Brilliant Comic Slams How The Media Treats Video Games

Brilliant Comic Slams How The Media Treats Video Games

Perhaps in response to yesterday's Fox News debacle, this amazing Dorkly comic totally nails the way television newscasters tend to treat video games.

Read it all below:

Brilliant Comic Slams How The Media Treats Video Games


    Like button, reblog, 17 hashtags, +1, etc.

    As much as I like what this is trying to do, it has no real foot to stand on.

    I believe one of the main accusations are that with a game, the person is playing it, actively making the decisions to take potentially negative actions, which then may or may not be rewarded. Movies, art and other such media formats though, don't have people actively participating, other than actors or models. So, I suppose you could say it's dangerous for them.

    I'd love for the media to stop picking on video games, I really would, they won't though. As we've all seen, the typical media will say and/or do whatever it wants or needs to, to gain viewers/readers. Regardless of how true or deceptive an article is.

      Your making an argument that doesn't exist. People still make the choice to watch, listen, go to these other types of media, as well as creating and investing in them. The interactive part is all in the head. Movies are mostly about escapism, where most of the action is in your imagination and only a fraction takes place on the screen, just because you also use your hands with a video game doesn't mean that it is any better or worse.

        So, psychologically speaking, the fact that the player has to actively make their avatar in the game perform an action, and that such an action can be rewarded is no worse than somebody simply sitting back and watching a film in which the same events happen, but without any input from the viewer?

        I agree that people do make the choice to watch, listen and view other forms of media, and as you've also said, create and invest in them. It's light entertainment for some, and they are mostly aware of what they're about to watch. Though I like to think that's partially due to an underlying desire for these events that they can see or create to occur to some degree. Though, even in something like watching a film, there is still reward, however, the viewer has no control over what will happen in the film. If somebody gets killed in a film, the viewer has no responsibility, however if you decidedly shoot someone in a game, then receive points or money for it, that was a decision that the player made in order to gain a noticeable reward. Something that which then, will continue as long as there is reward for the actions.

        I apologize if I've misinterpreted what you've written. Though, assuming I haven't. I still believe that there is a difference between playing a game and watching a film. I'm not a scientist or psychologist, and I have nothing to back my thoughts up. Though I would image that the whole act/reward system would utilize different parts of the brain than compared to simply watching.

        There's also the fact that some people learn better from hands on experience, rather than just from seeing or hearing.

        I will also say that I don't believe the act/reward system that exists within video games has that much of an impact on a person outside of that specific game world, it would only become an actual danger to those already mentally unstable, who would most likely do something potentially dangerous regardless of whether they've had any interaction with a video game or not. People simply don't want to blame themselves for all the horrific events that occur, instead they'll use a scapegoat and allow the actual issues to continue.

        If you can prove my opinions wrong, then please do so. I like to be wrong on matters such as this. I don't want the video game industry to suffer more than it has.

        I am in agreement with Diend. Most of us would say violent media does not make a person violent and that should be what we be arguing for.

        Diend is also correct in that videogames indeed affect people differently to how movies do. Movies require passive involvement, you watch a story happen. In games however, you are an active participant in the media. Usually players identify with their character. Further, the character may need to do things through the course of the game such as killing. The character is "rewarded" with points or safe access to another area or the achievement of goals which causes a different kind of stimulation to the brain than watching someone else achieve these things would do. There is a form of satisfaction, enough to sometimes addict people to that feeling. Look at trophy/achievement collectors, they spend hours just to get that satisfaction of that reward.

        While some people do think that this translates to real life actions, there is no solid evidence to support that theory. People often say that all the recent serial killers have been "gamers" but really, games are common entertainment. You cannot really single that out as the one key thing that made them a killer is they played a violent game. At a stretch one could say that violent people are attracted to violent video games, but even that... Anyway, I don't think we should be arguing with each other, we all agree the media picks on games too much and that they should stop using videogames as a scapegoat.

    Eh, they're just paraphrasing Skyhooks (The song, Horror Movie for all you young whippersnappers). ^_-

    Last edited 19/09/13 7:26 pm

      Which is, I might add, a great song. I love it :)

    YES! Someone finally realises this! Finally!!!!!!

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now