NationStates Jolt Archive

EDIT: Maybe I overreacted, anyway, here's the link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4774049.stm

They haven't. Try reading the article.

They have obviously never played EVE. :rolleyes:

They haven't. Try reading the article.
Fine, he wrote a biased article.

Fine, he wrote a biased article.

He wrote an article describing what he observed.

And there is no such thing as an unbiased article.

He wrote an article describing what he observed.
Yeah, he observed that video games have a negative effect both physically and mentally on human beings based on the extensive scientific testing he did by attending E3.

And there is no such thing as an unbiased article.
No, but for somebody criticising others for being lazy, he didn't make that much effort towards objectivity.

Yeah, he observed that video games have a negative effect both physically and mentally on human beings based on the extensive scientific testing he did by attending E3.
Where? What he says is that the people at E3 seemed more interested in watching the simulations of the women than the women themselves. That was an observation he made, of the people there. He does not, at any point, generalise this to all game players. But I guess you did.


No, but for somebody criticising others for being lazy, he didn't make that much effort towards objectivity.
When did he criticize people for being lazy? Quote the article please.

I guess my problem is with the negative image of video-gamers that it creates, rather than what it explictly states. However, I do believe that the article was deliberately designed to make games and gamers look bad.

I confess that I should have read it more thoroughly before posting about it.

When did he criticize people for being lazy? Quote the article please.
The writer of the article didn't, but he quoted someone else doing so:
A distinguished industry analyst, Michael Pachter, makes a forceful case for video games improving dexterity, problem solving, sportsmanship, and risk taking.

But he contrasts the interactive crowd of today with the passive couch potatoes of yesterday.

Though the writer then coments how actually going sailing would be much better for young people than a sailing game. It would seem that the writer disagrees with Mr. Patcher.

The writer of the article didn't, but he quoted someone else doing so:
He quoted a gamer present at the conference.
"I like games because I'm weak and lazy," one adolescent tells me as he stands in line for 3 hours to see the latest Nintendo offering.

As I said, he is reporting on the experiences he had at E3

Though the writer then coments how actually going sailing would be much better for young people than a sailing game. It would seem that the writer disagrees with Mr. Patcher.
Thinking that actually doing anything legal rather than just simulating it is better is not being Anti Gaming. It is simply recognizing that the real thing is better than the simulation of it.

The overall tone of the article is critical of the gaming culture, but there is no specific attack made on gamers. As to the BBC, they publish game reviews and have a gaming news column (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2207229.stm) on thier site, so it is hardly institutional bias.

He quoted a gamer present at the conference.


As I said, he is reporting on the experiences he had at E3


Thinking that actually doing anything legal rather than just simulating it is better is not being Anti Gaming. It is simply recognizing that the real thing is better than the simulation of it.
I know, I never said it was anti-gaming. I just said the writer appeared to disagree the quoted industry analyst.

He doesn't technically disagree that video gaming improves dexterity etc. He just says that the real thing would improve them more, which I doubt even the games industry would deny.