Slashdot Mirror
Gamers Gain Political Voice
GameDailyBiz has a rundown on the just-announced Videogame Voters Network. The network has been established by the ESA with the intent of organizing gamers into a political force. Will Wright: "Computer and video games represent one of the most important new media developments of this generation. Unlike many other forms of entertainment they offer players the opportunity to explore, be creative, learn through interaction and express themselves to others. It is vitally important that we protect and nurture this new art form so that it can reach its full potential. Like most new forms of artistic expression that have come before (music, novels, movies), the primary critics of video games are the people that do not play them."
Is giving gamers such a voice really a wise idea? They'll only use it to say "lol" and "i pwned you bitch haha".
EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!
video games are a medium, not a media.
An industry that listens to and supports its customers?!?!? What'll they think of next?
Mr. Universe: "They can't stop the signal, Mal. They can never stop the signal."
Do we really want to have gamers as a political force..? IMHO the gamers and developers will always have a good connection, what players like they sell. Active gamers will follow the game news and await good new titles (I can't wait for Spore!!) so the thing we need is good media that keeps gamers up-to-date with good reviews, not reviews/previews written like a commercial by the developers.
My blog: http://www.redcode.nl
This should be interesting. Granted there was the hue and cry (and plenty fun made) over remarks made by Jack Thompson, but other than rattling a pretty brittle man's cage, will this prove more of an effort of herding cats?
What about the dark and sinister people who come up with some of the really good (and controversial) games? Isn't there the opportunity for, just like we whine and bitch and moan about lobbyists in Washington DC making whores out of our representatives, for these people to manipulate us, the game playing public?
Honestly, I would feel pretty let down if I was in there pitching for Rockstar and then found thy put some thing in the game, as a joke, which undermined my other positions.
introducing the honorable Senators Gabe and Tycho of the great state of Washington
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Wokka Wokka Wokka Wokka.
This sounds like a good idea from the perspective of trying to protect the gamer's "rights" but in the end it will do nothing for the average gamer and everything for those who seek to control gamers. Lobbying groups and voting groups only have power as a minority unless they have the money to get real attention from Congress. This group won't raise anywhere near what is required to move Congress to act.
When Congress does act, it will always act in ways to make itself powerful. Laws that seem to help the masses really only help a select few, with the masses losing more of their rights. I'm a firm believer that the interstate commerce clause was written to give power to Congress to just keep the states in line in not usurping the rights of the people. Nowadays, most people think the clause gives Congress the power to do anything it wants to do.
If you really believe we're supposed to live freely, you have to leave the gaming market to the competitive market -- developers aren't going to make games that people don't want to play. If even 5% of the entire nation decides to buy a game, that's stil 15 million people. Yet 15 million people is a minority in voting -- if 95% of the nation is against a particular game, why should 15 million people be shut out?
I'm also anti-voting as I feel voting is what causes the minority decision to be criminalized. The best voting is voting done with your dollars -- each and every action you make to buy something or to refuse to buy something creates the rules of the market. These are rules that change every day as the buying decisions change to reflect what consumers want.
The end result will be more rights lost as the voting group gives up a little bit in order to gain a little bit. The problem is that no one gains anything when it comes to Congress, except for the preferred few. What you really think you're gaining is something you had a right to all along, until you decided to give up some of those rights in exchange for protecting some other rights that never really needed protecting. In the long run, the slippery slope rule says you'll lose all the rights as those in power taste more and more of that power.
I must say, I wonder how effective a lobbying movement of computer gamers will be against the coordinated efforts of family groups who want to ban "improper" video games. The family groups are more prone to vote, contribute, and be active in the political arena in general. I know there are exceptions, but I think Will Wright's just angling for some publicity for the cause...not a bad goal, but I hope nobody's hopes are raised too highly by this.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
This sounds very much like creating an MPAA for gamers. Boo.
Jack Thompson, I presume?
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Yes, we liberals enjoy blowing each other's brains out in a nice game of Unreal Tournament.
Voting with your dollars, is still voting.
~ Wizardry Dragon
Odd. I think it sounds like some sort of desperate conservative attempt at increasing their voter base. It will fail.
