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."

Comments

A little note:

[activesynapsis]

The article refers to the Interfaith list as a ranking, 'Doom 3, the #1 offender', when it's really in alphabetical order.

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.

The list itself

[generic-man]

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.

Re:Top Ten most violent books of the Bible

[DAldredge]

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.