@tarheelsforever: Yes, he agrees; he is saying it should have been higher, and is claiming it wasn't higher on the list is because people don't care about gameplay anymore.

@oj1029_: Wasn't it beat by Rocket League?

@Ripper_TV: So I take it you don't even know what the survey was about, and that what it found was completely unsurprising, and that the most shocking thing about it is the amount of people up-in-arms over obvious, boring results? Great.

@ltjohnnyrico: Other than "Im not a moron !!", none of what you just said applies to what I've said. Given that information, however, it reinforces my point that you are being irrational due to being emotionally involved in the topic, and that is why you have misconstrued everything I've said. Nevertheless, I am sorry to hear of your loss.

@ltjohnnyrico: Fine.

"Yes I am serious I have never driven into someones House !!"

Yes, I figured you were serious about that part. I couldn't believe you were serious that you thought any sort of driving test could be sufficient to prevent this.

"I'm a Moron ?? Yeah coming from the guy defending someone who drove into someones house !!"

Considering that I never once defended the person, I would say yes, you are a moron. Not one thing I said actually defended the person -- I only argued that there is no test sufficient to prevent this. You should take a minute to calm down and read what people say rationally, rather than emotionally. That might prevent you from thinking people are saying things they haven't.

"People like this should be shot !! They are a liability !!"

You are entitled to that opinion.

@ltjohnnyrico: Are you serious? "I haven't done it, so the test I took was good enough". You have got to be kidding me. Lots of people took the same test this person did, and haven't crashed into houses. Some people probably took harder tests and have done worse, or taken easier tests and done better. Sorry, but you're a moron, and I'm done with this. Keep thinking stupid things that are completely unhelpful if you wish.

@ltjohnnyrico: If you have a way of testing to make sure no one who might make a mistake like this would ever get a license, feel free to propose it.

@ltjohnnyrico: No test is sufficient to ensure someone never makes a mistake. Mistakes can happen to anyone. We don't even know what exactly happened, the article said that was just speculation.

@da_nibbler: I believe I have read that the driver was uninsured.

@musalala: "what is a game?" "No its not (unclear what a game is)"

These quotes from you are contradictory.

"which demographics ( age gender) are playing what etc, depending on the platform they are playing it would color their responses of the other questions, In the same way that depending on what type of christian you are colors you views on same sex issues."

Would it? Right now the article says people who consider themselves gamers are less likely to think violent video games make people more violent than people who play games but don't consider themselves gamers. Do you really think that would be much different if, instead of self-identified gamers, we counted people who played "real" games for a certain amount of time a week? You think people who play things like Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty are more likely to think violent video games make people more violent?

"which is why everyone is up in arms about the foolishness of the 'results'"

People are up in arms over the results because they don't think women play games and don't want their concepts of reality challenged. Most of the people here, I believe including you, don't even get that this survey doesn't have anything to do with who is a gamer, but instead about how perceptions of games differ between groups who play them differently.

"So just to get this straight you are saying a survey that has multiple definitions of the subject matter being investigated that in turn produces multiple interpretations of the survey questions is valid?"

There aren't multiple interpretations; as I have stated before, their conclusions are very clear and explicit.

"What purpose does it serve really coz I see no value to the gaming population or publishers except maybe people attempting to create a false picture about video games."

I still don't know how this can create a false picture; you've claimed it can, but you haven't really backed it up. I don't see what value this has to game publishers, but nothing ever stated it was intended to be of value to them. As I've stated, this wasn't about determining the demographics of any type of game, it was just about getting a general idea of how positively/negatively people view games, such as whether or not games increase violence or help with problem solving. The part everyone is arguing is just the demographics portion of the survey, not the real questions the survey asks.