The Instigator
Saracen1337
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
marcuscato
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Video Games are more successful than Movies.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,158 times Debate No: 17682
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Saracen1337

Pro

I believe that Video games, of the sixth(ps2, xbox) and seventh(xbox 360, wii, ps3) generations have long overtaken the success of films.

My opening statement/argument will cut to the chase. In 2004 the blockbuster video game Halo 2 released and set the record..." and earned up to US$125 million in its first 24 hours on store shelves, thus out-grossing the film Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest as the highest grossing release in entertainment history."(*1)Then in 2007 Halo 3 released..."First-day sales of Halo 3 reached $170 million in the U.S., setting a record for highest gross of an entertainment product within 24 hours of its release. The performance beat the previous record setter—Halo 2—which earned $125 million within 24 hours after its launch"(*2)Then in 2009 Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 released and..."The total revenue from first day sales in the U.S. and the UK was $310 million, making Modern Warfare 2 the biggest entertainment launch in history, surpassing in revenue its predecessor, Grand Theft Auto IV, as well as items from other media types"(*3)

The above three examples are a good indication that video games have well overwhelmed the success of movies such as Titanic and Avatar. Sadly last time i posted this, Con decided to leave a comment and not actually debate the issue, so I decided to renew my argument.

Standard structure:
R1: Opening statements & Arguments
R2: Rebuttals
R3: Closing arguments. (nothing new)

Con will argue that video games are not more successful than movies.

Sources:
(*1):http://en.wikipedia.org...
(*2):http://en.wikipedia.org...
(*3):http://en.wikipedia.org...
marcuscato

Con

When we say more successful, it raises the question-at what?

It could mean
1. At providing economic returns to the maker.
2. At providing entertainment
3.Providing value to the society

Ill address 1. in round two because it will need a more comprehensive argument and it will be a rebuttal of my opponent’s argument.

Let us look at 3.
A movie/video game can provide value to the society by-
1. Encouraging discussions. Movies, unlike video games have been successful time and again in provoking debates in the society.
Movies can be motivational and provide hope to those who may need it.
E.g.: The Pursuit of Happyness
On the other hand video games tend to have negative impacts. They can be violent and this can have psychological impacts on the minds of young gamers. While they do come with ratings, more often than not, these ratings are ignored.
Playing video games can also result in addiction. I have personally been affected by this and I know what kind of impact it has on one’s life. We become distracted, we get into fights when we are not allowed to play etc. Playing video games can thus have a negative impact on our real lives.
Movies employ people from various walks of life and thus provide value to various parts of the society.

Movies cater to a wider audience. They can reach out to more people. The audience for video games is comparatively small.

2. There can be many ways to judge the entertainment value of a movie/video game.
We can look at the value for money ratio. Now even though this is subjective, I believe that movies provide greater entertainment. Entertainment is best when it comes in a small amount. Movies typically entertain us for 60-200 minutes. This is sufficient to refresh the mind and provide entertainment in a meaningful way.


Debate Round No. 1
Saracen1337

Pro

Thanks for accepting the debate.
I knew i was forgetting something when i posted for round 1... but regardless we shall debate your third definition and then we'll see where the debate leads to.

Rebuttals:
1: "Encouraging discussions. Movies, unlike video games have been successful time and again in provoking debates in the society. Movies can be motivational and provide hope to those who may need it." Now this is merely an opinion, many people will have different things they would enjoy to discuss, such as Perks from "Call of Duty"...to the intentions of the Illuminati from "Angels and Demons". We cant really say that video games don't provoke debates, just look at this debate I found:http://www.debate.org... video game ALWAYS provoke debates, mainly because of their huge fanbases, and trolling fanboys, but regardless are just as effective if not more effective at instigating arguments that movies.

My argument:
Also most movies are seen once, maybe twice, whereas players use video games for months if not years, and therefore will discuss and argue a game more than a movie. Also a single game like "Halo" instigates much more arguments than a single movie does: overpowered weapons...Play styles...Balanced Maps...Game types...Halo vs. COD.... and the list goes on. Whereas most movies can only be argued on a pair of features, like theme of discrimination, or accuracy of timeline. However some movies do instigate more meaningful arguments...but that is also based upon opinion, a typical fanboy would not find a discussion on "The secret life of bees" as interesting as an argument based on "Rushing techniques".

I very much disagree with this statement: "On the other hand video games tend to have negative impacts. They can be violent and this can have psychological impacts on the minds of young gamers. While they do come with ratings, more often than not, these ratings are ignored." Games are just as violent as Movies. In video games we have people gunning each other down, in movies we also have people gunning each other down. The only difference is video games allow you to interact with these events. But if I delve into this subject this debate will focus on violent video games not "Games are more successful than movies", so I'll just leave you with that statement. Same goes for negative impacts.
Now i will agree that ratings are often ignored, but how many people read the sticker on a DVD? How can you just decisively conclude that video game ratings are ignored more than movie ratings? Once again opinion, and no evidence.

