(When I say book I mean a fictional chapter book.) Think about it, they both don't teach you anything, they both make it so you don't socialize when you playing or reading it, and they both don't make you get exercise.
EDIT: When I said that video games were anti social I forgot about multiplayer, but books are also social due to book clubs. But video games are still better since there interactive. Also they both do teach you some things.

I think that gaming can be a social activity (ever heard of multiplayer?) unlike reading

I think that gaming can be a social activity (ever heard of multiplayer?) unlike reading

That's what we(the proverbial we, not me personally you understand) have book clubs.

No. Video games are completely different. User input being the most obvious thing. Turning a page just isn't the same as manipulating a set of buttons to perform some action on-screen. And no, choose-your-own-adventure books don't cut it either.

EDIT: Don't teach you anything? I learn a lot of useless junk from fictional books and video games, thank you very much

Books are passive though. So while reading may be like watching someone else play a game, where you have no control over their actions, it's not the same as playing.

I think you're either playing the wrong sort of games or reading the wrong sort of fiction, son. If there's nothing social about what you're playing/reading, it's crap. You should be able to at least talk about the book or game afterwards with friends... and the really good ones of either do teach you something, about your self if nothing else.

-- Steve

If when you say playing a video game is no different then reading a book, are referring to playing an RPG...yes your right. They both don't teach you anything? I beg to differ, books can hold some deep meanings and sub contexts, so can RPG's, you just have to look for them. So you are half right.

I agree with u........

When was the last time i saw an idiot twelve year old call me an idiot in a book club? hmmmmm...

Anyways, they, if you apply a certain way of thinking, tend to attract the same crowd so i guess they are alike in that respect but they only have a few similiarities, also not every activity promotes exercise so who cares if gaming or reading don't.

I can see what you are saying but that's like comparing paper and a wood fire, technically related but then again two different things.

Also think about those kids who read fictional books. Now look at their English results and enthusiasm towards that course. Notice something? Saying they don't teach you anything is technically wrong as they increase your vocab and in most cases help students learn grammer and proper spelling, just over longer periods of time compared to full time study.

Also i think reading is better than gaming, simply because it is more socially acceptable and in some way benefits the person doing it (outside of relaxation).

I disagree with that statement. In a book, you can't control the actions of the protagonist. The heart of a game is that you control the way things go - be it in a minor way, by walking two steps to the right instead of moving in a straight line, or in a major way, such asby destroying the planet you are meant to save.

You do realise that while reading, even a fictional book, you can still be learning. The best way to improve your vocabulary, writing skills, and grammar is by reading. Games, although entertaining, do not do the same for your brain as books do.

HomeAliveIn45:
You do realise that while reading, even a fictional book, you can still be learning. The best way to improve your vocabulary, writing skills, and grammar is by reading. Games, although entertaining, do not do the same for your brain as books do.

If games were written better and utilized more literary devices, sophisticated concepts and words in their dialogue then they could theoretically be as good as a book on tape.

BallPtPenTheif:

HomeAliveIn45:
You do realise that while reading, even a fictional book, you can still be learning. The best way to improve your vocabulary, writing skills, and grammar is by reading. Games, although entertaining, do not do the same for your brain as books do.

If games were written better and utilized more literary devices, sophisticated concepts and words in their dialogue then they could theoretically be as good as a book on tape.

Yes but sales would plummet. compare how many people read and play games to the number who do one or the other.

Reaperman Wompa:

Yes but sales would plummet. compare how many people read and play games to the number who do one or the other.

nah.

Sales wouldn't plummet from good writing. Anybody who doesn't give a crap about the story wouldn't notice anyways so you have nothing to lose by going for quality. I know I won't rest until William Burroughs' "Wild Boys" is made into a videogame (j/k).

Completly wrong.

The book is pre-written. You read it several times, and it's the same again. You can just make some realisations to the plot, that you didn't get before.

The game, even the most linear ones, have some difference, because you control actions of your hero, with that making him do your will. That gives some slight difference, each time played.

However, I think, that both games and books are great. And none of them can replace each other.

Can't play video games on the crapper. Well, you can, but if you do, I'm gonna add you to the "What makes you lose faith in humanity" thread. Also, no fanboys for books, OH WAIT, RELIGION!!!! Thats it! They are book fan-boys! "Mines better than yours", "Yeah, well mines older", "Oh yeh?! Mines believable!", "Take it back!". Obviously not all are, some don't have books...

ultra_v_89:
Also, no fanboys for books...

You have clearly never met a die-hard Lord of the Rings fan. A fanboy for books if ever there was one.

Johnn Johnston:

ultra_v_89:
Also, no fanboys for books...

You have clearly never met a die-hard Lord of the Rings fan. A fanboy for books if ever there was one.

They scare me more than sharks and terrorism combined.

If you boil down anything to it's most simplistic nature, everything just seems similair now does it? T.V. and Games, same thing, movies and games, same thing, magazines and games, same thing, you could go on and on.

ZAch055:
they both don't teach you anything

Sure about that?

I find that they can be very alike, yet very different at the same time. It almost depends on how you read, if you can really get into the book your reading and understand it clearly, they can be much more pleasurable than a game, yet if you don't they can seem a boring waste of time. Also, it would seem learning to read properly has a longer lasting value than playing games, due to helping your spelling, reading, and so on. To me, they're both enjoyable, but games are for relieving stress and beating some people down, where books are more to immerse yourself into another places, with only a few exceptions such as CoD4 and Final Fantasy, which usually deliver both killer stories and all around enjoyment.

