Slashdot Mirror
Videogame Regulation Is Everyone's Business
Thanks to the International Game Developers Association for their editorial discussing why game developers should collectively take a stand against negative views of gaming. The writer, IGDA program director Jason Della Rocca, suggests: "The perception that games are 'bad' for us stubbornly persists, and we have yet to find effective ways to change people's minds on this issue. Game makers may be biased toward games' 'good' qualities, but you'd be surprised how many developers simply don't care about the issue of public perception, don't have an informed opinion, or believe it is all a big waste of time - even to the extent of questioning the need to fight government regulations." He concludes with a message to game developers: "In the bigger picture, resolve to push boundaries and innovate... We need not put a stop to games with violence, but we need other avenues beyond violence as a design crutch."
This seems like a bit of a catch-22 to me. The best to way change public perception ("video games corrupt our nation's youth!", etc.) is for game devs to make more quality games that don't have to rely on violence as a core facet of the gameplay. But it's hard to talk devs out of making violent games when they've been selling so well of late. Further, even if the percentage of violent games out there were to suddenly shrink to almost zero, I don't think it would help perception all that much - after all, the few violent games that still did exist would get all the negative attention anyway.
They're GOOD for children to play! Improved hand-eye coordination, visual skills, and possibly critical thinking skills.
0 530020205.htm
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003May/bga2003
A study conducted by researchers at the University of Rochester found that people who play fast-paced action video games have improved visual skills when compared to those who don't play. According to the study, people who played such video games were able to able to better track objects appearing simultaneously, and processed fast-changing visual information more efficiently.
This benefits a wide range of activities, from playing sports to driving. Also, (although I can't find any studies on it) it makes sense that children who play certain types of games (puzzle/strategy games) would develop better critical thinking skills than those who spend their time watching TV or playing hide-and-go-seek.
Obviously, children shouldn't be staying inside every hour of every day just to play games, but they're definitely not worthless, and are actually more beneficial than a lot of recreational activities.
Apparently, vegetarians should stop watching Matlock, too. I guess Matlock doesn't eat babies.
Matthew Elton
Department of Philosophy
University of Stirling
1. An Absurd Question?
Many video games feature animated agents that the player attacks with the aim of maiming or
killing. Less dramatically the animated agents may be treated instrumentally, herded or goaded
with no regard for potential suffering, injury, or death. Such activity would be utterly
unacceptable if directed at people. And for many, but clearly not all, it would be repugnant if
directed at animals. For simplicity, if not accuracy, let me call those who do take the latter
attitude ?vegetarians?. In this paper I want to raise the question of whether such vegetarians
ought to refrain from playing video games on the grounds that the animated agents in the game
require of us the same sort of treatment as animals do in our natural environment. Should, that
is, vegetarians play video games?
My answer may strike some readers as absurd, for I shall argue, with some important
qualifications, that vegetarians should not play video games. That is, I shall argue that
between real animals and some of the animated agents that feature in video games there are no
differences that make a moral difference, and hence no ground for a difference in treatment. Of
course, many readers may share with me the overwhelming intuition that there must be some
relevant difference, and this may suggest that there is something awry with my arguments.
But if this is so, I shall at least have shown that the relevant difference is not obvious, and,
hence, that the vegetarian has work to do in justifying her playing of video games.
If you can't see where this is going already, you can view the rest here
The ______ Agenda