No doubt many have read the recent news on how games boost visual skills. It is interesting research, and nice to put some quantitative results over what we all pretty much “knew” was a result of game playing…

One criticism is why could they have not used a non-violent, visually stimulating game (eg, Amplitude)) along with the others? I say this, in part, because it likely could have helped stave off all the negative spinning of the research…

I suppose it is not surprising that the majority of press covering the news framed it negatively, despite reporting what was mainly good news. Most of the headlines read something like “All that killing and murder actually helps a bit” or “Games not a complete waste of time”… This is quite sad.

I did an ABC news interview regarding the study. The interviewer was quick to move to the negatives, and asked what possible side effects could come by playing games too much. I knew what he was fishing for, but coyly responded that you might get blisters on your thumbs :) But, seriously, I did comment on how games should be a part of a “well balanced media and lifestyle diet”.

Anyway, it seems that the press are so primed on all the perceived negatives that they simply cannot view games in any other context than bad, wasteful, useless, harmful.

Perhaps they should all pick up a copy of James Paul Gee’s book on games and learning..

Not sure what will overcome these negative perceptions?