Moderator: Edi
JediNeophyte wrote: “Would reasonable people see that a result of putting out [violent video games]
would be ‘a 14-year-old boy who played their video games, watched their violent movies
and viewed their provocative web site material would go to a friend’s home, steal guns,
take the guns to school the next day and gun down his classmates during a prayer
session?’ [U.S. District Judge] Johnstone wrote” (Fraser 1). No, that would be irrational.
This is one of many examples of people trying to lay the blame where it does not belong,
in this case an April 1999 suit filed against various entertainment companies on the basis
that their products causes Michael Carneal to shoot his schoolmates on December 1st,
1997 (Fraser 1). Among those sued where Nintendo of America and Sega of America,
two prominent designers and manufacturers of video games and other electronic
entertainment products. It is illogical to think that the designers of games are those
responsible for a significant portion of contemporary life’s problems.
Perhaps what is needed is greater parental influence. “. . . it is a parent’s
responsibility to make sure that they don’t have children who are playing games that have
warning labels that a kid should be 18 or older to play” (Smiley 2). If these games are so
horrible and are corrupting the minds of our youth, then why do we not prevent children
from playing them? Granted, complete control over a child’s life would not only be
immoral but also impossible, however exposure to these supposedly mind-affecting games
could be severely limited, and thus, no longer a predominant influence. “The main selling
point of [Grand Theft Auto: Vice City] is probably that it’s just an absolutely fantastic
game from a point of game play . . . if it was just theme-based, nobody would buy it”
(Smiley 2). Take into consideration that maybe violence, death, mayhem, and destruction
are not why games sell. Games generally sell based on their quality of production and
plot-writing, not just because they are gory and vulgar. Most gamers do not revel in undue
amounts of bloodshed, some hate it outright. The fact is, games sell because they are well
done and innovative, not because they are gore-fests.
Many people gain the misconception that just because violence is not directly
depicted, it does not exist. This is irrational, as many games both include and infer extreme
levels of death and destruction, and do nothing to hide it. “Many games are fairly benign,
especially strategy games, flying simulators or sports simulations” (MacQueen 3).
Consider the brilliant masterpiece of a game Master of Orion 2. In it, one assumes the role
of the leader of a galactic empire. Alliances must be forged with neighboring species,
worlds colonized, economies built, and new and advanced technology researched. The
perfect example of a so-called “strategy games.” Yet to win, one must be the dominant
presence in the galaxy, a goal generally accomplished by annihilating all who stand in the
way. One can bombard planets from orbit, enslave entire species or have them
systematically killed, assassinate enemies and sabotage their populations, or drop
biological weapons into a colony, killing billions. And this game was rated “Kids to
Adults” by the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board), meaning it was deemed
suitable for any age of player. So, according to mainstream media, shooting a Nazi soldier
repeatedly (Return to Castle Wolfenstein, rated “Mature”, only suitable for those 17 or
older) is worse than obliterating entire planets of innocent civilians using the insidious
methods of weapons of mass destruction. Stalin’s phrase, “A single death is a tragedy, a
million deaths is a statistic,” comes to mind. Advice to the media, for future reference:
think before you speak.
“The perpetrators of several school massacres in the U.S. were heavy players of
the Doom and Quake series of so-called first-person shooter games” (MacQueen 3). This
means what, exactly? Another example of the media not thinking about what they are
saying. Simply because a violent person plays a violent game does not mean that the game
caused him to be a sociopath. More than likely this was merely an outlet for long-
developing psychological issues, not the cause of them. Games are just that: games. If a
bigoted, racist fascist played the board game Axis & Allies as Nazi Germany, does that
automatically mean the game turned him into a bigoted, racist fascist for the sole reason
that Nazi Germany was included in the game? No, that’s idiotic. One does not turn into a
sociopath by playing games, one has fun by playing games. “Parents like Mrs. Baker are
already banning the games, fearing they bred violent and anti-social behaviour” (Ko 1).
