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."
I was wondering how Doom 3 could be considered more violent than GTA: SA in the eyes of religious and censorship groups until I went to the Interfaith site myself.
Personally, I thank Interfaith for compiling this year's Christmas shopping list for me.
I know these people are hated here on slashdot (and I certainly don't love them), but come on now, it IS an irrelevant question.
I think we all know just from screenshots and descriptions what the games generally involve. These people, in their glorious wisdom, decided that anything involving shooting guns is too violent. I really don't think knowing that game A has a riviting storyline, or that game B involves fighting evil oppressors, will at all change their opinion.
It's like people who think cars are from the devil. Will it matter to them that car A is fuel efficient, or car B is fun to drive, or car C is practical? No, they just hate cars, and they don't need to drive one to know it's a car.
Here's the press release in question with the list at the bottom. Not only does the ICCR not play any of the games, they can't even spell them correctly! Look at GameSpot's treatment of this press release for some simple corrections.
I can't wait to play some of the Top 9 games that they recommend as "non-violent" at the very bottom. Either "Antigrav" (which as of this morning was spelled "Antigrave") or "EyeToy: Antigrav" (which was simply called "Eye Toy" earlier today) should be good. They're listed separately, by the way.
For more information, click here.
What is fun is arguing about the Song on Soloman with people who KNOW FOR A FACT it has nothing to do with sex.
I do not get the hang up some religious people have with sex, I really do not.
don't you get it? Anything that makes us flesh and blood beings with desires, joy and drive is animalistic and must be expunged. The only true joy in life is the joy of the one true god filling your heart, and the rest is the tool of satan.
That's personally why I think the most psychologically damaging thing you can do to a person is to raise them catholic or any one of the other rigid "moralistic" faiths out there. Nothing like being taught from day one that every completely natural urge you have is evil and an indicator of your own inner sin.
It's Disgusting, capitalization intended.
I fully agree, but you're giving the benefit of the doubt to what you or I, presumably by your post, would call "real" christians.
However, catholics make up about half of all christians in name, and holy roller bastards make up a significant proportion of the rest. It may all be in direct opposition to your, or my, interpetation of what the bible says, but that is neither here nor there, since it isn't THEIR interpetation of the bible, and all that delineates what these denominations are is how THEY interpret the bible.
I agree that if everyone read the bible and interpreted it with an open and rational mind, that christianity would be great. I think Jesus was a fantastic philosopher and had it right on. However, apparently most christian religions disagree, judging by their teachings.
Sadly the only way my (or your) opinions matter on this is if we belong to or start a denomination that interprets the bible "correctly", and of course that is exactly why we have so many denominations today; many of which are horrible, evil, oppressive bastions of intolerant, rigid, moralistic, holier than thou bullshit. And who's to say that your (or my) denomination is any more right or wrong, since it's all subjective interpetation?
"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."
I am an athiest but I still went to see the Passion of the Christ because I love movies and I was a Mel Gibson fan. That and I wanted to see it so I could at least have an opinion on it when I talked about it within my circle of friends. I don't see how you can have an opinion on something if you haven't seen or played it. Let me correct that sentence. I don't see how you can have a VALID opinion when you have not seen or played what you have the opinion on.
Might I add that there was at least 10x the violence in the Passion as there is in most of those games listed. Prior to that movie, I thought video games had desensitized me. Boy was I wrong!
And I say this because I will wager my house on the fact that the same people complaining about GTA San An would still take their kids, or at least allow their kids, to see that same movie.
Hypocrits!