Passive Linear/-----------------------------------------------Video Games
I do believe there is a sort of distinction of contrast between these two catagorial pieces. Graphic literature, is of course much less physically interactive than a video game. Video games are active, hands on, and more open-ended in viewer/player interaction. The more involved a viewer is, the more likely the fantastic depths of another 'world' is likely to be played out.
The more realistic another world is, the more involved a viewer is, in the fantastic. Thus, there are more video game "addicts", than graphic literature "addicts." Additionally, video gamers have much more control over the outcome of events. It may take hours to reach different levels of height with a player's imaginary character. In comparison to film, or books, the interaction is much more physical.
However, with film and literature, the interactions can be more analytical, intellectual, or mentally challenging, as well. For instance, a reader may have to solve a mental puzzle in the novelistic world surrounding them, which cannot always be done in video gaming.
Essentially, there is a push/pull notion with both of these forces. I would not be ready to state that I believe one of the categories is more developed than the other. For, both dimensions are being recreated and recreated again.
On another note, culture varies. When one continues on looking at ontological and longetudinal studies to retain or gain knowledge of these assests of popularized elements in societies, one notices that elements are continuously changing. Techonology increases with demand. Consumers want more and more. There are threads that emerge between both works within distinctions. At last, video games being produced, are being multiplied to fit many different assets: educationally, interactively, in child development, and job training tools, among other things.
Are synthetic worlds becoming so much more preferred to reality that people are finding salvation in them? It appears so. There is much controversy over whether or not this is healthy. People seem to be losing touch of themselves and realism.
Is discovering a synthetic world in large quantites a social movement so to speak? I think it is in many ways. It's more for people. It gives people a sense of escapism to find determination, height, freedom, a place to go to gain milestones, to gain a sense of involvement, and even a sense of belonging. However, there is a real lack of consciousness in such practice.
Moreover, guilds speak as a notion of virtual, tight communities for gamers. Real relationships can be formed here. Some people feel that it is more safe to get more intimate online than in real life scenarios.
Where does this need for escapism come from? It could stem from a number of things. One of the most significant of areas for Americans is this nameless, corporate American workplace. People want to break away and pronounce themselves as distinguished in a virtual world. It is easier than doing it in the real world. What are the depths of reality shaping up to be for people at present? Those who are feeling alienated in life find virtual worlds appealing and easier to serve a sort of community, but how can people live in a world of falsity?
Corporate sellers use strategies like sex in overdramatization in gaming to attract buyers. Excessive gaming and addiction in this culture will continue to grow. Games like World of Warcraft can make as much as an estimated 96 million dollars in one day, when a new game comes out. Billions of dollars are spent on games. Demoralization and addiction occur in culture. Is this right?