Perhaps rethink our strategy

So the big debate over whether or not video games are deemed as an art form has caught even more nation-wide political attention since the federal government and the National Endowment of the Arts has stated they would like to fund video game creators anywhere from $10,000 to $200,000 to create games.



Of course Fox Friends has already weighed in on this. No surprise how they're handling this subject. I watched this video and laughed once I heard the words "fair and balanced debate". Clearly Brian Ambrozy, editor-in-chief of icrontic.com, was asked who would be getting these tax dollars and he answered very clearly that the funding is going to independent developers who are making educational games. Of course the games you hear leaving the Fox anchor's mouth is Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto. Already entering into every person's mind are 2 of the most commercial and violent games out. It also doesn't help that the only two video clips that they play on games are Call of Duty: Black Ops and Super Mario Brothers. Both known for full entertainment value. Why not show a clip of Brain Age?

On the other side of the spectrum Fox decided to have a radio host, Neil Asbury, who didn't even listen to a word that was said when he wasn't talking. I understand that the general public may only know of the games that are rated M and all the sports games that are sold month after month but at least have someone who has somewhat of a valid point as to why the NEA shouldn't fund educational and artistic games. What authority does this person hold as to where and who should be getting funded? Did Fox just pick a name out of the hat or chose the first person who was available to appear on the air?

There is one thing that I must say that I agree with Neil though. He states that with the uncertainty of our economy should we be spending this much money on this funding? All over the news I have seen more and more educational program get cut from funding. From teachers to Phys. Ed. programs to music and art. Can educational games fill that void? I don't think so. What the federal government should do is lessen the amount that they are going to set aside for the NEA to fund games and throw some of that money into keeping teachers in school who can use these games to teach the next generation of scholars and leaders. My kids use computers in class to play games that help develop math skills and literacy but these are the same games that have been around for the last 10 to 15 years. Just like a textbook gets revised or changed year after year, shouldn't these games also change with the times?

Maybe the NEA should apply funding by collaborating with various local departments of education and figuring what games are more in need to be published and have them available to school systems. And hey, who's to say they can't develop a game more geared towards the university level to be played by adults majoring in chemistry, biology, politics, or radio broadcasting? Maybe that would shut Neil up and let him think about what he says before just blurting out what he read in his Alphabet soup...