Gamers Should Not Be Leery of Obama, Says Game Writer

November 13, 2008 -

Earlier this week GamePolitics covered a New York Times story which reported that some gamers were leery of how Barack Obama's presidency might affect their pastime.

Writing for fidgit, longtime game journo Tom Chick (left) takes issue with the NYT (okay by me), but takes a cheap shot at GamePolitics in the process (hey, Tom Chick, don't shoot the messenger):

You know it's been a slow news day at the New York Times when they assemble a couple of scant details about the appearance of videogames in the Presidential campaign under the headline "Some Video Gamers Leery of Obama's Views"...

 

In addition to citing the inveterate cryers of "Wolf!" over at GamePolitics.com, they base their story on a user comment on 1up.com... Could this be because the post makes more sense than either the New York Times story or the 1up story it's commenting on?

As a scholar and college teacher [who] writes about games, I don't see this as any kind of whipping post that's part of Obama's policy building... The only way games will come up as a major part of any presidency anytime soon is just as it has in the past: when it's a convenient scapegoat.

However, videogames are already a factor in Obama's presidency. Like Bill Clinton before him, Barack Obama is in touch with a whole new generation of voters, and therefore American culture... While Barack Obama may not be as big a dork as us videogame players, he deserves credit for being aware that we're out here. We should be glad, not leery.

GP: Inveterate cryers of "Wolf!"???


Comments

Re: Gamers Should Not Be Leery of Obama, Says Game Writer

Is it ok to be leery of all of these stories coming out with the word leery? Can we use 'worried' or some other syn, symon, another word that means the same thing?

Either way, I'm taking a wait and see attitude. Also, I can't wait for this to turn into another East side West side political rumble.

Re: Gamers Should Not Be Leery of Obama, Says Game Writer

He's right, isn't he? =)

Re: Gamers Should Not Be Leery of Obama, Says Game Writer

That's what I thought as I read the quote.

Get a little perspective people! We've got an economy that's in the tank, a stock market that's just barely over half of what it was a year ago, a health care crisis, rising unemployment, and you're worried about whether the President of the United States is going to focus on video games? If things keep going the way they are you might not have to worry much longer, because you won't be able to afford a TV, game console, or the electricity to run them.

Re: Gamers Should Not Be Leery of Obama, Says Game Writer

 I think I hear a wolf....

 

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
james_fudgeUnwinnable Weekly Telethon playing Metal Gear http://www.twitch.tv/rainydayletsplay04/16/2014 - 8:06am
ConsterTo be fair, there's so little left of the middle class that those numbers are skewing.04/16/2014 - 7:42am
Matthew Wilsonyes it help a sub section of the poor, but hurt both the middle and upper class. in the end way more people were hurt than helped. also, it hurt most poor people as well.04/16/2014 - 12:13am
SeanBJust goes to show what I have said for years. Your ability to have sex does not qualify you for parenthood.04/15/2014 - 9:21pm
NeenekoSo "worked" vs "failed" really comes down to who you think is more important and deserving04/15/2014 - 7:04pm
NeenekoThough I am also not sure we can say NYC failed. Rent control helped the people it was intended for and is considered a failure by the people it was designed to protect them from.04/15/2014 - 7:04pm
NeenekoIf they change the rules, demand will plummet. Though yeah, rent control probably would not help much in the SF case. I doubt anything will.04/15/2014 - 1:35pm
TheSmokeyOnline gamer accused of murdering son to keep playing - http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2014/04/15/21604921.html04/15/2014 - 11:50am
Matthew Wilsonyup, but curent city rules do not allow for that.04/15/2014 - 11:00am
ZippyDSMleeIf SF dose not start building upwards then they will price people out of the aera.04/15/2014 - 10:59am
Matthew Wilsonthe issue rent control has it reduces supply, and in SF case they already has a supply problem. rent control ofen puts rent below cost, or below profit of selling it. rent control would not fix this issue.04/15/2014 - 10:56am
NeenekoRent control is useful in moderation, NYC took it way to far and tends to be held up as an example of them not working, but in most cases they are more subtle and positive.04/15/2014 - 10:24am
PHX CorpBeating Cancer with Video Games http://mashable.com/2014/04/14/steven-gonzalez-survivor-games/04/15/2014 - 9:21am
Matthew Wilsonwhat are you saying SF should do rent control, that has never worked every time it has been tried. the issue here is a self inflicted supply problem imposed by stupid laws.04/15/2014 - 8:52am
E. Zachary KnightNeeneko, Government created price controls don't work though. They may keep prices down for the current inhabitants, but they are the primary cause of recently vacated residences having astronomical costs. Look at New York City as a prime example.04/15/2014 - 8:50am
NeenekoI think free markets are important, but believe in balance. Too much of any force and things get unstable.04/15/2014 - 7:25am
NeenekoWell, the traditional way of keeping prices down is what they are doing, controls on lease termination and tax code, but it will not be enough in this case.04/15/2014 - 7:24am
Matthew WilsonI said that already04/14/2014 - 4:22pm
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, The could also lower prices by increasing supply. Allow high rise apartment buildings to be built to fulfill demand and prices will drop.04/14/2014 - 3:48pm
Matthew Wilsonthe only way they could keep the price's down, would be to kick out google, apple, amazon, and other tech companies, but that would do a ton of economic damage to SF, but I am a major proponent of free markets04/14/2014 - 2:54pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician