I found this survey very interesting and should say that yeah its right, my father plays *CSS* and he is 55 years old - his comment on the game: IT OWNS!!!! I dont know why ppl keep saying that games promote violence - ARE THEY LIVING IN THIS WORLD ???? DIDN'T THEY EVER HEAR OF WWE, or OTHER BULLSHIT THATS RLY INFLUENCING THESE RARE IDIOTS ????

@ G-Dog
I never played WoW but a lot of my pals do and they do have a social life.

I have numerous hobbies apart from gaming, including parkour, my bass guitar, movies and swimming. donna know why non-gamers say that 'GAMERS ARE ANTI-SOCIAL' thats so stupid :@
Clubbers are lifeless too becoz they spend their nights at clubs getting drugged.

@Petrolgirls:

Sorry, I don't think that is correct and is a very narrow-minded view of the industry. Sure, some games aren't designed with a story in mind. Look at the success of the short little arcade titles on XBOX Live.

However, the vast majority of games are designed specifically with a story to tell, and there have been some fantastic stories told through games. Stories that actually allow the consumer to become a part of, and interact with, even if they are not referenced directly within the game.

Until you realise the difficulties of trying to take a story that could be created for film or television, make it INTERACTIVE, with the many thousands of different outcomes and actions that a player might take, that must be designed,developed and tested then I don't think you should be criticizing the industry.

If you think games and story are diametrically opposed, let me list a few games that have succeeded mainly because of their finesse in entangling story with game. Starcraft, Planescape: Torment, Half Life 2, Diablo, the Warcraft series (Blizzard are the masters at this very subject), Psychonauts, GTA series... in fact, I could recite numerous games that have impressive stories accompanying their fine gameplay.

The games industry does not suffer an inferioty complex, we are already larger and more successful than the film industry with plenty of room for growth and a huge amount of untapped potential. We are trying to meet that potential, and like movies, some titles fall drastically short. Perhaps we should have "B-grade" games too, but I would wager that any non-AAA game would fall into that category.

As for the survey, there's nothing really surprising here and it's good to see a survey that I actually agree with on most points. Most parents still don't understand that games aren't toys, they are ways to become involved and interact with a world and its encompassing story. Oh, I disagree with the emotional attachment part also. There have been some great gaming characters, I still get a chill down my spine when I watch Tassadar sacrifice himself at the end of Starcraft...

Well, the lack of emotional involvement comes from the lack of story telling, I think. The villains in games are mostly of the faceless sorts. The only villain I can think of who has real depth anda history is Revolver Ocelot. You'd almost care for that guy. The rest: Faceless goons.

In the full story, did they mention anything about WOW turning people into anti-social, 600 pound monstrosities?

"Gamers are starting to play at a younger age, even as the average age of gamers is increasing."

Hm, it's increasing in both directions? Cool.

Though, I kinda fear games being "mainstream" a little.

Having nothing better to do living in the middle of nowhere, I play games. Plus a bit of escapism, aswell.

"Gamers are starting to play at a younger age, even as the average age of gamers is increasing."

For a lot of us older players, "games" would make us think of the more advanced "T" and "M" games. But there are number of "E" games that actually do come out. And they are becoming easier for the youngest generation to play. One reason is that the youngest generation has Parents who can related to computer and console games and can share their knowledge of how to play games in general.

"Males and females differ greatly in taste in games, how long they play, and how involved they are in the gameplay."

I'd just like to say that "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus" is bullpucky. Everyone is an individual and if you happen to stray from the stereotypical view, you are not "bad". Be yourself and ignore the ignorance.

"Negative press about a game significantly increases it’s sales and many young gamers choose games based on word of mouth."

Wooooow! Really? Never woulda guessed. :/

"Games provide a sense of acheivement, unlike passive mediums like television."

Well, that's pretty obvious. Reaching the end of a story arc in a TV show isn't as fullfilling as reaching the end of a mission/quest/story of a game 'cuz you're actively participating. They also provide a sense of failure to a degree depending on the game.

"Active participation decreases the tendency to “forget” your experiencing a fantasy vs. non-interactive visual mediums."

Rather broad statment. There are a lot of other factors that play into whether one becomes "one with the story". It depends on the specific product. Detail, interest in the product, quality of the product, condition of the individual, and other factors come into play. Even with games, you still aren't a "part" of the story/game. The fictional Holodeck, however, will make losing one's self the easiest because that is true "first person".

"Gamers find violence in television and movies more upsetting than violence in games."

"upsetting". In part, some might feel "upset" (angry, sad, helpless) because in watching a TV show/movie, they can't react directly. Whether it's a favorite character being ambushed, or cops/lawyers in a TV show acting dishoroably and unethical, or a victim character in danger, or a conflict dealing with an important issue that you feel strongly about. You can do nothing but fume if it's a TV show/movie. In a game, you can react directly, within the confines of the game design of course.

"While parents agree that games should be regulated, some still consider the whole genre as “kid’s toys”, even games that may include adult content."

Another broad stroke. Not all Parents feel the same about either. Nor oes it make them "good" or "bad" Parents if they choose one game that another Parent wouldn't choose.

"People who do not play games raise concerns about their engrossing nature, assuming that players are also emotionally engrossed. This research suggests the opposite; a range of factors seems to make them less emotionally involving than film or television."

