What the heck is wrong with calling something "videogame violent?" Are you seriously suggesting this isn't an effective or evocative adjective? Or that it somehow misrepresents video games? Many video games are cartoonishly, outrageously violent, and the phrase above captures that pretty well. I know immediately what he means, and it captures the idea he's trying to convey. Get over it.

Also, why didn't you use an actual picture of Mike Lupica? Also P.S., The Sports Reporters is a great show.

guns dont kill people, people kill people. now no one denies that guns are dangerous, but when someone shoots someone, the court send a person to jail. and no one forces cigarettes into your mouth to become addicted to. it's the person that takes the first one, and continues to buy packs that becomes addicted. and in the end, it's the person that has to consider the consequences and choose put the gun and the cigarette down. so when mothers across the mainstream news complain that video games are warping/addicting their children, i wish they would consider the fact that their children wanted the game, signed up for it (in MMO's case), and play it everyday. it always manages to be the games fault. but it's never the gun's fault or the cigarette's fault. unless it's easier to blame the item, not the personal imperfection.

yes, some games are violent. but i hurts when people who dont play games talk about them like video games are nothing but violent. which, ....i dont think that's exactly what the sports guy was saying.

the problem is that saying it's 'video game violent', suggests that video games are only about violence, which is not true.
And although many games are 'football violent' at least they have a story behind the violence.

Actually Bruce, I think he means the opposite. He is not saying that the violence in football is "cartoonish", that's why the term "videogame violent" struck me as so odd. His point in the discussion was that the violence is very real in football, and the consequences are very real. So referring to videogame violence works against his point. Your word, "outrageous", might apply.

I think he was just being glib and not really considering what the hell he was actually trying to say in tossing out the term. But I'd appreciate more interpretations. I found the moment fascinating from the point of view of someone who loves words. I honestly had to sit there, scratching my head and wondering what the heck the term meant to him.

Dingus, I meant "cartoonish" in the sense of "gratuitous," but you're right that it isn't the best word in this context. I should have just said "gratuitous." Video game violence is often violent simply for the sake of being violent. If you watch that hit by Ryan Clark on McGahee, I think that's an appropriate description. I think the phrase is great because it describes violence for its own sake with no redeeming qualities, and the term "videogame violence" captures that perfectly.

If there is anything to disagree with in Lupica's statement, it's the idea that this is somehow new to football, or that football has become more violent since whenever Lupica thinks the nonviolent times were. There have been a lot of rules changes to protect players over the years precisely because of concerns about the violent nature of the game, and if you watch old NFL Films videos (which are great, btw) you'll see plenty of violent hits. The fact that players are now bigger and faster means the hits are harder. Whether this means that football is actually more violent (where violence = kinetic energy) is debatable. What is not debatable is that "videogame violence" is an apt, appropriate, evocative, and totally legit term.

Go Ducks!

"Gratuitous". I think I can get behind that, as far as this context is concerned. Good shift in terminology. However...

1. I'm not versed enough in videogames to be able to address whether your statement that "Video game violence is often violent simply for the sake of being violent" is defensible. It may well be. In most of the games I have played, the violence is there for a reason. But, again, I'm totally out of my depth in addressing this point.

2. I still would venture to say that you've put more thought into this than Mike Lupica did when he made the comment. That is to say, I doubt he thought so far as "gratuitous" when he tried to coin the term in question.

3. I'm quite pleased you brought up the "nonviolent times" issue. I'm with you on this one. The question of intent (or, if you will, the gratuitous violence) is unchanged by the fact that the players are bigger and faster nowadays. I no more believe in this than I believe in the Ozzie and Harriet argument that American Family Values (TM) were somehow perfect sixty years ago.

4. I'm also pleased you brought up NFL Films. I can get no real answer on this (I even asked Peter King). When I watched the NFC Championship game on my standard def tv, it looked great. Crisp and clear. When I switched over to the Steelers/Ravens game I thought I was watching a twenty year old game from the NFL Films archives. What the hell?

5. Unfortunately there is no #5, since you've declared the legitimacy of the term "videogame violence" undebatable. How sad! I was so enjoying this, too. Oh well.

6. Once again, it cheezes me off that there's no preview function on the comments here.

I think you may be underestimating just how much thought Mike Lupica puts into his comments about video games, or how familiar he may be with video game violence. Since you are not well versed in videogames yourself, you may be surprised to learn that in the game Sins of a Solar Empire, there is a faction which is totally devoted to the idea of Mike Lupica as an intergalactic space explorer and dictator. Only the last-minute breakdown of negotiations over the extent of this portrayal's historical accuracy resulted in the final game version to slightly misspell Lupica's name, to avoid trademark infringement. So, Mike Lupica is very, very knowledgeable about all aspects of video game violence, as well as space exploration and intergalactic zoning laws.

Second, I am very sincerely glad to hear that you share my skepticism about whether actual football has been more actually violent, especially proportional to the degree of popularisation of videogames. I definitely take issue with the as-yet-unstated assertion on the Sports Reporters that playing videogames has made football players more violent. However, I was wondering whether your belief that the increase in football violence is more perception than reality, and that the decline of traditional American family value is more perception than reality, also extends to the idea that the increase in anti-American feelings in more perception than reality, and that the increase in the world's brutality is more perception than reality.

I am not sure why you would spell "cheeses" with a "zed."

It was my understanding that Mike Lupica was much more into board games than video games. (It is well known that his favorite board game is Crepuscle Struggle.) But the phrase, "Football is board game violent" doesn't really pack the same punch, as it turns out. I happen to think it makes just as much sense, though, and have always found the violence in board games (particularly in Stratego and Risk) to be gratuitous.

I agree with everything in your second paragraph, and I would like to add that I also think gulags exist more in perception than reality.

The use of the "zed" [thanks for that] was intended as a tribute to Pulp Fiction.

I know it's not the point, but the hit wasn't even "helmet-to-helmet" as it's defined under the rules. It was an unfortunate combination of actions by McGahee and Clark, and Lupica once again shows how dumb he is by peddling more nonsense.

Mike Lupica makes Sports Reporters unwatchable. Everything that comes out of his mouth is pestilent rabble rousing. He comes off as someone bitter because he got picked last in dodgeball.