Social Interaction from Gaming

"

Nephalim wrote:

"

wherein we got skype, streaming, video chatting, photo exchanging, podcasting, facebooking, twitting...the whole boatload of social facilitators that showed Real Life that the Internet isn't antisocial, it's just a more artificial social environment.

All of those things while intended to connect people actually ended doing the very opposite. Real human contact becomes lost in ether and replaced with emoticons and 6 word textings.

Bolded the bit you seemed to have missed.

"

DogFaceNoSpace wrote:

"

Charan wrote:

Your statement might have worked before internet 2.0 (i.e. when The Rest Of The World Discovered DSL and Caught Up To US Cable Internet), wherein we got skype, streaming, video chatting, photo exchanging, podcasting, facebooking, twitting...the whole boatload of social facilitators that showed Real Life that the Internet isn't antisocial, it's just a more artificial social environment.

It's still social.

Also, the word you're looking for is 'unsocial'. Antisocial, as in antisocial behaviour, means to actively act against social norms, which is why people can be ejected from pubs and bars for 'antisocial behaviour'. Given Real Life's embracing of Internet 2.0, you could probably argue that NOT using the Internet to supplant one's social life is antisocial these days. I have friends who refuse to use facebook and thus I have to manually contact them if I'm organising something larger than a casual get-together. They're friends and I don't begrudge them that, but it's still 'against the norm' these days.

You're about to be owned.

First, "catching up to US cable internet" was never actually a thing. Sweden, Japan, Korea, Romania, The Netherlands, Latvia, Estonia and Switzerland. They have always been the pioneers of fast internet. The US have still not caught up to these big boys. The only thing US has caught up with are 2nd world countries like Russia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Ukraine and so on. During 2000-2010 these countries had much better internet infrastructure than the US.

The BEST US consumer internet plans are WORSE than the WORST internet plans in south korea. The best internet plans in Japan, South Korea, Sweden, the Netherlands and Romania are TWENTY TIMES as fast as anything available to a consumer in the US.

As for datacenter solutions, prices in the US are far far higher than the stuff available in Europe (France and Holland in particular).

Eh, I don't see you correcting a few facts irrelevant to my core argument 'owned', but hey, take whatever little victories you can, Dog. Cheers for the extra information though. My limited perspective has always been that of Australia (shit, bandwidth-restricted internet, pretty much behind the rest of the 'First' world) vs the US, where I lived from 1999 through 2003 (extremely cheap, fast internet, pretty much like everything else one consumes there). I had no idea where Europe stood in that regard, so like I said, thanks for the addition. Sorry, is this the part where I am supposed to feel 'owned'? By you? LOL. That shall indeed be the day.

"

DogFaceNoSpace wrote:

Second, it's not social. It's antisocial. There is no way to detect sarcasm on the internet, there is no way to see facial expressions, body language, voice intonation, no way to make eye contact, physical contact and so on and so on. It's interaction but far far far from social. And whether you like it or not, this is still against the norms in our society.

You're talking about an older internet. I understand that. I'm from there too. I had already mentioned video chatting, skype, etc. Which means I was speaking specifically about an Internet where tone, facial expressions and body language are all more than visible and detectable.

Now if you want to argue that using this forum for hours on end is antisocial, maybe. But it's still more unsocial -- antisocial means 'going against the norms of a society'. This is, whether you like it or not, a society.

There IS some overlap, obviously. To behave unsociably is to not like other people or being around other people. It's misanthropic. And that can definitely lead to antisocial behaviour, clearly. But there is still a measure of thought vs action dividing the two. The word 'antisocial' is typically only used in regard to behaviour and deeds; you can be unsociable without being/acting antisocial.

If I were a lesser human being this is the part where I'd say 'owned', but Lord knows the day you're able to set aside whatever strange acrimony you have towards me to accept you may be wrong (something I've already accepted above) will probably be the day after you own me.

That would be an unusual week indeed.

Bye now.

Gettin' a bit too real up in here. Cyber-hug it out and let's move on, eh?

"

FusionReactor wrote:

OP

Have you played DayZ?

"

DogFaceNoSpace wrote:

"

Charan wrote:

Your statement might have worked before internet 2.0 (i.e. when The Rest Of The World Discovered DSL and Caught Up To US Cable Internet), wherein we got skype, streaming, video chatting, photo exchanging, podcasting, facebooking, twitting...the whole boatload of social facilitators that showed Real Life that the Internet isn't antisocial, it's just a more artificial social environment.

It's still social.

Also, the word you're looking for is 'unsocial'. Antisocial, as in antisocial behaviour, means to actively act against social norms, which is why people can be ejected from pubs and bars for 'antisocial behaviour'. Given Real Life's embracing of Internet 2.0, you could probably argue that NOT using the Internet to supplant one's social life is antisocial these days. I have friends who refuse to use facebook and thus I have to manually contact them if I'm organising something larger than a casual get-together. They're friends and I don't begrudge them that, but it's still 'against the norm' these days.