Imagine Jack Valente with an MP3 player. That'd make him spin in his grave. Oops, he's not dead, I know, but a guy can hope.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Duke Nukem! Duke for president! Duke will show those bad guys!
"Unlike many other forms of entertainment they offer players the opportunity to explore, be creative, learn through interaction and express themselves to others."
So instead of fragging somebody with a rocket launcher I'm expressing myself by painting with giblets?
The network has been established by the ESA with the intent of organizing gamers into a political force.
Not to worry. The recent (and future) campaign-finance reform laws will put a stop to this.
The proposed legislation is not a threat to gaming, or to gamers. Under the new laws, games with gratuitous violence or sex will be clearly marked and sold only to those of the proper age... no different than today except that it gives the existing laws some teeth to help with enforcement. The future President's proposal doesn't go far enough, imo. Games that promote and reward antisocial behavior need to be banned. The fight against the legislation is being led by distributors, not developers. They stand to lose because they will lose a section of their market ... like the tobacco companies have. Marketing and selling these games to kids is wrong, and needs to stop.
Or, like, ALL of the amendments to the Constitution that guarantee personal liberty?
What about the overly broad interpretation of what constitutes commerce among the states and regulation thereof?
as if MPAA and RIAA weren't enough, now we'll have a GIAA or GPAA.
sarchasm
most gamers are younger, young people don't vote
Speak for yourself. I'm a gamer since 1981, and I'm 30 now.
Playing a game doesn't.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Duke Nukem fails to arrive on time for election debate. Critics claim Mr Nukem is consistantly late. Mr Nukem is unavailable for comment, as "he is too busy running out of chewing gum, and having to kick ass", according to his secretary.
That we need to get away from. Anti-voting just means giving the ignorant the power to vote in people who act in their own best interests while you sit on your hands and say it wasn't your fault.
The second you decide that your vote doesn't count or your voice doesn't get heard is the second it doesn't count or get heard. You can either sit there and take it, or get up and do something about it. Apparently some people want to get up and do something about it. We need more of those people.
hehe, wright is the man with the plan.
As the government won't be going away anytime soon, not voting gives a competetive advantage to those who do. While you may disagree with everything about the government, it is strategically foolish not to use the tools you have available to affect how it behaves as a government that is serving you 1% to your liking is far better than one that is serving you 100% to your horror.
And apparently JT is the reason why.
You've obviously never played Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Psychonauts, etc - games are much, much more than just "running around and blowing shit up on the computer." Saying that videogames are nothing more than just running around and shooting at things is just as ridiculous as saying that all music is nothing more than overly produced teen pop. There is more, much much more.
The primary critics of video games are the people that do not play them.
Yeah, and how many propenents of video games don't have kids? Exactly.
I know plenty of gamers who think GTA goes way over the top for something targeted at kids (ratings aside, they know their primary audience). They also think parents aren't educated enough, or are too fucking lazy, so we all end up suffering for the sake of the fuckup parents.
Gamers tend to become elitist snobs to anyone who brings up regulation of video games. That's the wrong way to affect change. Maybe this political party will smack some sense into more than a few people and realize some of these games are violence porn (How many opponents of videogame regulation would buy their kid a Hustler? Raise your hands high! Thought so.)
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Damnit, I lost my mod points last night. You would've gotten a mod point otherwise.
Gaming is just a medium, especially as gaming grows more mainstream gamers are as likely to have a unified political voice as people who watch television.
~= scwizard =~
If the combined impact of all the wants of all the gamers isn't enough to improve the average quality of new games, how can it be enough to have a significant effect on politics?
If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
Seriously, I admire you though. You run retail stores, which you apparently shut down to spite the IRS, despite claimed "record sales", a record studio, IT, and numerous other business, while all the time writing multiple books which no one else seems to have read or heard of, multiple blogs and newsletters, and posting and engaging in numerous long running slashdot debates, yet only making enough to have a rundown, I believe camary(sp?).
All despite never getting any government help, I mean building the roads and schools to support your endeavors much be a bitch
History has shown us that some entertainment industries are willing to censure themselves in the face of opposition. Look at the destruction of the "Golden Age" of comics after WWII, as the medium moved from "kids" stuff to WWII vets returning to the states and looking for the same comic entertainment they had as a child - but now with more "mature" storylines.
