Slashdot Mirror
Up, Up, Down, Down: Part Two
In much the way the late anthropologist Margaret Mead predicted, the older generation and many of its leading institutions -- education, politics, media, education -- has unleashed a furious attack against gaming and its culture, so that the term has become synonymous with addiction, obsession, even violence.
Unlike any other cultural identifier, gaming is associated almost entirely with negative imagery in the non-virtual world, dividing notions of society and culture further. Gaming and its allegedly evil affects were central issues in the presidential election, and the notion of an amoral generation of thieves and narcissists crops up again and again in the public perception of computing and the Net, from hacking to free music.
The media cover technology poorly as a rule, but their shallow portrayal of gaming culture as destructive and profane is a particular scandal, more so all the time as gaming becomes sophisticated, creative and intellectually challenging.
This is the locus of the "moral panic," a severe societal response to some dramatic development that institutions don't understand and can't control, so therefore fear.
What characterizes a moral panic?
According to Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda, authors of Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance, the concept is defined by at least five crucial elements: concern, hostility, consensus, disproportionality and volatility: They involve:
- Heightened concern over the behavior of a particular group and the consequences of its behavior for the rest of society.
- Increased hostility toward the group believed to be engaging in questionable behavior.
- Agreement among a wide segment of society that the threat is serious, and caused by the group in question.
- Perceptions that the group is more dangerous than it really is, generating fear that's disproportionate to the threat.
- Sudden eruptions -- moral panics are by nature volatile -- that reappear from time to time and often, just as suddenly, subside.
On all five criteria, gaming qualifies as causing a moral panic. There is great concern about its consequences, sometimes said to involve everything from the violence of Columbine to distraction from schoolwork, athletics and other "healthy" activities. We see plenty of hostility towards gamers. The fear of gaming has always been wildly disproportionate to any real threat, and the panic over it is episodic, frequently triggered by incidents like school shootings or other media-transmitted scares.
The moral panic over gaming has also managed to obscure its growing social, cultural, even political signifance.
"Our toys, writ large, echo profound revolutions in simulation, the science of materials, and digital communication," author Mark Pesce writes in The Playful World, recently published by Ballantine Books.
"The technique of the Furby has been a hot topic of computer science for a dozen years; artificial life -- simulation of activity of living systems -- has taught us a lot about how we learn and grow into intelligence. Computers, which just a decade ago seemed useful only for word processors and spreadsheets, are now employed as digital gardens, where the seeds of mind grow into utterly upredictable forms."
Gaming has evolved far beyond play. Arguably the most revolutionary cultural force in the world right now, it's transforming the imaginations, attentions spans, reflexes and strategic thinking of an entire generation, perhaps even our neural systems themselves. Yet few people have bothered to study what this might mean.
With the release of Sony's PlayStation 2, writes Pesce, the founding chair of the Interactive Media Program at the University of California's School of Cinema-Television, "the machinery of infinite realities will be within the grasp of millions of children around the world. Unlike any videogame console released before it, the PS 2 will have the power to create realistic imaginings of breathtaking clarity. Million-dollar computers -- in l999! -- have only fractionally more power than the Play Station 2, which will challenge our ideas about simulation by making it look at least as real as anything else seen on a television screen."
But how many parents, business executives, educators, politicians or journalists recognize that so powerful and creative a force is now available to children? That future ideas about creativity, imagination, work -- and individual relationships to institutions -- will be shaped by such tools, just as they were by the PS2's more primitive predecessors, from the early Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) to game-playing computers? As pundits sound alarms about how videogames are ruining children's moral lives, as both major presidential candidates did repeateadly, during the campaign -- who in our culture is preparing for the radical changes in imagination about to be unleashed?
Pesce is right, of course. The PS2, designed to connect to the Net, is a window into a larger universe. It could easily simulate a Furby or Mindstorms, and it creates as well a million other interesting forms, if only for the eyes and ears. In fact, says Pesce, the PS2 could well be seen as a spaceship for scouring the universe of ideas.
The cultural gap between the young and the old first widened noticeably in the l960s, when younger people turned their generational backs against their elders. The explosion of the Net and the Web, which have triggered a revolution in the way information and ideas move, has exacerbated that division. The Boomers talked a lot about revolution but didn't quite make one; younger Americans are making one but don't always seem to realize it.
Our civilization hasn't begun to come to terms with this split. Panicked moralists, pundits and authority figures point to all sorts of reasons, from the decline in the authority of parental figures to the influence of new media to the lack of discipline in schools, but the truth is there is no real understanding either of this widening chasm in our politics, or in our social and cultural consciousness.
Part Three: How does gaming change people?
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Blarg. This is just a bunch of high falutin horseshit. Gaming is not a cultural tide shift. It's just another way for middle aged people to claim that their kids don't underastand them and need to be restrained. Pure and fucking simple. I'm 41. My parents didn't understand why we would play airhockey all day and thought it was a huge waste of time that had to be controlled. My kids play TWINE all day. I don't get it - its not that interesting to me. But I'm not going to say that culturally they're that much different from me. After all grown ups have grown up games and toys and kids have kids games and toys:
Kids - soccer, dirtbikes, N64, PS2, chat, reefer, E
Grown ups - golf, guns, home theater, scotch, good blow
And then sometime there are crossovers like my neighbor who bought a dirtbike for his 8 yr. old yeah right or kids who unlock the gun cabinet....
It's tough to get rid of the fat kid playing Pokemon (or Nintendo or DnD) because it's more true than not.
Over the past fifteen years, the number of obese children aged 7 to 13 has *doubled.* This is as school physical education programs have been been slashed, simultaneous with the rise of couch-potato entertainment.
Kids that get off their asses and go play sports, walk the malls or do other out-of-the-house activities tend to be healthy.
Kids that play video games, card games or role-playing games a lot tend to be unhealthy.
And it's not just fat: we're talking *obese.* We're talking about an atrociously high risk of heart disease, and a lifespan that is altogether too likely to be twenty years shorter than for healthy people.
The images are accurate. The exceptions -- probably you, for instance -- are not representative of the general population of game-playing kids.
Feel free to type "fat kids increase video" into Google. Learn about the problem. And demand better of yourself for your children: feed them well and keep them active.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
The problem Jon makes is that he picks up some new toy, bashes it and doesn't see a finger in front of the real issue. Jon what you are seeing is "generation wars", something that has been happening since Industrial Revolution. The traditionalist patriacharts and matriarcharts were destroyed by the huge power Industrialism gave to each individual. However, some roots remain inside the cultural and familiar relations among relatives. Specially on those members which their root cultures have only recently touched the "wheels of progress".