In part because Stories and games tend to be seperate, even when the game has a detailed story. The melding isn't complete yet. A lot of older text games did a decent job at attempting to blend literature with games. But when translating a screenplay story to game usage, the craft seems to be lost. Stories work in cutscenes, but when it comes to gameplay, there seems to be little there. You're not taking part in the story, you're the filler between cutscenes. And excessive Free Roam, such as in the GTA series, while fun in a game sense, blows the story out the window. So you can't build up an emotional involvement in games.

"The adversaries which players have to eliminate have no personality and so are not real and their destruction is therefore not real, regardless of how violent that destruction might be. This firm grasp on reality seems to extend to younger players, but this is no reason to allow them access to adult rated games, as they themselves often admit that they find the violence in games like Manhunt very upsetting."

This is true just as above. The game adversary, as opposed to the adversary in the cutscene, isn't very detailed. Either it's a generic "cockroach" NPC ("police officer", "gang member", "townsfolk", "beggar") or it's the rare "Boss" character. Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion has a great many specifc named characters from town to town. But there are, what, 4 or 5 voice actors doing them all? And then there are the "cockroach" NPCs. It's too easy to say they are "not real". And the AI systems in games are also limited.

As to younger players being upset about violence in games, it depends on the game. In fact, it tends to be trial and error. My own son has played a variety of GTA games. Can't play some of the later ones because of the higher frustration factor. But he watched me play the Prey demo, and he didn't like it. So I learned that he doesn't like games, or movies for that matter, that have a lot of realistic gore. The grosser, the less he likes it. Ok, good, I've learned something about my child. That doesn't mean that someone else who lets their child play a game with lots of gore must be a "bad" Parent. They know their own child better and may be aware of differences in their child that I wouldn't know. So I never say that a game is inappropriate for anyone else's child. I merely say be informed both about specific games your child may be interested in and informed about your own child.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

I think it could also be how you go in the game. You start playing with a certain mentality like "I will kill them all" that would prevent you from getting attached. It is like going into a horror movie to see the lousy generic character get their head bashed in. If they had created a character that you cared about, you would feel kind of sad. In the movie world that would be Kira from the movie "Gravedancers" and in the game world Jin Sun-Kwon(or however you spell it.) from F.e.a.r. extraction point.

On a related note, I can't wait to see JT's take on this. "Gamers find violence in television and movies more upsetting than violence in games because they are so used to killing they don't mind it and in movies they are just mad they didn't get to kill them thesmelves(sic). Pixelante knuckleheads. I am at the gates to hell and I like it here. HOOAHHH!!!! GTA is a murder simulator endorsed by Hitler himself. Yuo(sic) all suck. Jack Thompson." He follows with incoheret ramblings for several minutes.

Does anybody have a link for the full study?

"nature, assuming that players are also emotionally engrossed. This research suggests the opposite; a range of factors seems to make them less emotionally involving than film or television."

So one gets more engrossed in a movie than a game?

that dosent make sense to me when the gameplay and story meet in a game its indescribable where as a good movie can just be good.

Altho now that I think a movie has a constant flow of story compared to a game thats interaction 70% of the time or more, prehaps because of the "grinding" one cares less about it but then again look at any action flick with people dieing left and right....so.....meh

Whoops.. Just to add, it's the first link called 'BBFC Video Games Report.pdf' :)

"Gamers find violence in television and movies more upsetting than violence in games."

I found that pretty interesting. I wonder why that is.

i've found that the most emotionally attached i get to games is RPGs.

i found Lufia 2 to have one of the absolute saddest endings to a game ever (FFX was kind of sad too).

i was more upset when they killed Charlie (on Heroes) than i've ever been playing video games.

For me the great thing about games is the diversity. Games are like movies. They can have a great story, but they don't need a great story to still be fun.

Super Mario Bros. has a story. It's not deep or engaging, but "Mario must venture through the mushroom land to save the Princess" is, in fact, a story. True Lies has a story. It's not deep or engaging, but "Arnold must save the day against the evil terrorists" is, in fact, a story. By the same token, Metal Gear Solid 3 has a very intriguing story, on par with many films. I personally find Vice City to be a much more interesting game than Scarface was a movie.

It all depends on what you're looking to get out of a given thing. Some people have very little time for MGS3, because they aren't interested in games with a story, or games where the action can be largely a mental exercise. Some people have little time for sports games, because to them sports are something to kick back and watch, or get out and do yourself.

Ultimately though, the idea that games need to stop trying to be movies and just be games is ludicrous. Yes, Nintendo is having success now with the Wii, where games are just games. But games, like all media, go in trends. For the last decade, the decade that saw the two best selling consoles ever (the PSone and PS2), games were dominated by games that had story as a significant component.

You would expect games, on average, to have less of an emotional reaction then passive media such as movies.

Just look at the respective screen time enjoyed by your average goon in each medium. Movies: probably a considerable number of minutes even for quite minor characters. Games: a couple of seconds, if the goon is lucky!

And that's not even considering what actions the characters are taking when their on screen. Why should the average goon in a computer game be emotionally involving when all they do is walk around, if they do anything at all?

Nowadays this post is a bit of an exageration ... but not by much.

I imagine the results of these surveys will change dramatically as games grow up.

[...] 2. I don’t mean to suggest that the only possible interpretation of recent research is that games are indeed less emotionally involving than other media. Nevertheless, I think it’s worthwhile that this study has gotten gamers talking about their own emotional connection (and lack thereof) with games. The Kotaku article linked here suggests that games may be less engaging because of the slower pace of games, spread over the course of many more days, though if anything, I’d argue that this should help. Serialized television series (including on DVD) have demonstrated that stories can be longer and even more engaging for fans, I think, than your typical ninety-minute movie.? [...]