What do you think?
Rate this book
Lost in a Good Game
'Etchells writes eloquently ... A heartfelt defence of a demonised pastime' The Times
'Once in an age, a piece of culture comes along that feels like it was specifically created for you, the beats and words and ideas are there because it is your life the creator is describing. Lost In A Good Game is exactly that. It will touch your heart and mind. And even if Bowser, Chun-li or Q-Bert weren't crucial parts of your youth, this is a flawless victory for everyone' Adam Rutherford
When Pete Etchells was 14, his father died from motor neurone disease. In order to cope, he immersed himself in a virtual world - first as an escape, but later to try to understand what had happened. Etchells is now a researcher into the psychological effects of video games, and was co-author on a recent paper explaining why WHO plans to classify 'game addiction' as a danger to public health are based on bad science and (he thinks) are a bad idea.
In this, his first book, he journeys through the history and development of video games - from Turing's chess machine to mass multiplayer online games like World of Warcraft- via scientific study, to investigate the highs and lows of playing and get to the bottom of our relationship with games - why we do it, and what they really mean to us.
At the same time, Lost in a Good Game is a very unusual memoir of a writer coming to terms with his grief via virtual worlds, as he tries to work out what area of popular culture we should classify games (a relatively new technology) under.
'Once in an age, a piece of culture comes along that feels like it was specifically created for you, the beats and words and ideas are there because it is your life the creator is describing. Lost In A Good Game is exactly that. It will touch your heart and mind. And even if Bowser, Chun-li or Q-Bert weren't crucial parts of your youth, this is a flawless victory for everyone' Adam Rutherford
When Pete Etchells was 14, his father died from motor neurone disease. In order to cope, he immersed himself in a virtual world - first as an escape, but later to try to understand what had happened. Etchells is now a researcher into the psychological effects of video games, and was co-author on a recent paper explaining why WHO plans to classify 'game addiction' as a danger to public health are based on bad science and (he thinks) are a bad idea.
In this, his first book, he journeys through the history and development of video games - from Turing's chess machine to mass multiplayer online games like World of Warcraft- via scientific study, to investigate the highs and lows of playing and get to the bottom of our relationship with games - why we do it, and what they really mean to us.
At the same time, Lost in a Good Game is a very unusual memoir of a writer coming to terms with his grief via virtual worlds, as he tries to work out what area of popular culture we should classify games (a relatively new technology) under.
MP3 CD
Published June 11, 2019
92 people are currently reading
1142 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews
August 4, 2019
I'm on my way to the Edinburgh Book Festival and as the mother of a gamer I've booked a ticket to the "Game On" session by Pete Etchells. Reading his book "Lost in a Good Game" was part of my preparation. And I'm so glad I've read it.
Pete is a psychologist and science writer. A PhD who specialises in the world of gaming (as a researcher and a gamer) and someone who also specialises in the quality of research generally.
This book does two things: it provides well written and research counterpoint to public opinion about the impact of video gaming and it introduces the reader to the mindset of one gamer (him) and how he interacts with games, and why.
As someone who doesn't like games much (of any kind) I've never been drawn to the world of gaming so have found it hard to understand my son's world. This book has given me an insight to that world and has helped me have a number of in depth conversations about games with my son which I've greatly appreciated and grown from.
A couple of years ago I started to tire of the "screens are bad" and "gaming is bad" tropes perpetuated by parents I know. It stopped making sense to me in our technology filled world. And it didn't make sense that gaming was bad but eg. binge watching The Bachelor or Game of Thrones was acceptable. Or that gaming was an unacceptable pastime but concerning parent and child behaviours in organised sport didn't result in warnings about that activity. But I didn't have any knowledge to explain my thoughts. Now, in conjunction with great discussions with my son, I feel I do.
And over the last couple of years I've become aware of the poor state of some elements of the scientific community. "It's science" is another justification used by all manner of poor scientists with poor methodology or even none. The number of books out aimed at parents backed up by poor or non-existent scientific method is astounding. When a topic is hot it seems publishers and other media will grasp at anything.
This book brings all the issues together in well explained and interesting chapters.
I have come away realising that research in this field is immature at best and that there seems to be a lot of hype about the impacts of gaming that doesn't stand up to the hype. I am more curious about gaming and the world my son loves. And I look forward to a more sensible discourse about the field in the future.
The one area that was touched on lightly that I have more questions on is inclusion in gaming. I will save my questions on that one for Pete's session in late August.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who knows someone who loves gaming. It will help you think about the issue in a more mature way.
Pete is a psychologist and science writer. A PhD who specialises in the world of gaming (as a researcher and a gamer) and someone who also specialises in the quality of research generally.
This book does two things: it provides well written and research counterpoint to public opinion about the impact of video gaming and it introduces the reader to the mindset of one gamer (him) and how he interacts with games, and why.
As someone who doesn't like games much (of any kind) I've never been drawn to the world of gaming so have found it hard to understand my son's world. This book has given me an insight to that world and has helped me have a number of in depth conversations about games with my son which I've greatly appreciated and grown from.
A couple of years ago I started to tire of the "screens are bad" and "gaming is bad" tropes perpetuated by parents I know. It stopped making sense to me in our technology filled world. And it didn't make sense that gaming was bad but eg. binge watching The Bachelor or Game of Thrones was acceptable. Or that gaming was an unacceptable pastime but concerning parent and child behaviours in organised sport didn't result in warnings about that activity. But I didn't have any knowledge to explain my thoughts. Now, in conjunction with great discussions with my son, I feel I do.
And over the last couple of years I've become aware of the poor state of some elements of the scientific community. "It's science" is another justification used by all manner of poor scientists with poor methodology or even none. The number of books out aimed at parents backed up by poor or non-existent scientific method is astounding. When a topic is hot it seems publishers and other media will grasp at anything.
This book brings all the issues together in well explained and interesting chapters.
I have come away realising that research in this field is immature at best and that there seems to be a lot of hype about the impacts of gaming that doesn't stand up to the hype. I am more curious about gaming and the world my son loves. And I look forward to a more sensible discourse about the field in the future.
The one area that was touched on lightly that I have more questions on is inclusion in gaming. I will save my questions on that one for Pete's session in late August.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who knows someone who loves gaming. It will help you think about the issue in a more mature way.
July 30, 2024
I would have loved to have liked this book, but it wasn't possible for two reasons:
1. In the academic domain, while agreeing that in science everything is provisional and nothing absolute exists I cannot agree with an approach that throws everything behind human complexity and bias.
Yes, the world is much more complex than we would like it to be. The variables are far greater in number than we can control, or even get to know. But using that as a subterfuge to sit back and watch life go by makes no sense. There are plenty of problems with video game studies, but that's no reason to pull up the rug and throw everything under there. On the other hand, using the idea that everything we want to study in the human will be contaminated by the bias of those who study along with the bias of those who are analysed, while a reality, cannot be used to not do anything either. There are many ways to deal with bias, and in psychology, this ends up being the work par excellence of researchers.
2. Being no worse than discrediting science, trying to write a book that is simultaneously a memoir, a novel and a scientific essay is not a task within everyone's reach.
It would be difficult enough to write in one of these registers and make a good book. To be able to jump between the various registers, connecting everything and keeping the reader focused is something that does not happen here. You can't be talking about your father's illness, and then talk about the irrelevance of player profiles, and then move on to anecdotes about historical technologies.
1. In the academic domain, while agreeing that in science everything is provisional and nothing absolute exists I cannot agree with an approach that throws everything behind human complexity and bias.
Yes, the world is much more complex than we would like it to be. The variables are far greater in number than we can control, or even get to know. But using that as a subterfuge to sit back and watch life go by makes no sense. There are plenty of problems with video game studies, but that's no reason to pull up the rug and throw everything under there. On the other hand, using the idea that everything we want to study in the human will be contaminated by the bias of those who study along with the bias of those who are analysed, while a reality, cannot be used to not do anything either. There are many ways to deal with bias, and in psychology, this ends up being the work par excellence of researchers.