People today has a huge freedom to accept new values, material and moral. In my grandparents time, it was cars. In my parents time the TV. In my time the computer. In my children time Internet and VR. Values change but the issue is one and the same. We now are more free to choose things. And your bashing on PS2 consoles is the same blind kicking my dad did on PC's. The issue is not the computer or the PS2 but the fact that our values are changing too radically from generation to generation. Look at how people dress today and pick up some photos of your parents. Listen to how people speak. That's a Revolution. In Middle Ages, such level of changes would take 200-300 years. But now it takes only nd only 10-20 years. Less than a generation. Even I feel too different from the teenager I was. In the 80's I heard Pink Floyd, Deep Purple and Depeche Mode. Today I hear Prodigy, Rammstein, Enigma and underground music. But my fathers are still stuck to old 50's-70's and don't seem to change a lot here.
Look over the cost of the PS2 console and the fact it's Japanese. I wonder if you would note it if it was made in Taiwan and cost half-price... Try to see how your kid does value HIS OWN world and not the objects that help him value it.
Pick out Katz and get him into some Rocky Mountains resort. And get every TV set and VCR out of his hands. Strict rest, mountain air, and walks in the open under the cold breeze of winter. At night three water cups of good Russian vodka and sleep, sleep, sleep.
It seems that Katz is seeing too much films recently... And it looks as if he got a nerve break... That is the only way to see his part two. A typical base script for some low-rated Holywood stuff. Frankly I read it and it seems I'm seeing some "Invasion of Teenager Mutants - the rise of the PS2 Kyborgs". Dad, mommy crying "MOMMIE, DADDDIE" and son running with a fly head and a robot arm after them... And Katz playing the ingenous detective, who occasionaly falls on the track of an old WWII Japanese Doctor plotting to cover the World with robots. And the evil doctor does this right from a XVIII century mansard, somewhere in Kansas. Which occurs to have belonged to Dr. Frankenstein himself...
Ok Katz. At least be faster than Stephen King to end this...
But how many parents, business executives, educators, politicians or journalists recognize that so powerful and creative a force is now available to children? That future ideas about creativity, imagination, work -- and individual relationships to institutions -- will be shaped by such tools, just as they were by the PS2's more primitive predecessors, from the early Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) to game-playing computers? As pundits sound alarms about how videogames are ruining children's moral lives, as both major presidential candidates did repeateadly, during the campaign -- who in our culture is preparing for the radical changes in imagination about to be unleashed?
I'm imaginging shooting my high school cafeteria up. And man, does it look good at 130M/polygons a second!
...video games are *not* the world changer you are trying to make them be!
Exactly right. The fear-mongers need to be reminded of that.
in case anyone missed it:
http://www.pushove.com/mp3/
when Push Comes to Shove
Right on man. Rogue on the Tandy 1000 EX was my first gaming addiction, and every year or so I get disillusioned with the slick cinematic sequences and linear plots and wander back to nethack!
Nethack should be the official game of Slashdot. Open source, runs on Linux, and it's a great game! The complexity and scope of nethack match anything out there today, to say nothing of it's replayability...
And the roguelike games are still influencing new games (ever play Chocobo's Dungeon?) and still innovating and improving (go download the latest version of nethack!)
- StaticLimit
JonKatz wastes no time driving right past the heart of the problem, going down the ramp, and out the door.
The problem is not with gamers, the problem is not with the public conception of gamers, the problem is that, assuming that this load of overreaction and poor writing is true, the general public is too damned stupid to differentiate between facts and propaganda. Let's examine, for instance, Mr. Katz's own offering. A factual report regarding this topic (as introduced by the article, the article discusses the postulate, "Gaming has dramatically widened the growing cultural schism between the young and old") would perhaps include poll results from a sufficiently randomly selected sample of the discussed groups. Not this article. In fact, Katz offers nothing factual which supports any of his claims. Let's examine:
"Historians and sociologists call the adult world's response to gaming a 'moral panic.'" With this statement, Katz introduces the theme of the first section of the article to the reader. However, his claim, that historians and sociologists have stated that the adult world's response to "moral panic" is supported in the article by not one single quotation or reference. Which historians and sociologists? This is the Internet; can you, Mr. Katz, provide us with a link? If a whole block of this article is based upon the situation having been termed a "moral panic" by a given authority, even one such example of this would help.
"In much the way the late anthropologist Margaret Mead predicted, the older generation and many of its leading institutions -- education, politics, media, education -- has unleashed a furious attack against gaming and its culture." This statement would be a powerful example of the public reaction to gaming. However, Mr. Katz refuses to give his audience a single example of a "furious attack against gaming" or its culture. Have schools taken a strong stance against gaming, either by banning gaming-related clothing, or by teaching against the evils of games? What has been said by politicians against gaming? And by the media? And by the schools? (Um, what? I said schools already! That's okay, Mr. Katz didn't proofread either - education was mentioned twice. Perhaps longer lists seem more convincing?) Again, Mr. Katz offers no proof that this statement is not entirely unfounded. What has Ms. Mead said on the subject, and how do her statements support the argument?
"[G]aming is associated almost entirely with negative imagery in the non-virtual world . . . Gaming and its allegedly evil affects were central issues in the presidential election, and the notion of an amoral generation of thieves and narcissists crops up again and again in the public perception of computing and the Net, from hacking to free music." Wonderful! With such an influence upon public perception, there must be plenty of examples of such negative imagery. Unfortunately, none of them were referenced by Mr. Katz.
"[M]edia cover technology poorly as a rule, but their shallow portrayal of gaming culture as destructive and profane is a particular scandal, [causing a] 'moral panic,' a severe societal response to some dramatic development that institutions don't understand and can't control, so therefore fear." From this statement, we can assume that the media's coverage of gaming, though sparse, is suggestive enough to cause strong public reaction. However, if public perception is as biased as Mr. Katz would have us believe, surely even a single example of even the results of such influence should be easy to locate.
Moral panic "is defined by at least five crucial elements: concern, hostility, consensus, disproportionality and volatility." Mr. Katz then gives what we can only assume are his own definitions (q.v.) for each of the five elements; he at least does not credit an external source. This clarifies the intended meaning of these terms to the reader, who may have otherwise associated a meaning other than that intended with the terms involved. This in itself would not be noteworthy, except in that Mr. Katz does not clearly note the source of these definitions.
"On all five criteria, gaming qualifies as causing a moral panic . . . . We see plenty of hostility towards gamers. The fear of gaming has always been wildly disproportionate to any real threat, and the panic over it is episodic, frequently triggered by incidents like school shootings or other media-transmitted scares" Where are the references? An explanation of why and how gaming meets the criteria? Examples of hostility towards gamers, and of "school shootings [and] other media-transmitted scares"?
"The moral panic over gaming has also managed to obscure its growing social, cultural, even political signifance." Gaming has political signifance? Do tell! For lack of elaboration, can we (please!) assume, then, that the Presidential election will be solved, once and for all, with Rocket Arena 3? No? Then, Mr. Katz, could you explain what this actually means?
