Angry Birds Farmville And Other Hyperaddicitve Stupid Games By Sam Anderson

Even before the ancient Egyptians, humans have always found a way to amuse themselves through playing games. As time has evolved so too has the platform by which people entertain themselves. Within the past ten years, a new and dynamic form of gaming has emerged that can be accessed anywhere at anytime. In Sam Anderson’s article: Just one More Game… Angry Birds, Farmville and Other Hyperaddicitve Stupid Games, this new instant gaming and it’s controversy is highlighted. To an extent, I empathize with Anderson’s argument that there are games that are ridiculous and provide no overall benefits personally or socially. In this essay, my intent is to summarize and respond to Anderson’s article and critically analyze his techniques. In most games, players often find themselves combating an enemy that can either be the computer, a player on the other side of the world or even themselves. In any case, both players argue that he or she should be victorious and the other should not. In Anderson’s article, he purposely injects the views of an opponent who believes that gaming provides beneficial applications to one’s, or another’s, life.

In his article, Anderson presents startling statistics of gaming addicts, which reinforces his original beliefs. However, towards the conclusion of his article Anderson introduces the notion that there is much more to gaming than meets the eye. To help support his conclusion, Anderson quotes Frank Lantz, a game designer, who states “Games, he told me, are like… a little digital drug you can use to run experiments on your own brain. Part of the point…is to come out the other side a more interesting and self-aware person” (Lantz 68). By the end of his article, it can be interpreted that Anderson continues to believe that many games are stupid, but even the dumbest games can provide profound