The Escapist recently had an article on this here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/35/17.
Back then, comic book stores rolled over. Perhaps out of fear, perhaps out of patriotism - after all, their government leaders wouldn't do the wrong thing, right? It took comics decades to crawl out of that "kids only" hole - and now, the industry is dominated by Japanese manga which didn't have such restrictions (all jokes about tentacle hentai and schoolgirl panties aside).
This time, I think the game industry "gets it", and luckily, they're forming a group to handle it. If done right, it can be something like the recent Anti-Broadcast Flag that I participated in last year. Gamers, when certain bills are under debate, can be organized en masse to send personal phone calls, emails, and letters to their local congresspeople with the same message: we support protecting children, but not at the expense of giving up 1st Amendment freedoms. Laws saying selling Mature games to minors is fine - laws saying no mature games at all or no mature games allowed in stores is not.
This would be the most powerful way to combat some of these silly laws. Some of them are well meaning - people upset and confused at a new medium that is "untraditional", and all they see is the bad and not the good. Others, I believe, are using the issue to promote their own agenda or pocketbook (and I think we know who I'm talking about here). By making massive communication movements in the media and politics when pressure is needed, politicians will have to really think about what they're doing, and if it's worth the political effort when there are other more important issues to deal with. (Such as, I don't know, hunger, homelessness, medical coverage, retirement issues, security, campaign finance reform - oh, wait, nevermind, the latter is a pipe dream.)
This organization has a lot of potential, and it's a group that I believe we should all support. It might not make a lot of difference in the short run - laws under consideration will go on. But we can either do what many in the comic book industry did - go down without a fight, or we can drag political leaders kicking and screaming into the modern age while exercising some discipline of our own and behaving like adults.
Of course, this is all just my opinion. I could be wrong. Either way, I've signed up, and I'm ready to pick up the phone and put in some dollars when needed.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Like most new forms of artistic expression that have come before (music, novels, movies), the primary critics of video games are the people that do not play them.
Isn't that kind of a truism? I hear that those who criticize gambling also abstrain from gambling and that those who criticize Steven Spielberg movies... oh, they went anyway since everyone else was.
"So now sitting down on your ass all day and watching a screen is art?" - television
"So now slapping on a bunch of colours onto something is art?" - painting
"So now saying a buncha words is art?" - poetry
"So now being able to form sentences for a few hundred pages is art?" - books
So you do not use 'government' water, roads, bussing services, police forces, firefighting forces ... etc? I admire you then. Must be a real problem to avoid walking or driving on roads, drinking water, or breathing in EPA-regulated air.
A question: would you like a tinfoil hat? I hear it keeps the government from controlling you mind from that chip they put in it.
~ Wizardry Dragon
Over time, the platform will have to evolve with planks on most issues for it to survive, else it'll be a "we're here too!" party like the Libertarians that make a lot of noise but never do very much. (Sorry guys, but that's not a flame. I was one of the 98 Lib voters in CT back in the '92 race).
I can see it now: The GNP (Gamers National Party) Platform of 2008:
* 9r0 1s7 4/\/\d/\/\3n7!!! (1ee7 (c)4u(c)u$!)
* Pro 2nd Amendment/Anti gun control (Shooters caucus)
* Pro free market economy (Civilization caucus)
* Pro death penalty (Undead caucus)
* Pro NASA (Orion caucus)
46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
Considering the average age of a gamer hovers between the 25 - 30 year old age, and i suspect, most people around that age arent very politically active, this could be a good way to get them politically active. I doubt we'll see fatal1ty as the next president, but you never know how much influence this sort of organisation may actually have.
No, playing games is not art. Just like reading books is not art, looking at paintings is not art, etc. Creating games, books, paintings, etc is art. Please see your doctor about your cranial rectal inversion.
Playing a game and "blowing shit up" isn't likely to be classified as art, but the creation of the medium to allow for "blowing shit up" should be.
Since when did a game ever cause anyone the harm you claim?
Antisocial behavior is perpetrated by people who WANT to be antisocial, not by people who are somehow magically influenced by games (or by rock and roll or movies or radio or that evil evil jazz or whatever BS you people keep claiming "causes children to lose their morals").
