Slashdot Mirror
In Defense of Games
darkwing_bmf writes to mention an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal in praise of videogames. Specifically, author Brian Anderson discusses the negative reactions videogames have gotten in the press, and why that reaction is unfounded. From the article: "The truth is, critics are often ignorant of the moral universe of video games--violent games included. Yes, the wildly popular Grand Theft Auto series, in which the gamer plays a criminal on the make in the big city, is pretty amoral. But most violent games put the player in a familiar hero's role, notes Judge Richard Posner in a 2001 Seventh Circuit appeals-court decision overturning an Indianapolis anti-video-game ordinance. 'Self-defense, protection of others, dread of the 'undead,' fighting against overwhelming odds--these are the age-old themes of literature, and ones particularly appealing to the young,' Mr. Posner observes."
Long ago, there was the art of spoken word. Whereby stories were passed on from generation to generation by simple speech. Some of these were true stories, some were factious but they were popular.
... or better yet, letting the user experience their own story & interacting with other users.
Eventually, writing & printed word became a popular means to pass on these same stories. Poetry, plays, odes, short stories & eventually novels caused these words to persist through time.
Then followed music and the art of telling a story through a song. Chorals, hymns, operas, symphonies & musicals would forever bring us stories--again both fiction and non-fiction--across time and space to our theatres and living rooms.
Motion pictures evolved and suddenly acting was more popular than ever. The actual events of a story were unfolded before our eyes and could be repeated over and over. These rose in popularity because all of the above could be recorded in the form of a movie (and many movies are remakes of one of the above).
Games are not much different but there's a new twist. The user can interact with the story. Sometimes on a very limited basis with no influence at all but, in others, the user feels/is integral to the storyline. A story is often told, some very basic, confusing and short (Tetris, Super Mario Bros, etc.) while others are much more in depth and consuming (Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft, etc).
Unfortunately, most video games are produced just to give the user a previous story with some limited involvement in it. Look at how many Lord of the Rings video games there are out there. Look at how many games are spurred from a successful book or movie. Is this really necessary? Do game makers lack so much imagination that they are relying upon movies or books for their storylines? If this is the case, then gaming is doomed to be a mere wanna-be art medium.
What are games missing to truly take hold among the masses & become a popular medium for entertainment? Some may argue it's already happened. Some may argue that games are the best form of story telling and factious tales of adventure.
I would disagree and so does a majority of the public. Novels, magazines, television & movies seem to be the preferred medium.
Gamers seem to be caught up with trivial aspects of games. Graphics, console wars & and status seeking has torn apart the community. Did Shakespeare bitch and moan about his lack of fonts? Did Plato refuse to write on shitty papyrus based paper? Did Mozart refuse to write music because he didn't have the right instruments yet--or a mixer for that matter? Did Fritz Lang stop making motion pictures because he didn't have color film and light meters?
No.
Why are we spending our time arguing over whether cell processing is the best for gaming when we should be talking about our favorite characters from our favorite games? Is this what gaming is about? Laughing at the Wii for its name and bickering about pixel shading and polygon counts? For Christ's sake, how could anyone not technologically inclined pick up a console without being abased by a gamer?
When technology catches up to games and graphics/CPU power/egos are out of the way, hopefully games can be made that truly aim at evoking emotion and telling a good story
My work here is dung.
Of course, that's a sample of one with no control group. But it would make a really interesting study for you Psych folks.
Well, it's good to see at least one judge get it right. Now if you can just find the one politician, and the one leader of a parent group, you'll have the whole ultra rare "have a clue" set.
In our house we use games both as a family activity, and also to strengthen life lessons.
WoW, for example, give me a controlled environment where I have ample examples of various behaviors I want to point out and use as 'life lessons' when playing with kids. Perseverance, treating others fairly, random acts of kindness, and our lack of control over how others act are all easy to teach in this format.
Other games reinforce analytical thinking, demonstrate spatial relationships, and provide catharsis, among other things. It's all in how we choose to use the experience, and really helps me teach what I consider a cornerstone lesson: you can only control what you do, and how you react, not what others do to and around you.
Most games have the potential to enrich us with the proper frame of mind and/or guidance.
-[joke removed for your safety]-
'Self-defense, protection of others, dread of the 'undead,' fighting against overwhelming odds--these are the age-old themes of literature, and ones particularly appealing to the young,' Mr. Posner observes.
It would probably be a lot more better if kids read more books than play more video games. (When I mean books, I mean books not strategy guides on beating the boss creature or unlocking the content that the ESRB doesn't about.) If society is going to do well in the future, we need to become a nation of readers instead of players.
'Self-defense, protection of others, dread of the 'undead,'
It's good to know games are teaching our youngsters against sympathising with the undead!
I'd like to see games go further and display warnings like "Ghoulish Studies leads to bad buddies""
Even before Videogames, TV's, and Radios, kids didn't spend all of their leisure time reading books for fun. Why would they start if we took away consoles?
Hmmm... Pie...
just as bad if not worse, I remember reading articles that delt with the rampant sex trade on Sims Online (I haven't kept up with it latley) but that basically became some kind of extortion scheme. Where n00bie sims players would be put into a jail, so their character couldn't get out, unless they paid the house owner money. Either way, games are made to be a source of entertainment, wether good or bad. I think the article is one of the positives I've seen in a wave of negative tones in the US aimed at gamers / gamers.
