I mean that basically there's very little that can be done to change public perception. For example, if the most violent game out right now was Goldeneye, there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth about it instead of Manhunt. Same song, different verse.
Parents who didn't grow up with games themselves are always going to seize upon the most violent games and complain about them. In 20 years this will be a non-issue, but I doubt anything but the passage of time will stem the whining.
This seems like a bit of a catch-22 to me. The best to way change public perception ("video games corrupt our nation's youth!", etc.) is for game devs to make more quality games that don't have to rely on violence as a core facet of the gameplay. But it's hard to talk devs out of making violent games when they've been selling so well of late.
Further, even if the percentage of violent games out there were to suddenly shrink to almost zero, I don't think it would help perception all that much - after all, the few violent games that still did exist would get all the negative attention anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Parents who didn't grow up with games themselves are always going to seize upon the most violent games and complain about them. In 20 years this will be a non-issue, but I doubt anything but the passage of time will stem the whining.
This seems like a bit of a catch-22 to me. The best to way change public perception ("video games corrupt our nation's youth!", etc.) is for game devs to make more quality games that don't have to rely on violence as a core facet of the gameplay. But it's hard to talk devs out of making violent games when they've been selling so well of late. Further, even if the percentage of violent games out there were to suddenly shrink to almost zero, I don't think it would help perception all that much - after all, the few violent games that still did exist would get all the negative attention anyway.