Debate...

Computer games are useful. They can help us relax, make friends and be sensitive. Some games are good for us, and some are not. Games are for relaxing but we should not play overtime. We have to set ourselves a time for how long arw we going to play the computer games. There are various of computer games: interesting, boring, exciting.......

Right, computer games can help us relax, make friends and be sensitive.
Computer games are useful, they can connect people around the world to let them have the same goal and joining together, sharing experience, which means better communication between people. Some of the computer games are also useful for specific area, such as medica games, mathematic games, or anything that can boost up the energy of brain, or improve the creativity of oneself.
However, computer games are very easy for people to be addicated to it. Most people spend too much time in playing computer games, so their worlds became smaller and smaller. They annoyed the other people, such as their family, their REAL friends, their own responsiblility (homework, or job), and the reality. Some people could feel confident in the game world, but can't find confidence in the real world. So it makes them stay in the "fake" world without wanting to go out to try new things in the real world because they can't find success in there.

Computer games that aim to inform or persuade are growing in popularity; the 2004 US presidential election was the scene of an upsurge in the creation and use of polemical games by all sides.

Using computer games to inform the public may engage people who would otherwise view the issue as dull. A UK example is FloodRanger, a programme dealing with flood defence and climate change. This kind of program is useful in cases, such as with citizens’ juries, participants have a limited understanding of the issue at the start of the process

Other games provide input to urban planning and consultation. Build your Future Park is a programme that lets users choose between different options like funding, motor transport, and catering in designing and setting up a park in New York. This might be useful as a way of getting people thinking about the available options before the process begins. Some games even let users create and submit their own proposals, like Ground Zero Planner where the question asked is what you would do with the former World Trade Center site. Programmes like this have obvious similarities to Planning for Real and other related techniques.

An issue with most games from a deliberative perspective is that they are inherently individualistic without interaction with the views of other participants. The risk is that instead of increased understanding and participation the games only create more polarised views among users. One game where several players can interact is Nitrogenius, a multi stakeholder game on nitrogen pollution developed for the UN world summit on sustainable development

There are however reasons to be wary of computer games: firstly they are prohibitively expensive; their effect on learning and behaviour change is unproven; and they are biased in that they can only give a simplified version of reality. Still, using a well-designed computer game as part of participatory process might enable participants to consider the views of others in a less threatening way and might increase the enjoyment and enthusiasm of groups that would otherwise be hard to reach.

The following sites contain more information on games with an agenda beyond entertainment:http://www.socialimpactgames.com/http://www.watercoolergames.org

2006-11-17 15:56:45 補充：
should be enough for 3 mins~