"'Our toys, writ large, echo profound revolutions in simulation, the science of materials, and digital communication,' author Mark Pesce writes in The Playful World, recently published by Ballantine Books. 'The technique of the Furby has been a hot topic of computer science for a dozen years; artificial life -- simulation of activity of living systems -- has taught us a lot about how we learn and grow into intelligence. Computers, which just a decade ago seemed useful only for word processors and spreadsheets, are now employed as digital gardens, where the seeds of mind grow into utterly upredictable forms.' Unfortunately, the reader learns nothing of who the author is, what he knows, or the overall subject matter of the book. Possibly knowing nothing of Mr. Pesce or Bellantine Books, the reader can only hope that Mr. Pesce is qualified and Bellantine Books is reputable. Furthermore, Mr. Katz fails to explain what is meant - what is to be conveyed by "digital gardens, where the seeds of mind grow into utterly upredictable forms"? What is a "seed of mind", and into what "utterly unpredictable form" does it grow? In other words, "Huh?"
"Gaming has evolved far beyond play. Arguably the most revolutionary cultural force in the world right now, it's transforming the imaginations, attentions spans, reflexes and strategic thinking of an entire generation, perhaps even our neural systems themselves." Mr. Katz seems not to understand that placing the word "arguably" before something totally absurd does not excuse lack of research. Much appreciated would be Katz' knowledge the effect of Quake 3 and Tribes 2 upon Ethopia, how those living in Cuba feel about fill rate verses rendering quality, or which is the Bosnians' preferred console.
"With the release of Sony's PlayStation 2, writes Pesce, the founding chair of the Interactive Media Program at the University of California's School of Cinema-Television." Finally, we learn who Mr. Pesce is.
"'[T]he machinery of infinite realities will be within the grasp of millions of children around the world. Unlike any videogame console released before it, the PS 2 will have the power to create realistic imaginings of breathtaking clarity. Million-dollar computers -- in l999! -- have only fractionally more power than the Play Station 2, which will challenge our ideas about simulation by making it look at least as real as anything else seen on a television screen.'" Unfortunately, Katz goes on to remove any credibility from Mr. Pesce's earlier statement, however vague it may have been, by expressing Mr. Pesce's claim that the PS2 has almost as much computing horsepower as any million-dollar machine available. Mr. Katz failes to realize that for a million dollars, any qualified individual could have build one hell of a Beowulf cluster, even in 1999. Where are the benchmarks? Any reader should hopefully recognize the folly in Mr. Pesce's statement; assuming this is true, Mr. Pesce cannot be relied upon to provide accurate statements. Resultantly, the second half of the article, based upon the work of Mr. Pesce, loses all credibility.
"'[F]uture ideas about creativity, imagination, work -- and individual relationships to institutions -- will be shaped by such tools [as the PS2], just as they were by the PS2's more primitive predecessors, from the early Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) to game-playing computers'" Pesce claims that children's "ideas about creativity, imagination, work" have been shaped by systems such as the NES and possibly the Apple II. Missing, however, is any reference to psychological study or any conclusive work. Is the reader to assume that Pesce, like Katz, fails to justify his bold statements? If so, then Pesce is right up Katz' alley.
"'As pundits sound alarms about how videogames are ruining children's moral lives, as both major presidential candidates did repeateadly, during the campaign -- who in our culture is preparing for the radical changes in imagination about to be unleashed?'" Thank you, Pesce and Katz, for showing us the way.
"Pesce is right, of course. The PS2, designed to connect to the Net, is a window into a larger universe. It could easily simulate a Furby or Mindstorms, and it creates as well a million other interesting forms, if only for the eyes and ears. In fact, says Pesce, the PS2 could well be seen as a spaceship for scouring the universe of ideas." First of all, from where is the "of course" derived? Pesce has failed to make a justified point at all, in what is he then so obviously correct? Yes, the PS2 can [reportedly; I have no personal experience] connect to the Internet. Even if PS2 could potentially simulate the actions of a Furby or Mindstorms (which I have no reason to doubt, though I've used neither Furbies nor Mindstorms), the PlayStation 2, as far as I've seen, does not create new devices or concepts, it simply displays existing ones. For what, then, could the PS2 be used to explain how the "PS2 could well be seen as a spaceship for scouring the universe of ideas", and furthermore, what the hell does this phrase mean? Also, have we given up even trying to relate this to public reactions to gaming?
"The cultural gap between the young and the old first widened noticeably in the l960s, when younger people turned their generational backs against their elders. The explosion of the Net and the Web, which have triggered a revolution in the way information and ideas move, has exacerbated that division. The Boomers talked a lot about revolution but didn't quite make one; younger Americans are making one but don't always seem to realize it." Generational backs? Revolution? What does this have to do with public reaction to gaming?
"Our civilization hasn't begun to come to terms with this split" Here Katz continues in his tradition of making a meaningless statement and carring on as though it proves something conclusively.
"Panicked moralists, pundits and authority figures point to all sorts of reasons, from the decline in the authority of parental figures to the influence of new media to the lack of discipline in schools" Reasons for what? The "generational split" in the 1960s? The PlayStation 2?
"[T]he truth is there is no real understanding either of this widening chasm in our politics, or in our social and cultural consciousness." Wait, first the chasm is between generations, now it's political?
Making paper-mache mountains from conjured molehills, Katz once again shows his inability to form a point or maintain a theme.
Well, if you've read this far, hopefully you've been convinced that the likes of Katz should not be allowed to post on the front page. I say, let's take up a collection. I would gladly pay $10 a month to know that Slashdot finally rid itself of a troll. Perhaps if enough Slashdot readers feel the same, we could offer Katz more not to post than Slashdot offers him to post. Any takers?
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
Nahh. To get ahead you need either brains or social skills. We are the people with the brains. The people with the social skills are over in marketing, and the people in suits at the exclusive health club generally have both. None of these people felt the need to take out their frustrations on others at school.
The people who made our lives a misery at school have neither brains nor social skills. And yes, their place in society really is to say "Do you want fries with that?". At least until they get married, after which they say "Doh".
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
A gulf between the young & the old isn't exactly new. In the 50's and 60's the great moral threat was Rock & Roll. In the 20's & 30's it was Jazz. In 15 years time it will be mainstream, because the teenagers & twenties of today will be the old farts of 2015, and their children will be finding something new and exciting to do and shock their parents with.
After we get enough donations we will find some pop pyschologist to run us up a feel-good clone of AA or something, print some bumper-stickers and tee-shirts ("One Level At A Time") and then set folks up running sessions in vacant strip-mall spaces. Get on the local judicial lists as a treatment agency, and rile up some college students to write us grants for local and federal program monies.
Have you seen that recent movie, "But I'm a Cheerleader"? It's kind of like that, pretty funny.