Enough already with this irrational bullshit. Bad parents produce bad children. Period. What we REALLY NEED is a ban on bad parents and the bad agendas they support in political circles.
Much better title.
How important is anti-video game legislation compared to all other problems in the world. I remember how as a 16 year old I hoped that Bush would win over the Gore/Leiberman ticket just because of Leiberman's views on gaming. Obviously, it didnt take long for me to realize my mistake. The rise in government secrecy, eroding civil liberties, our foreign policy, the economy, and even female reproductive rights are far more important issues in my mind than the narrow issue of the regulation of video game sales. Vote for the better candidate on the biggest issues, and hope that the courts can realize the unconstitutionality of such censorship. I'm all for attempting to sway the views of those politicians, but I just hope people keep things in perspective.
GTA is made for and marketed to me. The mid-twenties guy who has been playing video games as long as he can remember, and now has plenty of cash to buy games, and the consoles/video cards needed to play them. If you think GTA is for kids, or targetted at kids in any way, then you are an idiot.
And I would buy my kid a hustler when he's old enough to want one, if it weren't for the fact that there's plenty of porn for him online so he doesn't need one. Video games shouldn't be regulated, neither should movies or books or anything else that is a purely voluntary passtime that has no effect on other people. If you are gonna make a kid, take some time to raise it too.
This is a good idea for gaming production, but what I am hoping for is an organization that will push for more consumer protection. We need an organization that will go to bat for the consumer for game quality. The idea of shipping now and patching later (receiving a game that doesn't work until you wait 4 hours to patch) or buying an MMO and that game being unplayable 30 days after release should be followed by class action lawsuits (or at least additional bad press).
Game quality and consumer satisfaction might be up individual interpretation but when you pay subscription fees months into a product and it doesn't work...or buy a game for $50 and can't take it back, it would be nice to know there is an additional forum/consumer watch group not dependent upon the industry marketing dollars (i.e. game magazines, sites, etc.) that you can lodge a complaint with.
It's called the IDSA.
I'm also anti-voting as I feel voting is what causes the minority decision to be criminalized. The best voting is voting done with your dollars -- each and every action you make to buy something or to refuse to buy something creates the rules of the market.
We tried that before. It was called tyranny. Didn't work out too well as it happened.
May the Maths Be with you!
Playing a game doesn't.
Not directly, no. But what you do affects the person you become. It's funny how people endorse that idea when it squares with what they want to believe ("Using Linux will make you a better person" [to pick an outlandish example) but not when it goes against a conclusion they'd like to hold. But unless we want to believe that all things have only positive effects (and scanning headlines should take care of that belief in a hurry), then it is possible that video gaming could create bad habits of thought.
Please note that I'm not saying they do, and I'm aware of the dueling studies on the point. I'm saying that there's a possibility and even reason to suspect some such influence, even if its extent is way over-hyped.
Um two points.
1. Although I agree with your post in principle, games do actually affect other people thats kind of there whole point. Just as the other examples, music, novels, movies. Its just that they dont affect people in an adverse way.
2. I think the original post was just a joke based on the obvious nature of the sentence. Kind of like saying. 'The main people who hate fridge magnets are the people who really hate fridge magnets.' Rather than a Jack Thompson politial broadcast.
"Like most new forms of artistic expression that have come before (music, novels, movies), the primary critics of video games are the people that do not play them."
Aside from the we-all-know-what-they-mean, this is actually a bit ambiguous. If they mean critics of certain games, then gamers definitely count, so that can't be right. If they mean critics of games as a whole, then... wouldn't it go without saying that those who don't like it won't do it?
Reminds me of all the college kids that were going to vote for Kerry and kick Bush out of office. How many voted? Less then 20%? That's pathetic, even by US standards. I suspect that most gamers are politically apathetic, so I doubt that many candidates will be intimidated by, or court, the Gamer vote.
Though It will be cool to see the first candidate to make an appearance in WOW. Any guess as to who it might be?
And I thought self proclaimed "hard core gamers" already took themselves too seriously... What's next? Is the 2040 presidential election going to feature the swiftboating of a Battlefield Vietnam vet?
re:" Just as the other examples, music, novels, movies. Its just that they dont affect people in an adverse way."