Um, nice poll...

I voted for option Null.

Reaperman Wompa:

Johnn Johnston:

ultra_v_89:
Also, no fanboys for books...

You have clearly never met a die-hard Lord of the Rings fan. A fanboy for books if ever there was one.

They scare me more than sharks and terrorism combined.

More than terrorist sharks? My god. That is a lot of fear.

Am I the only one who remembers the "choose your own adventure" books?

squid5580:
Am I the only one who remembers the "choose your own adventure" books?

I mentioned this. They don't cut it regarding the amount of choice you're given and interactivity... of course it varies from book to book and game to game, but on average you're given more freedom in a game than in a choose-your-own-adventure.

Are you on crack? Everything you said was complete bullshit. I've learned a lot from games such as military weapon/vehicle names, and to say that books dont teach you anything? ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE? Have you ever been to a library?! Books aren't anti social since your reading somebody elses thoughts which is about as social as it gets. Games have multiplayer.

"They both don't make you get exercise" Well thats completely untrue, look at the Wii. Thousands of books are about excercise too, actually. Your a complete idiot. Think before you post something this embrarasing.

hahahaha

is this guy serious?

Playing a video game is not like reading a book. A book is dedicated strictly to telling a story and passing information. You have to bring something to the table, namely your imagination and empathy. A true game (excluding the story aspects of video games) involves negotiating a set of challenges within set rules, and the goal here is to beat the game. When reading a book, your goal is not simply finishing it, but absorbing what it has to say. You could, for example, read a paragraph without investing yourself in it and find that you've learned nothing. A game (video or not) is judged by the level of entertainment it provides by the simple act of playing it, regardless of mental commitment. There is an inherent difference here.

Now, the above is a purist point of view, to make my argument more relevant I'll have to admit that there are games which center around telling a story. In fact, most games nowadays do so. To enjoy their stories, regardless of their quality, one must pay attention and dedicate themselves to that story, not unlike when reading a book. Those games are not _just_ games, because there's more to them than gameplay.

There are many mediums, other than books, through which one can tell a story. There are movies, songs, poems, and paintings as well. Some video games fall into this category. Those games are using the technology available to developers to tell a story and combine it with gameplay action, which makes them more than just games. In this sense, they are a bit like reading a book.

Bluntly claiming that playing a video game is like reading a book is illogical, however. To enjoy a book, as I've claimed, you must dedicate your empathy, attention and imagination to the writing. There is an interaction here between your mind and the words you read. One is entertained by a book when they relate to a character, for example, or when they're fascinated, and sometimes awe-struck by what's written. Books appeal to the readers' emotional ties to the writing. Games do not do this by definition. Many attempt and fail, some do and succeed, while others don't at all. When you play Donkey Kong, do you have fun by relating to Mario's epic struggle to rescue Peach, or by beating the various levels and challenges the game throws at you? Do you relate to your Checkers' pieces in their all-encompassing battle against their electromagnetic antagonists? Are you the chivalrous king or brave peon when you play Chess? No, you aren't, and that's where the difference is.

Books are all about the story, and games are all about the gameplay. Video games with stories are attempting to be something more than what they are, and that's why most of them fail at telling a decent story.

DarkHyth:

squid5580:
Am I the only one who remembers the "choose your own adventure" books?

I mentioned this. They don't cut it regarding the amount of choice you're given and interactivity... of course it varies from book to book and game to game, but on average you're given more freedom in a game than in a choose-your-own-adventure.

My bad I missed it. I think that alot of games share similarities with those kind of books (once you take button pressing vs page turning out of the equation). I have found quite a few games over the years that go left instead of right and you meet your end. Or fight instead of flee. As you said though it would have to be based on a book by book or game by game comparison since there are more and more games coming out which give you the player more freedom.

They are pretty simalier but to different to really stack against each other.

I think the experience with books is inerently different from playing a game. In a book you relate to characters because of descriptions and what they do. In a game, however, you relate to them because of what they do.
Storywise they are very similar but I feel that games could do a lot more then they are doing now.
And they both learn you things. Maybe not practical skills bot general knowledge and life skills.

Books require you to use your imagination, games don't really do that. Christ even something like the Wii you can't use your imagination. They want to you buy stuff to turn the controller into a gun or something.

A big problem comparing games to... anything, is that there's a lot of wildly different stuff lumped together under the label games. Most of all, there is the difference between story-driven games and play-driven games. The first is way more like books I guess

Games, as with any visual media like film and TV require a minimal amount of imagination, whereas books excercise your mind much more and in many different ways. I can't believe people are trying to say games are even on the same level as books, let alone trying to condemn the age old passtime of reading because it's not as social, unlike the extremely social passtime of playing video games, many of which have plot and storytelling comparable to even the greatest fictional literature.

ultra_v_89:
Can't play video games on the crapper. Well, you can, but if you do, I'm gonna add you to the "What makes you lose faith in humanity" thread.

Oh wow, I think I'm gonna have to revoke your man card. It is a proven fact that everything is better while sitting on a toilet.

This thread is redundant