Historians and sociologists call the adult world's response to gaming a "moral panic,"
Which historians, which sociologists ? And on what planet do sociologists always agree on what people do. To quote Rutherford "All research in the Human Sciences can be summed up by the phrase 'some do, some don't'".
I'm sorry I don't buy this persecution crap. Games can be good, games can be bad. This isn't society ganging up on a few "good" people, its about the fundamental right of people to disagree with each other, and the American politic that means he who shouts loudest is right.
Jon, I'm sorry but this just sounds like a whinge based on the old "Well I don't like it so blah" of which you accuse your accusers rather than a balanced approach to the subject. Its after all easier to be a bigot, what ever your flag, than be balanced.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Well, if you look at it from a pure rendering power standpoint, yes, the PS2 is nearly as powerful. Yes, there are $140,000 graphics cards used to drive 6 screen "powerwalls" but these really aren't that much faster than the PS2.
Walt
I would equate the hysteria towards video games as similar to the Temperance movement. These were people who talked about "Demon Rum" with straight faces, and they were convinced that alcohol was destroying the moral structure of the country. In a frenzy they managed to get Prohibition enacted, which did exactly the opposite of what was intended.
Neither games nor alcohol by themselves cause any harm. However, when one reaches the point where one is dependent on games or alcohol for one's sense of well-being, there is a problem. If you turn down invitations to spend time with your (non-drinking / non-gaming) friends because you won't be able to (drink / game) with them, then there's a problem. I could go on analogizing, but you get the point. I like video games, and I think progressively more immersive games are indeed the future of entertainment. The reason this hysteria is so ridiculous is that if one simply follows the maxim, "All things in moderation, nothing to excess," everything will be fine.
Walt
P.S. [OT] Does anyone remember the IBM PC game that had CGA graphics and was called DONKEY? There was a road and a race car that could be in either of the two lanes. Donkeys would come randomly in one lane or the other, and you would have to press the space bar to switch lanes and avoid the donkey if it was in your lane. The car moved progressively closer to the top of the screen, making it more difficult to avoid the donkeys. I once left it on all night to see how often all the donkeys would be in the other lane, and thus allow you to win without doing anything. I recall it only happened once in ten hours of letting it run.
Is it really like that in USA? newspapers, teachers and politicians condemning gaming? Because i don't see any of this in Europe. Maybe the occasional newsheadline "Quake made child run amok" but there's not that many childs running amok and there's not that much of a public echo to this, so maybe that newspaper sells a bit better for a day.
So either the whole thing was blown out of proportion on slashdot or the americans are less tolerant than they'd like all the rest of the world to be.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
How people are effected by gaming/the influence that games play does not have a concrete answer that fits everybody. There are several factors that contribute to how a person will react.
First, above all, is context. Currently, I work for GameSpy Industries, as the site director for 3DActionPlanet, plus I also work on PlanetQ3F. The work that I do REQUIRES that I am up-to-date on the latest 3DAction games, 90% of which are 3D shooters. I play them not only because I like too, but because it is also part of my job.
The second is the game itself. I am currently playing Hitman: Codename 47, which I will then be reviewing. It isn't a shooter; rather, you play a Hitman, and you're given missions that involve killing somebody. The issue I have with the game thus far is that it is WAY to realistic for some gamers. The weapons you can use include a piano wire, which you use to strangle people. (The animation is very convincing.. there is even gasping, if you listen closely.)
When a game is ultra-realistic, some people may get the idea to try some of the things they have seen.
------------
CitizenC
My name is not 'nospam,' but 'citizenc'.
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Actually its interesting that you bring up Pokemon (your spelling was correct except for the backwards ` over the e).
;-) ) generation Y come into power the fear and hype will fall out an air of normailty and expetedness and dare I say it maturity to video games. But, like music there will always be a leading edge that the new adults will not apprecaite.
Pokemon is actually its own cultural phenomenon. What Nintendo has achieved is an unbeliveably effective horizontal marketing campaign built around a simple kids video game.
They have taken some simple characters and driven the marketing of them across multiple industries. You have video games, card games, toys, TV, movies, food products, and the list goes on. In my opinion, one of the best horizontal marketing campaigns ever (based on sales figures garnered by buying this stuff for my son).
But unlike Katz's doom and gloom appraisal of gaming, the Pokemon influence is IMO regardaded as positive, even though its all being generated from video games.
Society is not as fragile as Katz would want to belive, this is just Rock and Roll all over again. Someday video games will be a mainstay of pop culture, they almost are now. PS2 is the third wave of video game consoles, dating back over 20 years. As generation X and (god forbid
That's the way of things, not some great cultural sczism.
I'm not exactly old (I'm 33), but I've been playing computer games since pong and Spacewar, and my six-year-old son is also an avid gamer (bought him a new Alienware screamer for Xmas). I am into computers and games largely as a result of my father, a 58 year-old baby boomer and electronics engineer, who got started in the PC revolution way back in the 70's by building his own computer. I know a lot of people who more or less grew up the same way.
I think for the majority of the population, gaming is an accepted activity. I know I'd rather have my kid playing a game that's at least partially interactive, than sittinng in front of the idiot box. It's an activity that brings he and I closer together, and at the same time helps to build interest and familiarity with technology that is a permanent and important factor in our society. Heck, my kid already says he wants to go to Digipen and become a game programmer when he grows up.
I think the problem is a whole lot less serious than Jon makes it out to be. If there were rampant fear of gaming, then the game industry wouldn't be surpassing movies as America's entertainment of choice. Pundits and fear-mongers will attempt to sensationalize and blow things out of proportion in an attempt to get ratings, but this is only a passing trend. Americans in general, who see their kids playing Pokemon stadium and the latest incarnation of Mario Brothers see gaming as it actually is. Not some evil mind-control ultra-violence training ground, but as a fun diversion that can engage a child's mind and creativity.
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
It sure is good to see that ever single poster so far has seen through Katz's BS...
Gaming is far from the "most revolutionary cultural force in the world right now," and it was not a major point in the presidential election. Yeah, it got mentioned a few times, but I don't think any candidate made it a platform point. And you know, I'll bet that most of the people in the world haven't even noticed that there's been a lot of press about video games and their effects. You want to know why? Because when it does get mentioned it's usually a small point in a story, and non-slashbots don't get it shoved in their face for a week after the story comes out!
-
Addlepated - punk & metal
I dont think it is getting any *more* violent.. after all.. violence has existed since the dawn of time. (OG discovers a rock is harder than OOG's skull.) The disturbing thing, to me, is the paralells one can draw between this civilization and it's "entertainment" now, and Rome, or Greece, or France right before the Revolution. (Or Japan, Germany,.. you can find a paralell just about anywhere). The problem I see, to use Rome as an example.. the more violent the games got, to the point where women were forced to kill their children, where people were stuck in an iron bull and bets were taken on how long it took them to stop kicking and screaming after a fire was built.. etc.. built a catharsis in their society.. always looking for a bigger kick. Not that I think for a minute that someone playing Doom is going to get a *real* shotgun.. but they will keep looking for a bigger, better game. This is touchy then, at what age they are exposed to them. An adult, or a 17 year old, is much better suited to discern and to control their impulses about gameplay or reality than, say, a 7 year old.
