Good job

Is there a single check-in form that we will use? Do we already have access to this?

Here is a link to a forum on "True Achievements" for some advice if you are looking to learn the game in less time, through an affinity space.

This quick progress makes it unique to may other games. Do you think this is a strength or a weakness of the design?

Click here to visit Kallio's site where you can listen to the soundtrack to Minit. It is interesting that the music is so simplistic.

These skills apply perfectly to the idea of gaming in education. We want to reward students who are most willing to think outside the box and approach problems with unique solutions.

Joseph Campbell's Ideas of life and rebirth in the Hero's Journey seem to fit Minit perfectly.

It is amazing that a game with such basic graphics can be deemed so creative. This really demonstrates the fact that a game's unique storyline might be more paramount in how the game is received by an audience.

Minit introduction on Steam (http://store.steampowered.com/app/609490/Minit/)

Trial and Error Gameplay! This is an interesting learning system. This idea might turn some players away, while others could be intrigued to learn the criteria of the game. This is a great skill that fits perfectly into the idea of tying video games into an educational setting.

How do you think this quality of the game effects strategy? How do you think this quality of the game effects motivation?

These two concepts seem very similar in this context. Further progress is the result of the education that a player is receiving through their trial and error.

"What makes activities feel enjoyable or worth pursuing for their own sake is that they satisfy basic psychological needs like autonomy, relatedness, or competence" (Deterding 2014). This idea of dying in order to learn might be part of this psychological desire for competence.

This is the most simplistic description of the idea of gaming, and it seems to work perfectly!

This statistic might not be too significant, since about 77% of our population is over the age of 18 and the group of 18 and below would also include the infants and young children who are too young to play video games.

This is notable, since Scalia was generally considered a Right leaning Justice.

Some individuals will try to refute this by citing specific cases, like Chicago, to prove that crime is increasing. This wold be cherry picking. The best objective approach to crime rates could be the FBI statistics on crime in America

This is an interesting idea, but I wonder how something like a video game would compare to other things like cigarettes and alcohol?

Also, I am curious as to why video games, something scientifically proven to not cause violence, needs to be regulated like tobacco, something scientifically proven to cause cancer. There seems to be a disconnect in this logic.

Again, this might relate back to the idea that there is some connection, but not a cause and effect relationship.

I am glad to hear this, but again have trouble accepting the viewpoint from Bozell, who is a staunch Trump supporter and writes in a way that stray from academic objectivity.

This article demonstrates the type of scholarship produced by Brent Bozell. He degrades his opponents by calling them "survivors of failed abortions" and then proceeds to question the validity of the "liberal news media." His statements and input and expertise may need to be taken with a grain of salt.

It is great that they relied on the studies on this subject! I wonder what the effect will be?

This meeting was very similar, but included scientific research from leading professors, and lacked sensationalized video game anecdote. In this meeting, Biden was looking for facts and evidence, and did not result to trying to persuade the audience, which may have been the goal with the current White House and their Youtube publication.

This video was a little hard to watch, but only shows anecdotal evidence. This process might be flawed, since it is based on very violent scenes, not on the scientific data that gets to the root of the question.

From my research, it appears as though many of the studies show that violent video games may be a factor in aggression, but they are not the sole cause. This statement seems pretty fair, since it is claiming a correlation, not a causation.

I think that this is interesting, since the science points to the alternative. I wonder how he came to this conclusion.

After this comment, the NRA then had an emergency meeting with Trump, with which they announced that he might be retracting these type of statements. The New York Times covered this development.

It is great that the video gamer publishers went right to the source. I am wondering if this is the first time in the ongoing debate when a publisher met with a president. I am glad to see that they are communicating, instead of having law makers create legislation based on one view point.

Here we go again, This is an issue that has been constantly brought up and constantly refuted with objective evidence.

I am wondering if this is a study that was planning to be released, or if it is in response to the recent comments by President Trump and others, putting the blame for violence back on gamers?