885 réponses à ce sujet

[Atakuma]

Davasar wrote...

TheMufflon wrote...

Davasar wrote...

And yet when I tried to say "to each their own" as it were, as this person did, I was told I was "wrong".

....So weird.

It's not weird at all; what people objected to wasn't that you had your opinion, but that you misrepresented their's.

And yet I have kylecouch here telling me I am "wrong" in saying my imagination lets me enjoy the game more.

lol.

Weird.

thats kylecouch, not me, or anyone else.

[TheRevanchist]

Davasar wrote...

TheMufflon wrote...

Davasar wrote...

And yet when I tried to say "to each their own" as it were, as this person did, I was told I was "wrong".

....So weird.

It's not weird at all; what people objected to wasn't that you had your opinion, but that you misrepresented their's.

And yet I have kylecouch here telling me I am "wrong" in saying my imagination lets me enjoy the game more.

lol.

Weird.

For god sake...that is not what I am arguing...but of course you change your argument so offten how can anyone know that? Your original argument was "the game is affected by the imaginary dialogue I create in my mind" whihc is freakin WRONG no matter how much you might wish otherwise.

[upsettingshorts]

Indeed, from my point of view CRGPs are and always have been - with exceptions such as NWN's multiplayer - incapable of delivering the tabletop RPG experience. They mimic them, sure, but the freedom granted by an independent and intelligent gamemaster in an imagined world can't be reproduced by a pre-written CRPG. Therefore, I approach CRPGs in much the same way that I would approach a choose your own adventure book. I always have, and I always will - as the consequences of my characters choices have already been determined for me in advance. I may not know precisely what they are, but I am incapable of ignoring the fact they exist.



Thanks to a couple long discussions with Sylvius, I understand the alternate approach, but that doesn't mean I endorse it, or think it's ideal or even possible for me - or everyone. What those discussions did reveal to me though was that such a fundamental disagreement over what CRPGs are and are capable of has considerable repercussions when it comes to being for or against certain features - one of them being a voiced over protagonist with a paraphrased dialogue wheel.

[Davasar]

kylecouch wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Davasar wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

No...for god sake....YOU ARE WRONG! the ONLY way your imagination will "take you farther" is if you just daydream the entire game yourself while stareing at a wall...because that is the only way it will have effect!

No, I am not wrong.

You aren't going to convince me that my imagination has no bearing on my enjoyment of an RPG.

So drop it.

Read.

I don't need to...because you simply do not know how to debate.

Since I am not debating (which is swaying peoples opinions, thats not happening here because preferences are not right or wrong) I know that people have their play choices.

I've already said 'to each their own' in so many words.

[Leonia]

Then drop it, you two are going in circles.

[TheRevanchist]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I think you're making unfair comparisons. Not all books are textbooks or informative nonfiction, and not all film is entertaining fiction. What of documentaries? What of long-form journalism? The idea that the written word is intrinsically valuable strikes me as archaic.
That and I'm also not sure how it's relevant.

Beat me to it really, well said.

@Davasar: I havn't followed the whole debate but... mute the game and imagine what Hawke says based on the paraphrase? Or have subtitles on and imagine that? Hell you can turn voices down alone, so if you wanted to only stretch your beast of an imagination to voices you could still take in the more basic sensual experience of hearing swords clash and fireballs explode. Really a good imagination can easily find it's way around any of the supposed obstacles being mentioned here, not to mention that at the end of the day the words are all pre-written anyway with a set tone in mind.

This is the message he does not seem to understand.

[Davasar]

kylecouch wrote...

Davasar wrote...

TheMufflon wrote...

Davasar wrote...

And yet when I tried to say "to each their own" as it were, as this person did, I was told I was "wrong".

....So weird.

It's not weird at all; what people objected to wasn't that you had your opinion, but that you misrepresented their's.

And yet I have kylecouch here telling me I am "wrong" in saying my imagination lets me enjoy the game more.

lol.

Weird.

For god sake...that is not what I am arguing...but of course you change your argument so offten how can anyone know that? Your original argument was "the game is affected by the imaginary dialogue I create in my mind" whihc is freakin WRONG no matter how much you might wish otherwise.

Oh I'm sorry, since I was speaking about MY MIND (see above), you somehow didnt equate the fact that it was for MY enjoyment?

