Slashdot Mirror
Perspectives On Games And Violence
Thanks to GameSpy for their column discussing the recent news stories linking games and violence, which provides a considered perspective on stories of sniping, neglect, and sadness, suggesting that "...it makes great news to juxtapose crimes and violent games. Sadly, it appears that 'great news' coverage too often comes from making an emotional connection for the reader/listener/viewer. Not one based on facts, but emotions." There's another article on games and violence at GamerDad.com, also trying to answer this most difficult of questions: "I see [the media] blaming a hobby I love. But they could blame almost anything. But I think that no matter what they blamed, what [the perpetrators] did still wouldn't make any sense whatsoever."
I was gonna mod, but I figured it'd be better to respond. I think you misunderstand who's playing games and what the role of knowledge is in society. I also think that you are unaware, or to be generous, forgetful of the history of gaming. This is important because the evolution of gaming is still going on. And without historical knowledge of this medium and it's comparative similarities with other kinds of technology, you have no choice but to call games "murder simulators". You don't know any better. It's either that, which I think it a common problem, or, you think that morality should be legislated. If you want to legislate morality, just stop reading this now. We're not going to see eye to eye on this topic. But if you're interested in gaming and hope to see the flourishing of new and innovative gametypes, then by all means man, get off your high horse and grab a controller! I'll make this quick because I'm at work and don't have the time to haul out the soapbox. The case can be made (I've made it previously here) that violence is a necessary evil in developing technology. Just look at the airplane. I don't have data for this claim, but I would imagine that technology in health care has seen great leaps largely due to war. Games are the same way, we get the good tech by programming the easy (and desirable) interaction: killing. As people, we like it. We're good at it. So there should be no confusion as to why people are drawn to it. You know that this evolution is working because there are so many titles out there that are not "murder simulators" as people like yourself, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity like to call them. Of course, Nintendo has been a major player in developing these non-violent AAA titles. (And when I say non-violent, I don't mean devoid of violence, I mean violence isn't the primary gameplay mechanic.) But they're not the only ones. You think the answer is to have a government subsidy for game developers who don't include guns in their games. Do movies, books, magazines, TV shows, and real people all get breaks too for the same reason? And where do we draw the line? Can I made a violent piece of entertainment media about a historical act? What about that Mel Gibson movie? Does he need to wipe some of that blood off of Jesus? Speaking of The Passion, the same kind of thought that causes somebody to label a game as a "murder simulator" is also the same kind of thought that makes people think that The Passion is about the Jews killing Jesus. Hello! Anybody in there? Quick, what's 2+2? Did you know that they took the games out of that Wal-Mart in West Virginia BUT LEFT THE GUNS? This is what happens when you draw irrational conclusions based on your own assumptions that the world should run on your own moral model. You overlook the easy stuff. Even this is a dumb statement, "now is the time for research into potential solutions". Why? And for what purpose? Let's just get extreme in our hypothetical situations. Let's think about a world where violent videogames are banned. Hmm. Can't say I can see a difference. Not after listening to my new Slipknot or Jay-Z album. And especially not after seeing Natural Born Killers (which you might remember also got similar blame). It's at this point in what has turned into a sarcastic rant (work be damned) that I defer to Sean Baby, whose way better at the sarcasm than me. "Murderers get their inspiration from all kinds of places, thanks in part to their own personal insanities. But no one filed a lawsuit against Son of Sam's talking dog, which would only be slightly more ridiculous than this Columbine lawsuit shit. Actually, this current one might be a little bit crazier since a talking dog is normal, but a talking video game is like CU-K