Right - people who read books would never start wars, decimate Europe's Jewish polulation, destroy the lives of millions.
Like the Bible did.
Nope videogames are far worse than books.
Then of course there's Movies & TV - where a massive chunk of Los Angeles went up in flames just over 12 years ago because of some video tape of a man being "provided due rights" by the LAPD.
But videogames are far worse than TV.
And of course the plight of the dust bowl in the great depression was never given decent coverage because of all those puffery folk-songs that are otherwise wholly forgetable - like the national anthem.
But videogames are far more reaching than music.
But don't worry - China makes wonderful internet filters for you to get rid of all that pesky media that you don't like, and provides untold hurt on the general public. I'm sure the Christian soldiers are perfecting their servers this very minute.
... was a lovely example of 'ad hominem.'
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
The H-1B (tech visa worker) issue has tought me that if you don't protect yourself politically, then you will be bowled over by those with deep pockets or lots of lobbyists.
Religious fanatics will stop porn and allegedly violent games, and big biz has the power to flood the US market with cheap labor by greasing congress. This is just the way it works: special interest A will clobber special interest B if B does nothing because general voters don't care enough either way about the issues that matter to A and B. In other words, the influence of general voters on issues important to only a few is much less than the potential political power (lobbying, campaign donations, etc.) of those who care about specific issues. Voters vote for politicians, not each of the 10,000 or so issues that go with him/her.
Table-ized A.I.
What they describe is a lobby, not a voting bloc. What are the core values of gamers? "We like games?" "We don't like Senator Clinton?" Plus the added difference that a huge portion of the group CAN'T EVEN VOTE. And among those that can, many aren't involved in the political process or care, anyway.
But you know, whatever! Big mean government says violent games are bad! Gamer mad! Gamer smash!
Okay youve missinterpreted me. I was saying Games were just as _good_ as music, novels and movies. Not excluding them. Jeez people are really out for a fight on this one.
I was one of the pioneers in this arena, I was a member of a Quake team, our team played in and won the first Australia wide online team competition, with 13 teams, 4-8 players a side. I also played in Australia's first international Quake team against Japan. So I think I can say with a little authority, what a pile of #$#&%. Online gaming hasn't really changed all that much since Quakeworld, it's now a little prettier. There's a few more people playing, however you might not know it with all, the different mods, and flavours of what essentially really is just quake. To me what meaning it might of once had has been lost a little. I think what the gaming industry has totally misunderstood, it's not the graphics that make a game realistic, it's the spirit and solidarity of the community behind it. If a game manufacturer out there just concentrated on making a competitive league, and not worried about unit sales I think they might actually acheive something worth writing about.
Yes... as much as portraying the exact same thing in a movie, novel, song, play, or painting is art.
Most people consider Shakespearean or Dickensian portrayals of murder and warfare (which were written for the enjoyment of the unwashed masses, no less) to be art, so why is it so different when essentially the same story is told through modern media?
Of course, the average game may not be good art, but then again, neither is the average novel, song, movie, play, or painting.
Gamers will just end up voting in some 'badass' woman with huge breasts, tattoos, ridiculous 'mega cool' body armour and holding three massive guns.
'Rad'.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
Why not? Running around and blowing shit up in the real world is apparently called "defending freedom."
I would love to know where the money trail leads in the founding of this "movement".
I find that although many people are liberal in beliefs, they are conservative in actions.
What about the possibility that "overly broad" is a subjective measure?
True, but what percentage of Slashdot users do you expect would agree with the opinion of the Court in Gonzales v. Raich ?
It finally dawned on me that everyone involved on either side is just being juvenile. I am a gamer. I play video games until my eyes bleed. I don't want anyone to have control over violence or sex in video games. I would just assume there not be any laws about any of this, however; I do see that if the laws that criminalize the sales of violent video games to minors are passed, and then some 12 year old goes and shoots up his school, then no one will be able to blame it on playing the video games this time.
:)
:)
What harm is it really to restrict the sales of the games to minors? If you are under 18, you won't be seeing an R rated movie, and that is just one viewing.
