playing is a useful tool for learning how things work and social roles.
I would like to add, how through playing we articulate meaning. Before being able to communicate using a language, we can communicate by playing. We can express desires, moods, and needs while playing.
We have experienced that is not the same playing even the same game with different moods.
In this sense, Melanie Klein developed a “Play Technique” for children psychoanalysis because she considered kids’ play a meaningful activity.

By: Egar

Egar — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:55:33 +0000

When I find the need to simplify a human behavior in order to understand it, I always compare it to its equal in animals. It’s easy to realize that playing is the natural way to learn because puppies, kittens and every other animal play during its infant stage. Cats hunt, dogs wrestle, monkeys bother other animals (creatively so). Humans however destroy, build and create ficticious scenarios, which is basically all we do when we grow up.
Very often it comes to my mind the fact that most videogames stablish a ficticious scenario for us to play with. In that scenario we move according to its rules, creatively finding new ways to achieve the goal. But when a child plays with “action figures” (dolls, people, they are dolls!) the scenario is limitless, the behavior of the “NPCs” is what the player wants it to be, the bosses are perfectly balanced (balanced for a fun game, not balanced in difficulty) and the powers, bonuses, and rewards are infinite. I think most videogames are not even close to achieving that (a world where everything is possible). Maybe we can simulate it if we break every rule there is on that game development bible…

By: Santi

Santi — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 20:35:11 +0000

It’s very interesting that you mention this. The book of Raph Koster a Theory of Fun tackles the issue of play from an evolutionary lens where he claims that play is essential for survival.
In the last weeks I have personally understood the importance of social games such as Poker or Truco when it comes to be a talented negotiator.
Play is very powerful concept, even more so than the rigid impositions that games shape around the sole idea of Play.