2. Being no worse than discrediting science, trying to write a book that is simultaneously a memoir, a novel and a scientific essay is not a task within everyone's reach.
It would be difficult enough to write in one of these registers and make a good book. To be able to jump between the various registers, connecting everything and keeping the reader focused is something that does not happen here. You can't be talking about your father's illness, and then talk about the irrelevance of player profiles, and then move on to anecdotes about historical technologies.
December 6, 2024
I have liked and played video games since the old ASCII games in my college computer lab in the mid-70s, followed shortly therafter by Pong and then Space Invaders, Defender, Asteroids and PacMan at the local hamburger joints and arcades. I have gone on to waste an inordinate amount of time on various versions of Civilzation, SimCity, Ultima Online, World of Warcraft and so on. I don't think that any of this hurt me, but if I can't say that my many hours of game play made me smarter or a better person or did anything to help others. Still it was a lot of fun, and I don't regret it.
This book explores the history of video games and various theories and experiments about ways where games can hurt or help. I didn't need to be convinced that games are basically harmless, and I was already familiar with most of the arguments that Mr. Etchells brings forth in their defense. However, I remain equally unconvinced that games are a force for good. Sure there are some good things that you can do with them. Maybe they can sometimes be effective as a form of therapy. And intelligent use of ideas of gamification can bring fun and friendly competition into other areas of our lives to improve performance and performance metrics and to make dreary tasks more enjoyable, but it ain't curing cancer.
This book explores the history of video games and various theories and experiments about ways where games can hurt or help. I didn't need to be convinced that games are basically harmless, and I was already familiar with most of the arguments that Mr. Etchells brings forth in their defense. However, I remain equally unconvinced that games are a force for good. Sure there are some good things that you can do with them. Maybe they can sometimes be effective as a form of therapy. And intelligent use of ideas of gamification can bring fun and friendly competition into other areas of our lives to improve performance and performance metrics and to make dreary tasks more enjoyable, but it ain't curing cancer.
May 13, 2021
In ‘Lost in a Good Game’, psychologist Pete Etchells seeks to explain, “why we play video games and what they can do for us”.
I think the first part of that aim is well-achieved in the book. Pete does video games justice in detailing all the different reasons that different people might play different games - immersion, creativity, to socialize, to cope, to learn, and so on. He lays out the complicated history of video games and some of the nuance that exists around labeling things ‘video games’, while also exploring the breadth of experiences games have to offer.
For example, he shows that not all games are centered around violence or goofing off with friends (e.g. Fortnite) - some offer rich narrative experiences (e.g. Firewatch), or offer worlds to get lost in or be creative in (e.g. Minecraft). Games like Minecraft can be violent, social, but also an outlet for creativity. It can be different things to different people.
Overall, he dismantles the notion of a ‘stereotypical gamer’. He also brings important attention to the role of video games as coping mechanisms, drawing on his own experiences with grief and loss in both his childhood and adulthood.
As to the second aim, Pete spends a lot of time defending video games, and showing why it has largely been exaggerated claims and bad science that have linked video games (and even ‘screen-time’) to things like violence and depression. However, beyond his own anecdotes and those of a few others, he spends a very small portion of the book looking at empirical evidence of the potential benefits of playing video games (if any).
Maybe this is owing to the pitfalls that he highlights, of social scientists’ to-date attempts at studying video games (more on that below); regardless, it does at times feel like the focus of the book is to justify video games as a hobby, and not an addiction, rather than to promote gaming as something actively beneficial to us. As an avid gamer, I was hoping for a bit more of an exploration on the latest science (which to my knowledge does exist) around the benefits of gaming. Thus, a more appropriate title might have been, “why we play video games and why they aren’t bad for us”.
Nevertheless, I found this to be a great and highly educational read. Gaming is my Number 1 hobby, so I was surprised to learn so much about its history, especially pre- things like Pac-Man and Pong.
I also learnt a surprising amount around why video game research, and psychological research in general, can be highly flawed.
While it wasn’t the first time I’ve come across all the biases that can filter into research, especially when people are driven to produce shocking results that will get placements in journals, I learnt of some promising developments in the research space, including:
- The concept of ‘pre-registering’, which effectively gets a paper into a journal purely based on methods and research aims, so that whether or not the results end up being interesting, researchers have to stick to their methods and their work still gets published.
- The idea of ‘self-replenishing papers’, which are essentially studies (such as longitudinal studies) where participants can record entries throughout their lives (such as on a smartphone), and the paper can automatically re-compute results and allow the research to stay up to date.
- Some really cool examples of ‘citizen science’ projects, such as millions of users downloading a (fun to play) mobile game about navigation (Sea Hero Quest) which actually took anonymized results to produce the equivalent of 15000 years of dementia research.
- A call for developers to work closely with scientists in video games research, so the studies are actually well-designed and valid. For example, developers working to create proper ‘control’ and ‘case’ versions of popular games to detect actual changes in research groups.
4/5
I think the first part of that aim is well-achieved in the book. Pete does video games justice in detailing all the different reasons that different people might play different games - immersion, creativity, to socialize, to cope, to learn, and so on. He lays out the complicated history of video games and some of the nuance that exists around labeling things ‘video games’, while also exploring the breadth of experiences games have to offer.
For example, he shows that not all games are centered around violence or goofing off with friends (e.g. Fortnite) - some offer rich narrative experiences (e.g. Firewatch), or offer worlds to get lost in or be creative in (e.g. Minecraft). Games like Minecraft can be violent, social, but also an outlet for creativity. It can be different things to different people.
Overall, he dismantles the notion of a ‘stereotypical gamer’. He also brings important attention to the role of video games as coping mechanisms, drawing on his own experiences with grief and loss in both his childhood and adulthood.
As to the second aim, Pete spends a lot of time defending video games, and showing why it has largely been exaggerated claims and bad science that have linked video games (and even ‘screen-time’) to things like violence and depression. However, beyond his own anecdotes and those of a few others, he spends a very small portion of the book looking at empirical evidence of the potential benefits of playing video games (if any).
Maybe this is owing to the pitfalls that he highlights, of social scientists’ to-date attempts at studying video games (more on that below); regardless, it does at times feel like the focus of the book is to justify video games as a hobby, and not an addiction, rather than to promote gaming as something actively beneficial to us. As an avid gamer, I was hoping for a bit more of an exploration on the latest science (which to my knowledge does exist) around the benefits of gaming. Thus, a more appropriate title might have been, “why we play video games and why they aren’t bad for us”.
Nevertheless, I found this to be a great and highly educational read. Gaming is my Number 1 hobby, so I was surprised to learn so much about its history, especially pre- things like Pac-Man and Pong.
I also learnt a surprising amount around why video game research, and psychological research in general, can be highly flawed.
While it wasn’t the first time I’ve come across all the biases that can filter into research, especially when people are driven to produce shocking results that will get placements in journals, I learnt of some promising developments in the research space, including:
- The concept of ‘pre-registering’, which effectively gets a paper into a journal purely based on methods and research aims, so that whether or not the results end up being interesting, researchers have to stick to their methods and their work still gets published.
- The idea of ‘self-replenishing papers’, which are essentially studies (such as longitudinal studies) where participants can record entries throughout their lives (such as on a smartphone), and the paper can automatically re-compute results and allow the research to stay up to date.
- Some really cool examples of ‘citizen science’ projects, such as millions of users downloading a (fun to play) mobile game about navigation (Sea Hero Quest) which actually took anonymized results to produce the equivalent of 15000 years of dementia research.
- A call for developers to work closely with scientists in video games research, so the studies are actually well-designed and valid. For example, developers working to create proper ‘control’ and ‘case’ versions of popular games to detect actual changes in research groups.