I don't think that playing violent video games negatively affects kids. I just think that gamers should take the high road and let them pass the laws and prove that parents are responsible for monitoring what their kids do. If they think their child is more likely to go insane if they play video games, they will not let them play video games.. And there is little chance that the child could go buy the game at a store behind their parents' backs. But when the child turns 18, it is his call
The second anyone tries to censor or restrict the content of the games themselves, I will be rioting with everyone. Right now we are just talking about the sale to minors.. Who probably just find torrents of the games anyways
Kids don't read Hustler? I seem to remember things differently.
Wouldn't it make more sense to attach "gamer's rights" to a larger pre-existing civil rights lobby? Even though lots of people are gamers, I can't imagine any of them care passionately enough to even take notice of this or give it any political power.
It is a front created by the video game industry equivalent of the RIAA.
The Video Game Voters Network is a project sponsored by the Entertainment Software Association, a trade group representing America's video game publishers.
They don't have gameplayers' interests at heart, they have their DRM-locked wallets at heart.
Flout 'em and scout 'em,
and scout 'em and flout 'em;
Thought is free. - Shakespeare [The Tempest]
And then face real people!
"just as soon". One can not estimate how moronic it sounds when you get that kind of shit wrong.
ESA = European Space Agency. Me confused...
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
I cannot join. I need to enter a valid US zip code and state. I don't live in the United States. Are they expecting me to fill in arbitrary numbers if this is the case? What a worthless system.
I am aged 18, and this post will contain exactly 1 (one) instance of the word "lol"-there.
First, I cannot give support to a group who makes a claim against legislation without quoting the legislation; in this day and age, they should link directly to the bill, or at least the press release. I have this same issue with the NRA, MoveOn, Michael Moore, and just about every other "grassroots" organization.
That aside, the main point of the Video Game Voters Network as it stands appears to be the defeat of The Family Entertainment Protection Act* (Wiki), whose main purpose is Government enforcment of ESRB ratings. I, for one, support (mostly) the ESRB ratings, and do not believe that 12-year-olds should have access to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. And yes, I have seen 12-year-olds purchase GTA at my local Gamestop (pre-Hot Coffee). I informed the manager that I would never again purchase a game at their store, left, and have never again set foot in any Gamestop.
The problem with the Gaming industry isn't the fear of Government regulation or "oppresive" laws, which don't even punish the developers or gamers, but retailers, and Clinton et al aren't out for the total abolishment of The World As We Know It(tm), but rather out to protect the children of their constituencies. Thus, the Video Game Voters Network shouldn't be out to oppose this legislation, but instead, should be organizing boycotts of EA for re-releasing every Sports games with questionably "better" graphics and AI, much less their employer-practices.
Of course, if videogames cause verifable psychological damage that's a matter for psychiatrists to bring to the attention of the legislature. Even then it's probably not something which should be legislated against - alcohol, sweets, s and m, tv marathons, dangerous/violent sports... fucking yourself up for fun is part of our freedom.
*actually, I suspect they do cause extra crime - I've warezed quite a few in my time and I suspect most young and poor gamers have done the same... but you can't really ban videogames to prevent crime against videogames. /. verification word: paranoia
Wouldn't it be something if this "video game party" had a Florida-style "screwup" where large numbers of voters accidently entered the wrong vote on the electronic voting machines?
(And yes, I am fully aware that Pat Buchanan's Palm Beach vote totals were unlikely a result of any screwup)
I'm not dealing with "thoughtcrimes". Thoughts lead to actions.
Not directly, no. But what you do affects the person you become.
How does it affect the person you become? See I have played games all my life - since I was 14 my dad purchased an Apple IIe. This was back in the 70's. I've played many, many hours per week. Some have called me an "addict", including my wife - who loathes video games.
Nonetheless I managed to graduate from medical school, father two wonderful teenagers, have been happily married for 16 years and do rather well with a chain of primary care clinics. And I _still_ play several hours per day. Please tell me how videogames have "affected" me?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The argument I'm proposing is simple: Either nothing we experience affects us (surely nonsense) or the potential for good or bad effect is present in everything we do, and that it is therefore possible that ultra-violent gaming has a negative effect on people.
That, I think, was Fozzie Bear. Pac-Man said 'Wacca Wacca Wacca Wacca'.
Surely it's not THAT hard to get the icons of the early eighties straight?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
You either like something or you're terrified of it? Man, restaurants must be traumatic.