The more violence is accepted in film, games, TV, etc, the more people are inclined to accept it in every day life, as it paralells, and the human mind doesnt necessarily discern it when its in the background. Whether this is good or bad, I dont know.. and I dont pretend to know.. but if you look at the historical trends in other past cultures, it tends to snowball to a point and then go *POP* loudly. (Of course, no democracy has ever lasted very long anyway, and we are about at the end of the projected lifespan.. so we shall see, eh?)
Just my two cents..
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
People who are unbalanced play quake. People who are unbalanced watch TV. I don't think that there's much of a correlation.
My guess is that there's FAR more of a correlation between living in a gun-owning family and being the source of a shooting incident than there between live shooting and game shooting.
On the other hand, there may be a correlation between certain TYPES of obsessions with shooter games and becomming a real-life shooter, but that's more likely to be a symptom showing in the game world than one originating there.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Gaming is not entirely viewed as bad.. Myst was never accused of being violent!
Sure, if you don't count the dozens of gamers who, frustrated at poorly constructed puzzles and slow gameplay, finally snapped and started shooting up suburban MacDonalds franchises until the Federal Marshalls came...
And, yes, it was uphill both ways to school back then...
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
I am epileptic, and while strobing or flickering lights give me a righteous headache, they've never actually induced a real seizure.
Anyone have some more specific information about this?
--
They're not working at McDonald's. A comforting thought, but it's bogus. They're all around you, wearing suits, having power lunches, going to their own happy hour, meeting at the health club for racquetball games that you're not invited to. They still laugh at you, they still think they're better than you, and most of their perceived success is still driven by their membership in a virtual fraternity. They're merely constrained by law or company policy from grinding your head into the dirt of the recess yard. And they still resent you. Never forget what they are, or they'll make you pay.
I believe it comes down to a lack of understanding on the part of the older generation. 60s rock was frightening because the musicians were saying things that 40 year olds though would corrupt the youth. My mom doesn't like the music my band plays, she thinks it is 'just a bunch of noise'. Games are in the same category, people who grew up without them don't get it, they think their children are going to be harmed by all of the fantasy and imagery involved. In some cases they might be right. I've seen kids who take gaming far too seriously and let it displace other activites. Unfortunately the critics tend to use kids like that as examples, which is a powerful way to turn the opinions of the folks who don't understand gaming.
Icebox
It is, rather, usually defined as a reaction -- usually out of proportion to the actual severity of the problem -- to a perceived social crisis. Though arguable, the general idea is that the problem is perceived as new and unprecedented (and therefore calling for new and unprecedented measures), while it is actually a long-standing practice/problem/phenomenon that has not previously come to light in mainstream society, and is now being defined as a Bad Thing. Let me reiterate: it is seen as a dramatic development, but is not actually development.
And if I can pick up this distinction with my casual reading of a few (~10) books about social science, why can't Mr. Katz?
Carousel is a lie!
Prohibition, to name one, fundamentally changed the way people think about substance abuse. Before prohibition, substance abuse was thought of as a failing of character, like infidelity or dishonesty. Even though it eventually failed, prohibition created a cultural consensus that substance abuse was a criminal problem. The so-called "war on drugs" the latest effect of this attitude.
But Prohibition was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the scariest or most destructive "moral panic" of the era. During the war era some of the worst attacks on civil liberties since slavery were carried out with consent from the "moral majority".
Criticism of the state was squelched for fear it would jeopardize the war effort. The film "The Spirit of '76", which was about the American Revolution, was censored and its creators jailed because it depicted the British, America's allies in the Great War, in a negative light. One could expect to be jailed and possibly tortured for the offense of "rable-rousing", otherwise known as giving a protest speech. Congress went as far as to pass laws, still on the books today, banning such terms as "sour Craut" and "hamburger" because they could be seen as positive depictions of America's enemy in the Great War, Germany. You should be careful to refer to these dishes as "saulsburry steak" and "victory cabbage".
But that wasn't the worst. If you want a political litmus test of the times, read the transcripts of the trail of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Venzetti, two Italian immigrants accused of a murder they could not have committed. The prosecution was awarded a conviction after offering only cursory presentations of such arguments as motive, opportunity or intent. The case rested firmly, and one could argue solely, on the fact that both men were immigrants and anarchists. After protest from nearly the whole world, Sacco and Vanzetti were electrocuted in 1927.
This is to say nothing of the MaCarthy trials, and the "moral panics" that came later.
Today's "moral panic" about alleged pornography, profanity and violence in assorted media is rather tame in comparison to what's happened in the past. It it important to point out that without the erosion of civil liberties that took place after World War I and II, the censorship proposed today would be utterly inconceivable.
This is not meant to trivialize the current situation - in fact, one should be more concerned about this trend having realized that it is not isolated, sporadic or random. It is, in fact, the latest outlet of a social flow that has tributaries running at least a hundred years into the past.
So, if anyone is going to take a stand against the advocates of censorship today, they should take caution from the lessons learned by people who fought these forces in the past. They should also understand that, in taking a stand for personal liberty, they find themselves in very good company. While Kevin Mitnick has a lot less to complain about that Sacco and Venzetti, the battle is one and the same.
This is the fundamental question of living in a democracy - the liberties of the individual verses the wishes of the majority. In my mind, the question is not as sticky as it seems at first. It is a matter of determining when you are truely dealing with the "wishes of the majority" and when you are dealing with opportunists who claim to be acting on behalf of the majority. I suppose that it might also be possible defend the liberties of the individual by understanding the diffrence between the "wishes of the majority" and a "moral panic".
--
--
In spite of the suggestions and all the tests that I have made, I have not cavato a spider from the hole.
I disagree. Someone can play video games the same amount of time as a person who is "socially balanced" watches TV, and be "socially balanced". Just because some gamers are seriously imbalanced socially doesn't mean you can generalize that all gamers are socially imbalanced. Its like saying all nerds wear pocket protectors. Its just a serious over-generalization.
--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
The context in which it must be placed relates to the accelerated pace we are living in. My children know much, much more about sex than I ever did, but their attitude toward it is different, tainted by music and TV.
We are struggling, still, to become a nation with an identity formed by the land. We are a unique culture, one immersed in shiny objects and glittering prizes. Never before have so many been showered with such an array of stimulating toys, images, sounds, and ideas. In our numbness we seek out authentic experiences and find them - ironically - in virtual realities. Michael Crichton has something to say about this in his book "Timeline": the only authentic experiences left for modern man are to be found in the distant past before reality was processed and fabricated by service providers.
