Can you believe this? A South Korean man died of gaming too long. (Spam on topic)

[Galuf the Dwarf]

According to this news article, some 28-year-old man in South Korea spent almost 3 days (approximately 50 hours) doing little more than gaming. Not sure if he really ate anything, but there were some mentionings of him doing other necessary things (sleep, bathroom; unclear, though), but he finally died of exhaustion when he was finished.

I've heard past instances of this come up (especially there), but one thing must be asked: Why game that much? I may be online quite a bit (especially with how I can be tied to the house with this expansion being built), but I cannot bear to be on the computer for more than 3 hours at the most. I tend to feel guilty. Often, I wait for opportunities to pull myself away, such as errands & chores. I don't like the idea of gaming for too long, particularly if such would make me considered 'lazy' or 'a loser.' I wonder how many others (according to polls, personal accounts, etc.) have more or less self-control than the subject of this linked article.

I'll allow some spam on this topic, but overall, I'd appreciate a decent amount of serious discussion as well.

[C Elegans]

You don't die from gaming 50 hours. This man died of heart failure, and he would probably have died if he had been doing anything 50 hours. 50 hours is not a very long time.

[Dottie]

It says in the article that he died from heart failure, I thought that could happen at anytime, and doesn't necessarily have any connection to your activities over the last 50 hours...

[Galuf the Dwarf]

Yes, it says heart failure, although it's link to exhaustion.

[Luis Antonio]

I have no qualms about playing without interruption, having done that with my friends in a lot of past weekends (and having scheduled another night run in september). We'd play for 24-5 hours straight, sleep 8 hours, play 12 hours and go home. Of course we'd be like zombies on monday, but I've done that on parties, on marriages, on family meetings... so I mean that it does not make me feel guilty cause I do other things this way too. Ok.

Now, I guess its easy to blame gaming. The guy was tied up to his chair for 50 hours. Say, he had a heart atack. Ok, he was sedentarian, maybe he smoked, and also, maybe he was stressed or depressed because of unnemployment, I cant tell that, but he seems to be "discharging" the stress on the internet. The exaustion may have helped it, though.

[fable]

I suspect it could be said that he died of complications resulting from obsessive behavior. But in that case, the personality is at fault, as well as those around him who should have had some influence. Whether gaming, movies, work, or anything else: this kind of intensity isn't good for you. Gaming isn't the problem.

[Juniper]

When I read this the other day, i was in a state of disbelief.....but some questions came to mind....like...what was his current health status? Was there a pre-existing condition?
And, when someone quits their job so they can spend more time gaming (or for any other reason that seems out of the ordinary)....did it not raise some red flags to those who knew him?

[penguin_king]

it seems that this article is trying to suggest that gaming is a bad idea. but i've seen an article somwhere that said those who play video games are more likely to do well in life than those who don't, as gaming improves perceptions, reflexes and helps develop vital decision making skills. (like the decision between a sniper rifle and a shotgun)

[Dottie]

The statement about exhaustion came as far as I can see from a police officer, not from any medical personal. The guy just had a heart failure while playing video games. Not very strange or suprising if that is what you spend your life doing.

[fable]

[QUOTE=penguin_king]it seems that this article is trying to suggest that gaming is a bad idea. but i've seen an article somwhere that said those who play video games are more likely to do well in life than those who don't, as gaming improves perceptions, reflexes and helps develop vital decision making skills. (like the decision between a sniper rifle and a shotgun)[/QUOTE]

So if I never play an action title, I'll never know the difference betwen a sniper rifle and a shotgun. I'm sorry, but with real respect, I'm having a hard time buying this argument, and always have. I don't for a minute buy into the typical scapegoating theory that Gaming is Evil, but on the other hand, the idea that gaming is somehow good for the average person is so amorphous, poorly thought-out and documented that I can't accept that, either. At best, it think it can safely be said that certain games act as very useful teaching adjuncts to children, and some other logic and word titles can help prolong mental elasticity and cognitive ability in late life. But that's it.

[Lestat]

Oopah.
Since I'm the one that posted the article Penguin King is talking about, I'll repost the relevant part, which goes some way in the direction that Fable says, but not completely:

[QUOTE=The Economist]So are games good, rather than bad, for people? Good ones probably are. Games are widely used as educational tools, not just for pilots, soldiers and surgeons, but also in schools and businesses (see article). Every game has its own interface and controls, so that anyone who has learned to play a handful of games can generally figure out how to operate almost any high-tech device. Games require players to construct hypotheses, solve problems, develop strategies, learn the rules of the in-game world through trial and error. Gamers must also be able to juggle several different tasks, evaluate risks and make quick decisions. One game, set in 1930s Europe, requires the player to prevent the outbreak of the second world war; other games teach everything from algebra to derivatives trading. Playing games is, thus, an ideal form of preparation for the workplace of the 21st century, as some forward-thinking firms are already starting to realise.[/QUOTE]
The thread w/ full article and link to the article referred to is here

[Dottie]

[QUOTE=fable] I don't for a minute buy into the typical scapegoating theory that Gaming is Evil, but on the other hand, the idea that gaming is somehow good for the average person is so amorphous, poorly thought-out and documented that I can't accept that, either. [/QUOTE]

I'm getting really tired of that mantra too. On one hand games such as GTA has no effect on people whatsoever, they are just games, and on the other hand KOTOR is supposed to teach people to make moral decisions. It's some kind of absurd fantasy where games are both completely removed from the real world, and at the same time great pieces of art.