4/5
July 23, 2019
This book left me feeling really unsure about how I felt about it.
The parts I liked - when the author was talking about the science of video games, the research being done into them and the problems facing the research. The interviews with video games insiders. The discussions around misogyny in the e-sports community could have been delved into further.
The parts I didn't like - when he went into a half page to a page describing a game I already know, or explaining a term I understand. (These are necessary in a book of this kind, I just found them tedious). The "love letter to video games" parts - where he waxes lyrical about how beautiful and meaningful video games are. Some of the chapters felt like they started out going in one direction and then went on a different tangent.
It might appear that I dis-liked more of this book then I liked, and I don't think I would say that. There were many interesting parts with thoughtful discussion that I really liked. Some parts I would have liked to be longer (discussions on the science, particularly around the loot boxes and gambling like aspect of some video games for instance) and some parts I could have done without.
Ultimately, I think this book is a must read for parents who have children who play video games - it gives some real food for thought about the whole "screen time" panic and moral outrages from video games. I am glad that I have read it.
The parts I liked - when the author was talking about the science of video games, the research being done into them and the problems facing the research. The interviews with video games insiders. The discussions around misogyny in the e-sports community could have been delved into further.
The parts I didn't like - when he went into a half page to a page describing a game I already know, or explaining a term I understand. (These are necessary in a book of this kind, I just found them tedious). The "love letter to video games" parts - where he waxes lyrical about how beautiful and meaningful video games are. Some of the chapters felt like they started out going in one direction and then went on a different tangent.
It might appear that I dis-liked more of this book then I liked, and I don't think I would say that. There were many interesting parts with thoughtful discussion that I really liked. Some parts I would have liked to be longer (discussions on the science, particularly around the loot boxes and gambling like aspect of some video games for instance) and some parts I could have done without.
Ultimately, I think this book is a must read for parents who have children who play video games - it gives some real food for thought about the whole "screen time" panic and moral outrages from video games. I am glad that I have read it.
December 10, 2019
Actual rating: 2.5 stars. There's nothing really wrong with this book so I feel bad giving it a low rating, but honestly, I was a little bored by it. This book is much more psychological research focused than I was expecting. The only thing I really learned here was that it's incredibly difficult to do any kind of psychological research (whether because of unconscious or blatant bias) and that all findings should be taken with a grain of salt.
July 7, 2022
Wow! This book is the only smart content I've encountered on the topic of gaming. It has the perfect balance of science and story.
Unfortunately, a good chunk of the book is focused on dispelling negative views relating to gaming. This is necessary now because it's poorly understood, but hopefully in the future we will have more science to work with.
Unfortunately, a good chunk of the book is focused on dispelling negative views relating to gaming. This is necessary now because it's poorly understood, but hopefully in the future we will have more science to work with.
March 19, 2020
I reserved this from the library because the blurb sounded really interesting, and I'm so glad I did. Etchells has done a brilliant job writing an unbiased book on video games and the psychology of them, and did it in a way that everyday people can understand it.
In fact, I had a bit of a "eureka" moment when reading the "Why do we play video games?" chapter, where he explains two sets of gamer archetypes (Richard Bartle's, and later Nick Yee's). When I was reading about the possibility of game developers catering to specific archetypes, I literally said out loud, "THAT'S why I hated Final Fantasy XIII!" (It made me realize that the game really wasn't catered to what I enjoy in the franchise - exploration - and that's why I found it a chore to complete. Instead, the developers went with a fixed map, and instead of towns with shops you have save points that also act as shops and upgrading facilities.)
I also learned a lot about psychological studies and preregistration, how studies on video games are often biased or use the data collected in strange ways, and how "freemium" games might be using mechanisms related to gambling to get people to spend money. There really is so much information in this book, and it's kind of lucky that my library is closed right now during the Virus That Must Not Be Named because I get to keep this book out for another month without paying fines, so I can go over certain chapters again.
Really, this book is brilliant.
In fact, I had a bit of a "eureka" moment when reading the "Why do we play video games?" chapter, where he explains two sets of gamer archetypes (Richard Bartle's, and later Nick Yee's). When I was reading about the possibility of game developers catering to specific archetypes, I literally said out loud, "THAT'S why I hated Final Fantasy XIII!" (It made me realize that the game really wasn't catered to what I enjoy in the franchise - exploration - and that's why I found it a chore to complete. Instead, the developers went with a fixed map, and instead of towns with shops you have save points that also act as shops and upgrading facilities.)
I also learned a lot about psychological studies and preregistration, how studies on video games are often biased or use the data collected in strange ways, and how "freemium" games might be using mechanisms related to gambling to get people to spend money. There really is so much information in this book, and it's kind of lucky that my library is closed right now during the Virus That Must Not Be Named because I get to keep this book out for another month without paying fines, so I can go over certain chapters again.
Really, this book is brilliant.
December 12, 2022
Unfortunately, the book doesn't really know what it wants. It is extremely strong when describing the narrator's own experience with particular games, but then loses its drive in pages of unnecessary Wikipedia facts. Even worse, half of the book focuses on being lost in bad games or just screen time in general, quoting various studies but never coming to a conclusion.
November 9, 2022
“… the real value in videogames, as I have come to realise, is not in their power to distract or captivate us. The real value is in their ability to connect us; to provide us with a way to foster new friendships and maintain old ones, to allow us to tell stories about interesting and amazing people, and to help us remember those we hold closest to our hearts.”
Lost in a Good Game is an interesting mix of memoir, information and scientific debate. In terms of memoir, Pete Etchells is honest and vulnerable in the way he talks about family illness (his dad had MND), loss, grief and the videogames that helped him through that. He discusses games that made him cry and connected him to others, games that he played solo and how they were often therapeutic, games that distract, games that help him memorialise and reflect.
For me, this was a book I took slow, picking it up here and there over the course of just over a month (I started it on audio but didn't like the narrator so read most of it as an ebook). Many times throughout the month I found myself bringing up a point from the book with someone irl. There’s so much interesting content to unpack, I really enjoyed it.
The parts on scientific research, data study and it’s flaws was not that engaging but was informative. I’ve read some other reviews where people say Etchells is dismissive of research, but I didn’t read it like that. He is critical of many research set-ups, but rightly so as they lead to extravagant and baseless claims. He discusses how research papers are written and published, how they are revisited and updated (or not). What research is being done, and how it is being carried out and confirmed.
Etchells makes the very good point that asking people how many hours they play games is not necessarily accurate because of the reality of immersion and how we perceive time. Self- assessment is unreliable. And also...
“But how useful is it to just look at the actual amount of time that people use screens? While it gives the researchers an easy number to work with, it misses something crucial about screen technology: that the technology is being used to do something.”
Screen-time is such a dumb concept for this reason, just saying. There are so many things that come under that umbrella. Imagine if we measured and even limited "outside-time" which btw would include committing arson, knife crime and all manner of awful things, as well as good ones. Combining infinite possibilities into the concept of screen-time is just as stupid and pointless as the idea of outside-time in my opinion. (I'm not saying we shouldn't exercise self-control or set limits for specific activities that take place on screens obviously).
Video game “addiction” is a concept thrown-about without heed at this point (and is approached by all sides with preconceptions). It’s defined so stupidly and arbitrarily that, in fact, according to some, people that play videogames as part of their jobs (eg. play testers, video producers, entertainers) would be classed as addicted purely because of the number of hours they play and that they “give gaming priority other over interests”. Which just ignores so many things and doesn't make sense.
Many of the attention-grabbing news headlines about videogames (some of the ridiculous ones mentioned in this book: Call of Duty increases your risk of developing Alzeimer’s, video-gaming leads to a rise in autism spectrum disorders, gaming affects your ability to remember things, videogames are as addictive as heroin) completely lack any evidence, or in many cases use flawed datasets. Some people simply say “videogames are changing our brains” and expect us to be horrified and afraid but...