Silly person

My argument hasnt changed, you just got lost

Modifié par Davasar, 22 novembre 2010 - 06:18 .

[Atakuma]

Can't we just hug it out?

[In Exile]

Revan312 wrote...
But, I will still argue, that reading in and of itself does make you smarter on a whole, so long as the reading level is appropriately on par. Yes, by reading twilight your not going to get any smarter, but reading about the purpose of glial cells in biological psychology certainly will, if your not above that level of comprehension. 

Well, a book on glial cells would be a neurobiology text or a physiology text, which is designed precisely to teach you about some aspect of knowledge. We might as well compare the learning value of watching some medical special on the discovery channel to erotic fan-fiction.

And I'm sorry, but no movie has ever challenged me the same as some of the books I've read. Much of that is time restraints, but I still believe that actively reading about a car crash and the feelings of the occupants has more impact on me from an intellectual level than watching it, which although visceral, still doesn't hold the weight that a very good writer can infuse into that situation.

Challenged in what way? You're using a very narrow definition here to prove your point. Moreover, let's say you're right - writing is more challenging than watching. It is harder to comprehend, it requires more intellectual capacity and it is generally more demanding. Why is this a positive for a hobby?

I certainly like physics, but I'm not about to do a problem set for fun in my spare time.

[Davasar]

Atakuma wrote...

Can't we just hug it out?

I agree.

Hugs all around!

[SirOccam]

Revan312 wrote...

And I'm sorry, but no movie has ever challenged me the same as some of the books I've read. Much of that is time restraints, but I still believe that actively reading about a car crash and the feelings of the occupants has more impact on me from an intellectual level than watching it, which although visceral, still doesn't hold the weight that a very good writer can infuse into that situation.

But you have to make sure that you're comparing good writers with good filmmakers and actors. It's easy to point to Deuce Bigelow: European Gigolo and say how crappy movies are, then point to Shakespeare and say how transcendental the written word is. Actually, that would probably be a bad example, considering much of Shakespeare's writing was for the stage, but you get my point.

One movie that had a huge effect on me specifically because of its movie-ness was Avatar. Now before everyone jumps on me for apparently hailing it as the greatest filmmaking achievement of all time...I know it has problems. Big ones. But that's precisely my point, in a way...a novel version of Avatar would be "meh" at best. I wasn't into it for the (admittedly derivative) plot, or the (often one-dimensional) characters. But those visuals...my God. I don't just mean it was nice eye candy. The depiction of the harmony between all the Pandoran life especially was just breathtaking to me. It felt more like an experience than a movie. This might sound weird, but it seriously did inspire me to a degree (I won't go into it now, else I'll be here all night typing). Say what you will about James Cameron, but I think he really changed my ideas of what film can do.

And that brings it right back to my original point...it's all about playing to the strengths of the medium. If we're playing a modern video game, we don't have to limit ourselves by the technical constraints of the past, nor should we. Text is good for some things--undeniably it's great in books--but it isn't inherently better in other media, including video games. We have a monitor and speakers for a reason...we should be using them.

As face morphing systems become more advanced, we can rely more and more on realistic and recognizable facial expressions, and that might free up writers to make feelings less manifest through dialogue. As sound design becomes more advanced and surround-sound speakers become more ubiquitous, we can start to figure that into the equation, which may have effects on what visuals have to be shown or how the UI needs to react. And as voiceovers become more and more commonplace and less prohibitively expensive, they can help deliver a richer, more immersive and cohesive experience.

Modifié par SirOccam, 22 novembre 2010 - 06:23 .

[Davasar]

In Exile wrote...

Revan312 wrote...
But, I will still argue, that reading in and of itself does make you smarter on a whole, so long as the reading level is appropriately on par. Yes, by reading twilight your not going to get any smarter, but reading about the purpose of glial cells in biological psychology certainly will, if your not above that level of comprehension. 

Well, a book on glial cells would be a neurobiology text or a physiology text, which is designed precisely to teach you about some aspect of knowledge. We might as well compare the learning value of watching some medical special on the discovery channel to erotic fan-fiction.

And I'm sorry, but no movie has ever challenged me the same as some of the books I've read. Much of that is time restraints, but I still believe that actively reading about a car crash and the feelings of the occupants has more impact on me from an intellectual level than watching it, which although visceral, still doesn't hold the weight that a very good writer can infuse into that situation.