[Chimaera182]

I think the point about games being helpful in people's lives had more to do with hand-eye coordination than teaching morality... at least, I hope so, otherwise as far as KotOR is concerned, I belong locked up somewhere. I recall hearing that several times before, the hand-eye coordination thing, but I've been playing games for years and I couldn't shoot hoops or play darts to save my life. But then, most of the games I tend to focus on are strategy, so maybe I'm teaching myself to become a general.

[Fiona]

Maybe relevant, maybe not. This is a quote from Christopher Brookmyre's " A Big Boy Did it and Ran Away. The protagonist ( a gamer) is called Ray

" Horror movies made you a serial killer, porno vids made you a rapist and playing online games made you a psycho. And people said Ray was living in a simplistic fantasy world. "

[Rookierookie]

Old news really. In Hong Kong, about a couple years ago, two people died playing Diablo 2 in one month.

[Xandax]

It is much worse when people kill each other over games/game events, in my view.
That somebody dies due to a heart failur linked to exhaustion because he didn't sleep or eat much over 50 hours, then I'd think he already would have some medical problems though.

I wonder if the guy had died from say watching TV or playing chess - if it would have made it to the news that TV (or chess) killed him.

[Aqua-chan]

Ah, I just saw this and was about ot post it myself.

Craziness.

[C Elegans]

I think the point about games being helpful in people's lives had more to do with hand-eye coordination than teaching morality... at least, I hope so, otherwise as far as KotOR is concerned, I belong locked up somewhere.

I agree There are numerous studies that show that some type of computer gaming increases eye-hand coordination, but so does a large variety of sports and playing musical instruments. Whereas I don't support the Computer games/Video/Movies/whatever is Evil-idea, it is a fact that violence in pornography, movies and computer games has an effect on children and young people - it has been shown in many studies. Like everything else in life it has advantages and disadvantages. However, regarding the article saying that

I would like to comment that general living also requires this, while lacking the risk for negative addiction, which is an increasing problem.

Furthermore, life is also a good preparation for the rest of your life. It's good that the Economist is trying to dispel some erranous images of computer games, but firstly they don't report the conclusions of scientific studies in a corrent way and secondly, I think it sounds quite ridiculous to state "computer games can learn you things you can also learn by just living your life". I think they should have put more effort into researching the studies that actually show specific positive effects of certain types of computer games if they wanted to convince people.

KOTOR is supposed to teach people to make moral decisions.

This is the most absurd statement I've heard in a long time. Where on earth did you find that? What moral decisions?

[Dottie]

This is the most absurd statement I've heard in a long time. Where on earth did you find that? What moral decisions?

In the same article in the Economist that Lestat quoted from.

What's more, plenty of games, far from encouraging degeneracy, are morally complex, subtle and, very possibly, improving. Many now explicitly require players to choose whether to be good or evil, and their choices determine how the game they are playing develops.

In “Black & White”, for example, the player must groom a creature whose behaviour and form reflects his moral choices (get it wrong and the results can be ugly—see the illustration). Several games based on the “Star Wars” movies require players to choose between the light and dark sides of the Force, equivalent to good and evil. Perhaps most striking is the sequence in “Halo 2”, a bestselling shoot-'em-up, in which the player must take the role of an alien. Having previously seen aliens as faceless enemies, notes Paul Jackson of Forrester, a consultancy, “suddenly you are asked to empathise with the enemy's position. It's very interesting. Games are much more complex than the critics realise.”

Link

This, with the possible exception of Halo 2, since the concept is slightly more appealing and I haven't played the game, is Imo nonsense.

[C Elegans]

[QUOTE=Dottie]In the same article in the Economist that Lestat quoted from.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks, I only read the article Lestat had posted in the other thread, not the "special report" in the link.

Personally I also strongly dislike the Economist's classification of simulation softwares as games. In the first article that Lestat posted, they write:

[quote="Economist]
Games are widely used as educational tools"]

and in the special report article they write :

[quote="Economist]
Pilots have been trained using flight simulators for years"]

consistenly using "gaming" and "simulation" as if they were interchangable. That's just like claiming an instruction video on how to perform psychotherapy or a surgery, is equal to any entertainment movie.

Pathetic.