I disagree with this article. Console gaming, and gaming in general, is not social outside of a limited group of people who are interested in it. Anecdotal evidence to suggest otherwise is that: anecdotal. You can just as easily imagine asking people if they'd like a few pints down the pub as being a good way to start conversation, and once drunk, it's much easier to carry on.
When you go to University, there is a vast number of people out there looking for new friends: people like them. If you advertise who you are by how you behave, or dress, or where you go, you are more likely to meet them.
Consoles are just one way of advertising who you are. I still wouldn't say that they're any more social than D&D, a deck of cards, scrabble, actually playing sports, or joining a debating society.
In response to "The Game Design Game" from The Escapist Forum: Great read, really amazingly insightful.
"Once I've made a game, there is no joy in playing it. Or at least the joy is a shadow of what I get from playing someone else's game. Part of enjoying a game is discovery and surprise. Having made the game, there is none of that. Mastery is another principle pleasure of gaming. After testing it for several hundred hours, I've mastered the whole damn thing."
That's true for writers as well. Faulkner, Lytle...none of those guys ever re-read their books after they'd spent months writing and revising. So much so that Faulkner couldn't remember the characters from all of his books after a while.
- L.B. Jeffries
I can relate to the concept of creation requiring more than one man - my group and I have been devising a 13-part drama series for the 2nd year Uni project, and it really opened my eyes to the way an idea evolves and grows.
It was a little disheartening to hear some of the comments by professionals about who can and can't make a good designer, but hey, nothing ventured, nothing gained.