Slashdot Mirror
Gaming Naysayers Have Little Context for Criticism
Buzzcut.com has a nice piece on the lack of context video game critics have in making their arguments. It should be noted he is not referring to today's report card, but a list of Top Ten most violent games put out by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. From the article: "I followed up with a simple question, "Who on this panel has played which of the games?" Burke answered first, "I haven't played any of them." She backed up her willful ignorance of the games by suggesting that she didn't need to play Soldier of Fortune to know that she was opposed to its glorification of killing. "I think it's an irrelevant question," she concluded."
Maybe someone should condemn reading the Bible, and put out a list of their own Top Ten most violent books of the Bible.
I'd then like to respond to the question "Why do you condemn these books of the Bible?" with "I haven't read any of them."
I'd continue, "I don't have to read the chapters about God slaughtering a bunch of people to know that I'm opposed to the Bible's glorification of killing. I think that's an irrelevant question."
One wonders how many respondants to this story will have read the article before they click Submit....
(and yes, I DID read the article before posting this.)
This, unfortunately, is an all-too-common theme - a bunch of People With Too Damn Much Free Time Who Have Decided They Are The Guardians Of The Public Morals seeking to "protect" us from ourselves.
In addition to the question of "How many of you have played any of these games" I would add another - "How many of you have spent any time at all with your children today?"
Funny how these folks have plenty of time to have these meetings - they must REALLY spend a lot of time with their kids.
Just remember - whenever you have the chance to attend something like this - ask them "And how many games have your played with your children in the past month?"
It's much more statisfying that saying STFU.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Is the blurb saying that you can't criticize something unless you have tried it first?
Does that mean that I have to become a Heroin addict before I can say, "Heroin use is bad". Do I have to kill someone before I can come out against murder?
This doesn't sound like a good way to confront these zealots. How about a more direct approach - ridicule.
Laugh in their face.
When they walk away from a conversation with you, they should know that you think:
1 - that not only is their cause based on junk science (or no science),
2 - but the leaders of their cause are the worst kind of charlatans motivated only by personial enrichment,
3 - and that they are fools for being so easily taken in.
Odd how that's a non-violent choice.. Seeing as how football involves people more or less throwing each other around.. trying to knock each other down.. and lots of mean words *sad face*.
I am a football fan and play Madden, but come on: Football = Violent
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
but its not like that. games tell a story, or at the very least are entertainment. if you protest a movie you havent seen, or attempt to ban a book you haven't read, that's just willful ignorance. The only thing more dangerous than an uninformed opinion is a cause based on said opinion.
Yes the games are clearly about killing -- but context is important. You cannot make a qualitative statement that they "glorify killing" without having experienced the context of the killing. Otherwise, we should opposed Saving Private Ryan, The Passion of the Christ and countless other movies or works literature where someone gets killed. It is the context of the killing that matters.
So while they might be so myopic as to not understand this, and to declare all games shooting guns bad, that does not mean "have you played the game?" is an irrelevant question -- it IS relevant to any logical person, and it just goes to show how ridiculous the group is. Just because they're myopic doesn't mean they get a free pass on the bigger issues.
Moo.
These are the same type of people who think that D&D is satanic because some of the characters in the game can cast magic spells. The fact that you roll a dice to see what happens doesn't matter to them and when asked about that little issue they just ignore it.
is that most, if not all of these games, have an M rating; meaning kids shouldn't be playing them in the first place unless a parent agrees. Yes, these games are violent, have blood, contribute to negative stereotypes, etc, whatever. However, they are clearly labeled as something not fit for a kid. Rather than get in a fit over content, this group really should get in a fit over how lax the enforcement of ESRB rating is. The system is in place, and working in so far as stating that these games are for mature audiences. It's the next step, retail distribution, where the biggest failing is.
Ironically, my urge to go on a homocidal rampage isn't provoked while playing Doom 3, but rather while reading the consistent bullshit propagated by these ignorant, self-righteous soccer moms.
I can see Postal as a valid entry, since the whole premise of the game is rooted solely in bad taste. What was the result? Mediocre reviews and lukewarm reception from the crowd. I don't think anyone above the age of 13 played the game for more than ten minutes at a time.
Does Halo even involve shooting at any humans? And what the hell is some imported anime-based game doing there?
I'm just glad that my precious Metal Gear Solid 3 passed under their radars, what with its new "close quarters combat (CQC)" feature that lets you knock out a sentry with an anesthetic-soaked rag, use him as a human shield against other sentries, and then slit his throat once his usefulness has been exhausted. Not to mention Snake's smoking habit that Kojima has been quite open about since the first MSX title.
Bull. Halo 2 doesn't belong on that list. The game is by far one of the cleaner FPS games out there.