Challenged in what way? You're using a very narrow definition here to prove your point. Moreover, let's say you're right - writing is more challenging than watching. It is harder to comprehend, it requires more intellectual capacity and it is generally more demanding. Why is this a positive for a hobby?

I certainly like physics, but I'm not about to do a problem set for fun in my spare time.

Maybe it isnt.  But, when it is said that games are being set to a lowered denominator to appeal to the masses, there rings some truth to it according to the study and connecting the two subjects with a little critical thinking.

Modifié par Davasar, 22 novembre 2010 - 06:25 .

[TheMufflon]

Revan312 wrote...

What Reading Does for the Mind

I read up until they confused theoretical with hypothetical. Then I laughed. Also they don't even present any significant statistical correlations for anything other than that reading makes you better at reading, nevermind any studies of root causes. Nor has any of the data been corrolated with data on the effects of, for example, watching movies.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 22 novembre 2010 - 06:33 .

[upsettingshorts]

I seem to make a habit of making Sylvius' arguments for him in cases where he isn't present to do it himself, but I'm going to do it again. It's especially odd since on this issue we're basically polar opposites, but I hate to see misunderstandings and bad arguments flourish and have an odd compulsion to intervene and set the record straight.

The reason why silent protagonist-text speech works for players who take an imaginative approach isn't that they're unaware that the writers had a specific tone and/or intent in mind. I don't doubt for a second that Sylvius would deny that the writers had something definite in mind. The issue is that when it is just text, that leaves room for doubt and ambiguity. Sylvius and others with a similar approach simply choose to ignore the fact that they are playing a game. There's nothing wrong with this, as everyone's personal approach is what matters to them. As a result, the implied tone of any written (but not spoken) dialogue is open to imaginative interpretation, and therefore even if the response by an NPC implies that their imagined tone was "incorrect" - it can easily be dimissed as a misunderstanding. The benefit of this is it allows the player freedom to play a character above and beyond the implicit intent of the game's writers.

By introducing a voiced protagonist with paraphrased dialogue, not only is doubt and ambiguity removed - the line is clearly and audibly spoken complete with cadence and tone - precise control over the character's word choice is removed, leaving only the consequences of action or spoken dialogue as open to player choice.

To bring it back to my view on how CRPGs are and should be played, that's all I ever felt I was in control of in the first place - so anything that enhances the experience of the consequence of player choice is going to be more valuable to me than the examples I describe above.

/hopes he did Sylvius' position justice
//likes arguing with the guy, just tends to disagree with him more often than not

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 novembre 2010 - 06:36 .

[Leonia]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Indeed, from my point of view CRGPs are and always have been - with exceptions such as NWN's multiplayer - incapable of delivering the tabletop RPG experience. They mimic them, sure, but the freedom granted by an independent and intelligent gamemaster in an imagined world can't be reproduced by a pre-written CRPG. Therefore, I approach CRPGs in much the same way that I would approach a choose your own adventure book. I always have, and I always will - as the consequences of my characters choices have already been determined for me in advance. I may not know precisely what they are, but I am incapable of ignoring the fact they exist.

Thanks to a couple long discussions with Sylvius, I understand the alternate approach, but that doesn't mean I endorse it, or think it's ideal or even possible for me - or everyone. What those discussions did reveal to me though was that such a fundamental disagreement over what CRPGs are and are capable of has considerable repercussions when it comes to being for or against certain features - one of them being a voiced over protagonist with a paraphrased dialogue wheel.

Yep. Part of me wishes I could get the experience that Sylvius and others seem capable of getting from these kind of games because that sound pretty awesome but I don't see how it's possible. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I wanted to add some examples to my last post about how my imagination cannot directly impact my game experience, I think it's getting lost in this back-and-forth shuffle between kylecouch and Davasr there. I'm not sure if it's worth the exercise at this point but I can see how one's imagination can change the experience of the game on a mental level, maybe. If you try really hard and pretend the characters in the game are saying what you want them to say and doing what you really want them to be doing. But it's like, you can wish with all your might for something to happen and unless it's already in the dialogue.. it's never going to happen "for real".