People also fear the dark. Perhaps that needs to be censored and banned as well.
It would also appear that the prominent members of the anti-violent gaming
movement cannot stick to their beliefs. “Besides, [Dr. Mark Genuis] adds, ‘video games
are really only useful as a babysitter for kids who lack supervision . . .” (Ko 2), “’Video
games are not a babysitter,’ says Katie Rebak, manager of media and community relations
for Rogers Video . . .” (MacQueen 3). That’s funny. The anti-game-ites contradict
themselves, and yet a sickening portion of the Western world is following what are
obviously illogical statements. “Those with a teenage history of game-playing scored
lower marks in school and were more aggressive than their non-game-playing peers” (Ko
2). Not taking into account the biased and broken nature of this study, one must wonder
that maybe less-successful and aggressive people naturally gravitate towards violent
games. The first-person shooter, which is generally thought of as the quintessential
“violent game”, is more often than not a mindless game which requires little thought on
the part of the player, thus attracting the less intellectually gifted. A good analogy would
be that these are the “reality shows” or sitcoms of television whereas afore-mentioned
strategy and piloting games are the History and Discovery channels.
Violent games serve other purposes than just entertaining teenagers. The U.S.
Army has recently begun programs to utilize games as both training and recruiting tools.
“[Major General Bill Bond] added, ‘We also want to build an awareness that the Army is
cool . . . This is a place you ought to be thinking about for a career’” (Dretzka 2).
Assuming that violence in video games does cause all the world’s problems and generates
insane, homicidal sociopaths, why not recruit them into the military, and have them do
some good instead of harm? If teenagers are influenced by these games, they could make
better recruits for the military, especially with all the current events that have occurred as
of late. Or the games could be used for training, as no drill or practice simulate the real
thing (or what appears to be the real thing). “’One of the things that we identified is the
importance of simulators for individual and group training and . . . for mission rehearsal
and leadership development’” (Dretzka 2). One particular simulation involved some
peacekeeping troopers in an accident which harmed a local boy. By using the game to
interact with the locals, they were able resolve the issue and maintain the peace, an
experience that could not have been gained from drilling and instruction (Dretzka 2).
Violent games do serve a useful purpose in the modern world.
Keep in mind, games don’t cause the problems, they get blamed for the problems.
There is a difference. Most gamers are not evil maniacal freaks set out to kill everyone
they meet, it is only the interpretation of the media that the games they play makes them
so. And if games are to be labeled as atrocities that spawn mass-murders, they should at
least be rated appropriately. In the end, however, hopefully people will come to their
senses and realize that, if anyone or anything is to blame for our troubles, its them.
The board doesn't like extraneous white-space, so sorry if there's no indenting and such.Works Cited
Dretzka, G. “Violent video games find a niche training U.S. soldiers.” Chicago Tribune.
29 Sep. 2000. EBSCOhost. <http://search.epnet.com/>
Fraser, D. “Michigan judge dismissed violence law suit by families of murdered girls.” The
Paducah Sun. 10 Apr. 2000. EBSCOhost. <http://search.epnet.com/>
Ko, M. “Mortal Konsequences. “ Report/Newsmagazine (Alberta Edition).
22 May 2000. EBSCOhost. <http://search.epnet.com/>
MacQueen, K. “Killing Time.” Maclean’s.
30 Apr. 2001. EBSCOhost. <http://search.epnet.com/>
Smiley, T. “Interview: Kevin Baird and Dave Walsh.” NPR.
18 Nov. 2002. EBSCOhost. <http://search.epnet.com/>
Ewwwwww... CS...HemlockGrey wrote:Heheh. Obviously, my l33t counter-strike skills will allow me to ruthlessly hunt each and every one of them down.
ph33r
No, I don't mean that the flaming was bad. I mean the fact that you posed as a video game player while flaming a bunch of people who think that video game players are violent, abusive people... you are giving them evidence!Dennis Toy wrote:well try it yourself.
.