“Everything that we do changes our brains [...] To say that our brains are being modified by our environment isn't a particularly interesting or helpful thing to say, because it’s that very change that underlies our ability to learn and remember things. To put it simply, if our brains didn’t change, we’d be dead.”
Far more interesting and impactful to look at HOW we are being changed by the games we play. Main-stream media rarely considers positive changes, only spotlighting potential negatives (which I, and the author, are not suggesting we ignore). The thing is, so much of the negativity about games is just unfounded fear. They are new (timeline of humanity speaking) and if you go back in history you can see the same fear of the unknown when reading became widespread, or radio, or cars… I think the title works really well because of that, there was a time when people were worried about children being lost in a good book for mostly the same reasons - it’ll harm their eyesight, they should be outside, it’s anti-social, it’s addictive, it’s not “real life”...
There are almost as many different reasons to play games as there are people playing them. Games and video-gaming is multifaceted and complex. “For those who don’t play games, they can often come across as alien, isolating experiences, and it can be difficult to see the good that comes from them when viewed from afar.” The author does consider the potential negative impacts of video games. If, and how, videogame companies are avoiding exploitation, particularly of vulnerable individuals. This includes abusive addictive mechanics, gambling or monetary investments, a game being too engaging (particularly when it comes to Virtual Reality) that it contributes to a neglect of reality (think Ready Player One).
Games can be more than so many of us first think. There are some very cool examples of how they are used within research. “Sea Hero Quest” - gamifying Alzeimer’s research, helping researchers to understand a healthy spatial navigation ability, how people find and lose their way, and how it differs in people. https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/...
“Reverse the Odds” - got people to act as sophisticated computer processors and sift through data. Giving them a task complex, time-consuming and expensive for an electronic computer to do. Combining it with a game to keep people engaged. https://citizensciencegames.com/games...
There is a VR game “Bravemind” used in exposure therapy for soldiers with PTSD. https://www.soldierstrong.org/bravemind/
One of the games Pete Etchells recommends is Firewatch, he talks about his experience with it, and why and how it’s so immersive. I played that game thanks to his recommendation and damn it’s good. Gotta love the book just for that, and I second the recommendation.
“When we are sad, playing games can make us feel better, or at least give us a chance to connect with our friends in the online world. If we are playing the right game it can help us to process and understand things going on in the offline world, empowering us in the choices that we make. Games might not fix anything, and there are definitely questions to be asked about what happens if we distract ourselves too deeply with them. But maybe sometimes, if we need to escape, getting lost in a good game can offer us temporary respite from our troubles by giving us something we feel we have control over.”
Lost in a Good Game is an interesting mix of memoir, information and scientific debate. In terms of memoir, Pete Etchells is honest and vulnerable in the way he talks about family illness (his dad had MND), loss, grief and the videogames that helped him through that. He discusses games that made him cry and connected him to others, games that he played solo and how they were often therapeutic, games that distract, games that help him memorialise and reflect.
For me, this was a book I took slow, picking it up here and there over the course of just over a month (I started it on audio but didn't like the narrator so read most of it as an ebook). Many times throughout the month I found myself bringing up a point from the book with someone irl. There’s so much interesting content to unpack, I really enjoyed it.
The parts on scientific research, data study and it’s flaws was not that engaging but was informative. I’ve read some other reviews where people say Etchells is dismissive of research, but I didn’t read it like that. He is critical of many research set-ups, but rightly so as they lead to extravagant and baseless claims. He discusses how research papers are written and published, how they are revisited and updated (or not). What research is being done, and how it is being carried out and confirmed.
Etchells makes the very good point that asking people how many hours they play games is not necessarily accurate because of the reality of immersion and how we perceive time. Self- assessment is unreliable. And also...
“But how useful is it to just look at the actual amount of time that people use screens? While it gives the researchers an easy number to work with, it misses something crucial about screen technology: that the technology is being used to do something.”
Screen-time is such a dumb concept for this reason, just saying. There are so many things that come under that umbrella. Imagine if we measured and even limited "outside-time" which btw would include committing arson, knife crime and all manner of awful things, as well as good ones. Combining infinite possibilities into the concept of screen-time is just as stupid and pointless as the idea of outside-time in my opinion. (I'm not saying we shouldn't exercise self-control or set limits for specific activities that take place on screens obviously).
Video game “addiction” is a concept thrown-about without heed at this point (and is approached by all sides with preconceptions). It’s defined so stupidly and arbitrarily that, in fact, according to some, people that play videogames as part of their jobs (eg. play testers, video producers, entertainers) would be classed as addicted purely because of the number of hours they play and that they “give gaming priority other over interests”. Which just ignores so many things and doesn't make sense.
Many of the attention-grabbing news headlines about videogames (some of the ridiculous ones mentioned in this book: Call of Duty increases your risk of developing Alzeimer’s, video-gaming leads to a rise in autism spectrum disorders, gaming affects your ability to remember things, videogames are as addictive as heroin) completely lack any evidence, or in many cases use flawed datasets. Some people simply say “videogames are changing our brains” and expect us to be horrified and afraid but...
“Everything that we do changes our brains [...] To say that our brains are being modified by our environment isn't a particularly interesting or helpful thing to say, because it’s that very change that underlies our ability to learn and remember things. To put it simply, if our brains didn’t change, we’d be dead.”
Far more interesting and impactful to look at HOW we are being changed by the games we play. Main-stream media rarely considers positive changes, only spotlighting potential negatives (which I, and the author, are not suggesting we ignore). The thing is, so much of the negativity about games is just unfounded fear. They are new (timeline of humanity speaking) and if you go back in history you can see the same fear of the unknown when reading became widespread, or radio, or cars… I think the title works really well because of that, there was a time when people were worried about children being lost in a good book for mostly the same reasons - it’ll harm their eyesight, they should be outside, it’s anti-social, it’s addictive, it’s not “real life”...
There are almost as many different reasons to play games as there are people playing them. Games and video-gaming is multifaceted and complex. “For those who don’t play games, they can often come across as alien, isolating experiences, and it can be difficult to see the good that comes from them when viewed from afar.” The author does consider the potential negative impacts of video games. If, and how, videogame companies are avoiding exploitation, particularly of vulnerable individuals. This includes abusive addictive mechanics, gambling or monetary investments, a game being too engaging (particularly when it comes to Virtual Reality) that it contributes to a neglect of reality (think Ready Player One).
Games can be more than so many of us first think. There are some very cool examples of how they are used within research. “Sea Hero Quest” - gamifying Alzeimer’s research, helping researchers to understand a healthy spatial navigation ability, how people find and lose their way, and how it differs in people. https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/...
“Reverse the Odds” - got people to act as sophisticated computer processors and sift through data. Giving them a task complex, time-consuming and expensive for an electronic computer to do. Combining it with a game to keep people engaged. https://citizensciencegames.com/games...
There is a VR game “Bravemind” used in exposure therapy for soldiers with PTSD. https://www.soldierstrong.org/bravemind/
One of the games Pete Etchells recommends is Firewatch, he talks about his experience with it, and why and how it’s so immersive. I played that game thanks to his recommendation and damn it’s good. Gotta love the book just for that, and I second the recommendation.
“When we are sad, playing games can make us feel better, or at least give us a chance to connect with our friends in the online world. If we are playing the right game it can help us to process and understand things going on in the offline world, empowering us in the choices that we make. Games might not fix anything, and there are definitely questions to be asked about what happens if we distract ourselves too deeply with them. But maybe sometimes, if we need to escape, getting lost in a good game can offer us temporary respite from our troubles by giving us something we feel we have control over.”
February 2, 2025
LV45. Tark raamat. Otsusta ise, mis tarkust sealt leiad.
