White House Investigating Benefits Of Games

[hexFrank202]

Oh shit. This is terrible.

1: The government generally sucks at making anything. These games might be good, but it'll be shitty too.

2: There's a reason why the government should never get involved in art or media; how can you trust them to not put subtle political bias and/or propaganda in there like they already do with NPR? This is kind of what the whole first amendment was about. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the entire Obama administration consists of nothing but absolutely selfless angels of good-hearts and intelligence. If Jeb Bush gets elected in 2016, who's to say he won't put pro-life, pro-abstinence messages in there?

 

[hexFrank202]

My thoughts exactly lol. This is one time we need to just let it go, Obama is doing nothing more than trying to drum up election votes for gamers.

You're probably right. The idea that Obama actually wants the children of America to be smarter is laughable.

Yeah, it's a brilliant sham to get votes. Attract the minorities and enrage the majority of the voters. I'm sure this will make him win the election.

I know that everyone wants to be an oppressed minority, but I'm about sick of this idea that the majority of the population is anti-video games. The majority of activists speaking up about it usually are, and that certainly counts for a lot, but every game system sold to a kid represents at least one grown adult who is totally fine with gaming.

 

[Yopaz]

My thoughts exactly lol. This is one time we need to just let it go, Obama is doing nothing more than trying to drum up election votes for gamers.

You're probably right. The idea that Obama actually wants the children of America to be smarter is laughable.

Yeah, it's a brilliant sham to get votes. Attract the minorities and enrage the majority of the voters. I'm sure this will make him win the election.

I know that everyone wants to be an oppressed minority, but I'm about sick of this idea that the majority of the population is anti-video games. The majority of activists speaking up about it usually are, and that certainly counts for a lot, but every game system sold to a kid represents at least one grown adult who is totally fine with gaming.

Yeah, I base this solely on a childish need to be an oppressed minority and not the fact that politicians that are very outspoken against video games actually manage to get a lot of support from the voters.

 

[hexFrank202]

Yeah, I base this solely on a childish need to be an oppressed minority and not the fact that politicians that are very outspoken against video games actually manage to get a lot of support from the voters.

No one's gonna dispute that politically, gaming is still getting the traditional anal rape that all new mediums are given at first, but what I'm saying is that in the overall number of people--whether politically active voters or not--the majority of adults don't have a problem.

I observe my parents and their dozens of friends--almost all of whom happen to be open, dedicated evangelical Christians--and I don't know of a single one who spews more than a drop of the anti-videogames crap gushing out the mouths of 'those crazy radical Christians' on TV.

Edit: And yes, it still seems completely plausible to me that the Obama 2012 campaign is relying on the youth votes even more than usual. An administration--with a record this bad--their best bet is to get support from the people with less experience of politics and minds far more prone to wanting 'change'. Therefore, supporting video games in some way is a solid strategy for further strengthening the relationship with that base.

 

[Yopaz]

Yeah, I base this solely on a childish need to be an oppressed minority and not the fact that politicians that are very outspoken against video games actually manage to get a lot of support from the voters.

No one's gonna dispute that politically, gaming is still getting the traditional anal rape that all new mediums are given at first, but what I'm saying is that in the overall number of people--whether politically active voters or not--the majority of adults don't have a problem.

I observe my parents and their dozens of friends--almost all of whom happen to be open, dedicated evangelical Christians--and I don't know of a single one who spews more than a drop of the anti-videogames crap gushing out the mouths of 'those crazy radical Christians' on TV.

Edit: And yes, it still seems completely plausible to me that the Obama 2012 campaign is relying on the youth votes even more than usual. An administration--with a record this bad--their best bet is to get support from the people with less experience of politics and minds far more prone to wanting 'change'. Therefore, supporting video games in some way is a solid strategy for further strengthening the relationship with that base.

So you know over a dozen people who aren't against gaming? Well then I guess I have to admit I'm wrong. The majority of USA's population clearly loves video games. Never mind the tons of votes that goes to politicians who try to restrict gaming. Those results must be wrong because you know dozens of people who are open to gaming.

 

[Johnson McGee]

it takes skill to make a good learning game, but it can be done. i can remember several titles that were just plain fun, plus tangential learning gives me plenty of new information nowadays. i just hope that the white house understands the gap between a game that can teach, and a teaching game is far and treacherous.

This is very true. Very few games are successful when they're overtly educational e.g. solve this equation to defeat the enemies, on the other hand, how many WOW players unwittingly learn somewhat advanced algebra in order to maximize their DPS?

 

[hexFrank202]

Snip

If there is a thorough, trustworthy study showing that the majority of adults were in favor of laws restricting the video games industry in a manner that violated free speech, I'd be wrong (and surprised).

Also, I think I would have a little more experience with the culture of America than you do, just as you might have more with Norway than I. In fact, while on that subject, I'd like to say with absolute certainty that freedom of speech is one the 'old fashioned American values' oft held by the 'patriots/rednecks/Christians' of my country. Please slap me if I'm flushing out lies that were stuffed into me, but I don't think most of Europe is as keen on rights like that. Not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just wondering if the culture you live in is more prone to endorse silencing-through-government messages and ideas they don't like, and that gives you a more negative view on the world.

