Inconsistencies Abound!
Okay, I'm sure that at least some of you know about the gigantic battles going on between the video game industry and anti-violent-video-game advocates. Here's an article from CBS with an interview of an evidently rather prominent figure in the anti-VG camp.
Now, I am not universally pro-VG - I think that there are definitely a number of games that are ridiculous in terms of the sex and violence they portray, and quite frankly I'd be perfectly happy to see them gone because I don't think they have anything worthwhile to offer that can't be had in a video game with fewer ties to the real world. GTA is a perfect example of video games that don't really do anyone any good, even those who profess to enjoy playing them. Honestly - spending your free time playing a game in which you carjack people and run over hookers? Something wrong with the old noggin there.
I do recognize that, as sad as it may be, there is an industry for such video games. I also acknowledge that the original generation of gamers has grown up and now, much to my chagrin, made its desire for running-over-hookers-and-carjacking simulation games clear. To borrow an expression from Tycho, I also "extend the olive branch" to anti-VG advocates when I say that I'm all for increasing regulations on who can buy video games whose content rating is M for mature.
All this being said, I do not agree with their statements on what they think are the causes of the problems we see arising due to "video game influences." Specifically referring to the above interview, besides my getting a chuckle out of one of the questions (by 'sex' the interviewer was referring to gender, Mr. Thompson, not sexual content in games), there are a few points I find fundamentally wrong in the mindsets of anti-VG activists. One is that they tend to group video game 'violence' into one category that covers and extends to all violence in any video game. I believe that there is a difference between violence in something like GTA and a game like Final Fantasy. One is set in a very realistic and believable world, whereas the other is pure fantasy. And I'm not just being biased because I'm an RPG whore. Young minds are notoriously spongelike in their tendency to absorb negative influences and content that can lead them to do very, very stupid things if their parents are not aware of what their kids are doing and being influenced by. However, there is an important distinction to make here: how believable is the content of a video game, and how does that believability factor into the influence it has on children? Think about it. Again, using GTA and FF as examples - on the one hand, you have a game which deals with very real crimes like carjacking and murder in a familiar setting, while on the other you have a completely different world wherein you battle imaginary monsters with swords and magic. Now imagine that a kid who plays these video games goes outside and sees someone driving a car. If GTA has been the biggest influence on this child, it may indeed come to the point where the kid tries to carjack someone because it's something familiar they've seen in a video game they play. Now take the other side into account. Where in the flying bejeezus fuck is a kid who plays Final Fantasy going to find something resembling a goblin or slime well enough that the kid will try to kill it? Not to mention the problem of where he'll get the Fire 2 spell, unless the NRA has been doing some research of which I'm not aware. Or the huge sword that takes a man with arms the size of my torso to even lift, let alone use. Anti-VG violence advocates need to make clear exactly what they are targeting - "violence in video games" isn't specific enough. If you feel that strongly about violence on that broad a scope, you shouldn't just be protesting against violent video games.
Secondly, although Mr. Thompson very graciously provided a one-word negatory when asked the question "
Are parents paying attention to what their kids play?" that isn't enough. There is a consistent trend of avoiding the malparenting issue, perhaps because it's a delicate topic and anti-VG violence advocates want to avoid stepping on certain toes in their crusade. You can't avoid it, though, not if you want any real 'justice' to occur. The mother who doesn't know that little Jimmy is learning to kill people in his newest game or is ignorant or oblivious to what effects the game may have on him should bear a sizable amount of blame. To be fair, parenting is much harder today than it used to be. Why, you ask? A large part of it is the societal emphasis on careers and jobs as opposed to parenting. We place such a large stock in money and making money that it is practically no longer feasible for one spouse to work and the other to stay at home minding the children. If neither spouse has the day to attend to the home, which is a large amount of work in itself (I still don't know how my mother does it), there is less time to do the myriad chores necessary to maintain one's living space. This, in turn, takes away from the time one has with the fruit of one's loins. So little Jimmy's mother might not have any time to think about what exactly he does all day in the game room or how it might shape his soft little brain. Thus, from the parenting side of the issue, societal constraints and pressures play a consequential part in the seeming inability of some parents to re-adjust and re-attune their kids to what actions and behaviors are right and wrong.
Video game violence is not unaccountable in its effects on the minds of our youth, but the avenues for its influences are laid back and to some extent unblocked by underlying flaws in our social structure and mindset, and therefore while it can and should be constrained to acceptable limits, video game violence cannot be held solely responsible for the atrocities committed by young people in our world.
