Earlier this week GamePolitics covered a New York Times story which reported that some gamers were leery of how Barack Obama's presidency might affect their pastime.
You know it's been a slow news day at the New York Times when they assemble a couple of scant details about the appearance of videogames in the Presidential campaign under the headline "Some Video Gamers Leery of Obama's Views"...
In addition to citing the inveterate cryers of "Wolf!" over at GamePolitics.com, they base their story on a user comment on 1up.com... Could this be because the post makes more sense than either the New York Times story or the 1up story it's commenting on?
As a scholar and college teacher [who] writes about games, I don't see this as any kind of whipping post that's part of Obama's policy building... The only way games will come up as a major part of any presidency anytime soon is just as it has in the past: when it's a convenient scapegoat.
However, videogames are already a factor in Obama's presidency. Like Bill Clinton before him, Barack Obama is in touch with a whole new generation of voters, and therefore American culture... While Barack Obama may not be as big a dork as us videogame players, he deserves credit for being aware that we're out here. We should be glad, not leery.
GP: Inveterate cryers of "Wolf!"???