In America, we DID actually just recently declare video games as an art form, right? So even though there's support for anti-gaming, the pro-gaming support has won out. So...?

 

[Yopaz]

Snip

If there is a thorough, trustworthy study showing that the majority of adults were in favor of laws restricting the video games industry in a manner that violated free speech, I'd be wrong (and surprised).

Also, I think I would have a little more experience with the culture of America than you do, just as you might have more with Norway than I. In fact, while on that subject, I'd like to say with absolute certainty that freedom of speech is one the 'old fashioned American values' oft held by the 'patriots/rednecks/Christians' of my country. Please slap me if I'm flushing out lies that were stuffed into me, but I don't think most of Europe is as keen on rights like that. Not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just wondering if the culture you live in is more prone to endorse silencing-through-government messages and ideas they don't like, and that gives you a more negative view on the world.

In America, we DID actually just recently declare video games as an art form, right? So even though there's support for anti-gaming, the pro-gaming support has won out. So...?

Now who's throwing rocks in a glass house here? You say I am wrong about video games because you know dozens. When I point out that politicians get votes by saying they will restrict gaming you ask for a trustworthy study. Because I need one to prove one, you need to know a dozen people.

Also prepare to be surprised. Even if people want freedom of speech they want it for the benefits and not its dark sides. Now you are right that I don't know the American culture as well as you, but I know it a lot better than you know Norwegian culture. There is no European culture because Europe is not a country. I have family in USA and I have been there a few times so don't throw out assumptions without any base to it. Now before you tell me that I am the one throwing rocks in a glass house by saying that. Explain to me. If the majority of the population are supporting gamers why do they vote for those who want to restrict it? Games are protected by free speech so their attempts are flawed, but they rile up a lot of support from voters nevertheless. Now I exaggerated in my first post, but you can't deny there's a huge crowd on the anti-gamer side.

Yeah, games were declared art by the supreme court in June of last year. Among the reasons given that games should be protected by the first amendment along with books and movies that it contained stories, dialogue, characters, that it tried to communicate ideas and social messages. It was also pointed out that most games aren't much more violent than children stories. Basically it was ruled art because those who raised the case made some good points that couldn't be denied. This doesn't say much about the majority to be honest. It's like saying the majority supports rape whenever a rapist got a good lawyer and walks out a free man after the trial.

 

[hexFrank202]

If there's a study that contradicts my personal experience, then it could be concluded that what I've seen is the exception to the rule. I don't know what you want me to say.

"Even if people want freedom of speech they want it for the benefits and not its dark sides."

Well who are 'they', and what are 'the dark sides'?

I have family in USA and I have been there a few times so don't throw out assumptions without any base to it.

Sorry if my vocabulary sounded so definite. I tried to soften that with words like 'I think' and 'probably' but I guess I didn't think that through enough.

Now you are right that I don't know the American culture as well as you, but I know it a lot better than you know Norwegian culture.

Uh... what was that about not making assumptions about people?

I mean your assumption is correct, but how did you know for sure?

Now before you tell me that I am the one throwing rocks in a glass house by saying that,

God damn, I'm really sorry if I said something like that, because I really wasn't intending to.

Explain to me. If the majority of the population are supporting gamers why do they vote for those who want to restrict it?

Well in America, less than half the eligible population votes I believe. Although the voter population is what ultimately counts, naturally. But I don't know if what you said is entirely accurate. Pro-game and anti-game politicians get elected, just like pro-life or pro-choice. Would you consider Barack Obama pro-game? Well, the majority favored him.

Also, yet another factor is that while a voter may have an opinion one way or another on any issue, the amount of importance that issue has on them can vary greatly. So a guy might vote for a politician for other, bigger issues, even though he dislikes the politician's position on video games.

...you can't deny there's a huge crowd on the anti-gamer side.

And I never have! I mean I don't know what I'm saying wrong here.

This doesn't say much about the majority to be honest. It's like saying the majority supports rape whenever a rapist got a good lawyer and walks out a free man after the trial.

Well the nine supreme court justices are appointed by the president, then approved by a majority vote in the senate. The senators are put into power by winning the majority in their respective states, and the president is voted in by winning the majority of states in the country. So however indirect and greatly unpredictable, the people of America do decide who goes into the supreme court. But you know what, I just realized...

When I'm talking about the general majority of every living person/adult, whether politically active or not, I believe you then draw attention to the fact that despite that supposed majority, the true political and legal power in the world is different. This is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, but then when I bring up how the legal system did actually rule in favor of video games, you point out that such events don't accurately portray the majority of the population.

So which is it? What are you arguing? The whole reason for this discussion is over the claim that the Obama administration is doing this purely to gain more support and votes, so are we spinning off into ultimately unrelated discussion--which is fine with me--or is everything you've been saying relevant to why you disagree with that 'vote-whore' claim?

 

[Dastardly]

But I think it is well within the realm of possibility to make games that are entertaining enough that students would be willing to play them during times not explicitly devoted to learning that still contribute to students' education.

I might offer that this is more like "learn-ifying games" than "game-ifying learning," which seems to be what the recent buzz is all about. And I think your suggested approach is exactly what I would love to see -- learning "invading" games -- rather than the opposite.