To start off, Jarish is really annoying. I do not like listening to his 12 year old dreams about how he would design the game to do this this and this. Anyways, the article seemed to make video games seem like a bad thing. The girl in the restaurant who is aggressive towards the own, the highly addicted Jarish who has no best friends, the highly seclusive Jimmy, all of their situations would give any advocate against video games a reason for argument. Although the article was about games, it seemed as if Jarish could only talk about video games and Dungeons and Dragons. What I mean is if Jarish participated in another article about sports, he would have nothing to say unless he could fit the word video game into his response.
It is also weird comparing the games of 1984 to the games of today. Most games have highly detailed environments and all of the characters have a story. The earliest games had abstract images and it made placing one’s self into the game easier. If I saw a very generic image then I would find it easier to relate that generic image to myself. One thing the author said was that video games are nothing compared to television. I disagree. Regardless of the game, there is usually a story of a sort explaining what is going on. Television shows have stories. There are different actors involved in video games. Actors are involved in television shows. Different images are shown throughout a video game. Images are shown in the television. The only difference between the two is the pace of the story, if anything elaborate, as well as there being an interactive element. That seems pretty similar to me. In biology, dna with minor differences are similar to one another like that of HIV virus and SIV. Although the two viruses are in two different species, they are similar nonetheless.