My Argument:
The survey — by My Voucher Codes, a British Web site that offers discount codes — found:
39% of parents let kids play video games that aren't age appropriate.
53% let young children watched R-rated movies.
Although this does not display 100% of the world population, the sample concludes that parents are more careless with movies than video games. I believe this is because a lot of the blame on violence is being put on video games like MW2. Mainly because video games are becoming increasingly popular and as violent as movies, whereas the latter has been around, and been violent for a much longer time.

I will concede that movies can cater to more people, however this does not make them superior.

2."Entertainment is best when it comes in a small amount"-again another opinion. "Movies typically entertain us for 60-200 minutes. This is sufficient to refresh the mind and provide entertainment in a meaningful way." Assuming we're talking in movie ratio. A 6 hour long movie would be horrible, but so would a 15 minute video game. The quality of the time it takes to complete a game/movie depends on the, well, game/movie. I personally find a 10-hour campaign to be better than a 6 hour campaign. Same goes for movies, but there are exceptions, some movies and games are better longer, therefore length does not determine quality.

Look forward to Con's reply.
marcuscato

Con

My opponent’s first round consisted of interesting statistics about Video Game Sales.

It should be noted that he has posted first day sales. He has then used these sales to argue that video games are more successful than movies. Let me post some statistics:

Halo2:

First day sales: 2.38 million = $125million

Lifetime total: 8.43million

http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

I could not find total lifetime sales in $ but we can estimate it to be around $450million(8.43/2.38*125). It is interesting to note that compared to movies, video games have huge first day sales. This can be explained: Video games build up a niche fan base; there is a rush to buy the game on the first day. There are queues on the first day. For Halo2 the first day sales are actually 25% of the total sales!! We can see this from the charts given at gamrreview.vgchartz.com

Movies on the other hand run for months (titanic=41weeks in theatres). Let us look at some hard facts:

Avatar grossed $1.86 billion.

Titanic grossed $1.84billion.

http://www.nytimes.com...

http://techland.time.com...

Halo2 was released in 2004.

Titanic was released in 1997! The average inflation rates from 1997 to 2004:

1997: 2.34% 1998:1.55% 1999: 2.19% 2000:3.38% 2001: 2.83% 2002: 1.59% 2003: 2.27%

Clearly 1$ was worth more in 1997 than in 2004. This is why I believe that the earnings of Titanic are more significant than halo2/halo3.

http://inflationdata.com...

Clearly, movies provide greater economic returns to the maker. This is important because this was my opponent’s base in instigating this debate.

For the sake of thoroughness I post statistics of halo3:

First week: 3.8million = $300million (Wikipedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Lifetime total: 11.3million

http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com...

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Violent video games have a greater psychological impact than violent movies. This is because we spend greater time on video games as compared to movies. In first person shooter games, a gamer is playing from the view point of the shooter. The gamer is actually carrying out the violence. These two reasons are principally responsible for deeper impact of video games.

I don’t know how to post a pdf to DDO; hence I will give you a search link:

Research on video game violence:

http://scholar.google.co.in...

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

I agree with my opponent, entertainment value is subjective. We cannot make a good comparative evaluation of the entertainment value. The closest we can come in evaluating the entertainment value is through units sold i.e. movie tickets vs. video game units. Movies have a larger audience (my opponent has already conceded this).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Encouraging discussions and making a positive impact:

Video games instigate debates about themselves. Movies are more successful in highlighting issues and instigating debates about a certain topic. These debates may have positive impacts in real life.

VOTE CON!

Debate Round No. 2
Saracen1337

Pro

Thanks for the reply.

I will admit you have presented the better side of the statistics, and will concede that movies make more money during their lifetime than video games.

Violence:
If we spend more time on video games than movies, wouldn't that make them more successful, as people are using the product much more than another entertainment form? Regardless here is my rebuttal in some short bullet points:
*Lets say someone spends 6 hours playing a violent video game, isn't that the equivalent of someone watching 6 hours of Movies...some would say no because games are used within a shorter time period, however this contradicts studies that show effects of violent games/movies never "wears off". Therefore the time spent on a violent movie or game is irrelevant, because in the end, taking breaks wont stop someone from becoming violent.Hence your first reason is not a key trait "for deeper impact of video games."
*Movies make mothers, fathers and children (actors of these movies) seem potent in the murder of people. Look at Mrs. and Mr. Smith, its portrays two real life people, (and now a married couple with children i think, not too updated on gossip) killing hordes of servicemen, in slow motion action sequences that make killing look 'cool' or surreal. This is just as bad, if not worse than letting a gamer commit acts of pixel murder.

Encouraging discussions:
"...in highlighting issues and instigating debates..." I believe violent video games just recently instigated an argument between both of us. Also video games like call of duty instigate debates on the Media's representation of soldiers, for example...Although that example can be somewhat negative, movies also instigate debates that are negative, such as poverty, or the War on Terror, and because you claim that movies instigate more meaningful debates, than these debates would have a negative influence.

Sources:
http://www.apa.org...
http://www.asc.upenn.edu...

For round 1, Con presented ideas based only on opinion, in round 2 he has shown better statistics but forced me to debate violent video games rather than backing up his previous statements, Hence I believe i have presented the much more meaningful arguments, that show that the Video games are indeed more successful than movies.

