Someone that doesn't even play the games he is holding in his hand is actually the one with no credibility.

As long as they keep making mice, speakers, keyboards, and headphones. That is all I ever bought from them anyway.

I think after they are done with this study, all they are going to discover is that kids that play video games are more likely to put off homework and chores, not go out and collect cat skins and goat heads. I would argue that some kids would be more likely to commit violent acts without some sort of entertainment medium in order to entertain themselves.

Other than it being a complete waste of taxpayer dollars, I have no problem with them researching this. The reason being, they aren't going to find shit when it comes to correlating violent games with violent behavior. Go ahead, research it. Study it. Do whatever you want, but you will never be able to isolate the cause of violent behavior because motives are always going to differ, and some people have mental health issues. Games do not cause mental disorders, and they do not create motive. There, see that, I just saved you guys 500 million dollars. But go ahead, spend the money to find out for yourselves Congress.

So what about the off topic, and disagree flags? I think the disagree flag is somewhat pointless because just about every comment can be disagreed or agreed upon depending on the reader. If someone disagrees, they will likely post a reply. And as for the off topic flag, comment sections often go off on other tangents, but I am not sure they deserved to be flagged. I am not sure what moderation is put into either of those, but it seems like they are not necessary IMO.

"Taylor said gamers shouldn't make decisions for other gamers, who in many instances have different interests. He likened the situation to that of him walking into a department store and arguing about women's underwear."

Gamers cannot make decisions for other gamers. Gamers are stubborn, and just as opinionated as Taylor. If I could make decisions for other gamers, nobody would buy DLC anymore, and nobody would play games that have microtransactions. So I guess people went ahead and bought those panties with lace anyway, despite your protests right, Mr. Taylor? I see what he is getting at, but that doesn't mean that we have to remain silent and only vote with dollars. I think other gamers need to hear the possible plights and pitfalls of industry trends from other gamers who disagree with certain business models. Sure, it may fall on deaf ears, but it is important to some of us who have been gamers for 25+ years to share concerns with the future of gaming and where the industry is heading.

"Following the 1999 Columbine High School shooting in Littleton, Colo. where two students killed 12 classmates and one teacher, Nader said corporations like game companies were partially to blame."

Yeah right. Bullying led to those shootings. Those kids were outsiders, and they took out their frustrations on the student body for misunderstanding them and ostracizing them. I doubt there is any shred of evidence that games had anything to do with it. Show me some ironclad proof Mr. Nader.

Violent video games can actually vent frustration in a virtual space. I have many times been upset at something, and after playing a violent game online, or even single player and felt much better afterwards. I think that is better than having no such outlet and going outside to commit real world violence. That is what games are for. Entertainment and stress relief. You can do things in a virtual world that you would never even consider in the real world.

@Toysoldier34 It is called competitive multiplayer for a reason. You cannot just expect to walk onto a basketball court down on the beach and expect to play with the big boys. Some people are just inherently better at some games. If people just want to have fun, they can play the campaign on easy. Multiplayer is reserved for those that want to test their skills against others. If you cannot handle losing, move on to a single player game, or one that you are good at. It is that simple.

"Have you ever seen a newbie try to play Call of Duty? It isn't pretty. That exclusionary mentality is fine if raw competition is what you crave, but for the millions of people the world over who just want to have fun, that barrier of entry is too high. Things need to change."

I disagree with the above statement whole heartedly. That sounds like the everybody wins mentality that T-Ball and grade schoolers like to hear so that nobody ends up crying. Give everyone a trophy, you are all winners! If you suck at a game, move on to the next one, or keep playing it in order to get better at it. If you just want to have fun, play something that is meant for casual gamers. No Tom, things don't need to change to make everyone able to win, if anything, games are becoming easier as it is.