"Christopher Nicholson-Sauls" <ibisbase...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:iekles$79...@digitalmars.com... > On 12/18/10 14:12, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Nick Sabalausky" <a...@a.a> wrote in message >> news:iej46p$42...@digitalmars.com... >>> "Caligo" <iteronve...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:mailman.5.1292651710.4588.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >>>> >>>> IMO there is no honor in game development as it contributes nothing to >>>> society. I've rarely played any, >>> >>> I gotta jump on this as being a giant load of pretentious bullshit. >>> First >>> of all, there's the patently obvious "how in the world would you know?" >>> considering the "I've rarely played any". >>> >>> But more importantly, games make life suck less - I can't even imagine >>> any >>> more significant contribution to society than that. Even all of the >>> endeavors generally considered to be the biggest contributions to >>> society >>> are *only* significant contributions *because* that's exactly what they >>> do: they make life suck less, and are therefore well-regarded. >>> >>> Seriously, what up with all those presumptuous assholes out there >>> (mostly >>> baby boomer dinos and their even more anachronistic parents, >>> interestingly >>> enough) who have barely ever touched a videogame and yet figure they >>> actually have reason to believe such absurd pretentious crap? Fuck, they >>> all remind me of that pompous Roger Ebert douchebag. (Speaking of ways >>> to >>> benefit society, when's he finally gonna keel over? Isn't it about time >>> by >>> now? And speaking of "contributions to society" what the fuck's he ever >>> done? Collect a salary just to spout off opinions? Fucking useless >>> wanker.) >>> >> >> Since it apparently isn't obvious to some people: things don't have to be >> dull to qualify as a significant a contribution. >> >> >> > > There's also the classic example: a game was instrumental in the > development of UNIX. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Travel_(video_game) > > This wasn't arbitrary either; it was something Thompson wanted to do, > and he needed a better OS to do it in... so his toy got new polish. > Some of this polish became things we now take for granted and hardly > know how to live without (like a hierarchial filesystem). > > Do I mean to say that without the game there would be no UNIX? No; but > I do mean to say that games have *always* been a valuable tool for > finding the limits of systems, and for inspiring innovative ways to > expand those limits. > > The same research and development that provided pixel shaders to game > developers, also provided them to medical imaging developers. The same > that provided CPU technologies such as SSE to enable more complex > simulations in games, also provide for more complex simulations in > supercomputers. And many of these sort of technologies were original > conceived just to make games more awesome. Amazing. > > So no, games in and of themselves don't contribute anything -- if you > don't count fun, and honestly, I do count it -- but they have been a > driving force behind a lot of innovation. >
Yea, and another thing is the matter of art in general: If you're an ultra-utilitarian like Christopher seems to be (and even most programmers aren't ultra-utilitarian), then art can be seen as lacking significant contribution to society. But if you do believe in the value of art and still cherry-pick videogames as dishonorable or lacking significant contribution, then you're just simply being a dumbfuck and an elitist (like Roger Ebert).
