[Density]

I personally have no issue with the test. Players have different preferences when it comes to video games.

What I have a problem with is researchers attempting to drawn a relationship between video game preferences and basic needs. To me this reeks of Jack Thompson.

[ionised]

> Players have different preferences when it comes to video games.

The point is why they have these preferences, and what these preferences lead to in terms of how different people might approach the same game.

You could present a counter article instead of just telling us how much you don't like the premise of this one.

Anecdotally, I know blasting the crap out of demons in Doom does a pretty good job of channelling my anger. It's cathartic and not something society typically caters for.

A lot of games are about building efficient systems, which naturally would attract people that like solving problems with designs and creativity.

You are dismissing the entire premise of the article based on a dislike for one man that tried (and failed) to convince America that GTA was a murder simulator. A man that (if you bother to read up on what he is up to now) doesn't even believe any of the shit he said back then and actually apologised for it.

[Density]

My initial comment was extremely vague and off the cuff because I spent too much time in internet echo chambers and I erroneously assumed HN readers would immediately arrive at the same conclusion as me.

My issue with this article is the entire concept of video games meeting basic needs is extreme reductionism at best. People are complex creatures and almost never have singular reasons for liking a type of entertainment.

People's preferences can be measured and graphed fine, but you can't, in good faith, assign a simple basic needs reason for their preferences.

[TuringTest]

> A man that (if you bother to read up on what he is up to now) doesn't even believe any of the shit he said back then and actually apologised for it.

Can you provide a pointer to that? I haven't found anything in that regard, either at Wikipedia nor searching at news sites.

[ionised]

I'm struggling to find the exact article I read (and Wikipedia is light on info about him for some reason) but it was an interview with Thompson himself about where he is and what he is doing now.

He is teaching prisoners civics in Florida now after suffering major stress/depression and marriage problems resulting from his crusade. He went into how the whole thing started because stores were selling violent games to under-age kids and even parents were buying them and that's what he took issue with.

Based on his medical background and knowledge of how entertainment affects the brain he believed that kids that young and also the mentally disabled should not have access to violent games, but because he was beaten in court (multiple times) he began to make tenuous links everywhere between violence and games, music and movies and began behaving very legally dubious in pursuing his cases like a fanatic to the point where he was calling for all-out bans and ridiculous punishments.

He was eventually disbarred and went through a few years of trying not to be such an angry asshole.

From the way the article ended it seemed like he had gone through a positive transformation.