P4Pancho

@Lone Starr

Excuse me while I look up reductio ad absurdum. I got an inkling of what it means, but I just want to make sure :P

Okay, I'm ready. From what I've been able to figure, reductio ad absurdum is an argument wherein one takes an assertion to an extreme(but logically sound) conclusion and reveals a contradiction which renders it invalid. According to Wikipedia, it's not necessarily a fallacy:

"There is a fairly common misconception that reductio ad absurdum simply denotes 'a silly argument' and is itself a logical fallacy. However, this is not correct; a properly constructed reductio constitutes a valid argument."

The post I was referring to implied that if a thing is addictive, then it is like a drug and should be treated as such. (i.e. made illegal, prohibited) By asserting that the same logic be applied to drugs as is applied to games, the author implies that, when it comes to addiction, the two are similar enough to warrant comparison. If games get a pass, so too should drugs, and vice versa, the argument seems to go. This conclusion is unacceptable (to most people anyway) so the claim is rejected.

What that argument ignores is the degree to which addiction occurs in relation to these two things. Should that not be taken into account? Like I said before, anything is potentially addicting--addiction itself is no basis for criticism, unless of course it is leveled strictly at human nature.

Now if games were AS addictive as drugs, then the analogy would be sound; we would then in fact have an inconsistency. But they clearly aren't, so the argument really is baseless. Perhaps asinine is too harsh a word--in fact, it definitely is; I apologize--but it is, at the very least, unconvincing.

Hammy: I don't think productivity or utility to society should be the only or even main criteria in deciding whether an activity is worthwhile. Taking your premise however, an addiction to work can, in fact, be greatly damaging to society if it results in the neglecting of one's family. Spending your whole life being productive at the office may mean squat if you're kid grows up to be a delinquent because mommy and daddy never came to his little league games.

"'Not even the most avid gamer can admit there aren't cases of video game addiction, but that is hardly a reason to rail on them.'

Now let's apply this reasoning to drugs and alcohol, just for kicks...."

You're missing the point. The simple fact that addiction occurs is not basis enough demonize an entire medium. Justin implied as much when he brought up workaholics. The simple fact is people get addicted to everything. Work, gambling, worship, sex--should we ban sex just because Joe Viagra is "neglecting reality?"

Comparing games and drugs in this respect is asinine. That O'reilly made such a claim does not surprise me--he's an idiot. He doesn't "tell it how it is," he tells it how he thinks it should be: simplistic. What O'reilly spouts is "Reality for Dummies."

But the fact that there are people out there that either agree with or defend what he says blows my mind. How warped does someone have to be to listen to what that man says and think to himself, "Finally! Someone who gets it!"

End of rant. I always try to respect peoples' opinion on everything except Bill O-freakin'-reilly. Ironically enough, that issue is black and white for me.

Oh, and the reason why this was posted here is because this is a videogame blog and--surprise surprise--this is relevant!

#79 and 80:

What did you gain by simply quoting those two statements? They weren't convincing the first time, and quoting them as if they were Bible passages doesn't help.

Motion sensing controls are qualitatively different than button pressing. If you stripped away all the trappings of a game and instead focused on simply pressing a button versus moving your arm, you'd find the experiences to be markedly different. This is so obvious as to not even be worth mentioning. Ah well.

Something else that is obvious: even if the basic premise of the latter quote was correct (which it isn't), the only way it could be true is if the Wii only ended up offering the same types of games we've been playing for years. More on that in a bit.

So yeah, assuming that all racing games on the Wii are played in the same manner, and that the Wii becomes the industry standard, motion tilting will become the new status quo. This doesn't mean, however, that we're better off sticking with buttons; it might mean the opposite--that tilting is a superior method of control in this particular instance. As more and more hands-on previews come in, this appears to be the case.

All this is rendered moot, however, if the Wii eventually provides an experience that is simply impossible to emulate on standard controllers. Make no mistake about it, that's Nintendo's goal, and if they succeed the impetus will then be on supporters of traditional controls to justify the existence of buttons and sticks. Precedent won't be enough.

"Stop kidding yourself, it's a kids console."

Why?

I'll give you some time. Go ahead. Give me your well-articulated argument showing that the Wii is a kid's system. Oh, and while you're at it, tell me why the PS3 and Xbox 360--both systems that play videoGAMES (games being forms of entertainment traditionally associated with children anyway. You, of course, know this...unless you're an idiot in denial or something...)--tell me why they're so much more "adult" or "mature" than Nintendo's system.

Good luck with that. In the meantime this dinky little kid's console is gonna outsell the PS3 and 360 this holiday season and legitimize games in a way never before imagined. Yeah, and that includes with adults, too. Don't kid yourself about that.