I guess I'm in the minority when I say that I play rhythm games are one of my most frequently played genre of video games. I was first introduced to them during middle school in the form of Osu! when I was scouring the internet trying to find something to escape boredom. Afterwards, I became pretty addicted to it, replaying songs to try to get full combos on certain difficulties or with certain modifications to the gameplay for some variety. Now its been what, seven years and I'm still playing them, even have a few apps on my phone for when I have a few minutes to spare. But what's interesting is thinking how rhythm games have possibly affected my taste in music. I've gravitated from listening to a mixture of classic rock and classical music to listening more to EDM, pop, and Jazz, which I have found are predominant within rhythm games. I also tend to enjoy maps for these genre of songs as the high bpm, and syncopation usually translates to fast "streams" of notes that you have to hit (which I feel is more engaging and produces more of a "dancing" feeling as opposed to having to hold long notes for a certain amount of time).
However, there's always the argument that it wasn't specifically the video games that I have played that have led to the changes in my music taste; either it was the just the repeated exposure to the genres or that the games just served as an introduction to them and that I would have come to enjoy the genres if it had been through another medium.
My point with the above rant is that it brings up the whole issue about the effects certain mediums can have upon individuals; which, unfortunately, most of the focus related to games have revolved around the controversy that video game violence can translate to violence committed in real life (which several studies have had varying results). Reading the study done by Kaufman and Flanagan stirred some ethical questions that I would like to discuss. The purpose of the study was determine the effectiveness of an embedded design approach on bypassing an individual's psychological defenses so that they would be more open to pro-social arguments. This was done by intermixing the persuasive content alongside other unrelated content or by obfuscating the intent of the game. While I understand that these are meant to have positive social benefits and are meant for exposure to the topic (in that they aren't certain in persuading people), they're concerning in regards to the question of consenting to be exposed. There's also the question of the strategies mentioned being used to help persuade people of ideas that have negative social effects. I probably sound like one of those crazy people that ranted about the whole issue of subliminal messaging in cinema/advertising, but I'm curious as to what your opinions on the matter are.
Here's the promised advertising of a great launchpad drummer(which is tangentially related to rhythm games)