Wii Shall Overcome

The gaming industry, for better or worse, is here to stay.  I think that point was definitely right.  As much as I would like to be an optimist and claim that it will solve world problems, that is simply not the world we live in.  Free markets drive consumption of goods, including video games.  The reason that games, like the ones McGonigal mentions in the interview, will probably (never) see preeminence in the market is because the demand simply isn't high enough.  The argument, I assume, is that eventually we should be moving toward a global society in which every aspect of human life is regulated and competition, as we know it, becomes a thing of the past.  In that utopian society, which I don't believe to be realistic, we would all enjoy games that somehow help the collective.

I would point to the human condition, or human nature to explain why more positive games aren't marketed.  However, the counter-argument would most likely be that human nature is inherently negative only because capitalism has made it thus.  My personal belief is that people are going to be who they are, regardless of the systems put in place by government agents.  Nice people will always be nice, jerks will always be jerks, and the indifferent will remain indifferent.  People can change, but it usually requires some life altering event.  Since no society, capitalist, communist, socialist, or fascist has ever made any great strides in the area of changing the morals and virtues of a given society, history is of great help in defending my argument.  I think the best we can hope for is that individuals will recognize the value of helping others via the grim alternatives of living simply for one's self.  Let's not count out the do-gooders like McGonigal.  It is those who refuse to give in to the nature of the industry and preferences of gamers around the world, that we're even having this discussion.  My concern is that for every Jane McGonigal, there are a thousand others who are working toward an antithetical view.  Does this mean we shouldn't try to better ourselves and the lives of our fellow man?  Absolutely not.  I just choose not to do it through collective measures such as the proposed gaming community in the article.

Call me crazy, but I believe the world is perfect as it is (good and bad).  I believe there to be natural consequences to every action.  People sometimes even learn from these consequences.  Is this fair?  That isn't something for me to decide.  I didn't invent evolution.  The attempt to deprive the world of consequence by limiting freedom, may have the best of intentions, but with those intentions come unintended consequences.  The notion that if we would all just unite and overthrow systems of oppression, the world would be better off, also gives place to other forms of oppression.  This is why I simply accept what is, and try not to change other people.  In fact, I would not be writing this right now unless it were required to help pass the course.  I don't feel compelled to change anyone or anything.  That is their business, and I applaud all those who are working towards bettering themselves.  All I can do is be the best person I know how.  This is my role, and my course in life.  A game didn't help me arrive at this conclusion, my conscience did. My "epic wins" in life were a result of learning from "epic failures."