Nagu veidike targemate raamatutega ikka, kulus mul selle raamatu lugemiseks pea terve jaanuarikuu ja natuke peale, sest mul oli peale iga peatüki läbimälumist vaja ka natuke seedimisaega. Hästi lühidalt kokku võttes oli "Lost in a Good Game" lühiülevaade videomängude ajaloost ja nendega seoses tehtud (psühholoogiavaldkonna) uurimustest, mille hulka oli segatud natuke ka autori enda kogemust.
Korjasin selle raamatu üles Šotimaa rahvuslikust muuseumist, kui külastasin reisi ajal sealset Game On näitust, kus külastajad said interaktiivse osana mängida viimase 50 aasta olulisemaid videomänge—tegu oli selle valdkonna suurima näitusega maailmas. Minu enda videomängu kogemus piirdub suuresti eksi juures mängitud mängudega ning telefonimängudega nagu Neko Atsume, kus saab koguda nunnusid kiisusid. Ehk siis õppida oli mul sellest raamatust küll ja veel.
Üks olulisimaid asju, mis ma siit teada sain, oli see, kui problemaatiline on tegelikult videomängudega seotud teadustöö. Lihtne on üldistada, et "videomängud on halvad" samas, kui on (teaduse tasandil) defineerimata, mis täpselt kvalifitseeruvad videomängude alla; kui ühte patta pannakse igasugused tulistamismängud ja Candy Crush; kui pikalt on avaldatud ainult (!) selliseid teadustöid, kus on mingi uus, varem teatut kinnitav tulemus. Õnneks on selles valdkonnas puhumas nüüd ka juba uued tuuled.
Samuti kinnitas see raamat teadmisi videomängude positiivsetest külgedest—sellest, kuidas need sõltuvalt mängust arendavad igasuguseid oskusi (näiteks loogilist mõtlemist, võõrkeeleoskust, koostöö- ja suhtlemisoskusi).
Mulle väga meeldis, et autor tõi kõige kohta näiteid ning et puudutamata ei jäänud ka ekraaniaeg üleüldiselt. Vähem meeldis mulle see, kuidas autor kirjutas oma isa kaotusest ja leinast—kuigi haakus teatud teemadega, siis minu arust polnud see osa raamatust eriti õnnestunud. Soovitan seda teost eelkõige neile, kellel isiklik kogemus videomängudega pole väga suur, aga kelle elus on videomänge armastav inimene.
Nagu veidike targemate raamatutega ikka, kulus mul selle raamatu lugemiseks pea terve jaanuarikuu ja natuke peale, sest mul oli peale iga peatüki läbimälumist vaja ka natuke seedimisaega. Hästi lühidalt kokku võttes oli "Lost in a Good Game" lühiülevaade videomängude ajaloost ja nendega seoses tehtud (psühholoogiavaldkonna) uurimustest, mille hulka oli segatud natuke ka autori enda kogemust.
Korjasin selle raamatu üles Šotimaa rahvuslikust muuseumist, kui külastasin reisi ajal sealset Game On näitust, kus külastajad said interaktiivse osana mängida viimase 50 aasta olulisemaid videomänge—tegu oli selle valdkonna suurima näitusega maailmas. Minu enda videomängu kogemus piirdub suuresti eksi juures mängitud mängudega ning telefonimängudega nagu Neko Atsume, kus saab koguda nunnusid kiisusid. Ehk siis õppida oli mul sellest raamatust küll ja veel.
Üks olulisimaid asju, mis ma siit teada sain, oli see, kui problemaatiline on tegelikult videomängudega seotud teadustöö. Lihtne on üldistada, et "videomängud on halvad" samas, kui on (teaduse tasandil) defineerimata, mis täpselt kvalifitseeruvad videomängude alla; kui ühte patta pannakse igasugused tulistamismängud ja Candy Crush; kui pikalt on avaldatud ainult (!) selliseid teadustöid, kus on mingi uus, varem teatut kinnitav tulemus. Õnneks on selles valdkonnas puhumas nüüd ka juba uued tuuled.
Samuti kinnitas see raamat teadmisi videomängude positiivsetest külgedest—sellest, kuidas need sõltuvalt mängust arendavad igasuguseid oskusi (näiteks loogilist mõtlemist, võõrkeeleoskust, koostöö- ja suhtlemisoskusi).
Mulle väga meeldis, et autor tõi kõige kohta näiteid ning et puudutamata ei jäänud ka ekraaniaeg üleüldiselt. Vähem meeldis mulle see, kuidas autor kirjutas oma isa kaotusest ja leinast—kuigi haakus teatud teemadega, siis minu arust polnud see osa raamatust eriti õnnestunud. Soovitan seda teost eelkõige neile, kellel isiklik kogemus videomängudega pole väga suur, aga kelle elus on videomänge armastav inimene.
January 1, 2020
Lost in a Good Game : Why we play video games and what they do to us (2019) by Pete Etchells is an interesting look at video games and why we play them. Etchells is a lecturer in Psychology.
The combines Etchells descriptions of games that Etchells has enjoyed with a very brief history of computer games, excellent writing on what psychology can actually say about the impact of video games and screens on people and very moving descriptions of Etchells' tragically short relationship with his father. The book also includes discussions with game makers and writing about e-sports.
The book tries to cover an enormous amount of ground and suffers as a result. The sections on the history of video games are superfluous and are done better by other books that just look at video game history. The sections on psychology and the study by psychology of games and screens are really excellent. Etchells writes calmly and persuasively about the lack of good evidence of serious harm by screens and games and the difficulty of doing really good research on these subjects. The book also has a very fine short discussion of the replication crisis in Psychology.
The parts about Etchells and his father are really moving and are well written but don't quite fit with the rest of the book. The impact of another death on Etchells is also really touching.
The descriptions of Etchells playing various games could be reduced. They do show that Etchells really gets games, but these kinds of pieces are best in another type of book.
Books about video games by psychologists are really interesting, the ideal one hasn't been written yet. In parts, Lost in a Good Game really is about the best I've read on the impact of games and screens but there is also a fair bit of the book that is a bit superfluous.
The combines Etchells descriptions of games that Etchells has enjoyed with a very brief history of computer games, excellent writing on what psychology can actually say about the impact of video games and screens on people and very moving descriptions of Etchells' tragically short relationship with his father. The book also includes discussions with game makers and writing about e-sports.
The book tries to cover an enormous amount of ground and suffers as a result. The sections on the history of video games are superfluous and are done better by other books that just look at video game history. The sections on psychology and the study by psychology of games and screens are really excellent. Etchells writes calmly and persuasively about the lack of good evidence of serious harm by screens and games and the difficulty of doing really good research on these subjects. The book also has a very fine short discussion of the replication crisis in Psychology.
The parts about Etchells and his father are really moving and are well written but don't quite fit with the rest of the book. The impact of another death on Etchells is also really touching.
The descriptions of Etchells playing various games could be reduced. They do show that Etchells really gets games, but these kinds of pieces are best in another type of book.
Books about video games by psychologists are really interesting, the ideal one hasn't been written yet. In parts, Lost in a Good Game really is about the best I've read on the impact of games and screens but there is also a fair bit of the book that is a bit superfluous.
November 19, 2021
Не дивлячись на те, що книжка про комп'ютерні ігри - тут є як мінімум 2 мега цікаві розділи про те чому результати наукових досліджень з психології та соціології є проблемними та часто невірними
Єдиний мінус, автор надто часто розповідає особисті історії
Єдиний мінус, автор надто часто розповідає особисті історії
January 2, 2022
I must admit, the way that both sides of the arguments surrounding videogames are considered and presented in validity allows me to respect this book so so much, despite my own opinions being very strongly on one side.
March 11, 2022
Should be called Lost in a good book! This book is great. He mixes Science (he’s an actual scientist) with games and discusses personal experiences and how they are linked to games.
Highly recommend this book for anyone who enjoys games in anything more than a casual capacity.
