Are video games STS?

[Parsons]

Let me try to break down my viewpoint a bit more clearly. I will refer exclusively to multiplayer competitive shooters. I am going to talk about what I think happens if you take the general sum total experience of that specific genre:

There are three main categories -

Experiences that polarize positively
Experiences that gain no polarity and only gain distraction / sleep
Experiences that polarize negatively

Some people are going to exclusively experience distraction / sleep, others experience that and have positive and/or negative polarizing experiences. I think many experience all three categories. Specific examples in my own personal experience:

Positive - I was playing a game called World of Tanks where you drive a wide range of tanks from WW1 through post-WW2 tanks. My teammate was setup on the road ahead of me waiting for targets to appear. Someone must have spotted him because he started getting pummeled by enemy fire. He started reversing but it became clear he would not survive before moving behind cover. I rushed ahead of him and used my (more lightly armored) tank to shield him. I took several shots which almost destroyed me, but allowed him to escape. My reflex and strongest intention was simply to help out a stranger. I would argue I somewhat positively polarized due to my actions, intentions, and because I consciously view him as another self, in the same vein as positively polarizing in real-life war experiences. A few moments later, I thought about the situation more carefully. I believe I also strengthened or 'polarized' orange ray (on top of the  green ray positive) because it was the best tactical decision for my team to win (the 'pack' instinct that strengthening a member of the pack strengthens oneself).

Neutral - You just play the game to "pass the time", for the pure hedonistic pleasure, out of habit / addiction, or because you can't think of anything else to do. Most of the gameplay is pure reflex with very little thought put into it. I do this as 'filler' when I can't think of anything else to do with myself.

Negative - I have explained this a bit in my previous post. Specifically, I know there are plenty of people who really do cheat. In multiplayer shooters, one of the most common is "aimhack", where the player has a cheat installed that automatically instantly aims at the most vital portion of the enemy player (such as the head). Yes, there are instances where people get frustrated and cry fowl against a player who is just very good and not actually hacking. But I've seen many cases where they are CLEARLY using aimhack; sometimes even admitting it. Aimhack is often difficult to catch someone red handed, so I will give a more cut and dry example: Speedhack. The player runs and shoots 10x, or even 100x faster than normal. They will go flying across your screen at an absurdly fast speed. There is absolutely no doubt the player is hacking. Now some people might be hacking "just to mess around" or dabble, but don't get anything out of it and stop shortly thereafter. IMO, the ones that truly polarize negative are the ones who consciously see the other as other self and truly enjoy having a completely unfair advantage with the intention to upset and/or manipulate the other player.

Supporting quote:

The second-density concept of serving self includes the serving of those associated with tribe or pack. This is not seen in second density as separation of self and other-self. All is seen as self since in some forms of second-density entities, if the tribe or pack becomes weakened, so does the entity within the tribe or pack.

The new or initial third-density entity has this innocent, shall we say, bias or distortion towards viewing those in the family, the society, as you would call, perhaps, country, as self. Thus though a distortion not helpful for progress in third density, it is without polarity.

The break becomes apparent when the entity perceives other-selves as other-selves and consciously determines to manipulate other-selves for the benefit of the self. This is the beginning of the road of which you speak.

To take this viewpoint even further, I believe it is possible to polarize in a single player game given the proper frame of mind:

33.14 Questioner: OK. [What] I would like for you to do is list all the major mechanisms designed to provide catalytic experience that do not include interaction with other-self. That’s the first part of the question I’ll ask.

Ra: I am Ra. We grasp from this question that you realize that the primary mechanism for catalytic experience in third density is other-self. The list of other catalytic influences: firstly, the Creator’s universe; secondly, the self.

33.15 Questioner: Can you list any sub-headings under the self that would— or ways that the self is acted on catalytically to produce experience?

Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, the self unmanifested. Secondly, the self in relation to the societal self created by self and other-self. Thirdly, the interaction between self and the gadgets, toys, and amusements of the self, other-self invention. Fourthly, the self relationship with those attributes which you may call war and rumors of war.

TL;DR: IMO there are a variety of ways that people gain polarity from video games; not just negative or neutral. I think it runs the same gamut of polarization when other selves are directly involved. It is possible to polarize when another self is not involved, but it is by far more efficient to do so where there is.