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.
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.
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.
It was supposed to be the Center for Relative Advancement of Public Policy, not CAPP.
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.
Bull. Halo 2 doesn't belong on that list. The game is by far one of the cleaner FPS games out there.
We have both kinds of religions here, Catholics and Protestants!
They didn't say the games would make you go out and kill your next door neighbor, but that's a decent list of the most violent games of the last year or so.
Actually from the press release:
Dr. Bernice Powell Jackson, executive minister and officer, Justice and Witness Ministries of the United Church of Christ, and president, North American Region of the World Council of Churches, said: "Our concern about these violent video games is not guesswork. For example, there is ample evidence today that playing violent video games leads to increased aggressive thought, feelings and actions. "
"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!