Is Gaming a Good Hobby?

Editorial by: Maverik


Not too long ago, nobody would have ever dared to admit that their main pastime in life was to play video or computer games. It just wasn't done. People were outside, kicking a ball around or doing other activities. Or just inside watching TV or playing chess. Nowadays, a growing number of people are coming to spend their leisure time sitting in front of a screen and playing games. But is this increasing trend a good thing, or a bad thing? Read on to find out. Or, rather, to find out my opinion, which is almost as good as the truth anyway.


Obviously, when you're playing games, you aren't getting much exercise. True, you're developing your thumb-movement, and your eyes are getting a good left-to-right workout, but few other muscles are used. Contrast this to other more active pastimes, such as sports or recreational walking, and you've got a bit of a problem. Exercise is apparently highly beneficial to people, and if you're indoors all the time sitting in front of a screen, you might find yourself slowly wasting away.

That's the most obvious argument against gaming as a hobby. And to an extent, it's a perfectly valid one. It is troubling to think of people, especially children who ought to be developing their muscles and whatnot, spending all their time indoors playing games. But that's an extreme example, although not so rare as you'd hope. Most people do more than just play games all day long, and hopefully most gamers also have some outside activities as well to keep them healthy and balanced. In any event, at least you're doing more exercise playing games than by just watching TV all day, unless you're one of those annoying people who keep changing the channel all the time.

In gaming's favour, I think that it's fair to say that there are certain skills and mental activities that it is actually beneficial to. Hand-eye co-ordination, for instance, is probably greatly enhanced by a fast-paced game where you must react quickly to visual stimulii. Granted, the movements you are required to make in response aren't much more than pushing a button or moving a control stick, but the quick reactions you are being taught can certainly be of use in many areas of life.

Apart from reflexes and co-ordination, there are a growing number of games that require gamers to think, and in places solve some pretty devious puzzles. True, your average shooter or beat-em-up doesn't require much, if any, brain-power, but a large number of gamers appear to actually prefer the more cerebral game styles. Strategy games, where turn-based or real-time, really do require some sophisticated planning to succeed in, and I think this kind of stimulus on the mind is definitely beneficial. I don't see any reason why making strategic planning in an enjoyable situation such as an RTS can't carry over into more complicated areas of life, and I think that the thought-processes used in such games can indeed be applied in the 'real' world with success. Let's not get carried away, though: unless you go on to be a military commander, you're probably not going to find controlling a virtual army of particular relevance in your day-to-day life, and real-world problems are a lot more taxing than deciding where to position your siege tanks in StarCraft. But I think that getting the brain working to solve these simpler (and, in places, complicated) problems is definitely a great step.

Sports games are an interesting question. Concerned parents watching their children sitting around a console playing a soccer game instead of going outside and kicking a ball may be of the firm opinion that it's a sad situation indeed where actual sport is abandoned in favour of a no-exercise simulation of the real thing. It's a fair point, but I don't think that you can really compare a sports game with the actual sport itself - they may look similar, but there's a massive difference between the two. As a rule, I'm not a fan of either sports games or real organised sports, but there are exceptions. I do enjoy swinging a tennis racquet around every now and then (usually to hit Tangy with it), and I also enjoy a game of Mario Tennis from time to time. The video game version of tennis is a great equaliser in terms of the game - I seldom win real-life tennis, but have a good chance in the game - and also it's a lot more convenient than the constant fetching the ball and getting hot and sweaty which happens when really playing. However, the satisfaction of really whacking a tennis ball far outweighs doing so in a video game, and the real-world version feels so much more involved. My point is that playing sports games can never equal really playing sports, and I don't think that anyone is less likely to participate in the real thing just because you can play the 'same' sport on your console. If anything, it's likely to further your passion for the sport and make you play even more of it.

Another problem with gaming as a hobby is the lack of social contact that they usually engender. If you're sitting at the computer most of the day, you aren't exactly honing your interpersonal skills. But again, you'd expect most gamers to have a life outside games anyway, and actually, gaming can sometimes be highly sociable. Multiplayer gaming - whether online with computer games or with several friends together on a console - can be warm and fun, and certainly as sociable as sitting in front of a TV with other people or seeing a movie with friends. True, in online play you don't see or talk orally with the other players, but the most enjoyable online gaming is where communication is constant and friendly, and you do feel as if you know the people you're playing with. Playing with friends in the same room can be even more sociable, and cameraderie can be intense. Enjoying a good game with a group of people can be really fun and a rewarding social event. True, you're not exactly engaging in intellectual discussion, but that doesn't make it less of an experience.

I've mentioned a couple of times that you'd expect most gamers to do plenty of activities outside of gaming, but this does skip over another, potent argument against gaming being a good hobby, and that is that they often tend to be engrossing in their ease and enjoyment of play, and can be addictive to the point of sucking up huge amounts of time. This is a fair point - sometimes a game really is so addictive that you can hardly tear yourself away from it, particularly when you begin on a new and enjoyable game. Yes, I have spent several hours with a new title on a number of occasions, and frequently I find myself killing time with a good old gaming session. This may generally be a bad thing, but I don't think it's really a reason to justify the idea that gaming is an intrusive and wasteful hobby at all. Sure, there are times when a new game, or even an older, classic game, can consume a lot of a gamer's time, but such addiction doesn't last, except for an unfortunate minority of people, who could just as well waste as much time on another, even less cerebral activity like mindless TV instead. True, there's a limit to how much of a more strenuous hobby you can play at a time, by virtue of pure exhaustion, while it's possible to play a game all day and all night. But most people can only play for so long before needing a mental break, and intense play-sessions are usually few and far-between. The occasional period of being utterly absorbed in a game can actually be refreshing and leave you feeling satisfied and happy for the experience, as anyone who has sat down for a week after first purchasing the first Zelda game for the N64 can vouch for. I don't think that addiction and mass playing time are a problem for any but a tiny minority of gamers.


Playing games has become a legitimate and widespread hobby, and, as I've noted, it does have a few problems associated with it. It's naive to claim that gaming is totally beneficial, but I think that it's just as naive to write it off as a bad, wasteful and antisocial hobby. As with any other hobby, it has positive and negative aspects, but as long as someone's life isn't purely dominated by games to the exclusion of outside activities, I think it's a perfectly acceptable and even life-enhancing pastime. There's nothing antisocial about having a top multiplayer session with two or three friends, while many single-player games can tax the brain while developing concentration, reaction speed and patience. Gaming may not be the world's most productive hobby, and those who don't want to indulge in it have every right not to; but it is still a fine way to spend time, as long as it doesn't become an obsession.

Tangycheese's response:
There's no doubt that excess gaming is bad for you, both physically and indeed mentally (and for proof of this, one only has to look at Mav). However, I'm of the belief that casual gaming is good for you - if only because it provides a break from the real world and allows you to indulge the child that's inside all of us, even if that does mean blowing the brains out of monsters, a la Quake. It's good, harmless fun.

I never thought I'd ever be writing this, but I agree with most of what Mav's saying here, although I'm not too sure about gaming really improving reaction speed. I think that might be just wishful thinking on his part. And also the part about him having a chance at winning in Mario Tennis. Again, wishful thinking. However, he certainly is correct in saying that computer games are becoming far more socially acceptable, which is, in my book at least, a good thing. I've said it before, and no doubt I'll say it again - computers provide a change from the real world by providing a consequence-free environment for those who want to relieve some aggression. Good stuff, but just don't let it become an addiction....