I mean, if you really want to take it to that extreme, why is the argument against facebook videogames and not videogame culture as a whole? Seems like in this case, Facebook is just a scapegoat.

I completely disagree that videogames are bad (in moderation, of course, as all things). Games often involve problem solving, learning systems, practice and continual improvement. Compare this to other forms of entertainment media and games look good. There are vapid videogames on mobile and social which are little more than slot machines, but that doesn't mean all or most games are fruitless wastes of time. And even in mobile, if you get deeply into many of the top performing games, there is a lot of thinking and strategy involved. It's far from idle, passive, worthless entertainment.

What's more, games often help people connect to others, sometimes from around the world, in a shared interest. For people who are socially stressed or are going through a rough time without enough support in real life, this can be extremely helpful. And even for those who have plenty of social life, it's often fun to meet people in game.

In my opinion, this is the most dangerous aspect of games, though - they can fulfill that feeling of achievement that would otherwise belong to creative work, and satiate the need for that kind of work. The problem is that the achievements aren't helpful in the same way that eg building a company/invention/coffee table are.

I say this as a lifelong game player, and it's not to discount their positive effects - I think I'm a much better strategist and planner as a result of playing games as a kid.

My brother has health problems that prevent him from finding fulfillment in the same ways that an entrepreneur might.

It's precisely this property of videogames that allows so many people with similar problems to feel achievement.

Thank you! I very much agree with this. Most claims I see made against video games (as a whole or phone-based) tend to be made from atop a pedestal, and usually with very little willingness to open one's mind to the plausible benefits (visible or otherwise).

Video games covers a very broad market, but the race to the bottom in price in some segments seems to have been followed by unproductive time sink mechanics made by people who didn't realise (or perhaps didn't care) that Cow Clicker was a parody.

I've had to put the kongregate minigames site into my own /etc/hosts file as 0.0.0.0 to stop myself playing the "Idle"/"Clicker" genre.

Positive games do exist, but they are thinner on the ground than they used to be. I think.

> Games often involve problem solving, learning systems, practice and continual improvement.

A lot of videogames focus on instant gratification and variable time rewards. There have been some games focused on problem solving - games where instead of simply playing you'd find yourself spending 20 minutes looking over your handwritten notes trying to puzzle something out - but they're a minority.

Yeah, I find I enjoy video games for many of the same reasons I enjoy programming.

Many things that are harmful in large doses but beneficial in moderation. Alcohol has many beneficial effects when used in moderation, but too much is both immediately a problem and can cause systemic problems. Drugs (of the legal/medical sort) are specifically used because of their beneficial nature, but most of them cause harm when used in excess.

The problems come when something has a feedback loop which promotes more usage beyond normal usage. Alcohol has this, and so does heroin. Different games have this to different degrees. Like most things I've mentioned, different people are susceptible to this to different degrees, which complicates the issue.

I think most of those who've responded to you recognize the argument is against Facebook, videogames, tv, etc and in general all vapid time sucks designed to keep the user in an unenlightened state

I'm not sure I agree there. I think most of the responses were in the same vein as "look at these mindless sheep who can't lift their heads from their phones".

Who indeed? Can you judge how people should live their lives better than they can? Most heroin addicts are far from happy though

(btw what you have said is basically the Godwin's Law of talking about happiness)

> Can you judge how people should live their lives better than they can?

Me personally? No. We as a society in which that person lives? Yes, to the degree that it affects us. That's why we have public education and vaccination.

If you want to retire to a remote cabin in the woods with a ton of heroin and finish out your days, I have no complaints. If you want to do it such that others need to clean up after you (whether that be garbage on the street or an unpaid hospital bill from an emergency room visit), then you are subject to their desires to a greater or lesser degree. You aren't allowed to have the benefits of society without the drawbacks. That's what civilization is.

Oddly, most of the garbage that accumulates on the streets where I live consists of empty cigarette packs/butts, coffee cups, beer and soda cans, junk food and fast food wrappers, etc. And the hospitals are full of people suffering the consequences of recklessly consuming those things.

It's not all that odd. What society deems is beneficial as a whole is not necessarily what is beneficial for an individual. It's not necessarily beneficial even, it's just what's been decided is. A society without caffeine might be better off, but we've decided we don't believe so for a multitude of reasons. That doesn't mean we are correct, it just means we've made a choice.

Cogs that don't fit get ground down. That's not meant as some dig against modern society, all human groups feature this to some degree. Your prototypical small native american tribe is no different.

Why would I? They are probably happy.