Highly recommend this book for anyone who enjoys games in anything more than a casual capacity.
August 11, 2022
An examination on the history of video games, the scientific studies of the good and bad sides of video game playing (and why the scientific studies are inconclusive, unreliable, and need to get better), many anecdotal benefits of video games, and a little discussion of what the future of video games might do for people.
December 29, 2020
Interesting take on psychology and videogames. I liked how Peter tries to understand what are videogames doing to us mentally, instead of just saying "they change your brain." There are good points about what the future might look like, and what needs to happen so videogame addiction doesn't become something as severe a gambling adiction. He also takes good points from videogames creators that tell us how they are actually made, and what the purpose of certain aspects are. We need to understand the implications of abusing human psychology to profit from videogames, cause it may break some people.
February 26, 2021
Inconsistent tone. Interesting combination of scientific research and poetic exposition about the experience of playing games, but its very unclear what the point of the book is and what message it's trying to convey.
November 3, 2019
(I also make video reviews about video game books. Watch them by clicking here.
“Lost in a Good Game: Why We Play Video Games and What They Can Do For Us”, despite its title, isn’t just about video games. It’s part memoir, part exploration of video game psychology, and, surprisingly, part research primer.
Author Pete Etchells takes a break in toward the beginning, as a bridge into conversations about violence in video games, to highlight just how fraught with oversimplification many of the public-facing research conclusions are. Proper scientific research is hard. Proper scientific research is costly. Proper scientific research is subject to funding that is itself often dolled out not by how the research will support scientific inquiry but often by the probability of attention-grabbing headlines. Proper scientific research is frustrating.
I mention all of this to highlight that “Lost in a Good Game: Why We Play Video Games and What They Can Do For Us” isn’t just a book about video game psychology researching. It’s often about scientific research in general. I’d recommend this book for anyone interested in the process of scientific research, full stop. If you are interested specifically in video game psychology, I recommend Jamie Madigan's Getting Gamers: The Psychology of Video Games and Their Impact on the People Who Play Them as a first stop. Then come back to Etchell's book.
Another shining chapter in this book titled “Wayfaring and wayfinding,” explores the potential video games have for helping to (relatively) cheaply collect otherwise expensive amounts of data. In one example a mobile game called Sea Hero Quest uses the principles of spatial navigation (both egocentric and allocentric) to put the player in situations that people with Alzheimer's react to as the disease develops. To the player, Sea Hero Quest is a narrative puzzle game. To the researchers, the players, with their range of ages, sexes, education levels, and locations, are a wealth of information that can set a proper baseline for further research. If this use of video games interests you I also recommend Ian Bogost’s How to Do Things with Videogames.
“Lost in a Good Game: Why We Play Video Games and What They Can Do For Us” is fantastic.
(I also make video reviews about video game books. Watch them by clicking here.
“Lost in a Good Game: Why We Play Video Games and What They Can Do For Us”, despite its title, isn’t just about video games. It’s part memoir, part exploration of video game psychology, and, surprisingly, part research primer.
Author Pete Etchells takes a break in toward the beginning, as a bridge into conversations about violence in video games, to highlight just how fraught with oversimplification many of the public-facing research conclusions are. Proper scientific research is hard. Proper scientific research is costly. Proper scientific research is subject to funding that is itself often dolled out not by how the research will support scientific inquiry but often by the probability of attention-grabbing headlines. Proper scientific research is frustrating.
I mention all of this to highlight that “Lost in a Good Game: Why We Play Video Games and What They Can Do For Us” isn’t just a book about video game psychology researching. It’s often about scientific research in general. I’d recommend this book for anyone interested in the process of scientific research, full stop. If you are interested specifically in video game psychology, I recommend Jamie Madigan's Getting Gamers: The Psychology of Video Games and Their Impact on the People Who Play Them as a first stop. Then come back to Etchell's book.
Another shining chapter in this book titled “Wayfaring and wayfinding,” explores the potential video games have for helping to (relatively) cheaply collect otherwise expensive amounts of data. In one example a mobile game called Sea Hero Quest uses the principles of spatial navigation (both egocentric and allocentric) to put the player in situations that people with Alzheimer's react to as the disease develops. To the player, Sea Hero Quest is a narrative puzzle game. To the researchers, the players, with their range of ages, sexes, education levels, and locations, are a wealth of information that can set a proper baseline for further research. If this use of video games interests you I also recommend Ian Bogost’s How to Do Things with Videogames.
“Lost in a Good Game: Why We Play Video Games and What They Can Do For Us” is fantastic.
(I also make video reviews about video game books. Watch them by clicking here.
March 29, 2022
"The real value in video games, as I have come to realize, isn't to distract or captivate, but in their ability to connect us and to foster new friendships... and remember those we hold closest to our hearts."
This book was meaningful to me in a lot of ways. I've long been an average video game enjoyer, but from time to time, have had my hobby questioned as to whether it's a good use of time or not.
As author and psychologist Pete Etchells points out, video games get a bad wrap. While there are certainly times and ways to use games that are unhelpful or unhealthy, so much of the research that exists out there just isn't conclusive. Studies that have been trumpeted as PROOF that screen time is unjustifiably bad for kids and the well-being of humanity are just as likely to prove that eating more broccoli means you'll have a shorter attention-span.
Etchells even likens the parenting craze that demonizes screen time and video games as just another moral panic, similar to the Satanic Panic around Dungeons and Dragons in the 80s-90s. Games (and even screen time) are just as susceptible to misuse as watching or playing sports, or spending too much time on your phone, or reading too much, or pick your thing. Everything in moderation is the key.
Even though it seems like ALL THE EVIDENCE says video games lead to violence, or screen time promotes bad attention span, the research doesn't actually show this. The headlines are sugarcoated to show conclusions that aren't true of the studies conducted, and ultimately, a lot of researchers need the money for their next project (or they just want to get published quickly). Makes sense. But it's led to a lot of confusion and lot of misplaced judgments on screens and the things we play on them.
This book is very important.
Other reviewers complain it retreads game narratives or well-known publisher information, but frankly, this book isn't written for gamers.
It's written to inform the concerned parent who worries about how much time their kids spend on screens.
It's written for the older generations that think video games waste their grandkids time, when really they play games as a third place (google this, it's very helpful) to connect with their friends.
It's written for the youth pastor who wants to understand how technology impacts their students.
It's written for the general population to gather a more complete understanding of video games, and to recognize violence isn't actually an end-result of playing them.
Games have been extremely special to me for building friendships and also getting through hard times in life. Games can be an escape, but they can be so much more. This book helps to open that door into another person's life to see what that can look like.
This book was meaningful to me in a lot of ways. I've long been an average video game enjoyer, but from time to time, have had my hobby questioned as to whether it's a good use of time or not.
As author and psychologist Pete Etchells points out, video games get a bad wrap. While there are certainly times and ways to use games that are unhelpful or unhealthy, so much of the research that exists out there just isn't conclusive. Studies that have been trumpeted as PROOF that screen time is unjustifiably bad for kids and the well-being of humanity are just as likely to prove that eating more broccoli means you'll have a shorter attention-span.
Etchells even likens the parenting craze that demonizes screen time and video games as just another moral panic, similar to the Satanic Panic around Dungeons and Dragons in the 80s-90s. Games (and even screen time) are just as susceptible to misuse as watching or playing sports, or spending too much time on your phone, or reading too much, or pick your thing. Everything in moderation is the key.
Even though it seems like ALL THE EVIDENCE says video games lead to violence, or screen time promotes bad attention span, the research doesn't actually show this. The headlines are sugarcoated to show conclusions that aren't true of the studies conducted, and ultimately, a lot of researchers need the money for their next project (or they just want to get published quickly). Makes sense. But it's led to a lot of confusion and lot of misplaced judgments on screens and the things we play on them.
This book is very important.
Other reviewers complain it retreads game narratives or well-known publisher information, but frankly, this book isn't written for gamers.