It's like, my Dalish Warden is *never* going to be able to marry Alistair, unless I were to get a mod maybe and even then it wouldn't be Gaider's writing or Steve Valentine's voice. It can never really happen no matter how often it happens in my head. Does that effect my ability to enjoy playing that character? Not really. Maybe it's because I don't really RP when I am playing the game but I don't sit there and think "ok so such and such is happening off screen just before I go into the Landsmeet chamber in the game so I'm going to think such and such about the Landsmeet now." I don't play like that, but maybe some people do? I treat my in-game experience seperately from my writing/daydreaming/sketching/etc. experience.

The game is just a game to me and later I can draw from that if I want to but I don't RP while I play because I just don't have the capacity to do that. And since I am not RPing as I go along, then no my imagination doesn't impact my game experience. That's not to say it can't work that way for other people out there who are able to RP as they go along.  It'll never mimic a Pen-and-Paper experience to me but it might for others I guess? Maybe I have a broken imagination or something.

Modifié par leonia42, 22 novembre 2010 - 06:29 .

[TheRevanchist]

SirOccam wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

And I'm sorry, but no movie has ever challenged me the same as some of the books I've read. Much of that is time restraints, but I still believe that actively reading about a car crash and the feelings of the occupants has more impact on me from an intellectual level than watching it, which although visceral, still doesn't hold the weight that a very good writer can infuse into that situation.

But you have to make sure that you're comparing good writers with good filmmakers and actors. It's easy to point to Deuce Bigelow: European Gigolo and say how crappy movies are, then point to Shakespeare and say how transcendental the written word is. Actually, that would probably be a bad example, considering much of Shakespeare's writing was for the stage, but you get my point.

One movie that had a huge effect on me specifically because of its movie-ness was Avatar. Now before everyone jumps on me for apparently hailing it as the greatest filmmaking achievement of all time...I know it has problems. Big ones. But that's precisely my point, in a way...a novel version of Avatar would be "meh" at best. I wasn't into it for the (admittedly derivative) plot, or the (often one-dimensional) characters. But those visuals...my God. I don't just mean it was nice eye candy. The depiction of the harmony between all the Pandoran life especially was just breathtaking to me. It felt more like an experience than a movie. This might sound weird, but it seriously did inspire me to a degree (I won't go into it now, else I'll be here all night typing). Say what you will about James Cameron, but I think he really changed my ideas of what film can do.

And that brings it right back to my original point...it's all about playing to the strengths of the medium. If we're playing a modern video game, we don't have to limit ourselves by the technical constraints of the past, nor should we. Text is good for some things--undeniably it's great in books--but it isn't inherently better in other media, including video games. We have a monitor and speakers for a reason...we should be using them.

As face morphing systems become more advanced, we can rely more and more on realistic and recognizable facial expressions, and that might free up writers to make feelings less manifest through dialogue. As sound design becomes more advanced and surround-sound speakers become more ubiquitous, we can start to figure that into the equation, which may have effects on what visuals have to be shown or how the UI needs to react. And as voiceovers become more and more commonplace and less prohibitively expensive, they can help deliver a richer, more immersive and cohesive experience.

I agree on all counts, despite it's flaws IMO Avatar is the greatest movie ever created. For pretty much the same reasons you have said, it totaly blew me away with what was possible before.

[In Exile]

I'm going to have to put on my cognitive neuroscientist hat on for a moment. I really dislike when people use this field without appreciating the full implications.

Revan312 wrote...
In studying reading volume over against more general abilities such as IQ, it was found “that even when performance is statistically equated for reading comprehension and general ability, reading volume is still a very powerful predictor of vocabulary and knowledge differences. …and is not simply an indirect indicator of ability.”

"Although there are considerable differences in amount of reading volume in school, it is likely that differences in out-of-school reading volume are an even more potent source of the rich-get-richer and poor-get-poorer achievement patterns."

Their claim does not seem to be that smarter people read more; it seems to be that out-of-school reading volume can predict vocabulary and knowledge independent of IQ.

What this means is that if we have two people, equally smart, and one reads more, that person will be expect to have both a broader vocabulary and more knowedge. This is an important finding because, for example, it tells us that smart people do not simply absorb knowledge/vocabulary via osmosis, but it isn't sufficient to justify that smarter people read more.

Reading volume explained the differences in several other measures of smartness: HS grade average, IQ tests, SAT-type math tests, adult reading tests, a Practical Knowledge test, and misinformation about the population of world religions. It was not surprising to find that TV exposure was related to misinformation. It was even found that reading volume can help to compensate for the effects of aging.