VOTE PRO
I thank my opponent for this interesting debate, and for taking time in constructing his arguments.
marcuscato

Con

My opponent has made an interesting point: “If we spend more time on video games than movies, wouldn't that make them more successful, as people are using the product much more than another entertainment form?

I do not think this is a good argument because this implies that a 2hr 30min movie is more successful than a 2hr 20min movie. The absolute amount of time spent on the entertainment is not an accurate indicator of its success because different forms are intended to entertain for different amounts.

Movies and games are intended to last for different time spans. We watch most movies from start to end. Most of the time, we do not play all the levels of a game. In that sense the movie maker has been more successful in keeping us hooked till the end. This is merely my opinion and the reader is encouraged to make their own assessment by comparing number of movies in which they stopped watching before the movie ended and the number of games they stopped playing before they finished all the levels.

6 hours of 1 violent game =/= 3 movies of 2 hours each (6 hours of movie time)

This is because in playing a game you are in the same mindset for 6 hours. Watching different movies would result in watching different perspectives and would not leave as deep an impact. However this is only my opinion and I’m no expert. The reader may feel free to junk this argument.

I strongly disagree with my opponent’s rebuttal of the first person perspective point. Since I am no expert, I will post some extracts from the 1st link of my opponent’s round 3 argument (interestingly Craig Anderson’s study was in my scholar.google link).

First, the active role required by video games is a double-edged sword. It helps educational video games be excellent teaching tools for motivational and learning process reasons. But, it also may make violent video games even more hazardous than violent television or cinema.

Another gap concerns potential differences in effect sizes of television versus video game violence. There are theoretical reasons to believe that violent video game effects may prove larger, primarily because of the active and repetitive learning aspects of video games.

My opponent points out that slow motion sequences that make killing look cool are bad. In my experience these sequences occur frequently in games. Personal experience: Pc game, Prince of Persia-the two thrones.

http://media.cube.ign.com...

Encouraging discussions:

It is important to provoke discussions because when we debate, we think. It is better to think and make a mistake than to not have thought at all. Video games may instigate debates but movies do it with a greater frequency and are hence more successful. This is something that cannot be proved decisively, the reader is encouraged to use his own experience in deciding.

___________________________________________________
I apologize for a sloppy Round 1.

Regarding defense of previous statements in round 2:

I discussed entertainment value.

I discussed value to society through 1. Violent video games & 2.Instigating debates related to issues, a rebuttal to his argument: video games also instigate issues. Instigating debate about gameplay is not relevant because we are discussing value to society.

My opponent has been forced to debate violent games because his original point regarding economic returns was rebutted ;)
_________________ --------- ____________________________

VOTE CON!

I thank my opponent for an excellent debate. He was open minded and posted his arguments regularly. I hope we continue to debate in the future.

I thank the reader for taking the time to read this debate.Suggestions are welcome.

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Yerzhan_20110292 5 years ago
Yerzhan_20110292
The amount of violence in video games and in the movies isn't comparable. Both of them shows to people the violence in the equal amount. But as I think, games may cause more bad behavior on players' minds because player take part in game's violent actions. They may fight someone or even shot. And as you said after sitting and playing for a long time you may become crazy. In this point movies have less influence on person's psychology. The age ratings. Again in the both situations, parents, sometimes, forget about age requirements and allow children to watch movies from elder category and play violent video games as well. Also I agree with Con's point of view that video games have less audience than movies. Just try to show to elder generation how to play Counter-Strike and show some of the new movies. After it, what kind of entertainment this elder person would choose? Something which would be easier and of course it would be a movie.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Just a kibbitz...

Many game and console companies are actually *losing* a TON of money on games and game systems. That said, how many movies lose money? Halo may have been profitable, but that's offset by the fact that Microsoft is still losing money on a lot of other games.
Posted by marcuscato 5 years ago
marcuscato
If you find my font to be small, just zoom in.
Inconvenience is regretted.
Posted by TEJSN 5 years ago
TEJSN
Video games are fun but movies are watched every day because they are relaxing, easier and a whole lot more available.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by masterchief12 4 years ago
masterchief12
Saracen1337marcuscatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree, because in video games New ones are coming out all the time and movies...Well let's just say I'm impatient.
Vote Placed by renji_abarai 5 years ago
renji_abarai
Saracen1337marcuscatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Sorry for the VB. Con just appealed more to me in all categories and the reasons are to long to type.
Vote Placed by CD-Host 5 years ago
CD-Host
Saracen1337marcuscatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had an unclear thesis and Con had the obligation of fixing the thesis and arguing the points. Both sides made use of sources but Con's were less anecdotal. SnG to Pro for bad use of fonts in con's R1 and R3
Vote Placed by Thrasymachus 5 years ago
Thrasymachus
Saracen1337marcuscatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued that sales was an insufficent metric of success in R1, which Pro seemed to concede. In R2 CON demonstrated that first day sales are not total sales, so the motion fails even it is granted sales is the right measure. The subordinate issues (violence, time used as success, etc.) were not clear wins either way, but the two arguments above carried the day.