Now I'm off to make some poor, pathetic alien race my bitches.
J out.
Now, I am not universally pro-VG - I think that there are definitely a number of games that are ridiculous in terms of the sex and violence they portray, and quite frankly I'd be perfectly happy to see them gone because I don't think they have anything worthwhile to offer that can't be had in a video game with fewer ties to the real world. GTA is a perfect example of video games that don't really do anyone any good, even those who profess to enjoy playing them. Honestly - spending your free time playing a game in which you carjack people and run over hookers? Something wrong with the old noggin there.
I do recognize that, as sad as it may be, there is an industry for such video games. I also acknowledge that the original generation of gamers has grown up and now, much to my chagrin, made its desire for running-over-hookers-and-carjacking simulation games clear. To borrow an expression from Tycho, I also "extend the olive branch" to anti-VG advocates when I say that I'm all for increasing regulations on who can buy video games whose content rating is M for mature.
All this being said, I do not agree with their statements on what they think are the causes of the problems we see arising due to "video game influences." Specifically referring to the above interview, besides my getting a chuckle out of one of the questions (by 'sex' the interviewer was referring to gender, Mr. Thompson, not sexual content in games), there are a few points I find fundamentally wrong in the mindsets of anti-VG activists. One is that they tend to group video game 'violence' into one category that covers and extends to all violence in any video game. I believe that there is a difference between violence in something like GTA and a game like Final Fantasy. One is set in a very realistic and believable world, whereas the other is pure fantasy. And I'm not just being biased because I'm an RPG whore. Young minds are notoriously spongelike in their tendency to absorb negative influences and content that can lead them to do very, very stupid things if their parents are not aware of what their kids are doing and being influenced by. However, there is an important distinction to make here: how believable is the content of a video game, and how does that believability factor into the influence it has on children? Think about it. Again, using GTA and FF as examples - on the one hand, you have a game which deals with very real crimes like carjacking and murder in a familiar setting, while on the other you have a completely different world wherein you battle imaginary monsters with swords and magic. Now imagine that a kid who plays these video games goes outside and sees someone driving a car. If GTA has been the biggest influence on this child, it may indeed come to the point where the kid tries to carjack someone because it's something familiar they've seen in a video game they play. Now take the other side into account. Where in the flying bejeezus fuck is a kid who plays Final Fantasy going to find something resembling a goblin or slime well enough that the kid will try to kill it? Not to mention the problem of where he'll get the Fire 2 spell, unless the NRA has been doing some research of which I'm not aware. Or the huge sword that takes a man with arms the size of my torso to even lift, let alone use. Anti-VG violence advocates need to make clear exactly what they are targeting - "violence in video games" isn't specific enough. If you feel that strongly about violence on that broad a scope, you shouldn't just be protesting against violent video games.
Secondly, although Mr. Thompson very graciously provided a one-word negatory when asked the question "
Are parents paying attention to what their kids play?" that isn't enough. There is a consistent trend of avoiding the malparenting issue, perhaps because it's a delicate topic and anti-VG violence advocates want to avoid stepping on certain toes in their crusade. You can't avoid it, though, not if you want any real 'justice' to occur. The mother who doesn't know that little Jimmy is learning to kill people in his newest game or is ignorant or oblivious to what effects the game may have on him should bear a sizable amount of blame. To be fair, parenting is much harder today than it used to be. Why, you ask? A large part of it is the societal emphasis on careers and jobs as opposed to parenting. We place such a large stock in money and making money that it is practically no longer feasible for one spouse to work and the other to stay at home minding the children. If neither spouse has the day to attend to the home, which is a large amount of work in itself (I still don't know how my mother does it), there is less time to do the myriad chores necessary to maintain one's living space. This, in turn, takes away from the time one has with the fruit of one's loins. So little Jimmy's mother might not have any time to think about what exactly he does all day in the game room or how it might shape his soft little brain. Thus, from the parenting side of the issue, societal constraints and pressures play a consequential part in the seeming inability of some parents to re-adjust and re-attune their kids to what actions and behaviors are right and wrong.
Video game violence is not unaccountable in its effects on the minds of our youth, but the avenues for its influences are laid back and to some extent unblocked by underlying flaws in our social structure and mindset, and therefore while it can and should be constrained to acceptable limits, video game violence cannot be held solely responsible for the atrocities committed by young people in our world.
Now I'm off to make some poor, pathetic alien race my bitches.
J out.