Overly sensitive Gamer?

[Karma168]

You've all probably read about the Group filing a complaint over remarks made on a British TV show, (if not the links there)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109331-Anti-Gaming-Television-Episode-Earns-Official-Complaint

Some choice quotes from the article:

Daily Mail columnist and regular Wright Stuff panelist Anne Diamond said violent games were obviously to blame for causing violent behavior, and that reports claiming otherwise should be ignored because they're "obviously" funded by the games industry and thus completely biased.

While this claim may or may not be true is it grounds for complaint? when a study comes out saying smoking isn't that bad for you we all automatically assume it was paid for using money received from the tobacco industry and is probable bullcrap, is claiming the same for gaming any different?

To that end it filed a formal complaint with broadcaster Channel 5 protesting both the "unbalanced content" of the show and the "inexplicable" use of footage from an 18-rated game on a daytime television show. "Apparently at 10.30 in the morning during the school holidays, it's fine to show scenes from an 18 rated game to set context of how it causes violence.

the footage taken from the MW2 mission 'No Russian' was stock footage used back when the game was released and the initial uproar was on TV. While this does not excuse showing 18+ rated material at 10 in the morning it goes some way to defending it as this was done by every major network at the time of release at even earlier times (I remember seeing a discussion on that very material on a breakfast show at 8am)


I have to say i think the people who complained were being overly sensitive. Yes some of the panellists were rather vocal with their opinions but what do you expect from an discussion programme? While they were severely biased i felt that the presenter did try to present a balanced point of view and gave several arguments against blaming games solely for violence. He respected the callers and at worst made jokes that were in no way offensive.

To me this feels like a knee-jerk reaction to a slight on gaming; are we becoming one of those groups who go up in arms every time someone says something about our hobby that we don't like? I'd bloody well hope not.

A link to the episode is below, sorry if you aren't able to watch it where you live:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzHgoYh7-xg&feature=fvwkrel

 

[Alex Berry]

The 'No Russian' level was gratuitous and unnecessary.

 

[TheWhiteRapper]

I just can't relate to the topic.

I live in a country where cardinals decide who should be the next president, but noone gives a shit about how video games corrupt children. I guess it's just that USA sucks.

Stupid question, but what country?

OT: Haters gonna hate. The best argument against gamers is "Why is killing fun for you?" I then reply with

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feB7Oc8rw1o

And then I wait for them to die from old age. I'm betting on 20 years

 

[Eldarion]

The 'No Russian' level was gratuitous and unnecessary.

I thought modern warfare 2 was gratuitous and unnecessary. No offence to anyone that liked it.

 

[Alex Berry]

The 'No Russian' level was gratuitous and unnecessary.

I thought modern warfare 2 was gratuitous and unnecessary. No offence to anyone that liked it.

None taken here. I'm a little ashamed to admit I play games to people I don't know because of CoD.

 

[Krantos]

You can't simply dismiss all studies in favor of gaming by assuming they're funded by the game companies. You also can't dismiss all studies against it by saying they're funded by evangelical groups and the like.

There are things called scholarly journals. In them, they print articles and research findings that have been peer reviewed by a panel of professionals in that field. The panel checks the study's methodology for various things such as internal/external validity, potential biases, and the ability to replicate the findings.

The problem is news services don't care about this stuff. They're just in it for the soundbites.

The result is that suddenly everyone thinks they're an expert on psychology, sociology, etc. just because Fox News had an "Expert" come in and explain their findings. Those of us who know how the research process works and the value of peer review and replication are constantly frustrated by the level of misinformation the public is being fed.

If you want actual, valid evidence on this sort of thing, you have to do your research and restrict your information to reliable sources. If you see a study being talked about online or on T.V. look it up and see if it's been reviewed before you jump all over it.


TL;DR Scholarly journals require studies be approved before publishing them. News sites don't.

 

[Windcaler]

I cant watch the video since its blocked from the US so I cant be sure of what was or wasnt said.

However I believe its the responsibility of everyone to complain when someone makes statements that are factually incorrect. People should be challenging views that can be disproven by fact and the idea that all studies done by video games are 1) funded by the industry and 2) completely biased is something that is factually incorrect. So much so that the very claim seems absurd to me

 

[AgentNein]

...are we becoming one of those groups who go up in arms every time someone says something about our hobby that we don't like?

You mean are we one of those groups that become vocal of our offense and civilly stand up for ourselves when we feel that we're being misrepresented? Sure hope so.