What I find is games make me unable to tollerate defeat. One simply has no reason to loose in a game, since there is nobody to enjoy victory but you so one simply restarts the game. After playing military stratergy games or RPGs, then playing boardgames with friends I can't simply loose gracefully. My inclination is now to do everything in my power to cause the game to restart or leave the game, just like I would if I was playing my computer. This behavior is not very sporting and not becoming of a gentleman, but I find it very hard to control it.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
"...Grand Theft Auto series, in which the gamer plays a criminal on the make in the big city, is pretty amoral."
The later Grand Theft Auto games, as has been pointed out in other forums, are presented within a strong moral framework, so I think it is wrong to call them "amoral". Whether they are immoral would be a different question, but not one to which I'd immediately jump up with an answer in the affirmative.
Or does it look like Wolverine's sticking his claws into Dad's head?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
...is that the 'public judgements' are being delivered by people so woefully ignorant about games. (Generally, having come from a full generation before games came out - say age 50+.)
The criticism of the 'lack of art value' in games is telling; in terms of human context, yes, there are morally bankrupt games (GTA-anything), as well as morally empty games (Bejeweled, Card games, etc.), but there are also a lot of deeply interesting and challenging games with interesting, engaging stories to tell. There are educationally valuable games that teach a LOT while entertaining: Europa Universalis 2 springs to mind.
Generally, critics seem to look only at the CRAP, without being willing to invest the time to find the good ones. Look, I could say the same thing about the movie industry: there are a LOT of people that like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, does that show by itself that movies as a medium are worthless? Does that invalidate Citizen Kane? Does Coven erase any value in To Kill a Mockingbird?
Anyone who enjoys games has no trouble coming up with games that are equally engaging (or even more than engaging - they are involving) as great films - naturally the most involving are RPGs such as Planescape Torment, System Shock 2, and Fallout.
But likewise, measuring computer games with the tools meant to measure a one-way medium such as movies is inherently flawed. Likewise, the genre-spread of video games is (I would argue) beyond that of films. Civilization? Dance Dance Revolution? Yes, maybe one or both don't particularly appeal to a single person. But would that person be a fair judge of movies if she loved Westerns but only saw French Lesbian Bondage films? Perhaps not all computer games offer deep ethical conflicts, but there is no WAY that people could fault either of these (for example) as entertainment. Not rationally, anyway.
For a 50+ (or 60+ *cough* ROGER EBERT *cough*) who has NEVER spent any time actually, seriously, playing games to offer his 'educated opinion' about computer games as a medium would be as stupid as someone reviewing the value of movies after being forced to watch "From Justin to Kelly". His opinion should be valued similarly.
-Styopa
From the full article:
"That's why she [Hillary Clinton] and fellow senators Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh have introduced legislation to regulate the video-game industry, codifying its voluntary rating system and making it a federal crime for retailers to sell or rent inappropriate games to minors."
A federal crime?! To compare, selling alcohol to a child, something they could actually kill themselves with, would be a state crime. You know what a colossal waste of time is? Debating how the federal government should regulate trade (it shouldn't) - when there are issues of war, national security, and immigration rights that remain unsettled.
Count one less democrat that I would vote for. It's days like this when I remember why I'm a moderate anarchist.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
In defense of games:
When I was three or four years old, I played videogames -- a lot. Everyone in my family did. I used to spend a lot of time playing with my dad, and when I got stuck, he would read from a Player's Guide (or other help book) to me.
One time, when I was playing and got stuck, I asked him to read from the Player's Guide. He told me that he was too tired. So I took the book, opened it up, and looked at it. The words came, and I eventually started reading. Taking words that I knew (my own, SUPER MARIO, etc.), I was able to figure out and put together other words. When my parents found me, in my room, reading, they were ecstatic. Video games were the catalyst here (thank you, mario brothers).
It didn't just stop there. Through Civilization I got a rough knowledge of history that I worked to expand (the same with Colonization). SimCity taught me, to an extent, how cities function -- balancing residence and commerce, infrastructure, etc. The list goes on.
Would I have eventually learned to read if my father wasn't tired? Or if I was reading about something other than video games? Probably. But I learned at that instance because it was something I was interested in.
Art is not "story." Computer games can tell a story, or they can chose not to tell a story. There are many great works of high art that tell no story at all. What stories are told by:
Michaelangelo's "David"
Monet's "Water Lilies"
Wright's "Falling Water"
Calder's "Mobile"
To be hung up on computer games because they are inadequate for conveying a story is to forever relegate them to a second-class medium. Despite the fact that designers and gamers continue to strive for a great narrative, computer games and story are, in fact, directly in opposition to each other. Games demand interaction; narrative forbids it.
A story is a one-way mechanism; it can be argued that a narrative is, in fact, more limiting from the perspective of the freedom it offers the audience than forms like sculpture, music, or painting, due to the fact that it leaves much less to the imagination or interpretation. Narratives literally "spell out" what the audience is supposed to experience. Comic-strip narratives even leave less to the imagination, as the creator has control over not only the words & description, but what the mind would use to fill in the blanks.
Whether computer games are "Great Art" or not is irrelevant; computer games, are, unequivocally, an art form, just like sculpture, architecture or clothing design. Let's get past the obsession with story, and maybe we'll start seeing a lot more of what computer games have to offer artistically, instead of constantly trying to be a wanna-be movie medium.
-BbT
Speak for yourself, because as you should know your moral values are yours and are not shared by everybody, nor are supposed to make authority, and there is no way anything can be objectively amoral either.
Personally, I don't find GTA amoral. It could take everything that makes Custer's Revenge as bad/good/interesting, or it could have kids, cats, dogs and goldfishes to be killed, I still wouldn't find it amoral, period.
You just got troll'd!