Looking at their findings, i.e.

"In several studies, we have attempted to link
children’s reading volume to specific cognitive
outcomes after controlling for relevant general
abilities such as IQ. In a study of fourth-, fifth-,
and sixth-grade children, we examined whether
reading volume accounts for differences in
vocabulary development once controls for both
general intelligence and specific verbal abilities
were invoked (Cunningham & Stanovich,
1991).But we found that
even after accounting for general intelligence
and decoding ability, reading volume contributed
significantly and independently to
vocabulary knowledge in fourth-, fifth-, and
sixth-grade children."

They are arguing for indepedent benefits of reading, not that more intelligent people are better readers or that reading makes you smarter.

“This is a stunning finding because it means that students who get off to a fast start in reading are more likely to read more over the years, and, furthermore, this very act of reading can help children compensate for modest levels of IQ by building their vocabulary and general knowledge. In other words, IQ is not the only variable that counts in making a child smarter. Those who read a lot will enhance the IQ that they were born with; that is, reading will make them smarter.”

Keep in mind what this claim means. It is not that reading makes you smarter; they did not run a longitudinal study to test for IQ differences as predicted by reading volume. What they are saying instead is that low IQ individuals that read can compensate for their low IQ.

Put another way, what they are discussing is a research paradigm that shows just how beneficial reading is and in what ways.

[Davasar]

I do agree that no computer game will ever replace tabletop Rpgs in the depth and play experience.



I just like them to come close if possible

[In Exile]

TheMufflon wrote...

I read up until they confused theoretical with hypothetical. Then I laughed. Also they don't even present any significant statistical correlations for anything other than that reading makes you better at reading, nevermind any studies of root causes.

This isn't a real paper, or even a review paper. I wouldn't look to deeply into anything they present, beyond their general research findings as explained to a lay audience.

[Apollo Starflare]

kylecouch wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

awesome post goes here.

I agree on all counts,
despite it's flaws IMO Avatar is the greatest movie ever created. For
pretty much the same reasons you have said, it totaly blew me away with
what was possible before.

I grow more and more disillusioned with Avatar as time goes by, I can understand where you guys are coming from but to me it isn't the greatest example of cinematography or filmmaking in almost any way. It's main claim to fame is the pioneering 3D technology, and unfortunately many seem to focus on the 3D-ness of the tech rather than the way it altered mo cap forever.

But that is waaaaaaay off topic.

On a related note I am really excited about the improvements seen with the facial mapping tech that Rockstar are pioneering with L.A Noir, when applied to other games that can tell a good story (such as Bioware's games) it could have some incredible potential for storytelling. But for those gamers who prefer to leave everything to the imagination, I suppose it's the opposite...

[TheRevanchist]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I seem to make a habit of making Sylvius' arguments for him in cases where he isn't present to do it himself, but I'm going to do it again. It's especially odd since on this issue we're basically polar opposites, but I hate to see misunderstandings and bad arguments flourish and have an odd compulsion to intervene and set the record straight.

The reason why silent protagonist-text speech works for players who take an imaginative approach isn't that they're unaware that the writers had a specific tone and/or intent in mind. I don't doubt for a second that Sylvius would deny that the writers had something definite in mind. The issue is that when it is just text, that leaves room for doubt and ambiguity. Sylvius and others with a similar approach simply choose to ignore the fact that they are playing a game. There's nothing wrong with this, as everyone's personal approach is what matters to them. As a result, the implied tone of any written (but not spoken) dialogue is open to imaginative interpretation, and therefore even if the response by an NPC implies that their imagined tone was "incorrect" - it can easily be dimissed as a misunderstanding. The benefit of this is it allows the player freedom to play a character above and beyond the implicit intent of the game's writers.

By introducing a voiced protagonist with paraphrased dialogue, not only is doubt and ambiguity removed - the line is clearly and audibly spoken complete with cadence and tone - precise control over the character's word choice is removed, leaving only the consequences of action or spoken dialogue as open to player choice.

To bring it back to my view on how CRPGs are and should be played, that's all I ever felt I was in control of in the first place - so anything that enhances the experience of the consequence of player choice is going to be more valuable to me than the examples I describe above.