You're about to be owned.

First, "catching up to US cable internet" was never actually a thing. Sweden, Japan, Korea, Romania, The Netherlands, Latvia, Estonia and Switzerland. They have always been the pioneers of fast internet. The US have still not caught up to these big boys. The only thing US has caught up with are 2nd world countries like Russia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Ukraine and so on. During 2000-2010 these countries had much better internet infrastructure than the US.

The BEST US consumer internet plans are WORSE than the WORST internet plans in south korea. The best internet plans in Japan, South Korea, Sweden, the Netherlands and Romania are TWENTY TIMES as fast as anything available to a consumer in the US.

As for datacenter solutions, prices in the US are far far higher than the stuff available in Europe (France and Holland in particular).

Second, it's not social. It's antisocial. There is no way to detect sarcasm on the internet, there is no way to see facial expressions, body language, voice intonation, no way to make eye contact, physical contact and so on and so on. It's interaction but far far far from social. And whether you like it or not, this is still against the norms in our society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social
Read the definition of social and anti-social please. And then use the terms in the right way. Thanks

"

Dzwonsson wrote:

I think the "get some real life social interaction" argument is invalid here... or at least when it comes to certain cultures. Not everyone lives in places like Spain, New York or any other country/state/city where people tend to socialize on a daily basis. I live in a part of Holland where people are obsessed with planning, keeping their schedule and not spending any money at the same time. In other words, where people tend to be greedy and antisocial. So, if you don't fit this picture you start to look for any social interaction someplace else. Like in an online video game. Seriously, when you call your friends to ask if they wanna dine with you tonight and they go like "oh, yeah, sure, sounds great, lemme check my schedule... I have time... in like 6 weeks!" you say "f**k this s**t, I'm gonna log in to Mumble/Teamspeak/GameVox to talk to my PoE guildies".

serious? that's really sad. How can one disagree with you?

Thank you guys for posting constructive stuff here. I really hated to see this thread start off the way it did. It's nice to see that it got turned around. Please keep this going. This thread could be part of the future of this game and you all can be a part of it. Social interaction seems to be a very debatable subject. I'll try and stand back and watch you all discuss. Let's make this into a study of gaming social interaction, whether you feel it's effective socialization or not and why you feel that way. It's not about replacement of normal socialization but more as a supplement to it.

I can't help but think of the game, "The Sims", which, ironically, was based on psychology and what people need to get through everyday life. Those of you who have played it will understand exactly what I'm talking about.

The part of that game that strikes me the most, as far as this subject, is the friend interaction. Remember +++? For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about you would get those when you score points toward your friendship with another sim. I'm not, in any way, saying playing the Sims is social interaction.

In this game +++ can come from a far more vast type of interaction, than what was offered in "The Sims". For example one player gives another player an item they needed. In a normal situation, this should score +++ with both players, especially the receiver. The giver receives +++ for that warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from giving. Both players benefit and social interaction begins. From there, it can either go +++ or ---, depending on those two players future social interactions. Another example could be a friendship being created over a voice chat program, such as Mumble or TeamSpeak, which are commonly used in gaming. This type of social interaction can be compared to talking on the phone, which I feel is a viable form of social interaction. Real face to face contact would be best, but voice communication works great, too.

This is about forging friendships and possibly even making enemies, which sometimes happens while a friendship is being built. I've had a lot of gaming friends, over the years. One of which was Hark, from Diablo I. He was my best friend in that game. We even talked on the phone. He was in Japan so it would have been very hard for us to get together face to face, but I still consider him one of my best gaming friends, ever. Some of you may remember the hacked ring called Hark's excellent ring. That was his creation. Rest in peace, Hark.

I really would love to see this thread become an exploration in social interaction in gaming. Please help me make it so.

By the way, GGG, I'm going to try out General Discussion again. Hopefully this goes a little smoother, this time. I'm really sorry (and disappointed) that this thing started out the way it did.

Thanks ;-)

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

"

OleOlof wrote:

"

bhavv wrote:

Other people are the worst thing about existence though.

Reminds me of Jean Paul Sartres (philosopher dude) famous quote: "Hell is other people."

I loved his books. :D

Funny fact about that. In the French original of No Exit, it was "Hell is the other". To me, that means more than just other people; it means the opposite to the same, the self. In order for the other to be just "other people", the self must be other to everyone else.

So who, really, is the other?

Hint: The words "No Exit" punctuate a crucial moment of possible self-realisation in American Psycho.

Hell isn't other people. Hell is believing people are other to you.

....I could clearly relate this to the thread, but I am on my tablet and figure y'all can do it for yourselves.

Orginal: "L'Enfer c'est les autres." If he would mean "hell is the other" he wouldnt have used plural. Its directly related to the three people in the room (with no exit)...more in the way of "you cannot live with the people and you cannot live without the people."...hence the hell are the others.