Letters to the Editor

Press-tige

In response to "The Gloom Box" from The Escapist Forum: That's all very pseudo-scientific, but the correlation between television watching and depression doesn't suggest causation and the link to advertising seems totally outside the scope of the research. Judging by what's described in the article, blaming depression on advertising seems to be pure speculation.

The correlation between increased hours of television viewing and depression is not surprising because it's predictable; what would be surprising would be if depressed people didn't watch more television. For a person suffering depression, any active task can be unbearably difficult; severe depression can prevent a person from even getting out of bed. Focusing your mind on a game could be too difficult for someone in the midst of depression. Watching television, on the other hand, is a perfect anaesthetic because, as the doctor said, it allows you to switch off your mind. When your mind is full of pain, switching it off is exactly what you want to do.

For all we know, television might cause depression, but applying Ockham's razor to the results of this study makes it seem unlikely: watching television wouldn't have to cause depression to be linked to it.

- Fraser.J.A

Did they control for parental and social involvement? People who don't interact do tend to be depressed and seek nonsocial interests. In 1900's it would be books. Now it's TV. So is it the TV that causes depression, or the lack of social interaction? Let's not jump to conclusions here.

Did you know that genocide occurs in countries with very little video game penetration? Therefore, video games cure genocide. Really, though, it's other factors such as political and speech freedom, economic and personal security, governmental trustworthiness, and social attitudes that drive both inter-ethnic peace AND video game penetration.

I suspect the same is true with TV watching and depression. Depressed people often have given up on social interaction and feel that they have little energy. TV provides a non-activity that would naturally attract them.

- Veylon

***

In response to "And the Winner Is ..." from The Escapist Forum: I hope that this trend of aspiration in gaming towards film doesn't continue. There are too many fundamental differences between the mediums for a blind "progression" to be "successful", even if we wanted it to be so.

As Labyrinth touched on, the issue of story in games in an interesting one, but it's by no means integral to all games. When I read what Rahimi said it shocked me. If for nothing else than the fact that some games already do tell, and have told, 'stories that are "as compelling, insightful and influential as any film, TV show, painting, album or novel"'.

And on top of this, going back to the idea of games and film being fundamentally different, reviewing and critiquing games can never be created or received in the same way as the equivalent in film; the base reason for this existing in the person's active role in gaming, and the person's passive role in film watching. While people may pick up on different things in a film, they are ultimately given the same object to analyse and appreciate, after two hours they're done. With a game, people may play it for different periods of time - for hours, days, months (both non-stop and as part of a person's life) - they may complete it or be distracted by other aspects of the game; each experience is different, and more because of the person than the game.

I'm pretty sure that I had more to say, but hunger has overtaken it and my food is now cooked. I hope that my point is relatively clear.

- Xelanath