It's written to inform the concerned parent who worries about how much time their kids spend on screens.
It's written for the older generations that think video games waste their grandkids time, when really they play games as a third place (google this, it's very helpful) to connect with their friends.
It's written for the youth pastor who wants to understand how technology impacts their students.
It's written for the general population to gather a more complete understanding of video games, and to recognize violence isn't actually an end-result of playing them.
Games have been extremely special to me for building friendships and also getting through hard times in life. Games can be an escape, but they can be so much more. This book helps to open that door into another person's life to see what that can look like.
February 6, 2021
Pete Etchells is in love with gaming, video games to be specific. He has a deep understanding of video games on an emotional level, personally. I don't say that as a friend of Etchells, but it bleeds through his words in the piece of work. Getting lost in a great video game is a personal matter for most gamers, and Etchells is not the exception. Video games helped him through difficult moments in his life, which is why his approach to such a topic is handled carefully, methodically, and thoroughly. Although Etchells has a written a great bit of research and proves a point extremely well, the dichotomy between video games and mental health is a difficult topic to find entertaining as a reader.
I did not thoroughly enjoy Etchells work, but I certainly have a hard time condemning it in any form. Based on how the piece began, I thought that it would not be as much of research literature, as a work of non-fiction opinion pieces. That is my error. In no way is this book presented as such or deceiving, so I cannot fault it in that manner. The only fault I can ascertain is that several chapters lose the pace of the overall thesis in an effort to draw out his research base analytical approach to the problem. It is wonderfully knowledgable, but a difficult to enjoy reading in your free time. At points, it felt more like work to read, than entertainment. Again, that is my fault for not understanding Etchells point before I started reading.
Alas, I still would recommend this to anyone that has thoughts on video games and mental health. Etchells presents a clear picture and nearly paints a dichotomy between each of the subjects. He does not deny that video games do not play a factor in a person's mental health, but he also questions the many theories the tend to swirl about society in modern times concerning such. Pete Etchell loves video games, much as I do. He understands the important factor that they have played for many and wants to preserve that past-time. He does not want to preserve it.
I fully recommend it. As a parent of a child who will inevitably love gaming - read it. As a gamer - read it. As a curious person that doesn't want to buy what researchers and the government say - read it.
I did not thoroughly enjoy Etchells work, but I certainly have a hard time condemning it in any form. Based on how the piece began, I thought that it would not be as much of research literature, as a work of non-fiction opinion pieces. That is my error. In no way is this book presented as such or deceiving, so I cannot fault it in that manner. The only fault I can ascertain is that several chapters lose the pace of the overall thesis in an effort to draw out his research base analytical approach to the problem. It is wonderfully knowledgable, but a difficult to enjoy reading in your free time. At points, it felt more like work to read, than entertainment. Again, that is my fault for not understanding Etchells point before I started reading.
Alas, I still would recommend this to anyone that has thoughts on video games and mental health. Etchells presents a clear picture and nearly paints a dichotomy between each of the subjects. He does not deny that video games do not play a factor in a person's mental health, but he also questions the many theories the tend to swirl about society in modern times concerning such. Pete Etchell loves video games, much as I do. He understands the important factor that they have played for many and wants to preserve that past-time. He does not want to preserve it.
I fully recommend it. As a parent of a child who will inevitably love gaming - read it. As a gamer - read it. As a curious person that doesn't want to buy what researchers and the government say - read it.
June 21, 2023
I feel like this book would be more enjoyable to someone who is only slightly familiar with video game culture and history, but very familiar with psychology and medicine. I am the opposite. I’m extremely knowledgeable on gaming history and culture. And I basically know nothing about medicine or mental health.
Now, the content of this book was very research heavy, and it read like a scientific paper. That being said, there were some personal anecdotes used to articulate how video games can be helpful to mental health. But Etchells primarily used psychological statistics to prove many of his theories. I’m not saying that this in and of itself is a bad thing, it’s just when I see a book titled “Lost in a Good Game” I want it to be very personal and fun. I wanna hear about adventures in classic gaming. I wanna read about friendships formed over games. And maybe I’d accept a bit of research and science sprinkled in. Here, the proportions were a bit off for my liking.
However, I think my biggest problem with the book was the message. I feel like Etchells was attempting to convince the reader that video games are good for you. I don’t know why they have to be good for you? It’s entertainment. Why does it have to be anything more than that? The best kind of hobbies have no practical real world application. They’re simply fun. Learning to play guitar without an expectation to be Eric Clapton seems like good natured enjoyment. Pure and divine.
But I don’t know, this is just a personal preference, so I’m sure someone else might get much more enjoyment out of this book.
Now, the content of this book was very research heavy, and it read like a scientific paper. That being said, there were some personal anecdotes used to articulate how video games can be helpful to mental health. But Etchells primarily used psychological statistics to prove many of his theories. I’m not saying that this in and of itself is a bad thing, it’s just when I see a book titled “Lost in a Good Game” I want it to be very personal and fun. I wanna hear about adventures in classic gaming. I wanna read about friendships formed over games. And maybe I’d accept a bit of research and science sprinkled in. Here, the proportions were a bit off for my liking.
However, I think my biggest problem with the book was the message. I feel like Etchells was attempting to convince the reader that video games are good for you. I don’t know why they have to be good for you? It’s entertainment. Why does it have to be anything more than that? The best kind of hobbies have no practical real world application. They’re simply fun. Learning to play guitar without an expectation to be Eric Clapton seems like good natured enjoyment. Pure and divine.
But I don’t know, this is just a personal preference, so I’m sure someone else might get much more enjoyment out of this book.
March 7, 2024
Part evidence-based rebuttal to many of the criticisms of video games, part autobiography, part loving overture to the potential benefits and promise of the medium, I really like how the author wove together these three narratives into a cohesive and enjoyable whole. It's important to understand that he does not uncritically praise video games and ignores any potential dangers they might have. He does address those, including how spending too much time gaming can be a bad thing and he criticizes the more predatory practices of some video game companies. But overall, I do think he takes an overly rosy view of video games, and this is coming from someone who spends a significant amount of his free time playing video games. But overall, I really appreciate how he lays out the bad research practices of most of the scientists who criticize video games and screen time, and how he carefully lays out the facts that, overall, there is no good research indicating that video games are harmful while also admitting there is no definitive evidence that it is not, either. He is very careful about laying out his arguments and providing evidence for them. I also especially liked his writing on moral panics and the potential dangers of the panics themselves, above and beyond the content that is being panicked about.
Anyway, highly recommend to parents who have kids who like video games, to individuals who like games and are sick of hearing their hobby vilified, and to anyone who works with kids (mental health professionals, pediatricians, etc.)
Anyway, highly recommend to parents who have kids who like video games, to individuals who like games and are sick of hearing their hobby vilified, and to anyone who works with kids (mental health professionals, pediatricians, etc.)
December 31, 2020
This book will be received differently from different people, just as the author explains different games have an impact on people who play them. When I saw the title I didn’t know what to expect, I actually was looking for a good fictional read at the time. Once I started I was drawn into the perspective of the author as he not only explained the history of games, but told personal stories of his life, losing his father and how games helped him deal with the loss. As a PhD and researcher, he walks through the methodologies used for scientific studies and how there’s potential for poor conclusions to be drawn and amplified. He goes into many of the flawed gaming studies and news reports that talk about dangers of games and gives a measured approach and supporting evidence for his claims. This section is useful to learn about as it can help you understand how many scientific studies are filtered by the time you read them. He also gets into some of the serious problems with games and downsides of playing certain types of games. What’s interesting is he’s able to cover what seems like it will be a relatively dry subject in an immersive way. He tells stories of nostalgia and classic games he played and interweaves it with moments in his life in a way where I found myself lost in a good book.