/hopes he did Sylvius' position justice
//likes arguing with the guy, just tends to disagree with him more often than not

I understand and accept this...I just find it hard to understand how anyone can fool themselves into thinking it actually matters when it don't.

[Revan312]

To reiterate, one last time, it does matter what is read, to a point, but reading is more cognitively demanding than watching shows/movies or playing most games. Knowledge, comprehension and vocabulary are all expanded by reading more-so than any of the other media types can.

Go back a page and look at my last post, numerous studies including those within that study's references, not just the one I linked, have proven that reading, (in volume no less, meaning not what is being read but simply how much is read) has a direct correlation with increased cognitive intelligence above that of "screen" forms of media.

You can attempt to defend movies, television and games, but as a general rule, reading is more valuable to the acquisition of knowledge and comprehension than any other form of media.. period, the statistics and studies are on my side..

In Exile wrote...



Keep in mind what this claim
means. It is not that reading makes you smarter; they did not run a
longitudinal study to test for IQ differences as predicted by reading
volume. What they are saying instead is that low IQ individuals that
read can compensate for their low IQ.



Put another way, what they are discussing is a research paradigm that shows just how beneficial reading is and in what ways.

So if I compensate for a low hanging section of my roof
with additional supports to raise it past the previously set structure,
it's not any higher, it's simply compensated for, but it's height hasn't
changed..

No, by compensating for their low IQ by reading they
are getting smarter, unless your claiming that the knowledge they
acquire through reading is "fake" or is covering up their low IQ by
"tricking" you into thinking it's higher?  Your somethin else..

And I'm done arguing about it, as Upsetting has said, it's completely off topic..

Modifié par Revan312, 22 novembre 2010 - 06:50 .

[TheRevanchist]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

awesome post goes here.

I agree on all counts,
despite it's flaws IMO Avatar is the greatest movie ever created. For
pretty much the same reasons you have said, it totaly blew me away with
what was possible before.

I grow more and more disillusioned with Avatar as time goes by, I can understand where you guys are coming from but to me it isn't the greatest example of cinematography or filmmaking in almost any way. It's main claim to fame is the pioneering 3D technology, and unfortunately many seem to focus on the 3D-ness of the tech rather than the way it altered mo cap forever.

But that is waaaaaaay off topic.

On a related note I am really excited about the improvements seen with the facial mapping tech that Rockstar are pioneering with L.A Noir, when applied to other games that can tell a good story (such as Bioware's games) it could have some incredible potential for storytelling. But for those gamers who prefer to leave everything to the imagination, I suppose it's the opposite...

Honestly I can't stand 3D and think it's just a publicity stunt for more money. despite it's cliche's I simply find the movie emotionaly moving and watch it as often as possible.

[upsettingshorts]

kylecouch wrote...
I understand and accept this...I just find it hard to understand how anyone can fool themselves into thinking it actually matters when it don't.

It does matter for the individual player. And ultimately, that's all our posts on these forums will ever truly be about - our own individual preference and approach for playing games.

Developers have to take a different, broader view. They have responsibilities we don't.  

The fact Sylvius' ideal game or my ideal game would be boring, irritating, or mediocre to the other doesn't matter to either of us while we're playing it.  But developers - ideally and generally - strive to appeal to both of us.  Hence the conflicts you see on this board from issues ranging from voiceovers to inventory to party control.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 novembre 2010 - 06:48 .

[TheRevanchist]

Revan312 wrote...

To reiterate, one last time, it does matter what is read, to a point, but reading is more cognitively demanding than watching shows/movies or playing most games. Knowledge, comprehension and vocabulary are all expanded by reading more-so than any of the other media types can.

Go back a page and look at my last post, numerous studies including those within that studies references, not just the one I linked, have proven that reading, (in volume no less, meaning not what is being read but simply how much is read) has a direct correlation with increased cognitive intelligence above that of "screen" forms of media.

You can attempt to defend movies, television and games, but as a general rule, reading is more valuable to the acquisition of knowledge and comprehension than any other form of media.. period, the statistics and studies are on my side..

And I'm done arguing about it, as Upsetting has said, it's completely off topic..

I can disagree with this from personaly experience. I watch History Channel....ALOT...and I know more about History then many friends who study useing Text books. I finished my 100 question history examine in 10 minutes while it took everyone else like 2 hours. I got 100% on said test...while many of them barely even got C's or D's