We bemoan our children's development proportionately to the extent that they are growing up differently than we did. The village that is raising the child today is electronic and immediate. Our children feed on all this information indiscriminately until we the parents provide them with the filters they need to separate good nutritious food from brain candy and mind poison. It is our role in this society to resist and temper the development of our culture, because it is the traditional role of parents (the 'village') to help shape the culture. That role has been largely usurped, and we feel and respond to a great lack of control over our cultural destiny as evidenced by our children. We become alienated from each other.
I personally have become alternately fascinated, shocked, intrigued, and bewildered by the aspects of all this technology. I can only stand in awe of the rapid pace of gaming development and hope that those who are greedy purveyors pandering to the baser instincts of our children today, will someday learn to listen to the small voice in their souls as they gain wisdom seeing the awful consequences of their evil and stupid mistakes. But first they will have to admit to their own culpability, and that will take an awful lot of growing up.
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
...and parents everywhere scorn the moral perversity that he brings to their children and to the general culture. The year was 1956; young teens everywhere were easily corrupted by his swaying mid-section and his sexual intimations, and the parental populace was outraged.
This isn't a new inroad into the development of societal and cultural abnormalities, and their adoption into general society; this happens all the time with culture, it is how it expands and grows. Whether religious outrages, musical inventions and divas, or video games; cultural changes often represent subcultures which are likely scorned before gaining acceptance. Many times they are simply fads that come and go, and other times they are changed and instituted into the definition of a culture. Either way, it is assimilated by the system by some extent, and helps to expand our definition of society. Video games will be percieved as bad, evil and wrong for a long time, and this is what drives its sub-culture for many people. I predict that it will eventually become accepted more generally by society and its violent imagery may change...or maybe it will continue to be it's driving force. Either way, we must realize that games are here to stay, and if we don't like their atmosphere we must work to change it.
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
This article seems to be heavily slanted towards the United States and gaming. There's nothing really wrong with that, but there are other cultures out there. Japan is definitely more hardcore when it comes to gaming and have risen violence in the media to an art form. They have violence down to a science. Watch any old John Woo films, any one of dozens of animes or play any Resident Evil or Castlevania game and watch the bloody violence in all of its insane glory.
And yet there is no moral panic in Japan over video games. It's as much a part of their culture as pachinko and tentacle rape cartoons, and has been for years. It's much more integrated over there into daily life, where the premiere of games like the Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest/Warrior series' are so huge and hyped that they actually have to close schools and businesses because so many people line up in anticipation for the game's release.
With all video games so embedded into their culture and violent cartoons, movies and games the way they are in Japan, you'd think that they'd all be violent criminals, at least if you went by Lieberman logic, and that there'd be a huge moral panic, given Katz logic. Well, there isn't. (At least not that I know of.) The violent crime rate is much lower, and the acceptance of video games as art and as culture is higher there than anywhere else.
But why bother with Japan. It's not part of the United States. The United States of course is the basis of all culture, so to hell with the rest of them.
As a side note, way to go there, Katz, prove your technical ignorance by quoting somebody else who is obviously technically inept. The PS2 is not that powerful. If you want to write for a geek site, at least research the specs of the machine and compare it to those million dollar systems of 1999. Don't take some chair for a television school's word for it. He probably hasn't played a video game in his life.
J
Have you ever had to live with a mother how was absolutely convinces video games were evil?
I think my mother was more evil than the supposidly evil nintendo. Instead of raising me to shun evil and violence, she tried to force here anti-gaming views on me and took a hammer to my nintendo. Yeah, then went the Super Nintendo, the Sega, the PlayStation. Thank god I'm not living there anymore.
And people wonder what the hells wrong with the children in today's world...
-Kefabi
Now we get the gritty details of what that really means.
Among other things it means a shift in the rules of what makes up your personal reality. Some folks do not deal with this well.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
And what, pray tell, is socially unbalanced about playing basketball? People talk smack in game to taunt opponents into making mistakes, I've yet to meet anyone (both of my younger brothers, two of my cousins, and about 5 or 6 other real life friends of mine are all b-ball fanatics in game) who takes it seriously and applies anything in game to real life.
Now, I have seen some fist fights between people from playing basketball, but have seen nothing similar to that from a game of Quake.
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
Wow. I always thought Indiana and Ohio sounded like scary places, but now I have proof! Thanks for the tip.
I'm ever aware of Lieberman and Tipper and their Thought Police ilk, but I really don't see a mass movement where kids are forced to play these games in secret-- I mean how could most kids afford these games if their folks didn't buy them for their kids? Certainly the games industry has done a lot to make sure that objections over certain games are not applicable to all games. Hence the rating system and all the fairly decent kid-oriented games out there.
I do not have a signature
I think you nailed this dead on. I read voraciously, game quite a bit at times, and use music, and poetry the same way - as an escape from reality. Still I can not understand anyone who would confuse reality with fantasy. Like I said, I used/use it as an escape, usually it was at the times I suffered from depression, where reality was painful. But to cope with that pain, immersing yourself in games is useful in helping to get through it at times. Does it screw up your productivity? Absolutely, but at times like that you're going to have productivity problems anyway. Does it make you a little more anti-social? It may certainly seem that way to outsiders, but the reality is you'd be anti-social anyway, games are just something to occupy your time while you are that way.
I'm not advocating games as a cure-all for mental illness, but many people who suffer self-medicate someway or another. Gaming is certainly physically healthier than developing an addiction to drugs or alcohol.
I don't know how many other people the above is true for, but I've met quite a few: Entertainment , be it gaming, watching sports, reading, music, poetry, alcohol, drugs, etc - is an escape from reality for many people, a coping mechanism to help get through painful times. Are there other ways to help cope? Sure, some people use religion and faith, some people use modern medicine... But the point is, that these things are quite often used for this purpose. Myself, I'm glad to have had gaming for this kind of outlet, it helped me immensely in coping with the symptoms of bi-polar disorder, until I recognized the problem and was able to get medical help for it.
And in the mean time, much of the gaming I've done has helped sharpen my ability at logical and strategic thinking, as well as lay the foundation for my fascination with computers and technology which has led to my career choice. So all things considered, it wasn't a complete waste of time either...
As for the corruption of my morals? Well, reading has done far more for that, than gaming managed at all... Of course, I wouldn't say my morals have become corrupt, simply different, and not necessarily mainstream. But then, ever since I started contemplating my ethics at all, I began to diverge somewhat from the norm. Games had nothing to do with this, and I think a lot of people confuse cause and correlation in respect to this issue.
-Nez
But my dreams they aren't as empty, as my conscience seems to be...
What I have seen are the non-profit executive director's homes and automobiles...
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
I will set myself up as the executive director of a non-profit corporation, drop some money on production of some public service announcements, roll them into the Ad Council list, and sit back for the ride.