October 27, 2021
I found this book pretty darned enlightening. From his reminisces about his own experiences with video games to his stances on the current psychological research into them and what it does (and doesn't) have to say, I enjoyed reading this one from start to finish.
Though Etchells doesn't seem too interested in presenting the reader with answers that stand as polar opposites of mainstream narratives around video games.
Instead, it seems like his goal here is to remind people that psychology as a science is not ironclad, scientists are humans who are as capable of bad choices as anyone else is, and science journalism does not always indulge in a perfect 1:1 relationship with what studies find and what gets reported.
If this sounds like a great layout for a general survey kind of book, well, it definitely is.
And Etchells offers a pretty good survey at that. After all, he covers violence, addiction, and stultification — the three things video games have been accused of since a hungry yellow circle first feasted on dots and ghosts. As such this is a great introduction to (the problems of) the psychology of video games with a bit of an autobiographical framing that makes it a very smooth read. But if you're looking for more than that, you'd be better off plumbing Etchells' bibliography (the guy did do a lot of research, after all!).
Though Etchells doesn't seem too interested in presenting the reader with answers that stand as polar opposites of mainstream narratives around video games.
Instead, it seems like his goal here is to remind people that psychology as a science is not ironclad, scientists are humans who are as capable of bad choices as anyone else is, and science journalism does not always indulge in a perfect 1:1 relationship with what studies find and what gets reported.
If this sounds like a great layout for a general survey kind of book, well, it definitely is.
And Etchells offers a pretty good survey at that. After all, he covers violence, addiction, and stultification — the three things video games have been accused of since a hungry yellow circle first feasted on dots and ghosts. As such this is a great introduction to (the problems of) the psychology of video games with a bit of an autobiographical framing that makes it a very smooth read. But if you're looking for more than that, you'd be better off plumbing Etchells' bibliography (the guy did do a lot of research, after all!).
May 14, 2023
As a lifelong video game connoisseur Im proud to have this book on my bookshelf, however it is not the best book I've read on the subject. This is this author's first book so i give him a ton of credit regardless. I can feel his love for gaming and psychology oozing off the pages. I think my only major problem can be summed up as the author not nailing down a more specific audience. For someone like me who knows a ton about video games, it's history, and evolution, I didn't learn much new from the book. On the other hand I wouldn't recommend someone who is much more casual about the subject. It would be too technical for them. For example I dont think a parent of a teenager who may try reading this book to learn more about their teenagers favorite hobby would enjoy it nor follow it completely. This book unfortunately falls somewhere in between.
But I didn't thoroughly enjoy the chapters about "are games bad for us" and subjects like that. There were some great points highlighted by the author about the real psychology and science behind video game "addiction." I also enjoyed his sections of personal accounts with video games that changed his life or remain precious memories due to videogames being integrated into the heart of his life. Those sections were enjoyable to relate to!
I respect this author and I'm glad to have read it, but it's not the best nonfiction book of the subject.
But I didn't thoroughly enjoy the chapters about "are games bad for us" and subjects like that. There were some great points highlighted by the author about the real psychology and science behind video game "addiction." I also enjoyed his sections of personal accounts with video games that changed his life or remain precious memories due to videogames being integrated into the heart of his life. Those sections were enjoyable to relate to!
I respect this author and I'm glad to have read it, but it's not the best nonfiction book of the subject.
Read
December 3, 2023Definitely written with something to prove. Not sure I was the right audience for it and some of the chapter transitions were a little abrupt. There was little linking everything together except that it was an opinion piece. As a book, there just wasn't any cohesive thesis, I don't think. Some sections seemed written as a a way to persuade lawmakers to give videogames a break, some seemed to reflect on personal relationships with videogames, and one seemed like a way to air grievances about methods of psychological research. The writing was generalist enough but some of it was sentimental and some adversarial and it just didn't cohere imo. To be fair, maybe I should have read the opening chapter, the piece about Firewatch gameplay, the chapter on screen time (what I was most interested in) as well as the last chapter.
I've been spending some of my own time thinking about story, the development of storytelling mediums, as well as technology and the body/the "natural world"; so this was a way to tap into that interest a little bit. Good corollaries to this book would be High Score (the Netflix documentary) and a recent TED Radio Hour podcast mini series called The Body Electric (also a fun Whitman reference).
I've been spending some of my own time thinking about story, the development of storytelling mediums, as well as technology and the body/the "natural world"; so this was a way to tap into that interest a little bit. Good corollaries to this book would be High Score (the Netflix documentary) and a recent TED Radio Hour podcast mini series called The Body Electric (also a fun Whitman reference).
November 8, 2021
Closer to 3.5 stars.
This book is a little bit of a lot of things. One part memoir. One part history book. One part psychological study/theory.
Each of them are written okay. There really isn’t much special to point out, however. The historic part was probably the most interesting to me. I would have liked to know more about the inspiration for games or how they had an effect on history, etc.
But there is very little of that here.
The psychological part would be interesting if only the author (Pete Etchells) dove deeper into it than simple theories he comes up with.
The memoir portions are alright. They are more or less short stories about how important events in Etchell’s life occurred and what video games coincided with said memories. That’s about it.
I will give it this: it’s an easy listen.
My big point of confusion is that Etchell is a UK writer, but the audiobook has an American narrator (Ryan Burke)? I’m not sure why.
Anyway, not for everyone, but currently free on audible via their plus catalog.
This book is a little bit of a lot of things. One part memoir. One part history book. One part psychological study/theory.
Each of them are written okay. There really isn’t much special to point out, however. The historic part was probably the most interesting to me. I would have liked to know more about the inspiration for games or how they had an effect on history, etc.
But there is very little of that here.
The psychological part would be interesting if only the author (Pete Etchells) dove deeper into it than simple theories he comes up with.
The memoir portions are alright. They are more or less short stories about how important events in Etchell’s life occurred and what video games coincided with said memories. That’s about it.
I will give it this: it’s an easy listen.
My big point of confusion is that Etchell is a UK writer, but the audiobook has an American narrator (Ryan Burke)? I’m not sure why.
Anyway, not for everyone, but currently free on audible via their plus catalog.
August 31, 2019
🕹💡📖 Is it worse for young people to experience killing and death IRL (in real life), or in a video game? This is not merely an academic question. Deranged individuals now regularly commit IRL mass shootings using IRL weapons of war to murder innocent people. Yet those weapons of war only exist because they are used every day for the IRL official killing and death of people in less fortunate countries around the world. Are video games to blame for real deaths? Or are video games merely another vivid example of art imitating life? This book takes the latter view, and begins by sharing how video games actually helped the author, a psychologist, cope with the death of a loved one. Video games do not cause violent deaths— they are works of art that provide a dearly needed respite from the harshest realities of a dangerous real world beyond our control, according to the author. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of this interesting book to learn how this thesis plays out. 📚
July 23, 2019
At first it seemed to me that this would be a glib attempt at gaming apologia, full of sound and fury (anecdotes and conjecture) signifying nothing, but Etchells suddenly and regularly switches gears and provides a thorough scientific analysis of just how unscientific our common-sense regarding gaming and screen time is. His background as a doctoral researcher shines brightly in this regard.
The bottom line? We just don’t really know how video games affect us. Nevertheless, Etchells believes them to be a valid and worthwhile intellectual and emotional engagement - and this is where the ‘soft’ chapters of the book (based primarily on personal stories and interviews) come in. A very good book. Well worth a read if you’ve spent any time at all agonising over the social, physical, and intellectual implications of our increasing ventures into virtual worlds.
The bottom line? We just don’t really know how video games affect us. Nevertheless, Etchells believes them to be a valid and worthwhile intellectual and emotional engagement - and this is where the ‘soft’ chapters of the book (based primarily on personal stories and interviews) come in. A very good book. Well worth a read if you’ve spent any time at all agonising over the social, physical, and intellectual implications of our increasing ventures into virtual worlds.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews