He actually does use the term chance (chance concordance) when making the argument for an ecological fallacy. Last paragraph of E9.

If I started off being an ass to you when talking about censorship, I'm sorry. If I made a personal attack, I'm sorry. I'm also sorry for when I was unnessecarily condescending.

Apology accepted. And I apologize for calling you out so hard. I don't know if you've read much of this thread in the past, but we get a lot of people who jump into the thread just to argue and call us wrong about everything. You can see some of the "usual suspects" in some of the intervening posts. In some ways, you've come off the same way. But at least you seem to be willing to talk about the issues.

What is your take on the study that seems to indicate that the reason video games appear to cause short-term aggression is really a factor of frustration? I found that one interesting. That by giving one group a tutorial on how to play the game and comparing it to another group with no instructions, the group who were given instructions showed less of the "aggressive" behavior than the other group.

Of course the implication is that "violence" in these videogames isn't the issue, but that aggressive after-effects may be a product of the initial frustration in learning a new game.

Because seriously, who isn't a little frustrated by getting used to a new game, new controls, getting used to the new "rules" of the game. If that leads to a bit of aggression, what does the subsequent conquering or mastery of the game give one? Does this mean if the same study could be stretched out to a week per respondent, would the results all of a sudden turn into an increase in self-esteem and maybe even more calm after the game was successfully completed?

Not saying this would necessarily be the case, but it does pose quite a quandary about how much value there is in these very short-term micro studies...

I can add a bit here... There's been many boycotts called in GG but there were folks in different camps about them. I'm in the camp that doesn't agree with boycotting just because of who folks are affiliated with in some way and don't agree with trying to get everyone to follow in my disagreeing with someone. When I choose to boycott something, that's on me and me alone. I say nothing of it unless someone asks why I'm not grabbing a certain game if it may be on sale or something that I had my eye on for a while then decided against it.

So from what I've seen, the boycotts are called out ( and those who post them ) as not being "official" since hardly anyone will take the same stance on everything.

The large bit of boycotting I do...in silence... is not going to the websites that have been printing shitty journalism.


Now..another thing that folks in GG have been doing is sending emails to those that have ads on those "crappy journalism" sites. Not everyone agrees with doing that and I'm one of them.

You have a REALLY loose idea of what you call hate. Are you dumbfounded that games have both mechanic elements and immersive elements, and people who prefer mechanical elements, like most hardcore gamers want mechanics over immersion-building elements like writing and character development? Are you not able to live with that view? Why be so hateful. Gaming needs to be a more tolerant space.

Except for games like Depression Quest? or Gone Home (as I have seen many times mentioned as not a game...). Or even frowning on so called 'casual games', and saying 'Candy Crush Saga' or 'FarmVille' as if it was swear words... I would really like everyone to make sure games are much more tolerant spaces.

I was using the hate to mean criticism. It's a colloquial use of the word I guess. "Haters gonna hate".

I think the issue many had with those were the fact that they were hailed and praised so much for basically their subject matter, regardless of execution. Gameplay elements are fairly non existent and one can wonder where the line is drawn of actually being counted as a "game".

The issue with casual games is that many people who from time to time play one of those and have no further investment, care or knowledge of games act like they are hardcore gamers, as invested as those who play daily, have it as their main pastime and/or are deeply invested in the entire gaming world. While this may sound bigoted lets draw a parallel.

Imagine you are a very good cook. You love cooking and you do it a lot, both at home and at gatherings with friends events etc. It is your big passion. Enter a nerdy guy who says "oh yeah i'm damn near a professional chef cook myself, after all I make microwave mac&cheese from time to time".
I'm betting that would annoy you a lot too.

one can very much argue you are not getting your moneys worth then. Imagine a AAA declaring have to pay 1 $ for every 4 minutes you play. Everyone would hate that. But it's ok if indies do it?

The problem is "casual", as in "casual gamer", has seen such overuse that it's begun to lose its meaning. I had someone assert I must be one because I admitted having issues getting into a particular game, when I even stated having no issues with another type of game in the same genre and style.

I think it's hard to set an absolute price vs time. I'd say as long as the quality of the product aligns with it's pricing, then that's fair. Obviously "quality" can be highly subjective. There's also the issue of replayability; if a game is short but highly replayable.

I disagree. Tetris was as casual or as hardcore as you wanted it to be. Mainstreaming isn't always a case of casualization. People LIKE puzzlers and puzzles, and so those tend to have a lot of crossover appeal, naturally. I also think that Tetris being made in Russia also sort of contributed to its mystique. I spent a LOT of time dueling my sisters for high scores and I think it's good enough and engaging enough and more importantly, still appealing enough to be able to stand on its own, even as a new product. Heck, I still play it.
Well, in the case of DQ and Gone Home, they lack gameplay. This is simply my personal definition, but if a game lacks gameplay, then you really can't call it a game, especially if it doesn't match the dictionary definition of one. I like keeping it simple, and making up new definitions for words to fit a narrative just isn't my style.

I dislike CCS and FarmVille due to the fact that they're made by detestable companies, and games like them tend to be designed to make it so you have to spend RL money if you want to "compete" in some way. Now, these ones aren't as bad as some of the bigger offenders in the mobile/FB market, but I choose to not involve myself with them on a personal stance.

FarmVille is terrible for demanding micro-payments but, on the other hand, I finished the last of all 460 levels of King.com's Pepper Panic Saga earlier this year without ever paying a penny!

This also illustrates that 'casual games' aren't just played by 'casual gamers'!

a casual gamer is not someone who plays casual games, it's someone who plays only casual games.

They don't have mechanics. The only have maximum of 51% of a game with 50% narrative and 1% mechanical complexity, IMO. But it takes shit to see it lacks mechanics. Its obvious. Same with other antigames. Candy Crush and such braindead games insultingly dumb; rfrom the POV of a person who gives priority to mechanics. Its has its players, but it has no business with real mechanically complex games.

Tetris has mechanics. The number is low, but the shape matching system and speed and all that forms a cohesive mechanical experience. A mechanically complex game isn't a pixel-art style thing. Take Assassin's Creed for example.

Too bad there is that vegetable outgrowth MacIntosh trying to impose hisopinion as facts in an attempt to censor games. No tolerance without good riddance I say.
+1 remember kids

I never put any real significance on those short term studies. I said they were there, but you can't use them to say violent media causes violence. My point was there was a lot of them over many years and they all found the same thing. That's the consensus I was talking about. Have someone watch rambo and complete sentences, and they choose more aggressive words. It doesn't show real world anything. The study that found it was a result of frustration is interesting, yes. But do violent movies cause the same level of frustration? Why the difference in media? If you notice, I didn't say shit about that one. It was published in a psychology journal and had 20 citations. I assume its good research, but I don't know if its been reproduced or not. I'm not really trained to evaluate it. I also don't know anything about the cohort. Were they teenagers, were they adults, was it mixed? The paper is not open access, but they only discuss one of six studies in the paper. I wonder what the other five were and what they showed? Does anyone cite that specific study for anything?

Actually, my main thought was how the hell do you say the PIs name.

The incarceration rate/abortion stuff comes up a lot in an area where I do real life advocacy. Quite a few sociology and penology speakers have brought it up. I'm involved with my church in advocacy against handing down a ton of felony convictions for nonviolent crime. They do nothing but make private prisons money, and create a permanent underclass.

The other thing is children. There strong observational learners. To me its not even a matter of science. You let a four or five year old watch TV, and they will imitate the behavior. I'll never forget my niece, she was watching old laurel and hardy skits. One of them stomped on the other's foot. She went to school (1st grade), and got in trouble for stomping on a few feet.

I just don't think you can say video games don't contribute to violent behavior in certain individuals. I also don't think you can say they do. I don't know how many papers are published on this topic a year, but we've only looked at like 3 or 4 of them. It will be interesting to see what the APA changes in their statement, as they will likely be aware and knowledgeable of most of the studies published in this area.

Edit:

I also acknowledged those correlational studies. I said we don't need to censor games, like that california law did.

That's ridiculous, Candy Crush is a FAR more mechanically complex and strategic game than Tetris with a much greater range of challenges
From simple 'beat a score limit' to Clear all the icing in a set number of moves (make a match 3 on specific squares of the board) and then 'get the fruit to the bottom of the board' challenges, then there's the bonus candies you can get for rows of 4 or more and that's just vanilla Candy Crush, there's more yet mechanics in 'Dreamworld' levels and over in 'Candy Crush Soda'
The games are genuinely challenging and have greater depth and variety than Tetris