I figure if our clients have enough cash to buy games, they have enough to afford some pretty heavy dues. All we have to do is get the relatives in an uproar, and maybe they will pay for it.
After we get enough donations we will find some pop pyschologist to run us up a feel-good clone of AA or something, print some bumper-stickers and tee-shirts ("One Level At A Time") and then set folks up running sessions in vacant strip-mall spaces. Get on the local judicial lists as a treatment agency, and rile up some college students to write us grants for local and federal program monies.
Any investors, er, executive vice-directors? How can you go wrong? Isn't this America's traditional way of dealing with morally paniccing issues?
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
It's hard not to visualize the typical gamer's image when reading this story and even easier, I assume for an adult. This is the type of stereotype that the gaming community has to erase.
Why is it so hard to get rid of the image of the fat kid playing Pokemon or the 'freak' playing D&D? Because these are the images that we are given by the media. We are not given accurate images. The accurate images are the ones that show a huge variety of people taking an active part in gaming.
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
For the most part, it comes down to good parenting and instilling good morals into your child. Time and time again, the children who get into gaming and real violence/crime are those who don't get enough positive attention from their parents.
Most young kids don't know better. They act the way they are taught to act (or allowed to act).
Most teenagers sometimes know better, but not always. Being a teenager is tough. You are almost an adult, but without the adult responsibilities. Not being quite adult, teenagers emulate whoever appeals to them most.
Unfortunately, it is the media (owned by the older generation) that glamourizes violence. The media does indeed tell us what is cool and what isn't. Teenagers and young children are very susceptible to the media.
For the most part, if it's on TV (or the Internet now), it must be true. And the kids just gobble this stuff up.
Some will point out that I am generalizing. Of course I am. Having worked with kids, each one is a different case. I have to generalize and classify in order to get a decent grasp on the problem.
I'd like to point out that there are a lot of good kids out there who play these violent games who grow up to be upstanding citizens. It was only less than 10 years ago that I was one of these kids.
The biggest problem is that we are looking for a single source for this problem. Unfortunately there is no single source. It is a non-point source problem. All the little things from failing to spend time with your child, to the media glamourizing violence, to violent gaming, to the schools that they attend, to genetic pre-dispositions, all contribute to the way a child grows and acts.
We have to stop looking for a single source. It doesn't exist. We (as adults) have to start taking responsibility for our actions and the consequences they have.
Anyway, I am just thinking out loud here -- I'd love to hear discussion pro/con wrt my thoughts.
the cultural age gap is closing fast in north america. 20 somethings are acting like teenagers and teenagers are acting like adults. teenagers are growing up fast and then don't ever want to fully grow up.
I suggest you hit your mother with the hammer. Sounds like you'd be doing us all a favor.
Time to die, nerd-boy!
Seems to me that the media / politicians / parents only recognize the few people that take gaming to the extreme. I enjoy a good stress-relieving deathmatch at the end of the day, but I've also known people who have made gaming their lives, rather to live in a RPG than in the world. Its funny because, gaming can have that effect on people, and others tend to see only the extreme side of the gaming culture.
I'm not surprised. How many other examples of this thing happening has life shown us? A few I can think of are Slashdotters (Not all loud-mouthed script-kiddie anti-anything-but-linux zealots), Christians (Not all mindless unintelligent science-defying people), and Canadians (They don't have those floppy heads like on South Park).
Socially unbalanced you say...
Being an introvert myself, gaming (online in particular) has made me much more social than I had ever been face to face with people. I can agree that you get a lot of loonies online (never can tell if it's real or a facade), but no more than you'd meet in "real life".
I personally believe (ack! opinion! kill it before it multiplies!) the environment is much more balanced for some people, such as myself, who have a hard time socializing in real life.
And what, pray tell, is socially unbalanced about gaming online? People talk smack in game to taunt opponents into making mistakes, I've yet to meet anyone (both of my younger brothers, two of my cousins, and about 5 or 6 other real life friends of mine are all Q3 fanatics in game) who takes it seriously and applies anything in game to real life.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
This article reads more like an election speech than an essay written to elicit new thoughts. You pose the question - "who in our culture is preparing for the radical changes in imagination about to be unleashed?" In reply, I ask what radical changes in imagination have been unleashed by the last ten years of game play? There are benefits when we can look at more sophisticated home computers and graphics chips that were (in part) developed to meet the needs of gamers. The creativity and imagination unleashed have been from the designers and developers - not the players. What evidence is there that playing these games benefits the player in any way. The phrase "get a life" came into use for people such as these.
That's a very good article, Katz. You've summarized our society's latest fears quite well.
Society has this craving to find scapegoats. There's always got to be someone to blame for its problems and usually the different group gets the title.
This is nothing new, of course. What I'd like to add is that society is arrogant and lives in a constant state of denial.
Where is it written that men are bound to become "better" as time goes on? Where do people find proof of that?
What Katz calls the "new culture" has been attacked vehemently by everyone that belongs to the "old culture", as if the world underwent some bizarre overnight change.
Nothing changed!, and that's what must be stated. Some games may have the in-your-face attitude regarding death and violence, but what exactly does that prove? It tells us about a new way of seeing things. A new way that opens an ideological gap between different kinds of people. To top it all, a new way that won't last forever, for it WILL be superseded.
The "wide segment of society" attacks the "group" looking for the scapegoat and refuses to see the demons that lie within us all.
Flavio
Each one of them, with the exception of 1 (in a group of 20) had some serious problems with reality. The funniest of them was a kid (about 16 at the time) who tried to cast a spell on a guy who was sizably bigger (why i'm not sure.. I dont even know if he had a reason) - after the spell casting he shouted something about how he had some special token and couldn't be harmed, then punches the guy. Well, he didn't last more than a few seconds, and ended up bleeding on the ground thereafter. It was funny, but somewhat sad. The most messed guy used to flash freeze rats (not sure of the method of it) and then break them or use them as displays. He also used to speak Klingonese (or so he said, no one actually verified this) and dress up as a star trek character for fun (no reason).
The problem isn't video games.
Whatever happened to just plain crazy?
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
As much as I disagree w/Katz's articles (usually) and, point by point, arguments (ditto), the "Up-Up-Down-Down" title is great. After Part I, I asked a plethora of friends and acquaintences to finish the sequence: "Up Up Down Down ..." and, as expected, the (currently) 16-25 year olds could, while no one else had any idea.
Of course, my youngest brother can explain the phenominon that is Pokemon, while I can't even spell it.
The others will just have to use their imagination.
JonKatz actually followed up on one of his "first in a series" articles! The world as we know it is over!
Actually, Jon follows up on a good deal of his 'series' articles, just they don't always make it to the front page. If you check the side sections on the left, you'll see a story or two of his that wasn't big enough.
