Video Games are more successful than Movies.

My opponent has made an interesting point: “If we spend more time on video games than movies, wouldn't that make them more successful, as people are using the product much more than another entertainment form?” I do not think this is a good argument because this implies that a 2hr 30min movie is more successful than a 2hr 20min movie. The absolute amount of time spent on the entertainment is not an accurate indicator of its success because different forms are intended to entertain for different amounts. Movies and games are intended to last for different time spans. We watch most movies from start to end. Most of the time, we do not play all the levels of a game. In that sense the movie maker has been more successful in keeping us hooked till the end. This is merely my opinion and the reader is encouraged to make their own assessment by comparing number of movies in which they stopped watching before the movie ended and the number of games they stopped playing before they finished all the levels. 6 hours of 1 violent game =/= 3 movies of 2 hours each (6 hours of movie time) This is because in playing a game you are in the same mindset for 6 hours. Watching different movies would result in watching different perspectives and would not leave as deep an impact. However this is only my opinion and I’m no expert. The reader may feel free to junk this argument. I strongly disagree with my opponent’s rebuttal of the first person perspective point. Since I am no expert, I will post some extracts from the 1st link of my opponent’s round 3 argument (interestingly Craig Anderson’s study was in my scholar.google link). “First, the active role required by video games is a double-edged sword. It helps educational video games be excellent teaching tools for motivational and learning process reasons. But, it also may make violent video games even more hazardous than violent television or cinema.” “Another gap concerns potential differences in effect sizes of television versus video game violence. There are theoretical reasons to believe that violent video game effects may prove larger, primarily because of the active and repetitive learning aspects of video games. ‘ My opponent points out that slow motion sequences that make killing look cool are bad. In my experience these sequences occur frequently in games. Personal experience: Pc game, Prince of Persia-the two thrones. http://media.cube.ign.com... Encouraging discussions: It is important to provoke discussions because when we debate, we think. It is better to think and make a mistake than to not have thought at all. Video games may instigate debates but movies do it with a greater frequency and are hence more successful. This is something that cannot be proved decisively, the reader is encouraged to use his own experience in deciding. ___________________________________________________I apologize for a sloppy Round 1. Regarding defense of previous statements in round 2: I discussed entertainment value. I discussed value to society through 1. Violent video games & 2.Instigating debates related to issues, a rebuttal to his argument: video games also instigate issues. Instigating debate about gameplay is not relevant because we are discussing value to society. My opponent has been forced to debate violent games because his original point regarding economic returns was rebutted ;)_________________ --------- ____________________________ VOTE CON! I thank my opponent for an excellent debate. He was open minded and posted his arguments regularly. I hope we continue to debate in the future. I thank the reader for taking the time to read this debate.Suggestions are welcome.