Response to Video Game Response

This is something interesting I found on Phuong's blog about video games.

    Prior to our vision getting worse, the games that she introduced in the video aren't really attractive. No one would want to play a video game that requires it to be part of a daily life habit and have to post a blog about it later on. It sounds more like homework than a game for people to play. Moreover, because Mr. Sutherland explained one of the games from the video, I have an understanding that the game only requires focus rather than moving the mouse or clicking which doesn't sound really fun. The only result from the game was our experience from pretending a scenario.

I feel that what Phuong is trying to say is true. Most people do not enjoy playing games that seems pointless. If you make something mandatory to do, then a lot of people will be turned off by that. People like to do things because they choose to, they usually do not do things that they dislike doing. They do not like people controlling certain aspects of their life. Also, when a video game requires people to change some of their habits, it implies that the video game is trying to change people's lifestyles. Some people do not like change forced on them, and they will try to fight change from happening to the very end.

 She was talking about how we play 3 billion hours and that we need to increase it. The moment she said that by increasing the time playing video games can save the world, I immediately disagree with her. Playing video games use too much energy. The television and the lights (to keep the room bright) require electricity. It also damages the gamers' eyes. If we expand our time of playing games, we would be in a century with every single one of us either wearing glasses or contacts. It would then be rare for people to have 20/20 vision.

 Also, as like Phuong said, playing so many games for so many hours a day will hurt a lot of people. First, it will use up too much energy, like Phuong said, and to generate energy we have to do things that will damage the environment, or we have to use clean energy, which no one uses right now. Also, when the speaker said that her data shows that playing games for so many hours will save the world, it makes no sense. Even when she talks about people having a sense of Victory from playing games, it is too hard to achieve that feeling in the world, it is too hard to try and satisfy everyone in the world virtually simultaneously. A serious point is that playing video games for so long every day will seriously damage people's personal health. If it will damage everyone's health to do it so much, then it should not be something that we do so much for so long. This is why I think that her points have no validity.