Now, that isn't to say that there's no legitimate concern over things like desensitization to violence, couch potatoism, and other alleged societal ills that people associate with games. But a society that questions itself is the only healthy kind of society.
I know this example is used any time 'video game/television/movie violence' but look at Japan. The most violent anime, twisted porn, and violent video games. Yet a low crime rate. Similar comparisons made with gun ownership, citing England as an anti-gun nation with low crime, and other European countries as pro-gun nations with low crime on the flip side of the argument. Given all of these comparisons, I think it's unfair to say that gaming itself is the cause for a high crime rate, violence in schools, etc. The sum of society, including gaming, must be looked at here.
I agree with you totally, games are just games for all but those who have no hold on reality. Another point is, those people will find their escape anyway. The kid who plays Doom for a week then kills his classmates would probably have killed them even if he couldn't download Doom. In fact, he might just have killed them a week earlier without that outlet for his rage.
As Dave Mustaine (lead singer for Megadeth) once said in an interview for MTV hack in 1988 - "They scream and piss and moan about the kid who kills with a metal tape in his back pocket, but what about the kid who offs with a Barry Manilow tape in his back pocket? No press there!" I wonder how many kids have killed classmates after playing freecell or minesweeper religiously.
Like this guy has the chance to change the world. I don't think he even has a chance at procreation.
I'm not stereotyping all gamers, just those who subsitute gaming for real life experiences.
This is another view of the world.
This article relies on a straw man argument that there is some sort of moral panic about video games in our society. There are no serious quotes from mainstream sources to back this up, other than the ubiquitous political fear-mongering related to the entertainment industry as a whole. So first Katz sets up this panic using circumstantial evidence (since direct evidence, like masses of parents burning their childrens' video games in quantity just doesn't exist), then he proceeds to almost knock it down.
I say almost because he goes on to equate the very limited modeling capabilities of a Playstation 2 to that of a supercomputer and then talk benignly about the wonders of technology in a discussion that avoids that issue and instead supposedly reinforces his other strawman argument: that there is some ever-widening rift between the old and the young. Then he assigns (as is typical of the rose-tinted worldview) to the younger generations' supposed side of the rift values that are supposed to convince us that the geezers just don't get it.
What he fails to recognize is that the only rift (i.e. that of the teenage wasteland) is mostly a marketing ploy used to sell kids stuff they wouldn't normally buy.
That is "hey kids, your folks just don't get these baggy pants and those stringy tanktops. Shop at the Gap and assert your independence!" The young are no more auto-dissidents than the old are auto-conformists. Much of what passes for generational rift is simply the by-product of living in a society where teenagers are given no real power and no real meaning other than consumer choices. The only way the PS2 is going to change all this is if kids suddenly start using it to hack into school computers to change their grades, or mess up the computers that control nuclear bombs.
I do not have a signature
If you want an emotionally and experientally rich life: Go swing dancing; learn to cook a new dish; learn to sail, or to roll a kayak, or to SCUBA dive; do anything that will get you out and interacting with other people of similar (or even different) interests; have great sex.
This is from a 36 year old computer professional. I program as a hobby, and do like computer games, though I don't think the current generation is any more enjoyable than the old tty-based "rogue". But I don't confuse computers with life.
Ciao
I consider this the only interesting point of discussion here.
We all brazenly assume people can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. But I have always found the most "into-it" people, including me, have some trouble with reality.
Whether the people who play this way were out of touch with reality and therefore play compulsively, or simply play compulsively for another reason and then become out of touch with reality is interesting to me personally. I believe the first is closer to the truth.
Many other compulsive hobbies, like reading, poetry, other games, or obviously D&D other hobbies over the years have been used for these purposes. Video Games, in their current incarnation are only slightly more interactive and encompassing, though some would argue less so than D&D.
-Ben
Why can't a game be part of someone's daily life?
How is this different than watching TV for hours a night?
Sure, they may seem socially unbalanced, but at least they're being more social than your average couch potato.
I recall a slew of superficial Reader's Digest-type articles in the mid-80's that attempted to scapegoat Dungeons & Dragons as an insidious, soul-sapping plague infecting our nation's youth. This hysteria -- fueled by small-town Parent-Teacher Associations and lazy journalists -- spawned specious allegations of high-school satanists and the ubiquitous urban legend of the college kid who "got too into the game" and disappeared into the steam tunnels.
Sincerely,
Vergil
Vergil Bushnell
Insects and Grafitti Photos
You see politicians crying out against not just video games, but content on television, in movies, in music, and so on. For Katz' stories to be truly insightful and effective, he needs to show how video games and gamers fit in with the other forms of mass media in terms of behavior, content, and criticism. That'd be most interesting.
As usual though, I think Katz is on the right track, and exposing us to ideas that make us think, even if we think they're crap. Just my two cents before the usual Katz-bashers rear their ugly heads.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
-John Lennon
Middle-aged day-trader shoots up an office center.
More than half of marriages do not last.
Decades of enslavement of an entire race in America.
Decades of spousal and child abuse in America.
Blow jobs in the white house by an intern, with a married president.
And it's the VIDEOGAMES that are causing moral panic?! Holy shit . . . Talk about blind.
---
seumas.com
1) Gaming is not entirely viewed as bad.. Myst was never accused of being violent!
2)This was *NOT* central to the presidential election, anymore than the health concerns in Rwanda was. PLEASE Katz! Stop turning a single media reference into War of the Worlds! Liebermans crew want to stop TV.. and the "furor" during the campaigns was about movie ratings, and how they screened films, *NOT* about games. Basically, with the price of games and the price of game level systems, especially on the PC, (which are the *most* violent games) few people under 18 are getting them without their parents knowledge anyway, and anyone over 18 is out of the hands of the gubmint censors in that arena.
You are trying *WAYYY* to hard to tie this to hellmouth.. its not going to work.. I'm really starting to get sick and tired of "Waaah.. I'm a misunderstood genius, Waaaah.. they pick on me cuz I'm a geek, WAaaaah.. they are mean to me at school so I'm gonna blow it up" crap.. GET OVER IT! Most of us went through it.. and where are we now? In IT.. where are "they"? Would you like fries with that?
Cmon.. video games are *not* the world changer you are trying to make them be!
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
Million-dollar computers -- in l999! -- have only fractionally more power than the Play Station 2
What, like 10000/1 ?
-... ---
Seriously, I think Katz is overstating both the severity of the "moral panic" that society has supposedly created over gaming, and the importance of gaming as a cultural force.
They're just games, people! Sure there are a few oddballs who are covinced that Doom et. al. are a tool of Satan, but most reasonable people recognize that games are just games.
Now, that isn't to say that there's no legitimate concern over things like desensitization to violence, couch potatoism, and other alleged societal ills that people associate with games. But a society that questions itself is the only healthy kind of society.
--
The most valuable commodity I know of is information. - Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko, Wall Street