Modern video games are a superior storytelling medium to books, cinema, and the spoken word.

1. Con asserts as his primary argument that in "[m]any video games, if not most, the game-play is made more important then that of story telling. " This is irrelevant. Even if it is conceded that "game play" is made more important than storytelling, this does not reveal anything about the quality of the storytelling. Worse for Con, game play is how video games tell their narratives. The game play is so critically important because it is the means by which the narrative is related. Con"s statement is essentially the same as saying that books make poor narrative mediums because reading is more important than story telling. 2. Con attempts to assert that many video games do not have a plot. Con provides no source for this claim. I would request that Con provide some evidence for this and counter with the assertion that the overwhelming majority of video games have a plot. In modern games, this plot is more important than ever. See . http://www.overthinkingit.com.... Also, I note that "simple plot" is not the same as "no plot" and that even a simple narrative is a narrative. 3. As I understand it, Con"s response to my argument that video game interactivity increases learning is that because people play video games for "fun", they are not as focused on the plot as in a movie or book. Initially, I would cite Con back to the above website which establishes that for modern games much of the enjoyment comes from plot. Second, I would point out that under the debate definitions, one of the goals of a narrative medium is to produce engagement. Con admits that video game users are "mesmerized" by game play. Again, I point out that game play is the method that video games use to tell their narrative. It is therefore good that users are "mesmerized" by it. Effectively, Con admits that users play video games because those games are highly engaging. I fail to see how this is a refutation of my argument given that such engagement is an agreed goal of a narrative medium. 4. Con concedes that video games are the only narrative medium that uses all modes of human learning. I reassert that research indicates this makes them more effective at the last two defined goals of a narrative medium. I cite to my evidence in the prior round. 5. Con argues that the story telling of movies and books is more "high tech" because it uses things such as foreshadowing. Con offers no evidence for this assertion and I would ask him to do so. I also point out that modern games employ literary devices regularly. See . http://tvtropes.org... 6. I apologize to Con but I do not understand his argument against why video games are more effective at getting users to retain moral lessons. I would ask that Con restate this argument. 7. Con seems to misunderstand my argument regarding video game scope. The issue is not that games are "first person". The issue is that modern video games create worlds far more massive and detailed than books, movies, or speech can match. Then, video games allow users to experience this world as deeply as they desire. This increases engagement and narrative understanding by allowing the user to get as much narrative detail as they desire without becoming bored. 8. Con asserts that movies and books are better at expressing emotion and that this creates a deeper understanding of character motivation. First, I deny Con"s assertion that movies and books express emotion more effectively. Con offers no evidence for this assertion. In contrast, I cite the following study that shows how modern games are using characters as narrative devices that create both emotional responses and enhance the narrative experience. See . http://www.eludamos.org.... Furthermore, I would respond to Con"s argument by pointing out that video game users usually take on the role of protagonist. The decisions they make in the game are motivated by their own emotions. At least for the protagonist, users have a far greater understanding of character motivation than any other medium can provide. For support, I cite and quote the following study. "In general, players tended to make "moral" decisions and to treat game characters as though they were actual people. . . . These findings indicate how real the virtual world can become when one suspends disbelief and immerses oneself in the scenario. " See . http://www.liebertpub.com... 9. My 3rd assertion was that video games more effectively create fantasy worlds because their electronic engines allow them to quickly and easily define the world. Con, citing to no evidence, simply says that he disagrees. In a video game, if a user wants to know if something can be done, he attempts that action and will thus know the parameters of the fictional world. In all other mediums, the rules and definitions of the fantasy realm must be explained through clumsy exposition or, at best, demonstration. Thus, video games create more engaging fantasy worlds (per my evidence cited in the prior round) and, since engagement is one of the defined goals of a narrative medium, video games are better narrative mediums. Furthermore, Con asserts that books and movies are more "detailed" than video games. This claim is demonstrably false. An examination of my prior cited evidence shows that many video games recreate worlds hundreds of square miles in size, down to the tiniest details. A book, movie, or oral narrative attempting to describe an area of equal size in similar detail would be almost unimaginably unwieldy. 10. In his paragraph beginning "In his 4th assertion he goes"", Con misstates my 4th assertion. I argue that because video games can vary responses to user input, they can most effectively take advantage of operant conditioning and thereby increase both engagement and lesson retention. I would ask Con"s forgiveness, but I do not see how Con has responded to this argument. 11. I reject Con"s assertion that having "additional options" doesn"t improve the narrative structure. By having different options through that story which can be explored, the user is granted a level of narrative understanding far greater than if forced to simply experience things on a set path. Common sense indicates that when a user can explore multiple options for each choice in a narrative, they come away with a greater understanding of the structure as a whole. 12. Con seems to misunderstand my point about video game addiction. One of the defined purposes of a narrative is to produce engagement. The ultimate form of engagement with something is addiction, the point at which the user becomes so engaged that his physical health become less important than the object to which he is engaged. Since video games are the only one of the four discussed mediums that produce this level of engagement, my argument that they are superior narratives in this regard stands. Con attempts to avoid this argument by asserting that users are addicted to the "game play" but not the story. Once again, game play is the method which video games use to tell their stories. Thus, if users are addicted to game play, they are addicted to receiving additional information, possibilities, abilities, and outcomes flowing from the narrative structure as a whole. I reassert my contention that modern commercial video games are the superior storytelling medium. I also assert that my citation to evidence (in contrast to Con"s generally unsupported assertions) discharges my burden of proof. I would like to thank Con for an interesting debate so far. I would also like to inform Con and any other readers that due to real world conflicts, my next argument will not be posted until tomorrow night at the absolute earliest.