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."
The reason gamers and the gaming community are the way they are is because they are still a subset of nerds, and let's be honest, nerds are assholes about this kind of stuff. The publishers pander to it as well, as demonstrated by the ongoing penis war between Microsoft's and Sony's GPU technology. When you no longer have to be a "gamer" to play games (just as people who can read aren't seen as some sort of bizarre literati), things will start to mature.
In the meantime, however, it's been really beneficial. If it hadn't been for this constant obsession with stats, we might still be finding ourselves drooling at the likes of Mario 64. It's starting to wear thin now, though. Buy a new TV just to make things look prettier? No thanks.
...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
Doesn't work that way.
Kids will do whatever they find to be fun. Try and force them to do something else, and while they will do it, they'll quit just as soon as they aren't forced to anymore.
My GF got forced into playing the Cello as a kid. She's good at it - not amazing, but definately skilled. However, she has exactly zero interest in it now that she's an adult - being forced to play essentially took all the fun outta it for her.
For my part, I remember being stuck with all the great classics in literature in school. I would never read those now - Shakespear, Dostoyevski, Dickens and the like are all things I read as a student and promptly gave up when I graduated high school. For all I know I might have enjoyed them had I either discovered them outside school as a kid, or later in life as an adult.
She's still into classical music, and I still read, but neither of us wants anything to do with what we got stuck with as kids. OTOH, I was reading hard science fiction (starting with Larry Niven, who is definatly not light reading) as early as my teens, and I haven't yet lost interest - because those were the books I read of my own volition, and they were never forced on me.
You want to make kids give up games and start reading? Good luck. The minute they aren't being pressured anymore they'll go right back to their games - because games are fun and books are what the adults are making them waste their time on. Trying to make them to be something other than children does them no good later in life.
Educate them, teach them right from wrong, get them started on science and literature, but DO NOT try and make their fun into something you percieve to be useful. There is plenty of room in life for wasting time, especially when you're young.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.