Slashdot Mirror
Jenkins On War And Videogames
Thanks to the MIT Technology Review for their Henry Jenkins-authored opinion piece on the use of recent wars in videogames. Jenkins, an MIT professor and much-interviewed game-related academic, argues: "If the idea of turning war into games is so intrinsically offensive, why has there been so little public outrage over the use of playing cards as a way of representing the search for and capture of Iraqi leaders?" He concludes: "Given the divisiveness of current sentiments toward the war and the newness of games as a rhetorical medium, it is hardly surprising that these games offend some and disappoint others."
why has there been so little public outrage over the use of playing cards as a way of representing the search for and capture of Iraqi leaders?
Because the whole idea behind the deck of cards... was that US troops would carry them around, play games with them in their spare time, and memorize the faces of these guys so that if they happened to spot them... they could nab them.
The media really latched onto the idea, but the original purpose was to promote awareness among the troops of what they should be on the lookout for. NOT some crazy Right-wing warmongering wargasmic ploy. THAT is why there has been no public outrage.
Agree with most of the other stuff he says, though.
no thanks
If you are offended by something, there is something wrong with you.
There are only two types of things that someone can say. True things and False things. If someone says something false, then it's all BS and you can just shrug it off. Like if someone calls you a retard and you're not, it can't offend you. If it's true, then you should fess up to it with no regrets. Like say you're gay and someone calls you a fag, just be like "yeah I am, so what?".
So let's say I make a video game where you're a terrorist and you try to crash planes into buildings. That game doesn't actually hurt anyone. Nobody will die or suffer physical injury as a result of the game. And it might even really be good gameplay-wise. There might even be someone out there who has fun playing it. While the game is indeed made in very poor taste you shouldn't be offended by it. It is someones self expression that is covered under free speech, and free speech over all.
If the existance of this game offends you, then all that offense is actually on your end. A more correct way to say it is that you become offended by the game, you. Nothing can offend me, so obviously it's not the game. If it was the game then every single human being would be offended by it. Nobody is forcing you to buy it. Nobody is forcing you to like the game either. But you can't go around saying games like this shouldn't exist thereby depriving others of their right to make and play such a game. The games existance doesn't infringe upon any of the rights of the offended person, but censoring it or getting rid of it infringes upon the rights of the people who made it. Nowhere does it say you have the right not to be offended.
Sticks and Stones can break my bones... You know the old saying. But lately, especially in the US, people have been pussified by adding on "but words do hurt..." No, people are just pussies, wusses and cowards. People can't deal with their own personal emotional problems, lack of self esteem and lack of confidence. And anything that reminds them of their shitty lives and wussy ways "offends" them. Those people suck. They aren't even real people to me. Those are the extras in the movie of life. A real person wont be emotionally disturbed just because some idiot made a 9/11 simulation. Just think about how stupid it is for 1 minute.
then read my roomates related journal entry.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
"Given the divisiveness of current sentiments toward the war and the newness of games as a rhetorical medium,
Gee, isn't the relationship between games and war only a few thousand years old? Chess and playing cards originated in India and are both supposed to be modeled on war.
I guess this mean we shouldn't shun current events (Iraq, Afghanistan) since it causes more psychological damage rather than avoid.
Seriously, this is a totally lame topic and you would think MIT wouldn't put up with this kind of BS, but I guess it even does.
First, lets review how what is written being a totally media (or Jenkins) manufactured story. Recall a Christmas Carol. What did SCrooge's assistant give his kid? A toy soldier. What game did your parents play as children? Cowboys and Indians or maybe Axis and Allies. Or the game Risk with it's similarities to WW2/1. Ever been to a Civil War re-enactment? Games and entertainment - electronic or not - have always been combat inspired.
Second, consider that this is a commentary that attempts to SERIOUSLY analzy something that isn't meant to be serious at all - electronic entertainment. He's not looking at the business aspect of it (is it profitable or not) but trying to take an unserious topic and discuss it in a serious way. Sort of like a lot of sports writers do - discuss a game as they would a legal case.
This article is totally irrelevant.
He's right. To put it bluntly, it's YOUR fault if you're offended by anything, because all meaning in communication is symbolic and interpreted by the receiver.
If something offends you, take a deep breath and pull the stick out of your arse.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
"it is hardly surprising that these games offend some and disappoint others."
There is no such thing as bad publicity. This is one of the main reasons these game companies try to make games out of the wars to begin with. It's essentially an Acclaim marketing tactic.