So, we definitely have a bit of debate going on here about the merits of games that have a level of violence in them. I think it is interesting that the "sides" of the debate seem to show the gender difference; we have Shawn and Eric strongly defending the value of the games, and Noelle, Sharon, and me on the side that is questioning their value. While I don't question that those who play them find them fun and valuable for that reason, I'm still wondering if that "fun" can be defined. And when I say "social value," I mean, how is the energy poured into these games benefiting anyone outside of the game players themselves? By which I don't suggest that any activity that doesn't have lasting impact on society is worthless. But when the activity has inherent overtones of being antisocial (because it is violent)... do you not question whether it is impacting your interactions with people and the world outside of the game? Is antagonism a way of life, or a way to escape because it is not how you would normally act? I'm really NOT being judgmental, I just want to understand because the things that I enjoy are quite different.